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

Meeting Reading

Lake County (Unincorporated) Planning and Zoning Board

August 6, 2025

8 items on the agenda

**Clermont West 3-2 FLUM + 4-1 RZ at 19.6 du/ac is the highest-density County approval over a city's documented opposition in the corpus to date — the JPA stress test that Clermont lost:** This is the August precedent that the December O'Brien Road / Groveland approval will repeat in pattern. Clermont's Comp Plan caps density at 12 du/ac; Clermont opposed in writing; staff recommended inconsistency on three documents (JPA, LDR, Comp Plan); the Board approved 19.6 du/ac with three waivers, conditioned on crosswalk improvements + 20-ft cut-fill cap. Chairman Jones Smith's dissent named the procedural concern: "the original intent of the PUD land use was to deal with a unique or specific situation...not so someone could get what they wanted without having to adhere to the Comp Plan." Tatro's pivot vote: "I would be more apt to agree that the density was too high if there was more opposition; however, there was none." This is a calibration data point on the County PZB's voting math: in-person opposition matters more than written city opposition when the file is otherwise PUD-compliant.
**Crawford's comparative-density rhetorical move is now established in the corpus and will likely be repeated:** "Sumter 24, Orange 50 high-density, Seminole 50, Polk 15 — Lake's 12 is the regional outlier." Crawford framed Lake's density limit as competitive disadvantage. The PZB approved despite this not being a Live Local Act project (which would have triggered Florida Live Local mandatory-highest-allowable-density rules). The path: Regional Office FLUC → PUD FLUC FLUM amendment → PUD zoning with waivers → annexation to Clermont via utility agreement. This is a four-step procedural path that's now precedent-setting for the entire south-Lake JPA / ISBA boundary.
**The PUD FLUC was designed for unique-circumstance rezonings — Marsh recited the ordinance language:** "the PUD FLU series was established to provide an implementing tool to accommodate site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which did not conform to an established FLUC"; "this designation may be approved on a site specific basis"; "PUD land use designation was not permitted in the Green Swamp." The Mount Dora North / South + Mount Dora Groves N/S precedents Marsh cited were mixed-use developments with prior entitlements being modified. Clermont West is straight residential with three deviation-from-baseline waivers and density 65% above the cap. The PUD FLUC's elastic application will be a recurring observation — PUD FLUM amendments are now an entitlement-velocity tool, not an exception-handling tool.

On August 6, 2025, Lake County (Unincorporated)'s Planning and Zoning Board considered 8 agenda items. **Clermont West 3-2 FLUM + 4-1 RZ at 19.6 du/ac is the highest-density County approval over a city's documented opposition in the corpus to date — the JPA stress test that Clermont lost:** This is the August precedent that the December O'Brien Road / Groveland approval will repeat in pattern. Clermont's Comp Plan caps density at 12 du/ac; Clermont opposed in writing; staff recommended inconsistency on three documents (JPA, LDR, Comp Plan); the Board approved 19.6 du/ac with three waivers, conditioned on crosswalk improvements + 20-ft cut-fill cap. Chairman Jones Smith's dissent named the procedural concern: "the original intent of the PUD land use was to deal with a unique or specific situation...not so someone could get what they wanted without having to adhere to the Comp Plan." Tatro's pivot vote: "I would be more apt to agree that the density was too high if there was more opposition; however, there was none." This is a calibration data point on the County PZB's voting math: in-person opposition matters more than written city opposition when the file is otherwise PUD-compliant. **Crawford's comparative-density rhetorical move is now established in the corpus and will likely be repeated:** "Sumter 24, Orange 50 high-density, Seminole 50, Polk 15 — Lake's 12 is the regional outlier." Crawford framed Lake's density limit as competitive disadvantage. The PZB approved despite this not being a Live Local Act project (which would have triggered Florida Live Local mandatory-highest-allowable-density rules). The path: Regional Office FLUC → PUD FLUC FLUM amendment → PUD zoning with waivers → annexation to Clermont via utility agreement. This is a four-step procedural path that's now precedent-setting for the entire south-Lake JPA / ISBA boundary. **The PUD FLUC was designed for unique-circumstance rezonings — Marsh recited the ordinance language:** "the PUD FLU series was established to provide an implementing tool to accommodate site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which did not conform to an established FLUC"; "this designation may be approved on a site specific basis"; "PUD land use designation was not permitted in the Green Swamp." The Mount Dora North / South + Mount Dora Groves N/S precedents Marsh cited were mixed-use developments with prior entitlements being modified. Clermont West is straight residential with three deviation-from-baseline waivers and density 65% above the cap. The PUD FLUC's elastic application will be a recurring observation — PUD FLUM amendments are now an entitlement-velocity tool, not an exception-handling tool.

CHANGE LENS

THE READINGmeeting record

Lake County Planning and Zoning Board — August 6, 2025

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (5 of 8 voting members present) Duration: Approximately 118 minutes (9:00 AM – 10:58 AM)

Attendance

Present: Laura Jones Smith (Chairman), Carroll Jaskulski (Vice Chairman), Dan Tatro, Mollie Cunningham, Sean Lahey
Absent: Don Bailey, Addie Owens, Mark McManus
Staff Present: Leslie Regan, Senior Planner; James Frye, Planner II; Eddie Montanez, Planner I; Eva Lora, Public Hearing Coordinator; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk

Agenda Items

Tab 1 (Consent): CR 448A Warehouse — FLUM Amendment

Type: Future Land Use Map Amendment
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Action: Approved on Consent Agenda
Vote: 5-0 (Lahey/Jaskulski motion)

Tab 2 (Consent): CR 448A Warehouse — Rezoning

Type: Rezoning
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Action: Approved on Consent Agenda
Vote: 5-0

Tab 3: Parcet Outdoor Storage (Rezoning) — former gun-range parcel

Type: Rezoning (R-6 + C-2 → HM, Heavy Industrial)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: SR-19 west of Lake Smith Road, unincorporated Umatilla; ~9.3 acres
Applicant: David Holmes (owner); represented by Ron Sykes
Request: Rezone 9.3 acres from R-6 (Urban Residential) and C-2 (Community Commercial) to HM (Heavy Industrial) for outdoor RV storage facility. Industrial FLUC.
Current Zoning: R-6 + C-2; FLU: Industrial
Staff Recommendation: Approve (consistent with Comp Plan/LDR)
Action: Approved
Vote: 4-1 (Tatro/Lahey motion; AGAINST: Jaskulski)
Notable Discussion:
- Substantial opposition from Umatilla residents (Angel Claudio of Lakeside RV Park, Kelly Fortune): the property had been operated as a public shooting range by the applicant for several years without required permits, prompting community complaints and Code Enforcement intervention. Holmes had applied for a CUP for the gun range in 2023 but withdrew. Opposition cited HM zoning permitting "obnoxious noises, fumes, and impacts to the environment"; concerns that HM would re-enable a shooting range; impact on adjacent North Lake Trail Park; nearby homes, neighborhood, assisted living facility, RV park (home to many veterans).
- Holmes (applicant) on the record: gun range "shut down in November 2023"; entity dissolved; uses property for personal use only per Florida Statute; financial constraint drove decision to pivot to RV storage.
- Marsh + Regan clarified: outdoor shooting range is NOT permitted under HM straight zoning. Re-establishing a gun range would still require CUP. Code Enforcement remains separate from zoning.
- Jaskulski's lone NO vote signals concern about the applicant's compliance history despite the legal-and-procedural cleanliness of the rezoning case.

Tab 4: Sorrento Ave-Elkridge (Rezoning)

Type: Rezoning (CFD → R-6)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: Intersection of CR-46 (Sorrento Avenue) and Elkridge Drive, Mount Plymouth area; ~0.69 acres
Applicant: Ben Champion
Request: Rezone from Community Facility District (formerly Public Facilities District) to Urban Residential R-6 for residential use; remove the 1990-era daycare-only restriction (Ordinance #34-90).
Current Zoning: CFD; FLU: Urban Low (or similar — staff said FLU permits residential)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Action: Approved
Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Jaskulski motion)
Notable Discussion:
- Cindy Newton (resident): three lots (Alt Keys 3958234 = 5,684 sq ft; 1361001 = 7,041 sq ft; 3958235 = 17,125 sq ft; total 29,850 sq ft = ~9,950 sq ft each) below the 12,500 sq ft minimum lot size requirement of the Comp Plan. Concern that applicant intends to sell three single-family lots without disclosing the lot-of-record exception path.
- Marsh / Montanez: R-6 has no fixed minimum lot size; minimum frontage is 50 ft; lot-of-record exception (1926 plat) provides density exemption. Property had received a lot-exception approval through Planning and Zoning prior to this rezoning.

Tab 5 (Consent): Chesterfield Town Center Storage — Summer Bay (Rezoning)

Type: Rezoning (Self-Storage)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Action: Approved on Consent Agenda
Vote: 5-0
Notable Discussion: Self-storage approved on consent — note this is the OPPOSITE outcome from the March 2026 Serenoa self-storage 6-1 denial. Consent placement implies this case did not have the same Wellness Way / Conservation Subdivision FLUC conflict.

Tabs 6 & 7 (Withdrawn): Hartle Hills Apartments — FLUM + Rezoning

Type: FLUM Amendment + Rezoning
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Action: Withdrawn before hearing; will be re-advertised when applicant is ready

Tab 8: Clermont West — FLUM Amendment

Type: Future Land Use Map Amendment (Regional Office → PUD FLUC)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: South of Hooks Street and east of US-27, unincorporated Clermont area; inside Clermont JPA + ISBA; ~15.53 acres
Applicant: Represented by attorney Jimmy Crawford + Jonathan Martin (Kimley-Horn)
Request: Change FLUC from Regional Office to PUD to facilitate Clermont West, a 300-unit multi-family development at 19.6 du/ac.
Current Zoning: R-6; FLU: Regional Office (does not allow residential)
Staff Recommendation: Inconsistent with Clermont JPA, LDR, and Comp Plan
Action: Approved
Vote: 3-2 (Jaskulski/Tatro motion; AGAINST: Jones Smith, Cunningham)
Notable Discussion:
- City of Clermont opposed in writing. Clermont's max density is 12 du/ac; this proposes 19.6 du/ac.
- Crawford: Wellness Way allows up to 24 du/ac; project originally designed as Live Local Act (24 du/ac max allowable) but pivoted to market-rate. ISBA path: County processes within ISBA, then annexation triggers; utility agreement with Clermont required as condition.
- Crawford comparative density argument: Sumter County 24 du/ac, Orange County 50 du/ac high density, Seminole County 50 du/ac, Polk County 15 du/ac. Lake County's 12 du/ac is the lowest in the regional market.
- Marsh on record: PUD FLUC was created in 2019 specifically for "site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which did not conform to an established FLUC...not created to give higher density"; PUD land use designation is not permitted in the Green Swamp.
- Jones Smith dissent rationale: "the original intent of the PUD land use was to deal with a unique or specific situation, opining that it was not so someone could get what they wanted without having to adhere to the Comp Plan"; two adjacent multi-family developments at 11.9 du/ac comply; this is not unique enough.
- Tatro support rationale: "I would be more apt to agree that the density was too high if there was more opposition; however, there was none." (No in-person opposition speakers; only written City opposition.)

Tab 9: Clermont West — Rezoning

Type: Rezoning (R-6 → PUD)
Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
Location: Same as Tab 8
Request: Rezone 15.53 acres R-6 → PUD for 300 multi-family units. Three waivers requested:
1. LDR Section 15.02.01(C) — increase max habitable building height to 45 ft and finished feature height to 60 ft (vs 35/45 ft).
2. LDR Section 15.02.10(A)(6) and (C) — allow elevation changes to exceed 10 ft over up to 15% of project site (excluding roads/stormwater) vs the 10-ft limit. (Driver: 80-foot elevation drop across the site from prior sand mining + Hooks Street construction; design avoids 20-ft retaining walls.)
3. LDR Table 15.02.01E — exempt from additional 15-ft setback for each story over two stories.
Action: Approved with conditions
Vote: 4-1 (Tatro/Jaskulski motion; AGAINST: Jones Smith)
Conditions:
- Crosswalk improvements at adjacent Hooks Street (signal + lit + textured paint, ~$1.5M applicant cost). Public Works to design signalization plan.
- Cut and fill not to exceed 20 feet over no more than 15 percent of the project site (per Jones Smith's ordinance amendment).
Notable Discussion:
- The site is inside the Lake Apopka Basin Overlay District — stricter stormwater than SJRWMD baseline.
- Lynch (Public Works): Hooks Street is a 40-mph collector road; raised crosswalk is NOT warranted by Federal highway standards or Florida Greenbook for this speed/classification, but enhanced crosswalk + lighting is allowable.
- Crawford on PUD entitlement architecture: "PUD was a planned land use and zoning in this case, and that it could be conditioned by this Board and the BCC."
- Ultimate utility path requires annexation to Clermont; utility availability letter received but no signed utility agreement until site plan stage; ordinance specifies subject-to-utility-agreement.
- Marsh: "I cannot recall a time where they had ever had a PUD application request four waivers" — operational rebuke of the volume of waivers (Crawford then disputed the count, citing the cut-fill waiver as a single item rather than two).

Public Hearings Summary

Number of speakers: 3 (2 on Tab 3 Parcet Outdoor Storage; 1 on Tab 4 Sorrento Ave-Elkridge; 0 on Tabs 8/9 Clermont West)
General sentiment: Mixed — Tab 3 strong opposition; Tab 4 procedural concern; no in-person opposition on Clermont West despite the City of Clermont's written opposition
Key concerns: Restoration of dormant gun range under HM zoning; lot-of-record vs Comp Plan minimum lot-size friction; high-density Clermont JPA boundary friction (City opposition)

Key Signals

Clermont West 3-2 FLUM + 4-1 RZ at 19.6 du/ac is the highest-density County approval over a city's documented opposition in the corpus to date — the JPA stress test that Clermont lost: This is the August precedent that the December O'Brien Road / Groveland approval will repeat in pattern. Clermont's Comp Plan caps density at 12 du/ac; Clermont opposed in writing; staff recommended inconsistency on three documents (JPA, LDR, Comp Plan); the Board approved 19.6 du/ac with three waivers, conditioned on crosswalk improvements + 20-ft cut-fill cap. Chairman Jones Smith's dissent named the procedural concern: "the original intent of the PUD land use was to deal with a unique or specific situation...not so someone could get what they wanted without having to adhere to the Comp Plan." Tatro's pivot vote: "I would be more apt to agree that the density was too high if there was more opposition; however, there was none." This is a calibration data point on the County PZB's voting math: in-person opposition matters more than written city opposition when the file is otherwise PUD-compliant.
Crawford's comparative-density rhetorical move is now established in the corpus and will likely be repeated: "Sumter 24, Orange 50 high-density, Seminole 50, Polk 15 — Lake's 12 is the regional outlier." Crawford framed Lake's density limit as competitive disadvantage. The PZB approved despite this not being a Live Local Act project (which would have triggered Florida Live Local mandatory-highest-allowable-density rules). The path: Regional Office FLUC → PUD FLUC FLUM amendment → PUD zoning with waivers → annexation to Clermont via utility agreement. This is a four-step procedural path that's now precedent-setting for the entire south-Lake JPA / ISBA boundary.
The PUD FLUC was designed for unique-circumstance rezonings — Marsh recited the ordinance language: "the PUD FLU series was established to provide an implementing tool to accommodate site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which did not conform to an established FLUC"; "this designation may be approved on a site specific basis"; "PUD land use designation was not permitted in the Green Swamp." The Mount Dora North / South + Mount Dora Groves N/S precedents Marsh cited were mixed-use developments with prior entitlements being modified. Clermont West is straight residential with three deviation-from-baseline waivers and density 65% above the cap. The PUD FLUC's elastic application will be a recurring observation — PUD FLUM amendments are now an entitlement-velocity tool, not an exception-handling tool.
The applicant's "former mining site / hardship" framing is the substantive justification for the cut-fill waiver: Kimley-Horn engineer Jonathan Martin: the site is an "old mine and not a natural topographic feature"; pine trees were planted to stop erosion; the County itself filled this site when building the Hooks Street pond; 80-ft fall across the site. This is a useful exhibit on how prior land use shapes current entitlement — sand mining infrastructure leaves topographic distortions that drive cut-fill waivers in subsequent rezoning. Worth tracking similar former-mining sites across the Lake County corpus.
The Parcet Outdoor Storage rezoning is a calibration data point on Code Enforcement vs zoning history: The applicant operated an unpermitted gun range on the parcel for several years. After a 2023 CUP attempt and withdrawal, the property's HM rezoning passed 4-1. Jaskulski's lone dissent appears to be a vote against the applicant's compliance history rather than the substantive rezoning case. The PZB's structural posture: zoning approvals decouple from past Code Enforcement history, even where those histories are well-documented and visible. This separation of zoning and enforcement is doctrinally consistent — but it produces approvals that look like rewards for prior non-compliance.
Self-storage on the consent agenda (Chesterfield Town Center Storage) tells you the Self-Storage Canary pattern is location-specific, not absolute: August 2025 approves Chesterfield Town Center Storage on consent (5-0, no discussion). March 2026 denies Serenoa self-storage 6-1 with 14 in-person opposition speakers. The pattern's signal isn't "self-storage = denied"; it's "self-storage in residential-conservation FLUCs and Wellness Way commercial composition zones = denied." Chesterfield is a town center; Serenoa was inside the Conservation Subdivision FLUC of Wellness Way. Pattern atlas should reflect this.

Raw Notes

Source: Approved minutes PDF, 21 pages (longest meeting in the 12-month window).
Recommendations transmitted to BCC for September 2, 2025 hearing.
Hartle Hills Apartments withdrew before the hearing — may return.
Clermont West applicant team notable for corpus tracking: Jimmy Crawford (also represents O'Brien Road December 2025), Jonathan Martin (Kimley-Horn), David Holmes (Parcet — separate file).
The "no opposition speakers" framing is a recurring rhetorical pivot for high-density approvals — Clermont West specifically, and the broader pattern of County PZB weighing in-person testimony heavily in vote calibration.
80-foot elevation fall on Clermont West is the largest cut-fill driver in the corpus to date.
The crosswalk-as-condition addition is a useful exhibit of operator-side conditioning: Tatro accepted the condition; Public Works confirmed feasibility; the applicant accepted ($1.5M cost). This pattern of substantive infrastructure conditions attached to PUDs is a useful tool to track.