Yes. Okay. >> So, we'll do approval of minutes for April 2nd, 2026. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Holland. >> Who? >> Holland.
>> Hi. >> Allen. >> Mr. Asbat. >> I. >> Vice Chaircraft. >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins. I >> chair personly >> I
so we'll start with ordinance number 2026-15 >> is that 15 >> 15 >> 15 2026 15 is that you Kyle >> yes >> thank you >> good evening madam chair board members
this is uh case number A-26-003 three via ordinance 2026-15 a future land use assignment for annexing properties for properties owned by Sidell Holdings LLC property owner as I had mentioned is
Cidle Holdings LLC the applicant is Michael Ranken for land planning from land planning group the total annexation proposed and land use assignment would be for 18.03 acres of approximately which 5.83 83 would be developable.
It was is a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment requesting a assignment to go from urban medium in Lake County to urban residential in the city of Eustace and assign a suburban neighborhood design district. This shows the overall the location of
the property along State Road 19. It's located at 1539 North State Road 19. In case you want to know the address, this is shows the aerial of the location and its approximate location in the city.
This shows the current land use of urban medium sign of the property in Lake County which allows up to seven dwelling units per acre and the proposed urban residential future land use amendment for the city of Eustace which would allow up to 12 units per acre.
This is the pres proposed design district of urban neighborhood. Uh this map shows that it is impacted by flood zone AE quite considerably to the south as well as wetlands.
Uh this shows the recharge area uh 0 to 4 plus 4 to 8 in depending on the location of the property on the property and uh the soil suitability is very limited. We did evaluate this request based on
chapter 163 of the four statutes our future manage element appendix as well as chapter 102 of the LDRs. We did find that there are um facilities and capacity to serve the existing serve
the existing and max development uh shing area. There are there is water and sew sewer available to the site including a lift station I believe. Um it there are wetlands present. Um zone AE is present. Properties are within the not within the private study area and
low to medium recharge area. um transportation water has not been uh evaluated at this point. It would be done at development review process. Uh we did find that the request is consistent uh with the comprehensive
plan uh and the surrounding areas. I'll go back here and show you this map here. Um there's some urban residential to the north as well as MCR which also allows 12 units an acre uh adjacent to the property as well as
across the street. Um and as well as general commercial in this urbanizing area. Uh staff recommends therefore that uh you uh transmit this. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Uh it was duly uh advertised
on April 6th and April 13th. The property was posted on April 6th and mailers were sent out, I believe, on a on August 3rd, April 3rd, excuse me. Um, therefore, after reviewing this, we do recommend that you transmit this to city commission for approval. I believe
the applicant is present and uh, of course, staff is available for any questions. >> Any questions? >> We we heard this similar years ago, right? this came for the uh something for that development.
>> I I don't know for this site particular I'm not sure. >> I apologize. >> And currently what's it it's its use >> its use right now is vacant and wooded >> but what's its own? >> Uh oh it's AE uh excuse me urban medium which allows seven units an acre in the
county >> and then it'll annex in at >> at 12 urban residential. >> How many buildable acres? >> Uh 5.83. 83. >> Okay. >> So, it' be 5.8 * 12. >> 5 * 12. Correct. >> Less open space. And
>> why 12? I thought it comes in at 5. What am I missing? >> Well, for suburban residential, it would come in at five. They're requesting urban residential, which would come in at 12. And we don't have a category in the middle that splits that difference. So um you know they would have to though
based on develop development uh restrictions they would have to also provide open space and right ofway and all that would that would lower their density as well below that 12. >> Am I right that normally though it comes in at five 5 to1 but this one
>> for suburban correct >> and and instead of suburban this time we're doing something different >> something different. Correct. I don't know how I feel about that. Um, >> so how many was that? 60. >> 60. >> Yeah.
>> You know, Trout Lake is pretty pretty dear to me. Um and and and I can think of it a lot of future for that um nature center to be
something pretty big for us as a city and uh as a tourist attraction the properties that we have on the um east side of the lake. So, but I would like it to come into the
city, but uh I that's that's a problem for me. That's a problem for me. Um I think there's there was some discussion about um a wetland waterfront area. You didn't talk
about that. >> Well, at this point we're dealing with the annexation, so I didn't want to bring, you know, have that discussion unless others want to have that. But right now, >> when would we have that? I don't want to push you to Sure. Sure. Are you saying that if it transmits, then you'd have that discussion?
>> Well, no. We would we'd have that we would have that discussion at time of of development review would be, you know, we would have that discussion on what was buildable and not buildable at that time and what the, you know, other discussions would would have to take place on on the remainder of that
property. >> Yeah. I >> unfortunately that's been a problem we've had for a long time >> is that >> we're brought annexation. We don't know what's going to happen to it
>> and then we're going to have the conversation afterwards. >> It would make our job a lot easier as a commission if we were able if we really kind of knew >> exactly what was happening. Um I'm like you. I want the property in the
city of Eustace because it is a true enclave. However, the density that we're looking at is just too high for me. >> So, that makes me say at the least too soon >> until we know more. We know everything.
We know what's going on there. See a site plan, make a development agreement perhaps. Um, too soon for me. I'm I'm a No. >> So, we get from the audience. >> You have the You have the developer
here. >> No, we need public input. >> Yeah, we have public. >> Did I jump ahead too far? >> You have card. Rick. >> Uh, yes. We have one card on this. Uh, Michael Smith, if you come up to the podium, please
sir. Thank you. Hi, I'm I'm Michael Smith. I live in Kren Club Manor, which is on Trout Lake. So, I'm a neighbor. Um, my concern is that I I mean, I I kind of agree with you that it would be nice to have this as part of city property, but my concern
is that it's it's a choice between five units per acre or 12 units per acre. And there's it looks like there's only one way to go. If you annex it, it's going to be annexed at 12 per acre. And I'm not so sure that that's appropriate. Um it's a
lot of wetland. It's it's really a nice area. It's, you know, it's it's as much a nature preserve as the nature preserve is. And I I'd like to see it protected somewhat. And I don't want to see every house that you can squeeze on it. So
that's that's where I'm at on this. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Anyone else? >> I have no more cards on this item. >> Anyone that hasn't presented a card that would like to speak.
>> If you can come up to the podium, state your name, if you're a city resident, and you'll have three minutes. Hello, I am Leam Falner. I am actually a resident of Umatella, so I'm a neighboring city. Um,
I am um I got put on my glasses so I can read. Sorry. Um, I had mailed in a letter yesterday to to most of y'all. Um, I was actually born just up the street from the site. This parcel sits within a connected
system of Trout Lake, Flood Plains, and surrounding conservation land, excuse me, making it um environmentally sensitive. Um, while the report states as there are no wetlands are present, mapping and flood plane conditions indicate hydraulic function that should
be considered before approving intensity. Even at 40% um the impervious coverage on this site is too high because it replaces natural filtration and increases runoff into an already stressed system. This is a lake
connected flood and fluid stereia. It's not your typical upleium parcel. Standard limits are probably not appropriate here. Um conservative percentages would be more like 15 to 20%. The 40% would probably require massive
site engineering of fill and drainage systems. Um, a wider shoreline buffer would be important to help protect the quality of the water in Trout Lake, which is already impaired. Um, it's actually been impaired for over 50 years. And neither the state, the
county, or the city has been able to correct the nutrient levels in it. It is starving of nitrogen and overloaded with phosphorus. Um, and I think most of you know that high density development near this area
is going to lead more to that problem. Um, adding additional intensity without stronger protection to risk compounding those impacts on an already stressed system. So, your land use decisions that you make today determine that level of
impact. Environmental considerations should be addressed before the intensity is improved, not after. because then it's too late to make changes. Um a lower density would better reflect the transitional and conservation
character of this corridor. Directly across the street on the west there is um conservation land that the city actually owns because it is a flood plane. Um there is the whole thing about the St. John River Water Management District and the DP. Um they consider
Hicks Ditch comes into Trout Lake. Um it drains farmlands and um city lands from approximately a half a mile north of Trout Lake into Trout Lake and then it goes into that hick ditch that ends up
going further into the lake. So there's a lot of area there that you don't really consider it as um sucking up the water, but it does. And as everybody knows, when you come down into Eustus and from Publix, you're going down to a pit there. Okay. Three minutes.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I'm not asking you to not deny it. I'm just asking you to um appropriately guide development for this site. >> Thank you. >> I do want to challenge some of those claims. You can go ahead and sit down. The city of Houston Lake County and the
state of Florida have put a lot of money over trying to correct and clean that lake. And that clinic is a lot cleaner today than it was. But that's why I said I don't want to put anything on that lake now that's going to harm the work and the money that we've already spent. >> Exactly.
>> Rick, can you share uh >> Yeah. what you told me yesterday with the >> if I could just add on to Commissioner Holland's part of that. I I think everybody here knows that, but just in case, we're in the midst of seeking appropriations to um redo and clean up
Hicks Ditch and the uh crossover canal from uh Lake Eustus as well. And I I think this would uh probably throw a wrench in that in that appropriations uh which would probably
not be good. Just adding on to that the appropriation part. >> Yeah, Commissioner Hopkins. Um in in regards to the the comments about the impaired water body, uh 2015, I believe it's 2014 2015, um the city with the
department of a we did a a FDA grant and we made a hybrid wetland treatment system which actually catches the flow from Hicks ditch. there wasn't enough flow to to run sufficiently. So, we did a bypass system and I don't have the
tons I can get that to you. We've been pulling a lot of nitrogen and phosphorus out and Trout Lake now is no longer on the impaired water body list. So, it is off recently. >> So, yeah. So, we we have done a lot for
that lake internally. So, just to just to clarify that. >> Thank you. >> We do have the applicant here. Correct. >> Are they here? >> Is the applicant here? >> If the applicant is here, please raise your hand.
>> Okay. Just making sure if they were, I wanted to give them a chance to speak >> um before we close public input, but not seeing anyone raise their hand. So, we'll go ahead and close public input. Okay, give it back to you, Madam Chair,
for discussion. Any more discussion or >> I went out and and I looked at the site um you know, you know, full disclosure, I'm a board member at Trout Lake and uh know as commissioner as body said that
that lake is important to all of us to this this community and you know that's a lot of homes. That's a lot of homes. So >> not just for the not just for the short run. If I close my eyes and I think about that for the short point,
it's more pilable, but thinking about 25, 30, 50 years and what we're doing in this community and growing. Um what we're doing, Trout Lake is an intricate part. The reserve is an intricate part. Um
too soon to really talk about it now. Maybe later. I would rather see some type of commercial, less impact on there. >> Yeah, commercial would be good. And does any anyone from staff know that if it stays in the county, can they mitigate
the wetlands if I know that might be a little >> Yeah, might be above my uh purview, but uh they would it does they do have to provide open space if they're stay in the county. They would have to provide at least 20% open space on top of uh if
if it was to go to residential in the county which they also urban medium also allows for commer some limited commercial and office uses as well. Uh but they would have to in the county provide 20% open space uh if they provide 10 or more units uh as well as
you know I'm assuming buffering for that. >> But do you do you think the county would let them mitigate the wetlands to put in more homes? >> That I I sure >> and they're going to have to come to us for sewer and water. >> Yeah.
>> So are we ready to >> There's no further discussion. Is there a motion? So have a >> to transmit. >> We need a motion. >> Motion >> Mike.
>> I'm not going to make a motion. >> I I think I think if if no one makes a motion, it will die. They can come back and continue working with staff uh to see if they can come up with a plan that might come in front of us. But if we vote on it,
>> you can totally kill it. So I'm not willing to do that to them yet. But um at this time I won't make a motion. >> Okay. So no motion to transmit nor is there a motion to not transmit. >> All right. Then it dies for lack of
action. Um, this would then take care of the remaining ordinances u for city commission tied to this item which would be 2026-14 15 and 16. >> Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make
sure. All right. Um, next is ordinance number 2026-9. >> Thank you. Uh, madam chair, commissioners, uh, board members, excuse me. This is case number C plus 26-00002
via ordinance 2026-9, a future land use amendment for 1430 Morren Street located alternate key 1761 1310. Property owner is currently Janice Wilson. The applicant is Julie Cavalero
from Patriotic Mortgage. Uh it is a 0.2 acre approximately 02 acre site. Um and its current use which uh and this is from the staff uh asked the applicant and it was and we do have records of it being active uh more recently but
>> I'm sorry. Can we please um keep it down because I we can't hear up here. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. has been active since uh May of 2000. >> What we did because most of the people here were probably for for for that. >> Sure. >> Oh yeah, sure. >> I'm sorry. >> Sure.
>> Um for anyone that was here for those initial ordinances that I mentioned uh 2026 1415 16 that will not be considered at the city commission meeting that follows LPA. So if you'd like to leave, you're welcome to do so. Um there will
be no further action on those items this evening. Okay, let's just give them a couple of minutes. Yeah, just give them a minute or so they can vacate. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> I plan to do it at the end, but I I heard a lot of talk.
>> I'm sorry. This is ordinance number 2026-9, a future land use amendment for 1430 Morren Street at alternate key 1761310. The owner is Janice Wilson. The applicant is Julie Cavalo with Patriotic
Mortgage. It's a 2acre site uh which is currently a hair and beauty salon and has operated such since May of 2002. Uh the request is to go from city of Eustace suburban residential to city of Eustace residential office transition
with no change to the design district. It's currently urban neighborhood. This shows the location of the site at the corner of Barnes and Warren Street. This shows the current land use again which is suburban residential. You'll
see that it is bordered to the east by the RT as well as the RT to the north there as well. General commercial along of course along bay. This would this shows the proposed land use as requested by the applicant and
owner. There are utilities available to the site. Um it is uh 4 to 8 in of recharge and there's no limit to soil suitability because it is an urbanized and already developed site. Um the applicant is
requesting this land use uh that we evaluated uh because they have a pre-existing business again that uh hair salon and and beauty salon uh they have been operating uh prior to the adoption of the code. this land use change would
allow them to continue operating uh that use and bring but it would make it compatible that use compatible with the land use change. Uh and so the or any other use that would be permitted within the RT district. We did evaluate this land use again on
chapter by chapter 160 or excuse me chapter 163 the Florida codes for statutes our appendix and chapter 102 of the LDRs. There are facilities available to this site. Uh no wetland present, no 100-year flood plane
uh within the private study area, medium recharge. Uh transportation level was not evaluated as this is a land use change. Uh but as I had mentioned that water and sewer are available. Uh it is consistent with the city future land use uh the comprehensive plan the
surrounding future land uses uh in that area as it is a transition area. Um and the as I had said the amendment would make the current property use and land uses compatible. Uh it was noticed on April 6th uh and
13th in the newspaper. It was posted on April 6th and the mailings were sent to 500 ft within 500 ft on April 3rd. Uh staff recommends approve a transmitt excuse me of this land use amendment to city commission for their consideration.
And I'm available for any questions. and Kyle. And this has been a beauty salon for years, correct? >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Got it. I'm going to ask a question. >> What's the difference between grand or is it something that we can do? Can this
be grandfathered in? What's the difference? >> I I'm not sure if the applicant is is here, but I know that there's been some issues with the current owner uh wishing to sell. she's getting up there and is looking to retire and it it has become a
I know from a staff perspective a continuation or a questions that arise every time it goes up for sale because they can't do non-residential shoe uses and it's what's essentially a non-residential building >> uh in that suburban land use category.
>> Okay. Gotcha. >> I say Commissioner Hawkins if I can give you some insight on that. Did you happen to notice the applicant was a mortgage company? Yeah. >> So, there's probably someone that's trying to buy the property that wants to use it >> for something other than, >> you know, like a Yeah.
>> And they can't do it because the use doesn't match up with the zoning. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. >> Okay. >> Any questions for >> any questions for staff? Do we have any cards on this item, Eric? Uh, >> no, we don't. >> Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?
>> Okay, I'm seeing none. Do we have the applicant here? Yes. Okay. Would you like to speak to um the land planning agency? >> If if you'd like to speak, you can please come up to the podium and
state your name and address the LPA. >> Hi, I'm Julie. I own Patriotic Mortgage. Um, we've been searching for a location, a permanent location for my business and we came across this property. It's a perfect fit for us. There's a space
inside for my office. Uh, we could offer the opportunity to continue a salon type business as well and keep the people employed that are working there. So, we thought it was a great opportunity to invest in Eustace and help grow the
employment opportunities within the community. Thank you. Does commission have any questions for the applicant? >> Thank you, ma'am. You can have a seat. All right. I'll close public input. >> Madam Chair, I move to uh move ordinance
number 202619 to the commission for consideration. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Holland. >> I. >> Mr. Asbat. >> Hi.
>> Vice Chair Ashcraft. I >> Mr. Hawkins >> I >> chair personally >> I >> next we have representation on ordinance number 2026-22 Mr. Richardson >> go back to port
this up. Okay, this is future land use assignment 4 A26002. Um, basically the annexation ordinance 202622. The property is located at the north
corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Drive. Um the applicant is structured or owner is structured management LLC. Uh Ben Champion is the applicant. The total site is or total property is approximately 2.62 acres but n5 acres of
that is wetland. So essentially it leaves basically 1.67 acres dry. Um the future land use is currently urban low. The request is going to suburban residential with an assignment of a rural neighborhood design district.
Um general location of the property, as you can see, the entire north portion of the property is basically wetland pond. Uh depending on the time of year, again, a little bit larger. So, we have the direct connection or direct
contiguousness to the city boundaries um to the south. and another location. Location. There we go. Um, current future land use is urban low in the county and requesting to go to
suburban residential. Um, water is available out there. Um, uh, no sewer at this point in time. Again, wetlands generalized plug plane generalized
>> um generalized recharge. This is split. Obviously, the wet portion is um the 0 to 4 in recharge. The drier portion is kind of in the medium uh recharge range. >> Um this property does have a limited
buildability as far as for the soil suitability. So it would require even single family or any sort of construction. You know, it'll require some engineering to get a good stable foundation. Um future land use has been request or has been evaluated based on chapter 163
of the Florida statutes as well as the future land use element and our future land use element and chapter 102 of the land development regulations. Um water is available out there. It will be on septic tank. um under your flood
plane is present. It is not in the uh private study area boundary but um it does have also wetland impact for the property or wetlands do impact the property I should say. Um water is available not sewer. So that is an error
in there. Otherwise it is the request would be consistent with um our future land use element and our land development regulations. staff does recommend uh transmission of this to the city commission um for its
consideration. >> Any questions? >> I was reading some other stuff on it, but did you mention what the adjacent properties uh densities are? >> It's all urban low, which is for up to four dwelling units per acre or suburban residential to the south. That is that
is how it is contiguous. It is continuous across Orange Avenue. >> Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> They're generally >> they're generally consistent with what's in the area. It it looks like it's >> the future land uses as matched as they
can match. >> The present use of the adjacent homes are more in that one home per acre kind of scenario is what I'm saying. That is the >> when I drove out there I I didn't measure it but >> yeah the the properties sorry east are
about 80 by 120s maybe >> well let's um let's keep in mind that the the property across the street >> uh was annexed in years and years and years ago. Um, and I know there was some kind of agreement to keep it one to one or one
to two, uh, but that developer went away and the new developer is going to get the benefit of suburban residential. Uh, in my opinion, that use is not compatible for anything in that area as suburban residential based on
everything that is around it. So, just my opinion. >> When I drove out there, I saw the same thing. Anything further for staff? >> Do we have any cards? >> Um, we have cards for this, but under the commission meeting, not when they
yet, but for this item. >> Okay. I'm going to request uh for those individuals to speak now um as we may not h depending on what happens uh with the city commission meeting. That way they have their chance to speak. If you want to just uh go through their names in the cards, please.
Yeah, but do we have cards first and then we'll >> Yes. The uh first one was >> we'll get to you as well. >> Kevin Kner, >> he asked if they have the same thing. They don't just keep repeating the same thing. Can we do that? >> How many do we have?
>> How many cards do we have? Three cards. >> I have three. >> Three cards. Okay. Okay. >> Sir, if you could just say um repeat your name. I'm sorry. And you have three minutes. And the applicant is here and I'm going to give him an opportunity to speak once he also hears the public as well. >> Well, I was worried about the wastewater
for one thing because I know there's no sewer system from you guys out there. There is public water there. Uh but when you have no power, you can't pump it away. So, if they put a force sewer in, you're still going to have problems with maybe getting stuff in the
wetland. I think you should go with the low density. No, because it can discharge into the lake if if you haven't had any power eventually. Little little help here. I think you should go with the low
density. You only got what now? 1.6 acres of that. the rest of into the wetlands. And where are the kids going to play in the street? And we just got that 60
homes across the street approved a couple years ago or less. Are they going to have to put a traffic circle at Beach in Orange and one at 19? A lot of concerns with all the traffic and I really don't want to see an
entrance on Beach Drive. I'd rather just stay on the on orange instead of messing our neighborhood up too. It's going to be bad enough the way it is. And he providing fire and police services useless now out there for this
area you're annexing. >> Some useless some counting. >> I mean, I can't even keep the people slowed down on 19. I don't know what they're going to do out there, but that's all I got for you. >> Thank you. >> Next was Heather Gross and Amanda Hall.
>> You'll be speaking uh separately or jointly. >> Okay. Go ahead. You have three minutes. Sorry, I'm pulling it up. Thank you for here letting us speak. Good evening, madame mayor and commissioners. My name is Heather Gross. This
>> We live in Three Lakes. We're here because we're deeply concerned about what this development may mean for our community. The land is currently an unincorporated Umatillaa and that That's the wrong one. I'm sorry. I'm
very nervous. It's where zoning is low density for the reason that these areas often sit along agricultural, water, and environmentally sensitive land. Moving forward with a higher density development isn't just a
technical change. It fundamentally changes the characteristic of the area. Even Eustace low density is still higher and he wants to go with even higher than Eustace low density built with the suburban. Our neighborhood already
absorbed a major impact. 60 homes is going to be plopped into the middle of a quiet single home unit neighborhood and we only have one entrance and exit. Traffic's going to increase and we're genuinely concerned about emergency
vehicles. Adding more density on top of that isn't just inconvenient, it's unsafe. Madame Mayor, you've yourself said you've driven through our neighborhood. I appreciate how you doing that and seeing firsthand how small and quiet it is. This board has previously
expressed a desire to slow annexations. I'm asking you to please start here. You know, at the very least just do something about the wetlands and review the whole environmental thing because that change is just too much. Once that
wildlife and wetlands is gone, you can't bring it back. It's gone. Thank you. Thank you. >> The next one and hard to read the last name, but David Morris Megan. >> There you go.
>> Have three minutes. >> All right. Good evening, Madame Mayor and fellow commissioners. Uh my name is David Morris. I also live in the 36 community. Today, I'm in opposition to these voluntary annexation related land use changes to the 2.62 62 acres properties north of Orange and on Beach
Drive. This is the second time this property has come before the LPA. A similar application in 2023 was denied. The first reading uh the same concerns were raised then is today. Well, I haven't done public speaking in a while. My apologies.
First off is the traffic and safety. Orange Avenue is already a very busy corridor. Uh there's only one way out, one way out. Uh this will increase traffic volume and create risks. Secondly, preservation of rural character. This property sits in a quiet rural Lakeside area approving annexation
and rural neighborhood design district. He will hereby be changing that long-standing character of our neighborhood. Um it also on the Lake Bracie uh many of the shining areas we are concerned that this sets a precedent for more intensive development along the shoreline. Third, the environmental
impact. This site includes about 0.9 acres of Lake Bracie frontage and 1 acre of wetlands. Disturbing wetlands that provide natural flood control and wild habitat, increased storm water runoff and pollutants and sediments flowing into Lake Bracie, degrading water
quality, and potentially worsening nutrient load or algae blooms, reducing natural buffers that help protect nearby properties from flooding. There are also many residents in the area that are on wells that do pull water from that area. So keep that in mind as well. Central
Florida lakes like Lake Bracie are already under pressure. A thorough independent environmental assessment should be required before an approval. Finally, there is little demonstration for public benefit to the current useless residents. This change would alter the rule lakeside character of our area, mainly for the benefit of land
owner and future buyers. We respectfully request that the LPA recommend denial of these ordinances. At this time, at a minimum, please require a full traffic study, an assessment of the impacts to the rural area, and a detailed environmental assessment, please. Uh,
many found residents share these concerns and appreciate opportunity to be heard tonight. Thank you for your time and service. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Did we get any more questions? >> I did get one more. Dennis Robinson.
Thank you for letting us speak. >> I live right on uh Beach Road there. I haven't been able to see the other side of Beach Road for 25 years. So, the county hasn't come out and fixed all the grass that's come across that road in 25
years. So, uh, if you go and put any houses over there, I don't know what they're going to do, uh, to fix that problem, but I haven't seen the other side of that road for 25 years. So, I think we need to look at using that property for
something else. All those lakes are attached and they go to the other park that they just fixed. Why can't they put a boardwalk all the way around? You can go to the state and get money for parks. Get a grant from the state, get a grant
from the federal government, make a park, make a boardwalk all the way around. We don't have any parks for kids in that place. In all of Donna Vista, there's nothing for them to do. So, maybe we should look at a different way of using that land other than putting houses
there. Uh there are other options for that property. Um I think maybe we should look at something else. >> That's all I have to say. Thank you, sir. >> Um, and we'll uh now hear from the applicant
if you want to come up and address the commission. >> Yes. My name is Ben Champion. I'm the off I'm the owner and manager of uh structured management, which owns the property. I think there's been a real big misunderstanding.
We're not, we came to the commission a few years ago asking to annex in with a plan to build five or six homes. That's not our current plan. We're trying to build one house. If there's a lower density you can assign to this property and annex this in, let's do that. I'm
trying to build one house. So, you know, I understand the complaints uh of these people, but even if you were to agree to the um density that's proposed, we're talking about one extra house because
right now we could develop uh in Lake County at four units per acre staff. >> Sir, yes. >> And and this would be five units per acre. >> Yes. and and there's you know a lot of wetlands and flood zone on the property
which leaves roughly one acre of usable land. So even if you approve this density, it's one extra house. And if you don't want to do that, grant us a lower density. Um, but not represented in this room is
the 25,000 residents of Eustace and this will help with scale on trash collection, water bills, you know, whatever. But again, we're trying to get one house and most of the people who spoke against this, maybe all of them
are not residents of the city of Eustace. They certainly have the right to speak, but for what it's worth. >> Okay, we don't think I need that. >> So, u Mr. Champion, if it's only one house, then why just stay in the county?
>> If you don't want us to annex into the city, it's >> I thought we're supposed to annex into the city. It boils down to the the water provision. >> Yeah, >> we do the covenants to annex and if you're directly adjacent, you annex. So,
it's kind of they're moving to >> it's legitimate. >> It's not saying they can't do that because if we refuse service, then the county will issue a well permit. We would like city water. We'd like city sewer, but that's not available right now.
>> So, you're saying one private residence? >> Yeah. I mean, >> is it your personal residence? >> Plat a tiny parcel like this. If you ask developers, it just doesn't make any sense. You know, you have water retention, you have traffic studies, you
have all of these things, you know. >> Yeah. But we No offense, sir. We we we've gone down this road so many times then it's it's it's actually exhausting because we can't hold you to that if we >> if we No, we can't. So they're not they're not even in discussion. My
attorney is going to tell me right now I can't do it. So >> is there a lower density available? >> It doesn't matter. We can't make it a condition of annexation. The next rural residential and we have to revertise for this entire process again. >> It it's possible we're going to do that,
but we we would have to go back and readvertise for the process, I believe. >> Yeah. And if he's willing to do anything voluntarily, he can work with development services just like we've done with other developers to outline exactly what it is that you're willing to do.
>> Okay. >> I don't know what to tell you. >> I'm sorry. >> Before after the vote, >> it's one extra. >> No, it can't be done tonight to develop it >> because we don't have an agreement before us tonight. I'm sorry, sir. I was just answering um the questions. So if
if if he's willing to do a lower density or has a different plan for the property, development services can work with him, see what would fit that picture that you're looking at. And um you know we would have to readvertise
and and work on a whether it's a development agreement um or some you know some other form of agreement that's voluntary and that he has and that can present a concept plan and all of that to the LPA as well as the public.
>> If the applicant would like to apply for the rural residential that's one dwelling unit per acre. They only have 1.67 six seven dwelling units. So it would remain at one dwelling unit for the piece of property and that would solve the >> the questions that have come up about future development of the property.
>> So formally I should withdraw the application or how does that work? >> We got to find >> depending on the action that the the board would like to take then >> if I withdraw then you don't need to take any action. So I'll I'll withdraw it and we'll reapply at rural residential. >> Well I mean while you're here I mean are
madam attorney help me. is I mean staff are you are you not allowed to ask him what he's planning on doing to the site I'm assuming no right >> it's not party to this >> yeah okay >> part of the process >> okay >> um and in this particular case we didn't have any communication they filed the
application electronically we didn't have pre- discussion >> but it's just we we go down this road so many times I'm just trying to think there's is there a better process as we do this so many times and you know now we've wasted this meeting we'll have to come back to another one and it's okay I I mean, we're
>> I mean, maybe we should put together a workshop where developers meet. >> No, we're not doing the city and talk about the >> Well, that's that was kind of my like my question. If it's if if staff is allowed, please if staff is allowed to guide you in certain ways, that's where I was trying to get.
>> Yeah. And Mr. Vice Mayor, if I may, I have been um in the recent meetings that I've had with um with Rick and Miranda, one of the things that we've been talking about is kind of revisiting a bit the development process to provide for that guidance um so that we can
avoid these things as much as possible >> because we we we wind up here so so so many so many times. Is this your first? >> I think it's just it's a bad use of real. >> So, it's for sale. >> It's for sale. Yeah, we would build one house and sell. >> Are you withdrawing it for tonight then?
>> Yeah, I'll withdraw for tonight. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You want to you want to make the announcement again about >> Right. So, this would be okay. Um
if anyone is here then for items 4.11 12 and 13 which are ordinance numbers 2026-2122 and 23 for city commission. Those will not be heard tonight and you can head
home. >> Have the rest of the day off to pay >> if you want to go ahead and close the meeting. >> Five minute break. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. We'll close this meeting. We'll take five minutes. Five minutes and come back to her.