or is that the city of Leburg's commission meeting? >> Believe that's intended. >> I'm sure they I'm sure they will. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion. We have a second. Now, I do need to just see if if you would raise your hand if I call your name, if you're willing to
defer your comments and not proceed um with comments. That's Judith Richards. Is that sufficient? >> Less than a minute. >> You would have to come up and speak. Okay. We're gonna have to if just remember you're winning.
[Laughter] >> Actually, you've won probably. >> Appreciate that. We are very happy for you. >> Can I? >> Yes. >> Yeah. You got to move out of the way, sir. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> The microphone
>> for reading all of our comments and even answering. I'm so glad I came here this morning because I thought this was a done deal and we were sunk and I realize how much preparation and all the work that you've
done and I feel so much better and I agree with everything that's come up. I live my name is Judith Richards. I live within 200 f feet of the pond and there's about 20 houses that will be really
in danger of what's going up as an apartment. I look forward to either the city of Leburg or the county keeping the zoning as is. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um we also have uh Russell
Clem. Now, this is another lawyer, so I would imagine the lawyers want to speak. >> They're getting paid by the word. >> I'm going to be very brief. I'm Ken Clayton's partner. I would uh I would just say he has 40 years experience in land planning and land development law.
He's board certified by the Florida Board uh in community association law. So, he knows what he's talking about. Uh I will say a few things about since the I believe the commission is thinking of going back to the city of Leburg and
what I want to talk about is the interlocal service boundary agreement that the developers used essentially to do an end run to do some forum shopping in this instant. I would like to have the city of Leburg reminded that there are certain requirements under this
under the statute under 171.20 20. Um there is no evidence that there has been any uh joint determination of how to provide services to residents and property while balancing the needs and desires of the
community. That's in the ISBA. Uh additionally, um there's certainity about the development application. This is area A. It's submitted on the ISBA of 2013. the
you know the question is was the county comprehensive plan amended to accomplish the increased density that the uh developer is seeking? No, they're going around they're they're looking for urban development under the city plan. Uh we would maintain that that that's a
problem. The scheme of development will not be consistent. I think the commission understands that the intended use as commercial will not be carried forward. The PUD has not been amended. All of this needs to be brought to the attention of the U city of Leburg.
Commercial development is not prohibited. It may go forward. Commercial development is complementaryary. The residential the higher density residential is antithetical to this community. It's not planned that way.
There the PUD says,500 units, not 1548. No amendment to the PUD. I'd also say that amendment to the comprehensive plan um would was contemplated and that the city and the county would agree within 6
months to amend their intergovernmental coordination elements. This is what was contemplated by the interervice boundary agreement. That wasn't done. I believe that the city of Leburg needs to account for these uh the continued and intended
character of this community. the scheme of development and that is not the higher density residential development. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. And then the last card is Katherine um BBE >> or B. Okay. All right. Thank you,
Katherine. Um okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. I think we all understand what needs to be in the letter and then um that'll come from all of us and I'll sign it as the chair. So we'll have a chance to see the draft um if anyone needs to make any changes. Um, so with a first and second, all in favor
say I. I. Any oppose? That passes 5. Um, so thank you for being here and participating in this process. All right. So, we're going to move on to our zoning cases. Now, we have other annexation report cases. Let me just check. Is there anyone here on any of
the other annexation report cases? >> I don't think we do have anyone. So, we'll we'll go back to the beginning of zoning. I do want to remind county commissioners if you had any exparte communications when we get to those cases. I'll ask
that you will state those for the record and we will take each one as we get to them. Chairman, I'd like to clarify one thing on the item that we just discussed. Gentleman was correct that per the zoning ordinance, the density for single
family residential was is 2.67 units per acre, but we were talking about a multif family development. Leburg is proposing it at 6.5 dwelling units per acre. We mentioned the four units per acre because we're assuming it coming out of the pud. We're trying to
compare apples to apples. A multif family development in the county would be at four units per acre per the land use. >> Okay, thank you for that clarification for the record. >> Okay, so we have um tabs one, two, and
three on consent. Um are you going to go through first your advertising and let us know that you've done everything that is required by Florida statute? >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. For the for the record, Mike Fitzgerald, Office of Planning and Zoning Director, we have 10 items on the agenda today. three items
on consent and seven on regular agenda. There is an agenda update. Staff will be pulling tab 2 today and postponing that uh to a later date. That's the evaluation and appraisal report. >> Okay. So on consent we have one and
three. Um and let me >> just just as a very quick fresh reminder. I know we spoke yesterday, but can you just give us like a one-s sentence explanation of one and three just just so it's fresh real quick >> and maybe in case anybody had questions in the crowd. >> Item number one is the is the water
supply facilities work plan. >> Legislation requires local governments uh within a regional water supply planning area to develop and adopt a water supply facilities work plan as part of their comprehensive plan which covers a 10-year planning horizon. work plan is intended to ensure that local
governments can provide ade adequate potable water to meet the needs of current and and projected populations. It uh covers conservation reuse initiatives and inter local governmental coordination. So that this is actually an a readoption
of this item and we will be sending this to the state for uh final approval. And then three is a communication tower change of space or >> Yes, sir. Item number three is a conditional use permit on 180 foot monopine communications tower on an
agricultural zone property. Uh this is to allow the the proposed tower to be constructed off center and this will be constructed off center by a distance of approximately 30 feet and
Planning and zoning board voted 5 to zero to recommend approval. >> Move approval three. >> Second. >> All right, we have a first. We have a second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? That passes 5. Then moving to
the regular agenda. The first item is tab four. If we once we hear staff report you can give exparte communications unless you anybody's prepared to do that now. Anyone have any conversations on this one?
>> Um I believe that tabs uh seven and eight are tabs that have been brought up before us. Is that right? City of Claremont. >> Yeah, but I was just going to take them one at a time. Tab four is our next one.
That was Sarrento Tower Cup. Do we have any expartees? >> And in fact, I appreciate the chairman uh bringing up tabs seven and eight. An additional agenda notification is that the application for Claremont West future land use modification and
Claremont West resoning. The applicant is here today and has notified staff that they wish to uh propose to the board that that item be postponed. So when we get to that item, that request will be made to the board. Okay. So agendum agenda item number four is
the Sarrento tower. The requested action is a conditional use permit to request uh a 54 foot monopine communications tower in a planned industrial district. There are waivers associated with this.
One waiver is for a 17.6 uh foot setback from the rightway in le of 50 feet. A 17.6 6 foot western property line and 18.2 foot uh eastern property line set back in le of 25 ft. There's a waiver for it to be constructed off center. A
waiver for it to be 43.8 ft from the western property line, 40.8 ft from the eastern property line in lie of the required 100 ft. This will be located 51 ft from the center and it's approximately 117 ft from the
closest travel lane. The planning and zoning board recommended approval at 5 to0. The location of this is 22435 Sarrento Avenue. I'm sorry. Yes, Sarrento Avenue. The subject parcel is located within the
Mount Dora JPA. The this was provided to the city of Mount Dora for comment. They commented that it will exceed their maximum height of 100 ft and that there's a type C buffer according to Mount Dora's code of 40 feet in width. And then they do not require or allow
any signage where we allow FCC signage, no trespassing signs. And this will exceed their height limit. And then the uh tower will have a type A landscaping buffer which is 10 ft wide per our code.
I'm happy to answer any questions. So when Mount Dora weighs in with JPA um type comments, is it our do are we permitted to increase because it's a CUB
cup um our our requirements based upon staying consistent with the JPA. >> CUP is conditional. So you could add additional conditions or not grant waiverss or however you see fit. And as far as the height goes, is that one that
we have discretion on? >> Yes, that would be part of the conditions. >> What about um what about a camouflage tower? Is that something that we could require? I mean, this is this is like right where you come off of the
parkway and we're in the Wakiva study area and we I mean, it's all part of the Wakiva Parkway system and it just seems odd to have a tower intrusive to have a tower right there. >> Absolutely.
>> Especially with all the waivers. >> I mean, you've got four different waivers. Why wouldn't they put it in the middle of the parcel? Chairman, I believe the applicant is here to answer some. >> Okay, why don't we do that? Let's let's hear from the applicant and we'll hear
what the reasoning is behind the waiverss and >> you can speak from that. Do you have a presentation? >> But okay. Okay. Okay. >> Good morning. Mary Solic, 121 South
Orange Avenue, Sweet 1500 Orlando, Florida. I represent Vertex Development, the applica applicant on this particular application. Um, I think it probably would be helpful to walk you through the waiverss. Bear with me. I'm two and a half weeks
post knee replacement surgery and I'm just a little slow today. Okay. Is that going to pop up? >> Oh, it is. Okay. This is industrially zoned property. The two parcels in question
here and here are unified in use and in industrial PID, but they're under separate ownership. They're related entities. And the the landlord wanted us to put this tower on this parcel here. That's a Can I use
this is a remnant parcel left over from the eminent domain action for State Road 453. Again, this is an industriallyzoned property. And we've we're asking for four different waivers. The first waiver is well, first of all,
let me tell you why it is where it is and how that leads into four waivers. The most important separation requirement in your code is that we be separated from residential uses. And that is the only aesthetic um portion of
your code is that you are to you are to assess the aesthetic impact to residential properties. The property to the north is part of a large planned development. It's a mixeduse development, but the parcel directly north is slated for residential uses.
So, we deemed that to be the most important setback that we meet. Your code requires that it be 330 ft away from that property line. That's the residential setback. That's the only setback in your code that is related to an off-site use. So, that drove the
tower down south. It's an unusually shaped parcel again because it's a remnant from 453. You have a requirement that the tower be 50 ft from a public rideway. We can't meet that requirement. We are
um the compound is 17.6 ft from the west property line, but the tower itself is 43.8 ft from the property line. We have submitted an engineers a certified engineering report that the fall zone
radius for the tower is 40 ft. So in the unlikely event of tower collapse, it will fall entirely within the subject property. It is no threat to the traveling public on 453. So that's one waiver. You have another requirement
that towers be centered on the property, which is a very unique requirement. The center of property is up here. and and so we are 51.8 ft from the center. If we located it on the center,
we couldn't meet the setback to the residential property to the north and we would increase the setbacks to the rightway and the zoning district sets. So again, that 330 ft drove it south and
necessitated the waiverss from the center of parcel and the 50ft from the property line. You also have a requirement that all towers be 100 feet from the property line. So we have the property line of the state road 453 rightway and the property line of the um
adjacent property that is affiliated with this property. Again, it's an unusually shaped piece of property. Our fall zone radius indicates the property will fall entirely within the subject property. And then the last waiver that we've asked for is for the
zoning district setbacks through 25 ft. Our compound is 19 17 6 feet from the west property line and 18.2 ft from the east property line. That's the compound distance. And again, this the shape of the parcel and um the
need and the desire to meet the residential setback drove that set back to the south. you have um I heard some um discussion about the aesthetic impact of the tower. Your code directs you to consider um
aesthetic impact as it relates to residential uses. That's part of the specific conditional use criteria in your tower code. And again, we meet that setback. And your code also requires that you mitigate the aesthetic impact by a landscape buffer around the base of
the tower. and the proposed tower meets the landscape buffer that is that is required in the tower code. Um I will also add this this is page 26 of your staff report. In addition to the 10-ft landscape
buffer that will be around the base of the tower, there is already a substantial amount of um mature vegetation in the 453 right away that will help screen and buffer this property. This property also has some significant elevation and it's it's
pretty heavily treed. The property the tower will have little um impact from 46 and limited impact from 453. The um other point I'd like to make is that 453 is a DOT road and DOT puts
towers in their rideway up and down the rideway all over the state of Florida. They have a master lease agreement with the national tower developer and they put towers everywhere. There's several of them in Lake County. I don't think I have anything further to
add. Do you have any questions for me? Um the storage containers that are shown all over this property are they remaining? >> Um I they will be have to be moved to accommodate the compound. >> But so the answer is just to accommodate
the compound. What about the rest of the site? Would it be cleaned up? >> I don't know what the prop landowner's intentions are. I'm not I don't think there's any code violations. It's industrial property. I don't think there's any violations going on out. >> Although there's trees there. You definitely can see all of that when
you're on the Parkway. When you're coming off of that interchange, you can see how um Yeah, >> it's it's industrial property. >> Yeah. And it's industrial property and they're asking us to wave LDRs and >> Right.
>> I agree. >> I have >> Why would you put it on DOT property then if DOT will do it instead of doing private? because my client has a lease on this property. >> I'm sorry. >> Because my client has a lease on this
property that goes way way back. I'm going to ask him to come up. I think that his lease on this property probably predates the master. >> So, did he own did he own the property when they did emo imminent domain? >> No, he does not own the property. He has
a lease with the property owner. >> Okay. So for your your height requirement, you're asking for 158 ft, right? >> 54 >> 154 >> 15t tower with a 4ft lightning rod. >> I'm sorry.
>> It's 150 with a 4 foot lightning rod. >> Yes. And it is a monopole. Mr. Fitzgerald did tell you it was a monopine. It is proposed as a monopole. >> So he has a 154 foot request, right? >> Yes. Uh, how far I'm only assuming that
he actually the American Tower is probably who you have a contract with. American Tower. >> No, no, no. My client has a My client is Vertex and they have a lease with the property owner. >> Okay. Who's going to put this tower on this side?
>> Vertex will build the tower on this. >> Okay. So, I'm assuming that the height requirement is because it's in a in a in a hole. It is to meet the needs of um the Vertex customer who is Verizon. >> That's the anchor.
>> Alan Ruiz with Vert.Ex is going to come up. >> Uh good morning commissioners. My name is Alan Ruiz with Vert.Ex Development 3630 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Uh Verizon is the anchor tenant
and they are requesting to be at the 145 ft radiation center which is basically 150 ft tower. The radiation center is the center of their antennas. Uh we've have just spoke with AT&T yesterday. They will be submitting an application
on this site as well. They just received budgetary approval and T-Mobile has submitted this site for budgetary approval as well with their with their corporate. As you all well know, there's a tremendous amount of residential development either going on or planned
for this area and they're trying to get out ahead of it so they can provide the service that's going to be necessary in terms of capacity for all the residential development coming to the area. When we talk about a height of a tower, what's really important is that
you consider in this market there are four carriers, four national carriers. You you of course, I'm sure you all as well want to have one tower that can accommodate the needs of all four carriers. So when you're talking about the height of a tower, you're really having to look at what is the height for
the lowest carrier on that tower, which in this case would be from 110 to 120. Then you have another one from 120 to 130, 130 to 140, and then 140 to 150. Each carrier requires 10 vertical feet of space on the tower. And so that's really what drives the the height of the
tower is how high is the lowest carrier going to be on this site. And in this case, we already have one carrier signed up, another one submitting an application, and the third putting in a request to their corporate for budgetary approval. >> Okay. And I want to add that >> and it I I can I add on to that? I want
to Thi this is really an opportunity for you to get ahead of the game and not have a tower later that packs the house like the annexation agreement. Here's what's coming down the pike. There's two
big projects that are approved. One north and one south. The one north, Mount Dora North, is proposed for 87 single family units and 3,155 multif family units. The project approved to the south, Mount Dora South,
is approved for 504 single family units and 10.4 million square feet of non-residential use as light industrial general office and shopping center. So this tower gets ahead of the curve on the demand and it's an opportunity to get infrastructure in there on
industrially zoned property before the development comes that needs it. So it is it's an opportunity for you to do this while there's nobody here objecting. Um, the other point I want to make is that in addition to the comments
provided mount by Mount Dora, they also offered up that the property is not eligible for annexation currently under the JPA agreement. So right now the property is in Lake County. Your regulations, your LDRs, your future land
use controls, the comments from Mount Dora are are comments. If if it had been annexed into Mount Dora, then we'd have to deal with those regulations, but it's not eligible for annexation into Mount Dora. >> But it doesn't mean that because we're in a JPA with Mount Dora, if they give
us comments, we certainly can take this into consideration. >> I have a question. Um, so I'm looking at the um the tower elevation. I think it's 27, page 27 to 29. Um, and that's what it's going to look like. And I
appreciate the explanation about the stacking of the characters the the carriers. That's interesting. And I guess what you're saying is is that if you didn't do this, there would be other towers that the other carriers would probably look for. Um but the question I have is about back to aesthetics with
this. Does it have to look that way or what's So I see these monopoles uh near me that have like a big American flag on them. Um I mean >> absolutely we need that. I mean, exactly what we need. >> Did we get an American flag on our
monopole? >> I would give them all the height they wanted. They did that. >> Uh, once again, Alan Ruies with Vertex Development. So, what you're referring uh referring to is what's called a flagpole type tower, right? And typically those sites uh not typically
those sites are all designed so that you have let's say in this case it would be 110 ft worth of monopole and then you'd have a 40 foot spline that was attached to a wagon wheel type attachment at the top of that 110 ft. That spline would go
up for 40 feet and you would attach the antennas to that spline and then around that you put these fiberglass shrouds that would make it look like one uniform pole all the way up to the 150 ft level. There are two issues with that. Number one, it very much limits the number of
antennas that you can attach to the pole because typically these poles are between 36 and 48 inches in diameter. And although it may not be very apparent to you, but these antennas when you look at them up on the sky, they look kind of small on the towers, but they're truly 6
to 8 feet tall and typically about 20 to 22 in in width. So it very much limits the number of antennas that carriers can put on the towers, which means they need more of these towers if they're able to even use these type of towers. And I'll get to that in a second. Um right now
when 5G came in was introduced to the market several years ago that carriers are still uh having to support the 4G network. So they need more than more antennas on the antenna on the towers than these poles really allow to be
used. Most of these flag pole type towers that you'll see have were approved and built many years ago or several years ago uh because of the second issue that I wanted to bring up. When 5G was introduced, the technology requires that the radio units, the RRUS
be attached to the antennas behind the antennas. Those radio units used to be down in the equipment cabinets or in the shelters down in the ground in the compound, but now they're being attached to the antennas. The problem with the flagpole type towers is they're closed in. So these radio units overheat and
they cause all kinds of problems. And the manufacturers are now Ericson, Nokia, and the manufacturers of these radio units are no longer warranting these radio units because they're overheating inside of these enclosed canisters and failing. And so the
carriers themselves have completely gotten away from it. They've flat out said, you know, we cannot use these types of of structures anymore. So that that's the explanation as to why. We used to build a lot of those. We did quite a few of them. Why don't they re-engineer it so that they can allow
some >> Exactly. >> air flow or whatever they need to keep the temperature down. >> Yeah. So, they've they've made some attempts to cut slits, if you will, to airate the the the canisters. And the two problems with that is the wind gusts
will work their way in there and dislodge those uh shrouds that are attached to the towers. And the second issue with that is it is not as effective as they need it to be in order to keep the radio units cooled down. >> What about the >> So what about the u the the trees that
we see the tree um so there that's another option which would be what they call a monopine type tower. Uh you know this is opinion now this is just me speaking as someone who's built several of those things. Uh they end up calling a lot more attention to them I think
than than is desired. uh because of the height of the towers, they end up where the branches are real tight up against the towers and they look like a baby bottle cleaner almost, if you will. The branches fall off. They're a maintenance nightmare. Um it they just they tend to
not be the solution that people are looking for. Uh one of the solutions that we've we've started moving towards are shrouded monopoles. And I I have one on Can I I have a picture on my phone which I I'm willing to go with this.
>> Yeah, but I I have no way of putting that. >> Yeah, you just lay it on there. >> Then we get to >> We can take a picture of it. >> You can screenshot it. But you could screenshot it, right? >> Mary, you can email it to me and I'll get it to the clerk.
>> All right. So, just drop it right here. Yeah. >> Hit your screen. >> You got a >> Sorry. Okay. Is it up? Okay. All right. So, this is a tower actually that we just completed and carriers are in the process of installing. This is the
rendering that was used prior to the tower being built. So, this isn't the exact tower, but this is exactly what it looked like. So, what you end up doing is you put these shrouds around the the antennas, which again isn't you're you can't conceal 150 foot tower, but you can try and make it more aesthetically
pleasing. And that's what is going on here. This is uh the site that we just recently completed is at Angelie Angeline Academy of Innovation in Pasco County. So, this is what we refer to as a shrouded monopole. >> Is that a logo that's on
>> It is. And that's about is that uh what 8 feet tall or 10 feet? >> So those those are 10 feet. >> 10 feet. Okay. Each segment like that that'd be like two carriers is on that pole. >> That is correct, sir. >> Okay. I mean that's you know that's this is just now we're talking aesthetics
that that personally that looks better to me than than what is in your um tower elevation, you know. >> Well, this is the Wolf Branch Innovation District. The property that's where this is located is called the Wolf Branch Innovation
District. There is a logo. I don't know that we've actually gotten to a point where we've presented that to the board and Mount Door, but it's been work, you know, they've been working on this for a while, an idea of having an actual logo that would be for the innovation district. So that's
>> so we would gladly place the logo on the So what we proposed at in Pasco County at the Angelene School was uh it's called the Angelene Academy of Innovation because that's the name of the community that's being developed around that area. Uh and that's the Angelene logo. Now ultimately that was
shot down by the county because their code says no signage on towers, but if y'all wanted it on there, that's fine with us. Well, then back to Mount Dora's uh comment that they don't even allow the I think the federally required signage um because they have a no
signage, but that's like down around the base. >> All that signage is typically on the gate on the fence. You have to have the FCC and the FAA number and an emergency number and things like that. >> Trying to figure out how to make a positive out of a negative. I mean, I I
hear the positive side of doing something now versus later because you're obviously going to need the coverage and it would be better to >> Yes. >> So, I just have a couple of comments here. F. First of all, this is this is absolutely an industrial
property and if the um state didn't come in an intimate domain this property, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Um however I'm glad the state did because it gave us a good thorough affair and it created innovation way the innovation
district um which is going to be pivotal for Lake County and our economic development. We don't we have a tower at neighborhood lakes that are similar to something like this right there off of 429 there a tower
that the DOT put in right there in the corner. So >> you're talking about at the Wakiva. >> Yes. >> Yeah. There's one that was on um FDOT property, >> right? So So um one of the first questions I asked is
why is it off center? And is the fall rate to where it wouldn't impede the uh public or hurt the public and it was assured that the fall rate was engineered to stay within the property. Uh, I understand the height requirement
because of how low the property is compared to the road. It's got to get over the trees. Um, there is pine trees along the border of 453.
Uh, sure you can see the industrial uh park now, but in five years you might not see it at all because the vine trees are growing unless they were leaning like the ones that are in the middle of the road,
which is kind of weird. Anyway, um I'm in full support of this. I think it's a good place. I think we need to have a 5G network out there, especially for what's coming. and it's going to connect to the
other towers along 453 and 46. So, that's all I have to say about that. I one thought that I was thinking when we were talking about the flag pole and you told us why it couldn't be done anymore or why it shouldn't be done.
Excuse me. I wondered about an actual flag pole. I'm just trying to figure out how to make the site look better. I mean, you're coming off of the parkway. You got all of those storage containers and yes, over some time hopefully it'll be shielded by some of the landscape,
but I wondered about the possibility of um a condition that the site be cleaned up, at least the storage containers be made orderly in in the way that they're placed on the property and then that the um that the possibility of an actual
tall flag pole. So you're coming off into Lake County and the innovation district and you have this nice big American flag. >> Would that would that >> Have you ever done anything like that before? >> U I have not done that before. Never been in a condition of one of our
approvals. Um with regard >> So this is in reference to like literally putting up just a separate flag pole off to the side. >> A standalone large flag pole. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Uh I'm not averse to putting up a flag pole. I'm as patriotic as they come. So, I I think that would be beautiful and I have no issues with that
whatsoever. Uh, as far as the containers go on the property, I'm not the owner of the property and he runs a business. They're reliable contractors and I, you know, I can't speak for him as far I can certainly go back to him and say, "Look, the the board requested that you do this." I doubt he'd have a hard time
with or an issue with lining them up. He probably would not want to remove them because he has them there for a reason would be my guess. Uh, but I can certainly go back to him and ask him to clean it up, make them more orderly as you stated. And with regards to putting a flag pole, what are we talking about
here? Like 50 foot flag pole or >> something like you see at the car dealerships, you know, when they do a camping world flag, >> a statement flag, you know, it's go out in front of Cecil Clark Chevrolet and >> Camping World is the king now. They get the biggest down in Claremont. Can I can
I put put something out there as well since we're now we're workshopping uh ideas, but the I um if you went to the tent that I call the tenting now the the the county shrouding. Yes. >> Could you put an American flag on top of that?
>> I would suggest that would probably it would be taller. You're going to have multiple levels of shrouding, right? that that those panels that go around the >> so those multiple panels we can take and put any logos you like on those panels.
So, we can put I would suggest to put the American flag at the top, right? And then if you have a a the innovation district logo or whatever logo we're talking about here can go on the second carrier below it. And I I think that would probably be a better solution.
With flag poles, you do have the concern of the flag being tattered in the wind. Uh it has to be uplit because we're not going to raise and lower that flag every day. And now sadly too often our flags are being flown at half mass. So you have to worry about
and that's not like a you know a school flag where you just have a couple of 10th graders go out there and lower these flags are giant. Again you may not realize this but they carry the one to one nine ratio. So you're talking about a flag that might be you know 20 feet
tall by 38 feet long. I mean this is a giant flag. Uh, so in terms of maintenance and and having the proper care taken for the flag, you're going to be adding lighting to it. You're going to have to put it up at half masked at certain times of the year. Uh, you're
worried about it being tattered. I think the idea of maybe putting the American flag logo on one of those panels would probably serve the purpose and and be very nice to look at, but I would leave that to you. >> So, not one of those panels, but it's got to be the top panel
>> for the American flag. That's what I would Yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah. Flag protocol would it would definitely have to be at the top, >> right? And then maybe have the innovation district logo, >> whatever comes up >> or the county logo. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I mean I think that
they're close to coming up with the innovation district logo um for us to look at and from outdoor to look at. So um and if they're not then we're putting pressure on them to get that done. Uh, is there um
I mean I I do feel like it would be help I I feel I I don't know whether we don't really have a whole lot of public engagement on this one other than some of our folks that are on the CRA board and that are involved in the community. Um we don't have any speaker cards. Um >> one speaker
>> we've got one Oh, we've got Oh, we have one. We just got that. Okay, we do. So, we have to hear from um our speaker and then see if we have any no one online. >> And I will add that our our landlord wanted us to put the tower in that
location because of the landlord lord's future expansion plans on the main property. So, you'll get an opportunity to get your hands on what the larger site looks like. >> Oh, that's a great point. >> Do we know what they're planning to do
there? cuz I I felt like reliable contractors. I felt like they were actually staging there for work that they were doing on these road um network and that it was going to get cleaned up eventually because they were going to finish up all the road construction. >> My understanding is they're planning and
I'm not sure when. It could be next week or next year. Uh but they're planning on bu putting putting up another building on the property. So I >> Yeah, because originally we did approach them about going on the larger parcel, but it
conflicted with their future plans of development. Though again, I don't know how solid or those plans are. >> Well, they would be in a better position to have a big flag pole because they'd have their building there and running a business there.
>> Yeah, that's they could do the flag pole. >> Yeah. Um, I just I don't know how to I mean I really feel like there ought to be a condition that I I realize you're the tenant, but the um that that the site itself be
cleaned up just >> I don't know how you could condition that when they don't own the property. >> I think we absolutely can >> because they go back to their landlord and they say in order to get this through we need these things done. Well, we just we also have to remember it's an
industrial piece of property. >> That doesn't mean it has to look horrible. >> Meant for industrial uses. >> Yeah. It doesn't mean that it has to look unsightly. >> It's a major entryway to the county. Yeah. It's a gateway. Be some condition. >> I completely understand. But it is an
industrial piece of property that wouldn't have been a gateway unless the state brought brought it through. I mean, that's probably been here for 50 years. >> Um, I don't think so. I'm pretty familiar with that area. And that whole
site, the way it looks now, that industrial site, it didn't look that way years ago, that started to evolve as the parkway was being done. >> And that would be a code code enforcement. >> Are there any code cases on the properties?
>> I think it's a modest condition for what they're getting. Can you see this what I've just put back up? Can you see that? >> I No, >> I don't think so. >> They're going to switch it over.
>> Okay. >> Okay. All of all of that there will have to be moved to build the tower and that's where the compound's going. So, a substantial portion of it will get will have to be relocated. What's your what would be the time frame uh with regards to when the tower is
being built? It we would proceed towards site plan and then building permit. I mean just the normal process that the county has which I'm sure you know better than I do. So, as far as like the logos going up on, if we were to go that route, um, is that something like a panel can be brought down and put up or
do you will you need that? >> We would order the panels with the logos already put on them >> and they would go up as the carriers installed. Typically, the way it's not typically, the way it works is the mount itself, the framing is built with the antennas attached to it already on the
ground and they'll just crane it up and put it on there. Then they'll take a crane with a man basket and those guys will go up there and make all the final connections and attachments and then place the panels on. So that all happens within two or three weeks of them beginning their commencing their collocation on the tower. It's very
quick. But we would order the panels with the logos on them already. >> Okay. >> And how much of a Can you put your picture back up that you have with the circle around it? >> The shroud. The one with the shrouds. >> Well, the shrouds are >> right there. >> That was on his phone. That was on his
phone. But >> so how much of this are you uh leasing? How much? What's your >> It's a 50 by 50 compound that >> and you're showing a 100 foot radius, right? >> Sorry.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm impressed actually. That's >> weeks ago. Wow. Okay, that's good. Good enough. >> 550 lease area. >> So, he he'll have to move all those trailers anyway. >> A lot of them. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. Just tell him to put them in an orderly fashion. >> I mean, I can't imagine he would have an issue with lining them up neatly. I I can't I mean, I don't know why he'd have an issue with that. I I certainly I just
can't speak to him, you know, move them over to the east side of your other parcel. I can't speak to that. But and I I know they want this done. They would like to have this tower on their site. They would install the case. So, yeah, they'd be a big part of the
construction as well. And we have >> And with regards to the logo, >> I I'm not sure what your code states as far as logos. Jen, do you think you happen to read >> Do you have a signage problem like we ran into?
>> I'm sure we could condition that right now though. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure. >> Yeah. You guys address that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. 317. Um, your code does say under 3.1317, no signage shall be
permitted on towers or antennas. So, you'd have to you'd have to grant waiver number five. >> Okay. That would be something that we could put in in a motion then to Okay. >> You add as a condition. >> Yeah. And then back to the Mount Dora like 100
ft requirement that just means that you'd end up having more towers because you wouldn't have the space in order to get the collocation where it needs to be. >> That that's correct. It it what great way to look at I use this analogy all the time. If you take a flashlight and
turn it upside down, right, it creates a circle of light on the ground, right? The higher you lift the flashlight, the bigger the circle. The lower you push down the flashlight, the smaller the circle, right? It's very similar as far as the propagation of the signal coming off the antennas from these towers. So,
if you start pushing it too too far low, that third and fourth carrier, maybe even the second carrier can't use the tower. They're going to be looking to do one a quarter of a mile down the road or something like that. >> So, so this but you said you could get
up to four carriers on this, the m the big ones. >> Yes, sir. the four national carriers as it is. We have three of them that are pretty large. That's right. Okay. >> Yes, sir. Yeah. >> All right. >> And as far as the shroud tower, is there anyone is there one in the state anywhere someplace?
>> We we actually have completed one in Pasco County at Angeline Academy of Innovation and the the top carrier is installed. They're completed. Verizon and AT&T is currently installing their equipment and T-Mobile has their
application right behind. >> I I know of another one that might be more familiar to you. It's at the intersection of I4 and Conroy Road near Millennium Mall and it's on the um northwest quadrant. They don't line up. I mean, I think
that's goofy that they're not the shrouds are not lined. There's two shrouds on it >> and they're the triangles are not lined up. I don't know why they did it that way, but that's one that you might be familiar with. >> Yes, I remember that one. Okay, >> that would be my only hesitation. I like
to see things. I always like to see something before I feel comfortable with it. I mean, I like the idea of having like it goes handinhand with the innovation district. Um, it would be something different. It would be innovative. Um,
and um, as much as I, you know, I feel like a camouflage tower is kind of a cool concept, I think the reality is it does draw attention and you go, "Oh, yeah, there's a tower that they're trying to make look like a tree." And it, you know, it's almost better just to
have the tower. >> So, okay, C, we have a card. We've got to take our speaker card. Um, and we'll hear what Cindy Newton thoughts are on this matter. >> Good morning again. Cindy Newton,
District 4. Uh the applicants requesting the four LDR section waiverss and then using the county LDR 3.13.08A AAA for the purposes of measurement,
tower setbacks and separation distances shall be calculated and applied to facilities located in Lake County regardless of the municipal and county jurisdiction districts. But this disregards Mount Dora's development review committee comments stating that
the proposed tower does not meet its standards for setbacks and the maximum height of 100 ft as measured from the natural grade. And when this parcel is annexed into Mount Dora, this will be nonconforming to their code
uh setbacks and height. The current county Mount Dora JPA states article 3 number three A. It is the intent of the city and the county that the comprehensive plans of the city and the county shall ensure that the lands in
the JPA are developed consistent with the development within the city. With the current JPA under review, I highly recommend allocating as much as possible to their current JPA.
We do not want any more contention between these two parties during negotiation as we have seen has been happening within this negotiation. This tower is designed to fold down like a bent straw into itself.
uh it like buckles in the middle, which I'm sure they can explain more uh to be within the parent boundaries, but the collapse doesn't account for the foundation failures. And as we saw with Hurricane Milton,
this area is undergoing huge changes in hydraology, including an increase in water flowing into Lake Ma Amos, which will be to the norththeast of this project. The surrounding properties also undergoing major graining changes with
Mount Dora North going in. We do not know what these hydraology changes will be doing. I ran a soil map on the parcel and even with the disturbance, this is all type A hydraulic sandy soil.
So with too much water in this area, you can lose the the sheer strength when it's saturated. So uh I'd like to see even with any height tower that they can assure that
they're putting some plans in place to help with that so we don't lose year there and actually have that tower fall rather than buckling. So thank you for your time. Yeah, when I consider the Mount Dora um code provisions,
I I feel like those regulations are in place for really the the the developed areas already in the city um where you wouldn't necessarily want to tower over 100 feet. Um this is right on
the edge of the parkway. It's also in the innovation district and the fact that you could end up with four more towers instead of one. It's fine to have a rule that says 100 ft, but if you're really not taking into consideration whether that has a greater impact or
lesser impact, I think that, you know, it's it's better to think through these things and come up with a better solution than just to adhere to a hard and fast rule. Um, I like the idea that the setback off of the properties to the north is the one that's being honored, which is
adjacent to where the residential uses would be. Um, and it is possible as you come off of the Parkway, it's not going to be super noticeable, although I stand by my concern about organizing the site, making it look more presentable. Um,
especially if we're going to have a logo on there and it looks like we've given some thought to it. And then if we have stuff all over the property that looks unckempt, it's just not a good a good look at all. Um
so um I would just I would ask that our staff like we move as quickly as possible for a a logo um design concept that we can take to Mount Dora to have them give their input on as well. >> We can include that in the JPA
discussions. Yes. >> Okay. All right. I mean, we can do that in the JPA. We can just like work on it. I I don't want to bog I mean, the JPA's got a lot of other stuff going on. >> We have some designs that we'll be presenting to you. Sure. >> Okay. Okay. Good. Good. Um, yeah. So, I
think that that setback off the north boundary is the most clearly the most important. Um, so that those are my thoughts as the district commissioner. >> Yeah. I mean, if you want, I'll make a I'll make a motion if you want. Uh, I will
make a motion to approve with the condition of the shrouding with the American flag on top and then the the logo for Wolf Branch Innovation District uh possibly to come second as soon as that is developed. And of course for staff noting that staff would work to
address any engineering questions or concerns that were raised up uh raised during this hearing. >> Second. And I think inherent in that motion is that that would include the waiver to the sign limitation that's in our code. >> Thank you. Yes, my motion would include that um as well. Thank you.
>> And my second still includes that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Madam Chairman, if I can clarify with the shrouding um I'd like to include that picture as an example in the ordinance. And then is it the shrouding just the two or is it going to be every if you have four carriers, will
it be four? Uh Alen Ruiz with Vertex again to answer the question. It would be for all four and I actually can send that picture as well. >> That that's a drawing from an engineer drawing but it shows that all all levels are >> okay if you can send both please.
>> Yes ma'am. >> And then is there a time frame in which the county would have to provide a logo? So just thinking this through in all reality it's probably going to be four months or so before we even begin construction on the tower. I mean from
now we go into site plan and then the building permit that process takes a little bit of time. So I I mean I don't know what your timeline is like but I feel like you're going to have some time to work with on the logo. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Just a quick comment to um right before
we take the vote I think um I want to thank you. This is actually a good presentation. It's probably out of all the tower presentations we've had, it's probably the best, at least most informative. Um, and thank you for throwing out some innovative ideas to address our concerns on it with aesthetics. So, I appreciate
that. It >> was my pleasure and I appreciate your consideration. >> And I would like to just reiterate the importance of these towers. It's not only for cell communication. It's also 5G which is communicating with our autonomous vehicles. Um, so all that
goes into effect. This is out in Sereno, so they won't have any fiber network anytime soon. Probably other other than this tower here. So, >> and your first responders all use FirstNet, >> correct? >> That's an AT&T network, you know. Correct. That's how they all interconnect and communicate with each
other. >> So, >> okay, we have a first. We have a second. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposed? All right. That passes 50. Thank you. We look forward to working with you on this. Um, moving then to tab five. Um, we have uh Ruby
Shores. Uh, anybody have uh exparte communications they need to get on the record? Does not appear that we have any Oh, >> okay. >> Thank you, chairman. Uh for the record,
Mike Fitzgerald, Office of Planning and Zoning Director. This case is uh Ruby Shores. The requested action is reszoning approximately 4 and a half acres from estate residential R2 district to urban residential R six district to facilitate the development of a residential
subdivision. The planning and zoning board approved this uh 5 to zero. The location is south of Forest Lake Road, north of Eagle Point Court. The future land use is an urban low density. The applicant is requesting the
reszoning of the property uh to provide consistent zoning with contiguous parcels also owned by Shangangerla by the lake incorporated. Reszoning will facilitate development of a residential subdivision on all the
lots owned for a total of 6.43 43 acres uh and allow a maximum of 24 single family lots. The reasoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh R2 zoning allows for two dwelling units per acre. R six
zoning allows for six dwelling units per acre, but the urban low density limits this down to four units per acre. The applicant provided documentation indicating that central water uh sewer and water service are available to the subject parcel through Florida Community
Waters Systems, Inc. Utility notification form states that connectivity to the central sewage is 1,000 within 1,000 ft and central water is within 300 ft. The county schools reviewed the application and determined that the project would be considered
dimminimous impact. The county fire station number 72 is approximately one mile from the subject property. Transportation review was done and the application was uh considered to be dimminimous impact and an environmental assessment will be provided at the
preliminary plat stage. This is an infill project uh in staff's opinion and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. All right. Any questions at this point? >> Questions? >> You do? >> I do. Yes. Um so uh so I understand this
um what is the allowable density now and they're proposing to go to 24 units >> their straight zoning now >> their current land use is urban low this is uh simply just a reszoning >> so urban low allows for four units per acre
and they are proposing 24 single family lots. the the reszoning is on 4 and a2 acres which will be added to the property that they currently own for a total of approximately 6 and a half acres at four units per acre. So they're
asking for 24 units. >> Okay. I'm just trying to understand the difference between status quo density versus the what's being proposed. >> What do they what can they build maximum right now if they don't ask?
>> Thank you. Yeah. maximum right now. >> Mhm. >> Despite the land use, they have an R2 zoning which is two units per acre. >> Gotcha. Okay. Um All right. And the second question is um has there been any input uh from public works on the roads
because I if I look at um if I look at uh these roads um and I've been out there, but they're not county standard roads. Uh if public works would like to answer that question that would be
>> uh Forest Lake Drive is >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Forest Lake Drive is a is a road I remember when it was being built. >> Jeff Hart, an engineering director. The uh the roads are about 20 feet wide. They're they are residential type type
roads. We had a pretty big discussion about this with some developments about a year year or so ago. Um, so that there's no plans currently to do anything to the roads to have them repave the roads or to widen the roads that's not in any of this. We are in the process of designing a signal at Harbor
Shores and 44. So even though it will almost be more putting we'll be putting that up. I did want to say with the 24 units it'd be about creating 216 um like daily trips. It's about nine per that's but the peak hour impact is about
13. So, I know there there's some concern about the quality of the roads that they are they are 20 foot foot wide and if we we wanted to ask them to put um resurface in front of them or add shoulder we could that where the development is happening there's very
few houses to to the south that would be be using this particular area >> but the access would be to 44 via Harbor Shores or >> that would be the that would be the access currently if if the other
developments to the west do come in, then there'd be a connection to the west as well. But currently, it's up through Harbor Shores. >> So, the width of those roads, um, if I'm looking at >> Yeah, all of them are 20 ft. All of them.
>> All is a very fancy word, but most of them are 20. We believe they're 20 feet. Yes. All the ones to the north that would go out. I'm not sure about the ones to the south. >> Are they all going to face on I guess we we'd have to see the site plan, but
>> they all they all do face directly onto um >> Golden. >> Yeah. >> Golden tree. >> Yeah. Yeah. They they're they're all they're all direct driveways onto that onto that roadway. It's not it's not preferred, but it's kind of like that fill in is that they're filling in those
those lots. the densities kind of match the adjacent densities. >> So, what would those what would those lot widths be typical? >> I'm thinking >> is the um applicant. >> Okay. All right. That's the I think we
need to bring the applicant up and get >> some of these details. This guy >> asked, >> "Good morning, Jakayat 902 North Sinclair Avenue, Tavaris." So, just to give you some background on this, this is this was a project that was supposed
to be a phase two uh maybe 15 years ago when phase one was built. The roads were built and utilities were put in. Here we are, fast forward coming in. Uh we were uh originally put in an application to the county uh with the inconsistency of
zoning between R2 and R six. Even though we had urban land use for R4, it was their suggestion to come in and reszone to be consistent with the surrounding zoning. So first question was density asking we're basically less than the four units per acre right at four units
per acre uh to be consistent with the comp plan. Just asked about the lot width. Uh, right now the proposed lot width would be 60 feet wide. >> Yeah, you're at you're at two, but you could go up to four. >> Actually, as as Mike said, we own six
and a half acres. >> Two and a half acres is already R six zoning. So, if you look at the little uh map that I the concept plan, you see the hatched area. So, you can see the hatched areas cutting through parts of the property. So the hatched area is R2
going to R six. The non-hatched area is already R six. So you've got a couple parcels in there that have two different zonings on the piece of property. So that's why we're basically, you know, trying to be
consistent with the surrounding zoning of our six. And then uh we concur with staff and planning zoning. We like for your support to approve this moving forward. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. >> I'm looking at an aerial map and it looks like there's like boat storage or
RV storage or something on some of this. Is that Are you familiar with that? >> Yes, that's actually part of the property that's actually going to be set aside. So that road access that's there will still have access over into Shangla. So, there's a little bridge that goes
over that canal >> and the the boat storage and so forth will stay there. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about right where the little boat ramp uh bridge was. So,
everything is going to be residential. And then in this 6.25 or 6.5 acres, we're also, you know, meeting the 25% open space as well. And as far as the light, you um Jeff said that the signal is being designed.
Is that But you mentioned the word warranted, and I'm just wondering what the timing is on on that. Is it just a matter of getting it designed and then getting the >> right goals ordered? >> We would we would bring it back to to the board just to give us permission to to put it in. But our our goal would be
that's practically designed. So in in in in 26 we would be definitely be under construction and have the light up. >> I think it's important even without this development that this intersection probably need needs a a traffic signal and um that would be our intention. >> It definitely needs a signal.
>> The design is probably 95% done right now. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions for Chuck or for Jeff or staff? Okay. We have two speaker cards. Um um Liz
Jensen, Lizen, Lzth, Lzth. >> Good morning everyone. Um I do want to start this off saying that as soon as I'm done, I have to leave to take my daughter to a doctor's appointment. So um I would like to start. I am a resident of um Eagle Point phase 2,
which is the bottom of Golden Tree Drive. I strongly oppose this reszoning as the infrastructure as you all have started to state is not there. Actually two Sundays ago I was not able to go to my church services because a massive semi
that was coming out of the Shanganger subdivision completely blocked off Golden Tree causing everyone that lives in those neighborhoods not to be able to leave. That is a huge problem in my opinion. And if there was to have been an emergency, emergency services would
not have been able to get to us. The roads leading off of Fort 44 off of Harbor Shores into Golden Tree Drive are subpar at best. I drive an F-150 pickup truck. If there are other vehicles that are bigger than mine, F-250, F350, or
the big delivery trucks, you have to get into the shoulder, which at this point is just vegetation. so they don't hit you. It is extremely hazardous. The curbs leading to Golden Tree Drive have
caused me multiple times to hit my brakes abruptly because the people like to take it as a quarter mile road and speed and turn into the other lane. Unfortunately, there's a lot of blind spots in this area if you've ever been down that road where you cannot see
incoming traffic. My daughter was unfortunately a victim of this and that is where I'm going to go take her to many of her appointments. She's 16. She was at a complete stop on 44. Unfortunately, coming about 5 minutes from our home, she was hit by a driver
going 10 over the speed limit while she was at complete stop sandwiched in between two vehicles. Her life is now altered forever as an athlete. She played softball at Eustace. They won state championship and state runnerup last year. No longer happening. The
continuous construction on these roads is not meeting with the infrastructure that is required to upkeep with the influx of the people that will be reciting. 24 homes in a 0.2 mile strip
of land is ludicrous. It does not support. They are stating that they're going to try and bypass through Goose Creek. From what I have been told, because I am an officer on the HOA board for the Eagle Points phase two, is that they're going to use the subdivision
that's being built to the west of this proposed resoning. They're still going to use Eagle Point Court and then Golden Tree and then Harbor Shores. That is an incredible influx of vehicles to roads that cannot sustain it. On top
of that, I know I only have 10 seconds. US Water is currently in a lawsuit with the Department of Educa uh Department of Environmental Protection because they are not complying with upkeeping their water works. And you can look this up on the site. We have been in constant
communication with Mr. Troy Rendell because our water is constantly subpar and he just says, "Sorry, it's too expensive. We're waiting for the subdivisions to bring in the money so I can correct a missing generator. When we got the hurricane last year, we were
without water for over a week." >> Thank Thank you. Appreciate your comments. >> Thank you so much. And I Excuse myself. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. We wish the best for your daughter. She recovers. Gary um Weepking. >> Yes, good morning. My name is Gary
Weepking. I live at 160 Formosa Island Road, Lebury, Florida, 34788. I want to concur with Liz, who just spoke. Uh we I've been up here over three years now. We've been dealing with two other subdivisions, which you all
approved, unfortunately. And just to give you an idea, we're looking at 145 houses that are going to be added over in Harbor. Well, that's Goose Creek. Then we got 120 houses on Lake Eustace Estates. That's Harbor Shores Road. And then another 24.
So we're looking at about 289 lots. And we're figuring at least two cars, maybe more. So we're looking at 578 new cars going down Harbor Shores Road. Liz explained it very well. That road is horrendous. It curves and people the
blind curves. I know you all have been out there and to add more traffic that they can't even handle right now is absurd. And my concern is too about the traffic light. She's talking about her daughter that got hit out there. There's been so many accidents. We've lived in that area for 12 and a half years and
it's about time they put a signal up, but to add more is ridiculous. My concern is with the developer called Berglin is wanting to probably have another access instead of getting out to Goose Creek Road like he already has. He can't
get a right turn lane off of 44. So, he might want to decide to use that as a cut through on Holland to go to Forest Lake and add the additional traffic. It's just very concerning. And I want you commissioners to keep that in mind. Even with 24 houses, that's more
traffic. The road is horrible. You've been out there, too. I know you have you talked to Jason Sarah if I'm not mistake mistaken. Also I'm concerned as far as U Shanga they're taking away the storage area that they have in that community. Also,
there's a boat ramp. It's one of the amenities to our community. And I from looking at the site plan, it looks like they've got the lots divided as such just to allow a little opening so that a fire truck can get through off of the
Golden Tree Road. So, I would hope you guys give a serious consideration about this traffic. And you know, for the last three years, we've been dealing with it and you've approved two of the subdivisions. This one I wish you would turn down. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um, anyone online? No.
Okay. All right. Bringing it back. Um, Commissioner Smith, it is in your district. Um, I'm sure we all have comments, but I'll turn it over to you. >> Yeah, it it's in my district. Um, he this is a resoning not of the whole
thing because he's already has R six on prop part of his property. It's R2 in the other part. Um, looking at the density is 3.75, I believe. I read in here. Um, and we're going to have a traffic light up there
at Harbor Shores and 44, which would take care of some of our safety issues because the safety issues are not going to go away. um if these houses are built or are not built. Um again, this property is
consistent with everything around it. The property owner has the has his property rights um to continue on with phase two of what he's doing. So, I would have to be in support of this for the reasons stated below.
>> Are we just kind of going around? Yeah, >> I'm a hard no. The infrastructure is a complete failure. I think it's well documented and you know this argument of consistency it's consistent what's around if you if you build two apartment complexes the two lots next to them are consistent
with more apartment complexes the logic is like a domino effect everything's consistent with bad development if you put bad development in so I just reject the idea that it's a hard and fast rule that everything must be consistent you're supposed to have diverse uses so obviously I'm fine with the some of the
housing that's already there we don't need to keep sort of unquestioningly replicating the exact same types of development. Uh, which causes obviously long-term issues. So, I'm a hard no on this. >> So, the the question I have is this is not on a separate piece of property
that's down the road. Have you driven out there and seen these properties? >> It's been a few years, but I've spent a lot of time out there having gone to use high school. Mhm. >> Uh I am going to um I'm going to oppose
the zone the resoning request um as well um consistent with the a couple years ago um and other zoning request and future land use map. I think it may have only been a zoning request resoning request in the past couple years. But being consistent with that, I'm going to
oppose uh this as well for similar reasons. Uh if I looked to the basis of review um for zoning uh approval, reszoning approval, um I do I do not see this meeting the uh addressing safety concerns. Uh as has been noted uh these
roads are 18 to 20 foot wide. I think in some areas are actually a little bit less on some of the side roads. I know they are for sure. Um I think that poses a serious problem without a plan to address all the roads to um get them to be of current, you know, standard. Um I
think it's going to be a continuous issue that's going to be exasperated by adding even just 24 more units to it. Um again referencing uh the the way things have changed through the years. Now there's Amazon uh I that are coming in
daily um two to three cars per household uh as well as a concern about our own fire truck. And I want this to be clear as well about our uh concern about um buyer equipment apparatus uh EMS um being able to uh access the site as quickly as possible. Um so citing those
concerns uh I am not in support of uh this zoning uh reszoning request. Um, Commissioner Morris, >> I'd prefer not to see anything out there until the lights in. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm real concerned about I mean the issues that were raised about
the narrow roads, the the curves, the dangerous situations. I know when the last hearing came through, um, you know, it's it's one thing when you have infill and you actually have infrastructure there that
can accommodate the infill. Um, this may be infill in the sense that there's development all around it. They've got R2. Um, they have land, they have property rights, they can use their property rights the way the property rights are now. Um, it's not exactly
what they want, but it's we're not saying you can't use the property. Um, we're just saying we don't want to add to the density and make the problems out there even worse. And I think that Commissioner Morris's point about until the light is there, I don't think there
should be any consideration for adding um more density than otherwise can develop on the current zoning. >> I thought this was going to be before I mean after the light was installed. Is that not right?
Currently, we have not submitted the PSP nor construction plans yet. So, with PSP and construction plans, let's just say second quarter next year, you know, the homes could start being built. So, it could fall into play if if the county
has light in by the end of say 2026. I mean, that's probably realistically on the county side being the light being at the end of 2026. >> Okay. So, some of my some of my um argument was the safety factor on 44.
So, if that's not in place, then that would take that away. >> Understand? >> All right. So, okay. There >> I'm I'm good with waiting until the lights installed. >> And I think I mean I based on what we're hearing though, I think that the owners and the owner's representative need to
be looking at all of the other issues. >> I have one question. If we're denied on the zoning today, hearing the safety, do we need to wait a full year if the client wants to wait
until the light is in place to come back? >> So, the board has the option to deny it without prejudice, which would then allow them to reapply sooner than the one year which is in your current code. >> I'd feel more comfortable with that. I
make a motion that we deny the request without prejudice. >> Second. >> All right. And when we take the vote though, I don't want a vote in favor of denying without prejudice to be an indication that any of us voting in favor of the the uh postponement.
>> No, it just gives us an opportunity to see what it would look like. >> Yes. To see if there's any other considerations that are addressed. But there's no guarantee that that means that it's an approval when it comes back. >> Sure. But I the only reason I I would vote against denying it without prejudice and prefer to do it with
prejudice is simply because light or no light I wouldn't want to wait I wouldn't want to consider it in the next year. I think >> well a year from now five years from now. So >> again >> you're you're a no five years from now. >> Are you sure? >> Well
>> I'm a no until the the road with issues taken care of. >> Right. So we need to see what's going on. >> Yeah. And just to be transparent, I mean, my my issues with safety go beyond just the traffic. The signal is important. The signal is critical. Um, but I'm still concerned about the width of the roads, the the blind curves, and
so forth, and just exacerbating that situation out there. >> I don't think they may not wait for another year to the light or whatever. So, if that's the case, I think we're allowed 16 units now. So, we'll just come back in with the 16 units PSP. So, I I think we can go either way.
Okay. All right. So, um the motion and the second is on denying without prejudice. >> Can we just do an informal poll with because do you guys I mean they're going to come
in at 16 soon, right? Pretty soon. Then what's the point of the no prejudice thing? >> Yeah, just deny. >> There's a motion. fail anyway. >> Well, there's a motion in a second. You can always deny this one to come up with your own, >> right?
>> All right. So, all in favor say I. >> I >> opposed. I >> All right. So, that fails. So, do we have another motion to >> move to just disapprove >> to deny at first and a second to deny? >> Um, all in favor say I. I. Any oppose?
>> I. >> All right. So, that passes 3 to two >> and it would be a 12-month period to bring back. >> Okay. All right. Um, moving then to um tab six. Um,
Commissioner Parks, if you'll cover for me, I'm I'll be right back. >> And I can I can hear what's going on even when I walk. >> Okay. Tab six. Mike. >> Uh, thank you. For the record, uh, Mike Fitzgerald, Office of Planning and Zoning Director. This item is entitled
Paret Outdoor Storage. Uh, just by way of background, uh, the board may recall that this item came before the board on September 2nd and the board requested that the applicant bring this back uh, as a planned industrial zoning rather
than a straight industrial. So the requested action is to reszone approximately 9.3 acres from urban residential R six and community commercial C2 district to planned industrial district MP to facilitate an outdoor storage facility for RV and uh
trailer storage and grant a waiver to the landscape buffer regulations. The planning and zoning board recommend recommended approval of this item. The location is State Road 19 west of Lake Smith Road. Uh the applicant is not proposing any
structures at this time, but the proposed use is outdoor storage or a trucky yard as allowed under the uh planned industrial district. The applicant provided a noise study uh stating that sound levels would meet applicable codes. The reasoning request
is consistent with adjacent neighboring properties which are industrial in nature. and they there there is a surrounding industrial future land use. City of Umatil has provided documentation that central sewage capacity is available to
the property but not central water. Uh 4-in well is proposed as the water source. Lake County Fire Station number 20 is located half a mile from the property. Uh transportation concurrency deems this as a dimminimous impact. The
applicant is requesting a deviation from the LDR uh for the northern and southern boundary of the property asking for a type A landscape buffer of 15 ft with three canopy trees, single row of hedges, and two ornamental trees as opposed to what the code would allow
which would be CD or E type buffers. Uh, an updated environmental assessment will be submitted at the time of site plan and I'm happy to answer any questions and I believe the applicant is here as well.
Okay, the applicant is here. >> Good morning. I'm Ron Sykes, uh, attorney in Winter Garden representing the applicant. My address is 310 South Dillard Street, Winter Garden, Florida. Uh we have uh as as you will recall the at the last meeting there was con some
concern as to what the permitted uses might be if we went with the heavy industrial zoning reszoning that we had uh applied for. So, uh, we took the opportunity to go back to the drawing board between then and now and to work with staff to come up with a, uh,
proposed, uh, uh, MP district, planned industrial district that would severely, frankly, limit our, uh, options for use of the property to meet the concerns expressed by the neighbors. the uh proposed ordinance that is part of your
package under tab 6 is consistent with what we are uh prepared to do and uh the main v variation or waiver that we're looking for is with regard to the landscape buffer simply because this is going to be an RV storage facility boat
and RV storage facility uh it will not generate the kind of noise that a heavy industrial use would use. Uh so for those reasons uh we believe that the staff recommendation is consistent with our what we want. The ordinance as drafted is consistent with what we want.
And what I'd like to do is just reserve some time to respond to any concerns that might be expressed by others. >> Okay. All right. We can go ahead and get our concern um speaker cards up. So um first
one is Angel Good morning, commissioners. My name is Angel Claudio 37936 State Road Umatillo. I'm here today to ask for your support and respectfully request that the resoning of 38205 State Road utility plan to industrial not be granted for years of property owners operate an
illegal gun range known as Senate without the required zoning or conditional use permits. A cup application was filed on April of 2023 only several after several law and code enforcement of these illegal operations finally ceased. The cup application was later withdrawn November 9th, 2023, I
believe to zoning issues. Today the property owner is applying to reszone this land from its current designation to planned industrial to operate an out out storage. Planned industrial is businesses for higher noise intensities, provincial environmental hazards or impacts like manufacturing or processing
plants and they do offer noise flex noise standards. A planned industrial zoning classification is not required to outdoor to operate an outdoor storage facility as evidenced by existing zoning regulations and county which outline specific guidelines for outdoor storage and commercial properties. Therefore,
the rationale behind the zoning should be carefully scrutinized. On September 2nd se 2025, the county commissioners mid to meet with the applicant divide he should apply for a zoning consistent with the business plan's intended or overall use which be plan commercial. However, today is is
requesting planned industrial. The overall comprehensive plan is malleable and that is what we are here to discuss today. While the applicant and their attorney emphasize a 2030 comprehensive plan, it is vital to recognize that that comprehensive plan is a living document and malleable. Furthermore, we must
consider this this opportunity. Furthermore, we must consider the future of this property if its own planned industrial and eventually so the new owner could introduce a variety of activities would be detrimental to the community. I support the property owners in their efforts to utilize the land for business. My family owns a business
that's a tenth of a mile from the property. However, it must be the right type of business in this community and zoned accordingly. The community should protected from potential nuisance, environmental harm. The resoning proposal arises significant concerns given the history of illegal operations
on the property. I urge you to deny this request for planned industrial resoning to protect the quality of life, property values, and the overall impact in the community today and for the future. as it's not required for an outv storage. And I have a couple of pictures here of seeing what it is and what it was. I
don't know where exactly I can put it and what my concerns are with the property if you allow me. What we have here is earlier is what we have on exhibit B. You can see where he has on the exhibit B where he's planning on putting that was to the plan that was
given to you where he has all these outdoor storage facilities. But in the back where I'm concerned that he does have a rifle range back there and it's still there today. I can't see if uh >> just a moment. Uh can we get this overhead projector switched over please? >> Oh, on the next Okay. I want you to look
at exhibit B where he has submitted exhibit B on the concept plan of his outdoor storage. >> Sir, give him just a minute. It hasn't switched yet. >> Okay. >> Wait, you'll see it on the TV in front of you. >> There you go. >> Okay, there you go. If you could see right there, exhibit B, where he has
basically his firing range. And if you look at exhibit B, he has all the way around the property, he has where he's planned on this concept plan where he's planning on putting all these things. But in the back, he has left his firing range. Our concern is that in the
future, he's going to rope a dope is what this is. He's going to come back and say, "I'm going to do this here, but later on once he gets his his industrial zoning, he's going to go ahead and further again continue plans to open up a gun range." The only thing we've seen is the gun range that he operated that
is right there and it's clearly there to see on maps. This is on Google Maps. We can all see it, which he's trying to fire across into the wetlands. And this is what the community's concerns of what he's doing. And this whole resoning thing is just a rope a doe. This whole business plan is just a rope a doe.
That's our concern. And with that industrial zoning, it it does allow for a different noise variances. And that's our concerns. We do not want this happening again. And the only efforts we've seen out of the property owners in this case is enhancing that firing range that he has there that's been active
since 2023. That's our concern. >> Thank you for your time, >> sir. We're going to need you to email that to the staff so that we can put it as part of the record, whatever you're showing on your phone. >> This is on Google Maps. >> Okay. Just screenshot. screenshot it and email it. >> Send it. You can send it to me and I'll
send it to staff or you can send we'll we'll get it into the record. >> And it is he has it outlined over here on his exhibit B in the back is exactly you can see it on the back there. Exactly. That square pad is what he has on exhibit B that he has omitted from his plan designs. But I will have I will do that.
>> Okay. Um the next card is from Kelly Fortune. Kelly Fortune 37936 State Road 19 Umatillaa. Good morning. I'm here to address the resoning of 38205 State Road 19 and its potential implications for
the community. The proposal involves reszoning the property to a planned industrial district MP to facilitate an outdoor storage facility for RVs and it requests a waiver to the landscaping standards of the LDR. If granted as requested today, it could potentially
allow the return of a shooting range. Once reszoned, options to address the many concerns associated with a shooting range or other industrial facility will be limited. I can appreciate that the property owner is looking to establish another business in Lake County, but it
must be the right business for this residential area that continues to grow each day. The residents of this community remember when the owner operated an illegal gun range on this very property less than a tenth of a mile from my home. His actions
demonstrated a blatant disregard for this community and its residents. Even after hearing our concerns, he ignored us. He increased his outreach and he even identified us by name on social media as complaining about the noise.
And after withdrawing his cup, he continued to work on the property to maintain a shooting range. He rearranged the layout, added BMS, and shifted the direction of gunfire. The most recent firings were as of June 2025, a few months ago. Ironically, in my opinion,
it doesn't look like he has done any work on this property to be ready to open an outdoor storage facility as it is still set up for a gun range. and I have no reason to believe his concern for our property values, well-being, and peace of mind has changed. Today, I
request that you deny the planned industrial zoning permit and issue a permit based on what is required to operate an outdoor RV storage facility, which is planned commercial. We as a neighborhood and community have a concern that if granted a plan and industrial zoning permit, the owner will
once again operate the outdoor gun range or similar operation that will create noise and environmental pollution. He has no regard for the residents of this area. And as you've heard, the 2030 comprehensive plan for this area has been referenced many times by the owner
and his legal team. However, this plan was never intended to be an unchangeable edict. While plans are essential, this one was designed with a built-in understanding that it could be amended to reflect the genuine needs and evolution of Lake County. To ignore our current residential expansion and the
concerns of our community would be a disservice to our residents and our future. Please deny the planned industrial zoning permit, which is not required to operate an RV outdoor storage facility. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone online? No.
Okay. All right. Um, bringing it back. So, would you like to address comments that were made? >> Yes, I would. Thank you. >> I I think there's a a misunderstanding or disconnect as to what the proposed ordinance uh requires and what the
limitations are. If you uh look at page 206 of the proposed ordinance, which is under section 1A, it's entitled permitted land uses. One, covered and uncovered RV and trailer storage spaces
per truckyard. Two, accessory uses directly associated with the above uses may be approved by the county manager or designate. any other use of the site not specified above shall require approval of an amendment to this ordinance by the
board of county commissioners. That is a limitation that would absolutely prevent the use of this property for anything other than uh the storage of RVs and trailers and would uh certainly prevent
us from using it as a gun range. the um just to respond specifically to the comments uh made by the other speakers. Uh there has been no code enforcement activity, no police uh activity, no arrests, no charges, no criminal
activity of any kind uh during my client's ownership of this property. Second, uh as I've indicated, the uh the speakers are confused as to the limits of the proposed ordinance, which uh staff I believe is recommending and we
are certainly u uh requesting. Uh third, the limited use. Uh Mr. Claudio suggested that there was room for a gun range on the back part of the par parcel. The limited use that is in the
ordinance applies to the entire 9.3 acre parcel. There is no room for a gun range when the ordinance that is before you is limited to uh uh RV and trailer storage. Uh finally, the um
planned commercial uh that is uh proposed by Misfortune is inconsistent with the existing land use plan. There is in fact a uh land use plan that's in effect and it is a living breathing document but there are very
stringent requirements that must be met in order for it to be amended. What we are dealing with today is a uh land use plan that calls for this to be an industrial zone. What you have before you is an industrial zoning with a very
severe limitation to the use of the entire parcel. Because of that, we believe we've met all of the objections and we would ask that you uh approve it as submitted. Is >> is there any reason though on the site plan that area seems to be left out of
usable space where the gun range had been? >> That would be for future expansion there. The only reason is is it makes sense to lay it out the way we have at this point. that that would that would be developed into a preliminary site
plan that would be submitted to uh staff for approval. Uh but certainly if it's going to be used as a gun range whether it's whether it's developed or not right away that's going to be prohibited because of the limitations of the ordinance. So, right now it would be
vacant land uh in the back there, but ultimately the uh if it's going to be developed, it couldn't be developed and used for anything other than uh trailer RV storage. >> Okay. Any other questions?
>> I'm trying to figure out why they're um want a waiver on landscaping. the yes the the it's it's not a waiver as much as it is as a reduction uh in order to uh utilize the property in the
most efficient way. What we're requesting is that the buffer be reduced from that which would otherwise be applicable if we were going with straight zoning rather than a uh an MP district. And what we are saying is that if it's going to be trailer storage and
RV storage, which is what the limitation is, then we're not going to be generating the kind of noise or the kind of activities that might otherwise be associated with an industrial use. So, it's going to be a very benign uh nearly
silent uh operation there where only uh there's only going to be storage facilities and because of that uh we think that the 15t wide buffer uh is more than adequate to to provide visual and aesthetic uh uh separation uh and
and not have to worry about needing more separation because of noise because there there will be no appreciable noise generated. I don't think I'm the I'm not worried about the noise. I'm worried about living next door to it and having to look at all those RVs >> sitting out there, right? That's that's what I'm after. It's
>> I understand. >> Why would you not have your landscaping there to help your neighbors? >> Well, you will you'll have you'll have a 15 foot wide corridor between the boundary line and any uh parking activities with the required uh uh
shrubbery and trees that would be uh within that 15 foot boundary. So it's a question of reasonability and if you require what might otherwise be applicable to any industrial use then uh
we're just talking about moving it in rather than eliminating it alto together. I think the visual u uh intrusion if there is any would be more than uh adequately compensated by the 15t uh border.
>> So is it not wide enough? Is that what we're hearing? and it's not wide enough to get what you want in there if you don't get this um landscaping waiver. >> Correct. What what we need to be able to do is, you know, we we we counted the
votes last time we were here and so we were able to see that there there is no appetite for there to be uh heavy industrial use of this property uh among the commission. So, we appreciated that. We recognized it. We talked to staff. We
said, "What makes sense?" Uh, and so, uh, my client agreed to the very limited use for RV and trailer storage and said, "If we're going to be limited to that for the foreseeable future, then what we
want to do is be able to utilize it for that purpose to a reasonable degree. And if we can't shrink the landscape buffer somewhat, then then we're going to be denied the reasonable use of our property. What about using that vacant area? You
can't get any more spaces if you use that vacant area. That's the old gun range. The area to the rear, and I might ask our engineer to address that or Mr. Holmes to address that, but the area to the rear uh is the access to that area is
more limited as you go further back on the property. So, the ability to effectively utilize that for trailer and RV storage is is more limited than it is on the front of the parcel, which I believe is substantially wider at that point.
>> Can y'all >> could the engineer or the owner address that? Dave >> Dave Holmes uh 4350 Baywood Boulevard, Mount Doro. Um let me start if I may in June of 2018. The only reason we were
pursuing heavy manufacturing was because that's what the county told us we should do. So I had a letter. So for the last how many years we've been under the restraints that the county has told us and every neighbor there that we cannot
use our property as zone C2 and R six because of the two thou 20 thou our 2030 coming land use. So, the county, I asked them in 2018, can I use this property for RV storage and the manager's office?
And I was told that we could, but that we needed to have it reszoned to planned industrial HM to allow RV storage. Okay. So, we were villainized because we were wanting to put heavy manufacturing. No, our objective since 2018 was to put uh
boat and RV storage. We considered doing some type of manufacturing uh of uh loaded ammunition on the property because of the zoning and the ATF contacted the county and they said absolutely not until it's reszoned to
this heavy manufacturing. So we nixed that the gun range part of it originally I was doing some uh conceal weapons classes out there. The county came out and reviewed it and said it's fine. You're teaching lessons. You're using your property. Go for it. Okay. So, that
grew. That's on me. Uh, the neighbors that have spoken were calling law enforcement, telling them bullets were hitting their house a tenth of an acre or a tenth of a mile down the road because my children are involved in law enforcement. And I said, "Enough of that." So, that has been done since
2023. We stopped that November 2023. The little portion that you see in the back is a small fraction of what we were using and it's simply for a family utilization. We go back there and shoot. We go back there and do that. We haven't even done
that because our neighbors come and videotape our children and grandchildren coming onto our property because this council told them to prove to us or prove to y'all that was used commercially. He needed to videotape everybody.
He goes across the street of 19 on a golf cart with a bullhorn screaming at us while we're trying to use our property. He comes on the neighbor's yard with a bullhorn screaming at us because we're trying to use our property for a little family gathering.
>> Yes. >> So, y'all only gotten one portion of that story. Okay. So, what we're looking at doing that I've spent almost $100,000 to develop through the process of Lake County in two years of my time is a boat and RV storage facility.
Now, the back portion of that property is currently I've got it just burned up because that's where we were going back and doing a little shooting. Has nothing to do with commercial. The county made it very clear to me the difference between a personal gun range
and a commercial gun range. There's no private gun range. I think that was the exact words of this council. I understand that now. I didn't understand that when I initially got into that. I didn't understand the CUP and the requirements um that other gun ranges had to go through. I understand
that now. Don't have the pockets nor the pursuit of that. However, if there's a little space in the back of this industrial property, I'd like to know and I'd like it to be stated to my neighbors that I would still be able to go back and fire a handgun or a rifle on
an industrial piece of property if it's not used for commercial use. So, that's that's the only issue that we're talking about here. the 15t. If you look at the property, the whole front of the property is blocked by the railroad and a huge area of growth. You
can't hardly even see 7/8 of the property. On the south side, there is an FDOT uh easement that's 50 ft wide that has trees thicker than any any kind of burm you would ever see. And there's a ditch
in it. So to put 200 and 300 bushes on the side of that is just ridiculous. Nobody's ever going to see it. So all we're asking for is to light and because we're being restricted because here's the thing. If I have to go with the full landscape plan that's going to
cost me $100,000 to do this, then I'd like it to at least be light manufacturing where I can if I need to sell the property and make some money on it. That's all I'm asking for. If you want to restrict me to RV and boat storage, I want to drop it down to a 15
foot barrier. I want to put in the a type A landscape barrier. And if my family wants to go to the back of the property in a safe manner where I have five acres of wetland as a buffer plus a burm that I'll install myself, problem
solved. The neighbors have gotten it to the point they don't want to hear any kind of anything. I'm not the only person that fires a gun in Lake County. the the recycling plant does. There's people all around behind them, duck hunters and everything else. And I get blamed for all that. My family, we
haven't even been out there. The grass is this tall. We haven't even been out there in months and months and months. So, a hobby that we pursued, we're not even able to do it anymore. So, if there's questions that you have of me concerning this, I can show you the receipts where I've spent almost
$100,000 to pursue the boat and RV storage. So, if I had enough money to do a rope a dokeote to build a a a 15yard range for that, what kind of money you think you can make off that? That's absolutely preposterous. Look at look at the size. And it's basically big enough
for two or three people to stand beside and shoot a handgun. That's it. And that would be the only way that we would ever use that. >> I've got a question. the way this property goes way back. Um, we on the site plan, we just see like where the RV
storage would be and then this area that we've been calling the old gun range and then it continues on back. Is that all wetlands behind there? >> All wetlands. We've done we've done landscape studies. We've had um our neighbors of course called Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
They've come out graciously donated a landscape markings for us. That's great. No problem. That saved me money. Um, every time we've tried to burn a little bit of brush legally, they've called the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, they've called the Fire Department, they've called the Forestry Commission.
>> I think we know we we we understand that there is >> and I want you to appreciate what the stress and and stuff that we've been put under UN and without ever mentioning to anybody about any of this. And so the area that you see in the back, we
haven't messed with and we understand that that's going to have to be modified and taken down. The issue is partly going to be, and my engineer can speak into this, is with the water retention. If we can't do the water retention to the south, the way that it currently is drawn, then we may have to utilize part
of that in the back for water retention. But you're so close to the water table that I don't know, I'm not an engineer, I don't know that that would actually be utilized. I personally have a ConX box that I had to move off of the property onto the agricultural piece next to me because that's what I was storing my
tractor in. But of course, the neighbor didn't like that and so we got a chance to move that. If we put the RV storage up front, we have a little bit of area back there in the back to put a ConX box or we can put a tractor. We can put the bush hog, we can put the um box blade,
the kind of equipment we would need to maintain the property. If we run trailers all the way back um to the wetlands, we've got nowhere to put anything to maintain the property. >> Okay. All right. Um do you have a question?
>> I do have a question. um addressing and maybe for Melanie. Um >> so just so we can let the speaker sit down. >> Okay. Yeah. Yes. Um >> it's not for the speaker. >> Yeah. No, it's not for the speaker. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Um so how much of a um
waiver on how much of a difference on the buffer? Refresh my memory on that is being requested between the type A and what would be required for industrial regarding the uh gun usage. I mean that is if it's private usage um we're pretty limited on that
>> except that it's a planned industrial so it's got it's got an ordinance that applies to what's allowed on the property. >> Yeah. That's why I wanted to ask you ask Melanie how that would apply how I I know there's some there's some laws in terms of personal use of guns um at the
state level. I just wanted to see how that might apply here. >> Correct. that I mean there there are statutes regarding being able to um shoot weapons on your own property. I mean they're they're very detailed about size in relation to residential property and those types of things. However, if
you are doing a planned zoning on this property and it's only going to allow RV storage, then my opinion to the board would be that they would not be able to use that for recreational purposes. >> Okay. All right. That's why I wanted to ask. And then the the the buffer
requirements. Uh and then uh is it is it safe to say um it's really the side opposite of where the proposed storm water pond is that is going to be the issue with the buffering of the neighbors? >> The the waiver is requested for type A
>> generally the for the north and south. >> Um generally a type D buffer would be required between planned industrial and agriculture. So that would be on the north side. That is an 80 foot wide buffer
between planned industrial and C2. That's a type C buffer which is anywhere from 15 25 to 50 ft. So it would be in this case would be 15 ft. We're talking about four canopy trees, three ornamental trees and two rows of shrubs.
Whereas the type A buffer requested is three canopy trees, one single row of hedges and two ornamental trees per 100 feet. Plant industrial to R six is an Eype
buffer that is 50 feet in width and that has nine canopy trees, seven ornamentals, two rows of shrubs, a 4ft high burm and six foot high wall on top of the burm. So in looking at the future land use and
zoning maps um particularly the zoning map you have plant industrial versus agriculture to the north that would be waved down to a a an A type buffer of 15 ft in width. Then the MP2 C2 instead of a a cype
buffer with as much vegetation as required. It still would be 15 ft wide but would not have the vegetation that would normally be required. And then to the R six that is an E type buffer that's 50 ft. So we're waving
that down to 15 ft. So primarily it's the north and south that has the biggest waiver from 80 feet down to 15 and 50 down to 15. >> From 80 to 15 then 50 to 15. >> 50 to 15. >> Right. 50 to 15. Okay. And that's
>> this is this is on for clarity. This is on page four of 15 in your staff report is what I'm reading from. >> And I'm just thinking again about the practicality of it where because the buffer is a is a big issue when you have people living next door obviously and
that's on the north side then. Right. >> Correct. The agriculture would be >> I mean it's really not it's only >> Yeah. Show the area. >> It's only a problem in that one area. Right. >> You have a Yeah. You have a single family home that would be considered to the north of the property.
Okay. Yeah. So that so but the obviously the rest being that it's in a wetland and it goes all the way out there that's really not an issue. >> Right. So perhaps the waiver could end at the other property. I'm just
>> throwing that out there. >> Yeah. It just seems like that part along the north would be the only part that where it butts that the home >> that that would cut into the usable
portion of the property and how much um how many storage units they could have. >> How many more feet is it? You said it's >> it's a type D buffer is 80 feet in width. They're requesting a 15 foot width. >> 80 versus 15
Okay, I'm sorry. I'm being corrected. Uh, there are options of 80, 40, and 30. So, let's call it 30 feet. >> 80, 40, and 30 versus 15. So, 30 versus >> 30 is the minimum. 30 down to 15. Yeah, I apologize for the confusion.
Was there discussion of a wall to mitigate a waiver? A wall in that portion? When I say a wall, a decorative fence wall, >> there was no discussion of a of a of a wall >> as part of the buffering, >> like along that portion where the house
is. >> That would be a condition of the ordinance that perhaps the applicant would may or may not agree to. Um, does I mean the comment was made that if they couldn't get their storm water along that south side, they might
have to use that area that had been the gun range to help with storm water storage. If you lost 15 ft on the north side, that would impact probably as well whether you could put that
drainage along the south side. You might have to move it. Um, would they have to? So, let's just say that we said, "All right, we're okay with the waiver on the south, but not on the north. We'd want them to go to 30." They could proceed
with a revised site plan without having it to come back. It wouldn't have to come back to us. I I believe those provisions for the landscaping would go into the text of the ordinance and then we can apply that
to the site plan and it does not have to come back to you. >> Okay. All right. Um, so one thing I wanted to ask um staff was in that in the ordinance itself where it references the permitted uses and it says uh in parentheses trucky
yard. Can that be stricken? Um I feel that that creates ambiguity. Um what's being permitted is RV and trailer storage spaces, not a truck. truckyard denotes something I think
different than RV and storage spaces. It's under A. It's on page 206. >> Yeah, I'm looking at the code to see how we define truckyard. So, the truckyard definition is the storage of vehicles, equipment, and materials together with related
facilities accessory to the use. >> Yeah, that could be materials. That could be a variety of things. I I feel like we're what we're approving is RV and trailer storage, which is more of a less intrusive use than storing construction materials or whatever else
might come along with that. >> You can strike that as part of your message. >> And then another question is on the accessory uses where it gives authority to the county manager any and other, you know, to allow discretion on uses. I feel like that should be stricken as
well. The concern here is that everybody we we've got neighbors on each side of the highway and on the we've got neighbors that aren't getting along and um what we need to do is eliminate anything that could create a problem in the future as far as well this means
this or this means that and you know it's an interpretation. So I feel like number two should be stricken as well. So, it's it's either RV storage and and trailer storage. Um, >> so I would suggest that if you're going
to make a change to accessory uses, then you're going to have to list out what they're allowed to have on the property, such as a rental office, a equipment storage building. That's what the accessory uses is tied to is things that would go along with operating that property.
>> Madam Chair, may I say something? Um, is it to this question of what accessory uses are >> absolutely >> being requested >> at least? Yeah, just let's keep it short as we try to >> Dave Holmes 4350 Baywoodville. There's going to get to a point where you
handicap that property so much that it's not worth doing the project. So, what we're looking for is when you use the term boat and RV storage, there are other people that are going to come in that are going to need to store whatever. If it's not a boat and or an RV, if they want to put a utility trailer or whatever, are you going to
handicap me to the point that I can only do that and I can't do what the other storage facilities in Lake County are doing? Look at what you have in Tavveraries. They can park they can park uh other other vehicles, commercial vehicles in there, different things like that. You're getting to the point now you're going to handicap my property now
that I can't do light manufacturing, which is what the county suggested I do to the point that it's going to be so specific that you've limited the marketing of the property. >> I think everybody understands what a boat RV trailer storage looks like. >> What is the difference of an outdoor storage facility in Lake County? Because
all the ones that I've ever seen involved anything from a utility trailer to a guy doing uh um some type of construction thing where he has a you know 8 by20 trailer he can park out there. So are we going to define it where it has to be a boat and a RV? It
can't be a trailer. >> It says in here trailer and RV. So the only thing I'm not seeing here is boat. So boat would need to be in there. Um RV boat and trailer. what you just described trailer that would be some construction received involving truck yards too came from the county not from
us outdoor >> storage we're trying to get your property to a point where it can be used for a reasonable use that's consistent with the land use all right so um it's a little concerning that it sounds like you're you know it's it's a little
concerning that we're trying to broaden the uses as opposed to actually narrow it down to >> fair with the other facilities in Lake county. The other usage of storage, outdoor storage facilities in Lake County, >> boats, RVs, and trailers is what I see
in the other outdoor storage areas in Lake County. Not places where you put construction material, not places where you put semi-truckss. It's boat, RV, and trailer storage. >> Okay. You didn't mention that. When you get so granular though that it shuts down. >> Can I ask you a question, please? I I
think I think the the kicker here is trucky yard, >> right? >> And you said that the county made you put a truckard in there. >> That's what the that's what the engineer understood that those those ramifications were. >> So if we take the word truckard out, you're okay with that?
>> I have no problems not putting it. >> We'll take the word truckard out and be done with it. >> That's But that's that's all I'm concerned about is that you get so granular with that definition. If a guy comes up and he's want to make a living and park a, you know, a a drywall trailer that he uses for that, he can't
park it on that property. >> Well, it says trailer, so I don't see why you can't have a drywall trailer. That's fine. And that was already in their trailer. >> Yeah. And as far as the buffer is concerned, um, like I said, on that north side, the property is so narrow up there the way it is now that once you
start making those buffers so large that regardless of whether I do it or somebody else, it's going to be so small that you're not going to be able to do anything with that. by the time you do your water retention. So, we're just simply asking for that 15 foot buffer. If you go around most of the utility places here in in in Lake County, they
have like one strip with a row of bushes like another industrial setup, >> right? But I think our concern is we got a house right next to >> But who decided that in 2030 that whole area is going to be an industrial park? >> All right. You're very argumentative. You know, we're trying >> I'm standing my ground because it's my
livelihood. It's my livelihood. It's real easy to say you can't do this or can't do that. But we all agree. So I don't understand whether >> Yeah. Why? Why argue when we're trying to just get to a place that we all thought we were in agreement about? But no, we can't. >> May I say one thing?
>> No. No. Let's not go there. >> It's north and south. The buffering is a board. There's residents on the north and south side. There's a home and there's children living there at the time there is. So when we >> Okay. All right. But I All right. Yeah. There is And is the house on C2? The
house is on that C2 property or is it down on the It's on the C2 property. So, there are I believe there's two I thought there were two houses. Yeah, there's a there's a house there, but I I mean the reason why I brought the the buffer up is being more more probably important on the north is
because you would have the storm water pond that that's there on the south, right? Am I seeing this correct? >> So, how how wide is that? >> That's the initial design. Yes. Yeah. I move to approve the project with the conditions as discussed. discussed.
>> So I I'm I'm kind of wondering as discussed. So um I think what's been discussed is covered RV uh covered and uncovered RV and trailer storage space. >> Period. And we're going to add
>> and we're going to take out to where the manager can change manager or designate can change anything on the site without board approval. >> I I also have we were going to add boat and then if we're going to take >> Well, yeah, we're going to add boats.
>> Yes. And then if we're going to take out um county manager designate approval for accessory uses, what accessory uses would >> allow an office office related to the storage facility >> and equipment storage? Yeah, office and equipment storage for
the site maintenance and that would be your only accessory uses. So, it's not wide open. >> One other quick question. >> Wait, can we I think >> I can restate the motion. I think our county attorney did great job making copious notes. Maybe she can specifically mention those three. I
believe it's three conditions. >> Correct. So the changes we would make is we would add boat to permitted uses, strike trucky yard, adjust accessory uses to remove approval by county manager or designate and add additional accessory uses to include an office and
maintenance storage building only. >> Move to approve that specific list of conditions. >> All right, you you made a motion. We >> I have a question. Go ahead. Somebody second it for >> All right. We have a second. So let's continue discuss. But Commissioner
Smith, he's he's in the middle of his his comments. >> I was going to go through what Anthony was trying to >> Okay, so was trying to approve, but I believe I got I believe I got it right. Covered storage covered
and then covered RV, boat, and trailer storage. Period. Allows you to have an office because you're going to have to have an office or something to keep your equipment, maybe some extra for RVs cleaning material. Good to go.
>> Um Oh, I wasn't on. Sorry. >> I just thought you were talking soft. >> Yeah, my my ears. Um landscape buffer at 15 ft. I see that you have a pretty good landscape buffer already against that house. You're not planning on ripping every down every tree, right? You're
planning on keeping those trees there and then going in between them, right? So I mean I did >> I did look at it and there is a pretty good buffer there already um against that residential house. So um I think
planned industrial um I believe this is a good fit for it. >> All right. So those are your comments. I would like to add I know you had comments. >> You want me to go? >> Um can I just throw out a couple things? So my concern is as long as that
retention area is along the south side, that creates a nice width buffer. But if that has to go away, now you're 15t away from the the house that's over on that side, and then you're only 15t away from the house that's over on that other
parcel. Um, and as far as your buffer goes, I mean, I I would be, you know, if 30 is the minimum, 15 is what they're asking for. Um, I'm just concerned that
it's just so it's so close to to the house. So, give them the option if they want to put a uh, you know, if they want to put up a a fence to make up for the fact that they don't have that extra 15 ft. Um, otherwise just add the extra 15 feet in.
>> Jennifer, >> if I may respond to the fence issue, there is in fact a six-foot uh fence, high fence that will be around the entire perimeter of the property and uh we can add uh something that would shield the visual uh view through that
as a part of the conditions of the of the motion if >> Okay, that's really important. The the fence is very important. >> Well, yeah, you just and you just answered my question. Um, and I was going to say because there was some talk about a buffer and 15 or 30 foot, but
then buffers that are just open, but they're a buffer versus one that's densely vegetated. >> But if you if you've got that wall that's there, >> uh, that's fine. Or or and or in combination with it being densely vegetated so that it it's more than just the wall that you're looking at. It's
it's vegetation and a wall too, >> right? Okay. and and of course the vegetation would be on the inside of the wall or f and I don't want to limit it to a wall because there's cost associated with that. We're going to have a fence anyway. So we could uh agree to do it in a way that would be
some kind of an opaque >> opaque is the word >> blockage. >> Okay, >> that would be part of that. >> Yeah. >> On on both the north and south sides. >> Madam Chairman, if I can clarify, you said you were going to fence the entire perimeter of the property. You're going to do the entire property or you gonna
do the sides? >> Project >> because I guarantee it will become an issue if you don't do the entire property if that's what the ordinance says. >> Well, I believe for security purposes, we're going to have to do a perimeter fence, >> right? But it usually is going to be a chain lean fence, right?
>> If you're referring to the construction site, >> it's probably the project area. >> Three acres on the front. You can't get to the back of that property. >> Yeah. So that just needs to be clear in the ordinance because you don't want to get in a situation where it's being interpreted as the whole thing. So the site shown on the site plan there would
be a perimeter fence. >> Yes. And I think Mr. Clutch could um you know could speak into that because there is like I said there is a 50 foot uh rightway to the southern part of that property that we're not supposed to restrict or be involved in. So then
there's a wetlands line on top of that. Then there's a Lake County uh restriction as far as how close I can be to that wetlands line. So that's the that's the question regarding the retention is if Lake County says we don't want to put a dip there because you're within 50 feet of the wetlands
line which is a dry ditch that the FDOT dug. There's no water and it had many water in it years. It's for Lake Smith to spill over into to get to the wetlands. So now you've got a 50, you got 25 ft on their side, 25 ft on my side, plus you have the wetlands uh
delineation. Um so there's no way that we're getting that close to that property lot on the south side. >> You want to add anything to that? >> So with regard to the fence, it would be the area of development. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And it would have some kind of an opaque
>> Yes. For the >> barrier. >> Yes. >> All right. Um, and let's see. Um, this issue though about the gun range that has everybody concerned and worried
about. Um, is there a way to say in the ordinance that if the if the land uses allowed in the ordinance are are are violated that the cup would be revoked. I mean, we can add that, but that's in
the code that at any point in time a revocation proceeding could be brought forward. It would go to the planning board and come back to >> Okay. So, if everybody's understanding that that you could bring a revocation proceeding if there was a violation of the ordinance, I think that's important for everybody to understand. Um, okay.
So, we've got all these changes. We have a motion, a second. Did the gentleman making the motion agree to those? >> Correct. Agree to all those additions. >> All right. and the second as well. All right. All in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? All right. Very good. Moving on then to this is uh tab seven and eight Claremont West. Okay. >> Thank you, chairman. Uh, for the record, Mike Fitzgerald, Office of Planning and
Zoning Director. Tabs seven and eight are entitled Claremont West. Uh, by way of background, the board may recall that this item was brought before the board on September 2nd and continued to today's meeting with the intent that the applicant would discuss the city of
Claremont's objections to this project. The applicant is still in conversation with Claremont, and it's my understanding that the applicant wishes to address the board today and request that this item be further postponed. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and board
and staff. My name is Jimmy Crawford, uh 702 West Montro Street, Crawford, Monican Hole, Claremont, Florida. And uh we do I wanted to give you a quick update because I felt like we were sent away with a charge to get with the city
and make it a project that the city um likes, might not be the right word, but does not oppose. Um our we have been in touch since that afternoon with the city. Um the client and the client's rep
have met with the deputy city at city manager. Uh I've had multiple text conversations, emails, and phone conversations with Allison Strange, city council person, and Rick Van Wagner, the uh city manager.
The the city is in the process of revising their comprehensive plan just like the county is. and they have just hired and had a kickoff meeting with DPC DPZ co-design which is the firm run by Andres Dwani
and Elizabeth Plater Zybeck who Zyber I'm sorry Miss Zyber um who are really the one of the very founders of new urbanism and they're working on that and as I sent an email to
I forwarded part of an email that Ms. uh Allison Strange sent me and I probably closed out of it. It basically said, "We don't support the project as it is. The owner is working with us. We want them to sit down with our planners and
discuss the project. We've had two tenative meetings set that everybody wound up not being able to make. So, we're trying. I believe we can get there. I really do. And um I'm requesting another 30-day postponement.
Although if we do 30, it is possible that I'll have to come back and ask for one more. So we would accept 60 or two months instead of one month as well. Whatever the board's preference, but we we really do appreciate the time and we're trying very hard and I feel
optimistic that this will work out. >> Move to postpone 60 days. >> Well, let's pick the date. We know what date we'll be back on a zoning hearing. Can we go with that? December 2nd. >> Can you add that to your motion >> to approve uh postpone until >> December? >> December second. >> All right. Do we have second
reluctantly? >> I mean, I'll I'll second it, but uh let let me just say um >> and you know, I mean, I I appreciate a lot of the projects that you do. Um some that I support, some that I have not through the years. Sure. I really I mean one more time I guess is okay, but
honestly I'm I'm inclined to to deny it without prejudice because I think they're going to have to approve it anyway. But I mean if you want to wait 60 days, uh I think I think it's really them they them meaning the city of Claremont needs to because it's so it's
such in the core of that city right now. >> Yeah. >> Um I mean if you want if you want 60 days I can go along with that. I appreciate that, >> but I'm going to I mean, I'm I'm probably going to come back and say uh no. I mean, I'm going to say no unless they've said yes. But I mean, if they're saying yes, then it should be there
would be no need for you to be here. You know what I mean? >> I understand. And Commissioner Smith said the same thing the 1 of September. So, one of the quite possible outcomes is that we withdraw the application and go straight to the city because I do hear the the board's conversation and
wishes. And I stood up earlier and said, "Let's stick to the spirit of the talks that are going on between the city and the county." So, I would be disingenuous if I said, "Forget the city. They don't matter. Let's just approve this." So, I understand completely. Please keep an
open mind. we're gonna bring back. If we bring back, it's going to be a jam up beautiful project. I promise you. And we'll see that. >> You have some TDRs involved with that. >> Could be. You never know. That's why you need to That's why you need to >> That might be the only reason I wait for 60 days. Just hear you say it in here.
But >> did you say Did you second or do we still need You seconded reluctantly. Okay. >> I'm going to I'm going to say that I'm not in favor of of of this at all. I don't think it should be in front of the county. is completely surrounded by
Claremont. As I said before, I think it needs to go to Claremont. It doesn't need to come here. It's going to have Claremont Utilities, Claremont services, Claremont Fire, Claremont Police, Claremont Garbage. No reason why it even be here. So, I'm going to vote no on this extension.
>> Okay. Um >> I don't have I don't have a problem with the extension. However, something major is going to have to change to make it work. Yeah, I think that message has been conveyed and it is, you know, it does have a regional office future land use. So, if things were to fall apart
with the city and the applicant wanted to morph the plan into something that fit what they're allowed to do in the county, even though they still have to get their utilities likely from the city of Claremont, it doesn't mean that they don't have a right to ask the county for an approval. So, I feel like we have to
>> one more time. Yeah. >> All right. Okay. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? >> I. All right, moving then to tab nine and 10, Lakeshore Preserve. >> Can we take a five minute break before this one? >> Um, >> just five minutes, not 10.
>> You can take Can you take a fivem minute break and get back in a hurry? >> I will. >> I'll I'll take a >> Is everybody want a fivem minute break? >> I'm good. >> I'm good. >> Can we? >> Let's try again. >> I'm fine pushing through. >> Okay. All right. Is this the last one? >> This is it.
>> This is it. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh tabs nine and 10 are companion tabs. This is the Lakeshore preserve. The requested action is to amend the future land use from rural future land use category to planned unit development on
approximately 94 12 acres and amend the comp plan policies uh to proceed with the development for a 149 residential lot development. Planning and zoning board recommended approval by a vote of 4 to zero with one abstained.
Uh the BCC approved the transmitt of this item to the state. This is the future land use a large scale amendment to the future land use. The transmitt to the state was approved 4 to one. Location of this property is south of Lakeshore Drive in unincorporated
Claremont. Concept plan depicts 149 residential lots uh with associated open space and storm water. Maximum allowed impervious surface is 60% with 40% open space. The development will include varying lot sizes of 65 ft, 70
ft, and 120 ft. For the parcels outside of the PUD, uh open space and passive recreation are proposed on approximately 11.25 25 acres located within the green swamp area of critical state concern. The concept plan also shows
approximately 46.3 acres to be preserved as conservation area along with a 50-foot upland buffer for the area located within the green swamp. This is proposed as a planned unit development at 1.46 dwelling units per net acre.
Subject parcels are located within the Claremont joint planning area and the city of Claremont expressed that they have no opposition to this project. The proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding subdivisions.
The utility notification form submitted by Sunshine Water Services uh indicated that central water is available but central sewer is not. Should the land use amendment be request be approved, the reasonzoning ordinance contains a condition that states that the property
will would be will be required to utilize distributed wastewater treatment systems. Schools the Lake County school reviewed uh school board reviewed the application to determine that a proportionate share mitigation agreement will be required.
There's capacity available for elementary and middle middle school, but there is a deficiency that exists at the high school level. Lake County Fire Station 109 is located less than three miles from the subject property. A study of intersections are currently
uh operating at adequate level of service and are projected to do so at buildout and an environmental assessment will be submitted when the project if the project is approved and moves forward to subdivision construction. Moving on to tab number 10. This is the
companion ordinance to the future land use. The requested action is to reszone parcels within the urban residential district R six to planned unit development on approximately 154.34 acres to facilitate the lakeshore
preserve 149 lot subdivision. Included in this is a waiver to allow streets and roadways to utilize a design and construction standard of 50 feet in lie of a minimum right of way of 60 feet and utilize curb and gutter storm water
conveyance system. An additional waiver is to allow elevation changes in topography that would exceed 10 ft. Planning and zoning board voted to approve this on their regular agenda 4 to zero with one abstained. The location is south of Lakeshore Drive.
Once again, this is a proposed planned unit development. 149 lot residential subdivision at 1.46 dwelling units per net acre, 60% maximum per impervious, minimum open space of 50 feet, and a
building height of 45 ft. I'm happy to answer any questions. The applicant is here to present. >> Okay. Uh, any questions for Mike? >> No, I've met with the attorney. >> Oh, okay. Thank you for disclosing. Anybody else need to disclose? I've also met with the attorney and the applicant as well.
>> All right. Okay. Um Vincent >> questions. >> Yes. >> Um >> real quick, DWTS and the roads. Are the HOA going to be responsible for collecting the funds to maintain the
roads and the DWTS? >> That is the right. Yeah, I think an MSBU is proposed for the road uh to internal road maintenance and then same thing goes for the DWTS. >> Okay. So the the countyy's not going to
be responsible the the HOA is. >> No, >> it's an MSBU. >> It's an MSBU. >> So we are responsible. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the MSBU is the one is collected. Yeah. For that that is >> collected for that purpose, >> right? >> But so we're collecting on the adalorum. >> It correct. It would still be a county
road. It's not a advalorum. It's an assessment. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> We don't trust that. >> Okay. All right. Any comment? We only We have speaker card for Vincent >> Mareno unless I guess the Okay. Sorry.
Applicant's going to go >> briefly. >> Briefly because we were very familiar with this. We spent a lot of time on it previously. Jeff preceded me on the last meeting and my record is trying to beat his time. >> Okay, let's see if you can do it because
>> um do we have the PowerPoint real quick? >> Like why don't we do that? >> What? Okay, scrap the PowerPoint. Good. >> Um, yeah, we got two items before us. My name is Bill Ray with Ray and Associates
Planner and Environmental Consulting. We have our entire project team here together to present this project. Um, two items in front of you. One is the adoption of the future land use and the second the future land use of PUD and the adop and the approval of the
existing. Primary emphasis of the PUD is to resolve the issue with a conflict of the underlying zoning that was pre-existing of R six. The comp plan designation is rural. Therefore, the pre-existing zoning and then the comp plan created a conflict. This is to
resolve those conflicts with a development pattern that's compatible with the surrounding area, which is why we chose the PUD working with staff. Then moving forward, like we said, we have 50% open space. We have no development preserved, no development proposed within the green swamp. No
development whatsoever. It's protected by a conservation easement. We listen to the public at our neighborhood meeting. A primary emphasis was the traffic and slowing the traffic and facilitating the safe movement of traffic in that area.
We've done that with two off-site improvements, working with your staff to develop a roundabout entrance at the front of the project, eliminating some existing current problems on a curve and then dealing with the further to the
west. Uh the the sadly named intersection of death, which is growing up in that region. That's a bad intersection. And so county had been looking to develop to improve that intersection with a roundabout but lacked the funding. We're coming forward to assist within the funding of that to
get these transportation improvements completed concurrent with construction of the project and not at at some ambiguous time at some point in the future when the county gets gets the funding to move forward. Again, highly walkable community. We drew a lot of
inspiration for the layout and design of this from the rural conservation subdivision. We have over a mile and a half of of nature trails inside of the project itself. Uh the the DWTS, which is primarily the removal of nitrogen and
phosphorus from the wastewater stream, will be funded through an MSBU. The roads internally will be private. However, they will be funded by an MSBU. It will be proposed as a gated subdivision. With that, I think I've hit pretty much the high points. Of course,
we'll have an updated uh environmental survey when we get close to construction because gopher tourist surveys are only valid for 90 days. There'll be 100% site survey done of that. We've completed 100% coverboard survey for sandsk. US Fish and Wildlife determined that it did
not contain viable sands skinks and was not viable sandsk habitat. So, under no circumstances though will um cos be issued inside this neighborhood until those two improvements shown on this plan are completed. Is that correct?
Will the Lakeshore Drive roundabout be done? >> Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. No COS. Correct. >> Right. Right. Just want to make it clear. We're not going to be in a scenario >> we're not going behind the ball on that. that the the roundabout at the front of the entrance is a defining branding
entrance for the entire subdivision. >> Um it designates that sense of place, that sense of arrival and also calms the entire lake, you know, Lakeshore Drive >> and then Lakeshore Drive will be finished as well. sit down going up to >> Okay, those are my big issues on this
one is addressing obviously the conflict between the old zoning and the and the comp plan fixing it with this and getting those two major improvements that will help improve the safety tremendously in that area. And then we do have a speaker card so if we can uh
hear from Vincent Mareno. >> Good afternoon, commissioners. Um for the record, I'm Vicente Marino. I live at 9435 Lakeshore Drive. On the map, I'm actually the resident right in front of where the proposed little culde-sac is going to be um just north of the traffic
circle in question. Um I'm in favor of the project simply for the simple um fact of just safety. Safety is paramount. Um I have a family of three children. My wife's back there with our youngest. Um we've only been living at that residence since November of last year. I've once shortly after we moved
in, we got to meet all the the surrounding neighbors and um they stressed to us just the the safety issue um because they saw we had children just to inform us while we moved in that the road's very dangerous and there's a lot of speeders up and down and several crashes, several fatalities have
happened in the the past few years um well before we moved in. But in the short time that we've lived there, just this past July, um July 8th to be exact, I was outside mowing my lawn and I saw a rollover happen right in front of me and I was one of the first few people to respond to the accident. So, not even in a year of us living there, we saw um
just the safety hazards, people always flying by. So, I just want to say um that I support it and um look forward to hopefully having that done sooner than later just for the safety of the community. >> Thank you. Appreciate you taking the time to be here. >> Okay. All right. Um, bringing it back to
the board. Do we have a motion? >> Do we have a second? >> I I'll second for both with a quick discussion. >> Excuse me, Commissioner. We do have some people online. >> I'm so sorry. We have somebody online. >> The first one is Vicky Dwey Cashwell. Uh, you should be able to unmute your line. Please state your name and then give your comments to the board.
>> Hi, Vicky Dewey Cashwell, 10904 10908 Evar Drive, Claremont, Florida. And incorporated right between Autumn Lane and EMAR are is my property. and just try and make this quick. 1992 1993 I
don't know the dollar amount of the damage house on the right on Lake Shore was hit damaged pretty severely. 826 2004 it was listed as um first event off road crashed into the home damage was
$10,986.93 76 2008 point of collision shoulder traffic way character the curve level off-road was the first cable utility pole property damage that was $6,210
um then March 3rd 2009 it was listed as trafficway character curb level point of collision off-road um then off-road hit other fixed object um that was $25,000 um they had capped out but the damage
was more than that then we go to the accident the last one to the home 73 2022 manner of collision off roadway negotiating curve damage was over $70,000 I was only paid not even 41,000
and I still have issues with the home. On that FHP report, the road level is the road is graded a level one which requires immediate immediate reconstruction. I have countless emails with the
engineering department and everybody. Y'all know all about this and I've been promised I have documented evidence of you guys saying, "Yes, you're going to come and do this. You're going to do this. Y'all y'all approved a a a guardrail. Nothing's been done. These this community is coming in here wanting to put a roundabout. It needs to be
done. I was even promised by Jennifer Barker just a couple months ago of all these temporary improvements they're going to do and I don't see a temporary shoulder. This line hasn't been moved. You know, it's it's like I'm paying double mileage right here. Where's that where's that money going? It's not going to the roadways here because y'all don't
do anything. When Jeff Earheart had to do that presentation back in December, I have a photo of him or whoever he sent out here the day after December, so December the 4th, he came out here to take that picture that he used to present that presentation on the second
meeting in December. He was out here for a total of maybe three minutes, they put that that presentation together just as a show. All this is a show and this needs to happen because you guys are are neglecting your duty to keep people safe. Then the one that um Vincent was
just speaking about that happened July 8th of just this year. There's countless others, but this gentleman, his name is Larry. He's still going through rehabilitation. He came off the roadway, couldn't correct himself because of the angle of that road. It's a 90° curve and went
once all of these every one of these FHP reports I have this all off-road. They can't >> Thank you. We've got all your comments on the record. Um who's our next speaker? Uh, next up is Tim Lrod. Tim, you should be able to unmute your mic. Please state your name and then give your comments to the board.
>> Hey, my name is Tim Lrod and we own the property just to the west of the proposed community. Um, we own 10 acres that we're building a family house on. Um, and just wanted to state that we highly approve of this. Um, we have a teenage driver in our future and uh,
safety is of our concern. So, we approve. >> Thank Thank you for calling in. Appreciate that. Any more callers? Okay. All right. Bringing it back to the board. >> Get a motion and a second. >> Motion and a second. And you had some comments. >> Yeah. Just a quick comment again. Um I
appreciate the applicant uh working on this with us. Um I wish more would work like you had in good faith and try to address these issues. Again, just a little perspective. This is the Lakeshore corridor. The very problematic along as Commissioner Campion notes
especially uh problematic Lakeshore corridor. This is probably the last property that's on along the Lakeshore Drive corridor. Um has some issues with the reasonzoning and being inconsistent. So this is a a from my perspective and
being supportive of this of taking our future uh in our own hands here, working with somebody now that's willing to work to get the best. Whereas if we did not and said denied this one, we would not get these road safety issues uh taken care of immediately. uh if we were to
deny, but then two, we would be unsure of what could occur in the future. Somebody may not and maybe you get a different board uh might not be as agreeable to the the buffering and the 50% open space and the easement that's dedicated in the back. Um, so I say all
that to say, um, I approve and I think this is, um, trying to make the best out of a problematic, difficult situation, both of not lack of planning along the Lakeshore corridor in the past and then some of the zoning entitlements being handed out the way they were after the
freezes and what happened there. Um, so this is, I think, the the best that, uh, we could get out of this. So, um, so I'm supportive. >> All right. Yeah, I'm anxious to be down there once those roundabouts are in and see how all this comes together and I appreciate you all going the extra mile
to see that this is an improvement and um so thank thank you very much for that motion and second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? >> N. >> All right, moving along then to our annexation report. >> Madam Chairman, can we just clarify that was for both tabs nine and 10? >> Yes, that was for
>> nine and 10. Yes. >> Is that a record for me? Yes, you should try to keep that uh trend up. >> That was impressive. >> Keep that record going. >> You were you were very disciplined. >> You can do it. You can do it again and again and again. Yeah,
>> Bill. You can charge travel time. >> All right. Annexation report. >> Uh this is it. The annexation report. We will begin with uh Eustace. We've received a notice from the city of Eustace that they intend on annexing approximately 20 acres located north of
County Road 44 west of County Road 52. Uh current Lake County zoning is agriculture. Proposed city zoning is suburban neighborhood design district. Current Lake County flu is urban low. Proposed city flu is suburban
residential. The uh Lake County density is one dwelling unit per four uh one dwelling unit per four net acres. I'm sorry that does not urban low is
four units per one acre. Proposed city density is five dwelling units per acre. Proposed uh properties located along County Road 452 where the future Lake Yel loop will be located. Additional right of way may be required in the case
of uh site development. >> I'm happy to answer any questions. And the city limits are all there along the south. I see. Then there's the truck property. The trucking service trucking is right there. >> Yeah.
And our our our land use is urban low. So four dwelling units to the acre. >> I'm sorry. >> Ours is urban low 4 one. What they're asking for is 5 to one. >> Correct. >> And it's contiguous, so it meets Florida statutes. Doesn't seem to be out of the
ordinary. Okay. Anybody have any comments? I don't really see how you can oppose something when it's just a minor increase in the density when it's contiguous and
clearly contiguous. >> Okay, moving on. >> The the only thing that comes to mind is just that 452 and 44 I mean 44 is a corridor that we know needs significant um improvement. So, I think that I the
the one thing I would consider is that we include in a letter of response um that we would look we we we want to work with the city of Eustace to work with our um with with the NO and with the
state to identify funds to help us address capacity issues on County Road 44. It's a state reliever road. It's one of the roads that we've been talking about a lot that needs that needs widening and needs turn lanes
and so forth. >> Do you want a letter coming from um from the district commissioner or you want that to just come from staff as a comment? >> I I think I mean I think it needs to be at a level that gets the recognition of coming from the board with you know
staff obviously assisting with the the drafting of the letter. But I think it should come from our board because we know 44 is between the Eustace portion and the Leburg portion. These this this road needs significant
work. >> Okay. We I can >> and and and because they would be annexing it, they're in they're in the best position to be making requests of a developer that would be annexing in um
for assistance with needs on 44. I think that's how we have to we have to change our mindset so that when it's an annexation and it's on a road that needs work that that's that the city's in the best spot to to ask for
um involvement. Okay. All right. Next one. The next annexation is from the city of Claremont. And the next two annexations are from the city of Claremont and they're really justformational. This is 88.5 acres. The
location is north and south of Hammock Ridge Road. This is an annexation of the completed Hammock Point and Hammock Reserve subdivision uh pursuant to their developers agreement. So the
additionally Claremont is also annexing Louisa Grande. That is also a completed subdivision that they're annexing pursuant to their utility agreements, developer agreements. >> They taken over to roads.
>> The the roads are built to standard. Uh, I believe they should be taking over the roads pursuant to the conversation that I had with public works. >> And these these are existing neighborhoods, correct? >> These these are existing completely. >> Yeah, they're they're they're annexing
them now. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Wonder how many calls they they're going to get. >> Yeah. So, if if the annexation is approved on these, my office will prepare the road transfer agreement and we'll get it over to the city attorney.
Perfect. Yeah. >> And the final annexation report is the city of Leburg. This is for 596 acres east of County Road 4 uh 48 and south of Ronald Reagan Turnpike. Current Lake County zoning is agriculture. Proposed
city zoning is planned unit development. Current Lake County flu is rural. Proposed city flu is a state. And that comparison is one dwelling unit per five net acres or 1.5 dwelling units per one gross acre.
The intent is to develop the property with a residential use in accordance with the regulations of the city of Leburg. and our public works department has supplied a multitude of comments in regards to traffic, storm water, and infrastructure improvements that will be
required in association with this property. And those will all be addressed if this if the annexation gets approved and they move forward with developing this as a residential subdivision. These public works comments will carry forward uh as a matter of the
site plan approval. Is that Leburg all the way around? >> Yes. >> The Yeah. The hash mark you see is the city of Leburg. >> Okay. >> So, it's on the west, it's on the south, it's on the east, it's on the north. Is that basically what you're at? I mean,
it's literally surrounding the property. >> Yeah. This this will show it a little bit more clearly >> there. That's much easier to see. >> My only concern is it's really wet out there. >> Yeah. They don't have like a conservation subdivision. They don't have like a 50%
open space with their subdivision guideline, their subdivision rules. Right. >> What we >> This is This is under contract for >> 35% open space. I'm I'm not familiar with their regulations for conservation rule conservation.
and this who's who's under contract to build on this? Do we know? >> I do not know that. >> It's tough because it's like an enclave of county property and surrounded by a city. >> Enclaves are good.
>> I mean, I I love the idea of copying our our rural subdivision design and attaching it to a letter and saying this would would you know >> yeah we encourage you >> we encourage you to consider a rural conservation design on a property
>> such as this >> good we can do that >> it's your district with that >> totally support that idea let's do that >> because they may not have anything like that but it might be a way that they could use a PUD to sort of copy our
rural conservation design and it would then save enough open space and protect, you know, against flooding and protect those water um assets on that property >> and perhaps reiterating your statement regarding the cooperation with the MO.
>> Yes. Mhm. Okay. All right. Any more? >> Uh that was it. We did the other one earlier if this is a discussion item today. >> Okay. Yeah, this is under my report to help. >> Okay. All right. So, moving along then
to reports. Um, county attorney, >> county manager, >> nothing for me. >> Commissioner Sabatini, >> no updates. >> Commissioner Parks. Yeah, I want to update everybody on um the f the inaugural first uh uh public lands and trails acquisition committee meeting that was held. I don't think I've
updated you on that, have I? Okay, so we had a meeting last week. I thought it went very well. Um it was the sort of the inaugural setup meeting. Uh the board I think is going to be very good. Uh um a lot of good questions already being asked. Um the discussion centered
around the evaluation process which we're going to take up at our next meeting. will have uh staff which has an evaluation process in place. They're going to look at incorporating the countywide conservation strategy into that as well, specifically the Marxan modeling. Um
there'll be applications that will come in. Um some I think I I think there's already been a lot of interest and I think the staff has received applications even though we formally haven't um opened the the process up yet. So, there's not a form online because I had someone ask me about
>> I don't think there's a form online um that that I'm aware of. >> How should they submit if they want to be in the >> That was a question that came up about setting up a a very exclusive website just for the process uh for this program, I should say. >> Okay. >> Um but
>> but if you want to have information about property that people are interested in in being considered, go ahead and send it to me for now until they get the process established and the criteria. Okay. >> Identified and I'll take care of getting it to staff. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> So, um, good. It's overall very good. A lot of good, uh, good ideas and the understanding of, you know, trying to get lands, uh, lands for trails, you know, but maximizing acreage of preservation as well. And that balance, striking that right balance is, uh, you
know, all playing out right now between now and the next meeting u, and meetings as we go into 2026 as well. Very good though. Very happy that that that that is now underway. So, >> all right. >> That's all I have. >> Commissioner Smith,
>> Commissioner Morris. >> I don't know if you noticed or not, but u re earlier today there was a young man sitting in the back, two young men. His name is David Osborne. He is in the transition program with employee, which is a federal program. I
met with him. Uh I did want to acknowledge that he was here. He probably had to go back to school because he's currently employed at Holy Trin or goes to Holy Trinity Episcopal. Um he wants to pursue a career in politics that he wanted to come in and watch the meeting. So I just want to
acknowledge he was here. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Um then on my report um I wanted to give everyone an update on the Okahama called community center but the historic school site. Um and um we had a meeting as we discussed at our last
meeting, we were going to get together with the um group that has been working so hard to raise funds and get grant funding and so forth. Um we were able to have a a great meeting and there were um individuals from the state of Florida, the historic preservation board, I
believe. Um and very familiar with the the grants that had been awarded and were able to give some insight on that. Um, one of the things that uh came up was the possibility of um assuring that the school site that they're moving
along getting that renovation done that they could actually get a CO. They cannot get a CO until there are bathrooms. There cannot be bathrooms in that building because it's being preserved in its original historic state. Right? So, um what was suggested through a lot of brainstorming and and
staff um brainstorming um was the idea of what about a standalone bathroom um and use the CDBG grant um to get that standalone bathroom so it could be used so that that building, you know, could actually get a CO. Now, it's not air conditioned. It's not really a great
place to be having a lot of community activities, but their goal was to use it as a museum. But if it has a bathroom, it's then could be opened up and could you could have meetings but with maybe fans or at you know certain months of the year. So, what an idea that we threw
out and I wanted to see if you all would be supportive of this concept and that is that instead of a community center being constructed, um a community library would be built so that it could serve as a meeting facility as well as a
uh library and um maybe make the small the the size of it smaller than what they had proposed. um whatever footprint would work and still function in a way. This is the site plan that they had originally um were working with. And um
we talked to the the historic preservation folks and the state grant folks. They really like the idea a lot. the people um from the 501c3, they love the idea of um you know a a library that would provide an opportunity for kids summer reading
programs after school, the things that you do in a library as well as seniors in the area. Um and um so it could be done in two phases basically. You get the CDBG grant for the bathroom. So you get your CEO in the process in while
we're doing that we work on a concept plan and then we could actually submit to CDBG for uh funding for a for a small um library and it would kind of bring back the learning aspect of the the school was there all along for learning
and for the kids and it these folks they would have to go all the way to Leburg um to our closest library and so it was very wellreceived of course the property would have to be basically divided so that the library site would be owned by the county and the historic school would
be owned by the 501c3. Um >> they were okay with that. they seem to be very receptive and um so that's what I wanted to see if in concept you all would be supportive in which case we could move along and and see kind of have our people take a stab at what the
site could be how the site could be designed to actually accommodate instead of a community building a library that had meeting space in it >> I think it's a great idea >> yeah so in concept yeah I mean you'll that's the next step get some cost and what it's going to phasing and
everything Yeah. To see what it would cost and then work on a CDBG grant that we would submit for that purpose and then get the state to agree that the one that's already been awarded could be modified to take care of the bathroom facility. So at least we know we've gotten that part taken care of and the
old schoolhouse once all the renovations are done, which they've got the funding for that. Um that they could actually, you know, >> will this get us out of um uh timeout with the grant people? They're not happy with us. >> Yes. So essentially what we would do is
withdraw the current application for CDBG because they do have the state um grant available that could cover the restroom facility. Well, when they revised the scope um it would cover the restroom facility. So then we'd withdraw. We would come back and reapply
in a new funding cycle for the library. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah. It would take us out of that red flag zone. And it also again it's it was very much supportive by the people from the state that were on the call with us. So, um yeah. All right. Well, that's
awesome. I appreciate that. And um um we'll we'll bring back updates once we get a little further along. Okay. Um Commissioner Smith, do you have some like good news today about what today? >> I do. And today is um I got two of them
today because today is National Inner Beauty Day. And if you can't find your inner beauty, today's also LED light day. So if you can't find your inner beauty, turn on your LED light. >> All right. Incondescent. Sorry.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank everybody. Have a great afternoon. We stand a journ. Easy.