City of Leesburg Planning Commission — May 21, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes — 5 of 9 members present Duration: ~91 minutes (4:32 PM – 6:03 PM)

Attendance

• Present: Ted Bowersox (Acting Chair), John O'Kelley, Shaun Robertson (recorded as "Shawn" in these minutes), Ze'Shieca Carter, Ken Simeone
• Absent: Tim Sennett (Chairman), Nathaniel Sanders (Vice-Chair), Frazier J. Marshall, Darin Akkerman
• Staff Present: Dan Miller (Planning & Zoning Director), Dianne Yekel (Senior Planner), Max Van Allen (Senior Planner), Melissa Medders De Los Santos (Planner), Mel Ortiz (Planner), Grant Watson (City Attorney)

Note: Both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were absent — the absence Dan Miller had flagged at the April 16 meeting as a possible quorum problem. Bowersox called the meeting to order as Acting Chair. Grant Watson sat as City Attorney in place of Jennifer Cotch, who had appeared in April and returned in June.

Agenda Items

Item 1: CDC Homes — Variance (three flag lots)

• Type: Variance (Final decision by Planning Commission)
• Case Number: VAR-26-926
• Location: South of Mispah Ave, west of Tuskegee St, north of Harlem Ave (staff narrative also placed it east of Stinson Street) — Section 22, Township 19 South, Range 24 East
• Applicant: West Leesburg CDC, represented by Pastor John Christian (President)
• Request: Variance to Section 25-280(5)d.4 to allow a minor subdivision of three (3) flag lots in the R-2 district, creating three 50-foot-wide lots for single-family homes
• Current Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential); Future Land Use Low Density Residential
• Acreage: 0.65 +/- (staff narrative states approximately 0.62)
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: APPROVED (final — Planning Commission is the final decision-maker)
• Vote: 5-0 (motion Robertson, second Carter; roll call: Bowersox Yes, O'Kelley Yes, Robertson Yes, Carter Yes, Simeone Yes)
• Conditions: Variance runs with the use of the land and binds successors in title; must commence on or before November 21, 2027 (18 months from meeting date) or the permit is void; permittee must sign and file the executed permit with Leesburg Planning & Zoning within three months (on or before August 21, 2026) or reapply — no building permits or occupational licenses issue until filed.
• Notable Discussion: Miller framed the case as a landlocked lot of record: the City does not permit flag lots for development purposes, but the parcel cannot be put to single-family use consistent with the area unless flag lots are allowed, and the City cannot lawfully remove all access to a lot of record. Pastor Christian said the lot was donated by Habitat for Humanity and the upper portion acquired through a tax deed; the north entrance would serve two lots and the south entrance one. Bowersox asked whether the site plan had been shared with surrounding owners; Miller offered to show the survey to any neighbor or to the church on request. Simeone asked whether the driveways would be paved; Christian confirmed they would, saying he did not want a first-time home buyer facing undue cost or repairs. Homes will be on City water and wastewater with standard R-2 setbacks (30/18/15-5).

Item 2: Kolb Street Duplex — Conditional Use Permit

• Type: CUP (Final decision by Planning Commission)
• Case Number: CUP-26-947
• Location: North of Lilly Street, east of Euclid Avenue, south of Kolb Street, west of South 9th Street — Section 26, Township 19 South, Range 24 East
• Applicant: Ryan McCabe (developer); property owners Kevin Heilbronner and Erin Brauer
• Request: Conditional Use Permit for construction of one (1) duplex unit in the R-2 district
• Current Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential); Low Density Future Land Use
• Acreage: 0.32 +/- (undeveloped)
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: APPROVED (final)
• Vote: 5-0 (motion O'Kelley, second Robertson; roll call: O'Kelley Yes, Carter Yes, Bowersox Yes, Robertson Yes, Simeone Yes)
• Conditions: CUP granted under Sections 25-141 and 25-284; subject to all other City code requirements as amended; does not exempt the applicant from other agency regulations or impact fee assessment; violation of any condition may void the permit; must be executed and filed with Planning & Zoning within ninety (90) days of approval or become null and void.
• Notable Discussion: Miller noted the project was approved by the Planning Commission in 2022 but never built for economic or other reasons; the prior CUP expired and ownership changed. The new owner supplied an improved façade already approved by the Historic Preservation Board. The City received no responses to advertisement, posted signs, or mailed notice.

Item 3: Historic Structure Density Bonus — Code Amendment

• Type: Text Amendment (Land Development Regulations)
• Case Number: AMDT-26-948
• Location: Citywide, outside the designated Historic District (the district runs roughly 12th Street on the west to Canal Street on the east, bounded north and south by the City's trails)
• Applicant: City of Leesburg (staff-initiated)
• Request: Amend Article IV — Zoning District Code, Section 25-292 (Supplemental District Requirements), adding a new subsection (26) to create a Historic Structure Density Bonus program for historically, architecturally, culturally, or archaeologically significant structures located outside designated historic districts; providing eligibility, review, and approval criteria
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: APPROVED — recommendation forwarded to City Commission
• Vote: 5-0 (motion O'Kelley, second Simeone; roll call: Bowersox Yes, Robertson Yes, Simeone Yes, O'Kelley Yes, Carter Yes)
• Notable Discussion: Miller stated the City adopted a density bonus for structures inside the historic district a couple of years ago; this amendment extends the incentive outside the district, and the immediate objective is preserving 1502 High Street. Simeone asked how many units the building could hold; Miller answered "they could max it out at 10." Staff justified the amendment as an incentive to retain, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse significant structures, supporting preservation-based economic development and reducing underutilization, with case-by-case eligibility review. No public responses were received.

Item 4: Goodman — Rezoning

• Type: Rezoning
• Case Number: RZ-26-949
• Location: South of East North Blvd, east of East Dixie Ave, north of East Main St (Section 25, Township 19 South, Range 24 East). Staff narrative places it on the west side of Nichols Drive, south of US 441 / East North Blvd.
• Applicant: Goodman (property owner)
• Request: Rezone approximately 0.30 +/- acres from City R-3 (High Density Residential) to City C-3 (Highway Commercial)
• Current Zoning: R-3 (High Density Residential); Future Land Use General Commercial
• Proposed Zoning: C-3 (Highway Commercial)
• Acreage: 0.30 +/-
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: APPROVED — recommendation forwarded to City Commission
• Vote: 5-0 (motion Robertson, second Carter; roll call: Simeone Yes, Carter Yes, Robertson Yes, O'Kelley Yes, Bowersox Yes)
• Notable Discussion: The property is already developed as office and warehouse and has historically been used that way. The owner is refinancing and the R-3 designation is inconsistent with the established development pattern. Staff described the request explicitly as "a spot zoning correction." Permitted uses under C-3 will include retail, office, and light warehouse. No public responses received.
• City Commission readings: Tentatively first reading Monday, June 22, 2026; second reading Monday, July 13, 2026

Item 5: Reserve at 44 — Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Small Scale)
• Case Number: SSCP-26-956
• Location: East of County Road 44, north of Spring Court — Section 1, Township 19 South, Range 25 East
• Applicant: Represented by Chuck Hiott, engineer, HALFF
• Request: Change the Future Land Use designation on 10.24 +/- acres from Lake County Urban Low to City of Leesburg Estate Residential (4 u/a to 4 u/a) as part of an annexation, comp plan, and rezoning package for 23 detached single-family units
• Acreage: 10.24 +/- (undeveloped)
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: DENIED — disapproval forwarded to City Commission
• Vote: Motion to DENY carried 3-2 (motion Simeone, second O'Kelley; roll call: Simeone Yes, O'Kelley Yes, Bowersox Yes / Robertson No, Carter No)
• Notable Discussion: Hiott argued the Lake County Urban Low designation permits 4 units per acre — potentially 40 units — and the applicant sought only 23, roughly 2.5 units per acre. Lake County School Board issued a "no impact" letter for the 23 units; Lake County Public Works had no comments; a traffic study is a standard City review requirement. Dan Miller stated on the record that CR 44 is a county road and that "State legislature has certain requirements, one of which that staff cannot legally recommend denial based on traffic. Growth is a different issue. The best we can do is manage it, not prohibit it." O'Kelley asked whether state law requires a city to annex a property; Attorney Watson replied the City has discretion. Simeone asked about lot-size compatibility with surrounding properties; Miller answered that lots to the south are larger and lots north, east, and west are the same size or smaller, and that "residential to residential is considered to be compatible."
• City Commission readings: Had tentatively been set for first reading Monday, June 8, 2026 and second reading Monday, July 13, 2026

Item 6: Reserve at 44 — Planned Unit Development

• Type: Rezoning (Planned Unit Development)
• Case Number: PUD-26-957
• Location: East of County Road 44, north of Spring Court — Section 1, Township 19 South, Range 25 East
• Applicant: Represented by Chuck Hiott, HALFF
• Request: Rezone 10.24 +/- acres from Lake County R-1 (Rural Residential) and R-3 (Medium Residential) to City of Leesburg PUD, for 23 detached single-family residential units
• Current Zoning: Lake County R-1 (Rural Residential) and R-3 (Medium Residential)
• Proposed Zoning: City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development)
• Acreage: 10.24 +/-
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: DENIED — disapproval forwarded to City Commission
• Vote: Motion to DENY carried 3-2 (motion Simeone, second O'Kelley; roll call: Simeone Yes, O'Kelley Yes, Bowersox Yes / Carter No, Robertson No)
• Conditions (as proposed, not adopted): All lots 6,500 sf with 60-foot minimum width; two-car garages; gutters; maximum building height two floors / 35 feet; minimum 35% open space; dark sky lighting; code-compliant landscaping plan; split-rail fence along CR 44 and 6-foot fence around the remainder unless vegetation is deemed adequately opaque; 25-foot landscape buffers; Bahia or Bermuda grass required in place of St. Augustine; 60,000 sf of recreation space including a playground and dog park. Access from CR 44 at a single boulevard-style point, with the developer required to fund any expansions or upgrades required by Lake County. All development on City water and wastewater — no wells or septic.
• Notable Discussion: Staff added two conditions now applied to all new PUDs: landscape plans reviewed under the City's Landscape Code and the UF/IFAS list of Florida-friendly and pollinator-friendly plants, and perpetual maintenance of the site by the HOA and residents.

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 4 in person plus 3 written responses. One written objection on Item 1 (CDC Homes); two written disapprovals plus a third letter and three in-person speakers on the Reserve at 44 pair. Items 2, 3, and 4 drew no public response at all.
• General sentiment: Opposed on Reserve at 44; a single access-related concern on CDC Homes; silent elsewhere.
• Key concerns:
  • CDC Homes: Kevin J. Conner of Mt. Olive Progressive Baptist Church raised concerns about the access points on Harlem Ave and Mispah Ave.
  • Reserve at 44 (written): habitat fragmentation and displacement of native wildlife; loss of mature canopy and ecological buffering; increased stormwater runoff and impacts to the Silver Lake ecosystem; increased lighting, noise, dust, and construction disruption; privacy and compatibility for adjacent properties; cumulative environmental and infrastructure impacts from continued incremental development around Silver Lake. A second letter raised existing groundwater and runoff conditions affecting private wells and the lake environment.
  • Reserve at 44 (in person): Rita Maria Collado (9229 Silver Lake Drive) argued the 25-foot landscape buffer would not preserve mature trees and asked for a 100-foot buffer, citing quality of life and animal relocation. Anna Martinez (8735 Spring Court) asked about wildlife relocation, development timeline, resident notification, and retention pond siting — Hiott answered the pond goes in the southwest corner, flowing to CR 44. Robert Long, Association President of Silver Lake Springs, asked how many cars would be added to CR 44.

Key Signals

• The denial floor now catches 23 houses, and a new commissioner is authoring it. Reserve at 44 is the smallest residential denial in the Leesburg corpus by unit count — 23 detached single-family homes on 10.24 acres at roughly 2.25 units per acre, with a school-board "no impact" letter, no Lake County Public Works objection, a full conditions package, and a staff recommendation to approve. It was denied twice, 3-2. The corpus has identified Ted Bowersox as the operating engine of the denial bloc; here Ken Simeone made both denial motions and O'Kelley seconded, with Bowersox joining as the third vote. The floor is not one commissioner's project. It reproduced itself on a substitute bench with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman both absent, on a case a quarter the size of anything previously denied.
• Staff said on the record that it cannot legally recommend denial on traffic — and the board denied anyway. Dan Miller told the room that CR 44 is a county road and that state law bars staff from recommending denial based on traffic: "The best we can do is manage it, not prohibit it." The public record for Reserve at 44 is traffic, wildlife, canopy, and stormwater; the staff record is approve. The Commission overrode it. That gap — a code-compliant, staff-recommended, conditions-loaded application denied on grounds staff has publicly stated it cannot itself assert — is precisely the structural exposure that has hung over this board since Vice-Chair Sanders asked the City Attorney in November 2025 whether the Commission could be sued.
• Leesburg's first code amendment of 2026 is permissive, not restrictive — the only kind it can currently pass. The Historic Structure Density Bonus (AMDT-26-948) extends an existing inside-the-district density incentive to significant structures outside it, and it cleared 5-0. As an incentive that loosens development standards, it sits outside the reach of Florida SB 180's prohibition on land regulation that is "more restrictive or burdensome." While Clermont, Groveland, and Minneola author defensive code, Leesburg's one code motion in this window adds development capacity. The near-term driver is a single building — Miller named 1502 High Street, which could "max out at 10" units — but the standard applies citywide to any qualifying structure.
• The Historic District entitlement path completed its two-board sequence exactly as forecast. The Kolb Street duplex received Historic Preservation Board façade approval on April 29 and the Planning Commission CUP on May 21, both unanimous. The case also revives a 2022 approval that expired unbuilt — the new owner's improved façade was the currency that carried it. For infill in and around Leesburg's Historic District, HPB design approval first and PC conditional use second is now the demonstrated path, and it runs about three weeks.
• Two new conditions now attach to every Leesburg PUD. Landscape plans must be reviewed against the UF/IFAS Florida-friendly and pollinator-friendly plant lists, and the HOA and residents must maintain the site in perpetuity — the latter explicitly to give code enforcement "additional leverage if a problem exists." This is standards development happening through PUD boilerplate rather than through the code, which is how a city under SB 180 adds requirements to new projects without amending its land development regulations.
• Composition, not ideology, decided this docket. Robertson and Carter — who voted with the majority on all four unanimous approvals — were the two NO votes against denying Reserve at 44. The same five members produced 5-0 consensus four times and a 3-2 split twice within 91 minutes. The split tracks the case shape: small-footprint infill, adaptive reuse, and a spot-zoning correction pass without dissent; a greenfield residential annexation on a county arterial next to an established lakefront neighborhood does not.

Raw Notes

• Minutes from the April 16, 2026 meeting approved 5-0 (Carter moved, O'Kelley seconded).
• Dianne Yekel swore in staff and anyone wishing to speak; invocation by Bowersox. Yekel signed the minutes alongside Bowersox as Acting Chair — Sabrina Mitchell (Executive Assistant I) was absent, and the announcements noted services for her mother's passing that Saturday at Tavares Community Church.
• City Attorney: Grant Watson appeared for this meeting. Jennifer Cotch appeared in April and again in June. Recorded as fact; no announcement of a permanent change appears in these minutes.
• Acreage discrepancies in the source: Item 1 title states 0.65 +/- acres, staff narrative states approximately 0.62. Item 4 title states 0.30 +/- acres, staff narrative renders it as ".0301 +/- acres" (an evident typo for 0.301).
• Commissioner Robertson's first name is spelled "Shawn" in these minutes and "Shaun" in the April and June minutes.
• Items 1 and 2 are final at the Planning Commission and do not proceed to City Commission. Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 forward recommendations.
• The Reserve at 44 pair was presented and discussed jointly; both cases were voted separately and both were denied on identical 3-2 motions.
• Next scheduled meeting announced as June 18, 2026 — a third Thursday, departing from the board's usual fourth-Thursday cadence.
• These minutes were approved at the June 18, 2026 meeting (Carter moved, Robertson seconded, 5-0).
• Meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.