Eustis commission approves waiver allowing proposed drive‑through to face County Road 44

The City Commission of Eustis on a 4‑1 vote approved a site‑plan waiver that would allow a proposed commercial building’s drive‑through window to face County Road 44. The item came after a public hearing in which nearby residents said they had not had an opportunity to comment earlier in the development process.

Residents said they were surprised to be debating the drive‑through at the site‑plan stage and complained the public had not been able to comment “months ago.” Commission members and staff described the applicant’s multi‑step development process: annexation, future land‑use assignment and a preliminary plat that laid out lots and stormwater areas but did not obligate the property’s ultimate building configuration. Staff told the commission this was the first formal request for site‑plan approval and that the waiver was needed to allow the drive‑through feature in the front of the building.

The commission record shows the motion to approve the waiver (resolution 25‑55) was moved and seconded at the meeting. The roll call recorded Commissioner Asvadi, Vice Mayor Ashcraft, Commissioner Holland and Commissioner Lee voting “Aye”; Mayor Hawkins voted “Nay.” The motion carried 4–1.

Residents pressed the commission on timing and notice. One speaker said, “They should’ve had a right to be here months ago and talk about this,” and questioned whether the community had been given a meaningful opportunity to weigh in before key decisions. City staff answered that preliminary plat notice covered creation of lots and open‑space tracts but did not trigger a site‑plan review; the drive‑through placement only came into formal review with the current site‑plan application.

Staff outlined alternatives available to the applicant: redesign the building so the service window and most of the drive‑through sit on the side or rear of the building to meet the code, in which case the change could be approved administratively and would not return to the commission. Commissioners noted that if the applicant chose such a redesign, the public review process and the commission’s waiver would not be necessary.

The commission’s approval only grants the requested waiver; it does not approve final building permits. Staff said subsequent administrative site‑plan review and building permitting remain required and that any redesign that complies with code could proceed without another commission waiver.

The discussion included repeated expressions of sympathy for neighborhood concerns and reminders from commissioners that the development process requires specific steps before some details are formally decided. The public‑comment portion closed after residents and the applicant declined further remarks.