Lake County Planning and Zoning Board — September 3, 2025

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (5 of 8 voting members present) Duration: Approximately 40 minutes (9:00 AM – 9:40 AM)

Attendance

• Present: Don Bailey (District 1), Laura Jones Smith (Chairman), Carroll Jaskulski (Vice Chairman), Dan Tatro, Sean Lahey
• Absent: Addie Owens, Mollie Cunningham, Mark McManus
• Staff Present: Janie Barron, Planning Manager; James Frye, Planner II; Seth Lynch, Public Works; Eva Lora, Public Hearing Coordinator; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk

---

Agenda Items

Tab 1: LDR Amendment — Agricultural Lot Split (reinstatement)

• Type: Text Amendment (LDR Section 14.11.00 — Minor Lot Splits and Family Density Exceptions)
• Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
• Request: Reinstate the agricultural lot split process repealed in August 2024. Adjust requirements for family density exceptions. Mirror Comp Plan FLUC structure; clarify language.
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 5-0 (Lahey/Jaskulski motion)
• Notable Discussion:
  • Public testimony in favor: Raulie Raulerson (Florida Farm Bureau Federation; representing 133,000+ member families and 300+ commodity types) — emphasized that restricting agricultural lot splits reduces collateral value of farmland and threatens economic viability; thanked Marsh personally for working through the language. Ryan Atwood (owner Atwood Ag, part owner H&A Farms; local blueberry/strawberry grower) — supported flexibility for local agriculturists.
  • Public concern (Cindy Newton): Wekiva River Protection Area inclusion; no per-applicant lot count limit (only minimum acreage); whether agriculturally-zoned splits become a path for later subdivision-for-development.
  • Marsh confirmed: family lot split minimum is 1 acre; agricultural lot split minimum is 40 acres with at least 5 acres of uplands.
  • Bailey noted: family density exceptions are NOT allowed within the Green Swamp.
  • Jones Smith asked if the reinstatement is related to SB 180. Marsh confirmed it is NOT — the work was underway long before SB 180 passed.

Tab 2: Sorrento Tower (CUP)

• Type: Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower)
• Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
• Location: 22435 Sorrento Avenue, unincorporated Sorrento area; inside the Wekiva Study Area, the Mount Dora Joint Planning Area (JPA), and the Mount Dora Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA); parent parcel 2.54 acres, access parcel 10.83 acres
• Applicant: Represented by Mary Solik
• Request: 154-foot monopole communications tower on Planned Industrial (MP) District parcel with FOUR waivers: (1) LDR Table 3.02.05 — tower 17.6 ft from western RoW vs required 50 ft; (2) LDR Section 3.13.09(A) — support structure/compound 17.6 ft west, 18.2 ft east vs required 25 ft; (3) LDR Section 3.13.09(B)(1) — off-center placement; (4) LDR Section 3.13.09(B)(2) — tower 43.8 ft west / 40.8 ft east vs required 100 ft. Tower designed with 40-foot collapse radius (collapse stays within parent parcel; no danger to SR-453).
• Current Zoning: MP (Planned Industrial); FLU: Regional Office
• Staff Recommendation: Approve (consistent with LDR/Comp Plan)
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Jaskulski motion)
• Notable Discussion:
  • Mount Dora opposed via pre-submittal review but provided no comments on the actual CUP application: their LDR limits towers to 100 ft (this is 154 ft); subject parcel is "not eligible for annexation" because not contiguous to City limits. Mount Dora's comments were therefore advisory only.
  • Solik countered Cindy Newton (resident — 5 miles from tower) by questioning her standing to speak on impact. Marsh / Jones Smith did not contest the procedural standing question.
  • Solik on JPA effect: "the JPA governed the future, and that if this property had been annexed into the City of Mount Dora, then their code would apply; however, the City indicated that the property was not eligible for annexation because it was not contiguous."
  • Three of the four waivers driven by need to maintain 330-ft setback from residential and accommodate adjacent PUD (north of subject) — narrow remnant parcel from SR-453 ROW acquisition.

Tab 3 (Consent): Gulfstream Towers FL242 (CUP)

• Type: Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower)
• Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
• Action: Approved on Consent Agenda
• Vote: 5-0 (Lahey/Bailey motion)

Tab 4: Rubi Shores (Rezoning)

• Type: Rezoning (R-2 + R-6 → R-6 uniform)
• Case Number: Ordinance #2025-XX
• Location: South of Forest Lake Road, north of Eagle Point Court, bisected by Golden Tree Drive, unincorporated Leesburg area; ~4.46 acres (some parcels 6.43 ac total)
• Applicant: Chuck Hiott
• Request: Rezone 4.46 acres from Estate Residential (R-2) to Urban Residential (R-6) for 24-lot single-family subdivision at 3.73 du/ac; consolidate split-zoned parcels (some lots had two different zonings); align with Urban Low FLUC.
• Current Zoning: R-2 + R-6 split; FLU: Urban Low Density
• Staff Recommendation: Approve (consistent with LDR/Comp Plan)
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 5-0 (Tatro/Jaskulski motion)
• Notable Discussion:
  • Three resident speakers opposed: Gloria Pasteris (Forest Lake Road) — single-entrance/single-exit road safety concerns; Shangri-La bridge load capacity (~10,000 lbs per Wiepking); Melodie Downey (Taiwan Island Road) — committee of Harbor Shores Road and Goose Creek Road residents has been fighting development; cited two adjacent ~200+ home developments by same developer; near-miss bicycle incident; traffic-light commitment a year out; Gary Wiepking (Formosa Island Road) — Shangri-La By the Lake's 140 homes / 240 residents have only one main entrance via a 10K-lb bridge; emergency-services back-entrance dependency; 500 vehicle-trip estimate from three combined developments.
  • Lynch (Public Works) on interconnectivity: Goose Creek development to the west already approved with construction plans; developer will pave Eagle Court providing secondary access into Goose Creek development → Goose Creek Road → SR-44.
  • Tatro: confirmed mandated interconnectivity for additional access.
  • Designed traffic signal at Harbor Shores Road in funding-acquisition stage.

Other Business (no items)

---

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 6 (3 on Tab 1 ag-lot ordinance; 1 on Tab 2 Sorrento Tower; 0 on Tab 3 consent; 3 on Tab 4 Rubi Shores)
• General sentiment: Mixed — Tab 1 mostly supportive (Florida Farm Bureau supportive, one resident skeptical); Tab 2 advisory opposition from Mount Dora; Tab 4 opposed
• Key concerns: Wekiva River Protection Area inclusion in ag-lot rule; Mount Dora ordinance reach; Forest Lake Road / Shangri-La Bridge safety; emergency-access redundancy

---

Key Signals

• The County's August 2024 ag-lot split repeal is being reinstated — agricultural property rights advocacy is on the winning side at the County PZB: The Florida Farm Bureau directly thanked County Attorney Marsh for working through the ordinance language. This is significant: the Farm Bureau's framing — agricultural land value as collateral, splits as cash-flow mechanism, restrictions as private-property-rights diminution — won the day. The Board's position: this is property-rights restoration, not loosening. Watch this voice as a recurring force in unincorporated-county LDR amendments. SB 211/SB 700 (October) and this ag-lot reinstatement are the same ideological alignment, even if Marsh insisted the timing was independent of SB 180.
• Tower CUPs follow a "siting drives every waiver" pattern that's now visible across three meetings: Sorrento Tower (Sep), FL-1878 Leesburg Tower (Oct), and Gulfstream Towers FL242 (consent Sep) — all three Lake County tower CUPs in this corpus required at least one waiver; Sorrento required four. The reason: 154-foot is industry-standard tower height, but LDR setback distances (50 ft to RoW, 25 ft compound, 100 ft from property line, off-center prohibition) were drafted assuming taller towers would have larger parent parcels. The result: every tower CUP is a four-waiver application. Worth tracking whether the County eventually amends the LDR to acknowledge the operational reality — could be a future LDR Schedule of Uses style alignment.
• Mount Dora's JPA reach into unincorporated Sorrento is operationally null when annexation is not feasible: The pattern: City has JPA + ISBA → County application is provided to City for review → City says it does not meet their LDR + parcel not contiguous to City limits → City's comments are advisory only. The County approves. This is the second instance in the corpus (alongside O'Brien Road / Groveland in December) of City code provisions generating recommendations rather than constraints. The structural truth: ISBAs and JPAs are coordination, not co-veto. For applicants, this can become a deliberate routing decision — file with the County rather than seek annexation when the City's code is more restrictive.
• The Rubi Shores file is a calibration data point on what "interconnectivity" means in unincorporated Lake County: Three speakers opposed because of Forest Lake Road's single-entrance / Shangri-La Bridge weight limit. The Board approved relying on Public Works' confirmation that the adjacent Goose Creek development (already approved) will pave Eagle Court providing a secondary access path. This is the County's mandated interconnectivity standard in operation: no direct road improvement is required of THIS development; the cumulative road network solution rides on the next-development-over's already-approved construction. Useful for understanding how the County PZB processes single-development traffic objections in the context of multi-development corridor planning.
• The Wekiva Study Area shows up as a regulatory layer that constrains Tab 2 (tower) but informs not-restricts Tab 1 (ag-lot): Sorrento Tower is inside the Wekiva Study Area but the relevant WSA constraints didn't come up in tower waiver discussion. Newton's Tab 1 concern was that ag-lot splits in the Wekiva would not have a per-applicant lot count limit. The pattern: WSA designation is a layered overlay whose force varies by use type. Worth flagging that future LDR amendments inside WSA boundaries should be tracked specifically.

---

Raw Notes

• Source: Approved minutes PDF, 9 pages.
• Recommendations transmitted to BCC for October 7, 2025 hearing.
• The Florida Farm Bureau's documented presence at this PZB meeting is notable — they are an organized political force that the County Attorney's office had been negotiating with on the language.
• Don Bailey was present in this September meeting (his last seen attendance in the 12-month window covered).
• The "next meeting" closing line points to October 1, 2025 (the next file).
• Sorrento Tower's 40-foot collapse radius framing is a common applicant assurance device worth tracking.