Zoning Signal

Meetings · Eustis

Eustis Local Planning Agency — July 17, 2025 minutes

City of Eustis Local Planning Agency — July 17, 2025

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (5 of 5 members present) Duration: 6:01 PM – 6:30 PM (29 minutes) Location: Eustis City Hall

Attendance

  • Present: Chairman Willie L. Hawkins, Vice Chair Gary Ashcraft, Mr. Michael Holland, Ms. Emily Lee, Mr. George Asbate
  • Absent: None
  • Staff Present: Jeff Richardson, Deputy Director of Development Services; Sasha Garcia, City Attorney; Christine Halloran, City Clerk

Prior minutes: June 19, 2025 minutes approved (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft), 5-0.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Approval of Minutes — June 19, 2025

  • Type: Other (procedural)
  • Request: Approve the June 19, 2025 LPA minutes.
  • Action: Approved
  • Vote: 5-0 (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft)

Item 2.1: Ordinance Number 25-14 — 2025-CPLUS-04, Future Land Use for annexation of 6.18 acres

  • Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future Land Use assignment on annexation)
  • Case Number: Ordinance Number 25-14 / 2025-CPLUS-04
  • Location: [not specified in the minutes] (Alternate Key Numbers 3862860 and 1193532)
  • Applicant: [not named in the minutes]
  • Request: Change the future land use designation from Urban Medium in Lake County to Urban Residential in the City on 6.18 total acres proposed for annexation.
  • Current Zoning: Urban Medium (Lake County), maximum seven units per acre
  • Proposed Zoning: Urban Residential (City of Eustis), maximum 12 units per acre
  • Acreage: 6.18 acres
  • Staff Recommendation: Transmit to City Commission
  • Action: Recommended for transmittal to the City Commission
  • Vote: 5-0 (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft)
  • Conditions: None
  • Notable Discussion:
    • The board asked whether the annexation creates an enclave. Richardson: the property is already in an enclave, and annexation reduces one large enclave to several smaller ones.
    • On density, Richardson confirmed the County maximum is seven units per acre and the City's Urban Residential allows up to 12, noting surrounding parcels carry Urban Residential and MCR, both at a 12-unit maximum, and that net acreage would probably be less.
    • The board discussed code enforcement violations on the site. The minutes do not record their nature or resolution.

Item 2.2: Ordinance Number 25-17 — 2025-CPLUS-05, large-scale Future Land Use amendment, 66.55 acres

  • Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (large-scale Future Land Use Map amendment on annexation)
  • Case Number: Ordinance Number 25-17 / 2025-CPLUS-05
  • Location: [not specified in the minutes] (Alternate Key Numbers 2704365, 1214041 and 3803090); drainage discussion referenced a surface water system draining from the north side of SR 44
  • Applicant: Major Stacey appeared for the applicant
  • Request: Change the future land use designation from Urban Low in Lake County to Suburban Residential in the City on 66.55 total acres proposed for annexation.
  • Current Zoning: Urban Low (Lake County)
  • Proposed Zoning: Suburban Residential (City of Eustis)
  • Acreage: 66.55 acres — large-scale amendment
  • Staff Recommendation: Transmit to City Commission
  • Action: Tabled (returns to the LPA, not the Commission)
  • Vote: 5-0 to table (moved Ashcraft, seconded Holland)
  • Conditions: None
  • Notable Discussion:
    • Richardson said the property contains wetlands, that the applicant may have to conduct a floodplain study, and that limitations would be imposed at the time of the concept plan and PUD agreement. The board asked about impact on Hicks Ditch; Richardson said no development plans had been received.
    • Ashcraft asked whether the board can ask what the plans are before annexation. Garcia: they can ask, but the applicant is not obliged to answer so long as code requirements are met.
    • Stacey volunteered the plan anyway: single-family development at less than four units per acre, with the current design at 3.5 dwelling units per acre. A cattle pond in the middle is a low-quality wetland that would be impacted; the wetlands to the north are part of a surface water system draining from the north side of SR 44 and running through the property, with two twin pipes running west.
    • Asbate asked what assurance the City has that the density stays there. Stacey called it a legal question and said their intention is not to exceed it.
    • The regulatory freeze surfaced here first. Ashcraft asked whether the City had completed its LDR amendments. Garcia: "the state legislature has issued a moratorium on any updates to LDRs for any City impacted by certain hurricanes until October 1, 2027 unless the legislature changes that."
    • Ashcraft read the statute narrowly — that it appears to apply only to existing developments impacted by the storm — and urged proceeding with the revisions while awaiting clarification. Garcia responded that moving forward may be considered a violation, said the City could seek an Attorney General opinion, and confirmed this annexation was submitted before the moratorium and could be processed.
    • Garcia noted a resolution on that night's City Commission agenda confirming the City's intent to comply with the legislation.
    • Further discussion turned on the absence of any enforceable agreement fixing density. Stacey said the developer had held a community meeting, offered a thumb drive with more information, and offered individual meetings with board members.
    • Garcia suggested transmitting and continuing discussion at the Commission; the board chose to table instead, after confirming that tabling returns the item to the LPA rather than advancing it.

Public Hearings Summary

  • Number of speakers: 1 (Major Stacey, applicant representative, Item 2.2)
  • General sentiment: No public opposition recorded
  • Key concerns: None raised by non-applicant members of the public

Key Signals

  • Eustis's city attorney put the state land-development-regulation freeze on the record with a hard end date: October 1, 2027. Garcia described it as a moratorium on any LDR updates for cities impacted by certain hurricanes, said proceeding anyway "may be considered a violation," and raised seeking an Attorney General opinion. That is the operative constraint on every Eustis code initiative for the following two years — the Kimley-Horn rewrite the board had just recommended in Ordinance 25-09 is frozen at the moment it was ready. Any account of this freeze that reads it as self-expiring in 2026 is wrong; the date the City's own counsel is operating against is October 1, 2027.

  • Applications filed before the freeze still move. That creates a queue with a privileged position. Garcia confirmed this annexation was submitted before the moratorium and could be processed. Pipeline projects proceed under the old rules while the new rules sit unadoptable, which is the precise combination that produces the largest gap between what the City wants to require and what it can require.

  • The board tabled 66.55 acres rather than transmit it — and did so knowing tabling keeps the item in its own hands. The board explicitly confirmed that a tabled item returns to the LPA, not the Commission, and then tabled. This is the first instance in the coverage window of the LPA using procedure to retain leverage rather than pass a decision upward, and it sets the template for February and April 2026.

  • "You can ask, but they don't have to answer." Garcia's answer to Ashcraft is the structural fact governing every Eustis annexation: the City assigns a future land use without the right to condition it on a development plan. The applicant here volunteered 3.5 units per acre and the board still could not bind it. Every subsequent workaround in the Eustis record — the MAS Development agreement, Grand Island Crossings, the two Sawchuk agreements — is an attempt to route around this sentence.

  • A 6.18-acre parcel with active code enforcement violations was recommended for a density increase from seven to 12 units per acre without the violations being resolved on the record. The minutes note the discussion and record no outcome.

Raw Notes

  • Source: minutes PDF at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/eustisfl-pubu/MEET-Minutes-e5f3d5c012c24bca9bcab48f66a694ad.pdf (3 pp.), retrieved 2026-08-15.
  • Minutes stamped "APPROVED 8/7/2025".
  • The minutes do not identify the statute by number. The described measure — a freeze on more restrictive or burdensome land development regulation amendments for jurisdictions within specified hurricane-impacted areas, running to October 1, 2027 — corresponds to the 2025 emergency-management legislation known as SB 180. The date and the characterization above are quoted from the City Attorney's statement, not inferred.
  • The minutes render one alternate key as "121404l"; the agenda gives 1214041.
  • The meeting was noticed for 5:45 PM and called to order at 6:01 PM.
  • Ordinance 25-17 does not reappear on any LPA agenda through 2026-08-15 under that number.
  • Minutes pages headed "Eustis City Commission" (clerk template artifact).

Connected records

1 connected record

Places1