City of Tavares Planning and Zoning Advisory Board — February 19, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (4 of 7 members present) Duration: 3:00 PM – 3:27 PM (27 minutes) Location: Tavares City Hall Council Chambers, 201 E. Main Street

Attendance

• Present: Gary Santoro (Chairman), Bruce Peterman, Jay Cunningham, Dara Treadwell
• Absent: Deborah Murphy (Vice-Chairperson), Brooke Matthews, James Sweezea
• Staff Present: Antonio Fabre (Community Development Director), Anarquis Frias (Planning Manager), Lindsay Holt (City Attorney), Michelle Winegard (Deputy City Clerk)

Prior minutes: January 15, 2026 minutes approved without correction (moved Peterman, seconded Cunningham), 4-0.

Note: Three of seven members absent. Every vote at this meeting carried 4-0 on a bare quorum.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Approval of the January 15, 2026, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes

• Type: Other (administrative)
• Request: Approve the January 15, 2026 minutes
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 4-0 (moved Peterman, seconded Cunningham)
• Notable Discussion: No corrections offered.

Item 2: Ordinance 2026-01 — Certified Recovery Residences, Reasonable Accommodation under SB 954

• Type: Text Amendment (Land Development Regulations)
• Case Number: Ordinance 2026-01
• Location: Citywide
• Applicant: City of Tavares Community Development / Legal Department (presented by City Attorney Lindsay Holt)
• Request: Amend LDR Chapter 8, § 8-12 Supplemental Regulations to establish a request-for-reasonable-accommodation process for Certified Recovery Residences, consistent with Florida SB 954 (2025) and § 397.487, Florida Statutes
• Current Zoning: N/A (citywide code)
• Proposed Zoning: N/A
• Staff Recommendation: Approve
• Action: Recommended for approval
• Vote: 4-0 (moved Cunningham, seconded Treadwell)
• Conditions: None added. Holt committed to confirming the allowable number of residents and providing that information before the item reaches City Council.
• Notable Discussion:
  • Holt's report: "The Florida Legislature requires local governments to adopt objectives and procedures for processing requests related to Certified Recovery Residences per SB 954." Florida law establishes a statewide framework for certification and oversight of recovery residences housing individuals recovering from substance-use disorders under § 397.487, F.S. The ordinance "implements a narrowly tailored review process applicable only to Certified Recovery Residences", establishing a written application process, defined review timelines, and objective standards for approval or denial, while ensuring consistency with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • Holt stated that, as of that date, the City of Tavares had no Certified Recovery Residences within its city limits. The amendment requires the City to establish a local procedure to track and process applications.
  • The procedural sequence, stated plainly: applicants must first complete the required state reviews and obtain state certification. Once certified, applicants are eligible to submit to the City for an expedited review that bypasses the public hearing requirement. Each local government is required by law to codify this process.
  • Santoro asked whether an applicant could convert a motel into a Certified Recovery Residence. Discussion followed among Fabre, Santoro, and Holt on resident-count limits; it was clarified that the 100+ occupancy figure Santoro referenced sits in a different, unamended portion of Chapter 397. Holt said she would confirm the allowable number before the Council presentation.
  • Santoro asked whether there are location restrictions. Holt: none at this time, though future legislative changes could alter the law. Santoro "expressed concern and stated for the record that there was no local control over the placement of these residences."
  • Peterman asked whether a church could open such a facility. Holt: such facilities remain subject to the City's LDRs and applicable standards, but the City lacks authority to dictate their specific location.
  • Cunningham questioned the word "voluntary" in the first line and asked whether the City must approve this in its entirety or may add provisions to safeguard the City. Holt advised that "voluntary" refers to the applicant's decision to apply, and stated she "saw no latitude in restraining it because it is based on state law."
  • Cunningham asked for examples of reasonable accommodations. Fabre: if the facility operates like a normal home in a residential area, the City may be legally required to allow it as a reasonable accommodation even where the zoning document does not clearly permit it — but it still must go through City review and approval.
  • Fabre: if a Certified Recovery Residence fails to comply, the state can revoke certification and the City would then revoke the permit. He said he will require the fire and police departments to be aware of these residences during the application process.
  • Holt said she appreciated that the language applies only to certified residences, not to other housing, land use, or accommodation requests.
  • Treadwell asked whether the provisions apply to a private rehabilitation facility. Holt: yes, provided the facility completes the required state certification process.
  • Before the vote, Santoro acknowledged that adoption was required by law but emphasized that the City Council should understand the City does not control where these facilities may be located. Treadwell raised how the state determines appropriate placement; Fabre said the state is requesting coordination with local governments so municipalities are informed of certified facilities operating in their jurisdiction.
  • Discussion followed on fire inspections and ADA compliance. Holt stated the City would not serve as the authority responsible for determining whether a facility is properly state-certified, and noted a state hotline or reporting mechanism through which compliance concerns can be submitted, which may trigger a certification review.
  • Santoro closed by clarifying that the state certifies Recovery Residences and the City lacks authority to question or override the state's certification decision. Holt confirmed.

Item 3: Resolution 2026-03 — Vacate a 50-Foot Platted Right-of-Way Adjacent to 510 Ridge Place

• Type: Other (right-of-way vacation)
• Case Number: Resolution 2026-03
• Location: Undeveloped platted right-of-way lying adjacent to 510 Ridge Place, Tavares, FL 32778
• Applicant: Cathleen Rettig (adjacent property owner)
• Request: Vacate a section of an existing 50-foot-wide platted right-of-way that is undeveloped and "not practical as a future right-of-way," removing the City's public interest in the land
• Current Zoning: [not available]
• Proposed Zoning: N/A
• Acreage: [not available]
• Staff Recommendation: Approve — City staff reviewed the request and determined no conflicts regarding drainage, utilities, health, safety, or welfare of the public
• Action: Recommended for approval
• Vote: 4-0 (moved Peterman, seconded Treadwell)
• Conditions: None
• Notable Discussion:
  • Santoro asked whether this was one of the properties the City had previously identified as unnecessary and was seeking to remove from its inventory. Fabre responded that the City does not proactively dispose of such properties but acts upon receipt of a formal vacate request, confirmed a petition had been submitted, and said there was no need for the City to retain ownership.
  • Peterman asked whether any structures, improvements, or hazardous materials were on the property; Fabre confirmed the area was vacant and unimproved.
  • Applicant Cathleen Rettig stated she had been maintaining and mowing the property for approximately 27 years, and that she had contacted the developer who owns the neighboring property, who advised they were not interested in acquiring the right-of-way.

Item 4: Community Development Director Report

• Type: Other (staff report)
• Applicant: City of Tavares Community Development
• Action: No action
• Notable Discussion: Fabre stated that the Far Reach Ranch application had been withdrawn, and the City acknowledged the withdrawal. No reason was provided. Santoro thanked the Board for their trust in him and Vice-Chairperson Murphy, who continue in their roles.

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 1 — applicant Cathleen Rettig on Resolution 2026-03. Attorney Holt identified Ordinance 2026-01 as legislative and Resolution 2026-03 as the meeting's only quasi-judicial matter, and swore in those wishing to speak on it. No ex parte communications were disclosed.
• General sentiment: No opposition on either item; no members of the public spoke under Audience to be Heard.
• Key concerns: None from the public. The concerns of record — absence of local control over recovery-residence siting — came from the chair.

Key Signals

• Tavares coded for SB 954 on February 19, 2026 — earlier than any other city in this corpus. Clermont adopted its Chapter 125 article March 3, 2026; Maitland's LPA recommended its LDC § 5.16 March 5, 2026; Leesburg granted its Butler Street Certified Recovery Residence CUP March 19, 2026. Tavares beat all three by roughly two weeks, in a city that had zero Certified Recovery Residences within its limits at the time of adoption. The cross-jurisdiction synchronization pattern the corpus has been tracking runs earlier and wider than the March cluster suggested, and Tavares is a pre-emptive adopter with no local trigger case.

• The ordinance the Board recommended removes the public hearing. Holt described the mechanism exactly: state certification first, then "an expedited review that bypasses the public hearing requirement." A federally protected use is routed to administrative determination with defined timelines and objective standards. Residents will not receive notice of a Certified Recovery Residence application in Tavares, because there is no hearing at which to notice them.

• The chair put the absence of local siting control on the record, twice, and voted yes anyway. Santoro asked about motel conversions, asked about location restrictions, was told there are none, "expressed concern and stated for the record that there was no local control over the placement of these residences," then asked that City Council be made to understand the same. Holt told Cunningham she "saw no latitude in restraining it because it is based on state law." This is a board documenting its objection to a preemption it cannot resist — the same posture Vance Jochim described to this Board a month earlier.

• Far Reach Ranch was withdrawn with no reason given. The D.R. Horton application that drew Shirley Shores and Lane Park Road residents to the podium in October 2025, that staff had routed to every City department plus Lake County and returned comments on October 9, is gone. No reason was provided and the City acknowledged the withdrawal. For anyone tracking north Lake County residential supply, roughly the largest pending Tavares application of the coverage period vanished between October and February, and the record contains no explanation.

• A 50-foot platted right-of-way passed into private hands after 27 years of one neighbor mowing it. Rettig's testimony is the whole case: she maintained it for 27 years, the adjacent developer declined to acquire it, staff found no drainage, utility, or safety conflict. Fabre stated the City does not proactively dispose of surplus right-of-way — it acts only on petition. Any Tavares parcel bordered by an undeveloped platted right-of-way is potentially expandable by the owner willing to file.

• Four of seven members carried the meeting, and every vote was 4-0 on a bare quorum. The Vice-Chairperson and two members were absent for the city's recovery-residence ordinance and its right-of-way conveyance. The Tavares pattern holds: contested and consequential items in this record are decided by partial boards.

Raw Notes

• Source: February 19, 2026 minutes PDF, CivicClerk file ID 2817, published on event 485 (agendaId 401). Agenda is file ID 1778; web agenda packet is file ID 1787.
• The minutes PDF is a scanned document run through OCR; headers render imperfectly ("lil. APPROVAL OF MINUTES", "Vi. OTHER BUSINESS", "Vill. ADJOURNMENT"). Body text is clean; quotations are verbatim from the extracted text.
• Structural anomaly in the source: the "V. PUBLIC HEARING" heading is followed immediately by "VI. OTHER BUSINESS," and both Tab 2 and Tab 3 — which the agenda lists under Public Hearings — appear beneath the Other Business heading. Attorney Holt nonetheless conducted the swearing-in for Resolution 2026-03 as a quasi-judicial matter.
• Title error in the source: Board Member Peterman is once written "Chairman Peterman" during the Ordinance 2026-01 discussion. Santoro is the chair throughout.
• The applicant's surname appears once as "Rettiq" in the OCR; the correct spelling is Rettig.
• Fabre's January 15, 2026 forecast for this agenda — "a Land Development Regulations amendment required by the State, and potentially a variance request and a right-of-way vacation" — delivered the LDR amendment and the right-of-way vacation; no variance appeared.
• Minutes attested by Michelle Winegard, Deputy City Clerk. Page count: 6.