City of Eustis Local Planning Agency — January 22, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (4 of 5 members present) Duration: 5:32 PM – 6:00 PM (28 minutes) Location: Eustis City Hall

Attendance

• Present: Chair Emily A. Lee, Vice Chair Gary Ashcraft, Mr. George Asbate, Mr. Willie L. Hawkins
• Absent: Mr. Michael Holland
• Staff Present: Mike Lane, Development Services Director; Kyle Wilkes, Senior Planner; Tom Carrino, City Manager; Sasha Garcia, City Attorney; Christine Halloran, City Clerk

Prior minutes: December 9, 2025 minutes approved (moved Hawkins, seconded Ashcraft), 4-0.

Leadership change: Emily A. Lee presides as Chair. Willie L. Hawkins, who chaired the board through the December 9, 2025 meeting, sits as a member. Gary Ashcraft continues as Vice Chair.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Approval of Minutes — December 9, 2025

• Type: Other (procedural)
• Request: Approve the December 9, 2025 LPA minutes.
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 4-0 (moved Hawkins, seconded Ashcraft)

Item 2.1: Ordinance Number 26-01 — Development Agreement, Grand Island Crossings

• Type: Development Agreement (first reading / LPA recommendation)
• Case Number: Ordinance Number 26-01
• Location: Grand Island Crossings — the 19.96-acre site off County Road 44 east of Sparrow Lane, currently in agriculture/silviculture use (the parcels designated Suburban Residential by Ordinance 25-32 in September 2025)
• Applicant: Grand Island Crossing, LLC (MAS Development)
• Request: Approve a development agreement establishing development rights, developer obligations, subdivision design, open space requirements and lot standards for a single-family subdivision of 40-, 50- and 60-foot lots.
• Current Zoning: Suburban Residential future land use
• Proposed Zoning: No change
• Acreage: 19.96 acres
• Staff Recommendation: Transmit to City Commission for the second public hearing and action
• Action: Recommended for transmittal to the City Commission
• Vote: 4-0 (moved Ashcraft, seconded Hawkins), preceded by a straw poll taken because Holland was absent
• Conditions: The agreement's own terms, below
• Notable Discussion:
  • What the agreement is: Lane said it incorporates voluntary design standards and guidelines from Ordinance Number 25-09 and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. He was explicit about its limits — it does not approve the plat, does not guarantee a lot count, does not waive land development regulations unless explicitly stated, does not vest lot yield, does not grant future land use changes, does not allocate City funds, and does not create precedent for future projects.
  • The conceptual plan is illustrative, not final. It shows approximately 95 lots; Lane anticipated the final count would be lower.
  • Development standards on the record: maximum height 35 feet; minimum lot area 4,000 sq ft; minimum lot width 40 feet; setbacks defined for front-loaded, rear-loaded and zero-lot-line designs with minimum building separation of 10 feet; impervious surface at or below 40% of the subdivision; 25% of the 40- and 50-foot lots to include two-story homes; 25% of all lots to include an 8-foot porch or patio; 15-foot perimeter buffer, widening to 20 feet adjacent to the industrial district; minimum 25% open space; stormwater permitted through SJRWMD.
  • Parks: City code requires a minimum of one acre for park/recreation area, and it must be functional, accessible and not fragmented.
  • Roads and utilities: internal roads built to city standards and dedicated as public rights of way; cul-de-sacs discouraged; pedestrian and bicycle connectivity required; final access subject to fire, engineering and Development Review Committee review; connections to city water and wastewater with reclaimed water irrigation where available; school concurrency and impact fees apply.
  • The board's objection was the park. Ashcraft raised the stormwater pond being counted toward the required one-acre recreation space. Asbate, Ashcraft and Lee added concerns about seeing only a preliminary plan, about roads and emergency access, and asked whether amenities would amount to more than stormwater ponds.
  • Garcia read the contractual answer into the record: park areas "shall be configured to provide recreational utility, pedestrian access, and safety" and "shall not consist of residual, fragmented, or inaccessible areas that do not function as recreational amenities." She said this contemplates trails and tot lots that may not total one whole acre but deliver recreational usability, to be determined through the DRC process — "more focused on usability rather than just open space."
  • Carrino noted Sparrow Lane and the north and south roads are all County roads, with access reviewed by Lake County.

Item 2.2: Ordinance Number 26-03 — Future Land Use amendment for annexation at 77 West Seminole Avenue

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment on annexation)
• Case Number: Ordinance Number 26-03
• Location: 77 West Seminole Avenue (Alternate Key 1197309)
• Applicant: Robert and Jamati Weaver, property owners
• Request: Annex 0.31 acres and change the designation from Urban Low to Residential Office Transition with an Urban Neighborhood design district.
• Current Zoning: Urban Low
• Proposed Zoning: Residential Office Transition (RT)
• Acreage: 0.31 acres
• Staff Recommendation: Transmit — consistent with the future land use and comprehensive plan
• Action: Recommended for transmittal to the City Commission
• Vote: 4-0 (moved Asbate, seconded Hawkins)
• Conditions: None
• Notable Discussion:
  • The trigger was a failing septic system. The Weavers approached the City for a water and sewer agreement because they needed to replace the septic. Because the property is contiguous with City limits, City policy requires annexation to receive utility service.
  • The property sits in an enclave surrounded by the City; utilities are nearby and adequate; no wetlands or floodplain; soil suitable for development.
  • Asbate asked whether the property was linked to the neighboring general commercial property that had code enforcement issues. Wilkes said there was no connection.
  • Hawkins asked whether neighboring properties on West Charlotte are on septic. Carrino could not confirm, noting properties marked "Y" on the utility map are connected to City services.

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 0 (Item 2.1 hearing 5:49 PM – 5:50 PM; Item 2.2 hearing at 6:00 PM)
• General sentiment: No public comment recorded on either item
• Key concerns: None raised by the public. The September 18, 2025 hearing on the same Grand Island Crossings land use change drew questions from one speaker.

Key Signals

• A design code Eustis is barred from adopting became enforceable on 19.96 acres by contract. Ordinance 25-09's standards — the Kimley-Horn work frozen by the state's post-hurricane land development regulation freeze — are written into the Grand Island Crossings agreement as voluntary covenants: 4,000 sq ft minimum lots, 40-foot minimum widths, 40% impervious cap, 25% open space, two-story requirements on a quarter of the small lots, porches on a quarter of all lots, 15- to 20-foot perimeter buffers. Where the code cannot bind, the deed does. This is the first fully specified instance in Eustis of a private agreement carrying public design standards.

• The board's fight was over whether a stormwater pond counts as a park, and the answer was written into the contract rather than the code. Ashcraft's objection produced Garcia's citation of language requiring park areas to provide "recreational utility, pedestrian access, and safety" and prohibiting "residual, fragmented, or inaccessible areas." Note what that language does not do: it does not restore the one-acre contiguous requirement. Garcia said trails and tot lots "may not be one whole acre." A buyer in Grand Island Crossings should expect distributed amenities, adjudicated by the Development Review Committee, not a park.

• Approximately 95 lots on 19.96 acres is the illustrative figure — about 4.8 units per acre against a Suburban Residential ceiling of five. Lane said the plan is illustrative and the final count would be lower. The agreement expressly does not vest lot yield. The number to watch is what the DRC approves, not what the concept plan shows.

• The chair changed. Emily Lee presides; Willie Hawkins, who chaired every meeting from February 2025 through December 2025, sits as a member. Lee's first meeting in the chair opens with a device that appears nowhere else in the 2025 minutes: with Holland absent, she called a straw poll of the four members present before taking the motion. Reading the room before putting anyone on the record is the same instinct that produces the board's next two dispositions — a recorded 1-4 denial in February and a failure for lack of motion in April.

• Eustis annexes by utility. The Weavers came in for water and sewer because their septic failed, and were told City policy requires annexation to get service. Every contiguous unincorporated parcel in Eustis's enclaves is one septic failure away from annexation, and the land use assignment rides along with it.

Raw Notes

• Source: minutes PDF at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/eustisfl-pubu/MEET-Minutes-ef2f685d2b314edaa412351fae6098c3.pdf (3 pp.), retrieved 2026-08-15. The standalone minutes PDF is a low-quality scan; percentages and several words are garbled. A clean-text copy of the same minutes appears in the February 19, 2026 agenda packet (MEET-Packet-27444e1d99774d42bf09bf0edfe62e84.pdf, Item 1.1, PDF pp. 2–5) and was used to verify every figure above.
• Minutes stamped "APPROVED 2/19/2026" (the scan renders the date as "2/Le/2026").
• The scanned minutes render the alternate key for Item 2.2 as "197309" with a stray "1"; both the agenda and the packet copy give 1197309.
• The minutes are headed "Eustis City Commission" through page 3 (clerk template artifact); by the February 19, 2026 meeting the header changes to "Eustis Local Planning Agency."
• Adjournment is recorded at 6:00 p.m., the same minute the second public hearing closed.
• Stormwater permitting is attributed in the minutes to "St John's Water Authority" — the St. Johns River Water Management District.