City of Eustis Local Planning Agency — April 16, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (5 of 5 members present) Duration: 5:30 PM – 6:21 PM (51 minutes) Location: Eustis City Hall

Attendance

• Present: Chair Emily A. Lee, Vice Chair Gary Ashcraft, Mr. Michael Holland, Mr. George Asbate, Mr. Willie L. Hawkins
• Absent: None
• Staff Present: Kyle Wilkes, Senior Planner; Jeff Richardson, Deputy Director, Development Services; Rick Gierok, Interim City Manager; Sasha Garcia, City Attorney; Christine Halloran, City Clerk

Prior minutes: April 2, 2026 minutes approved (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft), 5-0.

Staff change: Rick Gierok appears as Interim City Manager. Tom Carrino held the post through the February 19, 2026 meeting.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Approval of Minutes — April 2, 2026

• Type: Other (procedural)
• Request: Approve the April 2, 2026 LPA minutes.
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 5-0 (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft)

Item 2.1: Ordinance Number 2026-15 — Future Land Use for annexation of 18.03 acres on North State Road 19 (Seidel Holdings)

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future Land Use assignment on annexation)
• Case Number: Ordinance Number 2026-15 (Case A-26-003); companion ordinances 2026-14 and 2026-16
• Location: Along North State Road 19 (Alternate Key Number 1307104); discussion centered on the site's relationship to Trout Lake and surrounding conservation areas
• Applicant: Seidel Holdings, LLC
• Request: Annex approximately 18.03 acres and change the designation from Lake County urban medium (up to seven dwelling units per acre) to the City's urban residential (up to twelve units per acre).
• Current Zoning: Urban Medium (Lake County), 7 du/ac
• Proposed Zoning: Urban Residential (City of Eustis), 12 du/ac
• Acreage: 18.03 acres total; only approximately 5.83 acres are developable due to wetlands and floodplain
• Staff Recommendation: Transmit for approval — consistent with the comprehensive plan, adequate infrastructure capacity confirmed
• Action: Failed for lack of a motion. No member moved to transmit or to deny.
• Vote: No vote taken. Garcia confirmed the absence of a motion resulted in the item failing for lack of action, and that related Ordinances 2026-14 and 2026-16 are consequently removed from further consideration.
• Conditions: N/A
• Notable Discussion:
  • Asbate and Holland objected to the density, emphasizing that annexations more typically align with suburban residential densities of approximately five units per acre.
  • Lee and Hawkins raised the site's environmental sensitivity, particularly its relationship to Trout Lake and the surrounding conservation areas.
  • The board noted the absence of a detailed development plan and said approving annexation without an understanding of site design, environmental mitigation and long-term impacts limits its ability to make an informed decision.
  • Gierok clarified that prior restoration initiatives had improved water quality in Trout Lake and that it is no longer classified as an impaired water body.
  • The board indicated willingness to revisit the proposal contingent on a more detailed development plan, reduced density, and a clearer evaluation of environmental impacts.

Item 2.2: Ordinance Number 2026-19 — Future Land Use amendment, 1430 Moran Street

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment)
• Case Number: Ordinance Number 2026-19
• Location: 1430 Moran Street, Eustis (Alternate Key Number 1761310) — operating as a hair and beauty salon in continuous use since 2002
• Applicant: Property owner Janice Wilson; prospective purchaser Julie Campilaro of Patriotic Mortgage
• Request: Change the land use designation from suburban residential to residential office transition, retaining the urban neighborhood design district, to bring the long-standing commercial use into compliance and allow similar compatible uses.
• Current Zoning: Suburban Residential
• Proposed Zoning: Residential Office Transition (RT)
• Acreage: 0.2 acres
• Staff Recommendation: Transmit — consistent with the comprehensive plan; utilities available; no environmental constraints; site within a transitional area surrounded by mixed uses
• Action: Recommended for transmittal to the City Commission
• Vote: 5-0 (moved Holland, seconded Ashcraft)
• Conditions: None
• Notable Discussion:
  • Hawkins asked about grandfathering the salon. Wilkes's answer is the operative one: the business predates current regulations, but complications arise when ownership changes, because the existing suburban residential designation does not permit non-residential uses.
  • Ashcraft added the practical driver: the applicant intends to purchase and potentially operate a different business — a mortgage office — which requires alignment between the designation and actual use to avoid ongoing regulatory issues.
  • Campilaro said the site could accommodate her office while potentially retaining salon operations.
  • No public opposition.

Item 2.3: Ordinance Number 2026-22 — Future Land Use assignment at Orange Avenue and Beach Drive

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future Land Use assignment on annexation)
• Case Number: Ordinance Number 2026-22
• Location: Corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Drive, Eustis (Alternate Key Number 1212685)
• Applicant: Ben Champion
• Request: Change the designation from Lake County urban low to the City's suburban residential with a rural neighborhood design district.
• Current Zoning: Urban Low (Lake County)
• Proposed Zoning: Suburban Residential
• Acreage: Approximately 2.62 acres, of which roughly 0.95 acres are wetlands, leaving about 1.67 acres developable
• Staff Recommendation: Transmit — generally consistent with applicable land use regulations despite the constraints
• Action: Withdrawn by the applicant during the hearing
• Vote: No vote taken
• Conditions: N/A
• Notable Discussion:
  • Richardson's constraint list: water service available, sewer is not; wetlands present; floodplain presence; limited soil suitability.
  • Asbate and Ashcraft questioned compatibility of suburban residential with a surrounding area characterized by lower-density, rural-style development. Concerns were raised about precedent, density allowances, and the inability to bind future development intensity at the annexation stage without a formal agreement. The discussion highlighted the recurring problem: annexation decisions made without detailed development plans, producing uncertainty and repeated reconsideration of similar cases.
  • Champion clarified the intent was to construct a single residence, not multiple homes, given site constraints, and expressed willingness to pursue a lower-density designation.
  • The board noted such intentions could not be formally enforced without a development agreement, and that modifying the proposal would require readvertisement and a new application.
  • Champion voluntarily withdrew the application, stating his intent to reapply under a lower-density category.

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 7 across three hearings (Item 2.1: 5:39 PM – 5:46 PM; Item 2.2: 5:58 PM – 5:59 PM; Item 2.3: 6:05 PM – 6:20 PM)
• General sentiment: Opposed on the two annexation items; no opposition on the Moran Street item
• Key concerns:
  • Michael Smith (Item 2.1) — supported annexation but opposed the higher density, citing the natural character of the area.
  • Leah Faulkner (Item 2.1) — detailed remarks on hydrological connectivity, stormwater, and ecological sensitivity, urging lower-intensity development standards.
  • Item 2.3 drew strong neighborhood opposition from Kevin Kistner, Heather Gross, Amanda Hall, David Morris and Dennis Robinson, citing increased traffic, limited access, environmental impacts to wetlands and nearby lakes, and preservation of the area's rural character. Residents emphasized infrastructure limitations including the lack of sewer service, and potential impacts on water quality and flooding. Alternative suggestions included preserving the land for recreational use.

Key Signals

• Eustis's Local Planning Agency stopped transmitting. In one 51-minute meeting the board killed an 18-acre annexation by declining to move it, watched a 2.62-acre annexation withdraw mid-hearing, and passed only the item that legalized a salon that has operated since 2002. Combined with the 1-4 denial and the tabling in February, the board has taken up four new annexation land use requests since February 19 — Ordinances 2026-07, 2026-10, 2026-15 and 2026-22 — and transmitted none of them. The only annexation item to clear in that span was Ordinance 24-06A, a corrective readoption of a 2024 approval. Across the whole of 2025 the board transmitted thirteen of the sixteen items it considered. That is the sharpest inflection in the Eustis record.

• The board named its own operating problem: annexations arrive without development plans, and the LPA cannot bind intensity without an agreement. The Item 2.3 discussion states it directly — uncertainty and repeated reconsideration of similar cases. Champion offered to build one house on 1.67 developable acres and the board told him it could not hold him to it. He withdrew rather than accept a designation he had just been told would not bind him downward. The gap between what applicants offer and what the City can enforce is now producing withdrawals, not just denials.

• Failure for lack of a motion took down three ordinances at once. Garcia confirmed on the record that 2026-15's failure removes companion Ordinances 2026-14 and 2026-16 from consideration. This is the second use of the silent veto in the coverage window, after Ordinance 25-29 in September 2025 — and unlike a denial at the City Commission, it carries no nine-month refiling bar. The board can stop a project without creating a record of the reasons, and the applicant can return as soon as it fixes the objection.

• The board is enforcing an unwritten density ceiling of about five units per acre on annexations. Asbate and Holland said so explicitly: annexations "more typically align with suburban residential densities of approximately five units per acre." Seidel Holdings asked for twelve on land that is two-thirds wetland and floodplain. The code contains no such limit — Urban Residential permits twelve — but the practice is now visible enough that an applicant seeking Urban Residential on an annexation should expect to justify the delta.

• Trout Lake is no longer an impaired water body, and the Interim City Manager said so to a board that was about to vote on Trout Lake grounds. Gierok's clarification did not change the outcome; the board still declined to move. That is worth noting: an environmental objection survived the removal of its formal predicate, because what the board actually lacked was a site plan.

• A hair salon operating for 24 years needed a comprehensive plan amendment to survive a sale. Wilkes explained the mechanic precisely: nonconforming status holds until ownership changes. Anyone buying a small commercial use on residentially designated land in Eustis is buying a land use question, not just a property.

Raw Notes

• Source: minutes PDF at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/eustisfl-pubu/MEET-Minutes-e07df9ce13824f8084c89b96b0afcc54.pdf (4 pp.), retrieved 2026-08-15. The standalone minutes PDF is a low-quality scan. A clean-text copy appears in the May 7, 2026 agenda packet (MEET-Packet-21d07089611749a58b44d151c50885fd.pdf, Item 1.1, PDF pp. 2–5) and was used to verify every name, figure and disposition above.
• Minutes stamped "APPROVED 5/7/2026" (the scan renders it "s/7 /2026") — confirming the May 7, 2026 meeting was held even though its minutes are not published.
• The minutes are signed by Gary Ashcraft as Vice Mayor/Commissioner rather than by Chair Lee.
• No motion was made on Item 2.1 either to transmit or to deny; the minutes record the disposition twice, in the narrative and as a formal statement.
• Item 2.2's Alternate Key 1761310 is given in the agenda; the minutes give the address as 1430 Moran Street.
• Applicant Ben Champion previously appeared before this board on September 18, 2025 as the applicant on Ordinance 25-29 (Modern New Home Construction, Inc.), which also failed for lack of a motion.