Zoning Signal

Meetings · Eustis

Eustis Local Planning Agency — February 19, 2026 minutes

City of Eustis Local Planning Agency — February 19, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (4 of 5 at call to order; 5 of 5 from 5:40 PM) Duration: 5:32 PM – 6:10 PM (38 minutes) Location: Eustis City Hall

Attendance

  • Present: Chair Emily A. Lee, Vice Chair Gary Ashcraft, Commissioner Michael Holland, Commissioner Willie L. Hawkins; Commissioner George Asbate arrived 5:40 PM
  • Absent: None
  • Staff Present: Jeff Richardson, Deputy Director, Development Services; Kyle Wilkes, Senior Planner; Tom Carrino, City Manager; Sasha Garcia, City Attorney; Christine Halloran, City Clerk

Prior minutes: January 22, 2026 minutes approved (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft), 4-0.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Approval of Minutes — January 22, 2026

  • Type: Other (procedural)
  • Request: Approve the January 22, 2026 LPA minutes.
  • Action: Approved
  • Vote: 4-0 (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft) — Asbate had not yet arrived

Item 2.1: Ordinance Number 24-06A — Repeal and replacement of Ordinance 24-06, Future Land Use assignment on South Fish Camp Road

  • Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (readoption to correct a legal description)
  • Case Number: Ordinance Number 24-06A (replacing Ordinance Number 24-06)
  • Location: West side of South Fish Camp Road, north side of County Road 44 (Alternate Key Numbers 1213355 and 1213347)
  • Applicant: Grand Island Addmix LLC (ownership changed from Suzan EP Vandevelde, Trustee)
  • Request: Repeal the previously adopted Ordinance 24-06 and readopt it as 24-06A solely to correct an omission in the legal description. Richardson emphasized it is the same request heard in 2024, with no other changes.
  • Current Zoning: [not stated in the minutes]
  • Proposed Zoning: Same as adopted in 2024
  • Acreage: [not available]
  • Staff Recommendation: [not stated — presented as a corrective readoption]
  • Action: Approved / recommended
  • Vote: 4-0 (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft) — Asbate had not yet arrived
  • Conditions: None
  • Notable Discussion: Public hearing opened and closed at 5:32 PM with no comment. Richardson noted the request had gone to Municipal Code Review in 2024.

Item 2.2: Ordinance Number 2026-07 — Future Land Use amendment for annexation of ten acres at CR 44A and CR 44 (W.D. of America)

  • Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future Land Use assignment on annexation)
  • Case Number: Ordinance Number 2026-07
  • Location: Corner of County Road 44A and County Road 44 (Alternate Key Number 1040141) — part of an enclave, adjacent to existing general commercial uses
  • Applicant: Travis Sawchuk, appearing for WD of America
  • Request: Annex approximately ten acres and change the land use from urban low to general commercial, with a suburban corridor design district.
  • Current Zoning: Urban Low (Lake County)
  • Proposed Zoning: General Commercial
  • Acreage: Approximately 10 acres
  • Staff Recommendation: Consistent with comprehensive plan criteria; adequate utilities; no wetland or flood zone issues
  • Action: Denied
  • Vote: Motion failed 1-4. Moved Hawkins, seconded Lee. Yea: Hawkins. Nay: Holland, Asbate, Ashcraft, Lee.
  • Conditions: N/A
  • Notable Discussion:
    • Sawchuk's offer, made in testimony: a proposed developer's agreement containing a 30-year moratorium on undesirable uses; a village-like development with limited retail services, "open, airy, and park-like rather than maximizing allowable square footage"; and a draft agreement prohibiting gas stations, laundromats, cannabis-related businesses, adult material stores, and freestanding liquor stores. He stated his property remained high and dry during recent floods.
    • Garcia's constraint, restated: annexation cannot be conditioned upon a development agreement; the two must be considered separately. She confirmed Sawchuk has been working with staff on a draft agreement, but that it had not been formally reviewed and was not part of the current consideration.
    • Ashcraft expressed frustration with the process, drawing comparisons to the Moss development, and questioned why commercial projects should be treated differently from residential ones on the timing of agreements.
    • Carrino emphasized the need to separate the agreement from annexation, which must meet statutory requirements without additional conditions.
    • Holland praised Sawchuk's architectural drawings but remained concerned about flooding. Asbate suggested more information and possible tabling.
    • Garcia proposed the sequence that ultimately governs: future consideration could bring the annexation forward alongside a fully developed agreement for transparency, with land use designation and design district considered separately at a subsequent meeting.

Item 2.3: Ordinance Number 2026-10 — Future Land Use amendment for annexation of 2.8 adjacent acres (T&S FL Partners)

  • Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future Land Use Map amendment on annexation)
  • Case Number: Ordinance Number 2026-10
  • Location: Adjacent to the ten-acre parcel at CR 44A and CR 44 (Alternate Key Number 3959037); contains existing metal structures
  • Applicant: T&S FL Partners Inc. — Sawchuk stated this is his personal property, separate from the ten-acre parcel
  • Request: Annex 2.8 acres with a land use change from urban low to mixed commercial/industrial (MCI) and a suburban corridor design district.
  • Current Zoning: Urban Low (Lake County)
  • Proposed Zoning: Mixed Commercial/Industrial (MCI)
  • Acreage: 2.8 acres
  • Staff Recommendation: [presented; recommendation not restated in the minutes]
  • Action: Tabled, to be brought back the following month after City staff and City Attorney review
  • Vote: 5-0 to table (moved Holland, seconded Hawkins)
  • Conditions: N/A
  • Notable Discussion:
    • The MCI designation is defensive: the existing metal structures would become nonconforming without it.
    • Sawchuk described the intent as low-profile office and warehouse use — suitable for businesses like plumbing contractors needing office space with inventory storage.
    • Staff could not answer what the County's urban low designation currently permits. Asbate pressed for the comparison and got no definitive answer. The board observed that something would likely be developed either way, with the City having more control if annexed.
    • Garcia suggested bringing both properties back together with a complete development agreement, allowing annexation to be considered alongside binding commitments before land use designations are determined. The board's consensus supported postponing on that basis.

Public Hearings Summary

  • Number of speakers: 3 across three hearings (Item 2.2: 5:36 PM – 5:45 PM; Item 2.3: 5:49 PM – 6:02 PM)
  • General sentiment: Opposed and skeptical
  • Key concerns:
    • Sabrina Lewis (Spring Ridge Community resident) — impacts on her community given recent flooding issues; what type of commercial development is planned; property value impacts; noted the area was originally supposed to be conservation land.
    • Trina Marquez — questioned the existence and public availability of the referenced development agreement, prompting clarification that no final agreement exists and none was before the board. She raised the same question again on Item 2.3.

Key Signals

  • The Eustis LPA denied a general commercial land use change 1-4 — the first recorded denial in the coverage window — and the stated reason was the absence of a document, not the merits of the project. Sawchuk described a draft agreement with a 30-year use moratorium banning gas stations, laundromats, cannabis businesses, adult stores and liquor stores. The board could not see it, could not bind it, and voted it down. Four members who had transmitted nearly everything put in front of them for a year refused a designation because the enforceable instrument was not on the table.

  • A resident asked whether the development agreement was public, and that question changed the outcome. Marquez raised it on both items. The clarification that no final agreement existed converted Sawchuk's testimony from a commitment into a description, and the city attorney's response — bring both properties back with a complete agreement, for transparency — set the procedure the board then adopted by consensus. Public questioning about document availability, not opposition to commercial development, is what moved this vote.

  • Eustis has inverted its own sequence. Since July 2025 the rule was: annexation and land use first, agreements only if the applicant volunteers. After February 19 the practice is: agreement first, then annexation, then land use and design district separately. The May 7, 2026 agenda executes exactly that order — Ordinances 2026-17 and 2026-18 (the two development agreements) as Item 2, then Ordinances 2026-07 and 2026-10 (the land use items) as Item 3.

  • The MCI request on the adjacent 2.8 acres exists to protect metal buildings already standing. Without it the structures become nonconforming on annexation. That is the quiet mechanic of enclave annexation in Eustis: the designation assigned is often the one that legalizes what is already there, and the board is being asked to ratify existing conditions rather than authorize new ones.

  • Staff could not tell the board what Lake County's urban low designation currently permits on the parcel. Asbate asked directly and got no definitive answer. The LPA's standard justification for annexation — the City gains control it would otherwise lack — rests on a comparison the City could not perform at the podium.

Raw Notes

  • Source: minutes PDF at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/eustisfl-pubu/MEET-Minutes-27444e1d99774d42bf09bf0edfe62e84.pdf (4 pp.), retrieved 2026-08-15. Verified against the clean-text copy in the April 2, 2026 agenda packet (MEET-Packet-8e12cfa699ce46e8b32af8d21d376805.pdf, Item 1.1, PDF pp. 2–6).
  • Minutes stamped "APPROVED 4/2/2026".
  • The minutes render the Item 2.3 alternate key as "39590373." — the trailing "3." is the item numbering bleeding into the field. The agenda gives 3959037.
  • The minutes render the Item 2.1 motion as approving "Ordinance Number 24-06"; the item and heading are 24-06A.
  • The corporate applicant on Item 2.2 appears in the minutes as "WD of America" and in the May 7, 2026 agenda and ordinance as W. D. of America, Inc.
  • Ashcraft's reference to "the Moss development" is unexplained in the minutes; no Moss project appears elsewhere in the harvested Eustis LPA record.
  • Header changed with this meeting: pages now read "Eustis Local Planning Agency" rather than "Eustis City Commission."
  • Both items return on the May 7, 2026 LPA agenda, paired with development agreements as Ordinances 2026-17 and 2026-18.

Connected records

1 connected record

Places1