Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, folks. We're gonna go ahead and call this meeting of the Lake County Planning and Zoning Board to order. If everyone could please rise for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance

to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. If you'll all be seated. This is the Lake County Planning and Zoning Board. We are an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners. The board is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the comprehensive plan, zoning, conditional uses, mining site plans, and make wrecking making recommendations on those obligations to the board of county commissioners.

The recommendations of the planning and zoning board are transmitted to the board of county commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled public hearing. And in this instance, these cases that are being heard today are scheduled to be at the October 7 board of county commissioners meeting at 9AM. At this time, we will see if there is any update to the agenda from staff.

Good morning. For the record, Janie Barone, planning manager with the office of planning and zoning. I also wanna enter into the record that the cases being published today have been duly noticed in accordance with, state statute. In addition, for tab three, staff received correspondence information from the applicant. The memo and correspondence were placed on the dais for reference. Staff recommends that the case be, left on the consent agenda, and the memo itself was particularly requesting a they were asking a question to the applicant for tab three.

So is the request for tab three to be moved to the regular agenda?

No. We're requesting that it continue. It was the memo basically just indicated that they were wanting some information as far as the height of the tower itself.

Okay. Alright. So I do have speaker cards for tabs one, two, and four. Those items are currently on the consent agenda, but I did receive cards from people stating that they wish to speak on those topics. So we will move tabs one, two, and four off of the consent agenda onto the regular agenda to be heard.

And we will keep tab three on the consent agenda unless anyone on the board has need to hear tab three.

Madam chair, are the speaker cards for tap one in opposition or in favor of?

I don't know. Some are four, but some don't say.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. So we'll get started with tap one if everyone's Well,

first of

all, wait. We have to do our other stuff. We need to also review the minutes of the last meeting. Does anyone have any edits, changes, or comments on the meetings of the minutes of the last meeting? Nope. If there's none, I

will entertain a motion on the minutes.

Move approval of the minutes.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any need for discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed same sign.

I'm sorry. Who seconded?

I did.

Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. I'll be louder.

Alright. And at this time, we will allow for public comment. This would be if anyone in the public that is present wishes to speak on any items not on our agenda today. If you have a speaker card for something that's on the agenda or you're gonna speak on one of the items on our agenda today, that is not the this is not the time for that. But if anyone has anything that they would like to state or any public comment they would like to make, you may do so at this time. Seeing none. Okay. So we will move into tab oh, wait. Sorry. Consent agenda.

Tab three is the only thing left on the consent agenda. So if there's no need for further discussion of tab three, do we have a motion on tab three, which is Gulfstream Towers conditional use permit FL two forty two?

Motion to approve.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any need for discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed same. Consent agenda carries. And we will now move into our regular agenda for staff on tab one.

Good morning again. For the record, Drainy Burrow, planning and zoning. Tab one is the lot split amendment ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to amend section 14.11 o o, Lake County code appendix e land development regulations entitled minor lot splits and family density exceptions. The amendment is to adjust the requirements for the family density exceptions as shown in the ordinance itself and to reinstate the agricultural lot split process. In addition, staff has made additional minor clarifications. Let me know if you have any questions for staff, if you would like to dive into the ordinance. What the pleasure of the board will be.

Does anyone have any questions for staff before we hear from the individuals who submitted speaker cards? Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead and start them with Rowley Rawlerson. I'm gonna try real hard on that name. If I got it right, I'm excited.

Good morning, chair Smith and members of the planning and zoning board.

You can just state your name and address for the record.

My name is Raleigh Rawlerson. I'm the 979 Torchwood Deland, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Florida Farm Bureau Federation. Florida Farm Bureau is the state's largest nonprofit general ag organization. We represent more than a 133,000 member families and over 300 ag commodities in the state, Protecting private property rights and ensuring Florida farmers and ranchers are and continue to be economically viable are top priorities for Florida Farm Bureau.

As many of you know, Ag faces a variety of unique challenges which can lead to devastating losses. During tough years, ag relies on their most valued asset, which is their land, to help them survive during these difficult times. Farmers and ranchers across the state need the value of that property to remain high in the event they need to borrow against that value as collateral for reasons such as cash flow to plant a new crop, fertilize, feed and seed for the year, or to buy additional acreage to expand their current operation. Restricting their ability to split ag lots or ag parcels into smaller lots reduces the value of that land as well as takes away their private property rights to do with the land that they own. One could argue that forcing ag landowners to keep larger parcels is a way to preserve the industry.

But on the flip side of that, if an ag producer needed just to divide and sell off some of their land to remain viable, they could be potentially forced to sell more than needed under the current LDR as opposed to a smaller parcel to meet their financial needs to remain in production. For these reasons retaining the ability to break agricultural properties in the smaller AG parcels is necessary to ensure AG remains viable and sustainable in Lake County and throughout the state. We appreciate Lake County's efforts to reinstate section 14 o o 13 entitled ag lot splits of the land development regulations that was repealed last August 2024, and we urge you to approve this ordinance. We especially we are especially thankful to county attorney Melanie Marsh for her willingness to work to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. And Ryan Atwood.

Good morning. I'm Ryan Atwood. 1701 Haim Road, Mount Dora, Florida. I'm the owner of Atwood Ag and one of the owners of HNA Farms. We're a local blueberry strawberry grower, and we're just here to voice our support for this reinstatement because we see it as important for local agriculturalists to have flexibility with their land base as Raleigh mentioned. So just here to voice my support. Thank you.

Thank you. And Cindy Newton?

Good morning, Cindy Newton. Lakes Drive. Address for the record, please? 19025 Lakes Otero Drive, Houston, Florida. Thank you.

I'd like a copy of the Lake County Farm Bureau letter if you could send that to me. And I just have a couple questions. There's no limit on the number of lots that can be created as long as the minimum acreage requirements met. And my main concern is the warp area, the Wekiva River protection areas being included in this. And each proposed lot is to have agricultural zoning, which is understandable, but then the approval of the application under this section is for the sole purpose of recognizing the newly created parcels as legal lots for zoning purposes.

So with nothing vested, will these be then allowed to be subdivided for, development later on? It's another question. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Cindy.

Alright. Does anyone have any questions for staff or additional clarification at this time?

It's just one acre is the minimum that they could split out. Is that just for family splits or is that my understanding?

The one acres for family lot splits Okay.

For

minimum. The ag lot split is I believe 40 acres.

40 acres.

40 acres, okay.

With at least five acres of uplands.

Correct. And it it's simply reinstating what was in the code prior to I think it was August. Okay.

So the family density exception, there we have the comprehensive plan policy and what we what staff did is we mirrored the image that's in the comp plan. Instead of noting each future line use category, we basically struck through it, clarified it so that it's concise, and family density exceptions are not allowed within the Green Swamp. They haven't been allowed since the last ordinance.

Is this a correction to this ordinance or these reinstatements related to senate bill one eighty? No.

This has nothing to do with senate bill one eighty. This was in the works long before that.

Okay. I just want clarification. Thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? Is there anyone else in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card who wanted to speak on this topic? I just realized I forgot to ask a minute ago. If there's no other questions for staff, I would entertain a motion. If there are further questions for staff, this would be the time for those. Alright. Does anyone wish to make a motion for tab one?

Motion to approve tab one.

I have a motion. And do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any need for discussion? Alright. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Alright. We will now move on to tab two, is the Sorrento Tower project.

That will be presented by James Fry, planner two.

Thank you.

Good morning. For the record, James Fry, planner two with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'm here to present tab number two, case number PZ2025Dash119, otherwise known as Sorrento Tower. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a 154 foot monopole communications tower on a planned industrial district parcel with four waivers. First waivers to land development regulations table 3.0205 to allow the proposed telecommunications tower and associated support structures to be constructed 17.6 feet away from the right of way along the western property line in lieu of the required 50 feet from all roads or right of way bounding the project area.

Second is the waiver to LDR section 3.1309 a to allow the proposed tower support structure and compound to be 17.6 feet from the western property line and 18.2 feet from the eastern property line in lieu of the required 25 feet. The third waiver is to LDR section 3.1309 b one to allow the proposed monopole communications tower to be constructed off center. And number four, waiver to LDR section 3.1309 b two to allow the proposed tower to be constructed 43.8 feet from the western property line and 40.8 feet from the eastern property line in lieu of the required 100 feet. The subject property is located at 22435 Sorrento Avenue in the Sorrento area. The parent parcel contains approximately 2.54 acres, and the access parcel contains approximately 10.83 acres.

The subject parcel is currently designated with the regional office future land use category and zone planned industrial district by ordinance number 14 dash 90. The parcel is located within the Wequiva study area as well as within the city of Mount Dora JPA. The concept plan depicts the 2,500 square foot lease area and the proposed location of the 154 foot monopole communications tower. The concept plan also includes the proposed access easement from Sorrento Avenue and going through the parcel identified by alternate key number 3387236. I've got up there the tower elevations just showing that it's the Monopole Tower, and the maximum above ground height will be a 154, which includes the lightning Rod.

The subject parcel is located within the city of Mount Dora, JPA, and ISBA. The application was provided to the city of Mount Dora for review. The city did not provide comments during the CUP request. However, the city did provide comments with the preceding presubmittal application, which was provided to the applicant as courtesy. The comments generally stated that the proposed tower does not meet their land development regulations, which limits the height to a maximum of a 100 feet.

The city also stated that the subject parcels are not eligible for annexation at this time. On the screen, I have their full comments, and we can go back if we need to review them. They're also included in the staff report. This is showing the 100 foot tower radius there, showing that if it was, located out, anything on the red is that 100 foot radius. And the aerial there. And then staff finds the CUP application consistent with our land development regulations and comprehensive plan. And do you have any questions for staff? And then the applicant is also here.

Anyone have questions for staff at this time?

Yes. I have one quick question. If it's in here and I missed it, I apologize. But was there any opposition from FDOT? Because this thing is real, real close to that kind of piece of four fifty three.

Not that I received. I understand we had some communications, but nothing was received in back or in response.

You didn't receive any opposition or statements or No. Anything like that? Just discussion?

Correct.

Got it. Anything further for staff? Okay. We'll go ahead and hear from the public. Cindy Newton?

Did you wanna hear

from me? Yeah. Do you wanna hear Oh, sorry. Applicant is present. Yep. Okay. Yeah.

Good morning. Mary Solak. 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500, Orlando, Florida. Your staff's done a very good of presenting a job of presenting this application. To answer your question about FDOT, FDOT has a master agreement with the tower builder to put towers in their right of ways. And if you travel the roads of Florida all over, you will see towers in FDOT right of way. We've also designed this tower with a 40 foot collapse radius, so it will collapse in the unlikely event of collapse. It will fall solely within the parent tract in which it's located. It won't it's not a danger to the four fifty three pavement. Do you have any other questions for me that I can answer at this point before you hear from the public?

Do you want me to walk you through the waivers and why we need them all?

It might help for the record.

Okay, sure. Let's see. James, can I get the site plan? What did I do now? That's what I'm looking for.

And pointer? Looks like one piece of property. This looks like one big piece of property, but it's actually two. This is the property line in between the two. This is a remnant parcel left over from the acquisition of the property necessary to construct the 453.

The properties are titled in different names, but they are related entities. So the property owner, you can't really tell from this area, but the property owner has a lot of activity going on on this property, and they didn't and they have future plans for expansion. So they didn't want the tower on this property, so they moved us over here. So we have a very narrow, almost unusable tract of land, given it's a remnant from the eminent domain action. And there are a number of setback requirements from the code.

And the primary one that drove the location here that drives three of the four waivers requested is that we be set back from residential uses. And that's a three thirty foot setback. There is a giant PUD been approved to the north of this property. It's a mixed use but the residential component of it is up here. So we chose to meet the residential setback of three thirty feet, given the fact that we're adjacent to controlled or limited access highway and industrial property and moved the tower south.

We could have met the setbacks if we'd moved it up here, but for the residential setback, which we deemed the most important one to meet. So now we're down here in the middle, and we don't have enough width to meet the right of way setback, the building setbacks, or the 100 foot property setback. But that was the reasoning behind the location where it is and what drove the need for the waivers.

Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time?

Okay. I'll come back after. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Ms. Newton?

Morning again. Cindy Newton. 19025 Lakes Watero Drive, Eustis. I all these waivers on setbacks have me a bit worried with the as you know, there's been a lot of flooding to the north of this. We don't know with the development of this PUD how much elevation change is gonna be taking place.

And I do realize this is a collapsible tower. We if the base is also compromised with water issues, I really think that the the Mount Dora JPA agreement with Lake County should be taken into effect. They request a four times height setback from residential. As you can see, the PUD, this is mixed use. This is residential at eight dwelling units per acre.

So I'm in in line of the JPA agreement, I am asking that you do Yeah. Look at the letter from Mount Dora and consider their setbacks. Thank

you. Thank you. Does anyone else from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, the applicant, is there anything you'd like to add?

I would just it's a comment I hate to make, but Ms. Newton lives five miles from this tower. So I would question her standing to be a person impacted by this conditional use application. The JPA comments are you have JPAs with your local governments, and they govern the future. And if at some time this property had been annexed into Mount Dora, the Mount Dora code would apply.

But Mount Dora indicates in their comments the property is not eligible for annexation because it's not contiguous to Mount Dora in any way, shape, or form. So their comments were advisory. So we meet the code where we sit. Understood. Thank you. And we would ask for your approval.

Is there any other questions for the applicants? Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff? If not, we'll move into a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Okay. We will now move on to tab four, which is Ruby Shores.

Good morning again. James Fry, Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting tab number four, case number PZ2024Dash195, otherwise known as Ruby Shores. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 4.46 acres from a state residential r two to urban residential r six to facilitate the development of our residential subdivision. The subject property is generally located South of Forest Lake Road, North of Eagle Point Court and bisected by Golden Tree Drive in the Leesburg area.

The parent parcel contains approximately 4.46 acres. The subject property is currently designated with an urban low density future land use category and zoned to state residential, which is r two. The concept plan depicts the proposed 24 lot single family development. The concept plan also includes approximately 6.43 acres made up of three parcels and a density of 3.73 dwelling units per net acre, which will be the max density. Staff finds the rezoning application consistent with the land development regulations and comprehensive plan. If you have any questions for staff as well as the applicant is present.

Does anyone have any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

Yes. Well, does anybody have questions for the applicant? Is there anything you'd like to state before we hear from the public?

Good morning, Chuck. Hi. 902 North Sinclair Avenue here at Tavares with Half. Just wanted to give you a quick little background. Half of the property is R2 zoning. Half of it's R6. When we first started this process, we was coming in to do an R4 zoning to be consistent with the urban low. And staff recommended that since the surrounding area was PUD and R6 to come in with an R6 zoning because the comp plan is going to supersede that at four units per acre anyways. So if you look at the concept plan, basically you can see the hatched area. That area is what is R2.

And then so in some cases, of the lots are got two zonings on one lot you know, between R2 and R6. All we're trying to do is be consistent with the comp plan. I'm here to answer any questions if you guys may have any. Thanks.

Anyone have any questions for the applicant at this time? All right. We'll bring you back up after Thank you. All the All right, we'll go ahead and hear from the public. We'll start with Gloria Pastres or Pestris. Oh, I was so close, halfway.

Good morning. My name is Gloria Pastaris. I live at 35115 Forest Lake Road, and all the traffic that this is going to create goes right by my house as a problem we already have because the Shangri La Bridge does not have the capability to carry any of the big loads, we have a lot of traffic coming through our development already. Our street is small, we only have so many houses on it, and there is one entrance and one exit. The traffic that is going to accumulate if you build more houses is gonna prevent people from coming out of their homes at certain times.

We have a lot of children and a lot of walkers and people that are disabled that ride their bikes or golf carts in our area. It's an unsafe situation to put more homes in our area due to the fact of the one entrance and exit. And since everyone is using Forest Lake Road as a main drag and we're a very narrow street, I don't think that it's a very good idea to add more homes and more traffic to it. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day.

Thank you. Melody Downey.

Hello. Melody Downey. 170 Taiwan Island Road, Leesburg, Florida. If you would, as a group, go back and look at these dates, 10/11/2022, 12/06/2022, that's commissioner's meeting, 04/11/2023, and June 23, June 6. We were we had a committee, Harbor Shores Group, fighting the development because of Goose Creek and Harbor Shores because of the added traffic.

We have a small narrow Harbor Shores Road, and it's very curvy. I'm a bicycle rider, and we had a house being built off Harbor Shores, and I got run off the road. I literally had to push myself away from this truck pulling in to pass me. And I'm like right on the edge. As she said, we have a lot of people that use this Harbor Shores Road.

You can't have all the big trucks coming in. Number two, and I know the yeah. Owner on record and all of that stuff, we all know that. But if the land is approved and rezoned, it's not the 24 homes. It's using Harbor Shores Road to get to the other two developments that he is developing, which are 2 hundreds and change, 200 and change.

So the 24 is not the issue. It's the roads getting in. It's that dirt road that because he cannot get the permit or the land to do a right hand turn to get to Goose Creek or Shelby to get into his development. He will come in from Harbor Shores Road. Yes, we are on the list for a stoplight there, but it's a good year away.

And if we've already got over 500 homes coming in using all of that, it's not gonna be a very good very safe for the kids and for the seniors living in this area. Please go back and look at those meetings to see what we all had so that it's busing, it's schooling, it was roads, it was everything that was we were worried about and now it's all back there again. Okay? Thank you. Have a great day. Alright.

Gary White Weep King.

Yes my name is Gary Weep King I live at 160 Formosa Island Road Leesburg Florida 34788. I live in a community called Shangri La by the lake. And my concern today is, after seeing that notice about now they're talking 24 homes, but I think it's going to be more than that, is that we have a back entrance to Shangri La that accommodates fire trucks because we have a bridge, the main entrance in, that only will take about 10,000 pounds. We're on like a little island there. And from what I could see from the plan, the owner of this property, by the way, is Shangri La by the lake, will eliminate that back entrance.

Also, have a boat ramp, and we also have a storage area for boats and things like that. And that needs to be taken into consideration because if that gets blocked, we're going to have a cutoff for any emergency services coming into our community. We have approximately 140 houses, over two forty residents, and that would be a major concern. And I see this is a real problem at this point in time. It's not so much the zoning as much as the access to our property from the back way.

And mentioned Melody mentioned before about the traffic. There are two approved subdivisions, one off of Goose Creek and the other one is off of Harbor Shores. It's gonna bring in probably four 500 additional cars on that curvy road that is very narrow, as the lady before mentioned. And there is concern about the trucks and the activity, the traffic, and so forth and so on. And, well, that would be kind of our main concerns at this point in time. But it's the rear access and the additional traffic that this will bring. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Susan Charlton? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to address any comments or give any additional information?

I just want to say that we concur with the staff as far as approving this. And again, just to let the audience know, we do have comp plan. We are entitled to build homes. Half the property is R6, which allows up to six units per acre. R2 allows two units per acre. So to blend it, we're going to be less than the four units per acre for the urban low, which matches the comp plan.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant at this time? None. I did have one question. They mentioned the rear access to their community. I see from your concept plan, it's shown as the rezoning area, but it doesn't have a number on it. So I'm assuming, based on your concept, you don't intend for that rear access point to go away. Is that That

is correct.

Just making sure. Okay. Is there anything else for the applicant? If not, thank you so much. Is there anything for staff?

Okay. If there is nothing further, I'll entertain a motion on this item.

Motion to approve.

I have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Would we like to go into discussion?

Well, Commissioner Morris said, I'm relatively new to the board, I get a full two years questions. Is the truth?

Can have as many

dumb questions

as you like. They're not usually dumb, by the way.

The concern in regards to access and road usage, to what degree, is there any plans for road improvements since there obviously is going to be more density? I know the transportation basically said that the two roads are operating at 55% in peak direction but the residents are voicing concern about the over usage of roads and danger to the public. What if anything is being proposed as far as for improving the infrastructure in that area for the roads for getting this construction material in as well as the safety of of the community.

Yeah. This is Seth Lynch with Polar Works Department. Mhmm. There's a Goose Creek development off to the west that this backs up to kind of. They're gonna build they're gonna pave Eagle Court.

That'll provide a secondary access to everybody out there, not just this, but everybody existing out there. So it's not just Harbor Shores that gets you to 44. Eagle Court would take you to into the Goose Creek development, then up Goose Creek Road that goes up to 44 by the Durstress area. So there should be a secondary access for everybody out there, paved, public. So that's coming with a development that's already approved, has approved construction plans, should be starting.

So there's mandated interconnectivity basically for additional access?

Yeah. Goose Creek was approved. So it's gonna have this it'll it'll make a big a loop. It'll help some of that out so the traffic doesn't have to all use Harbor Shores.

Yep. Okay.

And we do have a design traffic signal at Harbor Shores that we are working on funding for construction.

Okay. Is there anything else for Seth or the county's Public Works Department? Okay. Do we have any other questions or discussion among the board at this time? Okay.

Then we already have a motion and a second. We'll go for a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. That concludes the items on our agenda for today. Our next meeting is October 1. And, again, the items on this agenda will be heard by the board of county commissioners on their October 7 agenda.

If no one has any additional items, staff, anything extra? Nothing further. Thank you. Alright. We are adjourned. Thank you.