What were the most significant items on the Lake County (Unincorporated) Planning and Zoning Board agenda for June 2025?

Meeting Reading

Lake County (Unincorporated) Planning and Zoning Board

June 4, 2025

10 items on the agenda

**The Town of Howey-in-the-Hills sent two Councilmembers in person to OPPOSE Oaks Grove — and the County approved 5-0 anyway. This is the ISBA-as-coordination-not-veto pattern at its purest:** Two elected officials testified directly to a County advisory board against a zoning approval inside their ISBA, with documented procedural objections, comparative density data (Thompson Groves is 2 du/ac across the street; this is 49 du), planned annexation, and existing utility capacity at a $10M water plant 2,000 ft away. The Board approved 5-0. This is the highest-magnitude single instance of city-county jurisdictional friction in the corpus to date — and it predates the August Clermont West and December O'Brien Road repetitions of the same pattern. Three city-County conflicts in a six-month window is structural, not coincidental. The County PZB is operating with the position that its LDR + Comp Plan reviews are the binding gate, with City opposition received as testimony, not constraint.
**Two LDR amendments shipped in June establish the County's regulatory ground-tone for the 12-month window: density-bonus repeal on Rural Conservation Subdivision + advanced treatment septic systems mandate:** These two ordinances together signal where Lake County's regulatory direction is heading: more environmental protection on subdivision design, more nutrient-reduction discipline on wastewater. Both passed unanimously without significant resistance. The combination tells you the County is doing genuine substantive policy work even as it approves multi-jurisdictionally contested rezonings. The PZB is a venue that approves entitlement velocity AND tightens environmental standards in the same morning.
**Lakeshore Preserve's developer-funded roundabouts at CR-561 + Lakeshore Drive are an exhibit of substantive infrastructure mitigation as a PUD condition mechanism:** The 149-unit project committed to two roundabouts — including the County-designed CR-561 / Lakeshore Drive roundabout that the County had not yet built — as part of the PUD approval. This is the Clermont Lake Bright pattern (developer-funded intersection improvements as a PUD-approval condition) operating at the County level. Pattern: a 149-unit PUD pays for ~$1-2M in road work that the County couldn't otherwise fund. The County's acknowledged $700M road deficit (per October minutes) makes this mechanism increasingly important.

On June 4, 2025, Lake County (Unincorporated)'s Planning and Zoning Board considered 10 agenda items. **The Town of Howey-in-the-Hills sent two Councilmembers in person to OPPOSE Oaks Grove — and the County approved 5-0 anyway. This is the ISBA-as-coordination-not-veto pattern at its purest:** Two elected officials testified directly to a County advisory board against a zoning approval inside their ISBA, with documented procedural objections, comparative density data (Thompson Groves is 2 du/ac across the street; this is 49 du), planned annexation, and existing utility capacity at a $10M water plant 2,000 ft away. The Board approved 5-0. This is the highest-magnitude single instance of city-county jurisdictional friction in the corpus to date — and it predates the August Clermont West and December O'Brien Road repetitions of the same pattern. Three city-County conflicts in a six-month window is structural, not coincidental. The County PZB is operating with the position that its LDR + Comp Plan reviews are the binding gate, with City opposition received as testimony, not constraint. **Two LDR amendments shipped in June establish the County's regulatory ground-tone for the 12-month window: density-bonus repeal on Rural Conservation Subdivision + advanced treatment septic systems mandate:** These two ordinances together signal where Lake County's regulatory direction is heading: more environmental protection on subdivision design, more nutrient-reduction discipline on wastewater. Both passed unanimously without significant resistance. The combination tells you the County is doing genuine substantive policy work even as it approves multi-jurisdictionally contested rezonings. The PZB is a venue that approves entitlement velocity AND tightens environmental standards in the same morning. **Lakeshore Preserve's developer-funded roundabouts at CR-561 + Lakeshore Drive are an exhibit of substantive infrastructure mitigation as a PUD condition mechanism:** The 149-unit project committed to two roundabouts — including the County-designed CR-561 / Lakeshore Drive roundabout that the County had not yet built — as part of the PUD approval. This is the Clermont Lake Bright pattern (developer-funded intersection improvements as a PUD-approval condition) operating at the County level. Pattern: a 149-unit PUD pays for ~$1-2M in road work that the County couldn't otherwise fund. The County's acknowledged $700M road deficit (per October minutes) makes this mechanism increasingly important.

CHANGE LENS

THE READINGmeeting record

Lake County Planning and Zoning Board — June 4, 2025

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (5 of 8 voting members present; 1 abstention on Tab 5/6) Duration: Approximately 126 minutes (9:00 AM – 11:06 AM)

Attendance

Present: Don Bailey, Carroll Jaskulski (Vice Chairman; chairing this meeting), Dan Tatro, Mollie Cunningham, Sean Lahey (newly seated)
Absent: Laura Jones Smith (Chairman), Addie Owens, Mark McManus
Staff Present: Janie Barron, Planning Manager; Leslie Regan, Senior Planner; James Frye, Planner II; Meagan Bracciale, Planner I; Shari Holt, Planner II; Eva Lora, Public Hearing Coordinator; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk

Agenda Items

Tab 1: LDR Amendment — Rural Conservation Subdivision

Type: Text Amendment (Chapter XVII, Rural Conservation Subdivision Design Standards)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Request: Update Rural Conservation Subdivision design standards for clarity and consistency. Repeals the density bonus allowance for Rural Conservation Subdivisions.
Action: Approved
Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Jaskulski motion)
Notable Discussion: Cindy Newton submitted suggested edits requesting clarity in definitions; Bailey initially moved to send back to staff for re-review by PZB, but after Cunningham's clarification, motion withdrawn and the amendment passed forward. The density-bonus repeal is the substantive change.

Tab 2: LDR Amendment — Advanced Treatment Septic Systems

Type: Text Amendment (LDR Section 7.00.05 Wekiva River Regulations; Section 6.12.01 Connection Requirements; Section 17.04.01 Rural Conservation Subdivision Alternative Options; Chapter II Definitions)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Request: Require enhanced nutrient-reducing onsite sewage disposal or distributed waste treatment systems when regional sewer is not available.
Action: Approved
Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Bailey motion)
Notable Discussion: Newton suggested mandatory regional/subregional wastewater connection when adjacent municipality requires annexation. Concern: septic + central water on same lot can produce contamination; FDOH typically requires half-acre minimum for septic.

Tabs 3 & 4 (Postponed): Hartle Hills Apartments — FLUM + Rezoning

Type: FLUM Amendment + Rezoning
Action: Postponed to July 2, 2025 (date certain)
Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Bailey motion to postpone)
Notable Discussion: Logan Opsahl (representing applicant; Tara Tedrow attorney of record) requested continuance — "this was the first time the County was quicker than they anticipated as they still needed to assemble the project team." The case ultimately withdrew before August re-hearing.

Tabs 5 & 6: Lakeshore Preserve — LSFLUM Amendment + Rezoning

Type: Future Land Use Map Amendment (Long-Strip / LSFLUM) + Rezoning (R-6 → PUD)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: South of Lakeshore Drive, unincorporated Clermont area, fronting Lake Nellie / Lake Louisa; ~94.56 acres FLUM; ~154.34 acres total PUD
Applicant: Bill Ray (Ray and Associates), Luke Classon (1828 Engineering), Ayman Saidi (Traffic Mobility Consultants); Pulte Homes builder
Request: Change FLUM from Rural to PUD on 94.56 ac; rezone 154.34 ac R-6 → PUD for 149-unit residential subdivision with conservation easement. Two waivers: (1) LDR Section 15.02.05(B)(2) — 50-ft road right-of-way in lieu of 66-ft; (2) LDR Section 15.02.10(A)(6) — elevation changes exceeding 10 ft.
Current Zoning: R-6; FLU: Rural + Green Swamp Rural Conservation
Staff Recommendation: Approve (consistent with LDR/Comp Plan)
Action: Approved
Vote: 4-0 (Tatro/Cunningham motion; ABSTAINED: Bailey — disclosed conflict of interest)
Notable Discussion:
- Underlying density: 50% open space, 1.5 du/ac on the northern parcels (effectively a downzoning from R-6's 6 du/ac).
- Two parcels (Alt Keys 10259047, 1304512) inside the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern — included in the FLU but NOT in the PUD; 50-ft upland buffer required; 11.25 acres of open space + passive recreation in Green Swamp; 46.30 acres preserved as conservation area.
- Two infrastructure improvements offered by developer: realignment of the 90-degree curve at Lakeshore Drive entrance with a roundabout calming traffic + roundabout at CR-561 / Lakeshore Drive (already designed by County, developer to construct). Traffic study found 85th-percentile speeds over 50 mph in 40-45 mph zone; some recordings up to 65 mph; speed study recommends 40 mph corridor-wide.
- Cunningham (School Board Rep): Lake County School Board's seat-deficit letter on file; Pulte Homes representative confirmed they were deferring proportionate share mitigation (1-year final-plat restriction).
- City of Clermont opposition documented in writing (Newton testimony); Clermont opposed sewer-availability argument and ISR increase from 0.2/0.55 to 0.6.
- Newton on the County-water context: aquifer yield 760 million gallons/day, withdrawals exceeding that; Wekiva River and Wekiva Springs not meeting minimum flow levels.

Tabs 7 & 8: Oswalt Clermont — FLUM + Rezoning

Type: FLUM Amendment + Rezoning (Rural Transition → PUD; R-6 → PUD)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: West of Oswalt Road, north of Grand Hills Boulevard, unincorporated Clermont area; ~9.44 acres
Applicant: Logan Opsahl (representing)
Request: Change FLU from Rural Transition to PUD; rezone R-6 → PUD; 19-lot residential subdivision at 2.01 du/ac; 36.2% open space; 65% ISR.
Current Zoning: R-6; FLU: Rural Transition
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Action: Approved
Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Bailey motion)
Notable Discussion: Originally submitted Dec 2024 with 21 lots; revised to 19 lots to align density with PUD (84-ft × 120-ft average lot width). Newton opposition: PUD doubles the rural-transition density; concerns about Sunshine Water Services (private utility) drawing from Floridan Aquifer.

Tab 9 (Consent): Sorrento Square (Rezoning)

Type: Rezoning
Action: Approved on Consent Agenda; Vote: 5-0

Tab 10: Strange Property (Rezoning) — over Mount Dora-area neighborhood petition

Type: Rezoning (C-1 → R-6) with central-sewer waiver
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: Fournier Avenue, unincorporated Mount Dora area; inside Mount Dora JPA; 0.19 acres
Request: Rezone 0.19 ac from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-6 for single-family dwelling unit; waiver to LDR Section 6.12.01(B) and Comp Plan Policy IX-3.1.2 (central sewer not available).
Current Zoning: C-1; FLU: Urban High Density
Action: Approved
Vote: 5-0 (Bailey/Tatro motion)
Notable Discussion:
- Claudia Taylor + Michael Taylor (residents): signed neighborhood petition opposing rezoning; concern about easement maintenance (they have maintained it for years); construction-vehicle access; gopher tortoise burrows on file with FWC; prior non-permitted clearing fined.
- Marsh framing: "the residents would rather this be commercial as they would not be able to stop the applicant from building on it" — the rezoning to R-6 is effectively a downzoning from commercial. County cannot adjudicate easement disputes; that is a civil matter.

Tab 11: Oaks Grove (Rezoning) — over Town of Howey-in-the-Hills opposition

Type: Rezoning (Agriculture → R-4, Medium Suburban Residential)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: 26515 SR-19, unincorporated Howey-in-the-Hills area; inside Howey-in-the-Hills ISBA; ~16.06 acres
Applicant: Margaret Brock (one of three partners)
Request: Rezone 16.06 ac Agriculture → R-4; 49-lot single-family subdivision; 55% ISR; 25% open space.
Current Zoning: Agriculture; FLU: Urban Low
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Action: Approved
Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Bailey motion)
Notable Discussion:
- Two Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Councilmembers attended in person to oppose: David Miles + Tim Everline.
- Miles on the record: Town has spent two years redoing Comp Plan and zoning regulations; "people were going to the County these days to obtain more dense zoning than what the City would allow"; the property meets the requirements for voluntary annexation; Town Manager had discussed annexation with the owner; the Town just signed a Drake Point development agreement that provides annexation + sewer/water service capacity for both unincorporated enclaves; Thompson Groves directly across the street is zoned 2 du/ac in the Town; the Town's $10M water plant is being built within 2,000 ft of this property.
- Everline: half-acre + quarter-acre lots with 25-ft front + 5-ft rear/side setbacks "would not even be a quarter of an acre"; septic along the lake "is not a good idea"; State Long-Range Transportation Plan does NOT include another bridge across Lake Harris into Howey for another 25 years; existing Cypress Point lots are half-acre.
- William Sullivan (Cypress Point) opposition: the County had not approved a straight zoning of R-4 or higher on Lake Harris frontage since 1973; PUD would be more appropriate.
- Linda Motyka petition: 111 signatures opposing.
- Newton: Agriculture allows only 3 du on this property; rezoning would allow 49 du.
- The Board approved 5-0 over the in-person Town Council opposition.

Tab 12 (Consent): Livestock Project (Rezoning)

Type: Rezoning
Action: Approved on Consent Agenda; Vote: 5-0

Other Business

Comp Plan workshop: Planning and Zoning Board + BCC joint workshop scheduled for June 10, 2025, 2:00–4:00 PM at Lake County Agriculture Center, City of Tavares. Attendance highly encouraged.

Public Hearings Summary

Number of speakers: ~15 across the 12-tab agenda; heaviest opposition on Tabs 5/6 (Lakeshore Preserve), Tab 11 (Oaks Grove), Tab 10 (Strange Property)
General sentiment: Multiple PUD/rezoning items contested; 5-0 approvals despite opposition petitions and two Town Council members attending Oaks Grove in person
Key concerns: Floridan Aquifer drawdown (Newton on multiple items); Howey-in-the-Hills Town Council jurisdictional friction; SR-19 corridor traffic + bridge capacity; gopher tortoise habitat; school capacity (deferred proportionate share mitigation)

Key Signals

The Town of Howey-in-the-Hills sent two Councilmembers in person to OPPOSE Oaks Grove — and the County approved 5-0 anyway. This is the ISBA-as-coordination-not-veto pattern at its purest: Two elected officials testified directly to a County advisory board against a zoning approval inside their ISBA, with documented procedural objections, comparative density data (Thompson Groves is 2 du/ac across the street; this is 49 du), planned annexation, and existing utility capacity at a $10M water plant 2,000 ft away. The Board approved 5-0. This is the highest-magnitude single instance of city-county jurisdictional friction in the corpus to date — and it predates the August Clermont West and December O'Brien Road repetitions of the same pattern. Three city-County conflicts in a six-month window is structural, not coincidental. The County PZB is operating with the position that its LDR + Comp Plan reviews are the binding gate, with City opposition received as testimony, not constraint.
Two LDR amendments shipped in June establish the County's regulatory ground-tone for the 12-month window: density-bonus repeal on Rural Conservation Subdivision + advanced treatment septic systems mandate: These two ordinances together signal where Lake County's regulatory direction is heading: more environmental protection on subdivision design, more nutrient-reduction discipline on wastewater. Both passed unanimously without significant resistance. The combination tells you the County is doing genuine substantive policy work even as it approves multi-jurisdictionally contested rezonings. The PZB is a venue that approves entitlement velocity AND tightens environmental standards in the same morning.
Lakeshore Preserve's developer-funded roundabouts at CR-561 + Lakeshore Drive are an exhibit of substantive infrastructure mitigation as a PUD condition mechanism: The 149-unit project committed to two roundabouts — including the County-designed CR-561 / Lakeshore Drive roundabout that the County had not yet built — as part of the PUD approval. This is the Clermont Lake Bright pattern (developer-funded intersection improvements as a PUD-approval condition) operating at the County level. Pattern: a 149-unit PUD pays for ~$1-2M in road work that the County couldn't otherwise fund. The County's acknowledged $700M road deficit (per October minutes) makes this mechanism increasingly important.
Pulte Homes is named as the Lakeshore Preserve builder — the corpus's first observed instance of a national homebuilder appearing at the County PZB: Most South Lake corridor builders in the corpus have been local/regional; Pulte's appearance at Lakeshore Preserve is a market-share signal. Pulte's representative confirmed proportionate share mitigation deferral with a 1-year final-plat restriction. Track Pulte appearances across subsequent meetings — national-builder presence is a leading indicator of market velocity.
The Floridan Aquifer / Wekiva minimum-flow argument is becoming the recurring environmental-water voice: Cindy Newton appears as the recurring water-quality / aquifer voice across at least four consecutive months (June, July through testimony, September, December). Her arguments repeat: 760 MGD aquifer yield, withdrawals exceeding yield, Wekiva minimum flow shortfalls. The Board has listened but voted approval each time. Worth tracking whether this environmental-voice voice becomes a Board faction split (Bailey's vote pattern is the closest the Board has to one).
Bailey's recusal on Lakeshore Preserve and his lone NO on HertaberkSchwein in July suggest a coherent voting pattern that is now identifiable: Bailey abstained on Tabs 5/6 (Lakeshore Preserve) declaring conflict of interest; Bailey was the lone NO on the HertaberkSchwein hog-farm CUP in July. Bailey is also absent from many later 2025 meetings (Aug, Sep, Oct, Dec). His Spring/early-Summer voting pattern is property-rights skeptical on agricultural CUPs but supportive of straight rezonings. Worth tracking if Bailey returns to the Board.

Raw Notes

Source: Approved minutes PDF, 20 pages.
Recommendations transmitted to BCC for July 1, 2025 hearing.
The June file is the corpus's busiest single PZB meeting in the 12-month window: 12 tabs.
Sean Lahey was newly seated at this meeting (welcomed by Jaskulski).
The Comp Plan workshop on June 10 between PZB and BCC at the Lake County Agriculture Center is operationally relevant for the Comp Plan Amendment thread that runs through 2025-2026.
Hartle Hills Apartments first postponed in June, postponed again in July, withdrew before August re-hearing — three-touchpoint file that did not produce an outcome in the corpus window. Tara Tedrow is the attorney; Lowndes Drosdick (per Citrus Grove + others) is the firm. The withdrawal pattern is data on which applications die in the County's review process.