Check check check Yeah, it was out the other day, too. Check. Check. Good. I put one of these on every desk. >> What are these? These are board of examiner books. >> Yeah, those probably wrote on them.
Whoever does the um meeting needs to collect them and make have no writing. If they do, they have to make sure that I package. upside down. There's no cup here, but I need more
cards. First There's a second I don't know screen. That one got me. Jesus. Hey Josh, how are you? >> Good. How are you >> doing? Go back to the image preview. Hit window
shift left or right back. So, >> I don't know how you want to handle this, but this is the presentations. I guess they're labeled by the person's name. There's like different stuff inside each folder. So, like this one
has a PowerPoint and a picture, but some of them had like just pictures. >> Oh, there's a PowerPoint there, too. >> Should we see if >> this one has a PowerPoint and then like
a bunch of pictures in a subfolder? >> Yeah. So, I I don't know if you want to open these beforehand or just wait till they come up. >> This one has 10 PDF files. >> I may actually come out here and sit during that point. Like, if they've got,
>> you get what I'm saying? Instead of trying to communicate, >> they said that there's one guy that can run it for them, but >> let him sit here. >> He may have I don't care, but he just may have a hard time bringing the stuff up. I don't know. >> You know what I mean? >> Yeah.
Um, >> wow. It's kind of it's unusual, but there's literally >> this is the Lake County Board of County Commissioners regular meeting on April 7th, 2026 in board chambers administrative building to Florida. >> I guess those pictures look different
though. >> These pictures are a little different. So, who knows? That's These are different. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. You're right. Yeah. >> This one's got a video, >> few videos.
Are you guys do you want it to open up on the Do you want the presentation mode turned on? >> Uh you can if you want. I >> I don't care. I just up to you guys or however you want to handle it. >> Uh I like presenter but >> Okay. >> Is it not playing or am I missing it?
>> Is it playing on the other screen? >> I don't know. I can't see it. You want me to swap back? >> It's up. It's up. Yeah, I mean Okay, >> that one had one video in it.
>> So, yeah, that's going to be a fun. So, as long as there's not anything >> crazy issues, >> as long as there's not a problem with them sitting here, um, and he doesn't have a problem running, um, I have no problem
with them doing it. I also have no problem coming in here and being the guy who runs it for. >> Okay, so this is so if they're going to be running this, they're going to have to know to drag it
over and stuff. So, I don't know. I don't think that I don't think it would >> I don't think it would be great for them to do it, but if you guys are going to do that two displays, I don't want that up, right? Where's
I keep closing stuff. All right. I don't know if you want to leave it here. I'll let you do it. I was just walking in to come see if they stop me. Oh, hey.
Okay. So number Um, Good morning. They know that. Double T. Pardon? Huh? >> What?
>> Oh, yeah. I know. You don't know what I have to do. Okay. Press There she is. Happy >> rule conserv. Hey, >> rule conservation. Congratulations.
She just needs So she's concerned. She probably like Thank you. I'm the first two Yeah. Great. Thanks, Thank you. I can try it.
Huh? Four. Six. Excuse me. very long time and then after ahead I'll try to make it very instead of
one at a time. Yeah. Yeah. It's All right, everyone. our meeting this April 7th, 2026. And we will have an invitation given by Pastor Sandy Gamble from Church of Christ
Prophecy. Welcome, Sandy. And we'll remain standing for the pledge. >> Church of God of Prophecy. >> Okay. Father, as we come before you at this time, we're thankful, Lord, that you've allowed us to be here this day. Father, most of all, we're thankful for the rain
that is happening outside and taking care of the land. But Father, we ask for your blessings today, God, for this commission, Lord, as they make difficult decisions. And God, Lord, you're able to help and direct them. And I pray that your guidance would lead them in the
paths that you would have them to follow this day. We ask God that you touch and bless our country and bless our soldiers Lord God. We ask in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> Aliance 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. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, Jennifer, do we have any updates to the agenda? >> Uh, good morning, Madam Chair,
commissioners. There are no updates to the agenda this morning. All right, moving along. Um, we'll go right to our citizen question and comment period. Although, um, just to be clear,
we will be taking the zoning comments at the time that we get to the particular zoning cases. Um it looks like we have one comment um that's not related to zoning and that is Patrick
Chapen. >> Wow, I'm in the minority. Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. I'm Patrick Chapen. Just want to introduce myself. I'm the new uh president CEO of Camp Boggy Creek and I want to thank you and all of our Lake County residents, especially in the villages. We have a
great volunteer base there. Uh we're celebrating our 30th anniversary this year and uh this summer we will reach 100,000 children and families that we have served. Uh for those who don't know, we were founded in part by General Schwarzoff and Paul Newman. And we are
uh we serve uh critically ill, medically serious um children and um 15 illness groups. We raise all the money. It's all free to our families and children. This summer we'll start in June and have eight sessions. And then in the spring and fall we have family retreat
weekends. So just wanted to thank you all, introduce myself and and uh come celebrate 30 years with us. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you for being here today. A lot of people don't realize that this camp is located in Lake County um out in the sort of between Casha and Pine Lakes
and it's a phenomenal um place. The the venue is incredible. the >> it is the premier medical camp um and it's we have a full-time nurse and and doctor and uh we can serve we serve kids who literally can't go to other camps.
>> So also thank you for your public service. I have some family who have served and are serving. So keep up the good work. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do clap for Campy Creek.
Um do we have anyone online? I see them shaking their head now. Okay. All right. Um then we'll move on to our public hearings. And Mike, you're up. Um, I do need to
remind anyone um on the board um if you've had any communications with an applicant, members of the public about zoning cases on today's agenda that you would disclose them as we get to each of the the cases. Good morning, chairman, commissioners.
For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the director of the office of planning and zoning. Somewhere is a clicker that functions. >> You got it. Here we go. >> We have uh there were six items on the published agenda. Um these items were were
advertised in accordance with Florida statute. And it's important to note today that the published item tab number six, the Sarinoa PUD amendment, that was withdrawn by the applicant and will not be heard today. >> Mike, can I just ask you, do we have an
annexation report? >> Yes, ma'am. You can do that now. >> Do you all want to do that first or do you want to do that after we go through the zoning cases? >> I've I've got annexation reports coming up next. So, >> yeah, we can. I I just thought in light of all the people that we have in the
audience today that we could bump the annexation report to the bottom. >> Doesn't matter whatever you'd like. >> Actually, now that I'm looking, yeah, I'm in favor of bumping it so that we can get started with the the stuff that traffic. >> So, why don't we do that? We'll we'll do the annexation report after we've done
the public hearings. >> Okay. As stated, the items have been advertised in accordance with Florida statute. Uh, and I'll turn the meeting back over to the chairman to open the public hearing. >> Okay. So, on consent, um, we have tabs one,
two, and three. And, um, I'm going to check to see whether we have I don't see any cards on one, two, or three. I have five. Um, tab five. Crescent pines. I have tab four, Cedar Creek.
Um, and I'm correct. >> Six was wrong on correct. >> Okay. All right. So, one, two, and three look like we don't have comments. Anybody hears for one, two, and three, and you intended to put a card in, please do so now or raise your hand so we know you're going to.
>> All right. With that, we'll bring it back to the board. Do we have a motion to approve consent? >> I would like to pull tab three, please. All right. So on tabs one and two, do we have a motion to approve consent? >> Move to approve one and two.
>> Second. >> All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? That passes 5. And then back to three. Do you want to have a full presentation? >> No. I just have some questions and and maybe um my fellow commissioners here
can help me out here. As far as I understand, Mike, um this is from the HOA. The HOA is asking us, the county to do, um
some code violations for parking on the streets within their HOA. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. What the what the homeowners association is asking for is to incorporate section 3.06.00
uh of our land development regulations regarding the enforcement of parking, storing or keeping of vehicles, vessels, buses, trailers, trucks, and commercial vehicles. They would like that language incorporated into their putt ordinance. >> Okay. They they do already have in their
homeowners association declarations a statement that says cars or other authorized vehicles here shall be parked in the garage or driveway and in any event may not be parked in any easement areas or the street area in front of the lot. So that is an HOA rule. The HOA is
asking that we incorporate our existing parking rules under 30600 into their putt ordinance. I'm a little confused. If it's part of the HOA and the and the and the citizens pay HOA dues, how come the HOA just
can't take care of this? They want the government to come in and do their job. >> I cannot speak for the HOA president. >> All right. Well, I see a problem with this is I don't think because it's going to take staff and time on something that
the HOA is already supposed to be responsible for. >> Is that right? >> I want to take a different there's a different angle here. >> It's a public safety issue. I think it it can be >> Yeah. I see the HOA is like the floor, not the ceiling. like HOA, you buy in
the HOA, HOA is going to maintain a certain level of quality. But if the problems are bigger than the the threshold of quality control that the HOA is doing or capable of, the county still has plays a role in in enforcing making sure that this is a safe and and good and high quality life area. I see
no issue with having a parking regulation that benefits the majority of the constituents in that area. >> Yeah, I'm on the same position. Go ahead. So, so how how many people are actually arguing against how many people want this because because Commissioner
Sabatini made a good point. If a majority of the people want the county to do it, then okay, but how many people are actually arguing about this? Is it and how many people are in the HOA and how many people are in the subdivision? >> The subdivision I can answer is approved
for 483 single family residential units. Okay. >> As far as the number of people who were for or against this in an HOA meeting, that would be an excellent question for the HOA president if he's if he is present today. >> Okay. >> We got somebody here so we could ask
them. >> Sure. >> And can I also give some a little bit of perspective too th this area has been a concern um being familiar with people and their concerns in four corners for years about vehicles that are dumped
there. Um just a lot of issues of public safety and people maybe uh doing criminal activity sometimes in those vehicles and it's beyond the HOA as Commissioner Sabatini had alluded to.
It's beyond it's beyond the HOA and and it's not just for the people that are in that subdivision which was built out basically that was years ago. It's it's more for the whole part of four corners >> and I get that. I just need to have more information. The HOA president, I have
not had any conversations with the HOA. So, this is the only time that I can talk about it. So, that's the reason why I'm bringing it up because it just didn't make sense to me. So, the HOA president's here and madam chair, while he's coming up, um I did receive an email from the
attorney for the HOA. Um so, what the attorney has told me is that the Greater Groves HOA is mandatory. It is not voluntary. There are approximately 483 homes in the community. However, only 55 have paid their annual dues. The HOA
suspended the voting rights of the 428 owners who did not pay their annual assessments. So, what they um because I had asked them to provide >> another HOA, >> I had asked them to provide um you know, a resolution or something from the HOA
to support the petition. So, it sounds like the the resolution would have only been provided by the 55 owners or whatever portion of them um approved moving forward with this. And just one other comment too, Commissioner Smith, what we've had some issues in um various
subdivisions where you have parking on the streets and then you have difficulty getting a fire truck. Um >> I've got one in my neighborhood so I know. Yeah. So, there's a >> issue is I just want to make sure. Um, so we have 55 people in the HOA out
of 480ome people who you can't make them pay the HOA dues. I thought that's what HOAs were for. >> I'm Jeffrey Dubbie. I'm the president of the Greater Grow HOA and basically
the bylaws of the HOA with the the 55 that pay the fee, the $10 fee. State law says that 60% of our people have to approve any change to our uh covenant agreement
which includes parking. Well, getting 60% of anybody to approve anything is almost impossible. So, back when the subdivision was started, they wrote a set of bylaws that for another $10 to get people that were actually
interested, they sign up. they get to vote if you got less and you can you can pay on the day that you vote. You can pay basically for for electing officers. Uh so that there's no real time limit on it
by law. We have to drop you March 31st though if you haven't paid. That's once again state law. So, we're in a fix with big vehicles like 40 or 28 foot food trucks that try to park in the driveway that's 20 ft
long or bringing your semi home. Same deal. Uh, all we're really trying to get is back to where when the sub was built, you couldn't park on a county street in Lake County between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00
a.m. Over time, that law changed to where you can park almost anywhere. And between the oversized vehicles, uh, public vehicles, we have several really narrow streets. If you park on
both sides of our road, uh a firet truck could not go through there. Or he could cuz he has a right away, but nobody will like the results. Uh that's why we've asked county took care of it until two years ago, the parking
situation. Then two years ago, they decided that they wouldn't do it anymore. And that's why we asked to have the PUD changed because our PUD is very basic. It's like we've got 483 lots, got to have a street, got to have a sidewalk, got to have like posts, and
that's pretty much it. >> Thank you very much. >> Newer the newer ones have more information. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And with that information, like a motion to approve tab three. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Thank you. And
appreciate you all bringing that forward and making this happen. All right. Now moving then to tab four. >> Thank you chairman. Uh tab four is a project called Cedar Creek Rural Conservation Subdivision. The requested
action is consideration of approval of a rural conservation subdivision optional density bonus pursuant to the land development regulations. Property is 119.4 acres in size. It's located north of number two road and west of Mission Resort. The existing
zoning is agriculture and the future land use is rural transition. The request is consistent with rural conservation subdivision design standards. The applicant is requesting consideration of an optional density
bonus. Uh the the proposal is for a subdivision that consists of 97 lots for single family residential homes. They are providing uh 40.93 acres of primary conservation area and 49.26 26 acres of secondary conservation area. So that
will total a 63% open space allowance where the minimum required is 50%. The applicant is proposing 10 additional acres of of open space and the density bonus that is allowed is 20 units that that may be considered. However, the
applicant is only requesting 11 units above the base density. The proposal was forwarded to Howie in the hills. Howie and the hills did not provide any objections. The applicant has provided uh an executed developers agreement between Howy and the owner
regarding providing potable water service and contingent wastewater service and voluntary annexation. The applicant has submitted their management plan. It contains practices for minimal disturbance methods, maintain ve vegetative bud uh buffers,
ongoing annual assessments, tree preservation, and the homeowners associate homeowners association will be responsible for the common areas. It also the management plan also includes a provision for the county to conduct uh inspections of the property.
There was an on-site visit conducted with planning and public works and a public information was held by the applicant and they have provided proof of that meeting to to staff. This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan rural transition
future land use. It's uh consistent with comprehensive plan density bonus for rural conservation subdivisions which would allow two additional building units. The the concept plan shows 91 units that will be 65 ft by 140 ft and
approximately six lots that will be 75 ft by 140 ft. Minimum lot size will be 9100 square ft. As stated, Howie in the hills will be providing water and potentially sewer. Lake County Fire Rescue Station number
76 is 1.47 miles from the subject property. The school board has reviewed this prop this project and it is subject to uh school concurrency but adequate public facilities determination was provided by the growth management office
of uh Lake County transportation concurrency. A traffic study was submitted to staff. The traffic study conclusions were based on the overall growth, potential growth that is to take place in Howie in the
hills. So right now the uh the roads operate at an acceptable level of service. This study projects the buildout of everything that is planned in Howie in the hills. And with that said, it is
stating that they uh would there will be a potential failure at State Road 19 from County Road 48 to Central Avenue and the intersection of Palm Avenue and Central Avenue. It's to be decided uh how DOT will
handle the State Road 19 expansion and then the intersection of Palm and Central will be potentially be a um traffic signal that is being studied and will be installed once it's warranted. The entrance to the project is at number
two Road and the applicant is proposing that there will be a three-way stop at that at that intersection entrance. With that, I believe we have the applicant here. Uh or I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Questions?
>> Um qu question about process Mike. So, um today, this is uh for the density bonus. Two things I this today is a density bonus request the site plan. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we we can do exparte. You want me to exparte and then ask my questions?
>> Um yes. >> Okay. So, exparte for this application. I've uh spoken with the applicant probably three or four or five months ago. That's my only exparte on this case. >> Anybody else? >> No, they don't talk to me anymore.
>> Um the for me the applicant came in um and their representative. Um that was a couple months ago. Um, I also had uh spoken with uh Tara Tedro about the road
connection and concerns I had about the three-way stop versus the possibility of a roundabout. Some discussions that have been going on about number two road and trying to look for a solution there. Um, so that was the nature of my discussion.
I've had conversations with the um the owner, the rep representative of the of the property as well as some of the citizens around the property. >> Commissioner Morris, >> I'm in Commissioner Sabatini's boat.
They don't want to talk to me either. >> Um Okay. All right. So, Commissioner uh >> Yeah, >> I won't say anything about that. Um it so the um the question is uh this about process um and then I want to confirm
something. So this is the density bonus request today. There's a site plan that comes forward after this for approval. If the density bonus is granted or not, doesn't matter. I mean whether it's not granted or not, it's still a site plan because that's sort of my process
question is also what are they allowed? What are they what would they be sort of use the word entitlement? What are they entitled to right now in terms of density? Because everybody always focuses on density. So >> yes sir. Um to answer the first question
before the board today is a request for approval of the density bonus. The conceptual sketch plan is one property and it's less than 199 units. So per our regulations that can be approved at a staff level. So it's not the conceptual
sketch plan that's before the board for approval. It's merely the request for the density bonus of the additional 11 units. what they have rights to today based on their acreage it is 86 units. They're asking for an additional 11
units. They were entitled to ask for 20 additional units. >> So 86 is under the would be if they were to come in at staff level through current codes then >> without an optional density bonus. Correct. 86 units.
>> Okay. And then asking for another 11. >> Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that I I >> and then to to answer your other question procedurally, if this were if the density bonus were approved and staff moves forward with an approval letter for this conceptual sketch plan,
the next step for them would be submitting a preliminary plat. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mike. I know they provided the uh traffic study. Um, are they going to do anything to number two road other than what's in front of them or are they
going to have a help with additional >> They are uh proposing a three-way stop. Um, I can have public works speak to number two road if you'd like. >> Um, I'd like to know how bad it is.
Well, I know how bad it is, but this is going to increase it by 200 trips a day probably. Yeah. So you have the issue of it's only before us because of the density bonus, right? So you wouldn't even be able to really ask that question other than from
a staff level. But it's a good question to be asking because that was one of the things I brought up was is there a way to in our discussion of whether to go down this road or not? um would we be able to get a better um intersection
improvement that would go towards the overall um you know concerns that people have? I mean, from my perspective, my my goal when I've looked at some of the presentations that have been put forth,
um, was from my perspective, I I prefer number two road not to be a collector, not to function as a collector, but if you live on the side that's closest to 19, you have an opportunity to go to 19. If you live on the side that's closest to 48, you go to 48. And the folks that
live there already provide as much protection as we can for the character of the area. So I was interested in anything that might um help with that. And so Mr. Blahett is one of the speakers. So that would give us an opportunity to talk to him. And I
wanted to at least find out from his perspective if this was if there was a roundabout there. Um could that go towards his overall concept plan that he has for number two road? >> Good idea. Chairman, my understanding is that there was some discussion about a
roundabout, but there are rightaway challenges and uh the applicant can expand on that. >> Okay. >> And the applicant is here. >> Good morning, commissioners. Uh, thank you for the time this morning. Alex Stringfellow Fellow 500 Winterly Place,
Mland, Florida. Um, just to respond, I'd be happy to talk to any commissioner, so feel free to call me anytime. So, I have no issue with that. I just want to give a little more information on Are you going to open up my slides, sir?
On the uh on Cedar Creek, some of the history, and give a little bit more information. Um, I think staff did a good job presenting a lot, so I'll go over that. Maine, please. I will comment while we're waiting. The
timeline from FDOT's perspective on Palm Avenue, which is 19 as it runs through Howie and the Hills. 2027 is the resurfacing, which runs roughly a mile and a half south of Howy up through uh the downtown. That resurfacing starts in 2027. And there's
a website to to look at the details of that. They did have a community meeting in March, I believe March 24th. I did not attend, but the light and the signal at the uh intersection of Palm and number two road or 19 and number two is slated for 2028. My understanding is
funding is in place. Of course, I'm not a representative of FOT, so of course they would have more information and I could provide that information to anybody that's interested there as a point of contact. Um I'll go through my presentation. This is a photo of the site. This is Cedar Creek. Again, as mentioned, we're in the
rural transition area, which looks to transition from your urban low densities, which are shown in the orange, directly abuing our easterly property line, and the rural future land use, which is when you head further west down number two road. So, we're kind of the last piece of property as you move
further west that would be eligible for something like this. So, this is intended to create that kind of transition. We're about two miles down number two road to the west. Um some of the other developments going on in the area that are contributing to some of the traffic
issu issues that were mentioned include Lakeside or Lake Hills, PUD, Hillside Groves, etc. And there's an additional development on the south side of number two road. My understanding is there's discussions of expansion of number two road due to those um
uh incoming developments. Uh but I don't have to have details of that today. Again, we're talking about the conceptual sketch plan and the optional density bonus. So there's really three ways that we can request an optional density bonus and we elected for the simplest one, option A, which is for
each additional acre. It's straight math, we get two additional or can request two additional units. So again, the baseline required open space would be 39.24 acres. How open space is calculated that's credited is
outside of your wetlands. So your wetlands don't get you any credit towards your density bonus. Those wetlands are protected and what the code calls primary conservation. So those are also being protected but they don't give us any density bonus credit. The remaining is calculated based on the
upland open space. There's also additional criteria for how storm water ponds can be built. They have to be shallower, smaller, distributed throughout the site. Um and we've done so through our design here. Uh we also provided 100 foot perimeter buffer
around the entire property and in some instances we're almost 900 feet from the property's edge or in the case of looking at number two road we're around 300 to 350 ft from the edge of of pavement there. So again a 10 additional
acres of open space the straight math 10* 2 is 20. That's the type of math that I'm capable of doing. Um but our request is 11 units total. There's some reasons for that. Um, really I kind of want to flip a little bit ahead. We
designed this site to avoid two major areas that have value in terms of preserving. So to the east of the property, you'll see between two of the wetlands, there's a heavily treated area. We wanted to avoid developing that. So our developmental envelope
stays to the west of the property where it's been grazed and operating as agriculture. And again, that node to the south in the center of it, we're trying to protect those areas that have specimen trees that are oak trees and not planted pine. So to the south along
our entry road, a lot of that is planted, our old oracoululture that was planted at some time. So not saying it doesn't have ecosystem benefits, but we really tried to shrink the envelope to where it made sense. The intent of the rural conservation subdivision is to cluster development in the areas that
have the least amount of impact. So, that was the outcome of there of of our design process. Um, really high level, we meet the conservation subdivision requirements. They're pretty thorough. We have to have a management plan. We walked site with staff, took photos.
We've had previous community meetings, but we also had a community information meeting that was a requirement of the rural conservation subdivision. When this property was considering annexation opportunities, there was a concept plan of over 200 units. I'm not saying that that's possible today, but we've come a
long way in terms of whittling that down to 97 units from our original intent. Again, 100 foot 100 foot buffer. And when you look at conservation land on a whole, including wetlands and uplands, it's 90 acres of conservation land. So,
it's a significant chunk there. So the value that I see from a planning perspective is this type of approach as you look at rural transition land uses around the county uh could have a massive impact on the ability of the county to get more conservation land
hold it by legal instrument and protect it in perpetuity. Um so 10 acres here I imagine the cost of of buying managing and so forth to the county of getting that same amount of 10 acres would be uh would be difficult to find and fund. So
I think that's the intent behind it. Um and I want to give a little bit of background of why I believe the clustering makes sense. So if you were to say, "Oh, we want these to all be 1acre, 2 acre or 5 acre parcels." The risk that you run in a conservation
approach is that property owners within a single family lot have some of the strongest property rights of any group of any property owner in Florida. One example I can give you is when the hurricanes came through, there was a state preeemption on requiring permits
from tree removals. So this became a big issue where you were able to remove trees on your single family properties without a permit without any arburous review. So you afford some rights uh within those single family those larger
lots to operate your property as you see fit. The benefit of putting it into a tract a legal instrument is you can inspect it. you can ensure that trees are kept, you can ensure that it's managed, and that that's really the broad intent of this kind of plan. So, I won't go too far into it. Again, we're
focused on on the density bonus. We understand there'll be other questions. This is early in in the process. We are working with public works to come up with some creative solutions and our engineer can speak a little bit to that. It's going to have to be a more compact than a full roundabout due to the
rideway. We will need to be creative on what types of intersections are feasible given what's the history is with number two road and the limited amount of land that we have. I'm not saying there's not options. I think we just would need to move forward
from this stage um in order to develop our engineering plans preliminary plat and get uh a little more information, a little more comfort uh to figure out those kind of details. So, we're available to answer questions. Um, and
again, appreciate your time. So, I'll stay up here if there's any direct questions. >> Anybody have questions right now? >> Um, so you're going to have Howie water and sewer. >> That is that is an opportunity. The other option would be a
sitewide portable water system and individual uh septic tanks on each lot. So, that is an option. Okay. So, if you if you get Howie water and sewer, they're going to require you to annex in >> that would be and I believe that's in
line with the interlocal agreement. That would be a requirement. It's my understanding. >> So, have you talked with Howy about this project? >> We have uh we have been discussing a a much more dense project with Howie um in the past. Um, but right now we feel that
going forward with the conservation subdivision is is proper and it's in line with the code and comp plan. So that's our plan for now. >> Commissioner Parks. >> Yes, sir. Yeah. Thank you, Alex. Um the um open space. So I know you're you're
getting 63% open space. Um and you sort of touched on this, but I just want to make sure I understand it. Um providing open space is great. You know, 50% if we'd started doing that 20 years ago, that would have been that would have been awesome. Um but is it is
it um how usable is it? Uh and and you I I heard you mention ecological services or systems. So, it's one thing to dedicate open space, but maybe a lot of it was protected anyway, like the wetlands. >> Are there other specimen trees, too? bit. I mean, where
can you show on the map where these open spaces are again? Just so I'm Yeah. So, um 63% of it is upland open space. So, that that 63% number is upland usable. Um and this is actually a photo in the
upland area looking to the wetlands here. So that photo was taken on the I'm not sure I can I can point specifically but there's kind of cypress stone wetlands that are shown in a light black line on this image and I'll actually go to the colored image for you make it a
little bit easier. The dark green is wetlands the darkest green there and the light green is usable open space upland open space. So the intent is to do you know you're allowed to do things like passive trails. You cannot restrict public access to these areas per the
code. So that would be in the legal instrument. Uh however, you are required to do a four rail fence along the back of the lot. So we properly delineate private property versus the conservation land. So usable, we intend to do some
trails. Um but it's mostly going to be p passive recreation. It's going to be maintained there. The the oak hammock is primarily on the upper east side. If you look kind of as you're moving your way towards Mission Inn, that's the kind of mature oak
hammock. And again, there's a cluster of the mature oaks too again to the south. And we actually skipped a lot on the entry road. You'll notice on the lefthand side there's a gap in between the lots. There's a specimen tree there. So, we moved deleted a lot, shifted that
up in order to save the specimen tree there. And on the west is the emergency access road which will be maintained. It's like a 100 foot of some old planted pine that are probably about 20 or 30 feet. So there's there's representation of an oak hammock. There's a little bit
of pl pine flatwoods. There's prairie uh type areas that you can see right now are kind of agricultural and then there's wetland as well. So that 63% again does not include the wetlands. It's all upland. You could access it. It's not going to allow recreation,
those types of things. It's really intended to be passive in nature. Um, did that get to the >> You did, uh, the management issue, which is a real big thing for me. Again, yeah, >> I've said this at many of these hearings in the past, but
>> how it's going to be managed. HOA cons I'm concerned about that because they could somebody could hire somebody that knows nothing about they may be great at mowing lawns, but managing beautiful areas is a different story. Um, so I'm, you know, I'm concerned. I
don't see any of the HOA documents in here uh as to how that's going to be enforced, but >> we don't have the HOA docs in here. Um it is within the code that there are qualification requirements for the company that manages the site and they would have to refer to our management
plan which has specifics on each type of uh ecosystem that's out there, what's required. So there's, you know, invasive species removal, occasional plantings, tree prunings. Um, so all that stuff would be a requirement of the HOA. We
don't have, you know, full HOA documents because that would happen later in the in the process, but that would be required for us to provide that to staff prior to any type of permit issuances. We'd have to show that there was uh dedication or financing and ways to hire
a qualified land management company that has experience in these. It's it's similar to I think some of the PUDs have had those conditions as well that they're required to have a management company with experience in um you know biologists really as opposed to landscape management companies. So that would that same process would apply
here. >> Thank you. >> Um could you tell me where the um city limits are in relation to this property? I'll have to go back to the future land use
map here. So, city limits would be to the east at the end of the urban low area. So, that's probably the closest. There is some tracks of land that kind of look like an old access road back there that had possibly been an avenue
for annexation for us, but again, we're not looking to go that that route. But it's, you know, two it's I think it's only one property owner over if that helps answer your question. >> And how large is that property about?
>> I think it's I think it's 300 acres between us and the outer limits of of Howie. I haven't looked at it in a while, but that that'd be my guess right around there. I >> was just trying to get a handle on the practical side of this. If
um if you did become contiguous and then you did get water and sewer from Howy, our agreement, ISBA agreement with Howie wouldn't prevent the annexation of the property. Um then it brings me to the
question then of you know is is it possible to have an agreement for example if we go down this road at the density bonus that there wouldn't be an annexation that would occur. >> I think those types of things are on the on the table. I think we would be
willing to to consider that as some sort of agreement if we were able to move forward really a predictable path forward. We'd be willing to restrict annexation or any kind of zoning or land use with Howy for the for the future. We'd be willing to take that off the
table. >> All right. I'm glad I asked the question just because I mean we're kind of at a crossroads here where this could go one way or another. And while it's people that live there would prefer no development, something's going to
happen. Now the question is what we're having to decide today whether we go down the road of the the density bonus and then we get a rural conservation subdivision design as opposed to a highdensity urban design. Um
okay, any other questions before we hear from the um >> Thank you for the >> residents. >> Yeah, I'll be available if you need anything more from me. >> All right. Um I've got two cards, Britney and and John. Um, so let's see.
John >> Quadget >> some of the other stuff or >> Well, all right. You've got a presentation. Um, do you already have it loaded? >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. Let's do that and then that way if we have additional
questions, then we can talk about the the questions. Okay. >> Rule conservation design standards. The purpose of these regulations is to provide housing in a manner that also preserves agricultural and forest lands.
natural and cultural features, scenic viewsheds, and rural community character that would be a risk of becoming lost through conventional development approaches such as rule transition, which only allows one unit per one net buildable acre.
These standards were extensively thought out and is the reason why Lake County sent three letters last month to the city of Leburg specifically stating Lake County is opposed to the annexation of these properties into municipal limits
for the purpose of increasing residential density in the area. So does this now become hypocritical with unincorporated properties? Does it mean the county can increase density but the cities cannot? Is it to do as we say and not as we do? What happens when you
speed? It's only 11 over the limit, right? You should let them go. When you make an exception in land development, it never stays just one exception. It becomes the first domino. The moment one developer is granted special treatment outside the established rules, it
creates a precedent. The next developer comes in and says, "You allowed it before, so you have to allow it for me." At that point, it's no longer a unique case and it it's an expectation. Those expectations quickly turn into entitlements. Projects are designed and
priced assuming those same concessions will be approved. And now your staff and decision makers are put in a difficult position. Approve it and weaken the code or deny it and risk being seen as inconsistent or unfair. And this dumps everything into the weeds where the regulations lose clarity, the code stops
being the standard, and the decisions become case-byase negotiations instead of consistent policy. The result is real. Strain infrastructure, unbalanced growth, and a public that starts to lose trust in the process. So, the question isn't just about one project. It's about
whether we're upholding a system of rules or slowly replacing it with a system of exceptions. As you can see, in a short compact area, the densities can triple quickly and get out of control because of a singular derogatory approval.
Every decision we make shapes our community and our ecosystem. What may seem like small in incremental changes today ultimately define the character of this place tomorrow. If we do not take a stand now, we risk slowly giving away the very qualities that make this area unique. And once they're gone, it
becomes far harder to preserve. Rural landscapes are not just undeveloped land. They are identity. They are what people come here to experience and escape to from urban areas. So the question is simple. Are we protecting a uniquely Florida landscape or allowing it to become just another stretch of
asphalt? >> All right. Do you want to make a couple comments and because I'm just trying to understand I mean we've had a lot of conversations about number two road. We've seen your presentation on number two road trying to come up with something that actually protects the
area. We've got a developer that says that they might be willing to actually sign an agreement that they wouldn't annex and go for a higher density in return for having their rural conservation design. >> I guess the the question becomes is what you do in that area. The the problem is
is they've got a 300 foot at the most easement where their their location is. Everything outside of that is a 15 foot road on one side, a 17 foot road on the other side. A circle at that one little area will take care of that one little
area, but once you leave that area, the road is still substandard. So there's no improvements there. And then the other question becomes is they have a section that is in the rural protection area that they're I don't know if it's 40 50
or 80 acres what it is but they have no plans for that. So does that is that part of the the agreement? Is that part of the deal or does that part when the annexation comes in that that gets developed or are they going to give that over too? I mean there's a lot of
variables that come into play as a whole in the whole if they were developing the whole area or the whole parcel that they own. It may be one question to say yeah that's in our agreement that would be great. We can keep it all rural transition. Our thought process is
that's fine. You want to develop but let's stay within the rules of the rural transition. let's stay within the amount of houses or the amount of development that the flume covers or that that the flume talks about. If we keep adding everywhere, if we keep adding densities
everywhere, then it just it becomes more work on to number two road that can't handle that traffic. Anyways, >> so and the reason I'm doing a little back and forth here is just because there's a history, there's a lot of context here. And you know, from from my
standpoint, you know, my my goal would be to preserve the area and to protect the concerns of the residents on number two road. On the other hand, you're telling us don't make a deal that could actually do exactly what I said. So, it's like you're you guys are putting us in a position of all right, well, don't
add 11 more lots here, you know, um because they're asking for it. we don't want you to deviate at all from um the rural conservation design and the flume. On the other hand, if we don't make a deal, then there's a really good chance that this property gets
annexed into the city limits of Howie. So, it's it's like, you know, it these are tough decisions to make because one hand, we're trying to be the protector of the area, but you're telling us not to make that deal. >> No. Well, I'm not saying not to make the
deal. What I'm saying is is that why why are we stepping outside of the rural transition? Why are we why are we engrossing into more than we need to? For one, visually it's the whole idea of rural conservation subdivision is visually it's supposed to be mesh within
the rural standards or the rural area. When they start stacking houses along the front, it takes away from what is actually the purpose of it. those 11 houses that are on the front, that's that's going to take away from when you drive down number two, that's what you're going to see a roof rooftops, a
bunch of stacked up rooftops. >> But if it goes into Howy and it's double the density, you're going to see rooftops everywhere on the property. So that's, you know, it's there there are tradeoffs and trade-offs in life and trade-offs in situations like this. And
it's like you guys will be mad at us if we make a deal, but the deal is the deal that could actually save you all from having a urbanized project on this property. >> And if and I I mean, so John, I mean, I I still have questions. I understand. I mean, one of which I just asked about
the whole process here, but I think to what the chair is also saying, the conservation subdivision criteria was put in place. We were we were pretty emphatic about it um four or five years ago um about having this process. It is within the system to be able to do this.
There is an exception process for a subdivision conservation subdivision because like in this case you're getting 63% open space. Kind of like my comment earlier was imagine if we had had that 25 years ago in Lake County what how dramatically different Lake County would
look. And the cities did it by the way. The cities don't do that. they don't often annex in at 50% open space. Um, so there is a valid concern about that as well. Um, you do get a you will get a better scenario now. It's it's it's
still yeah, it's houses. I mean, I don't I it's we're in a tough spot on that, but the scenario is set up through this process to be to be better uh a better outcome. Um, so I, you know, if you went the normal route through this that this,
you've heard me say this, I think our code is terrible. If somebody's going through a a normal way to do this, they're going to get the 87 lots that's on this already and it's going to be all over those that whole all the uplands. They'll be platted out and you know,
you'd have those specimen trees that were mentioned. I'm not I'm sure that I hope they would keep them, but there's no certainty. So, I understand what you're saying. It's very tough. There's some questions I still have, but just explanation of the conservation subdivision criteria. That's kind of how it works.
>> Well, and this may be a dumb question, but let's say that's great. I own the property right below it, right south of it. So, you give this to them now. It makes me feel entitled now that guess what? Are you going to give me more lots? Is it now can I should I now
figure out that, hey, I do rule conservation. I I probably can get this is more lots on this, too. and then it just tumbles down the road and we start getting into an area that we're trying to save but now we're dominoing it into
something else. So I I completely understand I understand the the back and forth and but the other question is too is that lot has been there for 20 30 years. It's owned by Bud Buer. He has never developed any of that property. He
has no plans to develop that property. So will that ever get annexed in? That's that's just kind of one of those things that you never know if that's ever going to happen. Not only that, but will he annex in mission in is an annex into Howie. They don't want to. So, will
they ever annex in that parcel because that's also future. So, >> how do you feel about roundabout versus the three-way stop? >> I think unless you improve that road more in that area, it's not going to it's it'll matter a slight bit. It'll reduce the truck traffic because the
trucks won't go down there. But as far as the rest of the traffic, it's it's not going to reduce the qual the quantity of traffic at all. It will slow it at that one spot, but then you go back to 15. You if you look at Eagle Tale on the top at the beginning at Leburg, it's the same scenario. You got
25 foot wide lanes and stuff, but then it narrows all the way back down to 17. So, it's it's potential. It would be better than a four-way stop for sure or a three-way stop. Definitely.
>> Yeah. I mean, I just seem like it would help in in some ways. Um, okay. All right. But Britney Um, well, I had remarks created, but then this conversation took a different
turn. So, I guess one of my questions is um if they want the 11 units, why don't they just include the 40 acre parcel that's attached to it that they're marketing along with this
property for sale? Um it seems like that would get them closer to that goal. And that's where, you know, I didn't want to accuse them of their goal being just entitlements with this project and annex annexing into Howie, but it kind of
seems like that's the conclusion we've come to is like this is really just entitlement driven, which is really concerning because we've had several meetings with the applicant. We've gone over and over and over about the dangers
of the road and it seems like it's just fallen on deaf years and that's just more telling us you don't really care about our community, you know, the safety of even the people that are going to live on your property in the future.
You just want those entitlements. Um just from a pure with the density bonus obviously no surprise they don't agree that they should get it. Um a big reason for that is that you have to have a 20 foot wide road for emergency vehicle
access. Well maybe they'll build that into their plan but you've got 0.9 miles to Howie and then two plus miles the other direction that are 15 to 16 feet wide. That's a big difference. And so if you're putting all those houses in
clusters and then also limiting and impairing the opport the ability for emergency response to get there, it just seems like it's a recipe for disaster. Um I mean, and that's another point where if
you added that 40acre parcel, couldn't you space them out a little bit more to make that even just a little bit safer of a scenario? Um, and then also just you guys have heard me talk about the road over and over and over again, but um, the average SUV is
six to seven feet wide. This is 7 to 8 feet wide. Um, there's no margin for error. I don't know if this is even working, but those patches that were put in less than six months ago are already crumbling. So, the traffic on the road
is already too much for that road to handle. and then you're going to add more with this development that already has, you know, a certain amount of attainments they're allowed to have and then you're going to add a bonus on top of that. I just don't see how that could be justified. But, um, thank you for
your time. Thank you for thoughtfully considering this request. >> All right, applicant Thank you, commissioners. Um, so I'll try and go down the list of of comments and again we appreciate that the community is very passionate out there. Um, we have had multiple community
meetings. Attendance was 20 or more people at some of these meetings. uh and we have made changes that we are capable of making that that make sense and I think that's why there's um only two opposing um members of of the community that are here today because we did put
in that time. The western 40 acres is a rural future land use with agricultural zoning. We are not eligible for a density bonus. We are not eligible for a rural conservation subdivision. We are not eligible for any of those types of requests. So we have to remove that from
the application. There's no plan to develop it. If we tried to do anything above the 1 to 10 that's out there, it would be a land use change, a reasonzoning, and we'd be coming before this board uh to make that request. Uh we would be willing to agree because of the provisions of utilities being on the
table. We would like to ask a question of of just saying we will not increase density or reduce open space as part of any annexation. Would that be acceptable to this board if we were required to annex because of utility provisions? Can we make the agreement specific to
density and open space and anything else that the board sees fit? That way if we were by some interlocal agreement required to annex for the portable water um or is it just an annexation or or not agreement? So I that's one question we had from from our legal team.
>> Yeah, from my standpoint it would have to be no annexation because otherwise you create a domino effect. So >> Okay. >> I was just >> we're trying to protect the area. Understood. >> Yeah. And I I don't know, this may be a tangential question, but can they even
legally require the annexation? I know that they they make an applicant typically sign saying if you we'll annex you, but you're going to have to be in utilities, but >> so they already signed an agreement for voluntary annexation to get portable water service and contingent wastewater
service. So they've already signed that um and that's already been approved by Howie. So, >> um I I guess their option would be, and I haven't read their agreement in its entirety, I mean, it's multiple pages long, but I guess their option would be they do not do central water and sewer, and they would have to do, I guess,
either well or their own water system or DWTS or some other option to not be subject to the what they've already agreed to, which is >> Okay. So, question about that and that's a big that's a big critical point. It seems like um would they um need to
resend that first? get that rescended if we if we if we move forward with this. >> Yeah, I again I haven't read it in its entirety. I know Jonathan I believe is here. Maybe Jonathan Hules here. >> Be Logan Opsaw that would review it from
our legal team and I what I can say is we'd be willing to include the condition possibly. I'll need to talk with him that we we have to we'll we'll include the annexation agreement. We'll agree not to annex. Um, and we I think we should be able to rescend that agreement
or we're we can plan to provide a central well and on-site individual hydro that the required state septic which would preclude us from needing to to do that. So it would void us from that annexation agreement. So, we could
do the on-site well system, which we probably would have to do anyways based on number two road, and then the individual uh lot septic system. >> The DWTS though. I mean, that would be our preference. >> Yes. Correct. >> That would be the highest the highest level of treatment. >> That is the highest level of treatment.
Yeah. Outside of a sewer plant. Yeah. Yeah. That that's correct. And and that would be the requirement for us to provide. >> So, just looking at the termination provisions of that voluntary agreement, um there are options for the town to terminate. I do not see an option for the developer to terminate, but again,
it doesn't mean the town wouldn't let them terminate it. There just doesn't appear to be any language in here that allows them to do so. Do we need to wait 30 days? I I think that I mean I my concern is that
this is whole issue is so important that because of the condition of the rideway because of the rightway maps there's no way right now that we could make that waterline extension physically. So the annexation is is kind of a moot that annexation requirement of providing
utilities right now is a moot point. So I didn't mean to interrupt you my apologies. So we feel confident we can agree to not annex and provide services in that manner um in line with the board's request. >> So that brings us back to this whole
issue of on one hand we've got residents that are saying don't grant the density bonuses. On the other hand, we got a developer that says we'll agree to not annex, not let the dominoes fall and potentially work out an agreement to have a roundabout there that would
actually cut down on truck traffic because they wouldn't want to go through there. So, it could be a huge deterrent for truck traffic on number two road. So, I mean, part of me wants to say, can can we can we wait 30 days so that we could get everybody together and make
sure we can get the ideally get that agreement with Howie rescended. If we can't get it rescended, at the very least, we have it in the PUD that you can't um you know, the the service would be the DWTS and and a well, >> we're fine with a continuence to work
out those details with our legal team and yours and come back with those items addressed. Uh thank you. Um and I I'll also uh reach out because I just want to secure one of my big questions or the answer at least. Um and that is the management. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So >> absolutely. We'd be happy to to come back with answers to that. >> Management of the open space for the to be clear. Yeah. >> Absolutely. >> Well, I I can tell you that I don't like this at all. >> Yeah, I'm I'm there too before we get into work mode. >> Hold on a second please. So this is a
rule transition. Yes. It's a one to one. It's been rule transition since the '9s. Um whether you bought the property or you haven't bought the property yet, doesn't matter. The transition zone's been there. Sure, you're only asking for
11 more homes, right? But you're only going to give us 13 more% of conservation land. So, I I don't see 11 homes being worth the 13 acres of conservation land
personally. and two, Dad Comet, we need to stick to our We need to stick to our rules. If it's rural transition, stick to rule transition. It's a one to one 50% open space. Let's build to that and be done with it. That's all I got. >> You don't like the idea of having a
roundabout that would help with the issues that we've been dealing with. >> Going over to rural transition criteria and I don't like it. >> I didn't like it anywhere else. >> I understand all the concerns, but to be clear, they if they were going to go straight zoning, they don't have a fit. Well, then let them go straight zoning
and it' be it'd be for the record >> one to one and they'd have to set up a sub they'd have to set up a subdivision. They'd have to have 50% open space. They'd have to have infrastructure. I know >> they'd have to do all the things that they're doing here. >> I don't like it. They're going over the
one ratio. Keep it one, plain and simple. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Morris. 30-day extension is good with me. >> Okay. Well, I was going to move I moved to deny the project. Um I don't believe
that I I understand we came up with this tool set, but I don't believe in density bonuses as an incentive to do anything. I don't think we should have density bonuses at all. So, I'm principally against all density bonuses. I'm moving to deny. >> I'll second.
>> All right. All in favor of the denial say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. That fails. back to the 30 days and the idea that you can actually get something in return for negotiating, you can get a roundabout that actually slows the truck traffic and prevents
trucks from using number two road. I think that could be a huge win if we could get it worked out. If we could get the neighbors to the table, we get the developer to the table and we get your management plan in place um and you get a way better design that actually creates and protects um well, it
actually protects open space as opposed to just Yeah. Yeah. We'll commit to the annexation agreement. We'll work on the improvements along our intersection and then we'll come back with details about the management plan to answer. I think
that was the three big items. If I'm capturing that motion. >> Yeah. And so, uh, um, >> I'm going to I'm I'm going to make that motion and I really look forward to the discussion. I'm not saying I'm going to necessarily approve it. I I'm not going to prejudice the whole thing until I get
over the next 30 days, but >> I'm actually excited about the discussion because I want to come back and I want to see I would like to see and if our staff needs to do it to play out some scenarios, you know, straight zoning versus this because I just I think that there's some
mis misunderstanding sometimes about conservation subdivision criteria and what it can do. So, I'm gonna look at staff, not just you, but to staff as well because >> this is I think is a good opportunity. We got a full room here to go over to have these kind of discussions and it's
going to play out in a public hearing of course, but >> to start looking at some of the facts when it comes to these things and these decisions are tough. Uh, and you know, they could go either way, but and there's a benefit, a cost benefit. So, I I'm looking forward to that playing out.
And so I will make that motion to to table for 30 days. >> Commissioner Morris, do you second? >> Second. >> All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? >> I. >> All right. That passes three to two and we have a lot of work to do between now and >> the next meeting. We made the motion without a date certain.
>> Correct. Yeah. Just to clarify that will be May 5th. So we don't have to readvertise if you do it to a date certain. >> Okay. All right. So, can we can can you do a motion to May 5th or >> uh to that motion would include to at least May 5th. Second, >> Commissioner Smith, I mean Morris, all
in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> I >> All right. So, that gets us to May 5th and we have work to do. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Moving then to the next tab. Um
we are on tab five. And tab, just so everybody's clear, tab six was withdrawn. So this will be our last zoning hearing today. >> And I think most everybody here is here
for this one. So >> thank you, Chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the director of the Office of Planning and Zoning. The project before us today is Crescent Pines Reszoning. The requested action is to reszone approximately 40 acres from urban residential R6 to planned unit
development to facilitate a residential subdivision of 79 units. The planning and zoning board recommended unanimously uh to approve this item. The location is northwest corner of PB Road and Logouse Road.
This is in the Claremont area. The board may recall that uh this came before the board on November 4th, 2025, and this item was denied. Uh KB Holmes Orlando LLC submitted for uh a challenge.
So KB Homes Orlando LLC versus Lake County. Uh we have a settlement agreement between the parties in the matter that was uh filed by KB Holmes. The settlement agreement negotiated between the parties provides
for pond sizes increased by 25% to retain a 100red-year 24-hour storm event. The number of lots have been reduced from 85 to 79. Buffers have been provided adjacent to all existing residential homes. The sidewalk along
Logouse Road will be extended westward to Cedar Forest Circle and eastward to Lakeshore Drive. Sidewalk must be completed and accepted before any certificate of occupancy can be issued. The development will retain as much planted pine as possible on the
site and if the settlement agreement is uh agreed to, it will be uh the result will be the dismissal of the case. So the applicant is requesting a resoning to PUD with a density of 2.06 units per acre and a maximum imperous
surface area of 60%. Uh there is required rightway dedication of 1.65 acres along log house road and PB road. The plan emphasizes uh open space. The open space will include storm p storm ponds, have pvious walking
trails around the ponds tied into sidewalks for street connectivity. The homeowners association will own and maintain all common areas. Lots will have a minimum area of 7,500 square ft and a minimum width of 75 ft.
There are landscape buffers along all perimeters of the subject property. Property will be serviced by Sunshine Water Services for water and the applicant applicant plans to construct a distributed wastewater treatment system for sewer. Subject parcel is located within the
Claremont joint planning area and the city of Claremont uh has provided support for the project. The proposal is consistent with the urban the existing urban low future land use. Lake County Schools has reviewed the application and determined uh that there
is capacity available for the students. Lake County Fire Station number 109 is 1.4 miles from the subject property and the transportation concurrency has been determined to be dimminimous impact on the surrounding roadways. With that, I'm happy to answer any
questions or uh turn it over to the applicant. >> All right, any questions right now? All right. The applicant wants to make a presentation. >> Uh good good morning, Madam Chair, vice chairman, uh commission members. My name
is Jonathan Hules with the Louns Law Firm, 215 Northola Drive, Orlando 3281. We we emailed a presentation to Janie yesterday. >> Yeah, it's in the folder. Sorry. >> Is it this one? >> Yes, sir. Thank you.
>> Sorry for that. Uh along with me in attendance today is the project engineer Chuck Hayatt with Health Engineering and and several members from the KB Homes development team. Um as uh Mr. Fitzgerald had mentioned this uh project
had had come before you originally in November and shortly that thereafter proceedings under chapter 70 of the Florida statutes the Florida Dispute Resolution Act were initiated to um result and culminate in the request
that's being presented to you today. Just a little bit more background on the on the property. It is 40 acres. I think it's important to note that it does currently have an urban low feature land use designation which allows up to four dwelling units an acre today of
residential development. The zoning is actually urban residential which uh has a a a paper max density of up to six dwelling units an acre. But when you place uh both those designations on top
of each other, the urban land use designation would control density of up to four dwelling units an acre. So the project is is entitled for residential today. uh based on the the county code, it could proceed directly to site plan
for a residential project of up to a theoretically up to 160 units and not come before any public hearings before the planning commission or the board of county commissioners. However, uh because what's being propo proposed here is a single family residential
subdivision, county code requires any uh residential subdivision above 49 units to be reszoned to PUD. So, the resulting request is a downzoning. It's a downzoning from what is uh it's it's
it's entitled today under urban low and under R six to PUD reducing that uh residential maximum from 160 units down to 79 and and to be certain and locked
in via a PUB zoning. Uh, one other important note to to just provide is is uh the the property does currently have a bonafideed agricultural exemption. The the planted pine that is currently on the site or on the property is temporary
in nature in that uh at some time in the future is going to be harvested. It's going to be sent to a mill and it's going to be processed into wood and paper products. that is part of the business plan that's required in order to maintain the bonafideed a exemption.
So um as was mentioned uh after the proceedings was initiated in November there were settlement discussions uh undertaken before the the actual um formal proceedings that would be we
would would would come under the uh dispute resolution act. Um and and that included some discussion on addressing the comments that were made at that original November public hearing with respect to storm water, with respect to
density, with respect to just general design. And out of that, there were born some changes and I'll briefly go over those with you. As I mentioned before, the net density of this project is two dwellings acre. It's 79 homes. It's a down zoning from what could be developed
there today by Wright. Uh, as was mentioned by staff, it does meet the Claremont joint planning agreement standards. And in fact, the city has commented and says they do not have any objection to the project. Along the entire perimeter of the project, there
is a 25- ft landscape buffer. A condition added to the PUD would require that the existing planted pine that is there that would otherwise could be removed via that bonafide a exemption uh designation will be retained uh within
that area and in other open space areas within the project where feasible. In spaces where that planted pine maybe isn't as dense or wouldn't meet the the county's landscape buffer requirements, those areas will be supplemented with a
new plantings that would meet the requirements of the PUD, which requires Florida friendly and native species to be planted. The PUD also uh includes several conditions regarding design, including a requirement that the project have dark
sky lighting. Uh and it does a a significant change is the size of the storm water ponds that would be util that will be required to be utilized with the with the the development. Those would need to meet uh a higher standard
than current requirements of the water management district or the county. That standard is the 100red-year 24-hour storm event. And there's even a an additional caveat included in the proposed condition of the PUD that would says it's either that higher standard or
if there's a more stringent standard at the time this project would come through for actually engineering site plan approval by staff, it would be whatever the most stringent of those two would be. So, either the 100red-year 24-hour storm event or in if the county in the
future decided to um adopt a more rigorous storm water uh condition, it would be that one. Uh so, with that, um the the changes that have been made, we
believe results in a in a in a in a a more additional buffers to the surrounding community. Um, and one other one other um benefit that has been born out of of of this process under the
Florida Dispute Resolution Act is the commitment and an added condition to the PUD to um construct off-site sidewalk improvements. Right now, uh, Log House Road does not have sidewalks.
uh this developer uh as part of the conditions of the PUB would be constructing a sidewalk entire along its entire length and that sidewalk would have to be delivered before the first resident moved into the community. Uh I I know there's a lot of folks here that
that have uh interest and will have comment. I would just ask an opportunity to address those comments uh after public um testimony is given and and of course happy to answer any questions you all might have uh before we get to that.
>> All right. Okay. We have several cards. Um we do we have any notices of appearance filed? Okay. All right. So, we have a threeminut rule on our cards. Um and I'll just go through them in the order that I receive them. And um as a
general rule, we ask if you're saying something that was just said or said previously, you are welcome to just ask that you know you're ditto, so to speak to what's already been said if in the interest of time if you'd like to do
that. Otherwise, we have that threem minute rule on each card. Um so I'm going to start with Mike and I believe there's an E after the D. Is it hope? Hodes. H O D E S. >> Okay. All right. Hodes.
And then next would be Gail Sis Ceros. >> There. >> Ready. >> All right. We're ready. Mike. >> Well, good morning, commissioners. Um, it's good to see you all. Anyway, my name is Mike Hodess. I've lived on two
acres directly across from the proposed development since 1998. That's 28 years. Two acres. Today, I'm here alongside many of our neighbors uh to respectfully ask that you deny this request.
The three major concerns uh I'd like you to consider are first, storm water and drainage. This is the most critical issue. This 40acre property drops approximately 40 feet in elevation. During a typical summer rain, one inch
would generate about 2 million gallons of runoff in a short period of time. While the retention system appears sufficient on paper, several ponds are located uphill from the natural flow of the water. This raises serious concerns
about whether the system will function properly during heavy storms. for nearby residents. This isn't theoretical. It would be a tremendous impact on us. Second, compatibility with the existing neighborhood. I live on two acres across
the street. We have others that live on large property. Uh too, we believe the staff report does not fully reflect the realities of this community. This area is zoned and developed as urban lowdensity housing. The same
reasonzoning request was previously denied because it was inconsistent with the surrounding community. Reducing the number of homes from 85 to 79 does not resolve this issue. The proposed density
still does not align with the character of the neighborhood or the intent of the current stoning. Approving approving it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Third, traffic and infrastructure. The developer has requested an exemption from a full
traffic study and is and is relying on 2023 studies. Even though conditions have changed, uh 79 homes would generate approximately 800 additional daily trips on the log house road, which is already congested,
especially during school hours. Approving a development of this size without a current traffic study would be a significant oversight. Additionally, the county's original denial cited potential negative impacts to property
values under section 14.03.03 of the land use regulation. That concern has not really been addressed. Respectfully, what has changed since the original denial? We are not asking to stop growth.
We are asking for you to follow the standards already in place and ensure that development is consistent and fair to the existing residents. For the record, once a decision like this is made, it can never be undone. The
character of our neighborhood will be permanently changed forever and the risks we're going to outline will become our new reality. Thank you. >> Thank you. And Gail and after Gail is Danny
Cisnerz. >> Good morning everyone. >> My name Oh, did we My name is Gail Cisneros and I live in Mart's Landing at 10922 Preview Road, directly behind the proposed Cresant Pines development. You may have seen my home on Channel 6 News with Lisa Bell.
They came out because of the flooding concerns we're raising. It's not theoretical, but it's actually real. Living in Florida, at some point we have or will experience flooding concerns directly or indirectly. During Hurricane
Milton, water entered our yard and for some of our neighbors, it actually entered their homes. On slide two, can we go to slide two? Okay, thank you. Is a picture of the slope that we are con that we are concerned about.
The top of the slope is taller than the window from our f from our home. This is our home here and it's 25 ft from the proposed KB homes development bringing the runoff water directly into our backyard as you can see making the
100-year-old storm regulation more common than a 100 years. So on slide three, this is the zoning report, page seven, attachment B. On this map, you can clearly see
Martins's Landing. There are six homes that line up behind KB Homes. The number four, that's my home. On slide four, zoning report, page eight, attachment C, it shows the concept plan.
I would like to point out the retention ponds. Please glance at Martins's Landing. Please glance at number four. That is my home. The map shows that the water retention
ponds placed at the top of the slope. This directly impacts six of these homes. In Martins's Landing, the runoff will come right into our backyards. also the other homes are also uh affected. So
we then look at this proposed development. We are not asking what if. We are asking how much worse will this get. Slide five, six. Here in just a second we'll go
through six, seven, and eight. But unfortunately, this is what happened to our home on October 9th, 2024 during Hurricane Milton. Um, we had water damage come into all three of our bedrooms. You can go ahead and hit slide six,
seven, and eight. This is our Martins's Landing. This is our water retention pond. And this is our dock, also affected by the waters that came in. Now, if we go back to slide nine or we
go to slide nine, the slope. Oops. Okay, let me hurry. Um, I will just say that um I think your slides are really helpful and your husband is next, right? Okay. All right. So, hopefully he'll >> Thank you.
>> pick up where you left off. Yeah. Hi, my name is Danny Cneros. Um, thank you for having us here today. Um, I think my uh my wife uh was basically I don't have a uh any slides. So, next person is Gail. Um, she was just kind of
mentioning that there's an easement behind her property and there's a water pipe that goes through there. So, I don't think there's a lot that can be um done in that area in terms of like maybe changing the slope of that and all that kind of thing. So, um she I think she
just wanted to to mention that, right? So, um as far as my speech, um so obviously I live at live at that same property. Um, and I wanted to thank everybody here for this process of allowing us to bring our concerns before
you and and being heard. Um, uh, again on November 4th, this was all carefully considered and voted and you all voted no on the resoning request. That decision reflected a commitment to protect our existing homeowners and
safeguarding their lives and ensuring responsible development in our community. Unfortunately, the subsequent appeal and agreement have not meaningfully addressed those concerns. I have a hard time believing that the agreement received the level of in-depth review it deserves. For example, the
retention pond design running downhill seems pretty obvious, raises serious questions about its design. Thank God for some knowledgeable people in our community like Rich and Scott um pointed out this ineffective design because when I was looking at it at first it seemed
like that design um made sense 2D they look like really huge retention ponds um and then adding a 25% well that seems reasonable but um they you know talking to our neighbors and and people in the
community they're like this is not an effective N so um as mentioned in the in the news six story from Lisa Bell our home this sustained flood damage uh from Hurricane
Milton and um but that was even though we had the natural vegetation and sandy soil to help absorb some of that water. So obviously removing some of that natural protections um while increasing development raises the risk to my home and others nearby.
So when that ve vegetation eventually does get removed, it's important to have a plan, a real plan in place that will actually protect the community. But please remain consistent in your commitment to protecting our existing homeowners. I respectfully ask that you vote no in
this resoning request again. Maintain a more reasonable density such as the 49 homes and require any future proposal to include an independent engineering study to ensure storm water systems truly
protect the the neighboring properties. >> All right. Thank you. Um, Gail, Gail, um, Dalmat and then Rich Fischer. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Gail Dowman and um, I'm a teacher. I've
been a teacher for 35 years. I've 30 years at South Lake High School. I'm a Kuanian. I've been a Quanian since Oakley Siver days. Uh yes, I go way way back. But I'm here for one reason. I am
here to inform you of the negative impact that this plan development will have on my family and my lovely home. I live at 10731 Prebby Road. Um,
I live directly at the bottom of a 41 foot incline. I have almost an acre on the lake. It I live actually in the original Prebby home after what the road Prebby Road was named after. It was built in
1927. It will celebrate 100 years next year hopefully. Yes, it is my lovely, lovely home. It's as many stories and a much much history. Um, I know that there are many
professionals that tell you um that this is okay. But I'm here to tell you the bottom line. I've lived on Preview Road prior to the planting of the huge pines. They were babies when they when they when I was living there. Um, I was there
prior to Martin's landing, prior to the paving of Prey Road, prior to the subdivision, Cresant subdivision on the corner PBN log house. Here is what I can tell you about life. Before
I had I had beautiful palm trees that have rotted because of drain drainage runoff. It happens. I get it. um my beautiful beautiful basement that has many things in it that I have
stored. Now there there is there's there's flooding. I can only imagine what this new construction will do. The 79 unit planned unit with no promise of
retention ponds that are sufficient. I truly truly can't imagine the flooding and the destruction that may come to my beautiful home and my beautiful property. I think it's pretty much common sense. Within the last 24 hours, I've learned a lot of technical
knowledge all about hardcapes. First, I was calling it landscapes, but now I know um I've lived there 33 years. I know very little about high density, low density, urban density, but I know one thing that I will plead you to protect
my my historic home. Furthermore, I just know that this is wrong. Thank you. Thank you for your time and I ask that you consider um denying this this resoning. Thank you. All right, you guys.
I'll let you finish clapping this time, but we have a rule about clapping in our meetings, so you can do like a thumbs up. That works. Um, okay. Um, Rich Fisher and then Scott uh Boy, I think I got that.
>> You guys are violating sunshine. Maybe we approach and give you a handout. >> This is for each other. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. They can have. >> Are you sure? Are you sure?
What's that? >> They're going to hold up boards. Do you want them in the back so they don't impede other people's views or do you want them in the front? >> Okay. Yeah, I guess we need to do it in the back otherwise nobody can no one else can see. >> And we have to make sure you don't
impede the camera back there as well. Eric, you can let them know if they need to move. >> All right, we won't start the clock till you get up to the microphone. Good morning, uh, commissioners. My name is Richard Fischer. I'm a landscape
designer. I have over 45 years in landscaping install. I have over 35 years experience in licensed designer landscape. I live at C uh, Crescent Ridge subdivision off of Purview Road.
I want to thank you for your time to hear us out. As per drawings that was given to you and that are here which was measured and made from Google Earth map, Google maps SketchUp model
builder. These pictures clearly show how building 85 much less 79 homes will not work at this le any level. Drawings one, three, four, six, eight,
10, and 11 will demonstrate the ratio of hardscape to landscape vegetation, bad water flow, and inadequate water absorption. Out of all the retention ponds on this site, only maybe 25%
or less would be of any use. Typically, in my experience, retention ponds on the average are around 9 foot depth. The size of these retention ponds are inadequate. Elevation drop on this property is
funneling down to Martinsson Landing entrance from Log House Road down Preview Road, Log House Road and Transfer Station across to Martins's Landing entrance and back of the transfer station to Martins's Landing
entrance. The dump side retention pond west side of this property will have no effect to this site at this time. I would like I would not recommend these retention ponds. They are are badly inadequate.
Note retention ponds water does not fill on a level basis running uphill. We would re respectfully ask you to reject this request from KB Homes. It will devastate our quiet living area.
Thank you for your time. Best regards, Richard Fischer. Fischer's landscape design. >> Thank you. >> Mr. >> Um, you want to ask a question? >> Ask Mr. Fisher a question. Mr. Fischer. >> Yes. >> Landscape designer. Good. Um, if the
property owner were to cut all those pines off and sell them, what would happen to the water flow? If he was to clear that land, which they they will come in there and bulldoze that property, bare land,
it will be devastating on a rainstorm. >> Okay. all that that the picture here shows even though they added 25% more to the the the retention pond, it's running uphill. It's like why don't you
put a retention pond at the ceiling and expect it to run uphill. If you have that land cleared, it any kind of storm, all that sand will be down in that retention pond and then there will not be a retention pond in
there. >> Well, that's my point. Yeah. >> The point is that they have the ability to to harvest those pines and make money >> right now. >> I mean, they could cut them today. Uh and and there's nothing that you can do about it. It's their property.
>> Exactly. That's >> So it's it's like do you want protection or I mean they're not going to leave it the way it is. I wouldn't think >> exactly when they cut those pines they do not remove the roots the root
structure and everything holds the ground in place. When they come in to bulldoze the place they remove the roots leaving bare open land on a slope >> is the different story. I've got 600 acres in Georgia and I grow pines.
>> Yeah. >> And I can tell you you cut a pine down in two years the stumps don't do anything anyway. So I I mean you're what I'm trying to to prove to you is some something's going to happen to this land. >> Exactly.
>> And so we're trying to minimize what's going to happen. They can ask for a whole lot more than what they're getting. >> Exactly. is my point is when you do a landscaping the roots on a hill, you put as much
root structure in there to hold the ground. If you cut it bare, then you're leaving it wide open. You can almost spit on the ground and cause a gully. When I when I come in with my guys to do a landscaping on a hill
before that day is over, we're putting mulch. We're putting something down in case of rain. If they come in and cut the grass, because I'm I'm from Georgia, too, and I I know about the the the harvesting of the the pines, but I know
they come in, they harvest them, they cut them out. When they go to plant, okay, they they come in and remove the the sump and replant. But when when you come in with a builder and they come in and they bulldoze this whole this whole
room, it's bare open land on a hill at a slope. You're asking for a disaster on the lightest rain. So, it's a big difference between um harvesting the trees and leaving all
the undergrowth and mulch and everything like that because even if you come in there, took the roots out and put the mulch in there. Okay. Yeah. You'll you'll you'll slow down the the runoff, but you'll still have the runoff because of the um
bare open land. >> Thank you. >> Uhhuh. >> So, I think what I'm visualizing is three scenarios. One is you clear you cut the trees down, but you leave the vegetation and so forth. And so you're going to have some sheet flow, but you'll still perk some, right? You're
going to have a The second one is they get ready for development. They cut everything down, they bulldoze everything, and there's going to be a period of time where you've got total sheet flow. And then third scenario, they develop it. And according to your your analysis, even with retention
ponds, you're still going to have runoff that leaves the property because the ponds are in the wrong location and they're not going to be deep enough. That's kind of what right now that's my takeaway from what you just said. >> Well, the whole whole thing is is if you
look at the pictures, hold them up. is so dense the hardcape will cover I'm thinking 90 95% of the area where is it going to percolate there the
roads three roads I live over in Crescent Ridge and we have one road by my house every time it rains I had to put a dry stream bed in front of my house to catch the water or else I'd have a wash out all the time on the regular rains
just by the roads by themselves, you're you're asking for a disaster because it look at number four, that is the only area the the all these retention ponds would would be able to take on this
whole property. with all that hardcape on them and the elevation and the drops, you're just asking for a major problem. >> All right. Thank Thank you. Appreciate
your presentation, Scott. Uh and then David Aken. >> Good morning, commissioners. You've heard a lot from us today. My name is Scott Boyette. I live on Creeb Road, right down the street from Gail's House in Historic Thing. She owns half of the
preview mansion. I own the little house next to it. And I have threequarters of an acre there as well. And my house is northeast to the proposed property. And I've got two concerns. The main one, u let me back up a little bit. I'm a
general contractor. I'm an engineer and I'm elected board member for Seco Energy and Siminal Power Generation. So, I understand your guys's position and the toughest decisions you got to make and how you got to balance everything.
I don't see which slide I got up, but again, what we got here is I'm going to I'm going to reiterate that I I'm following up, Rick, with a little more uh urgency on the fact that these ponds are just clearly not designed correctly.
Rick in great detail showed you guys that these ponds should be in the northeast corner of this project period. Everything else is is ineffective pond sources. And if I can go to my next slide, this is a Google Earth
presentation of every other subdivision. And if you notice up in the right hand corner of Martin Landings and you guys saw that pond all the way flooded to the top, their design is the entire retention is in the northeast corner where the water flows. It's pretty
simple. You know, you don't have to be a civil engineer to understand this. In this process in this uh area to the right, it's in the northeast corner. That pond to the right of this thing is 25 ft deep. I've seen it to the top as well.
What we're asking you guys is to we have to reconfigure this pond retention so that it is managed where the water is going to go. The other thing that we're not discussing and what bothers me is that the presentation that the the
developer has given to you is not even telling you where the lift station is and the water processing system is going to be. Sewage also flows downhill. So, there's going to have to be a a lift station on the bottom corner of this because you don't get to pump the water and sewage. It goes downhill. All right.
They also don't represent to us where they are going to put a sewage treatment facility. We all live and do our grocery shopping and and at the 7-Eleven that's sitting on five acres. It malfunctions all the time. It smells and you truck
the sewage out of it. Where in their plan is that going to be? We're here to tell you to respectfully deny this design. It's not vetted properly. That they're not giving you guys the proper information to make a
good decision on what they're trying to do here. We all understand that this is the last piece and there's likely going to be development. We're seriously concerned about the runoff and where this design is not completed and I'm
open for questions. >> Thank you. Good presentation. Um we appreciate it. >> Thank you >> David um Aken and then Jay Paul. Good morning, commissioners. My name is
David Aken. I live at 10929 Prebby Road, essentially adjacent to the property in question. Initially, the property is designated urban lowdensity future land use by the 2030 comprehensive plan. While circumstances change, you recognize that previous property
acquisitions have been made with reliance upon the commission's prior decisions. That is, with the 2030 land use comprehensive plan. The decisions you make will confirm or call into question the serious intent and value of that plan. In this application, the density and design of the development
will produce a parcelwide concentration of hard impervious surfaces. The streets, sidewalks, driveways, roofs, and occasional patios will exacerbate the effects of summerlong rainy season uh even in uh typical rainfall episodes,
not to mention any intense periodic rains. The proposed development density and design virtually eliminate any biomediation beyond that presently existing on the property. That makes it extremely questionable whether the proposed downhill sloping retention
areas will effectively contain such runoff. This presents an unacceptable risk to existing residential properties and public infrastructure. Further, the diagram demonstrates that the an obvious disparity between the density and character of the proposed development and that of the surrounding
residential areas. In the conclusions of law, item 23 supporting the previous denial. Quote, the board's denial is based upon the inconsistency of the proposed use with section 14.03.03C and 03C land development regulations as the requested resoning is not consistent
with existing residential neighborhoods. End quote. With this resoning request, that condition remains. In addition, item 25 states, quote, the board's denials based on the inconsistency of the proposed use with section 14.03.03G, 103G land development regulations as the
requested reszoning for a subdivision with smaller lot sizes could negatively impact the property values of surrounding communities and no competent sub substantial evidence was presented to show no impact or a positive impact. End quote. The following item notes that
quote, "The board additionally finds that the property's current entitlements, which would allow for the development of 49 residential units under the existing urban lowdensity land use category, is an appropriate use for the property and is compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant did not provide any evidence
or justification to indicate that there have been changed conditions that would support the reasonzoning application, thereby making the request inconsistent with that section." End quote. that condition remains as well. Finally, the proposed development does not uh correct
the negative issues that its design and density present. I am not opposed to to responsible growth. This plan, however, falls outside of responsible growth and contradicts the previous measured and considered decisions of the board. For the reasons stated, I ask that you deny
the resoning application and retain that urban lowdensity future land use designation that has been included in the 2030 comprehensive plan. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. >> All right. Thank you, Jay Paul. And then
Allison Sikma. >> Good morning, commissioners. Thanks for your time. My name is J Paul as you know. Um I live right on Log House Road. I can look up at the property where mine
is at and I have to look up probably at least 12 feet. You know, I've met a lot of good people uh through in the neighborhood and stuff and a lot of people said, you know, there's just there's not nothing you can do. they've already made up their mind and I'm like,
you know, I got to at least try. And uh I have faith in my elected officials and I have faith in you commissioners. Um the Log House Road is just a very small road. I mean it most of you probably haven't been there, but um
you name it, I've seen it on that road. And I've lived there 12 years and I'm not out in the yard all the time, but I've seen people pass on a WL line. I bet you 100 times. I don't know. Um the uh the speed limit's 25 miles an hour.
Uh the mail truck is probably the only one that does that. I mean, they're screaming by my house sometimes 60 70 m hour. It is like the wild west. And um you know, I've lived a lot. I'm 62. I've lived the majority of my life. But I
feel bad for the young people that are just learning to drive or maybe the elderly that can't get out of people's way. That road's literally falling apart. I mean, in front of my house and different places and I believe that there could be just water just wipe the
whole road away eventually. Um, people ride bikes on the road. You're going to put in a sidewalk, but these people, they want to ride on the road for some reason. I see it all the time. Um the I guess the the craziest thing I've seen was I used to um take my granddaughter
out to the bus stop and one day we were we were there and and uh there's a car past the bus, the school bus in my yard, which is the easement, but pass that, you know, pass right through there because they're they're going to get
there one minute ahead of time wherever they're going. And you know, I've it this happens all the time. I mean, I've got marks all through my yard. Um, happens during the night. I don't know what happens, you know, and uh I just uh
you know, I do feel sorry for the people that that have to come in future generations and you do have a hard job to do and I appreciate what y'all do. But, you know, I respectfully ask you to shut down KB Homes and that is my prayer
in the name of Jesus. >> Yes. Have a blessed day. >> Allison Sigma and after Allison then Alex Cisnerz. >> Good morning commissioners. My name is Allison Sikman and I'm a home homeowner
on Log House Road just a few hundred feet from the proposed Crescent Pines development. Um, my husband and I are both veterans and purchased our first home seven months ago there in uh, Claremont. And I'm here this morning to respectfully ask you to stand by your original decision to deny the
reasonzoning request. The settlement reached between KB Homes and Lake County is presented as a reasonable compromise. However, it fails to sorry um, it fails to address many of the
findings of fact in the original development order. The original application included a traffic waiver that relied on traffic data from 2023 despite the availability of data from 2024 and 2025. This reliance on outdated information misrepresents the current
traffic conditions on Log House Road and understates the true impact of the proposed development. Um these are all pictures from my front door just for reference. Um secondly, the settlement includes a provision for the developer to construct and fund a sidewalk to be
added along log house road to improve traffic and or mobility. While this is an improvement for pedestrians, this does not address the primary issues of increased traffic, roadway capacity or emergency access. Our road still serves as a primary route for primary
elementary school buses, uh Lake Cal Lake County solid waste collection site and existing residents. The addition of a sidewalk does nothing to support the emergency vehicle access either. Fire, EMS, and law enforcement use our road daily while responding to calls. The
addition of nearly 900 more daily trips will increase risk of blockages that interfere with emergency access for all surrounding communities, not just our own. Um, additionally, the sidewalk was already planned by the county prior to this agreement and doesn't really show a
meaningful effort um to mitigate the issues brought up in the original denial. Third, the reduction in density from 85 to 79 lots is minimal and doesn't change the overall density of the project significantly. Um, it doesn't support
the board's previous conclusion in finding 10 of the developmental uh thing that states that the cumulative effects of traffic would provide substantial competent evidence that a lower density is warranted. The reduction of only six lots does not adequately lessen the
projected increase in traffic or its commum commu cumulative effects on log house rep. Uh taken together, the revisions outlined in the settlement failed to align with the county's own findings and don't adequately address the documented impacts of the proposed development. Thank you for your time and
I hope you all will stand by your original decision. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, Alex Cisnerz and then William Decker. Morning. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Alexos. I live in Martins's
Landing. I'm asking you to say no to the KB Homes Crescent Pines development for two reasons. First reason is the lack of clarity around wastewater. The resoning report states that there will be a distributed wastewater system,
but there is no clear map, no defined location. That means no explanation where the system will be placed on the map. As someone who lives and works in this community, that's concerning. In our area, most homes use a septic system. Adding a lift station or a
collected central system is not consistent with neighborhoods, and more importantly, it's not clearly shown on the map. We are being asked to accept something that hasn't even been fully shown to us. Honestly, when you hear wastewater system,
but can't find it on the map, it does not exactly build trust or confidence. I mean, if we can't see where it's going, that's probably not a great sign. My second reason is a potential odor, maintenance issues, and the visual impact. If these systems are replaced
near our homes, this affects property values, quality of life, and the character of our neighborhood. I'm not against growth. I believe in responsible growth, and responsible growth means clear plans and transparency.
This map fails in both these areas. In conclusion, like all the re residents before me have stated, valid concerns with flooding and traffic and now we add the ling lingering smells of waste. This community is asking for you to vote no.
KB Homes does not provide clear answers. We request answers with real life solutions. I respectfully ask you to vote no on this resoning. Thank you for your time. Alexis, >> William Decker, and then Charlie Wyoff. >> We're almost done.
>> Good morning. My name is Bill Decker, and I'm a 19-year resident of Martins's Landing. On November 4th, 2025, this duly elected board of commissioners voted to deny the reasonzoning of the parcel in question. The action was completely within your scope of responsibility and follow the cited
laws. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, today we've provided you a number of pictures and a lot of words uh in opposition to the development of Crescent Pines. In addition, we provided for your review at least two opposition briefs over the
last few weeks for you to review. Overall, we challenge the staff report submitted as being general, misleading, and inaccurate. We oppose the rubber stamp approach to the issues. But let's let me amplify our position. The most serious concern is the storm water runoff and the potential for dangerous
flooding in our community. The 40-foot downhill slope to the northeast will during a tropical rain downpour cause sheet flow of more than several million gallons of water, silt, and mud into a retention pond that we've clearly shown
is going to be ineffective. For the record, if approved, we're heading for a Mount Dora flooding incident in the not too distant future. A disaster of this magnitude will be in the hands of the county and their decision. Density, as you saw, the proposed development of 79 zero lot line homes. It's inconsistent
with surrounding communities and and we believe, as you did in November, is in conflict with the county regulations that prohibit excessive density that harms the rural character of the area and will have a detrimental impact on our property values in excess of 20%. This was the basis of the original
denial and remains the case today and directly opposed to the staff assessment. We have we have questioned the matter of wastewater treatment as we do not clearly understand the location and since water and sewage systems rely on gravity and will flow downhill, we do not see this as feasible. Further, we're
not convinced that a qualified maintenance technician will staff this facility as required by law. Finally, traffic's going to be an issue and requires an updated study rather than a 2003 report that was used. Exemption is not an acceptable decision since it's
estimated there'll be estimated to be over 800 to a,000 new trips per day on Lighthouse Road, which will only add to the congestion. We're everyday citizens and voters. We're not lawyers. And we believe that any agreement or resoning by Lake County should protect its
citizens and include clearly defined conditions. We're not opposed to growth at all. We must be responsible and accountable. Nothing has really changed since your November decision. So, when you reject the agreement today and deny the reasonzoning as you did in 2025, we'd be more than willing to participate
in a workshop with the county developers or whoever to explore better options to this parcel. Thank you, and let's hope that tomorrow's breaking news caption will read Lake County Commissioners make the right decision. Again, thank you very much.
>> Thank you, um, Charlie. And then um after Charlie Anna Parv. >> I'm Charlie Wyoff. I live in Crescent Ridge along with some of these other folks. Uh something that wasn't mentioned was the gopher tortoises. I
walk that area every day or try to and been there for 20 years. Got to know a few of them. Firstn name basis if you know what I mean. Anyway, it's nice to see that they're protected, but nobody's mentioned anything about those that and the only other thing I'd like
to mention is I don't want Lake County to be liable for anything that could have happened because they approved this project. And once again, like the flood that we had last year up in uh Mount Dora Eustus, the the hundred-year flood,
if something like that would happen, and we know that this can happen if it happens and it's too late once it happens. So, let's just think about this very strongly and ditto with everything else. Thank you. >> Thank you, Anna Parv. And then, um,
Sheldrickch Thomas. Uh, good morning. My name is Anna Parv and I live at 1041 Paradise Bay Court. It's a street to the south of the development. I fully agree with the points made by all the previous speakers and I don't want to repeat
them. I'm deeply concerned that if this dense development moves forward, issues like flooding, traffic, noise, and uh, sewage smells will make our neighborhood a much less desirable place to live. When the quality of life goes down, property values go down as well. And we
all understand that the developer wants to make a good business by putting as many houses on the land as possible. But if I set my personal sentiments aside and look at this as a business matter, I realize that my home is my primary investment and I would like to protect
it. And that's why I'm asking for your help. Thank you. >> Thank you. And our last speaker is unless I've got somebody online. Do we have Go come on up, Sheldrick. Do we have anyone online? No. Okay, so this is our last one. >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. How
y'all doing today? My name is Sheldick Thomas. Um I'm a husband. >> I'm a husband. I'm a father. I'm a 13-year Marine Corps veteran. And um one of the things I knew when I had to medically retire out that I knew I was coming back to Claremont because I know
the people there stand up for each other and try to do the right thing. Um, one thing that wasn't really mentioned and I I want to kind of put an emphasis on is the schooling. Um, Pine Ridge Elementary, it's already loaded almost to the top to
capacity. Uh, it's over from the 2024 2025 statistics. It's already at 765 and the capacity is at 800. So, my question is, uh, did KB Holmes put this into their equation? because at the end of the day
um there's nowhere to put the students. The only thing they can do is throw up portables and whatnot. And we all know that no one can learn like that. I really don't want to speak on the septic because burn pits alone in Afghanistan was I I don't even know how people do
that. But anyway, um also the traffic my kids, my six-year-old asks me almost every morning, can he walk to school? We are right up the road from the school. I will not walk there. Not because it's just any sidewalks. It's just because the traffic and uh the volume of traffic
that goes on over there. Um I know KB Homes probably is going to think about putting a roundabout or whatnot thinking that's going to fix everything, but we all know that it doesn't. And I'm more concerned about people and their safety, the bicycles, uh the the cyclists, the
the environment or whatnot versus just building some houses trying to make some profit off of it. Um, I'm not too articulate when it comes to pretty much everything else, but I do know to stand up and speak on something whether it's right or wrong. So, again, again, I
appreciate your time in this matter and thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, we'll go back to the applicant. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to keep my comments um minimal. Just a couple things because there was a a lot stated and we do appreciate the comments
and the concerns expressed by the community. I think there might be some misinformation or at least some clarifications I can make to hopefully some of the the concerns and and comments that were made. Um first and foremost with respect to gopheris uh
there's a process in in dealing with that species. It's a called a a relocation permit. Those are run through the FWC and relocation permit's going to be uh pulled whether this pro project is developed as proposed or when the uh
property owner goes to harvest those pines like was discussed earlier. Those goof torches will be relocated before any of that work is is undertook and um they're sent to a a receptive site where they live out the rest of their life in
a uh con conserved natural habitat. In terms of uh sewage treatment, the DW DW DWTS systems that are being proposed are the individual advanced treatment systems that will each individual lot
would would have constructed in conjunction with their homes. uh those are a a a step over and above traditional septic in terms of their ability to treat the effluent and
removing uh nutrients. It's the preferred replacement when a uh septic system, an older septic system has uh run its its life and needs to be replaced. There isn't going to be a central collector or on-site treatment
system or lift station that would result in odors that would would emanate from the the development. These are all uh underground. You wouldn't even know they're in the front yards and they offer a a much greater degree of
treatment than a traditional um septic system. And that's why they're they're they're identified as a DWTS system. Um, in terms of school capacity, that was of course analyzed as part of this this process and it was shown and it's in
your staff report that there is uh available capacity at all of the three districted schools, elementary, middle, and high. Um in terms of transportation that of course was also evaluated uh following the county's guidelines the NO
guidelines using the best avail or the latest available data which uh was from 2023 and the that that that is processed and staff makes a determination that it's deemed minimous uh in terms of the transportation generation from the
project both uh daily and at a PM peak. Um, one thing I want to spend just a moment on and I'm going to bring the the project engineer Chuck Hyatt up to talk about it more, but I think there's a a couple of missing important pieces to
the puzzle of how this property would would be developed. I think a lot of the graphics we were uh discussing that have been presented are based on the existing topography of the property today.
uh that shows there there is of some relief both I think the break and Chuck could talk about this more is almost along the center line where it goes east and it goes west but that is not how the property is going to be developed. There's of course a process that would follow this one where it's engineered
plans that are reviewed both by the county and by the water management district to prove that the entire design including storm water is functional. uh of again that's going to be at that higher standard that Chuck will also talk about at the hundred hundred year
24-hour event and there's going to be topographic changes involving the the buildout of of this project. It's not going to remain in its existing topography with those uh grade changes that are of concern by the community. It's going to be leveled off to a great
deal. And I'm going to ask Chuck to come up here and talk about that for just a moment. Good morning. Chuck Hayyatt 902 North Sinclair Avenue to I am the civil for this project. So what we have right here
is a concept plan of zoning and the existing condition they are correct. There is about 40t of fall across the site pretty much in in the middle of the site. So it goes east, west, and at the ultimate it does go northeast is probably where the ultimate outfall
would be. So to explain a little more, currently the criteria for the county and the water management district would be a pre-post volume. So that means by drainage law, we're allowed to release
as much volume in the proposed condition as in the existing condition. What we've committed to, excuse me, what we've committed to working with the county on the PUB document was to hold the entire 100red-year 24-hour storm with no
discharge. that's over and above what the county and the water management district requires currently. And we also put in there that if anything changes gets adopted by the county, the water management district, whichever prior to
us being developed, we will meet those rules. So, uh I don't want to get too much involved with, you know, there will be some retaining walls involved. There are stem walls on the houses. Uh something also to uh just reiterate is the county's criteria right now is a 60
foot lot. Uh we're meeting the Claremont's JPA of 75 foot lot. Would we much rather go to 60 foot lots and keep 79 lots and have more open space? Yeah. But then we don't have support of Claremont. So we're we're trying to meet both the county and Claremont um in this
uh zoning for the PUB. I'll be happy to answer any questions, storm water, sewer, whatever you may need. >> Based on what you've looked at though with regard to elevation changes and all of that, you think that with the 75 ft
lot, you could actually get that number and do the design that you think you would need to do in order to capture the 100red-year. >> Yes. And there'll be some cascading effect and so forth. So what you're seeing right now is a pond in the you
know in the perfect world would be a perfect elevation same elevation five or six feet deep you know uh but in this case we do have elevation change from south to north as well as from east to west. So as we get into the design there
would be some sort of cascading effect and so forth as we're moving towards that northeast corner. However, nothing leaving the site for the 100red-year 24-hour storm. >> What about the thousand-year storm? >> I I I can't I can't see.
>> So, where would it leave? I mean, it's going to go on >> the thousand-year storm. So, if the if the rain bomb would have came to this area versus Mount Dora, it would have came straight downhill to the northeast, it would have ended up over into the lake and whatever path was in its way, houses and so forth, it would have just
been its path. But, you know, uh they're starting to look at something a little more than a hundred-year storm event right now, but um it's not out there. And that's that's all I can say is, you know, we're committing to a 100redyear 24h hour.
>> Any other questions? >> That 100year flood plan that you're committing to, that's over and above what's currently required. It's over and it's it's it's not over and beyond. It's just more
stringent than what's required by the county and the water. >> And and would you agree with me there's currently watershed today? >> There is currently wershed today. >> Any other questions for the engineer? >> Thanks.
Well, just closing remarks. I mean, it it's there's a lot of community interest here. I think the after condition of this project where you're downzoning, you're resulting in a net density of two dwelling units an acre. you're providing a greater storm water and a thoughtful
design that actually creates a a greater space between homes both onsite and the existing community. There's been some some thoughtfulness on where the storm water would be located in terms of
avoiding uh a rear yard to another rear yard. uh it provides certainty to what what's coming if if this is ultimately um not supported by the BCC you know the the the prop the developer and property owner are going to go back and analyze
what what what's next and whether it's a continuation of the existing proceedings something else a complete abandonment and someone else is going to come forward with a plan for this project that avoids public hearing or this property that avoids public hearings altogether and builds a rental
community. I don't know. But, uh, we we had a I think the process allowed for this dialogue to occur and and to make adjustments to what was originally proposed that we feel is a better plan and we think it's it's more cohesive with the community. We think we've
addressed to a a reasonable degree the comments that have been received at that initial meeting. And there's greater public benefit in terms of that sidewalk project. that's going to put a sidewalk where there's no sidewalk there now. And you have log house road that that
clearly need sounds like it needs one. And that's going to be done by this developer and going to be in place before a first resident moves in. So with that, our our team's here. We're happy to answer any questions you might have and appreciate your support for the project. Thank you.
>> Quick question. Um has KB Home closed on the property? >> No, they're still a contract purchaser. So ultimately if if this is not the concept they're probably not going to move forward with it and then it who knows what what's next after that or they'll evaluate all their you know
there's other this is this is the Florida Dispute Resolution Act process. This is a this allows for collaboration uh opportunities for collaboration. There's been collaboration. So in in a way that process has I think worked and that we we think there's a a better plan
that's been uh come about it and has been presented to you. There's there's other processes that perhaps the property owner or KB will look at to undertake. I don't know. Uh we're not at that juncture yet. But >> all right. I know people have their hands up but we can't we don't usually
go back and open the public caring part of it. Um any more questions for the applicant? All right, Mike, >> let's bring it back to the board for discussion. >> The um my understanding is East Crooked Lake, there were some property owners
that got together and started a nonprofit and they purchased a piece of property. >> Oh, shoot. >> Are you Is that correct? >> No. what if it's the one that I'm thinking of where um it was actually a it was actually a land owner that went in and bought the property after the
neighborhood had not wanted it to be developed at a high density. Um and so there was a nearby land owner that actually bought the property. >> I mean you've got a lot of people out here. Maybe that's an avenue they ought
to look at is they could, you know, I don't know what it maybe $2 million for a piece of property like that and, you know, go together and buy it because that that there are property rights there. The people do have property rights. So, it's somebody's property and
they they can do something with it, >> right? No. No, and I think that we all understand that that where we find ourselves today is um we denied the zoning request. Um the Florida law requires that we that the land owner then if they want to challenge our
decision, they file for the dispute resolution process and then should we not reach a settlement agreement then they have two options which would be one would be to pursue an actual to pursue litigation,
>> right? um which we would then have to live with the result of whatever judge decides um which you know you can we can evaluate evaluate that and in light of what the land use is and um what the allowable density is and all of that. So
you could have a result where the judge actually does somewhat of a cradown and we have to accept what the judge decides. Um then the other possibility is that they consider to modify their plan even more. We know that our current code would allow them um to move forward
with 49 lots without any public hearing. Um so that would be one of those options that the land owner would have. Then we also have the possibility that the developer goes completely or the buyer goes completely away and then the
landowner restarts and then we have the unknown and then we maybe start all over again. So, those are that's kind of the reality of what we're we're up against right now. And >> well, I'm not, you know, I think the discussion was good, feedback was good, application was good, but I'm not
satisfied with the product. So, I'm going to make a motion to deny this item. >> Is the motion to deny the settle the proposed settlement agreement? >> Correct. Yes, ma'am. And I will second that. I have some comments discussion, too, but >> All right. So, we have a motion. We have
a second um under discussion. Commissioner Parks. >> Yeah. I just think um again I I have some comments. Uh I think it's important and particularly in these cases to put it on the record and Melanie I'll actually give you and the clerk some of my written comments on this and I I'll
start by saying I appreciate the the uh collaboration process um and going through this. I also pre appreciate all the residents um showing up today and and um expressing very good viewpoints and you did it respectfully too. I appreciate that. Um, and I do I I am on
log house. I don't live on log house road, but I live nearby. So, I understand log house and especially lakes shore uh is is a big deal for us and the issues we've been struggling with lakes shore from lack of planning, you know, which started some 25 30 years
ago. Um, so, uh, you know, in taking light of all what I heard today and then going back through it and relooking at this, um, I'm not going to support the settlement. Um it's not consistent with the still not consistent in my mind with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations.
Um this is uh um that we consider those under section section 14.03.03 of the LDRs for the record on that. We know that but um so we also have to consider compatibility of surrounding uses uh adequacy of public facilities,
transportation safety and public interest. So I don't think it meets all of those that criteria at that basis of review. The site directly abuts the county land designated public services facility and infrastructure associated with the county solid waste drop off
operations. I thought we would have heard heard more about that today because I brought that up as a really big issue back in November. The comprehensive plan recognizes that solid waste facilities require peripheral buffering and nuisance minimization to protect surrounding areas. Yet the
settlement this what was proposed does not provide a sight specific compatibility analysis or a sight specific buffering standard that meaningfully addresses that that adjacy and because the LDC the land development code currently does not appear to
resolve the specific adjacency with a clear standard. So we're then forced to rely on the more uh more heavily on the comprehens comprehensive plans compatibility nuisance safety and public interest requirements. And I just didn't see that. I didn't see that through this
process, nor did I uh hear that today. I also do not believe the transportation record is sufficient. Staff treated uh I know it's staff had said this is dimmin dimminimous on the transportation yet. The ordinance itself requires a future traffic impact analysis and mitigation.
So it's it's like what's going to happen in the future with that? I would have liked to seen more of that now as we're trying to make this big decision. Uh I think the Lakeshore corridor drive is a is a big deal where which includes Log House Road. Uh so I just didn't see
how the how it was demonstrated that what is being proposed would mitigate fully the impacts of traffic to the entire corridor including Log House Road. Um, and so that uh, you know, I know there's impact fees that can be made and some things that have been
promised and a sidewalk, but it still overall uh, in my opinion uh, did not address the the concern about Lakeshore Drive and which includes the Lakeshore Drive which includes um, Log House Road. So, for those reasons, uh, that's why I'm not going to support the settlement. >> And and just moving down the line here,
I'll just weigh in on my comments on the motion. Um, I think the reasons why we denied it initially are the same reasons that I'm hearing others be concerned about this. Those are my continue to be my same concerns. Um, I am concerned
about the facility that's next door. I do think there would need to be more of a buffering and something to address those that that conflict there between the um solid waste facility. Um, I'm very very concerned about the drainage. I understand that through engineering to
a large degree you can address these kind of issues. Um but I've seen firsthand how engineering unfortunately has failed us. Um in certain instances and at times we just have to use common sense and look at a
situation and and and see it as as what it is and and this is a major concern what what would happen in a major storm event a major storm event like we had in October particularly. Um, I'm concerned about the traffic, um, very much so. I
think any additional density other than the base amount that's currently allowed, um, exacerbates that traffic problem that already exists, lack of sidewalks, so you add more traffic, you have more safety conflicts. Um, so that that's certainly a concern. Sometimes,
you know, when we're faced with a situation, we're trying to come up with some sort of a compromise where we get something in return that maybe makes the situation better. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't see a pathway where we actually improve a situation that already exists by doing something in
order to reach a a compromise. Um, so, um, between the traffic, the storm water, um, um, I I I like the fact that the with the Claremont JPA, the 75 foot wide lots that gives bigger lots, but again, if they went to the 49 that
they're allowed by law, by a matter of right, there would be much bigger lots, less runoff, less impervious surface, less impacts to the community. So, for that reason, I would support the motion to deny the settlement. So, I'm a little confused here because
the 49 lots does not have anything to do with the future land use or the zoning. Correct. >> Land development regulations. >> It it only only if a development goes over 49 lots, then it has to be a PUD.
It has nothing to do with the zoning or the future land use. The zoning here is R6. the future land use is urban low which would allow them six to one. Now they're wanting two to one. So am I saying that right Melanie?
>> That's correct. So when we had this hearing previously um one of the things that we had discussed was the fact that their their maximum density is 4 to one under the land use. This area was envisioned back in 2010 as being an area for urban low density. Um, so that is
their entitlement per se. The board did add to the LDRs a couple years ago a requirement that if you're going to develop 50 or more lots in a subdivision that you do come through for a PUD for the purposes of making sure that it was compatible, putting conditions on it and things like that. I don't believe the 50
unit requirement was necessarily to restrict the density that was allowed under the comp plan. However, it is the board's discretion as to what you want to do with the PUD zoning. Can can I just mention though since you raised the question because I did intend to say this during my comments was I think the
reason why the board put the 49 lot requirement in there was for this very reason that you could look at the site specific conditions you could look at the surrounding property you could look at what would happen um and and that that's why we we we added it I believe
is to allow that level of sight specific review and discretion um so that we didn't have a a scenario where we weren't addressing specific concerns >> and our codes and our codes was not very good. So >> and our code Yeah. Right. We have our deficiencies with our code. So it was a way for us to actually look at things
and formulate hopefully solutions. Anyway, that's where I was coming from with the 49 lots. >> Good. Yeah. >> So, um, with that, I I'm going to stick
with what is entitled to the landowner because a landowner has rights. His rights are urban low and R six. The developer is going well below that. So, I'm going to uh be against this motion.
I pretty much said what I believe is property rights and they have more property rights than what they're asking. And quite honestly, I'm concerned if they do market the pines, it's going to be a hundred times worse >> than what they would get with some kind
of uh runoff. So, I'm going to vote against the motion. >> Yeah. And can I just I understand you're concerned real about the runoff. I will say this that they're still going to be whatever they do, they're going to be
held to MPDS standards, so they won't like if they if they whatever they do, if they they clear it and they start flooding these people, they're still going to be potentially an MPDS violation. side. But I mean, I understand your reasons for wanting the settlement, but I just assurance out
there that, you know, if they do go through and clearcut and get mad and clearcut it and whatever that, you know, there's still an MPDS standard they're going to have to uphold even if it is for a >> and just >> and I'm I'm afraid this is what's going to happen. It's going to either be a Bert Harris claim or they're going to go
to a judge and the judge is going to shove down our throat something more than what they're asking for now. And that's that's always the risk. That's always the possibility. Just so everybody understands, I mean, that's, you know, and you I I did want to mention the fact that I appreciated
everybody's letters. I appreciated all the thoughtful comments that went into the letters. Um and um and the fact that you took the time to be here today. Um but it that is one of the things that can happen and that is the situation I described as well would be a judge does
a cradown. The other thing that can happen is the judge reads the concerns and the comments and and also takes those into consideration and looks at it and says it's um we've got 40 40 let's see I'm looking for my actual my total
acreage 39.99 and looks at the 49 lots that would be um allowed by right without a pud change um and sees it as a reasonable use of
property rights. So, it can literally go either way. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, >> it could it could be a law. So, can can I have the attorney explain to everybody what the Bert Harris Act is and how it works.
So the the Bird Harris Act is a provision of Florida statute that creates a cause of action against a governmental entity that imposes a ordinance or regulation or denies a development plan that is slightly less than a constitutional taking. Um the key
phrase is it is have we impacted their um reasonable investmentbacked expectations of their property. So again it is a lesser standard. Um, this county has had two Bert Harris claims in the past. We have lost both of them. I believe between the two of them, it
totaled eight million dollars of impact to the residents of the county um in settlements for those particular items. Who >> were your judges? >> Uh, I don't remember right off hand, >> but one of them was a road restriction. It was a it was truck restriction that then resulted in the purchase of a
pretty significant >> Yeah. One was another was a pretty >> that was a big so one was was one was mining one was a piece of property in Srento. Um so but but setting aside that fact um so they they do have the right
to to pursue that claim. Um they could appeal to the circuit court. Again KB Holmes could decide that it's not worth pursuing and they can you know back out of their contract. Um they also have the option of continuing this process which goes back to the administrative law
judge which would then become an evidentiary hearing um at which the administrative law judge would then issue a recommended order based on the testimony and evidence presented at that hearing. So those are the options going forward. >> Would we be bound by the decision of the administrative law judge? >> The administrative law judge would make
a recommended order which would then come back to this board. Um you would have the options to approve, approve with conditions or deny. If you deny, then of course the property owner would still have the options of going to court filing Bert Harris claim or I'm sure a slew of other options may be available.
>> Okay. >> And can I say one more thing? Um I do want to I'm glad you mentioned it. We we received all your emails and we read every single one of them. The only issue is we can't respond back because of this is a quasi judicial issue. So just know
that we we get them. We understand them. We read them, we think about them, we just can't respond. >> Yeah, this one is kind of a an odd a little different scenario than a typical letter that we get from a constituent and we answer back
>> because it's administrative litigation. We typically do not comment on active litigation cases. >> Yeah. Uh, I mean, yeah, but as as long as you're not responding back that you're pre prejuditial to it, like if I were to tell you that I'm going into this voting no, that's what's wrong in
an email. Uh, responding to it. But acknowledging an email is should be fine, I would think. >> Just >> just know we read them and and we didn't answer because we've been told otherwise. So, okay. All right. Um, so we said where we
were at. We're going to now actually take the the um the vote on the motion. Um all in favor of the motion to deny the settlement say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> I. >> That passes 32 and we'll go. We'll see
where we go next. So, thank you. >> I'm sure your hand's too bad for me. Can you pass this to me in your file? >> He had AI do he uh he said he had AI do that. Actually, I didn't research that. >> No, I'm I'm careful about that.
>> So, Madam Chairman, just as a reminder, we still have other items on the agenda. >> Can we take a 60sec break? I was going to use >> We're going to reconvene in five minutes. Just kidding. Yeah. Good luck with everything.
All right, we are back to our annexation report. >> Thank you, chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald, the office of planning and zoning director, an annexation one annexation report for you today. Uh, this is a 15.9 acre parcel. It's
located in Claremont, west of US Highway 27 east of Ro Roper Boulevard. Current Lake County zoning is planned unit development. The proposed city zoning is general commercial. Current Lake County flu is urban low. Proposed city flu is commercial. Site is already developed.
The site is already developed with a Kohl's department store and the associated retention pond. >> Question. That concludes the the report. Is it is a >> this is being annexed. >> It's a developed property abuing the city of Claremont and they are proposing
to annex the coals. >> It's already on city water and sewer. >> Yeah, it I have a question. Um maybe a loaded question, but uh can you show the map of the entire PUD? >> Yeah, so this is a parcel that is part
of a larger PUD. You can see it in uh on the zoning. It's it's the colored in pink. >> Okay. >> So, it's a commercial portion of a larger PUD. >> So, this was this was approved way way I don't know. I want to say way way back, but 2002, maybe 2003.
This this PUD. >> I think you're right, Commissioner. >> Yes. >> Yeah. All right. So, um Well, I know. I actually wanted to make sure I got that right. this the the um so my only question or maybe it's a comment is why
um annexing just the commercial piece of the PUD why not annex the entire U PUD uh because we're still going to be taking care of the roads on the PUD the rest of the residential right to to make note of this that the county will still
be maintaining the roads they'll of course have that annexed and obviously they need the additional revenue for that commercial operation, >> which is always provides a great lift. >> But why would the why would the owner of the property like I I guess because they
signed a an annexation agreement a long long time ago? >> Yeah, I don't know. That's what I wanted I wanted to know more of if there was and I don't know that question. I don't I'm not just asking it because I know it. But but >> the best I can say is that this is most likely a voluntary annexation taking
place. In order for the city of Claremont to annex the entire PUD, it would have to either be voluntary annexation or done through a referendum. >> Is is the property outside of this is it all part of a single HOA or the
individual lots? I mean, is there an HOA there that controls the whole parcel or is it >> I'm not or do you not know? I'm not sure what the HOA controls if the HOA if the residential HOA controls the commercial property. I don't
>> I'm just wondering if an HOA can request to come in to be annexed. >> I just know you >> I don't know. I don't know that answer. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't >> and and again I know may
>> So the area to the left to the like where you see Casper and Palmer Lane that's all that goes way way back. Was that same PUD though as the >> No, that's a different that's all the P the purple that you see on the map on the right is the PUD. >> That's the PUD. So that would more than
likely be the extent of your if there's a a property owners association. >> Yeah. And there is a HOA as I understand. >> Either way, this is a voluntary annexation and they meet all the requirements and we can't stop them.
>> No, we can't stop them. I'm just saying I want to know I don't know why um you know they they've obviously gone through and they're picking some of these properties along the commercial corridor to get the commercial corridors but it's to be pointed out that's an
you're breaking up a PUD and we're still >> Could we object based upon that >> or does that >> I mean I think it's I think it's fair to ask the question why are you not Anna I don't I haven't just maybe there's a good reason maybe I don't want to volunte Yeah, you don't want the residential folks then to be upset that
you're saying, "Hey, you need to go do it all." But if it's voluntary, then it would be up to the residential. Maybe they tried the residential and the residential folks said no, and only the commercial said yes. Yeah, >> it would really be you should go over to Kohl's today and see if you can talk to
someone. >> I mean, obviously that's not going to be where the person is you need to talk to, but somebody it would be helpful if we could. Could we look at the annexation packet that went into the the like the city's documents so we can get a contact person?
>> Uh, we can do a public records request for for their file. We have the annexation notice in the report, but we can do a public record records request and dig a little deeper into what what is being proposed. >> All right. Why don't we do that? I'm not going to suggest writing a letter of
objection until I see that. So, nothing to do today other than if you can get for me at least speaking for myself, if you can get that information, I'd want to know it. So, >> okay. >> I think if you could get that information, I know I for one would like to have it and Commissioner Parks would like to have it if you could get it to
us as quickly as you get it just so we could explore it a little bit more. >> Okay. And this is uh slated for a city commission on April 28th. >> Okay. >> So, it's not very long. >> Yeah, we got time. All right. Thank you. That's it.
And that's that's all. Okay. All right. Then moving along, um we'll move over to our county attorney's report, >> county manager report. >> Um Commissioner Sabatini,
>> uh same report as last month. Just be careful or be observant of the legislative session that's coming up because nothing happened on SP 180, which of course, as you guys know, is a huge deal. I mean, I didn't think we'd get a great bill to fix it, but we ended
up with no bill, which is insane, but we do think it'll be part of the budget negotiation, so pay attention to that and be loud. Thank you, >> Commissioner Parks. >> Um, no, I think that's a good comment from Commissioner Sabatuni. Nothing else to report. >> All right, Commissioner Smith.
>> Yeah, I got a couple of things. Um, spring games that happened. um couple of weeks ago over the month was a huge success and as soon as we get all the numbers I I'll come back and report
the numbers to you but it was a very very large event for Lake County. Uh great for economic development. Um but again as soon as I get all the numbers I'll bring them I bring them in. They're still crunching the numbers and
getting hotels and economic impact on that. Uh I will say that this weekend is another um huge uh weekend for Lake County. We have a volleyball a sand volleyball
tournament called uh Candyland put on by the sandballers. There's 110 teams registered to be the largest sand volleyball um event happening. And when I say 110
teams, it's doubles, fours, and sixes on a two-day on a two-day event. Uh it's getting so much traction that Mission Resort has been sold out on the amount of rooms that they have reserved for them. So, it's a good impact for them.
uh as well as some other hotels around the area. Um so that's another large um economic impact for Lake County. Um I'll be there at least on Saturday. Um Sunday I have other obligations, but
at least on Saturday and Saturday night, I'll be there welcoming the teams and and um everybody's there. Also this weekend is a fishing clinic put on by the Lake County Sheriff's Office in
conjunction with Lake County Water Authority. It is at Hickory Point. It's a free clinic for kids from I think 9 to noon. So that'd be Hickory Point's going to be busy this weekend. So if you have an opportunity to go to Hickory Point,
um please go please go and support everything that's going on there. And um oh I almost forgot to mention one of the one of the best things that's happening uh this weekend is um
Jennifer Barker's birthday is happening Friday. >> So happy birthday to you on Friday. >> 39. >> If 39 looks like 55 then yes.
>> And that's all I have until I >> till the end. Are they using the uh the uh sand courts at the college also? >> Uh no, this is all hickory hickory points. >> It's that would be perfect if you've got
a bigger event that they could use those courts. I have no report. >> Okay. Um just a couple things. Um, I was we had an elders affairs um advisory meeting um since I guess it was last
week and anyway I was able to see the new space for the veterans affairs office. If you get a chance I recommend that you set up a time with Maria to go over and see what's happening there. Um, we have our three new veterans services officers and um and and I would ask if
Commissioner Sabatini could specifically maybe head by there and meet those guys because I think it's really helpful for them to have um those that are in the military or veterans have actual connections with our local veterans that aren't necessarily using their services
but could help them connect with other veterans. >> Absolutely. So, I mentioned to them that I would ask you to do that. So, I'm asking you to do that now. Um, let's see. Um, I also, um, I had a chance to go down to the city of Eustace, um, waterfront the
other day on Saturday and, um, participate in their monthly cleanup along the shoreline. And um I have to say that um it was against my better judgment because it is that time of the year when the gators um are mating and
looking for places to nest and they get very territorial and and so I this is somewhat of a public service announcement to those that do not know our new residents in Lake County. This is a time to be very careful and do not take your little dogs and pets along the waterfronts. It doesn't matter how big
the lake is or how small it is. this is not the time you want to to do that. Um, that goes for some of our parks and things that we have that are county parks that have great walking areas, but this isn't the best time to be doing this and I highly recommend that you don't do that. But we had a great
cleanup. We I forget how many pounds of trash we got out of the lake. But, uh, it's less and less because they do it every month and they do this in conjunction with, um, um, the, um, let's see, Lake Watch, Water Authority, and
Keep Lake Beautiful. So, it's it's a collaborative effort. Um, but kudos to uh, Christine Cruz has who has been doing this for years and organized this, and she carries all these things around with her, the buckets and the grabbers and and the bags and everything and does
a great service. and it was actually um the honor society of Eustace High School. They were down there um in full force. So that was really great to see them out there. And then I think between the last meeting and this meeting, I had the chance to go to the Mountor High School and throw out a first pitch at a
baseball game, which was really exciting and fun. And are you going to ask me if I got it to the plate? >> Did you get to >> I did get it to the plate. Uhhuh. The catcher, I don't think he had to stand up to get it. I think he was still squatting down when he caught it. >> Was it a strike? >> I would say that's a strike, right? if he catch her sitting down, didn't have
to move and he actually caught it. >> But um but I owe that to the JV team for warming me up and and getting me on track beforehand. Um but I don't know how much heat was behind the ball, but but it got there and it was straight and it made it to the catchup. >> It was a curveball,
>> but but it was super fun. It was super fun. And so I got to be a a hurricane that day. And um that's one of the cool things about being a county commissioner is that you do get to go do these kind of fun things and get to see the young people and see how the schools are doing
and and what a great team. What a great uh group of kids over there. Great coach. Coach Matulia is there now and he's doing a great job and um super super great program. And um I think that you went out and checked out the pirates
invasion um event that's going to be in Aster um this coming Saturday. Do you remember any of the details about about that? >> Yeah. So um it's it's put on by the bad aers which I love the name of that club. It's
club Baders. So I want to get one of their shirts. So anyway, they're having a pirates invasion um at the Drifters bar, restaurant, bar and grill, and it is for charity. So go out there and en enjoy,
have raffles, and they do charitable events. It's >> they all they all get dressed up like pirates. >> They all get dressed up like pirates. Everybody >> drifters. >> Everybody there at the bridge, >> the old black beard, >> old black water in >> What was the old one called? Black >> water in black.
So anyway, it it's it should be a very um a very good event. So if you have some times, go out there. Um it doesn't matter. They they invite everybody uh to come along. They're all inclusive. They're a great bunch of people. So thank you for hooking me up with them. >> Yeah, I'm glad you were able to get out
there and check it out and get that information out. Um so I think that was I think that was it on mine. Uh Commissioner Smith, is there a special thing today stands for? >> There is. isn't. I notice that everybody's sitting on pens and needles just waiting to see what today is. In
case you're wondering, today is National Coffee Cake Day. So, go out and find you a coffee cake and enjoy it. >> Cool. >> All right. Well, with that, we stand a journal
for sure. >> Everything else I don't think it's been signed yet.