Commission holds first reading, lays over Bridal Highlands annexation and SPUD rezoning after heavy resident opposition

The City Commission on Sept. 8 held a first reading and public hearing on a proposal to annex roughly 7.53 acres currently in Lake County into the City of Leesburg for a small planned unit development (SPUD) that would allow up to 48 townhome units.

Planning staff presented the proposal as an annexation, a comprehensive‑plan amendment to change the future‑land‑use designation from Lake County urban low density to City of Leesburg low density residential, and a rezoning from Lake County PUD to City of Leesburg SPUD. The developer described the plan as 48 single‑family attached townhomes (not condominiums), a minimum lot width of 20 feet, a minimum living area of about 1,100 square feet, two stories maximum, on‑site parking that would include garages and 78 total parking spaces as proposed, and about 35 percent open space. A phasing clause in the PUD would require development to proceed within 48 months or revert to the city's RE‑1 standard (one unit per acre).

Staff noted that, under current Lake County approvals, the parcel could be developed for about 49,500 square feet of commercial uses (citing Lake County ordinance 2005‑45 and the original DRI/master plan history). Staff advised the commission that annexation and the proposed SPUD would replace those potential commercial entitlements with residential townhomes and, in staff’s view, would likely generate less daily traffic than commercial uses of the same parcel.

Tom Daley of Daley Design Group, representing GPK Real Estate Development, said the development would include a single cul‑de‑sac access point, amenities (pavilion, dog park, outdoor cooking, child play lot, and a small pickleball court was discussed), and would preserve the existing vegetated berm that separates the site from adjacent Royal Highlands homes. Daley also said the developer is prepared to incorporate site‑specific protections in the PUD, including restricting pedestrian access between the properties and maintaining the berm and screening.

Residents from Royal Highlands mounted substantial opposition during public comment. Speakers living on adjacent streets told commissioners they had understood the parcel would be used for neighborhood commercial services to serve Royal Highlands, not residential units; they said the existing access agreements and private roads (Royal Commerce Drive and Monarch Boulevard) had been intended to serve commercial uses and that allowing residential development could force reexamination of access rights. Residents raised traffic and safety concerns (particularly because many Royal Highlands residents use golf carts and scooters to get to community amenities), concerns about pond and berm maintenance and wildlife (including alligators in the retention pond), security and noise if the units were rentals, and potential impacts on property values.

Residents also questioned whether the developer had legal access to use Royal Commerce Drive and whether the easement and access agreements permitted the proposed access. Staff said the access question had conflicting public comments and that the city would research recorded agreements and provide an answer before the next commission meeting; the item was laid over to Oct. 13 to allow staff to obtain the legal record and provide further analysis.

The commission did not take a final vote on the annexation or rezoning at the Sept. 8 meeting; the matter will return for further review and a second reading on Oct. 13 with staff legal analysis on access agreements and additional materials requested by commissioners.