Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We'd like to call to order the October 1 meeting of Lake County's Planning and Zoning Board. If you would all still please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge of allegiance.

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. If you'd also remain standing for a moment of silence. Thank you. You may be seated.

Good morning, everyone. The Lake County Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory board to the board of county commissioners this board is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the comprehensive plan zoning conditional uses mining site plans and making recommendations on these applications 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, the cases are scheduled to be at the 11/04/2025 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 09:00AM. At this time, are there any updates to the agenda?

Good morning. For the record, Jeannie Brown, planning manager with the office of planning and zoning. I wanna enter into the record that the cases being presented before you today have been duly noticed in accordance with state statute. There is an update to tab number three. Staff recently as of this morning received, opposition correspondence, and it's placed in the dais for your review.

Okay. Thank you. And I do have speaker cards on all three tabs. So it looks like we're gonna be moving the three items that are on the consent agenda down to the regular agenda. Thank you. Are there any other changes to the agenda?

No, ma'am. Thank you so much.

Okay. And at this time, we will move into review and approval of the minutes. Is there any concern, issues, or comments regarding the minutes of our last board meeting? If none, we'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve.

I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any need for discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All in favor the same. Thank you. At this time, we will move into public comment. This is specifically for anyone who wishes to speak regarding items not on our agenda today. We do have three items on our agenda. If you do wish to speak on an item on the agenda, you may fill out a speaker card and provide it to our clerk so that we can make sure that you have adequate time to speak on that item. But at this time, we are entertaining any comment that is not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on items not on our agenda?

Thank you. Okay. So we will move into our consent agenda, which has been moved down to the regular agenda. So I believe we can jump in on tab one.

Good morning. Again, for the record, Janie Burrow, planning manager with the office of planning and zoning. The purpose of the amendment, to the schedule and conditional uses, including the zoning district regulations and key to conditions to the table permitted and conditional uses is to update these zoning regulations in the agricultural zoning district itself. Some key changes is that the amendment would allow the following uses that I'm going to read as a permitted use versus a conditional use, which would be chicken farms, egg processing facilities, hog farms, mills, riding stables, slaughterhouses, and farm worker housing. The reason for the change is to be in compliance with the 2025 state legislation.

We have had two senate bills that took effect on July 1, one being senate bill 700, which prohibits local governments from restricting the construction or installation of housing for legally verified agricultural workers on land classified, under section one ninety three point four sixty one of the Florida statutes itself. We also have senate bill two eleven, which preempts local government of activities conducted as part as a bonafide farm operation if regulated by state or federal agencies. The amendment aligns with section one sixty three point thirty one sixty two of the Florida statutes, and the board's determination is that allowing the uses mentioned previously permitted by rights promotes the agricultural activities within the unincorporated area of Lake County and complies with the state law. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions for staff?

Does anyone have questions for staff at this time? Thank you. Thank you. We do have one speaker card on this item, and that is for Kathy Boyce. If you'd like to come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Good morning, board members. My name is Kathy Boyce, and I'm a Lake County resident in District 4. My address is protected. For context, I own an Ag zone property in the area of Ag zone parcels of five acres or less, primarily residential personal use properties at this time. Initially, and as a point of clarification, I note that the proposed ordinance does not specify if it applies to ag zoned or ag exempt.

It appears that the intent is to be applicable to ag exempt, and perhaps you can address that in discussion. I want to point out that the draft ordinance as written does not conform to the intentions of senate bill two eleven, and if passed, will result in overly permissive agricultural property use approvals within the county. The changes to county ordinance are an over correction and propose the removal of common sense provisions which could permit disorderly development of agricultural facilities within the county also negatively affecting adjacent property owners. Specifically, in seeking to conform with the senate bill two eleven, the proposed ordinance updates the schedule permitted and conditional uses for a select group of agricultural activities to be automatically permitted without further consideration. The effect of such reckless and selective restatement of the schedule could cause loss of enjoyment as well as loss of property value to those living adjacent to agricultural operations within the county.

I would ask the board to reconsider this change and to continue process for these activities. Why? Because the senate bill does not preempt county processes except for those which duplicate regulations, and it says so in two ways. The first, it state the statute states it explicitly. The duplication of regulation subsection only restricts local governance from activities already regulated by the listed state or federal regulators or as specified within the statute itself.

Examples of such regulation are manure management, animal health, and watershed issues. Second, the statute signals a qualifier. See chapter one sixty three, section thirty one sixty two, subsection three, duplication of regulation which starts except as otherwise provided, signaling that local powers related to those operations remain intact. Simply put, the statute does not preempt local authority over unrelated aspects such as zoning, building permits, or land use designations. Permitting can and should continue to be made on a facts and circumstances basis under the conditional use permitting schedule.

It is not in the best interest of county residents for the board to strip away the protections that the conditional use permitting allowed to neighboring properties. The CEP process allows for neighboring concerns that can be mitigated with setbacks and buffers appropriate to the allowable operation. Such conditions do not work to negatively restrict the operation of the agricultural facility, but will ultimately serve those Lake County residents with adjoining properties. I urge the board to carefully consider the ordinance language for purposes of alignment with the true intentions of the Senate bill before sending to the commissioners, Taking additional steps to both shield agricultural facilities from duplicative regulation, but to also preserve local authority for orderly zoning and planning development can be achieved. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no other speaker cards submitted on this topic. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this at this time? All right. Seeing none, does anyone on the board have any questions for staff related to this topic or any additional clarification needed?

Okay, I would entertain a motion if there's no further questions or comments.

Motion to approve. Motion to approve.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Do we need discussion? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed same sign. Motion carries. Alright. We will move on to our second item on the agenda, which is the conditional use permit case number PZ2025Dash141.

Good morning. For the record, Eddie Montanes, planner one with the office of planning and zoning. I'll be presenting to you tab two, case number P20251Dash141, otherwise known as FL1878LeesburgTowerCUP. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit approval on approximately 12.62 acres for a for a 154 foot monoplane communication tower with a waiver to LDR regulations section three thirteen nine b one to allow the proposed tower to be constructed off center within the boundaries of the parcel. The subject property is located southwest of the of the Forest Lake Road and Eagle Point Court intersection in the unincorporated Leesburg area.

Subject property is currently designated with a urban low future land use and a r six zoning. Here's the concept plan, elevation for the tower, and an aerial. Oops. So staff finds the conditional use permit consistent with land development regulations and comprehensive plan. Staff would like to point out that there are some concerns with access.

Those I believe those will be addressed during the site plan. Public works engineering is here for, I mean, for comment, or they're available if you have questions regarding access. And the applicant is also available for questioning as well. This concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions for staff?

Anyone have any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Thank you. Would the applicant like to say anything or speak before we hear from the public?

Good morning. I'm Matt Tanaya John. 935 Main Street, Suite C 4, Safety Harbor, Florida 34695. I come before you today with staff findings of consistency for a 154 foot tall monopine style communication tower, which you just heard about. I also have Jason Polly with T Mobile, who will be the anchor carrier for the tower with me should you have any questions for their RF need.

So just to jump ahead of my basic presentation, to talk about access, a communication tower is an unstaffed facility. It requires one trip per carrier per month, and this would be designed to be shared by up to four carriers ultimately. So you're talking, a trip usually in a pickup truck sized vehicle. During site plan, I have no doubt that your staff will require us to do, whatever improvements we need to do to provide an NFPA compliant access because they're currently doing to that doing that to me on another site plan application. So anyways, and there is a condition of approval that whatever portion a condition of the staff's analysis and a condition of approval that whatever portion of the roadway remains unimproved because the property developer to the north has an obligation to improve part of the roadway right of way, we would have to bring that up to NFPA standards.

Alright. So as you heard, we are on Parcel 12192500100047500. And I apologize if I pop I I have Ricolas in my pocket today because I am recovering from so it's either that or a hack. So as you heard, we are conditional use. I do meet all the rec the siting requirements of your land development code with the one exception that I'm requesting a waiver to allow the, Monopine to be located five hundred and fifty nine five hundred and fifty six feet further west, further away from existing, houses, and then, 59 feet to the north.

And I'll show them my maps today. Alright. In all maps I show you today, up will be north. So, of course, this is your zoning map, and I've applied a purple arrow to the approximate location of the monopine. And you can see on this map. There is no pointer. Got it. You can see on the map, and this is urban low, there's Eagle Point Court, and that is a road on paper, essentially. It's a sugar sand trail. But as you move east, you end up having single family platted houses, and those are located approximately 1,400 feet away.

So they're in excess of the required separation even for non camouflage communication towers. To the north is property that is vested for a for a single family residential community. It hasn't been developed yet. There are no individual homeowners. And the way the property is platted per the PUD plan, there would be intervening, water storage, so it would meet even the separation requirements for a nonresidential a noncamouflage communication tower.

This is a monopine style communication tower. And what this is, they have a single support pole with all cabling located inside the monopine itself. Antennas are located at the top. They are external because the antennas and the radios need airflow in order to work. It's just like your Wi Fi router.

If you were to stick it in your stick it in your attic, you would cook it. Anyways, they will be painted green, covered with socks. There's a pre engineered, foliated canopy of branches, and, of course, the monopine will be designed to meet the Florida building code. This is a property appraiser aerial. And as you can see, one thing I would like to note is as you move east on the parcel and also south to the neighboring parcel, there's mature pine trees there in between the monopine and any existing development.

So in addition to meeting the code's separation requirements, it has mature trees in between it and the nearest the nearest property owners. And that also provides visual context cues for the monopine camouflaging. This is a closer aerial, and it shows the approximate location. To my west is county owned conservation land, so that's not slated to be developed. This is sheet z one a.

It just overlays the it overlays the site plan line work on on the the aerial. So anyways, you can see a square off to the side. That's the equipment compound. That's a fenced area with traffic cabinet sized cabinets that have the computers that run the tower. As you heard, these are unstaffed.

This is just a sheet c two showing that the monopod is designed to be shared as required per your planned development code. And then, of course, sheet z three. And as I described, all the antennas are nestled within the pre engineered canopy of branches. The base will be enclosed with a chain link fence. I have photo simulations.

The first one's from Grousenet Creek. Looking South Southwest, you'll see the monopine has been circled with a red circle because it doesn't exceed past the canopy height. There's a lot of context cues for the monopine to help this camouflage work well. This is Taipei Island Lane looking Southwest, and you can see you'd have to look through the trees to see anything. Eagle Point Court, you can see it's completely obstructed by the existing trees to the East, and Golden Tree Drive looking to the West.

Just a real quick touch on T Mobile's need because this is being proposed at the request of T Mobile. They're trying to provide, in building an in vehicle resident in building an in vehicle reliable coverage. Cellular coverage works just like the recessed can lights over this dais. If you are missing one, you end up with a dark spot. There might still be light in the room, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can read from the paper.

You have to distribute a network of cellular towers out to provide even lighting, in this case, even coverage. And, basically, this is caused by the fact that we use our we use our communication devices in more places than we used to when this first started. When I first started driving, I had a flip phone because my parents expected me to check-in. And if I didn't, I was going to lose access to the car. Nowadays, the laptop I brought with me is a communication device.

I don't have a hard line phone numb a hard line phone number. And, if you go to Orange County, which this is the 2021911 call statistics for Orange County, 89% of all 911 calls received by the Orange County Sheriff's Office came from wireless numbers. So this is really just a question of infrastructure. We do meet the requirements of your land development code. And we have an APCS taking care to provide as much contact to provide the best fit possible, we hope. And we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the board of county commissioners. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant before we hear from the public? Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We have two speaker cards on this topic. We'll start with Lizeth Jensen. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Lisette Jensen. I am a resident of Golden Tree Drive. My address is protected. I do belong to District 3. I come to oppose the proposed tower as it would detrimentally affect my family and my neighborhood in which it is in close proximity.

Based to the World Health Organization, any five gs cell phone tower that is built within 500 meters of neighboring homes, schools, can have detrimental risks of cancer, cell degeneration, cytogenetic storms that can cause dementia, Alzheimer's, and the like. On top of that, T Mobile, since it is a T Mobile tower, in 2023 put out a report to their investor stating that negative public perception and regulation regarding the perceived health risks relating to five gs networks could undermine market acceptance of our five gs services. We, along with equipment manufacturers and other carriers, are subject to current and potential future lawsuits alleging adverse health effects arising from the use of wireless handsets or from wireless transmission equipment such as cell towers. They also stated, Our business could be adversely affected by finding of product liability for health or safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment. Five gs towers and cell five gs and cell towers period are an uninsurable risk by insurance companies will not even touch them because wireless cell towers and five gs RFR non ionizing electromagnetic field radiation is a high risk comparing the issue to lead and asbestos.

The current state regulations that we have was set based on a 1996 rule. And as we all know, the technology from 1996 to today is not even close. And that 1996 regulation was actually based on a study from 1982. That study is over 43 years old, and we are basing our safety studies on that. Based on the T Mobile website, I actually have T Mobile, we have perfect service in the area.

On their map of coverage, it shows the area of the proposed. They have Ultra five gs and five gs. Of course, that would be pendant on the person having the device. I personally refuse to have a five gs cell phone because I know the detrimental effects that it can have. My husband, however, does have one.

He has perfect reception in and out of our house and we have a brick cement style home that blocks almost all telecommunication access. Most homes have high speed internet of which they have cell phones have the Wi Fi connectability that allows them to access 911, to access all the things that we need. And a public opinion lately, we've been starting to install more voice over IP phones. So, this cell tower would be redundant, and I extremely oppose it without a lot of amendments. Like the 500 meters should be a 640 feet away from any residential areas.

Thank you. Thank you. Gary Weeking? Did I get even close?

Good. Just think of a king that weeps.

Oh, well, I was close then. All right.

My name is Gary Weep King. I live at 160 Formosa Island Road, Leesburg, Florida 34788. Well, the one question I had was in regard to the radio frequency raise, and those were pretty well covered just now. One thing I want to say with the signage on this for announcing this meeting was pretty poor because there were two signs that were very obscure. Obviously, there's only two of us that are somewhat opposing this tower.

And it was intermixed with the other rezoning signs you had from last month's meeting that you all approved that '24 well, it was a rezoning to R6, I think it was. So anyway, just want to say whoever wrote and planned already, these animals are starting to go in that direction. And I know if they do any kind of construction work or anything like that, they're supposed to have a wildlife study. And I'm not sure whether they ever did that aspect of it. Because we have bears. We've got gopher turtles. We've got for the panthers in that area. So that's a question I'd like to have answered by the presenter before. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak on this item? Okay. We'll invite the applicant back up at this time if they would like to address any of the comments.

Matt, Tanaya, John again. And just to start off, I have Jason Polly with T Mobile. So I'm going to have him come up real quick.

Jason Polly, 315 Elkhorn Court, Winter Park, Florida 32792.

All right. And would you please state your education?

Electrical engineering, bachelor's bachelor of science in electrical engineering from UCF.

And what's your current occupation?

RF engineer for T Mobile.

K. Are you familiar with the t with the APC Leesburg project? Yes. And how?

I am the design engineer for the project.

Okay. I know we had somebody say that they're personally experiencing great coverage. Can you tell us how you come to can you tell us whether you have a gap there? And if that's something how you determine that there's a gap?

Yeah. We use modeling tools to that predict the coverage. We also have phone reported coverage mapping ability that shows that we do not have in building everywhere in that area and that we need to improve it. We also need to improve it there to the South as we showed on a map earlier. And so this this macro tower will reach out to the that area to the South as well as to the West and to the Northeast.

Okay. And when you're trying to cover areas that are developed like this with residential plotting and such as the tip is a macro tower, what you called a cell tower that we normally Large. Think

Large tower. Yeah.

Is that the tool that you typically use to serve this kind of area?

Yes. That is what we try to do. And

I'm not gonna ask you about perspectives and stuff because that's all the land. You know, that's SEC Landia and such. But does T Mobile maintain its RF network in compliance with FCC safety requirements?

Yes. We follow all the rules of the FCC.

Alright. Board members, do you have any questions for Mr. Polly at this time?

Anyone?

Okay. Quickly. We heard a number thrown out from the World Health Organization, has T Mobile any information that runs counter to the claim that these things have to be 500 meters from residential structures? I am not personally familiar with the World Health Organization statement

on that situation. I follow the OET65 directives put out by the FCC.

And they address health issues?

The known health issues from cell towers, the electromagnetic radiation that's coming out, the waves, is heating of body tissue. It's non ionizing. It's not nuclear. Right? It's so it's so and that's proximity to to them. And if you know your distance things, it's over r squared. So as the distance increases, the power decreases very fast at a square rate.

So just to kind of boil it down to what regular us regular folks

Thank you.

Based on the OET, the FCC standards, what's the safe distance from a communication tower? So like for example, is it the compound fence?

Yes. Madam Yes.

I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to remind the board that under the Federal Telecommunications Act, you cannot consider health effects of cell towers as part of your decision today. As long as they're complying with federal regulations, then they're presumed to be in compliance with that. It is not something that you can deny them based on.

Thank you.

All right. So you comply with that standard. Correct? Yes. Thank you. And as your counsel, astutely mentioned, and I was about to get to, the Telecom Act of 1996. I would be remiss if I did not place the Telecom Act of 1996 in the record because it does prevent it does prohibit the consideration environmental effects of RF emissions. So that's not competent substantial evidence for a decision. We're looking purely at zoning questions today.

Thank you. Does anyone else have questions for our applicant?

Yes. Have Are you aware of whether or not a wildlife study has been done?

So I need to double check whether I have a NEPA in the file. I'm I apologize. I'm blanking in the moment. If you let me connect my laptop to your Wi Fi, I can try to get through that. But we are required to comply with gopher tortoise surveying requirements when we go into site plan. And because communication towers are considered federal infrastructure, we do have to comply with NEPA National Environmental Policy Act standards. And that includes consideration of endangered species.

So this so you'll have to do that even cause this is just your traditional use permit. You've still gotta go to site planning after this. The county staff will require you to do those studies as part of site planning. Correct?

Even if it doesn't come to come before the county for the NEPA report, if they don't ask for that directly, They still have the APC still has to do it for federal compliance.

And you'll still have to do the local serve of the land for any endangered or threatened species?

That is correct. And your staff will will identify that.

As part of their site plan request.

Correct. Their comments are extensive. Your staff are zealous in their protection of your citizens. Wonderful.

Are there any other questions for the applicant?

Thank

you. Thank

you. All right. Are there any questions for county staff before we move to a vote? All right. I would entertain a motion on this item at this time.

Motion to pass.

I have a motion for approval. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion at this time? Alright. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed same sign. Motion carries.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay. And we will now move on to tab three,

which

is case number PZ2025Dash138. And that's the Crescent Pines rezoning.

Yes. Madam chair? Yes. She just needs to get her cell phone. Oh, okay.

All's well.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Leslie Reagan, senior planner with office of planning and zoning. I will be presenting tab number three, case number PZ2025138, otherwise known as Crescent Pines.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from urban residential r six to a planned unit development to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision. The subject property is located on the Northwest corner of Prieb Road and Log House Road and contains approximately 40 acres. The subject property is currently designated with the urban low future landers category and is zoned urban residential. The concept plan that you can see on the screen now depicts 84 residential lots, open space, and amenitized stormwater ponds.

The

density that's being proposed for this residential subdivision is 2.2 dwelling units per net acre. They will be meeting the open space requirement and the building height. Staff finds that the rezone is consistent with the land use development regulations and comprehensive plan. I will mention the reason that they are before you today asking for a rezone to a planned unit development is that our land use, regulations require any subdivision over 50 lots to come forward for, planned unit development. I'll stand for any questions.

Are there any questions for staff? Thank you. Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present and available for questioning.

Would you like to make any statements before we hear from the public?

Morning. Chuck Hyatt, 902 North Sinclair Avenue, Tavares. We concur with staff. And again, I just want to reiterate, we're only here because we're over 50 lots. So it's a little unique on this piece of property. We're not asking for anything different. It's already got the land use and it already has zoning. Thanks.

Thank you. All right. We will go ahead and hear from the public. We will start with William Decker.

Good morning. Bill Decker, 10908 Prieb Road, Clermont, Florida 34711. I'm not only a resident of Martin's Landing, but I'm also the president of the Martin's Landing Homeowners Association. I'm here today along with a number of our residents to strongly oppose the rezoning of this 40 acre parcel identified in the case ending in 138. We also have delivered a petition signed by all of our neighbors and residents in opposition to the case.

We're in opposition to the application based on several factors of public interest, specifically environmental impact, potential harm to endangered species, the impact on public facilities, and traffic congestion. First, relating to the environmental impact, this development will not only add noise but will remove 40 acres of trees and reduces the tranquil atmosphere. We moved to this area because it was rural, not an urban and urban sprawl. This acreage is the home to multiple Gulf gopher tortoises, which are protected by state law, as well as owls and hawks that are protected by federal and state law. We ask that the request be denied or at least postponed until appropriate permits and action is taken to protect the species.

There's also a significant impact on public facilities, specifically schools. The staff report states that the Lake County Schools believe they can handle did these additions. However, the district is stressed and operating at a deficit. How many more trailers and buses can you add to nearby schools that offer quality education? Not to mention the problem of attracting qualified teachers and finding bus drivers.

Adding these units will only increase the burden on Lake County schools, add to the safety concerns for walking and biking to school, and may also ultimately have an impact on learning for kids. One of the largest issues is a matter of traffic congestion, not only in this proposal, but future proposals. Traffic congestion in the morning and evening rush hours is terrible for our community. The report says the PUD will have minimal impact on traffic, but obviously not written by someone who sits on Lakeshore Drive in the morning. Getting out of Prieb Road in the morning, making left turn sometimes takes four to five minutes.

Once on Lakeshore, it may take four to five turns at the stoplight at the intersection of Bronson Road to get through. Roadway situation just becomes worse each time a development is added, and why should we complicate things by adding at least a 100 more vehicles? We also understand from the county there's no plans to improve 561, Route 561. This is the only other artery out of the area to the north or east. This road is in terrible condition, has no shoulders, and is dangerous that children should walk wanna walk or even ride their bikes to Pine Element Pine Ridge Elementary School.

Finally, relating to traffic congestion, I cite the West News report, Growing Pains Lake County traffic, which cited a deficit of more than $700,000,000 road construction expenditures pushing off improvements. In the report, Sean Park cites list the priorities for road road improvements keeps growing, but they're not feasible due to funding gaps. We can only surmise from the report that no plan exists to improve Lake Log House Road, Lakeshore Drive or 561 except maybe a roundabout on Lakeshore Drive. I've been told by many that we're pushing a rock uphill and the appetite for growth will surpass our request to stop this rezoning. We don't believe we do not believe our property values nor our existing way of life should be impacted because of the desire for growth.

And you as a commission will help us do the right thing in denying this request for rezoning. Thank you very much. I also have a copy of these notes if you wanna for the record.

I don't think we need the notes for the record because they've been recorded, but we do have your your petition.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Gail Cisneros?

Good morning.

Good morning.

If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Absolutely. My name is Gail Cisneros, and I live at 10922 Privy Road. Bill is my neighbor, and it's nice to see a lot of our neighbors here today. The reason why I'm here today is obviously to talk about what we're all hoping that doesn't happen in our beautiful neighborhood. We actually live be right behind the proposed development. So we wake up in the morning with this beautiful trees and quietness and this beautiful preserve. Just 3.8 miles away on Hammock Ridge, there's a development called Ivy Ridge. They bought out these homes or this property, and they're going to be building. It's already destroyed. The preserve there was destroyed.

They're coming in with a 145 homes that will be rented. 1.4 miles from us on the other side is Ryan Homes. They're also building at at Lake Nelly Crossing, a 102 homes. That's 247 homes in this area already underway. There is no jurisdiction for rezoning yet another preserve.

That's our preserve behind our home. We wanna be clear. We are not opposed to growth, but this, but this proposal is not response responsible or sustainable. Florida law already provides a better path through transfer of development rights, SB one eighty, moving density to areas that already have the proper infrastructure while keeping the critical buffers like this one intact. We ask for your help.

We really do. We ask you to help us protect this little area that we have. The preserve is not just an empty land. It has grass, trees, and it protects us from the storm water. It helps us not having the water flood into our area.

Strong hurricane winds, it protects us from that. If it is replaced with house and pavements, we may have flooding risk, which will then have flood insurance, which is another issue. Also, road safety. I know Bill talked about road safety, but the streets are so narrow, it will make it really hard for even it's a one way street on both ends on every way and busing more traffic would bleed into those one way streets, making it hard for children to walk to school, us going on walks, just anything, just not just car traffic, but it's very dangerous. Wildlife, we talked a little bit about that, but we also request that if in fact they do come in, that that's not ignored.

I know they have six months, but it is a concern of all of ours. Finally, on page three on letter d, the staff report states that it states that changed conditions justify rezoning because the property is surrounded by residential use, but nothing has changed. I'll make it quick. This land always, has been bordered by these homes, and it always has served as a natural buffer. The current r six zoning already allows six single family homes.

What is being requested here is in, we'll sacrifice this area, and we ask you to please join with us and approve the the, intended of us saying no. So thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry that I went a little longer.

Danny Cisneros.

Hello. Thanks for having us. My name is Danny Cisneros. I live at 1022 10922 Prebroke. That's my wife. And so I wanted to speak a little bit about kind of from a mental health perspective. I have a bit of a unique perspective on this because I suffered a stroke last year. And as you guys can see, I'm doing pretty well walking around. So I'm fully healed and very thankful for that. And I do feel like part of the preserve has a lot to do with that, and not just for me, but any neighbor that can see it and enjoy it every morning.

You look at it, It's an amazing thing. And so just thinking of it from that perspective. So zoning decisions are meant to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Today, I'd like to focus on one piece of that welfare that we don't often talk about, is mental health. The preserve is not just unused land.

It's a daily source of stress relief, community connection, and mental balance for the people who live here. Many of us walk, jog, and simply sit in this green space to manage anxiety and lower stress and enjoy quiet time with our families. Research from American Public Health Association and numerous peer reviewed studies shows that access to natural areas significantly reduce rates of depression, stress, and even physical health conditions linked to mental strain. Losing this preserve would mean increased traffic, a lot more noise, and crowding, stressors that directly undermine mental well-being. The loss of accessible nature will take away one of the very few affordable nearby outlets.

Our community has has to stay healthy and connected. I ask you to consider whether rezoning the land truly aligns with our comprehensive plan's goal of protecting both the environment and public welfare. Once green space is gone, it doesn't come back. But the stress, anxiety, and diminished quality of life will stay with the residents who live here. Please protect our community's health by denying this rezoning request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Care Casey Kopage. Good

morning. My name is Casey Kopage, and I live at 10934 Priebe Road In Martin's Landing we are a small 24 unit gated community immediately next to the urban 40 acres in discussion. I want to respectfully share my concerns about this proposed change. While I understand the applicant's request I believe rezoning this property would negatively impact our neighborhood as well as others around it. Specifically, it would increase traffic on Lakeshore Drive and Log House Road, which are already busy and sometimes dangerous roads.

It would also greatly affect it would also greatly change the quiet residential character that makes our community feel so special. Myself and many of my neighbors moved to this community because it was lined by trees and a lake, giving us some seclusion and privacy in a bustling town. The applicant has stated that the proposed community would not affect traffic, but I beg to differ if you've ever sat in traffic during school, let out, and pick up. In these areas, these communities don't have busing because we are too close, so it will obviously continue the traffic. Upon doing research building homes next the log house transfer station would generally have a lower resale value as buyers find them less desirable.

Lower property values in surrounding neighborhoods then lower the property value of the home in Martin's Landing. Buyers of those proposed homes would also have to deal with increased noise traffic due to truck traffic machinery and compactors. Even when a transfer station is designed well and controls pollutants to the air it is generally considered undesirable and lowers property values. I have the listings of houses in our community have sold for. And the value currently in Martin's Landing is 550,000 to 1,500,000.0.

The 85 unit plan subdivision is likely not going to come near those prices and going to bring our values down. Each home in our neighborhood is a minimum of 3,000 square foot. The proposal has lots as little as 7,500 square foot and living space as little as 1,000 square foot in the proposal. Only two homes have been listed and sold in our neighborhood since July 2021, showing how desirable it is to live here. I was one of those two purchasing in November 2023.

We moved here from five acres in the country and felt that the peacefulness of this community and the greenery behind us was giving us the feel of being in the country but zoned for better schools. If our homes looked out onto another community, it would not hold the same serenity many of us value so greatly. The proposed homes would be substantially higher based on current elevation, thus looking immediately down into the homes of Martin's Landing. I respectfully ask the board to consider these concerns and to protect the integrity of our neighborhood by denying this rezoning request. If a PUD is inevitable, we as the neighboring community that is most affected are requesting a several 100 foot tree line between the development and our community.

Currently, their proposal has a 25 foot setback in the rear, which is vastly different. Thank you for your time and all you do for our community.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item at this time? Sir, if you would please come up and state your name and address for the record.

Good morning. My name is John Kymes. I live at on Privy Road on Martin's Landing as well. I just want to bring a little common sense to this, if I may. We moved to Martin's Landing in 2017 for all the reasons stated by the residents here. And I second the president's of our association's assessment of the area. Any common sense approach, the growth in this area has exploded. It's limited access to Martin's Landing. We we have two ways in and out because of the lakes. It's two lane roads.

It it is twenty minutes to get from 27 to our house during rush hour. I've witnessed any any areas that has a square foot of green in this spot seems to be under development. We gotta stop it at some point. I I totally sympathize as a property owner. If I had 40 acres, I'd wanna deal with it when I may as well.

But you're gonna impact 24 homes behind this tremendously. Martin's Landing is nestled in the middle of this. And from a property owner, you know, I wanna know if it's gonna pass or not because if it does, my house is going for sale. We we bought this area for a reason. And, you know, and I I sympathize with the guys who are trying to rezone it, but at the same time, you you gotta look at the the area. If any of you have been there, the traffic is horrendous. My wife and I are walkers. I've lost a 100 pounds because of Martin Landing walking the neighborhood. There are no sidewalks. I've been about mowed down twice on on Log Cabin Road just because of the increased traffic.

There's a school around the corner on 561. The sidewalks are just there. I don't I don't know how the kids get from Martin's Landing to the school safely. There are no sidewalks, and you're gonna increase traffic tremendously. Not to mention all the other impacts that were that are mentioned here. It's a beautiful piece of land. We moved there because of this. We we when when the hurricane came over, the eye passed over our house. I believe it was Irma. This this piece of land protected the neighborhood.

It blocks the winds. We're nestled down below it. It it is an incredible piece of property. I understand the reason they wanna rezone it and and develop it, but the impact of the community would be tremendous. So I would respectfully request that this zoning thing be denied. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak on this item? Okay. We would invite the applicant. I'm sorry.

I I just wanna say

Well, if you wanna speak, you have to come up and state your name and address for the record. But just a second. I'm sorry. Melanie, were you about to say something? Okay. I just wanna make sure.

Walk every

Ma'am, I'm sorry. You have to state your name and address for the record first.

Joy Kimes at +1 0844 in Claremont, 34711. I walk and I enjoy the wildlife. It's tortoises and bobcats. We've actually had bobcats in there, and it's it's beautiful. I love the serene walking and without the sidewalks or anything.

It's great in the mornings and I enjoy it. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chairman. Just to address one of the issues that came up with the first speaker regarding environmental permits, just wanna remind the board that under section one twenty five zero two two subsection seven of the Florida statutes, accounting may not require as a condition of processing a development order that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency. So that is not something that can be either a condition or part of your deliberation today.

Just for clarification, they they can be required to do those things once approved once they get to site plan. Correct?

No. We cannot require that they get a permit from another state or federal agency. We process their site plans under our code. If they cannot obtain those permits, they will not be able to build regardless of whether we grant approvals.

Understood. Thank you so much for that clarification. Is there anyone else on this item? Seeing none, would the applicant like to address any comments, or do you have anything to add at this time?

I would like to add a little bit on the environmental. Obviously, when we come in for a PSP, we'll do an environmental report. Bugs Bunny, you know, as far as the turtles, the eagles, the skinks, and whatever is required. And what the attorney was talking about as far as permits, we cannot get any environmental permit to remove gopher tortoises or anything until we have an approval by the county or the city or whichever. So we can't get those at the beginning.

We have to wait until we have approvals. Other than that, again, we're only here because the code says 49 lots or lot more. We've already got zoning. We've already got comp plan. If that wasn't in the comp plan as far or LDR as far as 49 lots, we wouldn't be in front of you today. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay. Does anyone on the board have questions for staff or wish to address anything with staff before we move forward?

I have a staff question.

Okay.

Just for the record and for clarification, am I understanding that under the existing zoning up to six dwelling units per net acre that this acreage could accommodate somewhere north of 200 residential units?

As long as they were meeting all of the other regulations and of course they would have to have that requirement for open space as well that's 25% but they they probably could have a lot more units than they're asking for.

So effectively could be maybe apartments instead of for sale homes?

It could be.

Okay and what we're looking at is a request to develop 37% of what's currently available. Yeah. But 2.22 is 37%.

The density they're requesting. Yes, sir. It's 2.2.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes,

sir. And I did just have one more clarification. I heard a lot of members of the public referring to this area as a preserve. Just for clarification, I wanna make sure I understand correctly because it is not zoned as conservation, preserve, or any type of protected land. It's not listed that way in the land use, and there's no overlay that effectively states that. Am I correct understanding this is private property? Yes. It is zoned for residential development purposes. It is not to the public. It is private property. Correct?

It is. And it's not within any any rural protection area or what kind of a study area, any of that.

And and just to add to that for the the board's information, if the board of county commissioners were to deny a rezoning on that ground, it would be grounds for the applicant to sue the county for an unconstitutional taking of private property. Private property cannot be used for a public benefit without the county paying the price for that. So it cannot be treated as a preserve in their deliberations today. Understood.

Okay. Are there any other questions for staff or our legal team or the applicant at this time?

My only statement was understanding the traffic issue and the road improvements that are desperately needed in this area throughout the county. I would say, please come out and vote next year for the gas tax because those were the funds that were desperately needed for a lot of the improvements and widening and improving of the trying to release some of the traffic issues. So that's my only statement on that.

And the traffic studies, those types of those are next steps. Right now, we're just at zoning, So

the applicant did present an exemption that was approved by our transportation department.

Was this considered de minimis?

It was.

Got it.

Yes. Okay.

I'd like to make a statement, please.

Yes, ma'am.

The school was mentioned several times. Lake County School Board has a policy. If it becomes hazardous for children to walk, even though they may live within the two mile radius, we provide transportation. We do not ever allow students to walk in an area that's considered unsafe, like traffic or whatever. So should that happen as a result of this, then we would just simply have to redo the transportation for students at Pine Ridge.

That's under the Safe Routes for School standards, right? Where they can only be required to walk if there's a legitimate safe route for them to walk.

It has to

be a safe route. Understood. And can we hear from Sean real quick?

Seth Lynch with Public Works. We already are working with the school board on sidewalk on Log House with DOT funding. We're at the right of way stage. We're gonna be playing sidewalk on the north side of Log House from 561 where it ends close to there all the way down to, Lakeshore. That's one of the pieces, one of projects out there. We have other projects with sidewalks going on Lakeshore itself, but we gotta get the Log House one in first. So we are working on that sidewalk issue.

So this is an area y'all are focused

on It's design, the

right away phase. I gotta get three properties. One of it's the landfill site that we have out there, and then this is another site and another property down the road. And then we would move it into funding.

So we're in process there?

Yeah. So it's been going through DOT for funding first, basically, sidewalk.

Wonderful. Does anyone have any other questions for Seth or the county's public works team? Okay. If there are no further questions of staff, we will move into entertaining a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. And that concludes our agenda for today. Is there any other business or other topics that need to be addressed before we adjourn? Good afternoon. Good morning. I guess still morning. Yes, it's still morning.

No further and we will see you next month, November 5. Wonderful. You.

We are adjourned.

I just didn't wanna leave with it if I wasn't supposed to have it.