The City of Leesburg Planning Commission on July 31 heard a proposal called Oak Ridge — a request to annex about 596.28 acres east of County Road 48 and south of the Florida Turnpike and to change the site’s future land use from Lake County rural to City estate residential, paired with a rezoning to City PUD to allow up to 910 attached and detached single‑family units and associated amenities. Senior Planner Max Van Allen and Planning and Zoning Director Dan Miller presented maps and the staff recommendation. "The project meets the requirements of chapter 163.3184 for large scale comprehensive plan amendment," Miller told the commission.\n\nStaff said the PUD would include a mix of 559 units on 50‑foot lots, 46 units on 60‑foot lots, 37 units on 70‑foot lots and 268 villa (attached) units on 35‑foot lots (two units per 70‑foot lot), for a total of about 910 units. Minimum home sizes range from 1,200 square feet for attached units to 1,800 square feet for some detached units; two off‑street parking spaces per unit and a 35% minimum open‑space standard (staff says the developer proposes about 70% open space) were included in the PUD standards. Utilities would be city water and wastewater only, and the PUD would include a phasing/expiration clause requiring substantial commencement within four years or automatic reversion to RE‑1 standards (one acre per unit).\n\nSeveral commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about density, roadway capacity on County Road 48 and County Road 33, and whether school capacity and water/wastewater would be adequate as development occurs. When asked about water and sewer capacity, Miller said public works had reviewed the proposal and "did not blink," but added that the city does not reserve capacity and that available capacity can change as other developments build out. The record indicates the project will require the routine traffic and infrastructure comments from Lake County Public Works — including potential turn lanes and right‑of‑way requirements — and will be subject to school concurrency review by the Lake County School Board.\n\nApplicant representatives described wetlands and buffer work to address environmental concerns. Logan Opsal, attorney for the applicant, said the plan was refined after a community meeting. Brian Skidmore, environmental consultant with Dura Group, said the project includes expanded and enhanced wetland buffers, planting and creation of about 20 acres of new wetlands plus additional restored buffer area. "We're providing expanded buffers and are actually going to plant those buffers for current condition," Skidmore said. Developer representative Brian Dalrymple said the housing product would include entry‑level and move‑up single‑family homes and emphasized the open space and amenities, including a pool, cabana, playground, dog park and a nature trail.\n\nPublic commenters pressed for attention to schools and child care. One resident asked the developer to consider space for a community‑oriented childcare center rather than amenities such as a pool: "When you aim to bring that many people, especially families... think also about education," the resident said. Other public speakers said the upland clusters of housing felt too dense and expressed concern that back yards would directly abut wetlands.\n\nAfter discussion, the commission recorded a motion and roll call on the large‑scale comprehensive plan amendment (LSCP25‑547); the record shows a motion to approve LSCP25‑547 was made, seconded and roll‑call votes were recorded. For the subsequent rezoning case (PUD25‑548) the commission then voted on a motion to deny the rezoning; the roll call on PUD25‑548 shows the following votes: Commissioner Kelly—yes, Commissioner Sanders—no, Commissioner Simeone—yes, Commissioner Barasoft—yes, Commissioner Marshall—yes, Commissioner Carter—no, Commissioner Kaplan—yes. The motion to deny the rezoning carried.\n\nBecause the commission recommended denial of the rezoning, the development cannot proceed under the proposed PUD zoning absent further action by the City Commission. Regardless of the planning commission votes, the proposal remains subject to Lake County Public Works conditions, school concurrency determinations and the availability of water and sewer capacity at the time of development. The applicant may present revised materials to address commissioner concerns and may seek a different zoning approach at future hearings.