What were the most significant items on the Leesburg Planning Commission agenda for March 2026?

Meeting Reading

Leesburg Planning Commission

March 19, 2026

2 items on the agenda

**The denial bloc held back — small-scale elder care reads as "good growth" even from this Commission:** After the January 22 four-vote denial bloc that killed Lake Bright-Brighurst (202 acres, $2.3M intersection mitigation) and Cronin-Dewey Robbins (9.26 acres, 1,500-signature petition), this Commission unanimously approved both March CUPs without dissent. Bowersox, Robertson, O'Kelley — three-quarters of the structural denial bloc — all voted YES on both. The signal: Leesburg's Commission is not anti-development; it is selectively anti-density-without-fit. Small-footprint adaptive reuse of existing buildings for elder care reads as the opposite — restoring a building, serving an aging local population, in walkable established neighborhoods. This is a meaningful operational rule for anyone underwriting Leesburg cases.
**The "Final Decision is by the Planning Commission" CUP track is now visible:** Both March cases skip the City Commission entirely — the Planning Commission's vote IS the final action. This is the procedural inverse of the LSCP/PUD path (Planning Commission recommends, City Commission decides). For developers and operators, the CUP-in-existing-zoning route is faster (single board, no second/third readings) and gives the Planning Commission outsized authority. Memory care, ALF, recovery residence operators specifically benefit from this — the Commission has now signaled it will use that authority to say YES.
**Memory care / elder care is now an active 2026 theme in Leesburg:** Two consecutive CUPs in the same R-2 district within a week-month window, both for variations on small-scale congregate care. Industry context: aging Leesburg demographics, existing Heritage communities cited by the chair, and operator economics that favor adaptive reuse of older houses over greenfield ALF construction. Expect more of this category — and the precedent is now set that staff approval + applicant credibility = unanimous Commission approval on 16-bed-or-smaller scale.

On March 19, 2026, City of Leesburg's Planning Commission considered 2 agenda items. **The denial bloc held back — small-scale elder care reads as "good growth" even from this Commission:** After the January 22 four-vote denial bloc that killed Lake Bright-Brighurst (202 acres, $2.3M intersection mitigation) and Cronin-Dewey Robbins (9.26 acres, 1,500-signature petition), this Commission unanimously approved both March CUPs without dissent. Bowersox, Robertson, O'Kelley — three-quarters of the structural denial bloc — all voted YES on both. The signal: Leesburg's Commission is not anti-development; it is selectively anti-density-without-fit. Small-footprint adaptive reuse of existing buildings for elder care reads as the opposite — restoring a building, serving an aging local population, in walkable established neighborhoods. This is a meaningful operational rule for anyone underwriting Leesburg cases. **The "Final Decision is by the Planning Commission" CUP track is now visible:** Both March cases skip the City Commission entirely — the Planning Commission's vote IS the final action. This is the procedural inverse of the LSCP/PUD path (Planning Commission recommends, City Commission decides). For developers and operators, the CUP-in-existing-zoning route is faster (single board, no second/third readings) and gives the Planning Commission outsized authority. Memory care, ALF, recovery residence operators specifically benefit from this — the Commission has now signaled it will use that authority to say YES. **Memory care / elder care is now an active 2026 theme in Leesburg:** Two consecutive CUPs in the same R-2 district within a week-month window, both for variations on small-scale congregate care. Industry context: aging Leesburg demographics, existing Heritage communities cited by the chair, and operator economics that favor adaptive reuse of older houses over greenfield ALF construction. Expect more of this category — and the precedent is now set that staff approval + applicant credibility = unanimous Commission approval on 16-bed-or-smaller scale.

CHANGE LENS

THE READINGmeeting record

City of Leesburg Planning Commission — March 19, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (6 of 9 members present) Duration: ~55 minutes (4:30 PM - 5:25 PM)

Attendance

Present: Tim Sennett (Chairman), Nathaniel Sanders (Vice-Chair), Ted Bowersox, Shaun Robertson, Ze'Shieca Carter, John O'Kelley
Absent: Frazier Marshall, Ken Simeone, Darin Akkerman
Staff Present: Dan Miller (Planning & Zoning Director), Kandi Harper (Deputy Director), Sabrina Mitchell (Executive Assistant I), Melissa Medders De Los Santos (Planner), Mel Ortiz (Planner), Jennifer Cotch (Attorney)

Note: Commissioner Ze'Shieca Carter present and voting for the first time in 2026 — restoring a quorum composition that did not appear in the January meeting.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Mispah Street ALF — Conditional Use Permit

Type: CUP (Final decision by Planning Commission)
Case Number: CUP-26-846
Location: 2210 Mispah Street — north of Mispah Avenue, west of Tuskegee Street (Section 22, Township 19S, Range 24E)
Applicant: Andrae Ennis (family owner; 20-year retired veteran; mother is retired nurse, sister is occupational therapist)
Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate a small Assisted Living Facility (16 beds, 5,600 sq ft) in the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district
Current Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Acreage: 0.59
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Action: APPROVED (final — does not go to City Commission)
Vote: 6-0 (roll call: Bowersox Yes, Robertson Yes, Sennett Yes, Carter Yes, Sanders Yes, O'Kelley Yes)
Notable Discussion: Existing two-story apartment building on site; this is a change-of-use, not new construction. Existing elevator on site supports the second-floor program. 16 beds, 3 meals a day prepped on site, fire-safe kitchen with vent system to be approved by City. Applicant's family has owned the property 25+ years. Ennis described the plan as "rejuvenation" — clean up the building/area, change the environment, transition the property toward elder care after years of difficult tenancy. Public opposition came from one long-tenured neighbor (74 years on Tuskegee Street, family there 70 years): described the immediate neighborhood as "horrible" with renters racing cars, loud music, street parties, block parties — argued the area is "not the perfect spot" for a "quiet, nurturing" use, despite calling the concept "an excellent idea." Sanders pointedly asked the speaker about elderly residents who already live in the area and need this kind of facility. Police presence in neighborhood already constant. Attorney Cotch noted final decision is by Planning Commission — no City Commission step. Final approval issued by this body.

Item 2: 2007 Butler Street Certified Recovery Residence — Conditional Use Permit

Type: CUP (Final decision by Planning Commission)
Case Number: CUP-26-871
Location: 2007 Butler Street — north of Vine Street, south of Butler Street, west of Truett Street (Section 27, Township 19S, Range 24E)
Applicant: Keisha Geist — 15-year assisted living administrator; specializes in memory care; existing facilities in Eustis/Mt. Dora since 2011
Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate a Certified Recovery Residence (specifically positioned as memory care, not substance recovery, though licensing covers both) in the R-2 zoning district
Current Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Acreage: 0.21
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Action: APPROVED (final)
Vote: 6-0 (roll call: Robertson Yes, Sennett Yes, Carter Yes, Sanders Yes, O'Kelley Yes, Bowersox Yes)
Notable Discussion: Applicant purchased property in 2021 (previously a Hawthorne survey company commercial property). Adjacent uses include another R-1 vacant property she also owns (fenced) and Faith Chapel church. Applicant emphasized that "Certified Recovery Residence" is a comprehensive licensing category that includes memory care and disabled-care residents under 25 — not just substance recovery — and that her client base trends toward memory care, which generates less traffic than typical residential because residents do not come and go and families visit less frequently. Existing reputation cited: AQUA standards compliance with no deficiencies since 2011, prior client included a former Mayor of Eustis. Public concerns focused on busy Main Street side, pedestrian-school crossings (6 blocks from high school), and possibility of patients wandering. Applicant addressed: facility is on back of Main, not directly on Main; full privacy fence, big patio, all care provided in-home, residents not coming and going on their own. Board accepted the operational distinction. Final approval issued.

Public Hearings Summary

Number of speakers: ~3-4 across both cases (one focused opponent on Mispah, scattered concerns on Butler)
General sentiment: Mixed — concept support for elder/memory care, neighborhood-fit concerns on both
Key concerns: Mispah: crime/noise/traffic in surrounding neighborhood not conducive to elder care quality. Butler: school proximity, wandering risk, busy Main Street side. None of the concerns reached intensity sufficient to flip a vote.

Key Signals

The denial bloc held back — small-scale elder care reads as "good growth" even from this Commission: After the January 22 four-vote denial bloc that killed Lake Bright-Brighurst (202 acres, $2.3M intersection mitigation) and Cronin-Dewey Robbins (9.26 acres, 1,500-signature petition), this Commission unanimously approved both March CUPs without dissent. Bowersox, Robertson, O'Kelley — three-quarters of the structural denial bloc — all voted YES on both. The signal: Leesburg's Commission is not anti-development; it is selectively anti-density-without-fit. Small-footprint adaptive reuse of existing buildings for elder care reads as the opposite — restoring a building, serving an aging local population, in walkable established neighborhoods. This is a meaningful operational rule for anyone underwriting Leesburg cases.
The "Final Decision is by the Planning Commission" CUP track is now visible: Both March cases skip the City Commission entirely — the Planning Commission's vote IS the final action. This is the procedural inverse of the LSCP/PUD path (Planning Commission recommends, City Commission decides). For developers and operators, the CUP-in-existing-zoning route is faster (single board, no second/third readings) and gives the Planning Commission outsized authority. Memory care, ALF, recovery residence operators specifically benefit from this — the Commission has now signaled it will use that authority to say YES.
Memory care / elder care is now an active 2026 theme in Leesburg: Two consecutive CUPs in the same R-2 district within a week-month window, both for variations on small-scale congregate care. Industry context: aging Leesburg demographics, existing Heritage communities cited by the chair, and operator economics that favor adaptive reuse of older houses over greenfield ALF construction. Expect more of this category — and the precedent is now set that staff approval + applicant credibility = unanimous Commission approval on 16-bed-or-smaller scale.
Carter is back; quorum stability matters: Commissioner Ze'Shieca Carter — absent in January — was present and voting for both unanimous approvals. With Marshall, Simeone, and Akkerman absent, the active panel was effectively the chair-and-vice-chair pole (Sennett/Sanders) plus the part of the denial bloc that showed (Bowersox/Robertson/O'Kelley) plus Carter. This panel composition produces consensus. The structural denial bloc's voting power depends partly on which combination of the 9 members shows up.
Hostile-neighborhood-as-grounds-for-denial argument was raised and rejected: The Mispah opponent's core argument — "this area is too rough for elder care" — is unusual and procedurally novel. Sanders' question to the speaker (essentially: what about the elderly already living in this neighborhood who need this?) reframed the issue and effectively neutralized it. The Commission did not accept "neighborhood quality" as a planning-law basis for denial. That is a useful precedent for operators eyeing adaptive reuse in distressed-but-zoned-correctly neighborhoods.

Raw Notes

January 22, 2026 minutes approved 5-0 (Bowersox moved, Robertson seconded). Note: 5-0 not 6-0 because Carter, present today, was not present at the January meeting and abstained from approving its minutes.
Dan Miller distributed the new "Handbook for Appointed Officials" to commissioners — the first refresh in several years, prepared by Melissa Medders De Los Santos and Sabrina Mitchell. Combined with the earlier "Planning Commission binders for early 2026" referenced in the December 2025 minutes, this is a deliberate institutional refresh — Leesburg is reinvesting in board-member training and reference materials. May reflect the City's response to the late-2025 magistrate-vs-commission debate (City Commission voted to keep the Planning Commission).
Sennett recommended the Ethics webinar to the Commission; Miller offered to send the link out again. Continuing thread of board self-discipline.
No City Commission scheduling readout — confirms both CUPs are final at this body.
2210 Mispah Street CUP and 2007 Butler Street CUP are now operational permits; expect Certificates of Occupancy within 6-12 months barring construction issues.
Meeting adjourned at 5:25 PM.

[THE READING]meeting record