--------- tell you that part. >> I might have to bang my gabble today. >> Or the gabble. >> I might have to bang the gabble. There we go. All right. Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to our Lake County Board of County Commissioners meeting this July 14th, 2026. And we're going to open the meeting with an invocation. Today, the invocation will be given by Rabbi Jeffrey Solomon from the traditional congregation of Mount Dora. And then we'll remain standing for the pledge of
allegiance. >> Commissioners, a who graciously endows man with knowledge, who teaches mortal man understanding. For with God is wisdom and understanding. And so may God bless,
guard, protect, and help all the leaders of government, the president of the United States, the governor of Florida, the Lake County manager, and these commissioners, Han Abinah, graciously grant to them knowledge,
understanding, and discernment. May the Supreme King of Kings in his mercy preserve them in life and deliver them from all trouble and hurt. May the Supreme King of Kings and his mercy inspire them and all their counselors with benevolence to do good
toward all that is in their charge that this may be God's will. And we say, "Amen." >> Amen. >> Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much for the invitation for this morning. >> It's not every day you get to hear Hebrew spoken so beautifully in Lake County, so we appreciate that as well.
Thank you. All right. Um, moving ahead to our agenda update. Uh, Jennifer Barker, county manager. >> Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Commissioners, we do not have any updates to the agenda this morning. >> Okay. Moving along then to minutes approval. Um, Mr. Coney isn't here, but
Christy Mlain from the clerk's office is. >> Yes. Thank you. We request approval of the minutes from May 5th and May 18th. >> Move to approve. Second. >> All right. Um, all in favor say I. I. Any oppose? That passes unanimously. Moving then to citizen question and comment period. Uh this is the portion
of our meeting u where we open up the floor to the public to discuss items um that are on today's agenda with the exception of zoning items and we will take those up when we get to the zoning tab. Anyone who's joined our meeting uh through Zoom using their phone may press
star 9 to virtually raise their hands. If you're participate participating through Zoom, please click the raise hand button to let us know that you wish to speak. Everyone will have three minutes and then we ask that uh um you'll wrap it up at 3 minutes. You may hear the buzzard go off. You may not
realize that it's gone off and we may have to remind you, but we ask that you wrap it up at that point. Um so I'm going to start with the speaker cards I have that are nonzoning related. The first one is Farmer Banks Hellfrick. I am Farmer Banks Hellfrick. I live in
the Clay Road District. Farm tip of the day. Okra is in um well harvest right now and it is actually one of the most despised vegetables out there. Here is a super cool hack on making it appetizing. Uh salt, pepper, slice it up into pin
wheels. Roast it. It becomes very crispy. You lose that mucousy texture. Um and uh it tastes kind of like popcorn or I like to say okchra pops. Uh, chairwoman, board, distinguished guests,
as Americans, we are 250 years old. So, who exactly are we? We are travelers over the Bearing Straight Bridge some 20,000 years ago with names like Hopi and Navajo and Cherokee and Simol. We
are settlers from England in search of religious freedom. We are immigrants from China and Japan, from Iran and Syria, from Venezuela and Colombia in search of a
better life for ourselves, for our children, and for our grandchildren. We are forced immigrants from Africa. Yet to this day, we call America our home. We are black and brown. We are mocha. We are white. We are the rainbow
that the world sees in this country. We love who we want to love. We speak the way we want to speak. We are who we are. And we exercise the freedoms and liberties we have here because we can.
We are a hodgepodge of peoples. We are a melting pot of cultures. We are the muts of the world. The two things that Americans have that no other country has is one. We are diverse and two we are
united. In fact our first name is united and without united there is no us. Without unity there is no United States of America. I am farmer Banks Hellfrick candidate for state house district 25. I
am an immigrant and I believe in the United States of America. May you all be blessed. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Um, Ed Freeman. >> Uh, good morning, Chair, Chairwoman, and Commissioners.
I'm here representing the, uh, Heartland League of Cities. The League is made up of towns and cities from Lake and Sumpre County. Our concern today is Lake County. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that there's an implement
implementation of the new comprehensive plan coming soon. As Lake County's long range planning document, the comprehensive plan will influence growth, infrastructure, utility service, transportation, and
economic development for decades to come. The league believes that a delay in transmitt of this document, which recognizes the result of the property tax referendum, would promote stronger coordination between the county and its
municipalities. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And we're in that process. We have to do that. You know, everyone, cities, counties, we have to do this every 10 years. And we have to do updates and we have to take into account population um projections and changes and so forth. And um we are it's going
to be a little while before we >> so the next update to this board from our consultant will be the second meeting in August and at that time I believe we've received several requests to extend the project timeline. So
you'll be able to weigh in on that in the August meeting. >> Okay. And one thing that's of note, um, we received a report on, um, they actually went in and they looked at all the vacant land in Lake County as well as the vacant land in all the cities. Then they looked at all of the
comprehensive plan designations on the county's comp plan and they looked at all the city's designations and they came to the conclusion, our consultant, that there didn't need to be any increase of density whatsoever in the Lake County areas and arguably in the
city areas as well. um beyond what's on the plan because the plan takes into account these you know these um population projections. So, a lot of people have, you know, weighed in about concerns. Well, you're, you know, you're going to add more or do,
you know, you're going to actually open the door for more growth. But the reality is what we're doing is we're we're keeping everything pretty much the same, but we're trying to make our comp plan consistent with our LDRs where we have conflicts and um and so there'll be some changes like that, but that's
that's really the focus. Um, but we have received several requests as um the county manager indicated. So, I think that that's certainly something that our board will be looking at and I hear I see everyone shaking their heads. So, I think everybody's open to the idea that we want to make sure we're collaborating
with our cities and with our community. >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Eigor Emory. >> Commissioners, thank you for your time. My name for the record is Igor Emmery. E M R Y. And I spell that for a reason. I come forward to tell you about a project
that citizens have made me aware of recently that I'm concerned about. It involves Embry EMBR Y Riddle University. They're quietly working on a project in the Ocala forest to build an airport. And I want to stress they're building an airport. They're using a cup that's in
my opinion ancient involving a couple of land owners that got together to do a grass strip so they could fly to their retreat in the Ocala forest. And what Embry Riddle appears to be proposing is something much more substantial than that. They're talking about repaving
this project, this parcel to make it a longer airirstrip and suitable for their trainer trainers to come from Daytona and practice many hours a day in the Ocala forest and landing in this area near Deer Haven. I don't know the specifics of this because the citizens just may be aware
of it, but I feel that this project deserves a public hearing and I would like for each of you to look into this CUP and come to the conclusion on your own that I think you'll agree with me this is more substantial than that CUP conditional use permit um allows. And I
hope that you will encourage Embry Riddle to bring this project forward and tell us what their initial plans are and what their long-range goals are and let us have a public hearing where we can discuss with you, our representatives, the merit of this project. Again, this is about the airport and the Ocala Forest. Thank you.
>> And Mr. Emory, I'll be happy to meet with you and with staff so that we can show you exactly what the old 2006 cup says and what they um submitted as a site plan. Um, and it involves paving that airirst strip, but there's just a
single airirstrip. Um, it's, as I understand it, it's with the water management district and it's with forestry. Um, as far as what will be allowed or not allowed because our CUP is pretty, I mean, pretty specific. Um, the only thing that, um, was being
requested that was, I guess you could say, controversial, questionable was when they initially did the airirst strip. it was grass. They they want to pave it, but nowhere in the C does it say it has to stay grass or that it can't be paved. So that created, you
know, a certain level of controversy, but there from what we've seen as far as a site plan, I think they were replacing a hanger and that was it. Um, so I've se I've seen all kinds of things in social media speculation and so forth, but there's nothing in that CUP that allows
housing or any of the things that have been said on social media. But I'm happy to meet with you and show you everything on that so that you you at least as you hear from folks that want to talk about it that you know exactly what's in that cup and what's being requested. I
>> I hope the whole commission looks at the project. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So that's it on cards. Do we have anyone online? >> John B, will you unmute your line and state your name for the record, please?
Hi, this is John Blahett. Um I was actually I've been attending the um draft comprehensive plan updates and also been involved in the rural conservation subdivision updates. But one of the things that's come up has
been addressing statutory requirements related to septic to sewer conversions um and advanced wastewater treatment. The issue that I'm starting to see is that there's not really plans as how to get the sewer
out to the rural areas and and then implementing it when it comes to the residents that are in the rural areas and the costs that are associated with that. Um, nobody seems to have a plan or a a direction on how we're going to get the costs associated with when a
property abuts a sewer line and then the costs that are associated with that. So, what I'm running into is everywhere I look, we're now trying to push for sewer or central wastewater treatment at these different locations. But the problem is
is that what happens when a lot of these properties, these rural properties are a thousand feet, you know, or 500 feet or whatever from the abuing property and they have to pay the cost to get from that sewer or from their septic current septic system over to that that abuing
property sewer. And I'm wondering if there's anything in the works as far as grants or service condition funds or grandfathering systems that come into play with that. Um, I appreciate if if anybody has any answers to that or if there's any direction on how we're
working. Also, that the the wastewater systems are not just an environmental issue, but they it's it's also a growth man management issue. Um, I I think some of the problem is that we start pushing sewer systems out into rural areas, it starts increasing the growth in those
areas as well, too, because now you you had you start adding and and it starts becoming where people want to make sense of what they're paying sewer-wise. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you. It's a good good comments and
something that I think we run into sometimes because that's the argument often made that if a lot of money is spent on a sewer extension then they want in return a certain level of density and so it does create a conflict. If the idea is to protect the
rural areas and the and protect the environment and then in return someone wants higher density because they laid sewer um it becomes a um you know the two things are working against each other.
So okay, anyone else? >> Susan Federer, please unmute your line and state your name for the record. >> Hi this is Susan Federer. I'm in Leburg and I noticed on the agenda that there is a plan discussion for tab 18 about
the budget and I believe it's in relation to the upcoming vote we have in November about the property tax amendment. I'm very interested to learn more about what the budget will look like if this amendment passes. I think this is very important information for
all the residents to understand what our tradeoffs might be. I know we're all probably very excited about not paying more taxes, but what how does that affect our quality of life right here in Lake County. So, um we'd love to learn more about priorities if we do have a deficient budget for what we're
currently providing in services. Um in particular, I know that you all can be trusted to focus on public safety. And I noticed yesterday that the statewide firefighters union is not endorsing this bill because they are concerned about the effects on public safety. So I think
some questions I'll have moving forward and all of us will would be how will you prioritize if we need to make cuts to the budget and how would public input come into play. So I'm very much looking forward to further discussions about all this. Thank you. >> Thank you Susan. Anyone else?
>> No. Okay. All right. Then we'll bring it back to the board to the clerk of courts consent agenda tab two. >> Yes. We we request approval of the clerk's consent agenda items 1 through seven. Move to approve. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Um, we're in the middle of a motion and a second on the clerk's consent. Is that okay? >> All in favor say I. I. >> Um, Commissioner Parks, you have to vote I or no. Okay. >> Sorry, I'm having some tech issues.
>> Oh, okay. All right. Okay. So, that passes 50. Clerk of courts consent agenda. Moving then to the board of county commissioners consent agenda tabs 3 through 14. Do we have a motion for approval? >> Approved. >> Do [clears throat] we have a second? >> I'll second. I've got a comment on 13.
>> I would like to pull tab 11. >> I sense that there is a railroad approaching. A train approaching. Um, >> approve all but 11 and 13. >> All right, we're going to pull off 11 and 13. We have a motion to approve all but 11 and 13. And we have a second. All
in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? All right. Now we're going to pick back up tab 11. >> Um, this is with regard to the Brit road construction. Um, did you pull this? >> I pulled it. >> Okay. >> I pulled it because I didn't think it
was necessary to begin with and I didn't want a yes vote on this. I'm going to vote no. >> Okay. And this is in my district and I'm emphatically voting yes on this [clears throat] in hope that it will relieve traffic on State Road 44B after
Brit Road collapsed and we saw a tremendous amount of traffic shift over to 44B and has created massive problems. So, um, and this road being out has created a lot of inconvenience, extra money, extra time for residents that
rely on Brit Road to get from north to south or south to north. So, um, >> so just to be clear, my my vote [clears throat] no is not the actual reconstruction of road. It's it's the um the amount of money that was um paid to get it done. I thought it was um
ridiculous at the time and I still think it's ridiculous that we're paying this much money to a private land owner that we could have done other things with. But here nor there. >> Yeah. >> To move this forward. We can just go ahead and >> and and what we're voting on today is the construction contract and this is a grant-f funded contract. So we've worked
really hard to actually meet all the parameters in order to have it paid by a Federal Highway Administration grant. So, I appreciate our staff and all the hard work that got us to this point that we're able to actually use the grant funding to do the road construction. So, do we have a motion? >> Approve. >> Second.
>> All right. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> I. >> All right. Moving then to tab 13. >> Yeah. I just wanted to uh let you know that the original estimate for 466A went
from 21 million down to 14. So, uh there's some cost savings in there. If we have any extra money, maybe we can put it in the road the other road, the other road fund, do some repaving. So, >> so am I am I understanding correctly
that this estimate of 21 million is not correct? It should be 14. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. So that's for fifth 466A.
>> Excuse me. Who made the motion and second? >> Motion. >> Motion >> first. >> I can't recall. I think I I think it was first. >> Was um Commissioner Morris. Were you the second? >> I will be
happy [clears throat] to yield. Put me down in a second. You want to do over? >> It doesn't matter. >> Did we call the vote? Okay. All right. Let's let's start um with a new motion. >> Call vote. Motion to approve. >> All right. Now, it's very clear it's
Morris and Sabatini. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> Okay. And again, that's 466A. Um and a lot of people are going to be happy to see this get completed. Moving then to um
our public hearings. So we are ready for Mike Fitzgerald. >> Thank you chairman, commissioners. Good morning. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the office of planning and zoning director. >> Madam Chairman, just to interrupt, what's next on the agenda are the ordinances. Do you want to go ahead and
do resonings first before the ordinances? >> Um let's see. We've got We could move Let's do that. Yeah. >> Ordinances first. >> Um I I'm thinking we
>> or reszoning. >> Zoning. >> Zoning first. >> Let's do zoning first. All right. So, we're going to move over to zonings and then once we conclude zonings, then we'll come back and do ordinances. Yeah. Tab 19.
Okay. If we're ready. Um, >> this is either on >> and let me just mention to exparte communications. When we get to a case, if you've had expporte communications, I will ask for those to be noted on the record. >> Technical difficulties.
>> Okay. Everybody just bear with us while we try to get the monitor working. >> The the controller for the uh presentation isn't working. The batteries must be dead. disconnected there. Okay, this morning we have 12 items on
the agenda. Uh these items have been advertised in accordance with Florida statute. With that said, I'll turn the meeting back over to the chairman. Okay. All right. So, we have um tabs one and two on consent. And I'm checking to see
whether we had um any cards on one and two. I see none on one and two. Um so, do we have a motion for approval of consent? >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Now we'll move to the
regular agenda. Tab 13. >> Did I say three? I meant I meant >> I said 13. >> It's three. >> Three. >> So tab three is entitled Hardold Hills Apartments. Uh the requested action is to amend the future land use on
approximately 17.89 acres from regional office future land use to planned unit development to facilitate a development program for the Hardle Hills Apartments, which is a 212 unit uh multif family apartment complex with associated amenities.
The planning and zoning board uh unanimously approved this on their agenda. The location is north of State Road 50 and west of County Road 455 in the unincorporated Claremont area. The subject parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped.
The concept plan depicts 10 multif family apartment buildings containing a total of 212 units. It includes amenities such as a clubhouse, pool, tot, pickle ball court, dog park, butterfly garden, and a community garden. Approximately [clears throat] 2.78 acres
of wetlands are present on the northern portion of the property and there's a 50-ft wetland buffer that's shown on the conceptual plan. 25% of the developable acreage will be dedicated as open space and there will be a maximum imperous surface ratio of 65%.
The subject property is located within the city of Claremont's uh joint planning area and uh ISBA which is interlocal service boundary agreement. City city of Claremont does not oppose the project if it is developed according to the approved utility agreement with
the city of Claremont. The city of Claremont will be providing water and sewer service to the property. Lake County schools determined that capacity is available for this project. Lake County Fire Station number 90 is located one mile from from the subject parcel.
Transportation concurrency was reviewed and it's determined that capacity is available. Uh the transportation analysis shows that the intersections that were studied will project to be uh maintaining their level of service at buildout.
An environmental assessment will be required prior to the site plan approval or or in conjunction with the site plan approval. With the board's permission, I'll move on to tab number four. This is the companion ordinance to this agenda item. Tab number four is the resoning
action for Hardle Hills Apartments. The request is to reszone approximately 17.89 acres from agriculture district to planned unit development to facilitate facilitate the program that we have uh just discussed. I believe the applicant
is here to give a presentation to the board. Uh staff is happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. All right. Anybody have exparte communications um with people involved in this case? I'll register that I have talked to um Miss Tedro, the
representative um and applicant. Anyone else? >> I did too. I talked with >> I talked to the applicant and then received an email from the city of Claremont. >> I have so I have also talked with the applicant, Miss Tedro, the attorney, uh
Mr. Hardle as well, uh and uh many conversations with the city of Claremont over the years on this project. >> Okay. All right. Good morning. Tara Tedro here on behalf of the applicant. Also am the applicant. So this is a project that uh my husband
and I are doing. Um we have under contract there in the limits of city of Claremont, but obviously unincorporated Lake County. You can see on the screen before you that around us is a lot of dense development. And if you look in your comprehensive plan, it actually very specifically speaks to the exact
type of infill development project that we're talking about today. So policy 1-1.1.4 mandates that the county direct growth to existing urban areas. This is the exact textbook urban area that the comprehensive plan speaks about. And
we're already in an urban future land use series. So that policy goes on to say that urban infill shall be encouraged in the urban future land use series which is exactly what we're proposing today and that higher intensity and density development shall
be encouraged in existing urbanized areas and that's specifically to prevent urban sprawl. So when looking at the comprehensive plan and the urban future land use series mapping the project today has a regional office future land use is in a highly urbanized area. It is
seconds from State Road 50. It is minutes from the turnpike. It is the exact type of project that fits infill development. We have some industrial to our north. To our east, we have an existing walkable public shopping center. To our south, fronting uh State
Road 50. We have strips of existing commercial development. And that commercial development includes things that are great amenities to to residents of a multif family project such as a daycare center. We also to the east have uh existing residential as well. So you can see that there are existing
residential developments on multif family both to the east of us as well as to the south. To the south is at 17 units to the acre. To the east you can see it's below 12. The highest density under your urban future land use series today is 12 to the acre. We're not going
over 12 to the acre. And this has been a conversation that we've had working on this project for the last couple of years with the city of Claremont too. I understand there are projects uh oftentimes that will jurisdiction shop to find who will give them the highest density that they can get. There is no difference in development between what
could happen in the city of Claremont versus what could happen in Lake County with this project. And that's because the county has adopted joint planning area regulations specific to the city of Claremont in your land development code. It's the only city that has its own set
of regulations uh that have been adopted under a JPA. So, our plan has been reviewed and approved extensively by both the county staff as well as by the city staff. I believe you all received an email from a deputy city manager over at the city of Claremont indicating their support for the project as well.
So, this has been a project that we have done uh with everybody reviewing to make sure that there were no questions or concerns with the project as was being presented. This shows you the layout of the project as well. As everybody knows, Lake County uh and especially places
like Claremont and Minnola are known for their hills. The way that we've designed this project site is to have split level buildings so that we do not have to ask for um cut and fill variances and waiverss. This this site shows you that we are are designing those split levels to take advantage of the existing
topography that is on the site. So there are some differences um in the in the heights between the buildings, but we are not going over those three stories. But you can see where we have incorporated topography into the design of the project rather than asking for waiverss and variances in that regard.
The the project site itself is also laid out next to existing wetlands which we are not impacting. There is a 50-ft buffer from those existing wetlands. And then we have the 10 multif family buildings that are designed around an extensive amenity package um that that
we have put based on the types of popular amenities that we see in other very successful projects uh that we've designed before. So things like butterfly gardens, community gardens, tot lots, pools, recreational centers, yoga yoga lawns, uh outdoor amenity
centers, botchi ball courts, pickle ball courts, uh dog parks. Those are the types of things that we've incorporated all throughout the project. One of the differences between what you would get by right today on this project versus what we are proposing is that under the
urban future land use series of regional office, it only requires you to have a 15% open space. We have a mandatory minimum of 25%. So under that required open space calculation, that would be 3.49 49 acres
and we have 5.3 acres of open space. So sometimes you get a difference between what a PUD would allow that is a reduction and makes it easier for us to design. We actually have more stringent standards than what the existing future
land use would require today. When we first took a look at this site, we analyzed a couple different options. Obviously with the existing future land use, if you look under the policies of that urban series, it says that there are typical uses that are allowed under regional office. Those include things
such as light industrial so long as it's all indoors. It allows for commercial office and as noted in the staff report, it also allows for multif family. So if we were to do multif family on this site, it would be calculated over a 3 F.
If if you do those calculations, and I'm not a math person, so I had to write this one down. Um, but if you calculate out a 3F over the 17.76 acres, um, that is a very intense development. I mean, that nets, you know, 2.3 million uh, square feet of allowable commercial
uses. If you just did a shopping center, by the way, on this project, it would be three to four times the amount of traffic that a multif family unit would ever generate on a site like this. And that's just basic math under it calculations. But if you look at that 3F based on the way that that uh policy is
written today, you are permitted under this future land use series to have one multif family unit for every 10,000 square feet of gross leasable area that you could get under that F, which means you could have 230 units. So again, the
request today is not asking for something that is fundamentally different uh than what you could get by right except that we're not asking for as intense of a development because we're not also putting commercial or industrial or office uses on the project site as well. We didn't want to pursue
this project site as a reszoning to a commercial zoning designation and then try to do it through live local. We just wanted to come forward uh transparently with a plan that said we would like to do market rate garden style multif family units that that meet a market
need as identified during the planning and zoning hearing by the planning and zoning board. That there is a market need here that specifically address your comprehensive plan policies about urban infill development in highly urbanized areas with access to existing transportation networks. one of them
being County Road 455 and you know the millions of dollars that were spent putting a bridge over the turnpike just north of this project site. Um so that type of infrastructure was put in in a recognition that this is an area where there is growth existing and should be
directed. And again from a scale standpoint what we are requesting is uh less dense and intense than what the calculations under the existing future land use would allow. And we are also providing more open space than what those existing future land uses would require. So this just gives you a
summation of some of those things that I had described about how we're meeting all of the standards uh under the JPA with the consent uh of the city of Claremont for all of those designs. This highlights some of those extensive amenities that we've incorporated throughout the site again without any
impacts to the wetlands on the property uh and respecting that 50-foot development setback from those wetland areas that have been recently flagged. This is also consistent with your staff's professional recommendations and their review as well as with the unanimous recommendation that came from
the planning and zoning board. I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all may have. Um otherwise be happy to address any comments that may come from the public. questions. Got >> one. So right now under this use >> um there is some multifamily allowed
>> but what's the portion or proportion of if it's one multif family unit how much office space or commercial does there have to be in conjunction? >> Sure. Um so the staff report outlines that specific policy which is uh 1-1.3.6 six and it talks about how the total
number of multif family dwelling units that's allowed is one per 10,000. So you get that 10,000 gross leasable floor area based on the 3.0 F that's permitted by right um today under the future land use series which means you'd be getting
a much more dense and intense development than what we are proposing. So that could either be done with multif family in a mixeduse building um so or or a horizontally done project that's mixed use so commercial separate or vertically integrated with um retail
first floor office first floor and having multif family above it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I've got a question. Does your project uh include any on street parking other than what's the designated parking spots? So in terms of around um around
the project site, the parking that's I believe so the parking that's required is 318 spaces. That's a 1.5 space per dwelling unit calculation requirement. The parking that we've provided is 477
spaces. So it's definitely sufficiently parked. >> Right. Thank you. >> And Commissioner Parks. >> Yeah. Um okay. So could you um two two questions I guess. Um, one start with maybe a concern or two that I've received about the traffic along 455 and
access there >> and I know the answer, but what will happen just so you're on the record >> is our understanding in our conversations about what will happen with that. And then also this has been something I know I've this site has on and off for years. You know, there's
this the corridor plan that the NO put in place many years ago of directing density right along Highway 50. City of Claremont adopted that. Um, but it seems like it's kind of going back and forth a little bit. So maybe describe if you could um the process that you've had
with Claremont and I know Claremont having talked with staff and some of the council members are supportive going forward, but there's been some back and forth on that and what were the concerns and delays and things like that? >> Sure, no problem. So from a transportation standpoint, I think you heard in the staff's summation uh that
based on the transportation study that was submitted, there's existing capacity. It's not going to create any level of service deficiencies. Intersections will operate um appropriately even post buildout, but of course we have to do an updated study at the time that we come in for site plan.
So if some issue is identified at that time that did not exist as of the date the study was run, the applicant is required to address that. So that is on us, right? So, if something happens between now and the time we go for site planning and there's changes and there's capacity issues or we have to change
signal timing or whatever it might be, that's on the applicant to mitigate any of those direct impacts that are caused by our development. Um, so staff has that in the uh staff report that we would be required to update transportation at that time. Uh, as it exists today, there are turn lanes uh
designed for both in and out of the project. So it already accommodates turn lanes um into the site going northbound and southbound. So we have those in place. They are of a sufficient length for the required stacking to go in and out of the project site. Um so there
have been no identified issues. Uh but again if something comes up at the time we go in for for permitting, we have to address it at that time. As it relates to the history on the project, did I did you have any follow-up? I was just going to say, so again, conversations I had is understanding that there may be some
traffic calming and whatever whatever the engineers come up with because that pulling out of um the public's plaza there because you're one block off Highway 50, >> right? >> The concerns with that traffic there and I know you mentioned signalization and timing could be improved, but it may just be more than some turn lanes. It
could be some traffic calming or splitters or whatever the engineers. Okay, >> that's exactly right. Yes. Um and then in regards to kind of the history on the project. So we've been working on this uh a couple of years. We had first done the project uh applied in the county.
Then at one point the city said, "Well, why don't you just come and apply in the city for your utilities?" And we said, "Okay." You know, again, there's no net difference because we can get the exact same things under land development regulations between the two. So this is not, you know, jurisdiction shopping to
to get a better deal or a better density. And I know you all have had projects that have come before you that have not talked really to the city of Claremont or the city of Claremont said we don't agree with the density that they're asking you for which is above 12 to the acre. This is not that instance. So we had gone in the city of Claremont
and at that time unfortunately we ran into um a personnel uh issue with a former person at the city who said n after we spent about a year working with them designed it to everything that we were asked to do. It was like h you can just go to the county and then we had
already had a water agreement in place that said they would give us utilities. I haven't seen a utility agreement like the one that we have where it says we'll give you utilities if you have this plan approved. So it's not as if again the city hasn't seen the plan. It's an ex you know it was mentioned by reference
in the utility agreement that this is the plan that needs to be approved for the provision of uh utility services which is highly unusual I will tell you not. So, I think there were some political issues at the time that that person is is no longer there. Uh, when I've talked to folks about the
experience we had, I it was unfortunately similar, I think, to other other people at the time who were trying to process applications. Um, and there is everything's out in the open, right? So, we we came back to the county with the exact same plan. It's not like we were changing it when we were in the
city versus now. We continued that conversation with the city staff. They continued to review and provide feedback. We continue to revise to get everybody on the same page. Um so the city has the right to annex us uh if they would like for for utilities
whether they ultimately do or not um to be determined. But that's where we stand today. It's it's it has been a back and forth that has not been in the making of uh us as the applicant. I can assure you the Hardle family who I think has had this property for 60some years. The road
used to be named after them. I mean they the fronting the the property very frustrated with the process that we've gone through because it has caused tremendous delays in closing um by virtue of factors outside of our control unfortunately. >> Mr. Hardle is here. So
>> yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um well we'll move on to speaker cards and then you'll have your opportunity to come back. Thank you. Um, Cindy Newton. Morning, Cindy Newton, District 4. Um, I've just got a couple questions. First,
I'd like clarification on what the F is on uh the regional office. Uh when I looked it up, I thought it was.35 rather than three. So, I just like that clarification. And also,
this property abuts the city limits. I understand some of the issues they've gone through of not going to the city, but with this utility service agreement, there is a 2-year [clears throat]
uh date of agreement where the city's allowed to annex them, and that's next month. So, I don't understand why the counties put their resources into this project if they could get the same density uh from Claremont
and you know now the countyy's doing all the work and then Claremont gets to annex and uh gets the probably gets the impact fees as well. Um the impact fees on transportation
always come to the county. um water and sewer impact fees go to the city. So there's no change and a lot of the charges although it's not purely an enterprise fund on planning and zoning um at this point in time although building department is enterprise fund um they do pay significant application
fees that help go towards staff time on review um and I think once you get in the pipeline and you've actually gone down that road usually applicants would prefer to stay where they're at instead of then switching over you know midstream in light of the history of this. So I that's my understanding of
why they decided to continue on through the county with the understanding that the city would in fact annex them. >> Thank you. Did you did we need to answer the question on the F? But I think we got it answered right. Bear with me. staff is looking that up.
For the regional office, the F, which is the floor area ratio, the intensity of development that can happen on the property is 3.0. >> That that is a very intense commercial floor area ratio. >> Intense.
>> But that's not what I mean, just so everybody understands that's what could >> happen. >> Yes. This project before you is not near 3.0. >> It is. In layman's terms, that's if you had one acre, you could build three acres up essentially. I mean, it's three
acres worth of area. >> Assuming in basic terms, assuming no setbacks, no open space. If you had one acre of property, you could build a threetory building on the entire property. >> So, you'd have what? 120 130,000 square
feet per acre. >> Yeah, something like that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. doing my math correct. Yeah. >> But just to be clear, that's not what they are asking for, >> right? [laughter] >> No, this this has the open space and the amenities and and is not as intense as
as what it could be. >> Okay. >> All right. Next card is Eigor Emory. [sighs] >> Commissioners, for the record, Eigor Emery, District 4. Um, I had been involved in the planning process in Lake County for a long time and discussed
with many people the whole concept of the joint planning and the goal that I had and understood with those folks was the joint planning area was designed to give the cities the ability to plan their future and the county is going to work with them on that. And nothing I've heard today makes me feel comfortable
about this particular project. I'm asking you to vote no to it simply because why should the county be impro uh approving urban developments in the county? This is clearly an urban development. They need city services. They've said that. Therefore, they
should be in the city from the get-go. It shouldn't have to be annexed after you guys approve it. Put it in the city. Let the city choose when they want to do this project. Thank you. And I I just have to say something about the fact that that's the whole concept behind a joint planning area is that if you're in
an urban land series in the county, we're not talking about a rural land use here. We're talking about an urban land use. That's why you have a joint planning agreement so that you could actually pursue that urban in the unincorporated area and then you work out your agreement with the city to get your utilities which is exactly what
they've done. So, we're doing exactly what the joint planning area tells us to do, and a lot of work was put into that joint planning agreement. Um, okay. So, um, as far as, uh, rebuttal, do you have any further comments? Does anybody have
any other questions for the applicant or is everybody comfortable moving forward with deliberation? >> You have comments? I just I just got a question if I could [cough and clears throat] >> just the obvious question. I think I
think it should be >> check. >> Right now it's entitled to a bunch of density. >> You want a you know a different level of density and a different concept, but right now it's entitled and it's obligated to be mixed use. It's supposed
to be some commercial, some residential. And that's a good thing because people really like the idea that if they see density that it looks walkable or like there's stores involved, not just here's your freaking huge apartments, get out of your car, go to the shopping center.
Like ideally, we have the opportunity as the commission to because this is a legislative decision. We have the opportunity to allow a plan that allows density. I get that there's going to be density. This isn't a question of, you know, are we going to have bring back
agriculture there? There's going to be density. It's entitled, but this is density without commercial and walkability versus what you're requesting, which is just pure density without those things. And that's the hard part I'm in. So, like what what's your
>> No, and I I appreciate that. It it doesn't mandate the comp plan doesn't mandate that you necessarily have to do the mix of uses. It says if you want to have multif family, the way it's going to calculate it out is based on that F. So based on the allowable F today, which
by the way, three is what's allowed today.65 is what our PUB limits it all the way down to. So from an intensity standpoint, it's an effective down zone. And even from a density standpoint, because the calculation under the comp plan yields 230 units, we're at 212
units. So it is a down zone of intensity and density on both li uh levels which you probably are not used to me coming before you and asking for. Um and it is an increase in in open space requirements as well. And it meets all JPA standards for the city and the county. So we wouldn't have to do
necessarily multi- and commercial or multi and office on this project site. The permissibility is there under the comp plan. It says you can do things such as light industrial, all indoors, commercial, office, you know, some other non-res are listed there. And then you
can also do multif family. Multif family can be either vertically or horizontally integrated. We have on our project site um right next to us, you have all of those walkable amenities. So even though it doesn't have mixed use and maybe the
traditional sense of retail first floor multif family above it, it really doesn't make a lot of sense that it is off state road 50 to have that type of commercial component to it. We looked at this every which way to Sunday. I mean we are developing a mixeduse building
one city over. So understand how the market on mixed juice works and it's very difficult to do a successful sustainable mixed juice building like that. Um so the way that we've designed this is one you're going to get a lower intensity lower density project that
yields units that meet an existing market demand while providing convenient accessibility and walkability to all of that commercial that's near us. We couldn't get good commercial tenants when we looked at this for the first year. They just weren't there without having any visibility on 50. That's the
unfortunate reality. People might say, "Well, Publix is set back off 50." Publix has height limitations under their ground leases that wouldn't permit you to put a building on State Road 50 or a sign that blocks any of their visibility. That's how they do all of their shopping centers. So, you know, that's that's what allows Publix to
function without parcels in front of them and the store set back behind a sorry, behind a sea of parking. So, our project is going to have walkability to those amenities for the residents that we have. It's going to have access to a daycare next door, a grocery store across the street. There's an Orange
Theory next door to us. So, we capture all of those amenities while also meeting a very specific comp plan policy of yours. I know a question was raised as to why you all would do this. The answer is your comprehensive plan says you shall direct infill devel urban infill development to these exact types
of areas. So when you look at your policies and your land development regulations, especially the ones with City of Claremont, it checks all of those boxes. And it is an it's interesting when you look around the surrounding uses like you pointed out. Um you actually have walkability. It's just the walkability is from your site to theirs as opposed
to you cramming all of those things on the site. And you could cram them all on the site if you use that F of three, but instead you're using the 6 and you're adding a tremendous amount of open space. So it just makes a nicer, higher quality project. And the the one thing that impressed me probably the most was
the fact that you weren't asking for any variances or changes to the um the terrain. I you're working with the terrain the way the terrain is. And that's one of the complaints I hear from people all the time. They want the hills to remain the hills. They don't want everybody cutting down the hills and
changing the topography. So, I think that's a huge that's a huge plus. Um lower unit count than you otherwise could get. um more open space, less intensity, and you have the mixed use, but it's just in combination with what's around the property. Um and I do like
the conversation about the fact that some of traffic improvements are going to happen to assist with um traffic getting in and out of this site and in the adjacent sites as well. >> Just a question. And I don't know if you can put the aerial back up of the of the site here, but I think Commissioner
Sabatini's question about walkability is is a good question and we we need to always be looking at walkability now when we're thinking about these projects. But >> the trail connection is not far from there. Is that correct? Where it's >> It is directly across the street. >> Okay. So, what I'm I'm wondering is if
if we could >> because I don't think we've that's been sort of a question about safety with that trail crossing over 455 and I don't think there's a signal there now. There might be a blinking light, >> but that may be the answer for
accessibility and walkability is, you know, push a a push button actual signal so that people can safely walk across to the Publix on the other side. >> That's a good point. Yeah. I don't you know if if you're putting you on the spot here a little bit, but if that's if
that's part of if you're willing to >> Yeah. for pedestrian access across the street. >> Yeah. If that's part of the part of uh what's going to come with the engineering analysis, if you're willing on the record here to agree to that, um we'll we'll go with what [snorts] the engineers say. >> I was going to say happy. Yeah. Put that
on there that we'll evaluate it with your professional staff as to uh you know, pedestrian improvements for enhanced >> crossing over. I think there's I think there's an opportunity there because it's something that we've been looking at for a couple of years and I don't know if [snorts] somebody from Trails can weigh in on that from our department
here from trails but um that that's something I think we've we could do. >> And we also right to the south I mean our shared property line we have uh an existing cross access easement with those folks. So I mean it is directly walkable and our access lines up with
the shopping center across the street. So, I mean, you have literally right across the street, you're able to walk. I mean, it's probably, you know, not not much further than parking at the furthest point in the parking lot away from the public store itself. So, you could have people walking to a grocery store, dropping their kids to daycare,
and going to an Orange Theory, all without getting in a car. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions? So, if you [clears throat] the city's okay with the project, if you went to start over again, >> how long would it take you to get the
project through with them? >> A year, I mean, 18 months to start. I Yeah, I don't know how long it would take. We'd have to start the whole process all over. We've paid fees, I think, three times now, right? >> Paid fees to the county when we paid fees to the city who came back. We paid fees to the county again. So, none of
this is trying to get out of paying fees or not pay impact fees. the 2-year window um was actually not correct on what section 3 says of that utility agreement. It just says the city wasn't going to annex for two years. They retain the right to annex whenever they want um to provide services. That's what
the cities do when they say that they're going to give you utilities. >> And this is market rate. I mean, that's correct. You're talking $2,000. >> That is correct. >> Uh >> yes, it is it is not if if we stick with the utility agreement as written with the city of Claremont, it is prohibited
from being anything but that. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Do we have anyone online just to make sure? Okay. Um All right. Bring it back to the board. I'll just say that unfortunately I'd have to be a no on this because I just
don't agree with creating these large apartments when we have the legislative option of requesting a better project, a more livable project, a more walkable project, a project that includes some
commercial space for creative endeavors. Um, this is just a bunch of apartments. They're not. You sold me on the fact that they're not like bad like in and of themselves. They're probably as good or better than other apartments, but we
have a legislative role here. And we all have a duty here. And my duty is to the Lake County citizens that want me to vote for the type of planning and development that benefits the people that are already here. And this does not
do that. Um, what I think would benefit the people that are already here who I have a duty to is some sort of development that includes a commercial function or some other function that
creates a better livability standard in the area or something along those lines. And um, because we have the option to request that even if it took time to do that, I'd have to be a no. And I don't
weigh I don't assign a bunch of weight to what the city wants. The city has pushed enormous reckless development. I'm not saying that this is what that is, but historically the city of Claremont has allowed a reckless amount of terrible bad development that's
almost destroyed South Lake County. And so I don't credit them or give any positive way to decisions that they make or their opinions about what we should be doing in terms of land use. So, I'll be in no. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Um, and I just wanted to at least rebut that a little because I think what I hear from people is they want less traffic and they want less intensity and that's what they're offering. So, the the flip side is you're saying, well, add more
commercial, add more, you know, intensity. I I I think that's just exactly contrary what people really want. They want green spaces. They want open spaces. And you actually get nice walkability and you get high quality. That's the other thing that I hear from a lot of people is they want high
quality. Um if this were reszone to commercial, which we would have to approve, um and then they brought it in with live local, then they could do a cradown on a different type of housing and we would have to approve it. Have to approve it and they could take the
commercial component right out of it. So, it's just from a logical standpoint, I'd rather see the lower intensity, lower traffic, and higher quality. Um, and then you get the walkability as well. So, um, I can't make a motion. So,
do we have a motion for approval? >> Uh, I'm going to I'll go ahead and make a motion for approval. I have some comments if it's seconded. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. >> Yeah. I guess my comments are this. Um, I mean, I certainly appreciate everything that Commissioner Sabatini
has said. And I will agree that, you know, everything that's happened along Highway 50 and 27, um, I'm being nice when I say this, has been less than ideal in a lot of ways. I mean, if we had the chance to do it all over again, I would love to have buildings that
were, you know, more towards closer to 50 and avoiding these la these vast expanses of parking lots and it would have been much more uh mixed like you like you had said. Um, but I think in this particular situation, you are uh,
you know, you're probably getting the best option for what's available right now when it comes to more open space and what could occur with, uh, the floor area ratio underneath um, the office. Um, so as long as uh my motion, by the
way, would include um obviously what the engineer is going to dictate when it comes to coming out of the public's plaza and if there's any kind of traffic coming, but then also a a signal, a push button walk signal for the trail so that pedestrians can walk directly across the
street safely. I think that'll go to your issue a little bit towards um at least partially towards uh making it more of a walkable community. Um, so that would be just understanding that that's part of my motion. Um, >> agree. >> Okay. Yeah. I I think it's a great idea
to have a way for people that are trying to get over to the shopping center crossing the road to to be able to push the button to be able to have a pedestrian crossing. So, if the engineers and the traffic folks support that, I think that would be a huge enhancement.
All right. So, we have a motion. We have a second. Any more comments? All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposed? Okay. And madam chairman, just to clarify for the record, that is for the comp plan amendment and the reasonzoning. Correct. >> That was my motion. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. So, that brings us now
to tab um five. >> Yes, ma'am. >> This is the Tiger Paul Estates PUB. >> Thank you, Chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the Office of Planning and Zoning Director. This agenda item is Tiger Paw Estates Pud
Reszoning. The requested action is to amend Skiing Paradise Swiss Fairways planned unit development ordinance number 2018-6 to revise the approved land uses by replacing 18 duplex units and 30
vacation suites with 29 single family residential units in order to facilitate and incorporate the Tiger Paul residential development. The planning and zoning board approved this unanimously on their regular agenda. The location of this project is
uh actually east, west, and south of County Road 565A. Uh skiing paradise Swiss Fairways development is comprised of approximately 406.8 gross acres. It's developed with single family residences,
open space, a golf course, a water ski school, and other recreational facilities. The applicant is requesting to replace the 18 duplex units, which is actually 36 dwelling units and 30 vacation suites, with 29 single family
homes. Put Ordinance 2018-6 uh approved 102 detached single family units, 18 duplexes, and and the 30 vacation suites. Currently has 101 detached single family units. uh constructed. However, the
duplex and triplex units have not been constructed. The concept plan depicts the uh additional 29 single family residential lots on alternate keys 1438764 and alternate key 3918951.
The subject parcels contain a total of 47.8 acres. The minimum lot size in this case will be 30,000 square ft as required by the PUD and that typical lot size is about 120 ft by 250 ft. The concept plan provides open space meeting
the 60% open space requirement of the PUD. On February 2nd, the application was provided to the Florida Commerce for determination of consistency with the green swamp and Florida Commerce had no comments at the time. A portion of the development is located within the
Groveland uh in inter interlocal service boundary area and the city of Groveland had no comments. The development would be serviced by individual private wells and distributed wastewater treatment system for septic. Lake County schools reviewed the
application and determined that the project had no impact. Lake County Fire Station number 95 is located 2.16 miles from the subject property. A traffic exemption was submitted and approved by public works as the traffic impact is uh determined to be
dimminimous. And as always, an environmental assessment will be required when they uh apply for a uh site plan or subdivision construction plan if approved. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Any questions? All right. >> Yeah, I I have a question. And I'm I'm just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Currently today, as it sits, the um applicant is allowed 66 dwelling units and they're wanting to move to 29.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. Thanks. That's the I'm just looking at the calculations >> on screen currently is the conversion table to show how we're arriving at the 29 units. So from 67 to 29.
So >> from the correct I'm sorry 67 >> with the DW >> with the DWTS Mike. Um are we going to be required if it goes to on-site? Are we going to be required
to collect the money or are they going to pay them directly? >> That I'm not sure. I didn't see anything in the ordinance that I unders, you know, >> it's my understanding that DWTS goes on the individual's tax bill if I'm not
mistaken. >> So, so currently our current program is DWTS is only for county assisted projects, not for new development. Um, I know we've had discussions about that. Commissioner Parks would prefer to have
it all on the county MSBU. If the will of this board is to clarify that it is an agreement between um Tigerpaw and DWTS separate from the county, we can add that. Or if the will of the board is that it would be included on the MSBU, then we could clarify it either way.
>> But if I'm not mistaken, it's it's required that they have to have some advanced wastewater treatment or DWTS. Correct. They can pick whoever they want as long as they have that requirement in there, right? >> Yes, sir. They are located in a B they are located in a BMAP area.
>> Let a free market be the free market. >> So, just to clarify, the ordinance specifically calls out DWTS. It does not give them the option of the enhanced, I don't believe. So, that would be another change that you could make to the ordinance if that's the will of the board.
And >> and what about the roads? Um, are they going to be taken care of by the HOA? >> Uh, according to the ordinance, the roads will be under a CDD or MSTU or MSBU. >> Okay.
>> So, we're not adding roads to county maintenance and they have to do um treatment. >> Yeah. The reason why um MSBUs and I know this issue comes up from time to time is because if we do an MSBU with the
current contractor have we have they're locked into a a certain price. If they go off and do DWTS with on-site or somebody else, they're going to be as the free market says they will be subject to probably
much higher increases in monthly fees or or yearly fees, I should say. ours is capped, you know, based off the contract. So, >> I don't I don't disagree with that until somebody doesn't pay their tax bill >> and then and then but we're paying the septic company regardless of whether we
get paid or not. So, I mean, if if we for if they if somebody doesn't pay their tax bill and we have to foreclose, you know, the years it's going to take to do that, we're still paying on site every year
whether we get paid or not. Correct. >> I mean, but I would imagine I mean, in that kind of scenario though that you would be ending up ultimately with the property, right? So you would be in you you would be preserving the value of the property by having the service still intact. So if you just do the numbers
the numbers themselves actually it benefits you as taking back the property if that's where it goes >> and it takes time to do this. That's just it. We got staff time. The more we keep putting on this MSBUs or MS
>> I just don't see it. This is a scenario where people aren't gonna more than likely not going to pay their bills or pay their tax bills. >> Yeah. And MSBUs will always include an administration administrative portion of that as well to cover >> and it does cover cost. >> So I'm thinking this whole this whole
discussion needs to be like on a different topic or a workshop, right? Because >> well it is it is going off. So it does require DWTS. So yes, that part is settled as far as or that questions answered for this zoning case. >> And and just to clarify, in order to
bring it under the county's um ability to do an MSBU, um on-site would also have to agree because our current contract with on-site again is only for the county project. So we would have to have a separate contract with them or amend our existing contract for them to bring in new subdivisions to honor the
current rates under our contract. >> Okay. Okay. So, there would be a lot that would go into it before you could bring it into a county MSBU. >> So, unless the applicant wants to postpone, we literally could not we couldn't do that today. We couldn't bring it under the county. We would just leave it separate, which is what you two
want to do anyway. >> So, unless the applicant wants to postpone, then it it's going to be between them and >> onsite. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The applicant. So, the option is, you know, you're going to either do it with them or with the county, the MSBU. I happen to believe that to the to the actual
resident that's there 5 to seven years down the road that's the better option. But it sounds like, you know, if this moves forward, you're going to decide on that. >> Well, either way, if they have to have a septic system, the state provides the permits for the septic system. The state's the one that requires all this
stuff. So, if the state gives the permit for the septic system, then the state agrees to to whatever they're giving the permit to. So, I'm okay with it. Chairman, if I could just clarify, in the ordinance on page six, there's a statement that says the
developer must contract directly with a qualified provider and make provisions within their restrictive covenants for the HOA to have easements over the system, meaning the DWTS system, and to assess fees for the system until connected to a regional wastewater
system. So, to correct the previous statement I made, this is an HOA fee assessment that is in the ordinance. >> Okay. And then if in the future they wanted to bring it under the county's collection system, then they would petition like anybody else would for an
MSBU. >> Okay. All right. So, we got that settled. >> Perfect. >> All right. Um Oh, we have speaker cards and we have the applicant. So, okay. >> Good morning, chairman, commissioners.
My name is Chris K with Carter and K Engineering at 137 Fifth Street Northwest Winter Haven, Florida. I'm the applicant and I'm representing uh Mike with uh Mike Hersh with uh Tigerpaw. And um basically it's
a very simple matter here in our minds. This is taking 36 villas and reducing it down to 29 single family units. And what we're doing is we are um it's not an expansion, it's reduction in the density. Um this amendment is um
preserves the rural look with more open space. Um and it's been determined to be consistent with the comp plan as well as the land development regulations. Um the site remains subject obviously to all future permitting and engineering requirement reviews. Uh we are currently
under review with the St. John's Regional Water Water Management District. Um the county has um concluded based on the staff's report that this is a logical and orderly development pattern and it satisfies the review criteria. I wanted to thank Lesie and
Mike uh for all of their help over the last three years and helping us put this together. Um [clears throat] uh we also um wanted to note that um the property owner and other owners that
are around the surrounding PUD, this is a cutout. This is going to be called Tiger Paul PUD, if y'all approve it. Um it maintains the character of the original PUD that's outside of this area in terms of open space and the
requirements. Um, so at this point, um, the other property owners, they retain the same rights that Tiger Paul ownership, which is Mike Mike's property. Um, and so there any kind of uh adjustments um to the original PUD,
which was approved back in 2018, um would would have to come before y'all as you would expect, you know, just as we are today. So anyways, I stand for uh any questions or comments. Any questions? >> Quick question. U It's fine if you don't
know the answer to this question. It's a little obscure, but do you recall what the land use was before the last PUD change that created the duplexes and all that? What was it before that? >> The PUD. >> And then what was the density there in that PED?
>> Um the original acreage for the 36 villas was 14 acres. So the density would have been 2.6. It's we're currently going to spread out the 29 units over 48 acres. So it'll be
6 units per acre. [clears throat] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um if we don't have any more questions, we have two speaker cards. Um first one is um Thebo Daland.
I probably butchered your name. I'm sorry. Uh, good morning commissioners. Uh, my name is Tibo Dalan. I'm a homeowner at Tiger Po Estate Phase One. My parents owns a property in Swiss Fairways and I'm a licensed real estate broker for
over 9ine years focusing especially in this area. I know this land, I know the developer and I'm here this morning because I strongly believe that is the right move for our community. Why Tiger Po Estate is proposing is simple, straightforward. Fewer units, bigger
lots, better homes. As a real estate professional, the bigger homes on larger lots sell for more. And when home value goes up in one part of the neighborhood, everyone around them benefits. Every homeowners in Swiss fairways stand to
see their own property value increase. That is a direct win for the people already living here. The buyers who will be buying homes like this are families, retirees, and people who choose Lake County for its lifestyle. They play golf. They eat at local
restaurants. They invest in this community long-term. They are exactly the kind of residents that help local businesses grow. From a county perspective, larger homes on larger lots means higher property value, a stronger tax base, and less strain on roads and
infrastructure compared to a 66 multif family units would have demanded. This is simply the right project in the right place at the right time and I respectfully urge the board to approve Tiger Po Estate PUB. Thank you.
>> All right, next card is John uh Crocker. Good morning. My name is John Crocker. I am the owner of Swiss Fairways, Inc. And the PUD that everybody's talking about is a PUD that is in my name. In 2017, I spent many hours getting the PUD
approved. It's a continued PUD. I've been working with it. I renovated the golf course. I built the clubhouse. Uh it's a continuation and unfortunately the development that they're trying to
do is not his PUD Tiger Paws. It's my PUD number one. Okay. There's property that's involved there that has been stolen through a real estate deal. It was a golf course. The golf course was forced to close because of a real estate deal. The property he's trying to
develop is existing golf course. the part that was approved. He had a permit 10 years ago that was approved for seven homes on the left side of 18 fairway. When we had a meeting with Mr. Fitzgerald, uh he just zoned out one
area, said, "Well, this is already put this aside right here." No, that was approved for seven houses 10 years ago. The permit ran out onto it. He did not develop the property. Now all of a sudden, he comes in. He wants to take
change my PUB, my density, so he can build on property that he stole. It's it's it's totally wrong. This golfers to talk about they play golf, they do this, they do that. The golf course can't exist if I can't do nothing with the 40 acres that I have.
It's not going to exist. The golf course isn't going to be there. Now, let you spend a million dollars renovating the golf course because there's a development going on in the city of Groin is attached behind me 673 homes. That's the reason why I'm doing it. I I've been offered to sell my 40 acres
many times for cluster homes. I denied every one of them, refused every one of them because I want to build on five acre lots. I want to build 10 estate housing on my 40 acres. Now, all said and done, somebody just editor blue comes in, says, "Oh, I'm going to change
the PUD. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that." Well, keep in mind, it wasn't his PUD to change. It was my PUD. It's in my name, the PUD. And no one asked me to change my PUD. Nothing. Everything was presented. I think it was
totally wrong. It's it's it's a crime what has happened with that property out there. I'm still trying to develop my 40 acres and now I'm limited. I can't do what I want to do because he wants to change the PUD. He submitted. It's totally wrong what's happening. It was
my PUD. It still is my PUD in my name, not his PUD. And it's totally wrong what's happening. He he closed the nine holes of golf course, forced me to close over a wrong property deal that was stolen, and now I'm the one that's paying for it again. Now he wants to
take off my density so I can't develop my 40 acres. Totally wrong. Thank you. >> Okay. But you have a nine-hole golf course now, right? Just so I understand, that's what's left behind. >> I just renovated the nine holes. Yes. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Okay. All right. Do we have any comment
cards? Any folks online? I doesn't look like it. Okay. Commissioner Parks question. >> Yeah, I was just going to say I I had met with Mr. Crocker couple times with this I think once or twice at least uh as well as uh Melanie. So, we've had
discussions. We wanted to vet that particular question. Melanie, I think you're weighing in would be important from you from your legal. [snorts] >> Well, I want to see if what the applicant wants to put on the record. Did you want to address it? >> Excuse me. Yeah.
>> Appreciate your time. Um, just a couple things. Um there's a lot going on with respect to what's happened in the past between Crocker and Hurst as far as a there's been it's been a civil matter that has been recognized by the court
and we are where we are today as a result of that which Mike owns the acreage um free and clear that's been sided on already. Um it was a golf course. It's now currently not being used for anything. It's just open land. As I mentioned earlier, we want to
expand the area that's going to be used. Instead of clustering it all within this smaller area where the 18 villas, which ended up being 36 units because they were duplexes, were expanding those out to be um single family units and there's
29 of them, 29 of them that are proposed. Um another comment that was made with respect to what Mr. Crocker wants to do. It's the same thing we're proposing to do. And the original the PUD that we're
modifying was done in 2018. We've been at this for three years. Um we've got obviously a report back by staff from planning that indicates that we're compliant with the comp plan as well as the development code. Um Mr. Crocker was
able to come in, you know, before us from 2018 until now. We've been at this for three years and um he hasn't made any application to do what he's proposing to do. So um I don't believe that the PUD is under his name. It goes
with the land that the PUD does not run with any particular name individual. He may have submitted it but it goes with the land and Mr. Hurst is one of the owners of the land. So again, I stand for any questions that you might have.
>> Okay. And I do want to ask the attorney because usually when I've seen things like this come up before, um you have two different owners that own property that has one PUB designation, then there has to be basically a negotiation between where the density does in fact
go and one owner can't try to take all of the density away and leave nothing for the the remainder. So I need some help from the attorney explaining whether any of that was divvied out during their civil suit or anything like that.
>> Right. So, there was a civil case in 2020 between Swiss Fairways, Inc. and Clemson Skiers, which I believe is the predecessor and interest to Tigerpaw. Um the the gist of that complaint was an argument regarding the legal description and the sale of a portion of the property, which was the golf course to
Clemson skiers. Um, ultimately there was a settlement agreement that the parties entered into which basically gave Clemson the sole ownership of the property described in that legal description. Um, as part of the original complaint, the purchase agreement was filed with the court. So, I do have a
copy of that. It is in the zoning file, but we'll enter that into the record um, just to support the decision if the board chooses to approve this today. But part of that purchase agreement was a very specific provision that says the buyer's obligation to close is contingent upon the buyer obtaining
governmental approvement uh approvals and permits necessary and required for the development of the property into a subdivision containing not less than 21 residential lots each available for construction thereon of a single family detached residential dwelling. So that
implies that as part of selling the property that the previous owner was also selling not less than 21 residential lots um for dwelling units. So if there's a dispute regarding the number then again that would be a civil
issue the parties would have to um handle amongst themselves. But it does appear from the original intent of the purchase agreement that uh Clemson aka a Tigerpaw was intending to build a single family residential subdivision and they bought those entitlements when they purchased the property and that was
solidified by the court in the settlement agreement that that property does belong to Clemson. >> Okay. But then it's confusing because it looks like what we're ask what they're asking for is 29. >> Correct. And again the wording in the purchase agreement was not less than 21.
There's no top end on it. So that would be again a dispute that would have to take place between Mr. Crocker and the and the applicant. >> And then what's left what's left behind on Mr. Crocker's share of what's left of the PUD? What other number of units can
he do his one unit per five acres that he wants? >> And I'll have um Mike come up and address that. But I believe that once these are converted that there are no more entitlements. Um there are some some platted lots that have not been built on and those have been accounted for. Um but there would be no more
additional units available under this PUD without a further amendment. >> That's correct. Uh according to the conversion table table there are 29 units available. If we assign 21, for example, if we assign 21 to the applicant today, that
would leave eight left for Mr. Crocker >> and he has 40 acres and he wants to do one unit to five acres on his 40. I think that's what he said. >> Not confirmed his property. >> I do not recommend that the board make
any type of judicial determination as to who owns these units. If the board is wanting to convert them, then again, that would be a civil issue between these two parties as to who is entitled to those 29 units. >> And again, it's it's no less than 21,
but it's 29 is basically the what's left. >> Correct. >> Right. To be clear, so there was >> you are making a determination. >> There's 67 left. He's only asking for 29. Well, this the 67 is in the form of
duplex and triplex which are one building and he's converting those into single family homes >> for that formula for that >> but he's wanting to convert them to 29 units and all we're doing here all we're obligated to do here today is either
approve the new PUD with a less density or not. Is that correct? >> That's correct. But I believe the PUB does break it down into a separate section for Tigerpaw. >> That That's correct. If if if
we're heading towards not assigning the units to specific properties, we would probably need to amend exhibit C, uh the conceptual plan that is part of the ordinance that shows all 29 lots
going to the applicant's property. That's page 23 of 24 in the ordinance. So, so you would I think what Mike is saying is you would remove the concept plan. We would go back, we would amend page four of 24, which says the additional 29 single family lots to be
known as Tigerpaw would have these additional requirements. Um, we could adjust that just to say it's 29 single family lots and whoever gets here first gets here first with their plan. Or again, the parties can go to civil court
and hash out who owns what. [clears throat] And we'll be named we'll be named in the suit. >> There's a potential speaker that's requesting to speak. I mean, as far as all this conversation about, Commissioner Morris isn't here now, but
you know that that we're going to somehow get pulled in and we're going to incur cost and and all of that if we don't try to resolve it. But I get it. We're not This is not a civil suit. But it would sure make a heck of a lot of sense for these two property owners to
>> figure out whether he's going to get eight and you're going to get the remainder and then call it a day. It would certainly make a lot more sense than us all getting embroiled in a lawsuit. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Um, you know, maybe there's a another approach to
this. I mean, we are asking for 29 from 67 to 29. Well, 67 to 29 is a large jump, right? And so perhaps y'all would approve the 29, let Mr. Crocker come back in and amend the PUD to get the
additional units and push that number back up for the total PUD. >> I I think the problem with that is that this is already probably not consistent with Green Swamp Rural. So you would be then still increasing the density
potentially or making it you're you're not this would be making it more conforming by reducing to the 29. It is an option for the board to do that, but you know, again, it's already non-conforming. >> But again, the 29 is is maxed out on the
total cap because there's a conversion factor. >> Well, that's our conversion. >> Yeah. To 29. >> To get to 29 with some reasonleness, >> right? You're doing you're doing 29 instead of 67, which would the 67 would be multifamily. Not what be duplex, triplex.
>> Yes. >> Or some mix. Correct. you're not doing any of that, but it go it brings it down to 29 to keep the max number. So the big question for anybody in the audience would be are we exceeding some max number and that's not the case here. It's just it's just now it's maybe a
civil matter. >> So I have a I have a question is um who bought this piece of property? Mike Hurst. >> And did Mike Hurst understand that he had these development rights when he
bought them? >> Would you want to speak to that? >> Good morning. My name is Mike Urst. I'm the applicant. When the purchase was made, the number 21 was at the original construction plant. 11 have been built
in phase one which left phase two of 10 buildable lots which was east of Phillips. In this uh construction plan will be a turn lane at Phillips and Mos Monav Vista which is going to increase our
building cost for the for the construction plan. And that is why when we came back and asked uh how can we reactivate these 10 lots and asked for the additional lots to support the cost of this turn lane and the only way to
reactivate these lots is to create a new PUD. So Mr. Crocker or Swiss when they come back and they want to build they will also have to create a new PUD because these lots are expired. >> Yeah. See Melon that's where I was confused from. Mr. Crocker says it's his
PUD, but he sold the land >> part of it >> to Mr. um Hurst. Right. >> Correct. And and again, the PUD is tied to the land. >> Correct. >> So it's who owns the land. >> Who owns the land? So
he's asking for a reduction in the PUD on land that he currently owns. He's he's asking for a reduction in the total entitlements for the entire PUB to get 29 single family lots because the
way it's written right now there are no more single family lots available. There's just triplex and duplex. >> And the plan, the original PUB plan, the duplexes were planned to be built on east of Phillips, which were converted
to the the 10 lots of phase 2. So those the plan of the >> Hold on a second. So on this PUB Melanie, um [clears throat] the triplexes and duplexes are on the the entitlements are on the land that
was purchased. >> I'm going to let Mike address that. I know we've looked at the site plan. >> I'm sorry. The question is, have the entitlements been purchased? >> No. the piece of property that was purchased.
Were the entitlements on that piece of property that was purchased? >> The >> the triplexes and the duplexes. >> I think that's the question that it's remains unanswered. >> Well, well, it had to have kind of a sight plan, right? So, did he buy did he
buy the property that had the portions of triplexes and duplexes in it or did he not? He he purchased property that consisted of bear with me one second here. Let me get back to >> he purchased property
on the west side or the left hand side was part of the golf course. On the right hand side or eastern side that was the area where 18 duplexes existed in the original conceptual plan for the 2018 ordinance.
So, he purchased property that showed in the conceptual plan 18 dwelling units. I'm sorry, 30 36 dwelling units, 18 duplexes. The vacation rentals were not on the property that is the subject
property discussed today. So the question is which property owner in this pud has the rights to the development. >> So wouldn't it make sense for for us to have the two property owners figure this out before they come to us for approval?
Melanie, >> well that would be preferable. Yes. So why don't we just we so we deny it until we can get them to figure out who owns what and then they come back to us with what they want because I don't think we're in a position to say well you own
this and you own that because that's a legal that's a legality thing and there's only two lawyers up here that I know of that um and I'm certainly not a lawyer and I think it would be um disingenuous for us to say well this
property owner gets this many in property owner gets this many, let it go to court and let the courts decide, right? >> So, you could table it. Um, as far as denying it, you have very specific standards that you >> could we could table it. >> I think tableabling it makes the most
sense, but uh to a time certain obviously, but um I do want to try to settle as much as we can so that we kind of give them some marching orders hopefully that they can get worked out. It do I understand it correctly? Mr. Crocker has 40 acres
left that you wanted to build on and you wanted to do 5 acre tracks. >> Ma'am, I have I have 48 acres. So, I'm keeping eight for the driving range. >> Okay. Eight for the driving range, 40 left behind. You want to do five acre tracks? And then if we applied if we took those
um number of units um that would go for that purpose eight what are we left behind with once you do this conversion >> we would be left with the 21 the no less than 21 that's named in that
>> so I mean it's either going to be we give all of those to the applicant and then he's left with nothing or they come up with a way to split this number. Um, you know, maybe you don't get eight, maybe you get six and maybe they get two
more and so they get, you know, 25 instead of 27. I But we got to I think that give them 30 days or until the next zoning meeting to work it out. >> Ma'am, can I just clarify one thing real quick? So everybody's confused over
where those dwellings were supposed to go and everything else. Ma'am, this is what's approved that I had approved in the PUD. Here's a diagram. It is not anywhere near here's property. Nowhere near his property. It's not even on the
same street. This is next to my clubhouse. This is an old diagram that they pulled up that was done in the 90s. has nothing to do with 2017 and it shows over here on the left side
of 18 and that's less confusing with with the planning and zoning. They think that this this dwellings are over here. No, he had approval for seven homes in that area right there and the permit ran out onto it and he didn't build them.
This is where all these dwellings are right here. Nothing to do with his property at all. So then it goes back to whether the PUD was clear that they had to be situated the way a diagram that was attached to the PUD showed them. If it doesn't, which it sounds like what you've been telling us today is it it
didn't say it had to be that way. That was just a diagram that was attached. Is that correct? It didn't >> they were not as specific back then, >> right? It wasn't as specific. Um just like you want to do five acre tracks. Is fiveacre tracks shown anywhere on this PUD that you just referenced?
>> No, ma'am. I >> Right. But you're wanting 5 acre tracks. So it sounds like everybody wants something different than >> Well, ma'am, it's my understanding in the county. It's my understanding in the county that when I phone and and do research on to it, a 5acre track in Lake
County, I can build on a 5acre track. >> Well, you're trying to do it under regular zoning, but it's different though. So >> you'd have to reszone, get out of the >> I mean I mean there's there's there's rules, there's laws, there's there's, you know, the Harris Act that put that
was put in effect, you know, it protects home property owners such as me who went through all this trouble to get this PUD done to begin with and someone comes along and just wants to change the PUD. It's totally wrong. What's happening is totally wrong. So I'm going to have 40 acres I can't do nothing with. It don't
make any sense. >> Well, that's kind of what we're trying to major lawsuit coming down to somebody. Well, that's what we were trying to come up with a solution for >> and all the more reason it needs to go back to table it and >> yeah Matt I was going to say t table it for 30 days but
>> well I'd say longer than 30 days you know >> well I mean I >> longer than 30 days please >> yeah but I mean from what I understand >> pretty quick for attorneys to get together and all that kind of >> I mean all right whatever but but I think they have they've said they pretty
much own it is that >> correct [snorts] Yeah. So if ownership is the question, I'm not sure. I don't >> So >> sorry. I I know things happen, but >> So if we tabled this till November November plan uh planning and zoning
meeting, that's 120 days. >> That would be November 3rd. >> Or table it indefinitely. Allow the private parties to work things out. We will readvertise it. >> We could do that. >> I don't think they're going to get it worked out.
>> All right. So, I'll make a motion that we table this indefinitely until the uh applicants can come to an agreement and come back to the board with a >> The only question about that is what what I mean indefinitely though. But >> well, when I'm sure that there's going
to be um Mr. Hurst is certainly going to want to push this forward as fast as he can and he's going to want to push us forward as fast as he can. So, it's going to be on their timelines, not ours. It should be
them that ones that are on the on the hook to get this done, not us. So, if they want to get it done quickly, they'll get it done quickly. If they want to take their time, they'll take their time. >> Is there we don't if we don't table to a date certain, it's as simple as just readvertising the agenda item. >> Correct.
>> So, as a suggestion, what we could do is table it to allow them the opportunity to work it out. But if both parties submit, you know, an email that they're at an impass, then at that point we could re advertise it to bring it back. >> Yeah, I think that's what you should do.
>> Okay. But when would the when would the impass be declared, so to speak? >> Well, it's really up to them. I mean, they could walk out of here and three hours later send us an email saying they're at impass and then we could reschedu it or they could make a good faith attempt to work it out, which may take a month or two or three or who
knows how long. And it's be it's behooven of the applicants to come together on an agreement because right now the best agreement is denial completely. >> Yeah. It's either denial or you give them something less than what they're asking for which then leaves something
behind for Mr. Crocker. So I mean I would just go ahead and put it out there just so it might help you all in your negotiations and coming to a resolution. I mean, I I I personally think that something fair would be somewhere you want eight, maybe you get four or five. If they want 29,
you get 25. You know, we got you got there needs to be something that's equitable. Um, when it comes back to us and and I would think that's probably where we would go is somewhere that's we consider equitable. But again, the I think the ownership is we just we need
to we need to see the I know you say you own it and I I think from what we've seen but yes >> Mr. I'm sorry Mr. Hurst but I I think that's the critical issue here right >> and >> of ownership. >> Yeah. >> Uh he owns the land. >> Yeah, I know. So but
>> so so land ownership is not an issue. Entitlement ownership is the problem and that's where they can't agree. But they're but they're asking for it because they own it for the entitlement. >> Mhm. >> But he's but he's saying that they don't own it. >> No, I didn't say I didn't say they
didn't own I didn't say they didn't own the property. They stole the property. They they Oh, they got the property. Trust me. They they they they got the property. But what's in question is where those dwellings were supposed to be at is nowhere near his property.
>> Well, I I understand that. But when you say stole, that's that kind of throws the whole thing off. >> Well, I mean I mean I mean I I can prove it. I mean it's not it's facts of life. It's just that, you know, unfortunately, you know, uh being being hospitalized and and being out of the country, you know, it's kind of hard to, you know,
it's kind of hard to negotiate. You know, we already spent millions of dollars defeating this thing. I mean, it's it's just fighting the be beating a dead horse. It's crazy. This is absolutely crazy. >> I want to respect your time. Chairwoman, I think we have a motion and a second on the floor currently.
>> We we do, but did it define the um we didn't have a time. We just had the um suggestion that um if we get notification that they're at impass um again it's like if if they tell us
they're at impass and we don't hear anything back. I mean we need something that says um a time certain I believe. >> So let me just add if you don't mind. Thank you. Um there's nothing that I'm aware of. Melanie if you could help me
here. There's not a PUD ordinance. There's not a development agreement. There's no recorded easements. There's no Florida law that I'm aware of, and help me out here. This is just my opinion because I'm not an attorney, that indicates that that you have to get
consent of others to modify the PUD. And that's that's what it looks like where we're at today is that we're getting his consent. There is no consent requirement. So >> there is no constraint that prevents a
>> no it is right and just as we have proceeded he could have proceeded as well >> right and then it's up to us to decide whether to give you what you're asking for and us taking into consideration >> whether there should be some of those units left behind
>> for the the remaining property. >> Yes ma'am I'm sorry to interrupt. In effect, there is we're asking for 29 units and there's under the old PUD, there's 67 that are allowed. And so, we're just ask we don't want to necessarily nullify the 67. And I
understand your question about the um green swamp. And we can talk about that a little bit more, but I I also wanted to add one little point and that is the area that he's discussing about the triplexes that he's showing you has been subdivided and appears to be single
family lots. Is that right? I don't know. But here's the law. >> Chairwoman, can we go ahead and and at least >> triplex down the motion that's on the floor? >> Triplexes will not go in that area that >> Hold on a second, sir. We got a motion
on the floor here and it's been seconded. It needs to be voted on. >> Can I just ask the clerk to confirm what is the motion, right, that's on the floor? It was to um indefinitely um >> table
>> table. Thank you. Indefinitely table the motion and then readvertise when they're ready. That's just I I >> So the the other option is again you can do it to a time certain you can do it to
November 3rd or if the parties provide you know some communication that they're working it out and they would like longer then it could be postponed further. I mean I tend to agree you probably need a date certain because I don't think these parties are going to come to a resolution.
What's the meeting before November? What's the October meeting? >> October 6th. >> October 6th. Um, >> it's got to go to the planning zoning board on October and then come to us in November. >> No, sir. It would not go back to >> Oh, it go back to planning zoning. Okay. >> So, considering that there's the motion
and second, would the person that made the motion consider withdrawing and the person that made the second withdraw and reconsider a motion for it to come back to us on October 6th? and we will give the >> because of >> time to try to work issues out between now and then.
>> Okay. Yeah, I'll withdraw my motion if he'll withdraw his second. >> Withdrawn. >> Okay. All right. And can we have a motion to go talk? >> Well, um you don't want me to make my next motion? >> Well, I'm Okay.
>> Yeah. Uh, I I'll make a motion um to move it to table it to no later than October 6. Is that correct? >> Right. >> Yep. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> And I and I think what what we're hearing is that you know it gets worked out or there's a high likelihood nothing
gets approved. So we got to get but don't necessarily want Mr. Crocker to take that as leverage that he doesn't have to work together. I think you both need to work together. I think that's the key here. So, um, all in favor of the motion say I.
>> I. Any opposed? Okay. >> All right. We're going to move on to we have a whole bunch of, uh, variance cases. Um, starting with uh, see, tab seven, I believe.
Tab six. Um, I need five minutes. Five minute break. >> Yes, chairman. If I could just clarify something for the record. Because that agenda item was tabled to a date specific staff will not readvertise it. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. All right. Five 5 minutes. It's 10:50 10:55. We'll um reconvene. Hello. Anthony Sabatini. Hey, I'm here. What's up? Yeah, Yeah, but the timing is not good. So, if
it's already happening in real time right now and it's got a rid of execution, which means the sheriff has a lawful You're about to go back on the air. >> Okay. All right. We're going to pick back up at tab six. Mike, >> thank you, Chairman. Uh, for the record,
Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the office of planning and zoning director. We're going to bring up our variance agenda today. Today we have uh tabs 6 through 12 variances. These have been advertised in accordance with state statute.
Just as a reminder to the board and for for the benefit of the audience, variances have previously been reviewed by the board of adjustment. That board has since been dissolved and variances are now being heard by the board of county commissioners.
As a courtesy to the board, I just want to go over the purpose of variances and and how they are considered. Variances are uh strict application of uniformly applicable land development regulations can lead to unreasonable, unfair, and unintended results in particular
instances. The board is authorized to grant variances to requirements of the land development regulations in planned unit development zoning districts. The board cannot grant variances that are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or grant a variance to to permit a use
that is not permitted in a in a zoning district. The application of land development regulations would create a substantial hardship or would violate principle of fairness. that that is the criteria for the consideration
with substantial hardship meaning a demonstrated economical, technological, legal or other type of hardship. Principle of fairness violated when the literal application of land development regulation affects a particular person in a manner significantly different from
the way it affects other similarly situated persons. If the board has no questions regarding that, I'll move on to the first item. This is the Sherlock property, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. The requested action is a variance to the
land development regulations to allow for an unpermitted deck to remain constructed 45 ft from the ordinary high water line, mean high water line, or jurisdictional wetland line in lie of the required 50-foot setback. The
location of the property is 300033 West Time Avenue. And for the record, the purchase date on this property was February 13th of 2025. Subject parcel contains one gross acre and is developed with a single family
residence, front wood deck, driveway, and the subject unpermitted deck. On December 6th, 2024, the Office of of Building Services issued a notice of violation for no building permit. The subject property was purchased by the new owners on February 14th, 2025. The
new owners had no knowledge of the violation until they received the notice of violation on March 7th, 2025. On April 9th, 2025, staff advised that the after-the-act deck did not meet the required 50-foot setback. On January
21st, 2026, the subject code enforcement case was presented before the special magistrate where the ruling required that the subject property come into compliance. Uh should the board of county commissioners approve this variance, the applicant will be required to obtain
zoning clearance and building permits. And this is a graphic showing the wooden deck in the rear of the property. And it indicates in the center there that there is a 40 approximately a 45 and a half foot setback where a 50- foot setback would normally be required. I'm happy to
answer any questions. I believe the applicant should be here to answer questions. >> Okay. And I'm not seeing that we have any um cards for this one. If anybody meant to fill a card out for this one, if you could raise your hand and let me know. Um do we have anyone online? Okay.
All right. Um, and where's the applicant here? [clears throat] >> Hello. >> Good morning. >> Morning. Um, if you want to add something to what was said, from what I gather, you
purchased the property, the deck was already there. Then you found out that it had not originally been permitted. You had to correct the code violation and that's what the variance is for. >> I'm actually just the applicant. I'm here representing the owner. He's here though if you would like to speak with him. Okay.
>> Or if he wants to add anything. >> Um, it's pretty straightforward. everything that they had stated was >> Hey, I'm Jason Sherlock, the um owner of this property. I'm happy to answer any questions, but yes, to your point, this property, my son purchased it. I
co-signed. We [clears throat] thought it was a wonderfully cute little area until we started receiving all the variances or all the um uh warnings that we got about codes uh code violations for this property. So, the realtor that had purchased this property before us and
had done a ton of work to it didn't pull a lot of permits, and this is one of the ones that were unfortunately forced with coming to you guys and asking for a variance um or destroying the deck and and redoing it. But >> And you're just trying to put it back. You're trying to put it where it is now. >> We're putting trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Exactly.
It's here. Yep. >> All right. Um anyone have questions? Do we have >> The only [clears throat] the only question I have the deck that was built would pass permitting. >> I'm sorry. What was the question?
>> I mean, was it built to code or is built? >> Yes. They have plans drawn for it. We're just waiting for the variance to submit the >> I understand that, but it was built to code. >> Yes. And can we have your name for the record? >> Jamie Blunt. [clears throat] >> Okay.
>> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Um I just question again. So this did you you made a recommendation for approval of this or no? You don't it meets the criteria for variance? >> Yes. >> So the staff has historically not made
recommendations on variances. It's the board's determination whether the intent of the code has been met and whether they've demonstrated principles of fairness or substantial hardship. Keeping in mind that self-created hardships are not do not qualify as substantial hardship.
>> Okay. So, you said there were other uh things that the realtor did that they didn't pull permits on. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Who was the realtor? >> That would be um Benjamin um >> Champion. >> Champion with Tree Frog Realy. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we're just trying to
correct the situation with the dock with with the deck so that you can have the deck back where the deck was originally shown. >> Yes. >> And it's a five- foot variation basically off of the wetland.
correct area. Um, and you know, I >> it's consistent with the comp plan. >> This is in district four. And I mean, I I personally think that that it's an easy this is an easy one. All some
variances are really, really hard. This variance is a really easy one. It's a it's an easy way to rectify the situation. It's a five- foot variation. um it's not having [clears throat] any environmental negative impacts and it will improve the value of the property.
>> And I'm sure that the um purchaser didn't know any of this when he bought the property. >> Yeah. It's not like, you know, if it's like five feet, let's just say it's right up into the wetlands and you have you you can tell you got a problem or
whatever. We're we're talking about a [clears throat] pretty um you know low impact situation here, >> right? >> Yeah. And I I and I I think this is okay. It's just got to ask the questions. Um you know, in my world,
variances aren't granted too often. You know, you can you can um there could be a lot of cases where I you know, people say, "I didn't know." And I know it's not your your fault. You were misled on this. But um anyway,
>> well the other option is you could call the realtor to take four feet [clears throat] off of it. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. It's not a very big deck in the first place, but I get [snorts] it. >> Well, we have a motion.
>> We have a motion and a second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Um tab number seven. Um this is uh district five [clears throat]
and Mike. >> Thank you chairman. This is the cliche property. The requested action is a variance to the Lake County putt ordinance 29-93 section 2A entitled setbacks and buffers to allow the construction of a pool, pool deck, and associated screen
enclosure 5 ft from the rear property line in lie of the required 20 ft between structures or 10 ft from the property line. The location is 500 Grand Vista Trail and for the record, the
purchase date was December 6th, 2023. The subject parcel contains approximately.18 gross acres. The subject parcel is developed with a single family residence screened entry screened LAI driveway and walkway. The ISR is consistent with the
grandfathered 1991 maximum ISR no greater than 0.45. 45. Uh, with that said, staff is happy to answer any questions and the applicant should be here to speak. >> Now, um, didn't we get an a letter on this one? This is the one that's in
Royal Highlands. >> No, ma'am. That is >> I'm I'm on the wrong one. Okay. >> Is there any medical reason for this? The applicant is here to just address the board. >> Okay. All right. >> Good morning. Uh Christy Fulker, Premier
Pool Contractor. We're the contractor and um here on behalf of the homeowner as he's a snowbird and not in town right now. Um when we submitted uh when he came to us and asked us to build the pool um we were given a survey that showed a five- foot setback. Um upon
applying for our pool permit, we were told that there was an ordinance. Let me back up. We received homeowner association approval. Homeowners association was not even aware of this ordinance that was put into place by the county [clears throat] several years
ago. Homeowner was not aware. HOA was not aware. HOA approved our pool. This pool does back up to a golf course. There are other properties in line with this one that have pools that are on the same track that still meet the same type
of setbacks. This is just a much smaller lot. Um, we've already made accommodations as much as we can for this. This customer wanted a 12x 24 pool. We've reduced the size of this thing to 8 by 12 just to try to bring it
in and he will be using it for medical purposes. Um, and again, it's not impeding anyone else's home because it butts up to a golf course and we're well within any other buffers. >> And do you have that HOA approval with
you? >> Uh, I believe I do. me just a minute to find it. But yes. >> Yep. >> Any other questions I can ask while she's looking for it? It came to us electronically, so I might not have printed it, but I do I do have it at my office. I can get it if I need
to and have it sent to me. >> There we go. >> Did you find it? >> [cough] [clears throat] >> electronically, but I believe we submitted it. >> Yeah, >> I don't we I believe we did submit it with our packet, though, so I'm not sure
if it's in with what you have. All right. >> We could you could make a motion contingent on that letter being included in the record. I'm looking to see if it's >> just to remind the board, not that long ago, you passed an ordinance that's
going to require them to sign an affidavit that they're in compliance with their HOA restrictive covenants. So, >> and that would be submitted with the permit, >> right? >> That would address that. >> Move approval. >> I have a question though. >> Okay.
>> Your neighbors, nobody's both neighbors don't have an issue with it. No, he's spoken to both neighbors and like I said, he backs up to a golf course, so there's nobody in the rear that would be opposed to it. >> Okay. Now, we did get a motion in a second. The only problem is I just see
where Cindy Newton filed a card on number seven. Um Cindy, did you wish to speak on this variance request? Okay. Morning, Cindy Newton, District 4.
Uh, this property doesn't show any wetlands, but I want to show you my concern. Here's the property. What has happened with that golf course is they got a map revision. It's actually a was in a flood plane.
[clears throat] So, if you back this imperous surface up and you look at the contour map, I'm worried that some of this water is going to be impacting the uh neighbors backyard.
What I would like to see is in the next case you have the public works uh provisions to look at this a little better to make sure as some of you know we've got a property on uh SD road that
flooded. Part of the reason of that was there's only a five- foot setback behind it where the water used to escape and run down towards [clears throat] Blue Lake and it ended up getting trapped behind it. >> But remember, and you know that area
well, the elevation of the adjoining property was raised >> in that particular situation. That's why the water doesn't run where it's supposed to run. living uh property, you've got the golf course is at a
little higher elevation. So, water running towards this property could impact the neighbor. All I'm asking is that it gets looked at a little better for the water since it's had a map revision. Map revisions don't mean it won't flood. Map revision just means you
don't have to buy the insurance. That's all. Um, back to the fact that the HOA weighed in on this >> HOA HOA approved it very quickly and easily. And again, the HOA was not even aware of your county ordinance that was
put into place. No one knew about it. My homeowner didn't know about it. >> It was just adopted, >> right? I don't know. It had been adopted some time ago, but the HOA was never told that there was a a setback change. >> Oh. Oh, we're talking about a different ordinance.
>> Yes. Yeah. The the PUD was adopted in 1993 and it would have shown up in everybody's title. I mean, it's recorded in the public record, so they should have been aware of it. Um, as far as like flooding issues and concerns, that's kind of where I was going with if the HOA was going to weigh in and be
okay with what they were proposing that I would have thought if they had a concern, they would have raised it. And >> we don't have, from what I remember from my site, my site pictures and all that stuff. I don't have any elevation issues out there. I'm building on level ground. I'm not on a slope. I'm not going to be
changing grade. >> Okay, that's important. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Um I think we'll move forward with the calling the question. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay.
Moving then to tab number eight. This is the one that is in Royal Highlands. Correct. >> Tab number eight is entitled the Komos property. The requested action is a variance to plan unit development ordinance 2005-45
to allow the construction of a pool, pool deck, and associated screen enclosure 5 ft from the rear property line in L of the required 15 ft. The location is 5651 Kim King James Avenue. For the record, the purchase date was
February 23rd, 2026. Subject parcel is uh approximately 0.15 acres and is developed with a single family dwelling unit, a driveway, a front porch, and a backyard patio. Uh public works has stated in this case
that uh if this is approved, they would be looking for a lot grading plan and no obstruction of the 5-ft drainage easement. Subject parcel is located within the city of Leburg ISBA. The city of Leburg had no comments in this case. Uh the applicant stated
that there was a precedent set with a similar variance. staff did the research and found that there was a variance back in 1999 that was approved for a setback for a an 11t rear property line setback in lie of
the 15 ft for installation of pool decking and the uh pool cage but in this case it is requesting that there be a 5-ft setback. So that was 15 to 11. The one that you said it
>> this was correct. This was 15 required reduction approved to 11. >> Okay. >> The case before us is 15 required reduction requested to five. This is the uh site plan that was submitted to staff.
It's important to note for the board that staff received and I believe the board was copied on this letter that the Royal Highlands Board of Directors, Homeowners Association Board of Directors reviewed this item and on July 8th, 2026, the board denied the
homeowners request for this. I believe it's their architectural review board that that denied it. >> So we we couldn't override with a variance a decision by the HOA board could we? >> Right. So, no matter what you do today,
they would have to deal with their HOA separately. >> Okay. >> And I believe the applicant. >> Okay. >> Here to speak on this one. >> So, again, Christy, Premier Pont Contractor on behalf of my homeowner.
Um, same thing. We uh applied for HOA approval uh with um Royal Highlands. Um the one of the board members is actually the person who was granted a previous variance for a pool. Um what we were told was that the HOA would not
unilaterally grant my client um approval uh for this without it coming before the variance board because other members in the community had to go through that process. So therefore, my homeowner should have to go through it as well. That was what I was told by the board
member of the HOA at the time. Uh we were told that if we brought it before the variance process and it was approved by you that then the HOA would approve it. Uh what we have since been told is that uh we had there was a July 4th
picnic at the community and uh someone in the community took a petition around and got signatures uh signed in opposition of this and then it was brought to the HOA board last week. That HOA board though did not let my
homeowner know that this was brought to their attention and did not let her know that there was any opposition or any chance for her to speak on her behalf. >> Okay. Do you have a question? >> I have a question for for staff, Mike. >> And I'm and I'm sorry if you said this.
Um I'm I'm getting my mind set back into variances and doing this kind of thing. Um but on on page three of 17 you you say due to the existing residence configuration lot coverage and rear yard space the proposed pool pool deck and associated screen closure could be reconfigured and reduced to meet the
required 15 foot rear setback. >> That is a that is an option. I mean the pool could be reduced. So maybe the pool contractor could speak on options for for construction design >> because that's one of the four is it
four criteria for the variance. >> Yeah. Is there another way to accommodate? >> Let me show you why we're asking for the variance. This is our original design if you can see that. >> So again her survey shows a five foot setback. We did not find out about the
15 the the 20 foot setback until we applied for our zoning approval. So this is her original layout based on the fact that we're following her survey with a 5-ft setback. If I am to follow the setback for the ordinance that is in place,
that is what my homeowner is allowed to install in her yard. And again, this community has had variances before this board that have been approved for this use. >> No, and I I understand that that's
that's a that's a tough decision. We're in, you know, that some of these the realators don't tell you what you can actually do with your property most of the time. >> Well, in this instance, like I said, we went off the survey, which that's what we have to go off of when we do our contracts. It wasn't until we went to apply for our permit that we found out
about the discrepancy between a surveyed uh setback and an ordinance setback. Um the letter that came from um the Royal Highlands HOA, does it reference the fact that they were against it unless a variance was
approved? >> The the letter that we received, it looks like it's dated July 8th. says encloses letter signed by the Royal Highlands Board of Directors asking you to deny the variance at today's board meeting. The board denied the homeowner's request. So there's nothing
in here about but we we didn't have a current application in at that meeting. So again, while they had already previously denied us pending us coming to get a variance, it is my understanding though that the board several members of that board have changed hands. So, we would still have
if you grant the variance, I'm still going to have to go before the HOA and request approval pending the outcome of this variance. And if I am not approved, then I mean, it is what it is and we'll
we'll move forward. But, um, my homeowner deserves proper enjoyment of her backyard. So you should have a copy on your dis but there is an there is additional language in the petition says we the board of directors respectfully request
the county commissioners deny the requested variance. The requested reduction is substantial. A setback requirement exists to protect neighboring properties, preserve open space, maintain privacy and neighborhood character. Reducing the required setback from 15 ft to 5t would remove 2/3 of the required buffer and place the proposed
improvements much closer to the neighboring property. Now again, your consideration today isn't really what the HOA says or thinks about it. You have to consider whether they can meet the intent of the code as prong number one. And then prong number two is whether or not there is a substantial
hardship or principles of fairness that they have demonstrated. Um so that's that's what your consideration needs to be focused on. >> I have I have another question for Mike. >> Sure. Is the has the I will the ISR if this variance were granted with the ISR
for the um requirement for this PUD be met on the lot on a lot per lot basis. >> Uh yes the ISR will be 60% the maximum allowable is 65%. That's on page three of the staff report.
>> Right. I didn't see that. Well, I think that based on the reasoning of the applicant's representative that uh the hardship has been met. Uh and so I would move to approve this. >> Do we do we have a second? >> Yes.
>> Excuse me. >> We have cards on it. >> Hold on. I've got I've got the KOMOS. I have Linda. And then I also have Patricia Reynolds. Okay. All right. So, we we have a motion. We're just going to
leave that. We don't have a second. So, we're going to um take comments from Patricia Reynolds. Thank you. Uh my name is Patricia Reynolds. I'm vice president of the Royal Highlands Property Owners Association. We sent you a letter
stating our objections granting to granting this variance. You read our concerns. Uh yes, there have been other variances granted, but these do not these gr uh
variances did not back up to another property. This house does back up to another property. And we are concerned that if you grant this variance, you will be devaluating the property behind.
And the big thing is that you will now be setting a precedent. So we have to approve any variance that comes before you. And it doesn't matter if it backs up to wetlands, to a um farm or to
another property. And some of these people did not buy these properties to have now pools or decks backing up to them. Uh these people
supposedly own this house since 2002. Um the ARC committee, the board did not approve this. The ARC committee approved this in July of 2025. The board was not approved uh was not
really aware and this was our mistake. We should the leazison to ARC should have notified us about this variance but it was granted with you approving the variance
and it says right on their application that it is good for six months. It is way over the six months and the final approval is the board of directors. We took a vote at our last board meeting
which was last Wednesday and the board of directors do not feel that we would want this recommendation. So we voted down their recommendation for the pool pool deck and screened enclosure.
And it does state in our laws that we the board of directors are the final decision maker. I also am here representing property owners and I have a petition signed by 53 residents, one
from each household asking you to deny this variance. And if you'd like, I would like to present that to you right now. Is this the one we have? >> I think we have that. >> Yeah, we we received it. Thank you. >> All right. >> Okay.
Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Um and then Linda Kos. >> Okay. Sorry. So, she doesn't want to comment. >> Do I get to speak about >> um as the applicant? Yes, you you can.
I would just like to note that um I only counted 43, so I don't know if they got more signatures before this was sent out, but of the 43 people that um signed in opposition to this, none of them are any of the neighbors of this property. One of them lives a quarter of a mile
away. All the rest of them live in excess of a quarter mile away from this property. It will not be it will not be messing with their home or any of the adjoining homes. Um, yes. The current homeowner bought this house in 2002,
I think it was, but it was her mother's property since then. Her mother bought this property in 1998, and her mother still lives in that home. Okay. All right. And only because I'm curious, I want to hear what Miss Reynolds says. Is there
something that we're missing as to you meant you you had said that people around didn't like it, didn't want it, it was going to affect the joining neighbors. >> I've asked a couple of people on the street to sign that petition and their answer was, "Well, there are neighbors.
We don't want to um get in trouble with them. We don't want to cause any problems, but we as a board of directors have to look at everybody in the community, not just the neighbors who don't want to cause problems with their neighbors.
>> That's true. It would just be really nice if neighbors would just work with each other [laughter] and just be reasonable with each other. And um it's just uh I mean I I understand trying to adhere to the rules and the rules are the
rules, but it's also these lots these setbacks are just so tight and it's >> I do have a followup question. If a variance was granted before for a 15 set book set 15 foot setback down to 11 in the same community then we could reduce
ours 4 feet and she'd still get at least most of what we proposed. would the board be willing to >> and and that I and I had thought about that the fact that maybe we you know going from 15 to five is a lot 15 to 11
is is a is less um impactful and maybe even the board of directors and the ark maybe they would look at it differently if it wasn't such a a drastic change from 15 to 5. Um, is there any chance that um the board would support a 30day
uh table of this? So, they go back and talk to the board of directors and see whether they could reach um a resolution. >> I'd love to do that. The denial in July, the only reason why it's taken so long is it's taken me six months to get on the variance schedule. So, that's it's taken that long for me to go through the
process. >> So, so we can do a time certain. >> Yeah, let's pick it. Our next >> if we went from 15 to 10, I could still do most of what's here. I could I would still have to shave off quite a bit, but that would be obviously much more
amanable than her having a 4 by a 6x6, >> right? That's really extreme. >> Off of her back back door, >> right? And I would think maybe the neighbors would be more um amanable to it if it wasn't the you know as much of a
>> variance 15 to 10. We could definitely work with that. >> So would Mr. Morris would you consider >> a motion to that effect? >> Postpone it for 30. >> We we have the you're talking about the one that Commissioner Sabatina originally made. >> I would draw my motion if we're going to >> Okay.
>> There's a consensus to postpone. Yeah. >> Commissioner Morris. [clears throat] >> There was no second. Okay. Yeah. I'll make a motion that we do a 30 pay postponement and let them go to the HOA and see if they can work something out. >> It would be postponing till September 1st. >> September 1st.
>> Okay. September 1st. >> Commissioner Satini. Okay. All in favor say I. >> Hold on a second. I'd like to make a Okay. >> Comment. Uh it would be most beneficial to you and your customer to get the HOA to approve it before it comes back to here. >> Yeah, 100%.
And hopefully the HOA would be more inclined to do that if it's a less impactful variance [clears throat] request. >> We'll see. >> We'll see. Okay. All right. All in favor say >> Well, one more thing for the record because I was the one that made the motion. Just so you understand like I
think the hardship was met. I still respect the fact that the HOA at the end of the day still gets the authority. You know, if it was a different situation, the HOA wasn't involved probably looking at this different. So, with that said, I >> Okay. All right. So, I think just make sure everybody was unanimous in that,
all eyes on that. Um, and I think that's a really good point that we're in a deed restricted community. It is governed by, you know, rules and regulations. And the hope is that maybe with a lesser impactful variance that the HOA would be inclined to support it. >> If that happens, then we would just come
back before you for just the difference in the 15 to the 10 for approval. Correct. Okay. >> Okay. Miss Faulker, we're going to need copies of what you presented. >> No problem. >> All right, moving on. >> You want to call a vote? Did we vote? >> We did.
>> We did. It was unanimous. All right, we're moving on to to nine. Um, this is also in Commissioner Morris's district. >> This agenda item is tough shed at Griffin. The requested action is a variance to the land development
regulations to allow an accessory structure to be located 38 feet from the front property line in lie of the required 62 foot setback requirement from the center line of the road and to be located 5 feet from the side in lie of the required 10 ft. The location is
35142 West Griffin Drive and the current owner purchased the property May 4th, 2023. Subject parcel contains approximately 43 acres. It is developed with a single family dwelling unit, deck and dock, boat
house, carport, and utility building. The ISR remains within the maximum allowable ISR of 30%. The applicant has indicated that there is a substantial hardship due to the location of their drain field and septic tank. The proposed location of the
development appears to sorry the the proposed location of the development appears to reduce or prevent impact on the shoreline protection of Lake Griffin. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. The applicant should be here to address the board. >> Okay. All right. This is tab nine. I
don't see any speaker cards against this. Um do we have is the applicant here? Okay. The board Hello, commissioners. My name is Chris Kenova. I'm the applicant on behalf of myself and my wife, Mary Kenova. We are
seeking a variance uh to put this tough shed in. Um in your typical neighborhood, you probably would be hesitant to put a tough shed in what's considered the front yard. That is where you drive in to your residence. But this is not your typical residence or typical
neighborhood. Let me show you. Um, we do not but up against a road. We do not front a road. Is that where I need to have that? >> Right on the X. I'll switch over in just a second. >> There you go. This is an easement and I
call it a dirt path. It's not really a road. We don't get our garbage there. We don't get any mail there. We have to walk about a block up to a pave road at Tw Palms to put our garbage and get our mail. Um, so this is an easement from that property owner that owns the carport there to the right for us to uh
to travel down and turn into our residence, which is to the left there. You would pull in where you see the the car in the truck. That's where you pull into our particular uh neighborhood. This is looking straight across from my property to that carport on the other
side of the dirt path. I'm proposing to put the tough shed in this area right here. In terms of the aesthetic, what I'm about to show you is much better than what the carport looks like that's across the street from me. This is what we proposed to put there. Tough shed 10
x 16. You can see the colors are very consistent and the architecture is very consistent with the dwelling that's on the site. So, it's much more aesthetically pleasing than what I have to look at across the street with a multi ship. In addition to that,
there is a hardship for me to put the place elsewhere on the property on the north side of the property. It's very narrow. See right here? Um there is a path that that the tree line on the left is about
five feet into my property line. And so there's only between that tree line and my house is only about 20 ft of usable space. And that is the only path with which to get around the house and actually my neighbor's house to bring heavy equipment in for any maintenance or repairs. I've allowed my neighbor
access through that path so he can actually put a well in over on his side of the property. And so if I were to put the building in that narrow path, there really wouldn't be enough room, but I'd also be obstructing the only path we have to get around both houses for uh equipment. That's the north side of
house. On the south side of the house is uh about as narrow as a path except it's occupied by the septic tank and the drain field. On the opposite side of the house from where I showed you the carports is the lake. And obviously uh there would be opposition here if I was trying to put
uh a tough shed on the on the lakeside which I consider the front of the property which is where my front door is. So with that we would ask for variance. We believe that uh there is a hardship there and we believe this is a logical development pattern for that property. >> All right. Nobody in the audience here
on this one. I don't have any cards. >> No. There's no HOA in this area and my neighbor next to me has no objection to it. on the other side where I showed you that carport. That carport uh services cottage is just beyond the carport and their rental units.
>> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions from the board? Do we have a motion? >> Commissioner Morris, this is in your district. >> Smith, it's in your district, is it? No. >> Uh move to approve.
>> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Okay. [clears throat] >> Moving then to tab 10. >> Tab 10 is entitled operation parachute. The requested action is a variance to
land development regulations to allow for the construction of access of an accessory structure to exceed the maximum height of the dwelling unit uh and or 25 ft whichever is greater and to allow for such accessories structure to
be constructed in the front yard of the subject property in lie of the side or rear yards. The location of the project is 1 19811 Eustace airport road. The purchase date of the property most recently was March 7th, 2024.
Subject parcel contains approximately five gross acres. Subject parcel is developed with a 17t tall mobile home and an aluminum shed. The applicant is requesting to allow for the construction of a 35- foot tall, 8,000 square ft
metal accessory building. Public works reviewed this application and has asked for conditions to be met uh including a 5-ft drainage setback to allow for uh drainage on the property. Fire safety uh conditions are
maintaining access to the property, water supply for fire suppression and no events shall be held on site. Subject property is located within the city of Eustace JPA and the city of Eustace had no comments. The allowable ISR within the agricultural district is 10% and the
project will meet that if approved. I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant should be here. >> Okay. All right. We have several cards. Um they look like they're in support. Harmony Pentecost.
Oh, wait. First the applicant that was the applicant. Applicant Morning, ma'am. How you doing? My name is Dan Reese. My wife and I own the property there, and we are
um looking to get this variance so we could support um the Phantom Airborne Brigade by hanging their parachutes. So, >> does everybody know what the Phantom Air Brigade does and why they need the
height of the building the way that it is? Just >> you might want to just explain that a little. >> Okay. So, Phantom Airborne Brigade, it's a group of about 500 members prior mostly prior military um airborne rangers
jumping. We jump in Lake Eustace, Lake Dora quite often, about three to four times a year. Um, they they're looking for somewhere to dry their parachutes after jumping in the lakes here. That's
literally what I mean. They're a bunch of retired um disabled veterans just and we just offered our land to them to use to drive their parachutes. Okay. >> That's why you need the height.
>> So, this is for your um parachute drawing, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. We have several um cards. It looks like perhaps they're all in support. Um and Okay. If I call your name and you
just want to give us a thumbs up or if you would like to come forward, that's okay as well. Harmony Pentecost. Hello, my name is Harmony Pentecost. Not only do I think this is a great organization, but a great cause, and I support this project. Um, my sister and I actually own the property right next
to him, so we are 100% in support of this. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um, Cecil is giving us the thumbs up, it looks like. All right. Um then um is it um and andrew
um the thumbs up? >> I'm just a member of the >> Okay. Um and that was Bzowski I believe. Um and then um Joffrey East >> Jeffrey and thumbs up. Okay.
All right. Um move to approve. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. I. That passes unanimously. >> Go forth and hang up the parachutes and continue the good work that you do. Thank you.
All right. Moving then to tab 11. >> Tab 11 is Osprey Point Lot 9. The requested action is a variance to the land development regulations entitled heritage trees to allow for the removal of one heritage tree to facilitate the construction of a single family
residence. The property is located at Osprey Point Boulevard in Claremont. The purchase date of the property was November 21st, 2025. Subject property contains approximately 1.54 net acres.
This has been reviewed by our flood plane management staff and they understand that the tree is directly in the middle of the upland developable property and they have no objection to the uh proposal.
Just to further that point, this is showing the flood map. Uh according to our regulations, if you have upland and flood plane on your property, you're supposed to direct the development towards the upland. In this case, they have a hardship because there is a head
heritage tree directly in the way of where this home can be constructed. [clears throat] And getting back to an understanding of what the principle of fairness is, you can see the lots that are next door to this. They are able to build their homes because there are no trees in the way.
With that said, I believe the applicant is here to address the board and I have uh I can answer any questions that you have. >> Okay. Okay. >> Question. >> Question for Mike. >> And I'm sorry if you said this again, but um v mitigation, tree mitigation,
>> what's the requirement >> when they I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but they will receive the the variance to remove the tree. When trees are removed in uh in conjunction with a permit, they do pay tree mitigation fees
in in association with that permit. >> All right. >> I don't have those numbers. >> You don't know? Okay. >> Yeah. any approximation. >> Okay. >> I wouldn't want to guess. >> They will they will they would pay a mitigation fee. >> They will they will have for tree removal. They pay a mitigation fee when
they removing trees with a permit. Yes. >> And then they'll also in association with bu building a house, they would have to comply with the landscape requirements for tree planting on their own property. >> Minimum number of trees. >> That's correct. Um, we would probably,
as you can see from the aerial, they have a considerable amount of trees on the property. So, we would certainly take that natural vegetation into consideration. >> Okay, >> that's true. >> All right. Is it >> nice if they put trees in the front though after they build if they get the
variance, >> trees, >> something that won't fall on the house during our storm. >> Yeah. As we move forward with our LDR rewrite, um, we have a perfect opportunity to to re-evaluate trees in the front yard.
>> Okay. All right. The applicant wishes to speak. >> Madam Chair, board, um, I'm here to answer any questions. Obviously, uh, we're trying to comply with the, uh, recent update to the Heritage Tree, uh, ordinance. There's really no way to
construct a single family residence um with that tree there. And the tree is uh original pre-development. It's actually in a bit of a hole. Probably would not last. We couldn't construct out. I do have an overlay of the setbacks. Um and
uh I can put it up. I actually only did the front the canopy tree. Um where do I place this? Um but that's a 25 ft setback um from property line. I kind of used the little
measuring tool on GIS. It just um there's no way to construct the required requirement from the HOA size home without removal of the tree. And in answer to your question, uh it appears that the tree mitigation fee for 55 in
currently um is $2,760, which would be the mitigation to the county. And there's probably 200 or greater canopy trees left on property in that wetland area. >> You will you'll plant street trees probably, right?
>> Uh Osprey usually requires oak trees on the on the stuff and also um uh generally there is a adjacent parcel to the left which is HOA owned. So I would imagine there would be some sort of uh bushes or typical uh in that whole
neighborhood. I'm sorry. My name is Adam Edgington. >> And can you please provide the copy that you showed to the clerk? >> Yes, >> the copy. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Okay. All right. We don't have any opposition. You've heard the applicant. Do we have a motion on this request? >> I move for approval.
>> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? That one is pretty much a good textbook variance case. Unique to the property, can't work around it, trying to mitigate all the things. You hate to see a tree
have to go away like that, but definitely checks all the boxes. Thank you. >> The next agenda item is the Rodriguez and Garcia property. This requested action is a variance to the land development regulations to allow a
livestock building, a horse barn to be offcentered within the boundaries of the subject parcel and to be constructed 11 ft from the northern property line in lie of the required 50-foot setback. The location of the property is 12901
Cynthia Lane and this property was purchased by the current owner June 23rd of 2022. Subject parcel contains approximately 5.75 net acres. It's developed with a single family residence, pool and spa, a metal storage
shed, two wooden storage structures, a metal accessory storage building, and the subject two-story barn. On November 4th, 2024, subject property was cited for being in violation for having no building permit issue issued for the building the subject barn being
constructed on the rear of the property. On May 21st, 2025, the special master ordered the owners to take corrective action. On March 25th, still not in compliance with the order of enforcement, the owner determined the
location of the structure uh based on the setbacks given to them for single family residents and non-livestock accessory structures. Due to the use of the subject structure for livestock, the structure is subject to more restrictive setbacks. If
approved, the restrict the requested variance would allow for zoning clearance to be granted and will assist to resolve code case 2024100023. The intent of the LDR keeping of livestock for general agricultural non-intensive agriculture is to help reduce the noise, odor, and air quality
impacts on neighboring properties. subject structure is approximately 318 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and is more than 400 feet from the adjacent residence residences to the north and south. >> With that said, I'm happy to answer any
questions and the applicant should be here. >> The applicant wish to speak. >> Good afternoon, commissioners. Maline Damon. I'm the attorney for the property owner as well as the applicant. Um the subject property, as uh Mr. Fitzgerald
mentioned, is located in an area that's rural and agriculture in nature. Um with those a parcels to the south and the east. Um the property owner reasonably believed that the property was agriculture and um to his understanding that a horse barn didn't require a building permit, which is why we're
before you today. Um before constructing the barn, the property owner did his due diligence. He did reach out to building services and ask them about the applicable development standards um including setbacks um among other things. Building services did tell him
that the setbacks were uh 10 ft from the side property line. They did not advise him um as far as any uh changes in that standard for livestock buildings. Um so the property owner reasonably relied on those statements from building services
prior to um construction. he proceeded with construction. Um, and following that is when he received his building permit violation. Um, this wasn't from a neighbor. This was from um, I believe a code official who was on a neighboring property um, and saw this and reported
it. Um, so quickly after that, the property owner submitted all the drawings and plans required to get his building permit. And it was only then that he discovered that there was an increased setback for livestock buildings. Um and so, you know, he acted in good faith in reliance on the
county's um advice before construction. He didn't intentionally, you know, violate the LDRs. And um strict enforcement of that setback would be um in my opinion, um you know, inconsistent with the owner's reliance on that
information as well as dis disproportionate to um you know, the violation at hand. And I'm available if you have any questions. um as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? >> Did they have um anything in writing
from the permitting department? >> Yeah, that's a great question. Um nothing in writing. I did speak with the property owner yesterday to confirm his statements. Um he said that he did call and ask these questions, so he didn't have anything in writing. Um but that was his uh what he shared with me um
pursuant to his phone call. Did he write down who he spoke with? >> Not that I'm aware of. I'd be happy to clarify. Um, and he didn't specify. Um, but that was his what he shared with me yesterday. And so I confirm those statements with him.
>> I'm amazed that I mean staff knows the rules so I've got some concerns. >> Um, [snorts] okay. I've got one speaker card. Um, Dan. Um, is it Dashtari? Yes, ma'am. I just have a uh first of
all, it's barn has a living quarters on top with electric lighting outside and presumably water. I'm assuming if people are living there, but the the my only request is to have a condition to the variance or the lighting that's there to
be not allowed on in within the 50 ft setback. >> Okay. >> For for just for people, you know, when you're trying to sleep and all the lights like comes right into the bedroom and I can't. It just comes right in the
crack right where the where the where the >> but as far as the use of the livestock that's not problematic to you. >> I don't really have an issue with the livestock stuff. I mean like you get he's trying to make the best you can of his property and I I get that but the the lighting if you if we could have
that condition that I would be okay with that. >> So it's directed away from the boundary the property line. >> That's a secondary structure that they live in that somebody lives in. >> There's there's living space. It's like a barn on the bottom and air conditioned living space up top is what it appears
to be. But um I just all I'm asking is can we do away with the light fixtures that are so if he sells it next year and he leaves and I'm still going to be there, I don't want that light to be an issue. That's all. >> Okay, understood. So that if if there's
a motion for approval that it would just say that the variance contains a condition that lighting be re directed away from the adjoining boundary line something to that effect. Can we do that? >> Yes, you can do that. I I mean I don't
know I'm assuming it's directly on the side focused to the property line. You could have them remove that light or they have to comply with having it directed down the dark, you know, you could incorporate dark sky standards.
>> Okay. >> It's not the dark dark sky stuff. They still dissipate. So there's lights on the second story mostly and on down below. All I'm asking is let's not approve the fixtures to be there. So if
he does sell it, somebody else doesn't just >> So no light fixtures on the side >> 50 foot area >> within that >> setback area. >> Horses don't need light. They're not scared of the dark. So I think they'll be okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Question. >> Mhm. Um so [clears throat] for Mike
again going back to the review criteria um for variance on page four at the bottom you say the applicants have not demonstrated a substantial hardship nor demonstrated an economic technological legal or other type of hardship other than a self-created hardship of con
constructing a building without obtaining the proper permits. So that's prime again summarize why why you wrote that that's because of the setback. It's because it could go somewhere else on the site is that it's a self-created hardship because they are choosing to
turn the barn into a livestock building which has more extensive setbacks than what an accessory structure would be. If you're just putting in a shed or a barn for storing a lawn mower then that's a setback that is reduced from livestock.
livestock buildings. If you have enough property, you're supposed to be 200 feet from the property line. If you have a reduced property, uh, you have to be centered and I believe it's 50 ft from the property line. These folks are right up against the neighboring property.
They built the they built it no permit to begin with. Uh which is if unless they have an agricultural exemption, um they're building a a building without a permit. and and staff does offer um we'll we'll put something
in writing like a zoning clearance sort of right beforehand >> if every Lake County resident has the opportunity to apply for a zoning conformance letter to find out what they can do with a piece of property before they take any action
and then once they move forward with taking an action that they understand can be approve approved there is still a zoning clearance that is done prior to the building permit being issued. >> So, just to add to that, so a couple things. If there's living space, it
removes it outside of the non-residential farm building exemption. There should not be living space in a non-residential farm building. Um, so there's that. The the comment about calling and talking to staff about setbacks and not being given correct setbacks. The information you're going
to get when you call is only as good as the questions that you ask. So, if they did not specifically tell the staff that this was going to be a livestock building, they are not going to get a livestock setback. Um, that is one of the things that I've been working with the staff on is for us to stop giving
that information over the phone because more often than not. Most of the [clears throat] problems that we're encountering are people who are quote having conversations and relying on staff when they're again not asking the proper questions. So we are moving more
towards if people start asking questions about their setbacks and what they can do that the staff is going to start directing them to you need to ask for a zoning conformance letter. You need to get it in writing so that we can avoid the constant back and forth of well I asked but I didn't write down a name and this is what they told me but I don't
have it in writing. So we are working on resolving that issue because that has been a a huge problem between residents and staff um for the better part of I guess the last year. We hear a lot of that and we don't know what they asked. So the staff's going to stop giving that information over the phone. Um so that's
that's kind of the issues with this particular case. >> Yeah, it's it's unfortunate because from a convenience standpoint, it is nice to be able to call and ask a question and get some information, you know, but then when you then try to use it later to say, well, I was told I could do this.
Um and we don't, like you said, we don't know for sure what was really asked. and and the staff is very well of the setbacks for a livestock building. So, had that been mentioned during the conversation, I'm sure they would have gotten that information. >> Okay. So, but to be clear though, if there's no livestock, as long as they uh
applied for a building permit, they could put the building in this location. >> I believe they have met the regular setbacks, >> I believe. So, yeah. >> Right. So, but with the living space, they're going to have to pay the impact fees as well. So they will have to get >> my question is um if if if could they
have a living space in there >> staff was not made aware of living space in this structure through this application. If there is living space in that structure it constitutes an accessory dwelling unit and that's a whole new conversation. >> A whole new right >> and that may also not meet the setbacks.
We'd have to go back and look at setbacks for an accessory dwelling unit. >> Okay. Okay. All right. And from the applicant. >> Yes. I would just like to clarify when I spoke with the property owner yesterday, nobody is living in that structure. Um there's no intent for anybody to live in
that structure. It's only to be used um for a horse barn and livestock is more broad. It's only going to be used for horses. No, no living. >> But is there like why would why would you air condition the second story? >> It's that's a great question. Um that was property owner here. >> Uh the property owner is not here. I'm
the applicant. Um and this came to me after the barn was already built and and violations received. So, I'm working with the knowledge that I have. Um, but based on our conversation yesterday, nobody is living in there. And he doesn't intend for anybody to >> Is there is plumbing? Is there um bathroom? Is there
>> I don't want to say for certain. Um, there may possibly be. Um, but that's something I would need to confirm with the property owner. But again, he doesn't intend to live in there, use it as a living quarters. It's not going to be a mother-in-law suite. He's not going to rent it out to anybody. It's just
going to be used for horses. Okay. All right. What is the will of the board? Do we have a motion? >> Well, it's in my it's in my district, but I'm not supportive of the variance request. >> Do we have anyone else to make a motion?
>> I defer to the district commissioner on this one. >> [clears throat] >> I mean, if they want to go back and >> Wouldn't you make a motion then to deny? >> I mean, okay. Yeah, I'll make a motion to deny. >> Second. >> All right. Um, we have a motion
>> and they can go back through this whole different process for the accessory ADUs, right? >> They can if if now this variance is for the keeping of livestock in the building. Mhm. >> If they remove the livestock, they are
in compliance with the setback for an accessory structure. They still need to come and pull a a building permit, get a zoning clearance and a building permit. >> Okay. All right. >> And if it's a condition space or the second floor, is there a impact fee on that?
>> Uh, no sir. They would they would have to submit building plans that showed that it actually was a livable structure. Air conditioning, a a room, a bonus room above a barn would not constitute an accessory dwelling unit. They would have to have
living room, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, cooking facilities, and an entrance, a separate entrance from the outside of the building. >> I just had a clarifying question. Um, does does the commission have a recommendation? Again, there's no intent
to use this as an ADU only for horses. So, I guess my question for the commission is how can the property owner achieve that without having to fully demolish his barn and move it to the middle of his property? Is there a way to accomplish this? So, and again, he is
R1 zoning, but there's a to the south, a to the east, there are horses all over, other livestock all over. Um, this barn is not close to any structure. Um, as in the staff report, it states that the closest structure is 318 feet to the
closest house. Um, and so again, no neighbors are opposing this. It doesn't bother any neighbors. Um, and you heard from the gentleman earlier as far as the purpose for livestock. Um, there's no objection to that. So, I just wanted to ask >> one person though. >> Sure.
>> I mean, that's and he might sell his house and somebody new moves in. Sure. >> I just I think they need to go back through the process. >> Yeah. I think the main problem was they didn't pull a permit. >> Sure. I completely understand. Um and I agree with that statement. The property owner knows that he didn't pull a permit
and again, not that this is a a strong argument, but he was under the impression that this was a property and it's used for an a purpose which is for horses. So, he didn't need a permit. Um since then, he is aware of the process. He has applied for those permits. He submitted all of the drawings for
asbuilts. Um, and so our our request is simple, just just for horses to be in there. And we're happy to comply with the lighting conditions. Um, and again, no living will be in that structure. And it sounds so based on the motion for
denial in the second that um it's not going to get approved, but it won't have to be demolished. It just wouldn't be able to remain as a place for livestock. So, um, that's the sometimes you get consequences that don't necessarily
put you maybe what [snorts] everybody's concerned about. We're not going to get a condition on the light lighting. Um, but they would have to go through the getting their their building permit and complying with um with code. They just
won't be able to put livestock in it. >> Okay. And when commission states to go through the process again, are you referring to the building permit process for livestock or or just >> no for just having the building? >> If if the if the property owner wants to
pursue keeping of livestock, then they would have to build a barn that complies with the LDR, which would be centered to the property. the existing barn if it's permitted as an accessory structure. My understanding is it meets the sideyard setback for the
zoning district that it's in and can remain an accessory structure on the property. >> Thank you. >> Shed, storage, garage, all kinds of things except no livestock. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. We had a motion. We had
a second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? I >> Okay, moving then to um let's see that's the end of the variances >> public hearings
>> and we were going to do public hearings. What I would like to ask the board could we pick up and do um tab 20 and tab 21? Um I know we have people that have been waiting for both of those items.
So tab 20 is with regard to the Hamri um transfer of development rights and tab 21 is with regard to Chisum Trail. Okay. >> Okay. Mike. >> Thank you chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the Office of Planning
and Zoning Director. This agenda item is a discussion and direction regarding transfer of development rights. And staff's portion of this discussion is just a review of current code that Lake County has for the transfer of development rights. Uh we establish a
mechanism and criteria for the transfer of development rights, also known as TDRs, consistent with the Lake County comprehensive plan. Development rights located within the Wakiva River Protection Area area A140 sending area and the A120 sending area may be
transferred to the Wakiva River Protection Area A120 receiving area and the Mount Plymouth STO receiving area. A sending area is designated as environmentally sensitive suitable for the reduction of development potential through the transfer of development to a
designated receiving area. And a receiving area is a designated area potential for development beyond its base density through the transfer of development from the sending area. So the Waka River protection area A140 is a sending area that's inside the WA
River hydraologic basin. Maximum base density is one dwelling unit per 40 acres. Increased density, one dwelling unit per 10 net buildable acres developed as rural conservation subdivision or planned unit development. And there's 50% common open space.
Here's a map showing where the A140 sending area is. Sending area 2 is the Wakiva River Protection area, A120 sending area. This is outside the Wakiva River hydraologic basin. The maximum base density is one
dwelling unit per 20 net acres. Increased density, one dwelling unit per five net buildable acres as a rural conservation subdivision or planned unit development with 50% open space. And this is a map indicating where that
area is located. A120. Moving on to the receiving area. The Wakiva River Protection A120 receiving area is west of the Wakiva River system. The maximum base density is one dwelling unit per 20 net acres. You can increase density, one dwelling unit per five net
buildable acres as a rural conservation or PUD, 50% common open space. You can further increase one dwelling unit per one net buildable acre through the transfer of development rights from one of the sending areas. And this map will show you where uh the
receiving area is located. >> Can we stay on the map for just a second so we can all see the receiving area? Um so I'm looking for some reference points. You got 437 up to 44A.
Um, we just put a traffic signal up there at 44A and 437 by bear. Um, let's [clears throat] see. Um, I'm drawing a blank on the >> Black Bear.
>> Black Bear Reserve. Um, all right. And then we've got 437 over almost over to 46A. Cross tie Ranch is right over there.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure everybody could see where those receiving areas are. >> Do you have a Google Live Earth map of the receiving area? >> Uh, I did not include areas. No, sir. way to pull up an area.
>> You could probably put an iPad on there. >> We'll see what we can do there. There is a uh receiving area number two. This is the Mount Plymouth STO receiving area. It's within the Wakiva River Protection area and Mount Plymouth Srento community. Maximum
density based on zoning classification prior to March of 1990. increase of density 10 dwelling units or more developed as a rural conservation subdivision or PUD with 25% common open space. You can further increase to 5 and
a half dwelling units per one net buildable acre acre through the transfer of development rights from the receiving area. And this is the Mount Plymouth Sarrento receiving area. This is kind of a broad-based aerial view of where all the areas are located
that we've discussed. And then the next slide would show kind of a zoom in of that area and where the vacant land use analysis is. And all that red is the unincorporated vacant land that is in the areas of these
receiving and sending areas. As far as uh protocol for administering the TDRs, the applicant would be responsible for purchasing the sending area land. The transfer of development rights would be requested by submission of simultaneous reszoning applications
for the sending and receiving area. Essentially an upzoning and down zoning. And then all of that would come before the BCC for consideration and approval. >> But on the hammock, you're going to talk more about the specifics of that because there's not a
>> you don't have a sending parcel. >> With the board's permission, I will turn the second half of the presentation over to the county attorney to discuss the details of Mr. Ham. >> Need this? >> No, you're going to stand there and do that. >> Stand here and I'm gonna stand here.
[laughter] You're gonna stay right there. Next slide. >> All right. So, just to give you a little bit of background on the Hammock TDRs. Um, Mr. Hamick, Amanda Musclewhite, and Dewey Shidoan sold real property within
the sending area A120 to FD, but a dispute arose over whether those TDRs were included in the purchase. 2005, the plaintist filed a lawsuit against FD and Lake County. In 20ou uh July of 2006, there was a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the county at which
point the county agreed that we would honor whatever the court decided about the TDRs. If it was awarded to the plainif, we would honor that. In September of 2017, the plaintiffs and D settled the litigation whereby the plaintiffs were awarded the 329 TDRs.
Um so >> back up, can you back up one slide? >> Sure. Okay. >> Right. Next slide. >> All right. So, just to summarize, D owns the land. The plaintiff owns or Mr. Ham
owns the TDRs. The TDRs are fully transferable to a property in the receiving areas that Mike just pointed out to you on the maps. And that transfer would be effectuated by a TDR purchaser applying to reszone or upzone the receiving area property to document
the transfer of those development rights. So this is a depiction of um the Hammock Muscle White Shadowan property. Um there were six parcels there all in the sending area A120. So, if the board chooses to move forward
with um any type of purchase of the TDRs, it would eliminate the possibility of higher density in the receiving areas, potentially allow the county to start a TDR bank um and would potentially recover the purchase price to the sale of TDRs from the bank if a countywide program was established in
the future. Um so, Mr. Ham is and is and has been asking for the county to purchase those TDRs outright um versus finding a willing buyer [clears throat] in the receiving area where it would then become just a transaction between
um buyer and seller. >> Are any of these transferring now? Are there any TDRs being transferred back in >> I mean I don't remember seeing any. >> Well Melanie you can answer that but a long time ago it was done. So, there have been some TDR transfers. Um, Black
Bear actually was a recipient of some TDRs many, many years ago. Um, Red Tail, I believe, had some TDRs. There were TDRs associated with what we call the Neighborhood Lakes property, which was purchased for the Wakiva Parkway. And I believe that property owner did get
compensation for those TDRs from the state when they bought that property. >> But the county has not been involved in it. >> We do not. It's it's considered an an intangible property right that gets bought and sold between buyers and sellers. The only involvement that the
county has had in the past is that again we will downzone a property where the rights are leaving and upzone the property to where they are going to. But other than that, we have no no bank, no TDR transfer program that's never been established. >> And is there an amount that's been put
to these 300 and some odd TDRs? You want to answer that or you want me to? >> Well, I mean, I think the owner um was looking at what had been paid in in the past um for probably one of the only transactions
um associated with them. And just to give a little bit of background because I don't know if any of you all have talked to Mr. Ham or not um but um and they're here and and he they may want to he and his representative might want to make some statements about it. Um, but
generally speaking, when you asked about whether TDRs had been used in the past, those were done early on when the Wakiva Act was put into place and there were folks that were trying to subdivide properties and they were using the TDRs to get higher densities like Black Bear
and I think Cross Tai had some and maybe Gatwick. That was all done, you know, at that same time. Since then, it's really not something that's happened with, you know, any regularity. The difference with Mr. Hamrix is that he
um feels that he should have been paid for the full value of his property and that he had to take these TDRs as a way to compensate him for what the state wasn't willing to pay with regard to the
difference between the fair market value of the property. And so he was, you know, left with these TDRs and then no place to use them and no market for them. And I think the issue is that he
wants the county to purchase those TDRs. And if we don't purchase them, then they're going to be out there potentially adding density to these areas in the sending area or the receiving area. Um, I for one, as a district commissioner and somebody who's on the Wakiva River Basin Commission and
spend a lot of time working on efforts in the Wakiva protection area, I personally would not like to see the density increased in those receiving areas. Um, I'd like those areas to remain um low density like they are now.
Um, you know, the only saving grace is that the max you can get is one unit to one acre, but again, that would be very high compared to what's out there. >> So, how how many other owners out there have TDR rights? >> No, nobody has them like in hand. They
would have to come to us and establish them. Um, this is what's unique about this situation. As far as we know, no one else actually has like a written document where the TDRs were already established. somebody. If someone else in these sending areas wanted to try to
do a transaction and take them off of their property, we would arguably have to be involved in that, right? Because it would be a downzoning and then an upzoning. And that's what was being described in the presentation today. This is different. These have already
been bifurcated from that property. And that's that's why they feel that they are in a unique situation. >> So they could sell them to anybody they wanted to. Not anybody, just those receiving areas, somebody that needs them in order to increase the density in those receiving areas. That's the only
place they can go right now. >> And that's probably as a side question. Perhaps the issue is the area. That's a small area, the receiving area, right? >> Yeah, if you look at the Google maps, most of that's already developed. >> Oh, no, it's not. I don't know how you
could say that. I mean, that's not >> So, anyway, I got a couple of questions. Commissioner Smith, that's that's not developed. >> That's John's nursery, right? >> I guess my >> that's John's nursery. This I'm talking about all of this. How by
>> Mine was more of a question of why it may may have taken so long is because the receiving area is kind of small though, isn't it compared >> relatively speaking? And you you have to have a buyer for the TDRs >> in that sending receiving area >> in that area.
>> And and Mr. Mr. Ham has the property in the sending area obviously. How much? He doesn't own it. >> He has a sending area. Yes. >> Yeah. How how much what's the acreage on that? >> You can you get back to Was there a screenshot of the letter with the acreage?
>> Uh, sorry. 425 acres. >> So you're right. So they sold 425 acres to FD and I think the purchase price was about $845,000
like years ago. So D owns the land and it's all part of conservation now. [snorts] It it would really be helpful if we could show a map and show where the receiving area is because there are huge swaths of undeveloped acreage in that
area. >> They're not willing buyers. They're the ones that >> we're just buying them. This would just be the difference. So, it's the difference between the D value what they bought it for. >> Well, this is where I'm confused. So, the DP
purchases land and Mr. Ham agreed to the purchase price or was this init? >> It was it was a voluntary purchase agreement. >> No, he agreed to the price. >> I and obviously Mr. Ham's here. He can
talk about it, but my understanding with the gist of the lawsuit is that he negotiated the TDRs for him to keep them. So that purchase price was not based on including all development rights. It was for the land only. That's what they litigated over for 20some years.
>> And he's had those TDRs for 20 years. >> He had to litigate to get them. >> Yeah. He had to litigate to get them and D finally acquiesed and gave him the 329 >> 2016 when you go back to the timeline
>> gave him the TDRs. >> So it's been 10 years. The date of the letter is 2018. This was in, >> right? So 2018 is when the lawsuit was settled and the county acknowledged >> 2017. So 10 years. >> He's had these TDRs for 10 years.
>> Correct. >> And now he's wanting to come to the county to buy them because he can't settle. >> I think Mr. Would you like to explain your situation or have a representative explain the situation? Because I think the idea here was that we could
prevent upzoning on these other areas and that was the goal. Um, and I guess if the position is, well, nobody's wanted to reszone out there, nobody wants to develop. Well, they haven't yet, but they will.
>> [laughter] >> Good morning y'all. Um, we bought this property in 8384. He had had RR1 zoning. We paid that zoning fee for eight years. [clears throat] Um, [snorts] I've got one question to ask
everybody. The land was bought per state statute. Correct. >> It's me. I don't know. It was part of the Wakiva River Protection Act >> and it it was it was purchased per state statute. That state statute had a set of
criteria you go by and then it's then presented to the cabinet for purchase. Melanie, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. In that are two state bought appraisals for that land.
Both of those appraisals stated that TDRs were supposed to be retained by the landowner for disposition at a later date. Now, given that fact, I want some of y'all to tell me what statute superseded that one, that the state and
the county was allowed to assert ownership of my personal property for 17 years. There's got to be a statute. If there's not, then there's a criminal act. >> So, how did the county hold you up on your TDRs?
I'm kind of wondering that question because you said the state and the county kept you from selling your TDRs. How did the county have >> asserted ownership, sir? We were in a civil litigation >> against the county. >> Yes, sir. County was party to it.
>> Was a party to it. But who was the pl or did >> I was the plaintiff. >> And who was the defendant? County, Lake County, and D. Florida D. Miss Melanin knows the whole story. She can tell you all she wants.
[clears throat] >> And that's over the value of the TDRs. Or was it the >> ownership? >> Ownership of the TDRs. >> They denied me the right to sell them on two opportunities I had over the years. >> True or false?
>> Mr. [clears throat and snorts] Mr. Mr. Hammer, I don't know anything about you selling the property or the TDRs. I don't have any any knowledge of that. >> Did you along with the state assert ownership of my TDRs? >> No sir, I did not. And neither did the county which is why when the county
>> Why didn't I get them? >> When the county entered into a settlement agreement, we said we would abide by whatever the state or sorry the court decided between you and D. you settled and the court agreed to give you
the TDRs. We the county have never disputed that. We haven't asserted ownership over it and you can sell them just like anybody else with a TDR. >> Okay. Well, let's get to the next question then. The Barn LLC,
what did y'all do on that? Y'all uh y'all stated at one time that I didn't go through the process, right? Did the barn go through the process? correctly. [snorts] >> They submitted for a reasonzoning to
upzone um or to downzone their property and upzone to a receiving area and the board of county commissioners at that time denied that reszoning >> um were they transferred?
>> Okay, Mr. Hammer, I'm not going to be put on the stand here. >> I don't know, sir. >> I don't know. You don't you don't need to attack our county attorney. >> Yeah, we're going to have to do this more. >> This is not this is not the form to do this. >> You explaining to everybody on the board
your position and why you felt you were deprived of use of the TDRs and >> I was deprived >> and then you established that in court that you were able to actually use the TDRs that they were part of the value of what you received and you had not been able to use them for all those years and
now you want to be able to use them. Yes, ma'am. >> And so you're either going to sell them to someone who is going to develop out in that receiving area or over in Mount Plymouth. And if you sell them, it's going to increase the density in those areas.
>> That's not something I'm fond of either. I live. >> So what you're asking is would the county consider buying those TDRs from you? And the question was raised earlier, what would you consider to be a fair market value for those TDRs to take
them off of the market where the county could then use them how the county chose to use them, whether the county banked them and sold them to somebody else later, whether the county used them to use for a TDR program in the future, for whatever the county decided to do with
them. What did you think would be a fair market value for those? What did the county approve to release them from their ownership for the barn? >> And again, you're going to have to tell
us these things. We don't know what your >> but she's not I want her to say she's not she's not going to say that. >> She signed off on part of it. >> So, if there's not an answer, >> uh the answer is Lake County. And the taxpayers probably don't know this, and
y'all probably don't want them to know it, but I'm sorry. It's the truth. The county signed off on the agreement for the state to purchase these things for 19,900 and some odd dollars a piece. That was in 2005. How much is land appreciation gained
since 2005? The valuation of these things have to go up with the price of land. >> All right. So you're saying that 19,000 roughly plus appreciation is what you would be willing to send to >> appreciation. Yes, ma'am.
>> And I'm if I have much more opposition, I won't even go to it because then I'll be adding interest on that money for the 20 years. >> So you sold >> which I can legally do. >> You sold your land, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. How much did you get for selling
your land? $1,845 an acre >> and that's and it would be right now what? 5,000 an acre. >> It was 500 then zoning. >> So >> So you you sold it? >> Yes, sir. >> Sold the rights. >> Okay.
>> Sold it with the assumption we own these TDRs. >> See, and that's what that litigation was all about. that he considered that he should be getting more than the $800,000 that the TDRs made up the difference. Then when he wanted to use the TDRs, the state said, "Oh, no, you can't use those
TDRs." So he goes to court and he establishes now, you know, many years later, he finally wins his case and he can sell his TDRs now, >> which is fine. Let him sell them for the last 10 years. You >> that that's the bottom line.
Do y'all want the TDRs or do y'all want houses? That's the bottom line. >> And and that's really what this issue is before the board of county commissioners is whether the board of county commissioners wants to take these off the books so that they don't become houses in that receiving area or they
are still out there in the market and eventually they will become rooftops. >> Let me just ask. >> And sir, let me add one thing. There is a stipulated court order. I'll let Melanie in private explain that to y'all, but I think as I heard it say
up here, we can't stop him. No, sir, you can't at this point in time. >> So, can I speak to Mike Fitzgerald real quick? >> All right. Now, we're going to have Mike talk if Mr. Hammer, we're going to ask the planning director some questions.
>> Thank you, Mike. >> There. So on these um TDR on the receiving area do our land regulations have to be followed? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay,
>> we would follow our LDR >> and we follow our comp plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So what would >> Okay. >> All right. So this is really important and these these things are really important to know. Okay. because I've been around this Wakiva protection area
issue for a long time. And so what would happen is let's just look at this big parcel in the middle. Let's say a developer comes in and wants to develop that. They would then bring it to the board of county commissioners to ask us to reszone it. And in order to reszone it to the highest density they can get,
they would more than likely purchase TDRs from Mr. Ham. we would then have to decide whether to reszone it and even use those. So if the county said no,
right? If the county said no, then once again, Mr. Hamri has these TDRs and no use for them. So it gets it's it's got it's it's got some nuances here. It's not just he automatically can go and
place them on the property, but then if the county says no, I think an argument could be made that the county is doing something wrong by not allowing them to be used. >> So, let's let's take Mr. Hamrik's TDRs off the table here completely. Let's say a developer comes in and buys a piece of
property and they want to get the highest best use out of it. They're going to try to cram as many houses as they want in there. We're going to follow our land of regulations and our LDRs and our comp plan, especially since it's an Okava
area, which is 1 to 20 or 1 one with 50% open space. Correct, Mike? Whether whether TDRs were sold or not sold, we are going to follow the same process. Just because TDRs were bought doesn't
mean they have to be I I don't get the TDR process anyway because I'm I'm I'm not for it. But um >> so >> hold I I'm trying to get
why we need to spend I don't know what $5 million on TDRs that won't be used anyway. That's 6.5 based on the 19,000 from way back when, >> right? And he's had 10 years to sell them. He hasn't sold them and now he's
coming to the county to buy them from because they're unsellable. >> So, I'm just going to I'm just going to play advocate for a second for for his situation. >> So, he was he was essentially promised the value of
his property and included in that value was the right to have TDRs. Then the state and the county wouldn't let him use his TDRs. He had to sue. He won his lawsuit, ultimately spent a ton of money on that lawsuit. Now he's got them. Now, let's just say he comes in and he wants
to now place them on property as part of [clears throat] a reasonzoning and the county says no. I would assume that if I was in his shoes, I would then sue the county because that's bad faith. It's bad faith to have said, "You have these rights and
and you can this is we're giving you're giving us your land and you're taking these rights as something valuable in exchange." And then when he comes in and he tries to use it, you say, "Oh, no. We got this limited receiving area, but we're not going to let anyone ever use their TDRs in that limited receiving
area." That's bad faith. Okay. I that if you were in >> That's down the road. You don't know what's going to happen down the road. >> Well, so what So what will likely happen? What will likely happen to avoid being sued that whoever's sitting up here is the county commission will say yes and they'll put a big fat
subdivision right out there. And I'm just saying at this point in time in 2026, I want to be someone who tried to get those TDRs off of the books and not have that area right there turn into housing. I'd love you to explain that to 450,000 residents when when when we're
sitting here >> looking at looking at a deficit in our budget and we're just going to go buy land to take >> Well, I was going to suggest that it goes to maybe you don't buy all of them, maybe you buy some of them, but take it to the land acquisition committee. >> How are we going to pay that back?
>> Consider consider as the county advocating to get help from DP to purchase them. maybe from the Audabon, maybe from the friends of Wakiva. Put a group together and try to get these. I'm not saying take this out of the general fund. Okay? I'm just asking everyone to
consider that you have an opportunity to prevent those from being used as rooftops in an area that we all felt would stay in preservation in conservation. >> Can I say something? I I dis I disagree with that statement because anybody up
here, none of us, well, maybe one of us was up here that was privy to this whole TDR selling. Um, I'm not sure. I understand there was other land owners involved. Is this the right one, Melanie? There's three land owners total.
Is that is that right? [snorts] >> The TDRs were assigned to three land owners, but I don't know if the other two land owners >> How many does Mr. Hammer own? We don't know. I don't know. And it doesn't matter because I wasn't on the board. Commissioner Morris wasn't on the board.
Commissioner Sabatini wasn't on the board. I don't >> We weren't on the board either. None of us caused these things. >> However, >> we have a clear and direct move forward path is to save our
agriculture and save our way of life here in Lake County. I don't care if you have 500 TDRs that want to go in this receiving area. We're not going to approve it anyway. >> So, can I >> So, if somebody comes in and spends $5 million on a piece of property and says, "Oh, I spent $5 million on this
property. I should be able to build highrises here." Well, sorry you you bought the property overpriced, and I'm sorry, Mr. Ham sold the property underpriced, but he sold the property. >> Yeah. So, can I can I say that again? Um,
if this is the there's there's a little bit of both going on here. Um, both both perspectives I can see. Uh, this is the re on the left the map on the left. That's the receiving area. Correct. >> That's the only receiving area. No one >> taking over Mount Plymouth and there's >> Okay. No wonder why no wonder why it's
failing the TDR program. But but >> but at the same time, I mean that the density should be going to closer to the cities. But to your point, I mean, these are areas if you if you have a a very tough stringent for instance, subdivision criteria, conservation
subdivision criteria, you're keeping the density. And that's the brother problem, too, is you know, through the years additional, as we talked about this morning, we're overallocated. So, there should be no more density generally speaking with the few exceptions given out to in the the
future land use category. uh at this point if with a successful TDR program you would just be moving density from the areas you're protecting closer to the cities. This receiving area is I mean no wonder why you had a hard time selling it coupled with the fact that
you were adding additional allocations throughout the county maybe in this particular area but um the answer might be to make the receiving area a little bit bigger. Why? You know what I mean? Why couldn't you Why couldn't we make a receiving area in a in an urban zone?
>> That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Including >> not in the not in the agricultural zones where all the where I've seen the last two receiving areas, but in the urban zones of of the cities. >> Well, if you could do it and create a market for his TDRs, that could be a
solution. But if you take a position that we're never going to say yes to something, then we basically set it up to fail and he got paid something that he can't use. And that's bad faith. Well, >> so and we got the benefit as a community down the road. If you see where the land is that's set aside, we got that as
conservation land. That's conservation land. Can't be developed. It's conservation in perpetuity. That was the benefit that the public got for paying him. But now he can't use what he was paid with. He He's been given something he can't use and we're setting him up
for failure. So if you want to make another receiving area, I think that's that could be a solution. >> I'm just going by the tab the tab here. The the initial discussion was to purchase his TDRs. >> It was to start the discussion because nobody else knew about any of this stuff and he was hoping that
>> I'd be more than happy to see if we can find other receiving areas in those urban zone where something like this may fit. >> Yeah, I would too. I think that's a great discussion. Um I mean it is you are looking at 7 million and you would you know out of it would come out of the
option would be to come out of the public lands referendum and that's 7 million and they're going to the plaque plat PL a TC committee is going through that process right now. Um, >> but he said it was 19,000 20 years ago,
>> right? So, >> so we don't know what it is now. >> It could be more. >> Yeah. >> I've said this if she wants to admit it or not. >> Sir, I wish you would quit attacking her. Okay. Just please quit attacking
her since 2006. She knows every detail about it. I'll be happy to talk to her about it. >> That's fine. If she don't, that's fine. And that's her privilege. >> You to sit here and abuse her, >> Mr. Hammer. We're trying to come up with a solution. >> She was involved in and I want to say it. I'm going to say it. I'm the one
that spent a million dollars to take care of my personal property. >> And you got 5 million to start with. So you're >> Oh, I got $845,000 to start with. You better get your figures right. >> Try to help you. >> All right. We're going to have to close down the discussion unless you're going
to bring it down way down. But I'm I'm not going to be intimidated. Now, I can tell you that. >> Intimidating you, sir. I'm just asking you not to abuse our county attorney. >> I'm not abusing her. I have I said one thing wrong. Have I at her right now? >> All right, Wilson. We're going to have to We're going to have to stop the
discussion. >> You apologize. >> Oh my god. >> All right. All right. That's a Now, now we're not going to even have a discussion about who's the other Who's >> You're going to We're going to end up with law enforcement in here. I've got two contracts waiting on the table that can come before this committee within 30
days and ain't a damn thing y'all can do about it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks. So >> my my understanding of the situation is um that the use of the TDRs as presently
uh situated is very unlikely. Well, >> and as much as um some members of the board respect respectively, you know, respectfully and uh I it's respect it's respectable that they're doing it want
to try to correct for history. You know, I was obviously elected 18 months ago. I'm here to protect the Lake County taxpayers and our environmental situation as it exists. And if the use of the TDRs is very very slim or unlikely, then I don't, you know, and I don't make no apology for this. I don't
presently believe we should do anything with them because I want the 50 million for the plat committee to be used to prevent future sprawl. That's likely and there's a lot that's very likely. And so that's I just don't uh presently support that. I'm not I'm not really in support
of, but I'm not opposed to I'm sort of unopposed to the idea of studying a future receiving area if it doesn't take a lot of our staff's time. If I knew that these TDRs were going to be used like imminently, as crazy as the price is, you know, I would explore that
because I'd want to prevent that terrible future development. But it seems very unlikely at this time. And so I just I I my position is we take no action. But again, if it's not going to be a major burden for the staff, I'm okay with them at least exploring a future receiving area. That's my
position on this. >> And I'm Yeah. explore an expanded receiving area closer to the cities, maybe. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I I and I just the the reason I wanted everybody to understand what was going on is that um I I do think
that there were some things done that were unfair um back in the day when conservation land was purchased in the Wakiva Protection Area and I think this is an example of of one um because the
way that the whole TDR thing was set up I mean to me I look at it and you're looking at it you know it looks looks like it was set up to fail. Like it was not set up to actually yield what it was supposed to yield. Um so um I do get
really concerned about the fact that property that's over there in the receiving area that's one unit to 20 acres could get bumped up to one unit to one acre and turn into just traditional looking subdivisions. Um, I think the county would be hardpressed to say um,
no to the use of the TDRs to increase the density. Um, if we did, I think you probably would end up in a lawsuit and all of these arguments would be aired out again. Um, but my hope was that maybe by getting attention to this, maybe, you know,
there's grant opportunities, maybe DP, maybe the state of Florida, maybe some of the environmental organizations, you know, would look at this um for something that they would be willing to uh be involved in to help purchase these
TDRs and take them off the books. Um, I just personally hate the idea that they could end up being used to bring development to areas that, you know, I think everybody assumed would stay really low impact, low density.
>> Chairman, if I can interject, um, the good news here today is that we're rewriting our comprehensive plan. So if it is the board's desire to look at the possibility of expanding our receiving areas, we can certainly
discuss that with the consultant and have the urban land use series become more of a receiving area for increased density if that's what the board would like to see. >> Yes. For me, >> if you're like >> our maximum density, I'm sorry to interrupt. Our maximum density is 12
units per acre. So, we would be looking at a transfer of development rights and upwards of maybe 15 18 dwelling units per acre closer to city services if that's the board's desire. >> Okay, quick question though Bert Harris. I mean, would there be an issue with the
people that are already in that receiving area then having their opportunities diluted? >> Yeah, we would have to look at that. Yeah, because that could be a problem because they right now they're they, you know, they've got a little corner on the market there where they could sell their
one unit 20 acres by picking up some TDRs. You take that and you dilute it. Now they're losing something. I mean, it may not happen in the next 5 years, but it could happen in the next 10, 15 years, or it may happen tomorrow. For all we know, there could be he mentioned
contracts. There could be contracts. We could >> We have the ultimate say on whether they go or not, though. Well, you >> there's five of us to have that opportunity to say no >> or yes. >> I'm all for the yes. Now's the time with the comp plan. You know, we've talked
about this for years with me for me. So, I would be all for that. But don't don't focus just on the density. There's some other intensity tradeoffs that you can do as well. >> We we can discuss creative options maybe to include some commercial. >> Right. Correct.
>> Okay. If that's the board's direction, then we will take that as an order. >> Yeah. Let's let's prevent urban sprawl and keep everything that's urbanized in the urban areas, >> right? We will have a conversation with the consultant. >> And just to be clear, that was the entire reason I wanted to bring this up
today to prevent urban sprawl and to protect those areas out there. Um, Katherine D. Young filed a card. >> Okay. >> Okay. I didn't understand it was not >> well no you can come up to but you would
have to come to the microphone is why I said you either have to if you're going to talk you have to do it at the microphone >> um well I just live in that sending receiving area and um you're I support you Leslie I believe you're right on this and um I I think there should be
some way that groups can come together to try to find a way to come up with the funding um I pay a lot of taxes and I support tax money being used to um to purchase these TDRs. So, thank you and I appreciate the you know bringing this
forward. >> And you were here Mr. with Mr. Hammer. Did you want to say something before? Yes. Just briefly, my name is Jackie Fulford and I'm sorry I don't know how to pronounce your last name, but one of the points that you were making that I think has failed uh on the ears of your fellow
commissioners is that there's a prior lawsuit already and an order and a settlement agreement. And to simply say they won't be accepted is not acceptable. You're required to. And uh to go back and just simply enforce a prior court order is a heck of a lot
quicker and easier than having a brand new lawsuit which wouldn't be required because although these folks were not here before with all due respect, you can't simply say no that the law's already been ruled on. >> And and I and I will say that that's not lost on me. That's why I would say look
at the expanding the the receiving area for that. So >> yeah, when you even have these discussions like we've talked about doing TDRs or different things, good faith matters. And when you're government, people already have bad opinions of government and government taking things away from people and not
doing the right thing by people. And that's why I think it does matter what somebody did 20 years ago on this board. It may not be us. We're we didn't make those decisions. But I think that as a sitting board, you have to acknowledge and honor things and decisions that were made in the past and not just wash your
hands of them and say, "Well, that wasn't me. I didn't do that. I can screw somebody now because I didn't do that back then." I think you have to exercise good faith. And that's all I was trying to make the point that I think we have an obligation to look back in time, see
what was intended, what was the purpose, what was the intent. and now sitting in these chairs at this point, we should honor those things. Otherwise, it just adds to one more reason why government people don't trust government. So, that's that's where I'm coming from.
Thank you for being here today. Appreciate it. All right. Speaking of government and government involvement um in um difficult situations, tab 21, um Glenn is here to talk about the
Chisum Trail RV Park and Campground and um the situation that is going on there. Good afternoon. Um, Madam Chairwoman, uh, commissioners, uh, today the purpose of this, uh, meeting is to, um, request,
uh, board direction, um, regarding the county's next steps, of course, our actions to address ongoing violation, code violations, and, uh, deteriorating conditions at the Chisum Trail, RV Park, and Campground. Um, I'll go over some uh
background. I'll do over a site plan, existing conditions, and show you that with a video. Um, provide you a health department status and code enforcement history and possible some options. So, Chism Trail um RV Park and
Campground is located at 45626 State Road 19 in Altuna, just at the edge of the Ocala National Forest. It is operated under conditional use permits since its approval by the board of county commissioners back in 1971.
The property is owned by Guardi Vestie since April of 2021 through Chisum Trail Real Estate LLC which was administratively dissolved by the state of Florida in 2022. Over the past several years, the property has experienced significant
deterioration, resulting in ongoing code enforcement action, declining site conditions. Despite these challenges, the park remains occupied by residents, presenting both a public health and safety concern. So on this slide, what you'll see is the
original 1971 um site plan. Um, for illustration purposes only, I've uh created a what we would consider today's conceptual plan. Um, just so you could see the difference. All right.
And here I'll just play you a video if the it can. There we go. >> Are anybody watching? Really? >> So, this is a um from the beginning of the park and I'll go down um each of the
roads. um to illustrate just the conditions of the current as they stand today. >> Anthony, >> is there power to these structures? >> Yes, these these units are are currently occupied. Crazy. >> Well, well, and septic
>> or >> Yes. And I'll go over further on on health department status. >> And some of those structures you saw earlier, like old RVs and stuff, if you go there at night, you'll see lights on in them. I don't know if it's flashlights, what it is, but people are
in there. [clears throat] >> Tragic situation. This is just under a 5 acre uh parcel of land. [clears throat] Somebody's living in almost every one of
these locations or these trailers or these different structures. This is the area where the um side plant indicates that is supposed to be the septic system and drain field. And so um on July 9th um the health
department did provide a status uh of the um their inspection of the property. The facility was found to be unsatisfactory rating um requiring immediate corrective action. The inspector's report stated that multiple um unsecured wastewater connections were
dis uh discharging both black and gray water onto the ground, requiring immediate um corrective action. The internal roads were found to impede 911 emergency vehicle access and the on-site septic system could not be inspected due to the excessive vegetation.
They found excessive garbage, abandoned furniture, and rodent harboring conditions throughout the campground. The campground is also operating with an expired permit, and the owner was directed to apply for a valid um septic
permit or operating permit from the DO. And so for code enforcement history, um the code case was initiated back in November uh 5th of 2024 due to the lack of compliance. The case was presented to the special magistrate in April 2025 um
who ordered all junk, solid waste and inoperable vehicles to be removed from the property within 14 days. Compliance was no was not achieved and an order of fine was recorded back in December 8th of 2025. The property remains in violation. the code enforcement lean has
acrewed to over $43,000. And so today we present you with a couple of options to consider um to move forward. It's uh the first option being the county assisted cleanup. We would provide um county rolloff containers, coordinate with solid waste. The owner
would be responsible for the labor to collect the debris um and provide 90 days of compliance agreement. Uh option two, pursue injunctive relief, proceed through the court system, request a court order compliance. Court
would have oversight and if successful um it would provide the county with the authority to clean up the property and bring it into compliance with through contractors. And another option would be foreclose on existing leans. Current leans exceeding the $43,000. Proceed through the we
would process that through the county attorney attorney's office which would be in-house counsel. Um and that would may result in transfer of ownership. That concludes our options. Um I will
answer any questions you have at this time. >> Are the leans are the fines still acrewing? Is >> correct. >> Okay. they will continue to acrew until the property is brought into complete compliance with the order of enforcement. Um here in the last slide we do have a couple of costs um just as
an estimate. Um none of this has been concreted down as to exact pricing but if the county assisted cleanup would would be estimated between 10 and 18,000 for rolloffs and and uh assistance. Um the injunctive relief would pro possibly
with cost of cleanup and debris removal could could be either around 50 or exceed that um or the foreclosure um which would be within our existing going through the county attorney's office for that process um within our existing
budget. >> U do we have anyone associated with the property here? Um, the owner is believe is present. >> Arty's there. >> Okay. >> Um, all right. Well, I'll let you guys kick it off.
>> I mean, my my I'm just going on a hunch here. Like, my first impression is it's of such a bad condition. I believe we should move for immediate foreclosure and then try to fix the property and assist families who are there in
whatever way we can. That's my initial >> gut feeling is my gut feeling, too, because my thought is I don't want to displace people. We I mean, we know we have a housing need. We have >> Maria might be able to help. >> Well, yes. And it's very and that's where you've got to start somewhere, right? And that's the whole idea of like
if you move forward with forclosure, you try to get the property, you could go out there, take all the cruddy stuff off, you could through uh Maria and her programs or her programs, you know, HUD programs or state programs, maybe be able to get ship funding. Um you could put new units there. You could still
continue to have affordable housing there. Um but it wouldn't be housing that is in a slum condition. Um that's unhealthy, that's unsafe. Um that's honestly I mean I've been out there it's despicable. It's truly despicable. Um
and I've been out there before um at night on ride alongs just to see what's happening at night and it's just it's it's worse. Um so it's just uh a travesty. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm of the same mindset. I
mean I'm looking at that that's um that's terrible. I mean it's a it's a public safety immediate public safety concern. uh health and welfare um potential crime um potential potential war or crime that's happening as well.
So I I think we have to do something now and this is going to be I think this is going to these this will be we we need to go through this but I'm seeing this in other places too around the county as well. Um so we got to [clears throat] do this one but take care of it as quickly
as possible. Uh and you know maybe there's is it going to include the cleanup too? We would we would be doing we'd go through the foreclosure process but then start cleaning up as well. >> It depends on the outcome of the case and then if you were to have it the property then you would clean it up and
then you would try to move forward with either you know doing an RFP to see whether somebody would want to come in and you know >> do new housing there or would you do it through you know any there's a variety of ways that you could take it from
there. I've got a um a couple of questions on option one. The estimated cleanup is 10 to 18,000 and that's county assisted and is that with rolloffs and is that including our equipment or no?
>> Um I'll let uh David Selenus from solid waste >> because I'm I'm I'm Yeah. Okay. >> Seems like it' be a lot. >> For the record, David Selenus, director of solid waste. Uh the estimates were provided on grapple trucks over a
10-week period. This would be the bare minimum. Uh the most efficient bare minimum case was $10,000 over a 10-e period. Using rolloffs would not be recommended only because we don't know what would be put in those. Then we would be held liable at the uh disposal
sites. Uh grapple would definitely be better. But I do think it would without knowing the exact tonnages, it would probably more likely be more closer to 20 to $40,000 based on on the materials that are there. >> Well, I'm trying to figure out the
difference between option one and option two because option two is injunction relief of $50,000. So, what's the difference between the two options? option. Okay.
>> And so the injunctive relief would normally what we would do is we get a court order um that would allow us to now put out an RFQ um to go ahead and bring the property into compliance with the order of enforcement, which would be the cost of possibly collecting all of
the debris. Um and that's where the $50,000 estimate, but that could be plus or minus. And just to add to that on the injunctive relief, if what we would seek is an injunction ordering the property owner to clean it up, if they refuse to
clean it up, then we would ask to go in and do it and we would get a judgment in that amount. The problem's going to be how do you collect that judgment and how do you keep that property in compliance? Um, we've had injunctions in other scenarios with properties that were nowhere near this level. Um, and the
minute we clean it up within a matter of weeks, it's junked up again. So, injunctions are not always effective. >> Well, I'm just kind of wondering, is this a case the guy doesn't care? Is this a case he doesn't know how? >> Yeah. The Mr. Bestie, the owner is is
present. >> All right. You want to before they before they decide to foreclose on your property, you want to come up and defend yourself? Thank you. >> Um I first bought the property five years
ago. Um to begin with the property needed a lot of work. Okay. The first year, um, we did we did a lot of cleanup and through throughout the time since the county stopped taking, um, a
lot of the uh, mattresses, folks from elsewhere start bringing the their waste to the park. 90% of the of the of the mattresses, the junk come from another park.
Um, a lot of the tenants are it's very difficult to evict some of the tenants with with junks. I've tried myself for eviction. The court make it possible. Even even if
as as long as they pay the rent, it's not easy to evict them. I'm there every day. I'm not an absentee owner. I'm there every day. So, if you guys would allow me at least 90 days to get this property back where it should be, I
think with some assistance from you from from the county, I think we could get it back to where it should be. So, I'm just kind of wondering that some assistance from the county, it would just be added to we're just going to add it to what you owe us anyway because I'm
not going to put on the taxpayers's dime something that is your responsibilities. So, could we just add that to the fine process thing? >> Under option one, we would do a compliance agreement. And yes, we could add that that he would have to reimburse
the costs. >> Question. >> You willing to do that? Well, like I me I mentioned, majority of the mattresses since the county stopped taking mattresses are brought to the park. Okay, >> that's no concern.
>> I understand that. But >> there there there are ways to get rid of mattresses. Trust me. Well, and it looked like you had a lot of RVs out there that were in disrepair and and >> yeah, some of the RVs are from from tenants that that moved out or deceased
and just leave the RVs in the park. >> What about inoperable vehicles in addition to the RVs? I mean, there's like stuff that doesn't operate that just >> Yeah, that I have to get >> So, you're going to dig yourself into a hole here, right? >> No.
>> So, I'm asking you a question here. If the county decides to assist, are you willing to go What was that, Melanie? >> It would be a compliance agreement. >> Are you willing to sign a compliance agreement that says you're going to pay that money back?
>> Uh, yes. >> My question is, I got a couple questions. You bought it five years ago. >> Five years ago. Yes. >> How much was it roughly? Roughly >> uh about five 520. >> 520. And then the um
um how much did you put into it >> over over the years? Give and take over 200,000. >> Okay. Um, for me, my position remains the same because for me, there's just sort of a
hard to define threshold of the position a property can get in before I'm no longer interested in remedies or partnerships. So, I think it's past that condition. If it was a more minor bad condition, I would be looking at the situation differently. And then my final
question would be, it says that it was owned by the LLC, but the LLC's dissolved. Is that LLC still dissolved? >> Um, I have other partners on that LLC. >> How many? >> It's not just me. Um, we're we're at odds. >> Um,
so it's it's dissolved, but we could get it back into um >> Okay, that that would be the other legal issue. Again, I've already made my vote certain, but in terms of the LLC being multiple partners out of compliance for four years, not functioning, probably not paying, you know, taxes or whatever
or at least fees to the state to Sunbiz. I just think it makes more of a legal hassle dealing with it. So, I I'm for foreclosure. >> Has anybody talked about like the cost of bringing the septic system up to what it would need to be to be safe and
sanitary? That's That's a lot of money. >> I know because we're talking about these numbers, but you can't have people living in a place where the septic system is failing. It smells like sewage. When I was out there, that's what I smelled. I to me it smelled smelled like sewage. Um I just I mean,
the idea that people are having to live in these conditions and I feel like we're not factoring in, you know, what it really would cost to bring the property up to compliance >> according to >> make it happenable. And according to the Department of Health, they they couldn't
even inspect the the system based on the overgrowth that was around that uh field. Um in addition to multiple units that were spilling uh not only black water and gray water. Um so there there's septic issues uh for sure per
their inspection. Yeah, it's I mean I'd understand you bought it as an investment, but just way over your head I guess with the maintenance and taking care of it. I mean it's a
turned into a health issue if the sewage is running off under all over the place, right? >> Purther inspection. Yes. So, there is a representative from the Department of Health that might be able to answer some of those septic issues. >> Okay.
>> I just thought you were here to watch the meeting. >> Kathy Adred from Department of Health Lake County. Um, as they was said, we cannot see the inspection. and we cannot get to the subject to inspect [clears throat] it to really give you the answers that you're we're in the
process of issuing an abatement notice which they will have seven days to clear it for us to be able to go out and inspect it and possibly give you a more detailed answer to that question. Move for close.
I'll second that if you need some discussion. >> I think we discussed it a lot. I don't I just don't think that we >> Oh, I don't think it's right that that we take $48,000 man spent $520 something,000. It's probably the first
time he's heard the foreclosure option. Maybe we go to option one, help him out, give him a chance, give him 90 days, see what the septic shows rather than just laying the hammer down on him and foreclosure on his property. >> And I think the special master gave him that opportunity. I think that it was
really clear. >> I wasn't there. I don't have it in front of me. >> Well, the way that the due process works at special master hearings is that you're given all of this information. You're given notices of what can happen, what will happen if the fines acrew and they're not paid. All of that is available to a property owner. The fact
that you're going out to a site, M the owner says that he's out there all the time, right? So, he knows exactly what it looks like, what it smells like, he knows about the rodents, he knows the conditions that people are living in. So, I just feel like when you go through code enforcement and you know how bad it
is and you were given an opportunity to cure it and you chose not to cure it then um then why would you cure why would you believe them to cure it now and um >> because I have faith in people and maybe give more more chance. >> Well,
>> he's had a bunch of chances. They went through special master. >> What about the people that live there? What about their chance? their chance to have kids live in a decent place. Those kids that live out there, they go to our schools and from what I understand, there have been people that have lived in tents out there just because they
have nowhere else to go and they use whatever bathroom facilities there are out there. Um, it's just not something that we should find acceptable. Um, I just want to also make a point. Um,
option one with the county assistance, um, it that would not include the inoperable vehicles. That would just be a lot of the debris removal. So, that would be an additional cost to remove all the inoperable vehicles because they're all individually ownership and
and those owners need to be determined um to to remove those inoperable vehicles as well. And plus, as you alluded to, the hazardous waste >> requires special disposal, >> asbestous, mold, all that has
>> greatly increased cost for disposal. Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> Batteries probably find a lot of batteries there. Gasoline, which requires to dig up the soil and take it away. And >> yeah. Um, but before we take the vote, I
did have a card from Joe Riley. Joe, if you want to talk to the group, >> good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Joseph Riley. I have property out here right next to this place. The property I bought, we had an aotment of $124,000.
because of the septic system coming out into my property. I've had to redo my pad multiple times. I've had people from his park who have ended up in vehicles of mine asleep that we've had to roll u our leos out there on to take care of
them. I've had right now I'm up to $612,000 on this property and I've had nothing from that man over there. He's promised to come talk to me, promised to make things right. I've got nothing. The fact that we're thinking
about giving him another chance. It's crap. We don't do that. We we we we have to take a stand somewhere and continue letting people like that right there just scam their way through things. It's not right. You know, I I teamed up. I
own the Village Helper and what we do is we go out and we help people who are less fortunate because that's what we do. We believe in that. I've made my money a long time ago. I brought a friend of mine today, Sean Ostein, who owns Ostein's Logan Go, who's also got a shredder. These
mattresses that Gordy has doesn't have to go to the landfill. We could shred them up and get them to a place where they can be put in a kil and used as fuel, you know, and I believe he has a proposal right there from us of us doing that. But the fact that Gordy is sitting
here saying that he's going to do these things, I believe that my commissioners here, two of them at least, have messages from where Gordy had promised me in 2024 that he was going to take care of the septic that goes under my yard, and he has not. So, every time it
rained, including yesterday, there was septic coming all the way up. Now, my pad has been replaced three times. My home has been set twice. I'm tired of dealing with this. And the fact that if we're thinking about giving him another shot, he's a liar. He is
exactly what he is. A scammer, a liar, somebody who's unreliable. >> This is >> He says he's there. >> This is the second time I actually met Joe. This is the second time. >> No, this is actually the fourth time he does it. You can see the messages in my phone. >> Second time I met Joe. Joe moved there
three years ago. The minute he moved moved in the area, he's been an issue. He's been a problem. He he he approached me about purchasing the park. It's all that's what it's all about. He approached me about purchasing
the park and I told him, "It's not my park. I have a partner." Ever since then, he's been a thorn on my side. So, him calling me a liar is far from the truth. Joe ride his his his truck. He
destroyed my road with his trailer on a on a daily basis. and he's coming here because he has favors. He has friends here. I don't have any friends in in court, but he does. But he's allowed to call me a liar. >> So, Gardy, I want to, you know, honor everybody's due process and so forth.
And Joe, appreciate you coming giving your perspective, but I think that we've got enough information for us to decide what we think is the right thing to do um in light of all of the all of the information. Um so, we do have a motion and a second. All in favor say I.
>> I. I any opposed? Okay, we'll start working on that and hopefully better days are going to come for the folks that rely on that area to for their home. Um, okay, we're going to
move along as we go back to our ordinances. We're gonna pick back up and hand this over to Mike Fitzgerald. What >> tab? Where are we at? [laughter] >> We're going back in time now. >> Oh, no.
>> To 15. >> I'm only on three hours of sleep. >> Me, too. If you can't tell. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the office of planning and zoning director. This is
uh an ordinance related to certified recovery residences. The state of Florida adopted Senate Bill 954 requiring local governments to adopt an ordinance providing the procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences. Florida statutes
defines a certified recovery residence to mean a recovery residence that holds a valid certificate of compliance and is actively managed by a certified recovery residence administrator and includes four levels of residences based on the length of stay and scope of services
provided. The proposed ordinance will create section 303000 entitled certified recovery residences. It will amend chapter 2 uh definitions and will amend the scheduled and permitted uses
uh showing where certified residences are permitted and where they are conditional use permits. It also provides for section 3- uh 3.03.02 establishing a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from land use
regulations that may prohibit establishment in a particular zoning district. So, what that reasonable accommodation means is that a request by a disabled person for a certified recovery residence uh must be accepted
and reviewed by uh Lake County staff. The applicant has to demonstrate their eligibility and we have to make proper accommodations for that individual. Uh the we require a final written determination for it. We approve the
request in whole or in part. we can deny the request and there is an appeal process for the board of county commissioners to review. With that said, I'll turn it back over to the board for review and discussion. And madam chairman, if I can read the title into the record. This will be an ordinance of
the board of county commissioners of Lake County, Florida, creating section 3030, Lake County Code, land development regulations to be entitled certified recovery residences. Amending section 30103 Lake County code land development regulations to include certified recovery residences as a permitted or conditional use in specified zoning
districts. Amending chapter 2 Lake County code land development regulations and title definitions. Providing for severability providing for inclusion of code providing for filing with department of state. providing for an effective date. Um, this is first reading. It still needs to come back to you. But we also have a error that we
found in section 30302E, which I left a paper on your desk to show you that error, but there is language in here that says that the granting of an accommodation does not create a property interest and it should say and shall not result in a
compensible taking. So, the word not was inadvertently left out. So, I would ask you to approve this today to move it forward to the second and final hearing, including that change on the ATA sheet. >> All right. All right. This is a public hearing. Um, I'm going to open it up to
the public. Anyone wish to speak about this ordinance? Anyone online? Yes. Is there >> Barbara Morris? Please unmute your line and state your name for the record. >> Barbara Morris.
Um, I hate to hijack this one. I just My hand was raised for the last two and was never called on. Um, that's all I wanted to state. Thank you. All right. Um, we got to come up with a better way of having some sort of signal
from the booth, you know, like a piece of paper, something that shows up that >> a light or something because I can't even when I ask it's hard to even see whether it's a thumbs up, thumbs down, or so, um,
>> like a green light. >> Yes. >> Have somebody online. >> We'll work on something to notify the chair. >> Okay. All right. on this particular ordinance. Um we'll bring it back to the board um with those changes um
do we have a motion? >> Motion to move forward. >> Second. >> Do you do that reluctantly? >> No. >> Okay. >> I'm good. >> All right. Okay. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? That passes unanimously.
Then moving on to um tab 16 with regard to rural conservation subdivision design. Thank you chairman. Uh this is rural conservation subdivision design. The Lake County comprehensive plan contains policies that allow development
to be in the form of rural conservation subdivisions and requires the adoption of design criteria and guidelines for the development of those subdivisions in the rural future land use series, the Wakiva River Protection Area, Wakiva Study Area, and the Green Swamp. On
January 24th, 2023, the board adopted ordinance 2023-09, which created the rural conservation subdivision design standards. Since then, it has been determined that adjustments to the regulations governing the the subdivision standards are needed. The proposed ordinance was
presented to the planning and zoning board and the uni unanimously recommended approval. I believe the board has received a color-coded ordinance illustrating some changes that have been made to the ordinance uh as time has gone by. I
appreciate the county attorney reminding me to read the ordinance title block into the record. This is an ordinance of the board of county commissioners of Lake County, Florida, amending chapter 17, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations entitled Rural
Conservation Subdivision Design Standards, clarifying certain provisions and requirements, refining the approval process, providing for serverability, providing for the inclusion in the code, and providing for an effective date. Madam Chairman, if you approve this today, it'll become ordinance 2026-28.
>> And we're getting rid of one, [snorts] >> not for an amendment. >> Okay. >> For so some highlights of of the changes. The proposed regulation highlights protection of historic and archaeological sites including
cemeteries, prime farmland, wildlife habitat, uh buffers for wetlands and water bodies, preservation of scenic viewsheds, mapping of feature analysis and and protection of those areas by a binding legal instrument. Additional highlights for the conceptual
plan. We revised the timing of the public information meeting that is required, the timing of the on-site meeting with county staff, uh the management plan for open space and preservation. All conceptual sketch plans will now come before the board of county commissioners for review. And the
conceptual sketch plan will be approved by a resolution. >> All right. So, we have um I have a speaker card. Uh Jane. Um that was the only speaker card.
If you want to come forward and um present your comments. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for all of your hard work. It's a mighty long meeting, but thank you all. Uh my name is Jane Hepting. I live at 206
Magnolia Circle, Eustace. I've lived in Lake County for over 20 years and I love our lakes and woodlands and wetlands. They bring so much value to our county. Um, my concern with the Royal Conservation Subdivision design
standards have to do with the optional density bonuses. Uh, the design standards uh state in 17.01 0101 that the density calculation uh for these subdivisions shall be set
forth in the comprehensive plan based upon the assigned future land use category. Well, that that sounds pretty good. But then it goes on in section 17.05 to provide three ways of increasing the
density levels. Um now because these design standards apply to areas that we need to protect you know the green swamp, the Waka River protection area and then all our rural
protection areas. Um we have to be so careful because these areas are vital for aquafer recharge, flood control, cooling and biodiversity. We all know that the earth is warming
and we must limit how much we are replacing our forest farms and wetlands with concrete. Uh with storms becoming more severe and causing more flooding, we must preserve our open space.
The comp plan states an intent to direct development away from rural areas. I applaud that statement. Uh but allowing density bonuses would go against that intent. We must be good stewards of our
natural resources because once they are gone, they are gone forever. Thank you. >> Thank you. Do we have anyone online? Yes. >> Barbara Morris, please unmute your line and state your name for the record.
>> Barbara Morris, District 4. Um my concern with these conservation areas that's uh created I I agree with the idea of this but I recently watched this board
arbitrarily give back a conservation area that was granted on a project. Uh there doesn't seem to be any criteria in this that prevents a subdivision from going in,
gets the extra density, condenses it to a certain area, and either you or a future board coming in and saying, "Okay, that conservation area that's supposed to be in prep perpetuity, we're just going to eliminate it and let
them come and and say, look, what you approved is already this density. So let's let's do density on this conservation area too. I would suggest that maybe when you approve something that restricts a cons conservation area
that there is a limit on this board being able to just give that back away. Maybe all five commissioners have to agree to it if it's comes before them. or maybe somebody has some other restrictive ideas
to prevent you or someone in the future from coming in and just wiping out what was given. Um, we really need to limit increased densities. We can't have
mortoriiums and we know we have a water problem. We know we have a road problem. So we really need to be very careful on increasing densities and get and handing out waiverss. But my biggest concern is
the future of these con conservative conserved areas that there is no there's nothing for I could do it and come in front of you the board 15 years from now and all of a sudden the conservation area is released.
So, I'm asking for a protection to prevent that from happening in the future because I did watch you do it on a piece of property with a stand of hammocks and it really upset me. So, I hope you address that. Thank you.
>> Anyone else? No. Okay. All right. Um, bringing it back to the board for discussion. >> Yeah. So, my I I've spent a lot of time I think with staff and Melanie in particular on this and I may think it's really important. Um I had looked at
maybe uh actually requiring making this the zoning the actual subdivision code for certain land use categories really specifically zoning which not going to do that now. That's I think the next step. But I think the idea of this is according to staff that this is like a
next a next step perhaps to getting some of the what we've our concerns addressed. Is that correct with it? And I mean I understand the optional the density bonus but the density bonus it just says it's discretionary. I mean I I I wanted you know this but I wanted more
criteria on that like if you do it you it you can't it's a reduction of total allocation in units that countywide. So it's truly a transfer. You're not increasing, you're not getting a 10% increase on top of what countywide we
have for total number of units from the land use category from all land use categories. Um it's not in here right now as I understand it that language, but that could happen next. >> R is not in in this. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I mean Okay. All right.
you you're just it's your your phrase your it's sort of a catchall is this 1705 that was mentioned one on page 18 right >> 16 and 17 [clears throat] >> uh 1705 is on page 17 at the bottom and
on page 18 Okay. [cough and clears throat] And I'm I'm okay, but as long as that as long as we move with the I mean, I'm under the understanding that we're going to continue to change the code. We're going to go through a big code change
anyway countywide. But we we will um we may not touch the rural conservation subdivision as we have been so focused on this section. um if there are additional changes going
forward, we can certainly entertain that, you know, during the course of workshops. >> I mean, it's it it it's good for me today, but again, and Melanie knows this, but I I I had like my mindset is making it required for certain zoning
categories just regardless. This is >> So, so yes, we we did talk about that, Commissioner Parks and I. Um, the request today is for this to be approved because we have a lot of things that we need to clean up and clarify and then I can work on a subsequent ordinance and that could be brought back to the board
for consideration at a later date. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I don't like the density bonuses, but I very well will take care of that at a later date. >> Why can't we just take the density bonuses out? >> You could approve this today, removing
that section, deleting it. Um, I will tell you it is currently in the comp plan, but as long as you don't as long as you don't go more, >> then you could take it out of the LDR and then we could process a quick amendment to take it out of the comp plan or do it as part of the update. >> It just seems like if that's such a
point of contention and if the idea is actually to do, you know, a more improved version, um, then we shouldn't rush it. we should just pull it out. No density bonuses if somebody wants to bring it up later. And
>> that's one thing I personally >> am not in favor of it. Period. >> But until just realize though, uh, and I know it's a it's a sensitive subject, but just realize there's there's right now this is an optional code. So there's no there would be no, right, there's no
incentive for anybody to do this. But until until you if we made it mandatory in certain zoning categories, then it then >> then they would have to follow it and you would get what you want. But >> Well, yeah. I mean, I think a lot of those principles are things that should
be included in any kind of a zoning or a >> development application. >> Yeah. Just that was the that was the whole one of the big incentives for when we wrote all this a couple years ago was that was an incentive put in there. the the density bonus was an incentive as
part of Randall Arent's rural conservation subdivision plan. Um but yes, right now this is optional. Nobody has to use this process. >> And that's the thing. I mean I I understand it and nobody there's a few people here. A few people will pay attention to that nuance. Otherwise, they're going to say, "Oh,
density bonus. That's a terrible thing." Well, it's not a terrible thing if you're getting this better code out of it. But until we change to make if we made the code mandatory without the density bonus, then you've got a good a truly a good deal for that to prevent
>> I guess I'm just not I wasn't happy with the way the only one of these turned out that came through previously. >> Yeah. >> I mean I I >> I mean I'm just it's hard for me. I I could see where if a city had these that
that could make sense and that could be a way to um you know you maybe have areas around the perimeter of a municipality that are like transitional and you use this as a way to do an enhanced conservation
design. But I'm just skeptical that this is going to really have the effect that you want it to have in the unincorporated area. and the only one that we've done so far. Again, I didn't like the outcome. >> One one thought that we had was when we were talking about this was to make it
to to say that you we would have if you were going to get a density bonus, it would have to remove density from somewhere else. >> That's that's not on here in here right now. >> So, Commissioner Parks, yes, you and I did talk about that and I did send you some draft language. I don't know if you had a chance to look at that. I can
certainly pull that up on the screen if it's something you want to consider today or bring back again with any type of future changes. >> You want to push this out 30 days? >> Sure. >> Yeah, >> you could add TDR purchase. >> Well, that's okay. We can do both of them.
>> No, I'm just saying that you could do a density increase with the TDR purchase. >> I think that's something the board um staff requests direction from the board if that should be included in the ordinance. I mean, I I I if you want to pull the
language up now, that's fine. But if not, we can wait 30 days. That I'm just as good doing that. There's >> that'll be 30 days. >> Okay. Then maybe what you do is you take this and then you have the [snorts and clears throat] little insert that I just And that becomes a different color. That would be like whatever
color. >> Yeah, I think purple might be next on the list. >> Okay. So, use purple and then they'll they'll everybody here will get to see what I was talking about. And so if you want to table this um 30 days would put you probably August 25th.
>> Okay. All right. >> I'll make that motion. >> Yeah, that'll give you time. >> Yeah. Um do we need a motion for that? >> Yes, please. >> I'll make a motion on that table for 30 days. >> Do a second. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All right. Thank you for everybody that
has been participating in this and providing input and thank you Jane for coming today and providing your input as well and um appreciate comments from the public. >> Moving along then to >> next item. There is no presentation for
this. This is uh [snorts] the subdivisions tab. On June 20th, 2025, Governor Dantis signed into law Senate Bill 784 that required that plat and replplat submitts be administratively repro approved with no further action by the
governing body of the county or municipality. To comply with this requirement, we would amend section 14070 of the Lake County code entitled subdivisions. >> So, let me let me jump in since we're running short on time and everybody's running short on patience. This will be
an ordinance of the board of county commissioners of Lake County, Florida, amending section 1407, Lake County code, appendix C, land development regulations entitled subdivisions, providing for administrative plat approvals in accordance with section 177071, Florida statutes, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for filing with department of
state, and providing for an effective date. If you choose to approve this today, I become ordinance 2026-28. >> Move for approval. It's public hearing. >> Public hearing. Okay. We're opening it up. Um, do we have anyone online? >> It doesn't look like it. Okay. All
right. We have no cards on this. >> Do have someone online. Barbara Morris, please unmute your line and state your name for the record. >> Be cool is if we have someone online. >> Barbara Morris, District 4. Um, a
request. This county used to have a portal to where the public could um follow the filings of these subdivisions, [clears throat] PUDs, developments, so that we knew what was going on. And with
this new law and administrative actions being taken, staff makes mistakes sometimes and people in the public sometimes catches
those mistakes and brings it to their attention. I've done it myself. I would request that somehow you reinstate a public portal like you used to have so that the public can see
the steps these plats being filed the replats the approvals that's being made so that we can watch and if we see a mistake can bring it to staff's approval. That's my request. Thank you.
Okay. Anyone else? All right. Bringing it back to the board. >> Motion. >> There was a motion and you did you second? >> I made the motion. >> You made the motion and >> Commissioner Sabatini second. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed?
Okay. We are in compliance. Um tab 18. This is um Jennifer and Jamie Stewart on estimated fiscal impacts resulting from
recent legislative action. Yes. Um good afternoon, Madame Chair, commissioners. Um a couple of months ago, the board asked what Lake County's potential fiscal impact would be from the property tax amendment if it was approved by voters. At that time, I did advise the
board that since there were no bills filed at that point and approved by both the House and the Senate, it would be difficult to estimate the potential fiscal impact for the county. In June, there was a special se session held and
the Florida legislature did pass House joint resolution 1F and that is sending a proposed constitutional amendment to the November 2026 general election ballot. The property tax amendment is titled Save Our Homes from Excessive
Property Taxes and would amend the if approved by the voters would amend the Florida Constitution to raise the homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 effective on January 1st, 2027,
then to $250,000 effective on January 1st, 2028. The increased homestead exemption is applicable to all tax levies with the ex with the exception of the school district's tax levy. The $150,000
exemption would impact the fiscal year 2028 budget and then the full $250,000 exemption would be in place for fiscal year 2029. The amendment would also cut the annual assessment cap for non nonhomesteaded
property from 10% to 5%. If it is approved by the 60% of the voters, it would take effect in the 2027 tax year. So, not this November, but the following November. While staff continues to evaluate the
potential fiscal impact should the amendment be approved, we've already implemented several proactive measures to help the position the county for the potential loss of revenue. These actions include an immediate hiring freeze for
all vacant positions. The only exception would be for positions that I approve. and we are currently reviewing all of our capital projects with ongoing operational costs after the project is completed to ensure that we're carefully managing our future financial
obligations. So with that, I'll turn it over to the Office of Management and Budget Director, Jamie Stewart, to go through the potential fiscal impact. >> Hi there. Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Stewart, Office of Management and Budget Director. I do have the
presentation as stated for the amendment three budget impacts. We're going to go over some of our development goals, the history and overview, some recent budget impacts, and then the um amendment three estimated impacts. Um currently we do undergo an ongoing
continuous process. We collaborate with all the departments for their budgets. This is not just within the budget season, but it is continuous and all year long. Um, as you can see here, we do go over a detailed examination. We review for budget cuts, necessary
transparency. We do budget workshops, strategy meetings, budget hearings. Um, we do encourage, of course, the public to participate in everything that we do. And in addition to that, we explore grant opportunities that align with our plan projects, not just now, but in the
future. um we make sure that if in fact there is a grant that's coming available and there's a project planned upcoming if it can be moved so that the grant can cover it. There's also identifying redundancies and utilizing existing revenues and fund balance.
A brief history and overview as you can see from here these are our general fund major revenues. So how we receive money we do have the x axis the ad valorum which is at the bottom which is the
majority of how we receive our funds. In addition we do have sales tax um the state shared revenue which is in the green which is quite small but to the top we have other revenues in addition to the um cares act funding which is you
know no longer in existence. The others are the charges for services, fines and forfeitures, intergovernmental revenues, interest and miscellaneous revenues. We do have a small portion um that comes from the state and as you can see that towards the top in the green for our
expenditures which is where the money exits the budget. You see the constitutional offices closest to the x- axis. Um, as you can see, those uh funds that are expended for the constitutional offices, they do include the sheriff,
property appraiser, the supervisor of elections, and the clerk of courts. Um, as you can see, that budget has, you know, over the years obviously risen. But in addition to that, the white portion, which is um our regular county budgets and what, you know, we keep the
county running with, that also has increased. But in addition to that, we have um CRA funding increases. Hurricane costs $18 million since 2022 there. Um for the CRA funding, the increases since
2010 was 3.7 million to the 17 million. Now, um the county departments increased in their preliminary budget. Um this money does also include in the white the um
road fixes you know along the lines of the gas tax whenever that is not increased. There are other opportunities to spend for those backlogged road projects and oftentimes that does come out of our general fund. So some of
those monies do get repurposed. Um, this slide, I'm sorry, does indicate our budget history as it um pertains to the reserves as a percentage of the operating budget. The GFOA does recommend the 16.7, which is actually
two months of your operating budget. Um, but right now, Lake County is is hovering around in between the 11 and 15%. So, we're doing good there. We don't really spend a whole lot of our reserves. Jennifer, make sure of that. [gasps] We have our recent budget
impacts. Now these impacts are not always something that we can or definitely something we cannot avoid. We have to um participate in the state mandated minimum wages and we also have to participate in the FRS increases.
Those increases um have incrementally raised the state's employer required contribution. So we we don't have any say in that. The next thing that also has increased over the years, as you can see, is the risk insurance. The Florida
risk liability insurance rates are increasing primarily due to the claim frequency, excessive litigation, and the reinsurance costs. The state's large, dense population uh does lead to more accidents and lawsuits, while expensive catastrophic weather further amplifies
our overall risks. We do have health insurance costs. As I'm sure you're aware, they have also increased over the years. Um, for every full-time position, uh, the office or a department is charged with an the employer rate for the cost of the health
insurance plan. In fiscal year 2027, the budgetary um request is 15,18 or $834, which is an increase of 15%. As you can see there, the employer portion of health care
claims, the um board of county commissioners is self-insured. So, it does allow us to avoid paying insurance company markups, giving them, excuse me, giving us more control over claim resolutions and plan designs. So, even
even though we are self-insured, it does increase over the years. In addition to that, our resurfacing costs per mile. In addition to the inmate medical um since COVID, as you can see, the resurfacing costs skyroic
rocketed, but as of late, there was a slight dip, but it's already starting to increase again due to the fuel costs. Our inmate medical um portion to the right there is the taxpayers do contribute other um for the incarcerated
individuals for major medical events, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. And that does come from the taxpayers as you can see in the right for the recent budgetary impacts as far as um I'm sure you guys have heard this before but just to reiterate it again
the cost per ambulance with the related equipment and in addition the fire engine and pumper costs have annually gone up. Lastly, this is fiscal year 2025 um costs for I'm excuse me revenues by
source. The county budget process has um excuse me has the maximum control over the general fund revenues allowing for you know you guys to have your uh allocate every dollar based entirely on our local priorities. So unlike other
bless you pots of money in the county budget they're mostly derived from the local property taxes and sales tax. The general fund expenditures as you can see here the largest portion is the constitutional offices as again I'll
mention the clerk of courts supervisor of elections property appraiser and the sheriff's office um and then as you can see we have other expenditures the county departments that are there in blue the CRA payments medical examiner hurricane
this is just a um slide that indicates the different fund departments that are located within the general fund So, they do um their general fund, but they're fully funded or receive a transfer from those revenues. And lastly,
this is the potential amendment three budget impacts as it relates to Lake County. So as you can see this is what we are basing the fiscal impact starting with the first year if approved at 150,000 homes exemption for the general fund
which is the fund that we use for most of our expenses related to general general general county services excuse me would be reduced by 47 million in year one and then additional 30 million in year two for a cumulative total
of $77 million decrease the ambulance MSTU. Now, this fund only funds transport services for fire rescue. So, it's just for the ambulances and the cost associated with providing that service. Year one is a $4.3 million
decrease and then at the end of year two, it's a cumulative $7.1 million decrease. We do have our storm water, roads, and parks MSTU that would go down in year 1 to 2 point by 2.1 million, 3.4 million cumulative
total at $250,000 homestead exemption. The fire MSTU would go down by cumulative total by year 2 to 3 almost 3.7 million. We do have a wellness way MSTU that would be affected. That would go down about 47,000
by year two. The Lake County Water Authority has its own millillage to fund its operation for wild quality pro projects that by year two would go down approximately to $4.5 million. And then we do have the public
lands voted debt even though it is approved by the voters of Lake County and they most recently approved the public lands acquisition program using a millillage and a um a capital loan not or bond not to exceed $50 million.
That property value would be affected as well and that would go down approximately $616,000 by year two. So, at this point, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Did you calculate the non
[clears throat] homesteaded increase that we would get in 27 and 28 in these calculations? >> So, this does not include an increase of projected value. The property appraiser did provide us a revised
uh property value um estimate based on the reduction of the cap from 10% for non-h homesteaded properties down to 5% and then just using today's values and applying the new homestead exemption. So this does
not account for any increase in property value. Okay. or new construction. >> What percent what percentages are we talking about total budget reduction? >> So, do you have those percentages?
>> No. >> I mean, I pull this up. >> Seems like it's it's it's >> I I think it's somewhere around 20 to 25%. >> Right. >> I don't have the exact number. Well, I think it'd be a a a good idea to
um have a list of what we are legislatively mandated to do >> for our county so the public knows that our responsibilities are this. >> We will do that. >> Okay.
Yeah. And I'll um if you want too, you can read the uh Florida Association of Counties unfunded mandates white paper that was recently approved and well received. Good information, knowledge. No, it's a just simple
knowledge. We're putting it out there for everybody. Looking at this though, if this passes and this is the reduction in funds, I don't see a possible way we're going to be able to fund Kirby's board shorts television series going forward. It's just too expensive.
>> He's paying for that now anyway. [laughter] >> Well, we know that costs millions of dollars. That's bloated waste right there. [laughter] >> Maybe you could auction something off in the process or something. I mean, how so how I mean, you're going to present us
with a budget, but I mean, the other side, the other argument is is all the waste. What What kind of waste? What are you looking at for are we going to get into this like cuts and things like that? >> So, we're still evaluating that at this point. Um, what we will do is plan to
come back with a plan of action, recommended options for you to consider in probably the January, February, F uh time frame once we know 60% right the constitutional amendment is 60%.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> The governor's already said he's not supporting it. So >> So what are we do? We're in our current budget year now for 27. Right. >> We're working on the budget for 27.
>> And if this thing passes, it'll be for 28. So we need to remind people that what we're doing now is for 27. 28's going to be a different >> 28 budget process will start in January >> after we understand where the voters voted.
>> Correct. >> As it could be it could be completely different. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Can can you go to the the piraphph again? The percentage >> for revenue or expendure? >> Uh um expenditures. >> Expenditures. >> This one. That's why that's why I was
asking about the percentage because if it's this is a reduction of 22% I mean or it's only 20%. I mean our everything that we do is 23.28%. Right. >> That's correct. >> And the constitutionals include the
sheriff. Right. >> Correct. >> Everything in the jail. >> I remember when the constitutional slice was only half the pie. Now it's almost 66%. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm thinking I like the pie chart better than the dollar bill.
>> It should be this pie chart but with a bonsai tree on top, right, Curry? [laughter] >> Or some logo? >> So So you'll get into um other if we had to do feebased stuff to replace.
>> So that's one of the things. So, what we're looking at currently is we're taking a look at all of our fees. We haven't substantially increased our fees for 20 plus years. We've made some revisions here and there, but we are taking a look at that. We're currently
trying to procure the services of a consultant to assist us in evaluating our fee schedule. >> So, that that's one opportunity to recoup some additional revenue. It would be look at your user fees. >> Yeah. because like like planning and
zoning I would think um this could be a real interest um because if you had to reduce staff that's obviously going to keep time to extend time but if you had fees and maybe you had somebody that was helping
staff. >> So that that's one of the things that we're we're going to look at is planning and zoning. That's a good example because even [clears throat] if this does pass the the the workload does not decrease in that office specifically. So
we would look for opportunities to streamline expenses, bring in contracted assistance, um increase fees or a combination of all of the above. Um the planning and zoning department does charge fees for
permitting services. However, it is not funded fully by user fees. It is subsidized heavily through the general fund. >> Yeah. So, an opportunity there might be that if the fees went up, obviously people don't like that, but if you're having
nonbiased, non-conlicted, truly neutral outside assistance, then you might be able to have them working alongside staff. It's a higher fee, but it could get it wouldn't you wouldn't sacrifice the time. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> That that's just one of the things that
we're taking a look at. >> All right. >> Anything else? >> Okay. >> Good work. Thank you. >> Thank you, commissioners. >> Yeah. Thank you for the information. Very helpful. >> Okay. Now, moving on to annexation
report. Mike, did we do >> we didn't do that. and then we can just roll right into landscape buffer stuff, right? Because that would be the next thing. >> So, this first item is uh an annexation notification we've received. They're
they're both from the city of Leburg. Uh this is a proposed annexation of 9.97 acres. The location is east of County Road 44, North Spring Court. Current Lake County zoning is rural residential R1 and medium residential
R3. The proposed city zoning is city of Leburg planned unit development. Current Lake County flu is urban low. Proposed city flu is estate residential. Current Lake County density is that variety of one dwelling unit per acre uh
or three dwelling units per acre, four dwelling units per acre depending on the development program. Proposed city density is 2.3 dwelling units per one acre. The city is proposing uh to use city utilities for this project and they're
proposing 23 single family residences. And this uh the chart on on the screen shows a comparison Lake County versus what is proposed in the municipality. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. So, 4 to one,
>> I believe. 4 to one. [clears throat] >> Should have some maps showing this is the location of the property. As you can see, it's surrounded by the city of Leburg. >> Okay. And it was 4 to one on our map and >> four to one on there. >> Four to one on theirs, >> right?
>> More open space. Yeah. Their their estate residential is four dwelling units per acre, but the development program is only proposed at 2.3 dwelling units. >> It's less than they can get. Looks like additional open space under the
>> additional open space. >> Well, that's a move in the right direction. >> Absolutely it is. Yes. >> Do we send him a thank you letter? >> We should let Commissioner Morris draft that. >> I'll call and thank him for that. >> No, you need to put it in writing.
>> They might not remember. You know how it goes. You got to put it in writing. >> Okay. So, moving on. The next item is uh additionally from Leburg. It is 7.43 acres west of US Highway 27 south of the Florida Turnpike. Current county zoning
is agriculture. Proposed city zoning is small planned unit development. Current county flu is urban low. Proposed city flu is general commercial. And the purpose of the of the annexation is for city utilities. And the proposed
development includes 15,200 square feet of commercial space. right on the highway. >> Oh, that's pretty cool. >> And that concludes the annexations. >> All right. Okay. Moving then to landscape buffers.
Okay. On May uh I'm sorry, on April 14th, 2026, the board of county commissioners considered public input of landscaping buffer width requirements, discussed the benefits and potential effects. The proposed ordinance will establish a minimum landscape buffer width with material requirements uh for
properties along public roadways. Currently, the regulation is a type A buffer along a countymaintained road. There's type C along the the state roads. So we have the option open to the board to decide which type of buffer they would like to place in this
ordinance. These are the current regulations. Type A has a variety of uh choices, but we don't specify the width. So anybody who's installing a type A, of course, they're going to lean more towards the
10- foot uh buffer width. In our current regulations, we do have other options, type B and type C, which are varying widths and varying amounts of landscape material. We have other options, landscape D and
E. These are more robust and definitely a lot wider. They they may have more of a business impact. These choices would have more of a business impact. For the board's recommendation, the these are just some notes that go along with the regulation. they just pertain to walls
and uh diameter breast height on the trees. For the board's request, um we have some displays illustrating what the different buffers may look like. 20 foot, 15, 10,
and five. And then the difference differences in the trees and the can the canopy trees, the ornamental trees, and the shrubs. Unpacking that a little bit more, we look at a little bit more closely. Type A at 10 foot would look like this with the two canopies and the one ornamental. Or perhaps the choice
for the board today would be increasing it to 15 feet, which would be three canopy trees, two or ornamentals. 20 foot drops back to two canopy trees, one ornamental, but it's a lot wider buffer. Type C becomes more robust. It
is four canopy trees and three ornamental trees and two rows of shrubs. Another example would be a 25 foot wide buffer. Still type C. Three trees, two ornamentals, and two rows of shrubs.
>> Is the fence just for to make it I mean is that in there >> the >> that's required is that this >> the fence in this case the fence is being shown just as a as a graphic >> as a graphic but that changes the way
the whole thing looks. I hear the pretty picture. >> The the fence is >> I know we back up. >> I want to see what it really looks like, which is you get >> I'll put a caveat in there. These are AI generated examples and >> Well, I mean, but some jurisdictions do
require the fence. They do require the >> in our in our type A landscaping buffer. If you're choosing a five- foot residential zoning uh type A buffer, you can go as little as five feet with a six
foot high wall. And what that would look like is that example on the bottom, >> the mountains. No, the one down here. >> Yeah, >> it would just be a wall. >> It would just be a wall. No landscaping. >> I want the one with the mountains.
>> I think it's just a [laughter] wall. >> Yeah. Oh. Oh, that. Oh, yes, I see it. [laughter] >> Yes. >> So, so in this case, >> the mountains, >> we're we're discussing we're discussing what is the landscaping option that the
board would like to see instead of just saying a type a 10- foot wide buffer with two trees and one ornamental. Do we like 15 feet? Do we like 20 feet? Do we like the two rows of shrubs?
Do we like the two rows of shrubs at 25 ft wide? Keeping in mind that there is a cost impact to the development. >> Yeah. >> But if you go to Leburg and you know if you look at what they're requiring,
theirs looks more something like this. They don't have the fence like the opaque fence, but they require like a two board sort of small equestrian style fence. Um, they do that along the fronts of
their projects and then along the boundaries. I've noticed that they incorporate that into all of their buffers. >> So, with that said, >> it does make the buffer look better just
having that detail. you know, it's not opaque, but it's it is actually a nice >> if if the board would like to create a new type of buffer. I believe we have buffer type F as a reserved buffer type
in our LDR. We can say it must be so many feet, so much material, and must include an agricultural style. We could each have our own like our own name buffer and
say I want the Kirby Smith buffer. >> I want the D I want the D2 buffer. Yeah. [laughter] Now my if you go back to the pictures so um I mean it's definitely better and so the question but the question is we so we're doing this because we want green
space along the roads. Correct. >> And to look more >> look more natural >> robust compared to what you see now. >> Yeah. So, so obviously you probably know what I'm about to say. I for the buffer areas a natural along the road, I think it should be Florida native. I
understand that they want nice stuff like crepe myrtles and flowering trees and stuff by the entryway. I don't have any problem with that. But if you're looking at a a long area along the side of a road like this, you know, that would be more of the meandering um low
impact development buffer um a swale perhaps that's there that's naturally vegetated. I mean that's St. Augustine grass. It's like a lot of fertilizers and stuff like that. But um so I that's just my preference um to
your point of having your own individual preferences for buffers. Um, it would be more natural and it would be it would be Florida native species. I mean, because that's who we are, I think. But, >> but would you do a a fence so that when you're driving along a rideway, you're
not looking into somebody's backyard? >> Pro. I mean, if it if it was thick enough, you wouldn't need the fence. >> But those Florida natives you just described are not super thick. Well, they can be once they grow, but but I mean if the fence is if >> sand pines aren't very big.
>> What's that? Sand pines. They're big around. >> Sand pines >> after 50 years. >> Yeah. About 25 30 years. >> Yeah, there's I'll give you all kinds of I'll show you good buffers if you want native buffers. [clears throat] Um that's but so to to your question
about the fence. Uh I mean if that's part of it, yeah, put the fence in. Commissioner, our our regulations do encourage Florida native. They do have a requirement of 50% Florida native, not 100%. If we lean towards that, it would
be a text change to the landscape code. >> Or you could put it in >> for simplicity sake. For this ordinance, it's selecting just a new buffer from what we already have that would go from 10 feet and two canopy trees to possibly
>> 15 feet and two rows of shrubs. and four canopy trees >> and that's better. But but for for areas along the sides of a road, I'm not talking about like internal to a subdivision, but that that's I would rather go with the more the more natural
100% native. I mean, we put 100% native requirements on buffers around the subdivisions anyway. and a lot of PUDs. >> If we go 100% native, >> I don't like >> that's going to be an additional that's going to be an additional text amendment
to the code itself that would have to be included in this ordinance. I don't think the ordinance is drafted to accommodate that yet. >> Okay. >> Did the homebuilders weigh in on this? >> We have not workshopped this item. >> I'm just asking.
>> No, it's a very good question. I wondered about that because I figured if they had not yet, they will. Um, but back to what I was pointing out about Leburg, I mean, if you look at the other the municipal codes, you're going to see that we would more than likely be just
making ours more consistent with theirs. And so, I wouldn't expect them to be, you know, upset about it if we're being similar to what everyone else is doing. At least that would be a good argument to say they shouldn't be upset about it. >> I think these are all good. I support
all of them, but I like Sean's idea of doing as much native Florida native as we can. I know that some cities will do like 75 80% something like that, but as much Florida native as we can. >> I favor drought intolerant plus Florida native drought intolerant. Yeah.
>> Right. So that you've got some >> and I'm talking like real native like bonsai trees like Kirby likes like 100% native. >> You could you could also show some preferred samples of as well. you call it preferred buffers
that are that are 100% native and you put those you reference those in the code when we get to that point >> and then you could give a density bonus. I'm just kidding. >> Yeah. >> So, Madam Chair, just to go back to the homebuilders, the original version of this ordinance was sent to the home builders on May 27th and we didn't
receive any comments from them. Um once you decide on how you want to rework this, what buffer, native, non-native, whatever, um we will send it back out to them before we bring it to public hearing. >> I would propose since you could always back off on an ordinance. I would
propose the um the widest one with the additional um you know, ornamentals and shrubs. And [clears throat] I we can throw in the fence, can't we? A fence or a wall. We would
>> do you want opaque or is is um cattle fencing okay? >> I think that if the houses I mean what you could say is if the rear of the houses faces the road that it would be opaque. I think that goes a long way to making the situation more attractive and
it's better for the >> the homeowners too. you have consistent. >> Well, then if you have a subdivision that is one acre to or one home to five acres,
>> it would >> then it would [clears throat] be on a more of a ranch style and a cross tie fence would look better than a solid fence. So, I don't know. There's >> could >> I'm okay either way. I'm just >> No, but I I'm with you that if it's if you're talking about like giant lots and
it's more of like in a ranch style neighborhood, that'd be different. You wouldn't >> style fence. >> Yeah. You call it the Montver style fence. >> Yeah. Four rails. >> That's four rails. I think Leburg's is a two rail. >> Yeah. Um, so maybe you could have that if the I
don't know if the lot sizes are a certain width or even when you have houses that are facing like they're single loaded, you wouldn't necessarily have to have an opaque fence. But then maybe the alternative if it's like single loaded [clears throat] and you're not looking at the back of
someone's house that you could use the rail fence. Maybe that's the difference. if you're if you're not if the rideway doesn't um abut like the rear of residential lots that you could use the
rail fencing. >> So can can you incorporate that? >> We can do whatever the board would like to do. >> I think we need pictures. So you can do a another option for F that maybe shows more of a the mix of higher mix of
native uh and drought tolerant species that some that are non-native of course. >> So in in the interest of time about Mike and I go back we'll rework this and we'll bring it forward again. Again I don't want to advertise something until
the board is certain as to exactly what you want. I mean, we've gotten a lot of great ideas and input and we'll go back and revamp and bring it back. Probably bring it back for a workshop more so than approval to advertise so that you guys can look at the renderings and
again make a decision which way you want to go. >> Feel free to submit ideas in writing. >> Yes, [laughter] you do. You have you gotten this stuff from collab outside collab that >> that I sent you or connected you with
>> for this layout the Cherry Lake. They had they had actual samples of >> I did not receive that stuff. No. >> Do we have audience participation now? Washington uh president of the homeowner association. We didn't have an opinion on the landscape buffer. If there's a
fence, I would imagine there'll become some opinion to make it match the style of the neighborhood similar to what Kirby said, but as far as the size and the scope of the landscape buffer, the HBA did not have a position for against otherwise we thought it was reasonable idea. >> Thank you.
>> Would anyone consider um while we're going through this workshop process that we do, we just go with the type C for now? get that in place while we're going through this process. Otherwise, >> to make that motion [laughter]
>> that way, >> that's fine by me. >> Yeah. Let's get Let's get something that's better. >> Put something in there to talk about anyway. Right. >> Let's get something better than what we've got. Let's get it in place and then let's work, you know, let's do the workshop and refine it. So the the
initial idea was to make the landscape buffer a more robust buffer that was within our current regulations and that's the simplicity of this ordinance and and these are the examples. So either a 25- foot buffer with more trees and shrubs or a 15 foot buffer it it's
better than the type A. So we would establish that and then going forward with fences or BMS or material types and all of that stuff. Those are all great ideas to be workshopped through our LDR update. >> Okay. Move to approve.
>> We can we can move to workshop 25 >> type C to what he was going through >> when you just did 25 foot. >> So type C 25 foot. >> Yeah. >> Question because that's been seconded discussion. Um so >> discussion >> when will the workshop be? She said discussion.
>> I would like to have the work I don't want to wait like for this long drawn out LDR process. I'd like to go ahead and workshop soon. You know, after we get this in place, then let's start working on it. >> Okay. >> On >> we we have the I mean, we have the consultant uh ready to go for the LDRs.
We can make landscaping priority. >> Okay. Good. >> Let's do it next week. >> All right. So, we have a motion to second. All in favor say I. I. >> I. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you, Mike. >> Um for your time today.
>> Thank you. So now we're moving on to um >> 23 >> 23. This is regard to Lake Nelly Crossing the DWTS discussion. >> Wonder. >> Good afternoon, good evening. Um Jeff
Beheart, public works. Um we we're here to talk about Lake Nelly Crossings, they were um required to put in the DWTS units and with since they're in HOA, they're um their HOA is currently has to contract with on-site in order to
maintain them. Um Lake Nelly has come to us and asked for this county to take over their systems in a variety of different ways. So this is kind of a discussion to kind of get some direction concerning that. Jennifer said, "Take as much time as I want." So, um, Lake
Nelly, you guys know where it's at. It's kind of south of Claremont, about 100 lots. Um, DW test is required. Probably 50 lots are already put put together. So, the request came from from Lake Nelly from the developer who may own about 50% of the lots now, but Lake
Nelly Crossings requesting the county accept the DWTS units at each lot into the county's distributed wastewater treatment system program. So, currently, we only take ones that we fund through our grant. they are requesting that we take them into our system. So in the uh
Lake Nelly's um in their restrictive covenants, it does say that the DWTUS in Drainville will be owned and operated by the HOA. So it specifically says says that the HOA will own and maintain them there. If you go to the plat, it does
say that they they can they required to give an easement over the DWTS units as part of their uh owning the lots and that could be to whoever maintains it. So, it could be to the HOA or it could be to the uh county. Um, another note on
the on the plat is that they can do a municipal services benefit union unit through the county. So, and if if they were to request and we were to vote and accept it, we could collect the money through an MSBU based on what the plat says. The plat
also says that if the easement is required, which one would be, they are they shall give it to us to have it over the particular unit. So, um wanted to give you guys a couple options or we can table. Um the first one is like no no no
op no no no no no change that lake Nelly would continue to HOA would own it they would continue to contract with on-site on-site they would continue have their own permit um the second option would be that the county acts as a collection agency so the on they would keep their own permit they would not come into our
system is for maintenance but we would collect the fees on the tax bill as part of an MSBU that's kind of like the the compromise in the middle the third option is that the county would take over complete um operation and maintenance of the system.
It would require coordination with um lake Lake Nelly. They would be brought into our into our permit. They would have to be negotiated to be as part of our fees on site's contract with Lake Nelly would have to go away and they'd have to be be part of part of our contract. So, it's possible that there
was a couple more steps associated with that. Um, so if we if um option two or three is selected is kind of what I just was kind of talking about, we would have to terminate that agreement with with on-site. There are different costs. Right now we're about at um the HOA is
paying 55. We're paying a little bit less right right now. We're probably in the 50 range. So we'd have to adjust it because we want to make sure that price is the same. and also that county staff um Melanie and company would have to negotiate in order to make all this all
this happen. So, I just want to kind of open up to board discussion how we wanted to to move forward. Um there's a um Melanie may have some some other guys any any questions any questions >> I have a question on we talked about this earlier today. Um, when you have
the MSBU, there isn't there an administrative portion of that charge that goes to taking care of the administration of it. So, it's not coming out of general funds, coming out of other budgets. It's
>> That's correct. I think it's 3% um is typically what we're charging. Three to 5%. So, that gets added into each lot owner's responsibility. So, it's not It wouldn't just be the 55. It would be whatever the 3% is 5%. >> And also we don't the whole we give
about 30 something to on-site. So right now we keeping 10 or 15 to run the program as well addition to the 3% that goes towards general ad. >> Wait, I have a question about so why why are you not already collecting administrative fee? Why isn't that built into the the current fee? >> It it is for the property owner, but we
pay on site the 3035. We just you you just approved an amendment to their contract, so I don't remember what the rate's going up to. Um, but the property owner rate is on-site cost plus our fee. >> Right. Right. On site currently is getting 44 and we're collecting 55
>> and that's to cover about 3% the people that have to run the MSBU. And >> how many do we have in in our >> currently have probably about a hundred, maybe a little bit less, maybe 80. 80 80 to 100 is what we currently have. >> Okay. So, at $111,
it's $1,100. And we have staff involved in doing this. >> Correct. >> It probably does not pay for itself until you have >> more several thousand. >> Yeah. You have a couple thousand before it pays for itself. But the goal is to clean up the water. The goal is to
prevent nutrient loading in our lakes and rivers. >> And they're doing it right now. >> I mean, they're doing it right now. So, I don't know why we would step in and take it over. >> Well, I haven't I my thought my my thought on that is uh Commissioner Smith, I know you want to go, but I I'm just going to answer that question. I
[clears throat] think it's actually uh what ultimately is a lower provides a lower cost to those residents if we're managing it as the MSBU because they'll be under our contract and we and I don't by the way I don't think on-site cares what the company cares one way or the
other just from my talking to them. But if if they were going to be underneath the new under this new contract, that's going to be less. Then these residents will be subject to on-site a private contract with the HOA. And then there's
questions about whether an HOA is, especially of that size neighborhood, is going to be sort of savvy enough 10 years down the road to be handling these kinds of issues. Um or people willing to even be involved with an HOA. um they'll be subject to a much higher increase
because it's a private agreement. >> You're thinking about the end user. He's you're thinking about the customer which are our constituents. >> Right. Right. >> So I think we have to put it into the context of that that ultimately these are people that we serve and we're putting them in a better position and
we're arguably putting um the overall like the purpose of this nutrient reduction >> sewage system. um in a better place going forward that's going to be better maintained,
>> taken care of. Um I get nervous about anytime when you shift something over to an HOA because they eb and flow. Good leadership comes and goes, you have riffs within the neighborhoods. They they can literally just fall apart. Um
it's just not an ideal situation. We've seen it with like their storm water ponds where they're arguing over things being taken care of that are supposed to be taken care of and then they just drop the ball and don't do it until they get in trouble and the water management district usually doesn't have the manpower to go in and keep up with all
of that stuff. who who entered into the contract was on site. [clears throat] >> The the the H the HOA which is probably currently run by the developer [clears throat] >> and then
so the HO or the developer made all these agreements and said it was going to go to the HOA. >> The Yes. the HO and it was part of our PUD. The PUD that we put forward said they had to use DWTS. So they had to yes they did all those agreements
>> and now they want the county to take over the billing portion and the payment portion but they get to keep the the easements and they're they're keeping something back up a
couple. >> They're they're willing to give us the easements >> in order for us if >> back up one more. One more. All right. The drain fields are owned and operated by the HOA
and they're going to stay ma maintained and operated by the HOA. >> That's that's the decision. We can we can leave it that way. We can collect the money and leave it with them or we can collect the money and we can take over the maintenance. That's one, two, and three. >> Three. That would be three. You would
put it all under the county so it's done right. >> I don't like any of it. I mean, we're not a utility. We don't have a utility. >> It is a utility, >> but we do not have a utility company. We're not set up for a utility company. It's going to cost the citizens of Lake County all over the place more money.
>> Well, that that's assuming if you're thinking of a utility in the traditional sense of having $100 million like a city does uh into a sewer plant. We don't have these are not sewer plants. We're not building a sewer plant. The capital >> understand that. But we had the billing portion of it, right?
>> Yeah. And that's the administrative cost was built into that >> ownership, operation, maintenance and collection obligations. The county would assume >> item three >> under op under op option three. We would we would assume all that which right now
we have the agreement with on-site who does all the operations and maintenance and we collect the funds. But the risk is that what happens in five or 10 years and 20 years that's that's that's that's the risk side.
We're just getting in a private industry now in my opinion. >> But we're a public entity that is required to like handle public concerns, right? So it's not a >> it's not a concern because they have
DWTS out there. they're paying for it their own way and they have the ownership and operation and maintenance. So why would we want to go bring it into under our umbrella? >> I guess I'm thinking about the customer and the end user which is our constituents. And so when you ultimately
have this is going to be you're going to have thousands of these in in the future and this is how we're going to actually get our aquifer and our water bodies from being polluted from all of this
um all of these nutrients that are going >> it just seems that we are getting in somebody else's business. Well, I mean, we're we're trying I know I understand, but we're we're trying to protect the the consumer because I mean, there's a reason why on-site doesn't care because if they if you kept it with the HOA,
they're going to charge those people a lot more. >> How many people are that the son of says they understand that they're going into an HOA? >> They could, but [clears throat] but >> we've already made 103 lots rule that >> there's 103 lots. There's 103 people. Yeah. So, we're gonna we're going to
pull all this in and we're going to maintain it and we're going to [clears throat] do all the operations >> that we want to destroy our waterways because we're we don't want to take over the maintenance operation that somebody else has already agreed to. I don't want to take over their agreement.
>> No, that's good. You >> the state the state is the one to put it in. The state's the one that gives us the the permits or gives the customer the permit. They don't give us the permits. the person who's building the house had to get the permit from the state.
So the contractor, the developer understood that, went to onsite, made an agreement with on-site. They sent his HOA and sent his HOA documents. Anybody that buys an HOA knows that there's an HOA because they
have to sign a document saying they understand that there's an HOA there. So why are we why are we putting the burden of this on not just the Lake Nelly residents but the residences in Claremont and in Futland Park and in
Paisley. I mean >> how is that going to be on just that >> because they're taxpayers >> but they're not picking up any of the fees of it. It's it's a it's it pays for itself. charge a fee and then it takes care of the cost of operating it.
>> When this whole onsite thing started, the whole idea was that this was an alternative to expensive sewer systems, mainly in locations where you really couldn't run sewer systems. And so it was a way to get people off of septic
systems and put them on something that was far better. >> Mission accomplished. >> Well, we have 8,000. >> Mission accomplished with Lake Natalie. They did that, >> but >> we don't need to take it over, >> but we're not we're actually not doing the work. We're we're they were never in fact on-site whenever they made their
initial proposals, they never were going to be that middle person, right? Or that it they weren't going to be the billing agency. It was always supposed to be the local government that was operating the >> we'll call it a utility, but it's not in the traditional sense, but it's a
utility. And that was that was the model from the very start. When they did Lake Nelly, it was done differently. >> Yeah. >> Um >> of which other counties are already adopting. They're doing they're going the same route as us that don't want to get into the the the big pipe utility business owning big treatment plants and
things like that. But also keep in mind that we have for the for uh BM BAP, we have 8,000 or 10,000 septic tanks that need to be I mean that's the goal as well to get replaced. Um but when you're adding new you know
when you're adding new development it's contributing to that loading. So there's that towards >> the other jurisdictions doing number three >> development it is not contributing to the loading because we are requiring those new system to be installed. >> I know that's good that's but but that's
>> statement you just no I I said that they're it >> new developments do not add to the loading because of the requirements >> if they have the DW >> if they have this is what he was saying. if they have this, it's correcting it's it's preventing adding to it and then you're going and retrofitting. But um
what are the other jurisdictions doing? Are they doing the number three basically? >> Yeah, I mean there's other other counties of they're already they've been looking at like what Lake County has been doing for a couple years now and they're >> I'd like to see another county that has
onsite that has the billing portion of what we're doing and see what they're doing and see how they're handling. I can't believe that we're doing it 100% correctly. Otherwise, we'd have a department that had did nothing but monthly billing for
these on-site sites. And it need to be it needs to be monthly billing. >> You can't do monthly billing because >> yearly billing. >> You don't have the authority to do monthly billing. >> Well, if we create a utility, we do because here's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid that these people are going to
sign up for on-site. They're going to have all these charges and at the end of the year they're not going to pay be able to pay their bill. And we're starting to see it now. It's not it's too early. But we're starting to see people and maybe I can get the information from the tax collector of
how many people haven't paid their tax bill because they were unexpected cost on this on-site system that they truly didn't understand what it really was. But I mean, you would have the same problem if it was a utility like a like a a monthly fee. I mean, you're still
you you still have the if they're not going to pay it, there's going to be >> chances of them paying a monthly fee, >> $50 [cough and clears throat] a month is a lot better than is a lot easier for a lot of people than paying $400 a year. >> But I mean, that's what they're doing.
They're paying >> or $3,000 a year. I know that's what they're doing, but there people pay weekly >> because they can't save up enough to pay monthly. >> I mean, it's just a thing of it. >> With a city utility, though, they're sending out a monthly bill because they
have a water bill. So, you're never going to get into a scenario [clears throat] where the countyy's sending out a monthly bill. That's because you have no leverage that you have no >> additional utility >> and you don't have a lean or any way to that's why you use the tax bill. that
that's the whole reason behind doing the non-advelor assessment is that you have security. >> I'm just saying >> it just you there's not it's not an option is the >> problem. >> Well, I'll make a motion for number
three and and and um in light of trying to protect the consumer down the road, uh I'll go with uh number three. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Was that an I Commissioner Sabatini? >> I didn't mean to call you by your last name. >> No, you trust me. >> You can call me by my last name. It's okay. >> Fine. >> Okay. All right. Moving. >> Um, >> what was the vote? >> Yes, it was. I thought it was I asked
for the vote and it was three. >> Who was for it? >> The three. The three. Commissioner Sabatini, Commissioner Parks, and Commissioner Campion. >> I'm not sure against it. >> That's >> I think we paused and we forgot to say who is opposed is what happened.
>> Oh, and all those opposed. >> I >> Okay, >> there you go. >> Late in the day, >> big government. >> God. Okay, just to follow up on that, um, we will we will work on option
three, but there's a lot that will go into it. Um, and if we can't make all of those parts fall together, we'll have to either bring it back or they'll have to continue to operate under their existing agreement. >> And I think that the two is like the good fallback position to go to [snorts] two. If
if that's a way to get around some of the things you if you were not able to go all the way to three, >> we'll keep the board um apprised of how that goes. In a perfect world, one day if you're not on central sewer, then you're on one of these and we've taken care of the
what 10,000 septic tanks that we need to get rid of in Lake County. And then if you have some projects that come on along the way that hopefully they get the same benefit that everyone else that's gone on DWTS and you don't have
like two t a two you know a bifurcated system you just have it all under one >> and then because otherwise you're going to have county residents are going to come to board meetings in the future and they're going to say how come this resident over here their rate is this much and mine is this much. will say,
"Well, back in 2026, the board didn't want to put everybody under the exact same system, and that's why your bill is higher than your neighbor's bill." And at the end of the day, it would be better for everyone to have the same bill, the same protections, and we get 10,000 old
septic tanks off of, you know, >> loading our aquifer and our lakes with nutrients. But that would >> We're going to get the calls if something goes wrong. So, we're going to have our staff. I mean, it's foregone conclusion we're
going to do this, but now we're going to have the responsibility to answer the phone to say, "Hey, on-site, can you go fix this?" >> But we we'd be getting the calls anyway of something. >> And you still have on site to go fix it. You still have a contractor that is the one that you It's You've outsourced that
aspect of it. You're having them go. >> We're talking about cutting staff now. >> No, but they're not. You're We don't We're not having staff go out and take care of these. No, but they're going to have to take they're going to have to take care of the calls >> to get onsite out there. That's what I'm we're going to be the monkey in the
middle is what I'm saying. >> Well, I believe that they actually take care of most. >> Yeah, I think they take the calls. I don't think we take the calls. >> We're basically a manager managing it. >> Okay, moving on to reports then. County attorney, >> nothing. >> County manager,
>> no report. >> Commissioner Sabatini, >> no report. Commissioner Parks. >> No report other than just to thank the uh PLAA TCA public lands acquisition and trails committee. >> It's not the catchiest name. >> It's not the catchiest name, but they they're doing great work and they've
spent a lot of hours last week or two weeks ago u with some more meetings coming up. I do believe we're going to have to um I I do believe there's another meeting in our future based off of yeah in between the two-month cycle that you all remember they're on right
now. um because trying to get this um get some recommendations into us to get going on the uh on the bond referendum as time value of money and time is of essence. So, but thank thank you to all of them. They're all working uh diligently and spending a lot of time on
them. Good good discussion, great intelligent board members um really representing us well. >> Great. Um Commissioner Smith. >> Yeah. Um, I just want to say I thought the Fourth of July celebrations were
fantastic around the county. Um, and then, uh, at our we had a TDC meeting yesterday. I I want to say that, uh, Carrie, Kathleen, and Meg did a fantastic job in running that meeting. Uh, there are some things that that
they're working on that that was brought up that was no fault of theirs that was previous. So once we get all the kinks out, then we'll be just fine. >> All right. Commissioner Morris, >> um had League of Cities meeting, H Heartland League of Cities. Of course,
they had the um the letter that came in, but I was able to explain to them our processes and the the reason we had the timeline and that we weren't set on the timeline. We had voted to do it that way, but there was always another
option. So they they felt comfortable with it >> with the comp plan with what >> comp plan. I'm sorry. >> The letter we got today. >> Okay. All right. >> The complnt. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um and then just real
quickly under my report, you guys may have already heard though that the build grant, we didn't get the build grant for the Wakiva Trail. So we got to go back to the drawing board as far as looking for ways to fund the acquisition of the rideway. Um, somebody was telling me the other day I was at something and they said, you know, we should just have more
trails that are like lime rock natural trails and I thought, well, is there a way like let's just say we could get the ride away from the railroad. Could you pull up all the tracks and initially before you do the full-blown, you know, like pave trail? Could you just have,
you know, like lime rock? Is that even a possibility? I don't know. Just throwing it out there. Or walk. I think we would have to look at the the um grant requirements if we were to receive grants. >> If we were to receive grants, yeah, at this point, I mean, we
>> I feel like Yeah, we're going to have to be looking for some other sources to get the right away or it's going to be a something that never comes to fruition. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. On that note, do you have a happy note about today and what day it is?
>> I'm not sure day. I'm not sure if it's happy, but it certainly is appropriate. [laughter] >> Today is Shark Awareness Day. >> Oh, yeah. It's Shark Week. >> It's also going to be the start of shark shark week and shark month. So, today's
shark awareness day, and that's all I have. >> All righty. Okay. Well, thanks everybody. And we stand a journ. >> Did you guys order dinner, too? Okay. Part: 2
Do you want to get started? >> Do you guys want to get started? It's 5:31. Everybody said they were coming. We we might we might be able Unless you all want to wait. Okay. Yeah. There she is.
>> Good evening. >> We're just Good evening. We call to order our Tuesday, July 14th, 2026 City of Leesburg FY27 budget workshop number three to order.
Invocation, please, and pledge, please stand. We gather tonight for our budget workshop. We thank you for your wisdom and guidance as we review the financial needs of our city and make decisions that we will share
and shape its future. As we discuss the request presented, help us to be thoughtful, transparent, and accountable for every dollar we spend. As committed to serving with honesty,
fairness, and excellence. Amen. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay. Randy, workshop number three, here we go. Um so, here's our schedule. We're going to do water, waste water, solid waste, storm water, police pension, fire pension, GE pension, internal service funds being health insurance, workers
comp, and fleet services fund. So, we will kick off with water. Here is the water cash graph. Um water um cash is continuing to grow, but we do have a lot of big capital projects coming up, so we'd will spend a
lot of that on some of those. We're going to go over them. Um this is the water revenues. We do include a 3% increase for fiscal year 27, so I did want to note that. Moving on to the expenses,
um it's pretty much not much of a change. Uh Um only thing with treatment I want to note was we do have some additional chemical costs in there, but other than that, there's not much of a change. Um these are the current major capital projects going on, so these will be in
this year. We have um the Turnpike widening and the Highway 27 main upgrade. So, those will be coming from big portion from that cash graph that we saw, so that'll affect that. And then the rest of them are pretty routine jobs that are going on currently. And then in 27, the big projects will be
the Highway 27 main upgrade from 48 to Highland Lakes, extending that project. The Walmart loop from Thomas to 441, Michigan Avenue and Sunnyside. The rest of it is just the normal recurring capital expenses that we do every year. Moving on. Yeah?
>> What was the uh the water Sunnyside project? >> Mhm. >> What What exactly is that? >> I don't know exactly. It's a main change out program. >> Yeah, we're just replacing water mains. >> Is the Stock subdivision the same thing? >> Mhm. >> Correct. >> Thanks.
>> And that is where we're taking the water from behind the residence homes to the front of the residence homes. >> Okay. Any other questions on water? All righty. Moving on to wastewater. Here is the wastewater cash graph. As you can see, the wastewater plant expansion we got the 30 million in
around in 22 and 23. We've now completed that project, so you'll see we're back down to a normal 16 million-ish. Um we also have the 20 million for the um SAFI money that we're waiting. I know you guys just approved in June the study, so we'll get list of projects back that'll help with some other
projects that we can do. Um but the cash is stable at the moment. Um here's the wastewater revenues. We do include a 3% rate increase um for next year. Um, charges for services are off a little bit. We do think we might have gone too high in '26, so that's why you
don't see a 3% increase between charges for services. We think we overshot '26 a little bit for our revenue. So, that's why it's not such an increase in '27. We think we got it right in '27 though. And then, wastewater expenses.
Um, everything's pretty much the same. The other there's an increase there due to um depreciation. A lot of these projects are going on, so that's increasing our depreciation. Um, other than that, there wasn't many changes. Any other questions on wastewater?
Oh, I do have a capital project slide, but they're just the same normal type things going on, so it's nothing major. Moving on to solid waste. There's a solid waste cash graph. You'll remember um Hurricane Milton, we spent everything um when that hit in '25, and then in '26 we're reimbursed. So, you
can see that the cash has come back to normal at 2.3 million. So, that's a good thing. We finally got the money in. Um, we are um proposing a 3% rate increase for '27, but you can see even with that, we are still the lowest around. So,
put us at $20.61 with that 3%, so a month. So. Solid waste revenues. And then there's the expenses. Um, you might have seen in the book uh residential and commercial do have additional cost due to tipping fees going up, so that was really the main increases that we had in those two
divisions. Stormwater. Stormwater um actually has started um some of the projects that are going on right now. I know they're working on Lake Robin Hood. So, you'll see that some of the money is starting to come down as we tackle some of these projects. Here is the storm water revenues.
Very not much there really of an increase other than we are using a little bit more cash to fund balance. We are going to use some more of that cash to get some projects done. Here is the expenses about a $300,000 increase in capital projects. And here is the projects for 27 which
includes Lake Hollywood being the 600,000. So, that's the major project for 27. >> And Lake Hollywood is right off of South Street. Across from the elementary and middle school. >> Oh.
>> Right where the speed camera starts. Avondale >> All right. There's no more questions. We'll move on to the pension funds. >> Brandy, before we move on, I'll direct this by to you and Al, but I don't want to get bogged down and make a big deal about it, but with all the pressure on budget, I mean I see our water rates are
I think water and storm water or no what water and waste water are the lowest, very low. I don't know we should give the city manager some kind of authority if he needs to bump them during the year. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud. I mean, we're we're at the bottom in both categories.
If if if you think we're fine, I'm fine. >> Duly noted. >> Okay, thank you. >> All right. Going on to the pension funds. It's important to note the where these pen these funds are funded at is the ratio every year that we get a ratio as to the in the
actuarial report. So, police pension is funded at 77%. Fire is funded funded at 85%. And the general employee pension is funded at 101%. You might ask why. That is because the state required us to do a new mortality
assumption. So, that's why it actually benefited the plan. So, that's why for this year it's showing 101% funded. So, that was a good thing for the fund. >> I'll come back to it. >> Do you want to go? >> Not yet. >> Okay. All right. Police pension.
Um here are the revenues. You can see the the employees contribute 7.65. The city contributes 24.09. Um the increase here is about 200,000 for 2017 that the city will have to pay for the police pension.
Graphically, you can see here is the contributions, the dollar amounts, and then below you'll see the city percent of payroll that has grown. So, that's graphically, so you can kind of see it. And here are the expenses. It really just goes in and out, so it's
same thing that we do every year. Moving on to the fire pension. Employees contribute 7.5% and the city contributes 34.8%. This one is a $123,000 increase over last year
that the city will have to contribute. >> I wish I had known that in our shade meeting. I'm referring to the employer contributions. >> Yes. And this is >> talked about that number in the in the Okay. No, I'm fine. I'm fine. >> We talked about that in the >> I I didn't mean I didn't mean it the way it sounded. We we We went by so many
numbers, but this just hit me. This is like black and white right here. >> This is what the actual report says. >> our discussion. >> says we have to pay without any changes. This is the >> I think you know why I said that. Okay. [clears throat] >> Yeah. And here's graphically um the dollar amount um that we're paying and then the
percentage that we're paying. And then here's the expenses. Same thing, in and out. So, it's pretty much just matching. Moving on to the general employees pension if there's no more questions. Um the general employees revenue, so you can see we held the employer
contribution at 250,000. It was actually um a required contribution of 123,255. We went ahead and held it again just to make sure that that's a real contribution. Next year we'll probably will look at dropping that to like 125, but we did just go ahead and hold it at
250,000 again this year. Um this this graph on the top shows you how much the city has contributed. You can see in like 23, we were contributing exactly what the actuary report was telling us in 24 and 25, we over contributed because the report was
saying like we needed to contribute, I think it was 500,000, so we did a million for those 2 years. And in 26, we dropped it to the actual amount, which is around 250, and then again this year we held it at the 250. But the graph below shows you that here's the percent of payroll, so and
we've added a red line to kind of show the 401 um contribution, so you can see when the GE pension was frozen, we brought it back at 5% in 26. We're planning to go to 8% and we hope that any additional money that we can flush out of the GE plan, so if we can get
another 100,000, we could possibly maybe get the 401 up to 10% in the outer years cuz anything that we can save here, we would hope to be able to give back to the employees. So, that's our hope plan, so. I want to >> Yeah, let me so let me pontificate a
little bit and I think you're probably going where where I'm headed. If I'm not, we'll we'll tackle it. Okay. Okay, so we we have the three pension funds. We have the police pension fund, we have the fire fund, we have the general employees fund. Go back to that
actuarial sound. >> You want the the funded requirements? Yeah. >> and then and then after that then jump back to that one that you were just on. So we refer to a lot of plan being funded. Is the plan funded correctly? So
you have to think of the plan being the entire portfolio. And we don't have those numbers up for you, but there's X million dollars in the police fund. There's X million dollars in the fire fund. There's X million dollars in the general employees
pension fund. So that that per se is the nut, okay? That's that's what goes into the investment pool. That's what earns interest. That that is what then pays the benefit. So every other year we're required to do an actuarial study. The
actuarial study goes in and it analyzes how much goes in, how much comes out, and what levels you need to fund it to ensure that your plan is secure. That is a moving target constantly. If you have a good year in the market, you don't have to put so much in. If you
have a bad year in the market, you have to you know, you put in more. But there's there's these assumptions are made based on variables. Interest earning obviously is a
variable. It goes up, it goes down. The variable that we control is the benefit level. So if you have a specific benefit level, an actuarial point report in that point in time is going to study
the the the fund and the payouts based on those levels. So nut. The whole money in, money out. And you want to sustain the health of the nut, if you will.
So, with the GE pension plan, that was that that plan was frozen the start of fiscal year nine, October 1, 2008. And it was frozen at a level of a 2% factor for the employees with a 2%
cola. So, when we say it's 101% funded, that means that >> That is >> a couple years ago when we did an actuarial study on it. >> Last year. >> That So, last year when we did the actuarial study on it, based on the
benefit being paid out a 2% factor, a 2% cola, based on the retirees that already draw from it, and the 105 or so employees who have a vested interest in it at a 2009
level, the plan is 101% funded. So, if you changed the levers on a benefit level, you're going to change the funding mechanisms. So, if you increase the benefit, but you
don't continue to put into the pot, that plan's not going to be 100% funded. So, whenever you change any of these plans, so go back to the the the the slide back. >> You want to go back? >> Any any slide like So, and that's the danger like this plan. Employers'
contribution in the police fund, you see our contributions have go up, the percentage of payroll go up. So, and we talked about this a little bit in our plans. And and so, I made that exception as we talked about different plans. When we when we talk about increasing the
factor or increasing the benefits, we're increasing the requirement to fund that plan. So, even though we say it's only going to cost us $250,000 in a benefit, that's that's year one. Year two, that's going to cost you more.
Depending on earnings, depending on payouts, depending on how much you increase salary, depending on if you increase positions. So, just because a plan is a 100% funded doesn't mean you can change the benefit. So, go back to
last slide. That slide. So, this is an important slide because we we started kind of tracking this, and I'm hopefully everybody can hear me, but we were So, we're throwing This is a dollar amount that that we're funding it by from the
general fund. So, the general fund is actually paying into three pensions. The general fund The general employees pension, the police pension, the fire pension. The general fund is only paying into the police and fire pensions.
You with me? Okay. So, the utilities are paying about and I'm going to It's It's about 58%. So, 58% of the general employees pension fund is actually the enterprise funds, water, sewer, electric. The other 40 is
coming from the general fund for public works type public works, planning and zoning, uh administration, those type funds, okay? But so, the the the 60% of the nut is being paid for by utilities. And so, we were funding that
in a frozen level at 100% to secure the stated benefit that went along the plan, which was made at plan inception, I'm assuming, or at least it was it sustained what the benefit was when the plan closed. This
is the the slide that I think is is important because [snorts] what this shows is we're funding the plan at about 12% of payroll. So, everybody who's in the general employee pension fund, add up that payroll,
electric, water, sewer, the general employees that are in the fund, 12% of all those salaries is what we're throwing into that fund to stabilize it. That equals, you know, a little bit over a million dollars, million and a half, almost 1.2 million in '22. And so, as as
we started to drop in fiscal year '21, that the actuary was saying, "Your plan's sound. Your plan's sound." We kind of went the other way and started funding it more, knowing that if we pump this thing full of money,
we can stop, and then we can shift that block. And that's exactly what happened. So, as the as the the the benefits froze, we funded more, it blocked, and so we started switching because
remember, in all of this time, while we're funding the general employees' pension plan at a 12%, we're also taking money and funding a defined compensation the contribution plan, the 401k plan for the employees,
trying to switch gears here. And so, we're actually funding at 17% of total payroll. So, it really wasn't until last fiscal year when when that plan became so solid
that we said, "Hey, let's take the money that we were pumping here and stick it into the DC plan." So, what I think our long-term goal needs to be is as the GE plan becomes solid and we
don't need to fund it anymore, we take those monies and invest it back into the defined contribution plan. I think the ultimate goal for a reasonably good bit not I I'll go beyond. I think a good benefit for the
general employees is to get the plan to where you're contributing 10% automatic from the employer and then keep a one-to-one match up to 3%. So, in that route an employee could have upwards of 16% going into a retirement plan. Of
that 16%, 13 would be funded by the city, which now we're starting to look more like a police or you know, I don't think I don't think in the in the public sector you're going to see general employees plans equivalent to police and fire for the
public safety reasons and the and the and you know, that the arguments, but if you have a plan that's paying 10% for general employee, you that that's a good retirement plan. So, I think the long-term goal is as those contributions level up
come down and we don't have to fund the GE plan anymore, take those dollars and stick them into the DC plan. >> Yes. >> That that would be So, we've kind of done that strategy last year. We you guys affirmed that strategy last night
with your resolution and so we'll see where that goes. We'll report back accordingly. >> Thank you. That helped >> a lot right there. That connected a lot of dots. Did I Did I calculate? >> [laughter] >> There's We've We really looked We really
peeled this layer back a lot internally this year um because you know, I think when we started our budget process last year, it was that was kind of you know, that was kind of where it and and I think we talked about a little bit. I'm stressing it more this year because I this is a
real opportunity. Um I and I'll be frank. I think the GE plan there's a we've got 550 employees. There's 105 of them of those 550 who were part of this plan.
I I'll say this out loud and yell at me or praise me, whichever. You know, looking back it it in 2009 a hindsight's 20/20 is probably a plan we shouldn't have closed. Um I understand the reasons and the
ramifications and why we did that. And then in my in my years, you know, so I've been sitting in this chair you know, 5 years after that plan closed, 5 years after that plan closed, you know, we still didn't see revenues like we did. Um and it really wasn't into the last couple years to where uh now we can
switch. Now we're we're just seeing it. So, 20 year it's taken 20 years to get where we were where we were going with closing that plan. So, I mean it begs the question, should we have closed it 20 years ago? 20 years of experience I'd say probably
not. But now that we're here, you know, I I think we need to do the right thing and to improve the benefit. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say, "Uh defined compensation plan is better than a benefit plan." Um I mean there there's arguments on both
sides. The there's more security for the employee in a defined benefit plan, a pension plan, because the employer picks up that nut. The employer makes that actuarial sound. Sometimes you pay a lot, sometimes you pay a little. So, so there's a lot of
unknowns to the employer. That's what makes it good for the employees. There's a fixed benefit and you can calculate it and you know, last 5 years of service is this and that plan, you know, should be there. On the flip side, you know, a DC plan is
probably better for the employer because we can cut that check, we walk away from it. And we know every year we're going to pay this much. It's a fixed cost to the employer. And you know, it's up to the employee to invest and manage the plan. It's pretty capitalistic
actually, right? So I think the hybrid there is is I think where we want to be long term is I think a DC plan is good for the employer and it's good for the employee. But you got to do it at a benefit level that makes sense. And when your employer then
starts ticking 10% versus 5% now you got a good plan. Okay, so I talked about the extremes and there's a million variables in between which we can continue to talk about if you want, but moving off into fiscal
year 27, we're really really I'm I'm super happy that you all made that resolution last year and went to 8%. I hope in 2028 we can get to 10%. I'm pretty confident we can. And so I think if we can get and sustain that G that
general employees defined contribution plan at a reasonably good level, then we'll have a marketable good benefit. Um I the whole 550 minus 85 cop positions and about 55
at 55 fire positions. So that's that 130, so about 400 people ish. In the DC plan. >> Yeah, I I think it's it's it's it's a good plan. I I like both plans. I think the employees are should appreciate the
you know, the value of both of them. Um I know we're doing all this to employ improve employer retention. Are you telling me other cities are paid are this lucrative around here? And there's no right or wrong answer. I'm just curious. I just I want to employees to know that, too. >> The cities these days are all over the
pit, all over the book, okay? If you're a fire or you're police, you're in a pension fund, no matter what. And then, okay, so then we have local plans and we have the state retirement >> And I meant outside of police and >> I I got you, and I'm giving you the answer. You know, so if you're fire and
police, whether you work for a county or a city, you're in a pension plan, most likely. And then that pension plan has two derivatives. You're in the state plan with state retirement, and and uh or you're in what what they call a local plan that's administered by the
local government. We're a local plan. So, our So, we have 185 and a 175 plan for police and fire. The Those are numbers that ref reference the statute on how you control the plan, and there's three funding sources for our police and fire plans. There's us, we're the
primary source is the employer, there's the state The state shares sales tax revenues from on your homeowners insurance, you pay a sales tax. That that money goes into a state pool that then funds fire pensions.
On your cell phone bill, there's a little tax on that. That goes into a state fund. That state fund then breaks down into the local plans that helps offset police pension funds. I believe we receive about $175,000
from the state for each. Uh it it not not exact, but I'm in the ballpark. And then the employees kick in the the the third leg. But, the way the plans are written is we got a fixed cost coming from employees, which the actuary knows what that is. We have a fixed cost
coming in from the state, we basically know what that is. So, at the end of the day, to hold the plan actuarial sound, it becomes the employer's responsibility, and that's why you see our percentages fluctuate up and down each year based on what comes out of the nut, based on what are the earnings of
the nut, and we try to keep it. The rule of thumb is a healthy plan is Okay, I'm going to go back to this word. 70% funded. So, that's a reference to at that point in time when they do the actuarial study, if everybody
retired at one time, this would be the liability of the plan and it's X dollars. And if you have 70% of X, you're considered you have a good plan. So, all our plans are are very good. Very very well funded. >> I don't know if it was a commission
meeting or one of the budget meetings last week, but I heard a comment. I almost stopped and asked that the the percentage of employees in the uh that are in the plan. I I think it was I may have misunderstood you, but it was a low lower percentage than I thought. I thought I heard like 60% of employees, excluding police and fire.
>> Okay, I think maybe that number you're talking about is the the employees that are are participating in the matching one-to-one. >> Okay. >> So, that's in the DC plan. Those would be the general employees are you participating in the voluntary match program, which is if you give a
dollar, we'll give a dollar up to 3%. >> guess the my >> And that that has low participation. >> And my point on that is real quick is maybe we could do have a class or better educate the employees. I mean, they're really missing out on a dollar-for-dollar match. I mean, they are missing out. Okay. >> We do. And we've got another one
planned. And and our talk to the employees has encouraged participation in the matching plan. In fact, Melissa is is getting ready to kick off another one where we're going to give them information about the new benefit levels that y'all approved last night. And again, we'll go
back and encourage participation in the match plan. >> Okay. >> I think they just don't understand. >> I I you know, I I I think it's Look, I'm not going to I'm not going to say anything derogatory, and this is a factual statement. The older employees
get, the more they pay attention to the retirement. The younger they are, the more they care about what comes in now. And that statement matches our participation. So, I honestly don't think if I'm a gambling man, right? I
don't [clears throat] I don't think our contribution is going to go up our participation's going to go up that much more. We We have the older people participating, we have the younger people not ticipating, and we will encourage those younger people to participate.
>> And your answer doesn't surprise me. I just I guess I was just >> same thing. That's not Socrates would have said that back in 1400 if we had pension plans back then. >> But it's a great benefit to offer. >> It is, very much so. >> Even if the employees do not participate.
>> Yeah, it just pains me to think the person's missing out on a dollar-for-dollar match with 100% rate of return every payday. Oh, you'll miss that money. >> Okay. Are we ready to move on from pensions? >> Sure. >> All right. So, internal service funds, health insurance.
Um health insurance, again, as you know, here we go. Um this year we're struggling again. Um claims just continue to be out you know, they're higher than usual for the last 3 years. Um you know, we've had to transfer funds each year. So, I for the last 2 years we've transferred funds. This will probably be the third
that we're going to have to. Um but in '27 we decided we need to fix it. We just need the city needs to contribute more cuz we don't need to keep just grabbing cash from everything. So, in '27 we did increase the city's contribution by 29%. Um here is
um the graph that shows the revenue. So, you can see employer contributions um in '26 we'll have to do another one. That does not reflect any transfers. That's just the straight amount that we assumed we would contribute, but it'll be higher cuz it's already um not looking the best.
And then here's um claims um graphically, so you can see in 26 um the share we are already above 25 and probably going to be higher than last year if it keeps going this way. So. Just seems to be nationwide, claims are
high. We've met with, you know, >> The the like two-sentence um summary, Reader's Digest version of the state of the city of the health insurance claims is We're we're going on a two-year stretch
now of having high claims. The city has absorbed that to our benefit. We made a major shift for fiscal year 27 to throw more money at that while maintaining the benefit for the employee. Hopefully that money that you're
throwing at it in 27 sustains that plan. At the end of this fiscal year, you'll probably see Brandy coming back to you with a million-dollar adjustment to true up fiscal year 26 and we'll probably have to take cash out of all the funds
proportionately to get the health insurance fund back. The good news is we have the cash to sustain that without a big brouhaha discrepancy or failure to pay our bills or hurt us financially, but
this fiscal year planning for 27, we need to change that and that's why we came to you adding in the extra what we threw in extra 2 million. So that we don't have to continue to go back to the work comp fund or take our cash and pay for it and we're not bleeding
blood out of a turnip being the employees to, you know, give us 4% more which is basically your cola which is not very popular and it doesn't get a lot of money at anyways. So everybody out there who's on our insurance plan, you know, please eat broccoli. You [laughter] know,
you know, be healthy as you can. >> Um but we've made a step to improve that chart. We'll be back in in a quarter to true it up and hopefully in in 28 or 27 we see
we see better claims. To be continued. >> And here's the revenues that do show the $2 million increase from the employer. So, everything else is about the same. And you can see we did have the transfer from workers comp in 26 and we'll look at workers comp can't keep transferring
from there. We're running out of money there. It's okay, but we don't have it to transfer again. So, that's why we're saying that. And here's the expenses. The Blue Cross plan you see the increase there. The wellness center increase is attributable to adding the physical therapist. We did that mid-year. So, there's just a little
increase there for having that physical therapist who's doing the police and fire physicals and any occupational that people need. So. >> Do you know what percentage of employees use that? >> About 70%.
>> 70%? Oh, that's great. Thank you. >> Moving on to workers comp. And as you can see we have started you know, we pulled money out of there I think the last 2 years. So, now we would say we need to hold tight for a little bit and just let this fund be. Um
You can see the claims last year we had a big claim in June which then affected this reserve shot up a little bit more. So, that's kind of where we're at. Not that it's anything to worry about. We just don't have as much money to pull out of there. Uh last year in June was >> That was did last year. >> Yeah, something in June was big. And so,
that affected you know, what we have to put away the next year for a reserve went up a little bit. So, you can kind of >> really don't have many comp claims that come through. >> Well, this um yeah, the reserve the reserve amount usually reflects what's out there, so that would kind of tell
you what's there. Mhm. So. And there is the revenues just in detail. And then the expenses. And moving on to fleet. So, fleet is doing its thing. I'm always watching fleet. Um
you can see we've had some big purchases that we've working on. So, um it's it's doing its job. So, we're just watching that. Um here is the charges for services, um which is the departments paying their leases and maintenance and all that.
Um it's pretty much we just didn't have as much fund balance that we're using in 2017, so that's why you see the decrease. And then here's the expenses, maintenance, administration, and the capital projects fund, which is also a decrease. Last year we had the fire truck or this year we had the fire
truck, so that's why it was so high. And with this budget there is 204,000 going back into reserve, so we're going to put some money away to help the cash graph grow. And here is the 14 vehicles Yep, 14 vehicles that we'll be purchasing in 2017.
>> So, Brandy, this is just vehicles. Do we have any other equipment that we're purchasing? >> No. Every Every um well, no, that's not true either. There's a couple other little knickknacks that you saw in the general fund uh like equipment you said, so like that turf renourisher, you know,
that's in there that we're taking out of DST. Um so So, after we buy that, then that'll go into the fleet, they'll pay a lease, and blah blah blah, so it'll work. So, basically, this is it. There are a couple other little things in there, but as far as big ticket items, these are
it. Um it it I think it it's a it's a pretty conservative list. Um I I and I think that's a good list. I think probably going into fiscal year 27, this is something that um we'll have to sit down with fleet and and all the department heads and kind of
figure out where the cash is, what those long-term needs are. We're at 100% of funding. You guys remember that conversation, so I won't beat that. You know, so maybe going into future years for fiscal year 28, 29, you know, I'm just going to reference maybe we need to
be at 125 or 150% based on, you know, what those needs are going to be in the future. So, but I I feel very good with thrown we threw a couple bucks back in there. There's still a million four in there that should be there at the end of the
fiscal year 27. Um, how high does that chart need to be based on the needs? I think we're okay for fiscal year 27. We might need to do some tweaky work in 28, but we've we've got a solid year to work on that. So, I don't think we have to do
anything majorly crazy till 28. Cuz remember when we start changing those fleet leases and we start our equipment is getting then then now we're going to we have to start looking at rate increases and those type of things. So, you know, I think the COLA's have us where we're at. We're in good position
uh with our with really all of our enterprise fund rates. Um, so we've got some room to play with. So, that's why when I said duly noted, you know, I think the past decade I think we've done very good maintaining the system, growing the
system, and passing on very reasonable competitive utility rates and we're good at that. Um, but we redline a little bit, you know, we run with our with our cylinders hot. So, we need to watch it. I think we have a year and we'll report back to you this time next
year on what we need to do for 28. >> Please pass this. We did um a study in our company of what we were doing in uh renting versus purchasing over so many years and if we buy it, it saves us X amount after so many years versus renting it. So, I was just
curious if what we rent versus what it would buy. So, I'll get with you offline after >> We And we do. We do that. We do that to a degree. >> Okay. I'll get with you offline about it. >> The cash reserves have just steadily gone down. That doesn't I'm scratching my head on that. I mean, as long as you tell me they're
adequate, I'm fine. I'm just We've We've You're doing a better job of matching up revenue and expenses. Is that >> I You know, I just I No, I think what you see there is the the purchase price of vehicles is going up and our fixed cost of our lease
payments hasn't changed. So, when we put together the sliding scale of the leases, you know, that was done 10 years ago based on back then, you know, I'm I'm not picking on the police department. Uh but you know, we buy the most police cars, you know, so 15 years
ago you would buy a police car all decked out and it'd be about $32,000, right? Today, you buy a police car all decked out and the number is >> 65, right? >> 65. Okay. So, it's almost double >> Yeah.
>> and and our 100% fleet leases amortization on a car at $30,000. >> Plus 3% >> we're not charging ourselves what the actual cost of vehicle is. So, that's why we see this dwindling. And so, I picked on the police department, I'll pick on the electric department. You
know, 10 years ago you could buy a bucket truck for 100 grand. You A bucket truck right now costs 350 grand. I'll pick on public works. We An F-150 you used to be able to pick up for 22,000. Now an F-150 is 35,000. And so, all
those when we reference 100% of the lease rate, we're referencing when a F-150 used to cost 22,000. So, so that's why I say maybe in 28 that's So, when I go to when I say 125% we probably need to go back in,
recalibrate our formula, and come up with what a real value is. But then now you're going to hit Now go to the lease payment and you know, go Now go to this and go to every lease payment in this book, you're going to see that number jump up like when you go through that book and you saw the health insurance
number jump up. So, now you're going to see the lease payments go up. And so, it'll start stocking cash away and and you'll see that graph go. So, we need to fine-tune that for sure. We're okay for another year. >> So, that's why you're That's why you're
going to the 120 or 125%. >> That's not this year, >> Okay. >> but that's why I reference it. Probably in 28 we need to go 125. And so, when we go 125 we'll we'll break down the formula for y'all. We got We got one more trip. And I think we're safely can
kick the can down the road this year uh and and we'll go from there. >> Thank you. >> The one thing I did want to make a joke about is Dan Miller. >> Yeah, he's good. >> Dan Miller's old vehicle is being changed out. The play If you notice the
planning and zoning one SUV We finally beat up Dan and and against his will we said Dan, you are getting a new SUV all right, buddy. Yes. >> It's a 2002, so
>> Oh, that's a good one. >> So, we we amateurized the hell out of that one. >> Yeah. >> [laughter] >> We got our money's worth out >> The fleet made its money, yeah. Mhm. >> I think that's all we have for tonight. >> How many miles are on it, Dan? >> Not that many. It's around 80,000.
>> Oh, that's good. >> Still runs well. >> Great job, Randy. Great Yep, so we have Thursday with the CRAs and that's it. >> No, we'll do it Thursday. And I was about to just say so you brought it up. Did did this year is a
little bit different, you know, to be a little more inclusive with the CRA boards. You know, through the through the past fiscal year, I you know, they've been talking about inclusivity and having more say so and more participation in the budget process. So when I asked you all to
change the process this year and use that fourth meeting for the CRA meetings, it's to be more inclusive and talk more in depth about how the CRAs work with the citizen if you would citizen board members. So we reserve that Thursday to CRA only.
>> Yes. >> [laughter] >> You said it not me. >> Um. I just I know we [clears throat] don't do roll call tonight, but we do all get an email today from a fellow concerning a
one notebook that I guess we subscribe to that we carry in the library. I strongly encourage everyone to read his email and and and click on the link and look at some of the articles in this magazine. And we're paying for this. I do not
think it has any business being in our library. Doesn't have any business being paid for with with public with public money. And I'd like the commission to consider stopping the subscription to this magazine. >> I didn't see the email, so I apologize.
>> You did see it. I I hope you were as concerned as I was on some of the the articles that are being published in this magazine. So maybe we can address it at the regular next commission meeting. >> Yeah, you might bring it up maybe the next commission meeting. It might be something as far as a line item you all want to strike and then that would be
the books and publication line item in the in the library. >> Okay. >> Then there was an email reference of different other cities that have already started. >> It It referenced it. Yeah, and Citrus. Yeah. >> I did read it. >> I didn't finish it but I did read it. Maybe staff or Al can get with staff
just have them review just to make sure we're not doing anything that with the new law coming up DEI or anything like that. >> We'll We'll We'll get you a report. >> I mean, I would think since since it's we're paying for it, I mean, if we don't want to pay for it, I would think we'd be allowed to stop the subscription to
it, but Thank you, Brandy and staff. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, then. Motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Thank you. >> Second.