Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes

1. Approval of Minutes

Member Saunders made a motion to approve the November 8, 2021, Planning and Zoning Board meeting minutes as presented. Member Regan seconded the motion; motion carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

2.Ordinance 2021-29 — Rezoning — Palm Property Partners-Haymaker, LLC — Rezoning Certain Property being Approximately 41.22 Acres from Lady Lake Unclassified Designation to Lady Lake Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD); Referenced by Alternate Key Numbers 1739438, 1237815, and 1739454, within Lake County, Florida (Wendy Then)

Senior Planner Wendy Then presented the background summary for this agenda item. She stated that the rezoning application was filed by Charles Hiott to establish a zoning designation and request land uses within the Memorandum of Agreement. The rezoning includes three parcels totaling 41.22 acres and the proposed zoning designation is to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD designation establishes impervious surface ratios, clustering of lots, layout of open space areas and minimum lot size. This PUD classification will allow for 160 single family lots that will have a minimum lot size requirement of 5,600 square feet with a minimum width of 50 feet.

Landscaping buffers are an important element of any building project which creates a distinction between a development and adjacent properties. However, there is a portion along the southern boundary of the property where six-foot vinyl fencing will be erected for approximately 1,050 linear feet. This is to allow for a 25-foot ingress/egress easement to accommodate the property owners along Line Road.

Traffic is a very import consideration among the residents who abut this property. CR 25 is a county road, a constrained corridor, which means the county has no plans to expand it. The county operates such roads at level “D” (14,000 average daily trips). Level “D” means that unless the applicant proposes development that exceeds the volume that the road can withstand, they are not required to make any improvements above and beyond what the project requires. If the proposed project is developed, it would generate approximately 1,600 daily trips. The county is not concerned that this development will trip any threshold for additional road improvements. When development begins, specific traffic issues will be addressed.

Chairman Sigurdson stated that he drives along the portion of CR 25 that is being discussed and commented that it is a very pretty section of roadway because of all the trees that were planted in the past. He hopes the developer designs a project in keeping with the current landscaping.

Senior Planner Then stated that 25% of the property must be maintained as open area.

Peter Duke, owner – Orlando.

Mr. Duke agreed that the area along CR 25 and the trees on the property are very attractive. Once development begins, their intent is to keep the tree line that will frame the main entrance to the property. The broad entrance will turn into a park area where existing trees now stand. Additional understory trees, plantings, park benches and other amenities will also be included. The owners want to keep the curb appeal provided by the old heritage oaks trees.

Chairman Sigurdson commented on the small lot size and how he would like to see nice homes on the property.

Member Regan stated that he drove along Line Road to check on the property being discussed. He commented that it is a very nice piece of property and asked if water and sewer lines were going to be brought to the property.

Growth Management Director Carroll responded by saying that sewer lines currently end at the corner of Fennell Boulevard and CR 25, but in the next few months, they will extend up to Griffin Avenue. Beyond Griffin Avenue, the sewer and water access will have to be a coordinated effort between the Palm Property Properties developer and other potential developers in the area. There is water up as far as Church at the Springs, but the diameter of that line does not have the capacity to serve the proposed development.

In response to another question posed by Chairman Regan, Mr. Duke said he suspects the utility services will be brought straight down CR 25, not Line Road, and laterals will be used to the subdivision. Other subdivisions would then be able to tee off of it. There is no expense to the Town to provide the infrastructure.

Member Saunders said he is concerned about the number of houses being proposed and he is pleased there is going to be a traffic impact analysis. He questioned if the project would be brought back before the Planning & Zoning Board.

Ms. Then answered that the subdivision plat will be brought back to the Board. There are three phases to a subdivision: a preliminary plat plan, an improvement plan, and the final plat.

Mr. Carroll added that they are just establishing a conceptual plan at the current meeting. The preliminary plan will closely mirror the conceptual plan; there will be two more opportunities to view the plans.

Chairman Sigurdson asked if anybody from the public would like to speak.

Sandra Ellison – 1814 SE 180th Street

Ms. Ellison stated that there will be 14 to 16 houses directly behind her ten acres and they are all she will see. She added that her property is zoned agricultural, and they want to stay on well and septic. There is not going to be a fence blocking her property from the houses.

Susan Aicher – Marion County Road

Ms. Aicher stated that the proposed development abuts her property, and she is amazed that Lady Lake annexed the property in 2007 and established the future land use designation as Single Family Medium Density. She knows that the owners have rights, but the property is special, and they want to remain farmers. Ms. Aicher is not opposed to development, but she is opposed to 50-foot-wide lots; she would prefer seeing nicer homes on bigger lots with a higher price point.

Lewis Patane – 2221 Marion County Road

Mr. Patane stated that he has purchased property adjacent to the property being discussed and he owns a total of about 110 acres. He breeds, raises, and transports champion horses and the area behind the proposed development is used for a training area. His horses spook very easily and without any true division between the 160 homes and his property, he is concerned about contingent liability for someone who wanders onto his property. The horses could hurt or kill somebody. The Town is allowing a subdivision without any definitive structure between the properties. He will take legal action if the Town plans to move forward with the plan.

Member Saunders made a motion to forward Ordinance 2021-29 to the Town Commission with the recommendation of approval; Member Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following roll call vote:

Member	Vote
Saunders	Yes
Regan	Yes
Sigurdson	Yes

3. Resolution 2021-111 — Variance — Jerry and Jennifer Pease — Requesting Current Accessory Structure Square Footage of Approximately 839 Square Feet to be Allowed for Property Addressed as 116 East McClendon Street; Referenced by Alternate Key 1260957, within Lake County, FL (Wendy Then)

Senior Planner Wendy Then presented the background summary for this agenda item. Ms. Then stated that the owners of the property are requesting a variance for a shed that was erected 15 years ago. The shed is bigger than the allowed accessary structure square footage that should not exceed 25% of the principal structure. The review criteria for variances includes:

• No diminution in value of surround properties
• Granting the permit would be in the public interest
• Denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship for the owner
• The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the Code

The request is to allow the 839 square foot structure (86.3% of the principal structure) to remain after-the-fact. Allowing the structure would require a variance from Chapter 5 of the Land Development Regulations. The owners had the structure installed fifteen years ago and paid a permit fee to Lark Sheds; however, the permit was never pulled. They have operated in the best of faith and have invited those who are interested to come see their property. People in favor of the variance have sent emails to the Town.

Chairman Sigurdson asked why a permit was not requested 15 years ago.

Ms. Then responded that the permit must have slipped through the cracks, or the shed was not noticed and reported, which is the reason why a variance is now being requested.

Ms. Pease stated she and her husband really want to keep the garage. They will pay for a permit and pay a fine. Their house is very small, and the shed is necessary to keep their belongings safe.

Member Regan stated that the shed being on the property line lessens the value of the neighboring property. He suggested ways to restructure the shed.

Ms. Then stated that the variance relates to the square footage itself and if it is approved, the Pease’s will be in compliance.

Chairman Sigurdson said if the size of the shed was reduced, it would help.

Mr. Carroll responded that the owners would still need a variance. Their small house was built on a small footprint. It is the principal structure that limits the size of the auxiliary structure. Town code is not based on the size of a property. The integrity of the building might need too much reengineering. The only complaint is from one neighbor and the shed has been there for 15 years.

Member Saunders made a motion to forward Resolution 2021-111 to the Town Commission with the recommendation of approval; Member Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following roll call vote:

Member	Vote
Saunders	Yes
Regan	Yes
Sigurdson	Yes

4. Resolution 2021-112 — Variance — Jerry and Jennifer Pease — Requesting Current Side Yard Setback to Remain at .40 Feet from Property Line for Property Addressed as 116 East McClendon Street; Referenced by Alternate Key 1260957, within Lake County, FL (Wendy Then)

Senior Planner Wendy Then presented the background summary for this agenda item. Ms. Then stated that the owners of the property are requesting a variance to increase the setback to another lot to .40 feet instead of six feet. This would allow an after-the-fact covered concrete/carport encroachment to remain. The review criteria for variances includes:

• No diminution in value of surround properties
• Granting the permit would be in the public interest
• Denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship for the owner
• The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the Code

Resolution 2021-112 regards the setback from the side yard requirement of six feet. The previous resolution had to do with the size of the accessory structure.

Chairman Sigurdson asked if their shed encroaches onto the neighboring property or if all of it is on the Pease’s property.

Ms. Then answered that it is all on their property by .40 feet.

Member Regan would have liked the Pease’s to contact the owner of the neighboring property to work this out prior to coming before the Board.

Ms. Pease was hesitant to contact him.

Ms. Then stated that the opinion of the neighbor is irrelevant. Because the Pease property is out of compliance, the variance is the only thing they can do keep the shed, or it must be removed. This is the only venue to remedy the situation.

Mr. Carroll asked Ms. Pease how long the property owner resided there without a complaint.

Ms. Pease answered that it has been about three years.

Mr. Carroll asked Member Regan if he was asking for a letter from the neighbor.

Member Regan responded that was his hope.

Mr. Carroll stated that they purchased the property knowing the location of the shed.

Randa Anderson – 201 E. Lady Lake Boulevard

Ms. Anderson stated her husband, Gary, has lived at 201 E. Lady Lake Blvd for most of his 75 years. They have enjoyed knowing the Pease’s for the last 20 years. They maintain their property beautifully and they are wonderful neighbors. There is a hodge-podge of structures that have been erected in the neighborhood for the last 130 years and they have no issue with the structure on the Pease property. Ms. Anderson strongly suggested the Board approve both resolutions. Nobody in their modest neighborhood can afford to remedy such a situation.

Member Saunders made a motion to forward Resolution 2021-112 to the Town Commission with the recommendation of approval; Member Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following roll call vote:

Member	Vote
Saunders	Yes
Regan	Yes
Sigurdson	Yes