Leesburg rejects Old Mill annexation and rezoning after residents and staff raise flooding, wetland and access concerns

The City of Leesburg on June 9 declined to approve the annexation and related rezoning and comprehensive‑plan amendment for the proposed Old Mill subdivision, a roughly 37.48‑acre assemblage east of Radio Road and north of U.S. Highway 441. The project would have allowed a planned unit development (PUD) with 110 single‑family detached homes and 32 attached townhomes (142 total units).

Why this matters: the property is in an area identified under an interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) between the city and Lake County for future annexation and extension of city utilities, but the commission’s decision turns on local concerns over wetland impacts, access through or near existing neighborhoods, stormwater handling and neighborhood character.

Project and staff summary: City planning staff described the request as an annexation, a small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment, and a PUD rezoning. The proposal would change the future land use and zoning from Lake County designations to City of Leesburg PUD and would require city water and wastewater service. Staff said the PUD included architectural standards, a minimum of 35% open space, dark‑sky lighting requirements, landscaping and pedestrian amenities; the applicant also proposed an eight‑foot precast wall and landscaping along the common boundary with the adjacent Stonegate neighborhood to the north.

County and permitting requirements: Lake County Public Works provided substantive off‑site improvement comments, including requirements for additional left‑ and right‑turn lanes on Radio Road, right‑of‑way dedication and a sidewalk on Radio Road; staff summarized those comments and said the developer must coordinate closely with Lake County. Staff also noted that permitting from the St. Johns River Water Management District would be required for any roadway across wetland areas. The Lake County School Board indicated the project would be subject to school concurrency review and likely a mitigation agreement for student impacts.

Public comment and neighborhood opposition: Dozens of residents from adjacent neighborhoods spoke at council, citing flooding, wetlands, wildlife impacts, raised roadway grades and privacy concerns. Angela Chambliss (33144 Irongate Drive) told commissioners, "I strongly oppose the construction of the road behind our home," and said the proposed road would be about 30 feet from back walls, elevated to meet flood requirements and would "strip away" residents' backyards and views. Other speakers described wildlife (bears, ospreys, sandhill cranes), concerns about increased traffic along Radio Road, and the visual and property‑value impact of an eight‑foot masonry wall.

Developer response and engineering: The applicant, represented by Logan Opsal (Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, Orlando), said project entitlements under the ISBA contemplate annexation to provide city utilities and that the team had pursued alternative access routes, including discussions with mall and private property owners, but had not obtained the necessary acquisitions. The project engineer, Chuck Hyatt, explained elevation relationships and said the proposed finished road would be approximately one foot above the 100‑year flood elevation and remain several feet below the finished floor elevations of existing Stonegate homes. "We're raising the road. We are. We're raising it 5 feet. We're still 5 feet lower than the wall in their backyards," the engineer said.

Planning commission and conditions: The planning commission recommended approval and requested conditions including shifting the access road as far south as possible, provision of a speed table and limiting sidewalk location to the south side of the access road. Staff noted a four‑year expiration clause in the PUD ordinance should development not commence within 48 months.

Action and result: On second reading the commission did not adopt the annexation and related ordinances. The record shows the annexation motion failed on roll call; the result removes the PUD and comp‑plan amendment from consideration. Recorded votes in the meeting transcript included a yes vote from one commissioner and no votes from multiple commissioners; the commission’s decision means companion ordinances (comp plan amendment and rezoning) were not considered further that evening.

Next steps: With annexation declined, the applicant would need to reconsider access, mitigation and permit options with Lake County and water‑management authorities or pursue development under county jurisdiction. Residents asked the commission to keep the property in county hands or to pursue conservation options such as Lake County’s conservation fund.

Ending: The commission’s vote leaves the property under Lake County jurisdiction for now. The developer and staff said they would continue technical work and coordinate with permitting agencies; residents asked for alternatives including conservation purchase and stronger coordination with county agencies.