agency meeting. It's now 5:45 April 2nd, 2026. We will officially call this meeting to order. Christine, is there a quorum and proper notice been given? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. First on the item on
the agenda is the approval of minutes for February February, I'm sorry, for yeah, February 19th. >> Move for approval, Madam Chair. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Mr. Hawkins >> I >> Mr. Holland >> I >> Mr. Rasbody
>> I >> vice chair Ashcraft >> I >> chairperson Lee >> I >> so do you take >> um so for uh the local planning agency we're going to have the consideration of ordinance number 2026-20
and I have a presentation >> okay >> so this uh this ordinance is the amendment to land then development regulations um for prohibition on medical marijuana treatment centers dispensing facilities. So I'm I'm going to refer to those as MMTC's within city
limits. You'll be hearing the exact same information at city commission. Um but this is essentially what we have as a summary of what is already part of the staff report and the ordinance that has been drafted.
So the purpose of the presentation is to provide a presentation on this ordinance and to support the legislative record for it. The presentation is going to outline the applicable statutory framework under Florida statute chapter 381.986,
the city's limited land use authority and the planning analysis supporting the proposed amendment to the land development regulations. And the purpose of this is to facilitate a recommendation by the local planning agency of approval and subsequent consideration by the city commission on
first reading procedural compliance. Um, ordinance number 2026-20 has been processed in accordance to the applicable statutory requirements for mun municipal ordinance adoption. It was duly advertised um on March 30th and
April 6th of this year consistent with our public notice requirements. We also prepared a business impact estimate in accordance with section 166.041 subsection 4 of the Florida statute and that is included in the packet as well and it's been posted on our site.
Local planning agency hearing has taken place tonight. First hearing will be then if approved uh for city commission later tonight and we'll have second reading on the 16th. Those have been scheduled and have also been noticed in
accordance with the applicable law. Now, we have some background and policy history on this. The city previously addressed uh the regulation of MMTC's through multiple legislative actions. Back in 2017,
um the uh city had prohibited such facilities within city limits through ordinance number 17-11. Then in 2020, the city revised its regulatory approach and enacted ordinance number 20-46,
reversing the ban and allowing for the MMTC's to be classified as pharmacies in the LDRs. Then following further evaluation of statutory requirements and local land use considerations in April of 2025, the local planning agency reviewed the
available regulatory options and recommended reconsideration of the current framework reaching consensus to reinstate the MMTC ban. That evening actually was the time um just separately that we had ordinance I
think it was 2025-01 which dealt with the uses that we previously came up last meeting on the massage parlors, tattoo parlors, hookah lounges. All of that was at was passed. Um we completed all of that. We took out
as a conditional use um the MMTC's for commission to deliberate and choose how they wanted to treat this particular um type of business given that it had its separate statutory regulation
and uh this ordinance is actually reflects the continuation and direction of that policy evaluation process. So, we've gone through several different actions and in that time the city has had the benefit of seeing how it works and what um the
impacts are and um really has seen both sides of having these businesses listed as pharmacies. So the statutory framework and local authority state of Florida authorizes the medical use of marijuana
and establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework governing MMTC's local governments retain limited authority with respect to land use and that's supposed to be a period pursuant to section 381.986
11B Florida statutes allows for municipalities to either permit dispensing facility facilities and in that case they must be treated consistently with the treatment of pharmacies. So any restrictions that are placed uh whether it's buffering,
distance, zoning, land use would have to apply to pharmacies as well or they can prohibit dispensing facilities within its jurisdiction. This ordinance reflects the city's exercise of this expressed statutory authority and continuation of its land
use and policy evaluation. The scope of the local authority. So the city's authority is limited in context to land use regulation. This ordinance uh does not regulate and is not intended to regulate any uh patient eligibility, physician certification,
medical treatment or the availability of medical marijuana under state law. Those matters are preempted by the state of Florida and this ordinance only addresses the classification and location of uses within the city's land
development regulations. current regulatory conditions. So under the current LDRs, MMTC's are classified as pharmacies. As a result, such facilities are permitted or conditionally allowed in multiple land use districts where pharmacies are permitted. This classification requires
the city to treat such facilities as equivalent toarmacies and limits the city's ability to evaluate them independently as a distinct land use. These are the existing conditions. Now, um, the city currently has legally established MMTC's operating within its
jurisdiction. This map displayed here is illustrative only to give you a general location of where the facilities are. So, it's a spatial context um that I was hoping to give. We have not included specific information of each
um dispensary because that's not relevant. We just want to show that there are two right now and um so there's still availability to those patients. that go to these um that need treatment within city limits. This information is provided in support of
the city's land use analysis and it does not evaluate or distinguish between specific operators or locations the local observational record. Um so since we've had the opportunity to go from ban to unbanning to now considering
um rebanning, the city has had the opportunity to observe the operational characteristics of legally established facilities currently operating within the city based on observed operating conditions within the city and regulatory requirements applicable to such facilities. Such facilities exhibit
the following characteristics. There's controlled access entry systems, on-site security measures, patient verification procedures, restricted interior access, episodic um traffic and parking demand patterns.
Some of these also have um restrictions as far as what can be viewable from the outside. So they have to kind of keep very dark windows or coverings so that no one can just walk by and see what is
inside the store. Uh these observations are based on the actual operating conditions within the city and they form part of the legislative record supporting this proposed ordinance. MMTC operational characteristics. So uh MMTC's operate as a controlled access
facility serving a limited class of authorized patients. And here's that's one of the difference between these um operations andarmacies. These facilities incorporate securitydriven design elements, restricted entry protocols, and
regulated dispensing procedures. These operational characteristics differ from traditional retail and pharmacy uses that are generally open to the public. Um for instance, children can't be in there. So that's that's a big difference. Uh
land use compatibility and uh planning analysis. The operational characteristics of these facilities result in land use impacts that differ from those associated with traditional pharmacies. These differences include variations in intensity of use, site design and access, circulation and
parking patterns and compatibility with surrounding uses. And based on these factors, the city has determined that such facilities are not functionally equivalent toarmacies for land use purposes. The limitation on regulations for the pharmacy classification is that the
current classification of these facilities as pharmacies does not reflect the operational characteristics. The classification limits the city's ability to evaluate compatibility independently, apply appropriate land use standards, ensure consistent regulatory outcomes.
So as a result, the city's regulatory discretion is constrained under the current framework, the evaluation of the regulatory alternatives. Um the city did evaluate multiple regulatory approaches available under state law and local land use law.
Uh first of all there was that initial prohibition establishment and um now considering the prohibition again these alternatives also included a continued classification of these um MTC's as pharmacies. We looked at location-based
restrictions as such as buffering spacing, conditional use approval process, which of course any of those limitations would have to apply toarmacies by law, and a uniform city-wide prohibition.
Each alternative was reviewed for consistency with statutory requirements, land use compatibility, and administrative feasibility. The legislative rationale for the proposed ordinance is that the proposed ordinance establishes a uniform city-wide land use
classification for MMTC's. This approach applies consistently across all land use district. This avoids partial specific or case by case determinations, promotes predictability in land land use outcomes, and supports efficient and consistent administration of the LDRs.
This constitutes a generally applicable legisl legislative determination based on the city's land use planning principles. The current existing facilities um would still this ordinance would still allow them to legally operate within the city
limits and the use would be a lawful non-conforming use. The ordinance does not require that operation cease. Such uses may continue subject to the city's non-conformity provisions and may not be expanded, intensified, or relocated.
Applicability and vested rights. The ordinance applies prospectively to applications submitted after its effective date. Applications must be complete to be considered under prior regulations. Preliminary inquiries and formal requests or incomplete
submissions do not establish vested rights. and vested rights, if applicable, are determined on a case-bycase basis under Florida law. We also took a look at regional availability and access. So, city staff
evaluated the availability of MMTC's within the region. There are facilities that are located in several jurisdictions within Lake County and nearby municipalities. As you can see here, um, Leburg has, uh, looks like three facilities.
Futland Park has one, Claremont has five, Lady Lake has three. So, the total is in the area uh, for Lake County is somewhere between 14 to 15. Based on this regional distribution,
there's reasonable access for qualified patients to remain a available um, without Sorry, notwithstanding the proposed ordinance. Um, so accessibility is is not an issue.
Consistency with comprehensive plan. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Specifically, the ordinance supports policies related to compatible land use patterns, protection of neighborhood character, orderly and predictable development, implementation of land
development regulations, promoting public health, safety, and welfare. The business impact statement that was prepared in accordance to law um in the estimate concludes that there are no new fees or charges imposed. No direct
compliance costs are created for existing business and enforcement would occur through existing city processes. Impacts are limited to future businesses that may seek to locate within the city.
Uniform application of the ordinance. So the proposed ordinance is applies uniformly throughout the city. The ordinance is not again based on any pending application or sight specific consideration constitute a general applicable land use regulation and is
perspective in nature. This ensures consistent treatment across all properties within the city. And the recommendation um to the local planning agency is to forward ordinance number 2026-20
to the city commission with a recommendation of approval finding it is consistent with the comp plan and supported by the record presented. Before I do that, um Mr. Lane, do you have anything to add? No. Okay.
Are there any questions from the commission on this item? >> No. Why uh why nonconforming use versus conditional use for existing ones that are already in place? >> Because if uh it's established that it's a conditional use, then that would apply
to pharmacies as well. the law and I can go back to the the statute only allows treatment of um this particular business the MMTC's to either be prohibited or to be treated
consistently with pharmacies. So if we do a conditional use for pharmacies which was what was considered previously um then we can do a conditional use for MMTC's but
that would be restrictive on current pharmacies as well. So we either we really don't have wiggle rooms. We either treat them as pharmacies or we do the ban and if the existing >> I'm okay with the ban and everything. I'm just saying the existing ones,
>> they would still be allowed to operate. It would just be as a non-conforming use. And that's the standard when it comes to any adjustment uh to the land development code. >> I don't think it's a standard, but it's a choice. But a conditional land use retains the use that they had and the
rights that they had and a non-conforming those could go away. So I'm concerned about potential legal issues that come up with that.
>> Again, the existing facilities would be allowed to operate, but the use would be non-conforming. We cannot do >> conditional use. >> Those are not with the property. There's conditions for which they could go away, which
would put us in a situation where their land use rights could go away. I'm not even sure if that would violate some other laws that deal with changing
existing zoning to go to non-conforming. I thought it should have been conditional land use which stays with it. Fortunately, not. Would you like to address the
commission, Mr. Lane? >> Good afternoon. For the record, Mike Lane, Development Services. Uh, in in the case, let's just take for example a facility burns down, they can re they can actually rebuild. The way it reads,
they can't expand or relocate. So it technically by the ordinance it sounds like it is place specific. So, you know, again, uh and I'm reminded by multiple uh type of of situations, primarily, you know, during a hurricane that the a
facility gets blown away. the uh the city basically has the uh uh the permission to allow the the uh the applicant to uh to rebuild because it it's the building itself that is is
allowed as and considered a u a non conforming type use. >> So if the place burns down and it takes a year or two couple years to rebuild it >> as long as and that that's part of the vesting process. So, you know, if you
know, they if it takes them that long to work through their insurance, then yeah, we will be happy to to work with them in that case. I mean, but, you know, if they're going to to take vacations and ignore, you know, and decide that they're they're going to close the doors for for 6 months and not do any
activity, then yeah, there's legal grounds at that point for us to to uh to stop them in the future. >> But under a conditional land use, there wouldn't be, right? >> No. and say, you know, trying to to to go back and and do conditional uses on
on every type of of nonconforming use is is almost impossible because, you know, it uh it would require going through the whole entire motion uh and and basically advertising and and doing, you know, the uh the paperwork that's tied to to
those. So, it really is part of of the statutes to pretty much acknowledge the non-conforming type use uh and um again allow those type structures to uh to rebuild if necessary. >> Would would you guys and would would you
be okay with giving uh um existing people that clarification in writing? >> I I don't know if they if they were to ask us then certainly we could provide that to them. So, let me if you could stay there for a second. Let me jump to a different part
of this. I'm not sure if I have a conflict here or not, but I own a building that is a medical marijuana facility. And in the in the building, we've guaranteed the tenant that those are
their rights. And they've gone out and spent hundreds and hundreds and maybe a million in what they've done. you take that conditional use away or that that and you make it a non-conforming.
What have we done? We've changed land use on someone in the middle of their business. >> But I'm for the ban as a whole. But I would >> we don't want to fight medical marijuana legal people and their deep pockets.
Well, again, I I would argue just by by virtue of us acknowledging from the get-go that we will allow them to remain there and that we will prohibit any future businesses from locating in in the city. I would >> argue that meaning if they sold, if they
merged, if they got acquired, what? >> No, no. I I'm I'm talking about different locations. that location is really the the uh I guess their their safety net because that right now they're in that building. >> So you're saying if they stay in that
location >> and that location can remain a medical marijuana facility >> that's how >> for 20 whatever they got left on their lease 20 years whatever >> that's how it works. Yes sir. >> And if they close or they burn they reopen they're fine. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. And you'd be okay with putting that in writing? >> Sure. >> Yes. Sure. >> Okay. >> As I said >> again, the Sorry, Mike. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say, you know, the typical uh nonconformity has a six-month window. And again, we recognize though that if they are working with their
their insurance companies to rebuild, I mean, that's again, that's part of what uh we would work with them on. So, >> so um the they could not expand for instance, they could not relocate to another building. it would have to the ones that are currently existing would
be allowed to remain in operation so that we don't affect um the business per the statute those are the options that we have um and I do want to recognize that it's you did um notify us of the the lease so in this
instance that would be a conflict uh for you to vote on this issue so it would just >> I'm not sure I haven't been able to determine that because I'm not getting a financial gain by this. If anything, I'm taking a financial hit from this, but I'm not getting a financial gain. I
already have this asset. I already have this property. You're try you're restricting it further than what I would have before it. So, um there's there's no financial gain, but I I don't uh >> you have a special interest um in this
particular >> um business that's located in one of your rental properties. Um, so that does make it unique. And in this instance, I would um I do believe there's a conflict.
>> I believe only if he was only if he had an interest in a property other than he already has. >> The decision that's made tonight could affect a financial interest of commissioner as body. So that is the
special benefit or endurement or a or or punitary if it if if it goes the other way for him. So now that conflict lies with uh commissioner as body and um I'm not sure if you've contacted
like you did previously uh the board but I it I can't obligate you to recuse yourself. I'm just giving you my legal opinion. and and Mike making it a conditional land use would stay infinite with the land, right?
>> A conditional use is somewhat like a variance. I mean, you know, the variance kind of runs with the land. Uh the conditional use would would run until the life of the business would would, I guess, cease. So I mean it it's it's a
specific to the business uh I guess that's in operation today. So again if they closed their doors it wouldn't apply to to a a new business there. >> So there is a change in restriction to the property
from where it is today. >> But again just by recognizing them from the getgo I think I think I made my point. I've taken enough time. I appreciate it. Okay. >> Anything further? >> Do we have any cards on this item?
>> No, we don't. >> Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this ordinance? >> All right, Mr. Deono, you know the drill. >> Yeah, Daniel Deonzo, um, local businessman. I have three questions. I did clearly understand that a a business
currently in this city would not be able to relocate in the city. Correct. >> And the second thing is you said about availability, we've shown that there is definite availability in the area. So that would not allow somebody to basically make the argument that we
needed another facility. >> Correct? >> Anyone can make the argument, but I have shown that we have two existing facilities. And then the last thing um just to clarify the nonconforming versus the conditional use conditional use if we granted a conditional use somebody
could make the case that we granted a conditional use and could petition for a conditional use. Whereas in nonconforming it basically rests with the city. Um they'd have to come before and it would have to be a decision to decide to accept that or not. Correct.
>> That is correct. and conditional. If we did a conditional use, that would have to apply toarmacies as well. We wouldn't just be able to limit it to the existing >> not if you made a specific land use. You made a new characteristic. You're removing pharmacy from this, aren't you? That's what it says in writing. Are you
not rem You were separatingarmacies to a whole another category and medical marijuana to a separate. So, the two don't touch anymore after you do this. They won't because the objective was to ban future businesses based on the stat statutory authority.
Absent that they have to be treated as pharmacies per the statute. >> Well, thank you for the clarifications and I'm I'm good to go because you know certainly have a vested interest and I believe that the one significantly large facility is enough.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> How many facilities do we have in the city? There's two, right? >> There's two. Two. >> Would anyone else in the public like to speak on this? >> Okay. I'm seeing none, I will close the public comment section of this uh
presentation. I'll give it back to you, >> Madam Chair. I move forward for forwarding ordinance 2026-20 to the city commission with recommendation of approval finding consistent with the comprehensive plan and supported by the record presented. >> Second.
>> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Hawkins, >> I. >> Mr. Holland, >> I. >> Mr. Asbat, >> I am probably not I'm not going to uh vote. I'm going to recuse myself uh on this because I'm not clear. So, in in siding with caution if I do have a
conflict and reserving my right to the land use that's existing there that might be taken away. So, with that, I would recuse myself from voting. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> I chairperson Lee. Hi. >> And that's it. We can adjourn, madam
chair. >> No. Okay. Oh, I thought you were leaving, too. Okay. So, that concludes this meeting and we'll take a fivem minute break and start our city commission meeting.