Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Future Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eustis LPA transmits small-scale future land use map amendment and annexation request for 5.5-acre site to City Commission
Summary
The Local Planning Agency voted to transmit Ordinance 25-35, a small-scale future land use amendment and annexation request by Lambert Properties Group LLC (approx. 5.5 acres) to the City Commission; staff noted the site lies in the 100-year floodplain and will require a FEMA Letter of Map Revision for future development.
The City of Eustis Local Planning Agency voted to forward Ordinance 25-35 — a small-scale future land use map amendment and annexation request submitted by Logan Wilson for Lambert Properties Group LLC — to the City Commission for consideration.
Senior Planner Kyle Wilkes explained the proposal would annex roughly 5.5 acres north of County Road 44 and east of State Road 19, changing the designation from county urban low to Mixed Commercial/Industrial (MCI) and assigning a suburban corridor design district. Wilkes said utilities are available but the site is in the 100-year floodplain with low-recharge, limited soils; any future development will need a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before certain land-use changes are applied on site.
Public comment: Cindy Newton, a resident of unincorporated Eustis, urged caution because the parcel is within the city’s floodplain and directly across from the Trout Lake conservation area. She said "any disruption with fill and then a big retention pond" could affect drainage into Trout Lake and downstream properties.
Commissioner exchange: Several commissioners said they were torn between environmental caution and wanting the city to control future development rather than leaving it to outside actors. One commissioner summarized the dilemma: "If we don't control it, then they're gonna control it for us." Staff clarified that development agreements are voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of annexation; such agreements are used voluntarily to secure design concessions but cannot be imposed. Staff also noted limits imposed by SB 180 that restrict certain local regulatory conditions.
The Agency moved and seconded to transmit the map amendment and annexation ordinance to the City Commission; a roll-call vote recorded Ayes from the commissioners present and the motion carried. The transmittal will allow the City Commission to include the item in the packet for state referrals and public hearings.
Next steps: The City Commission will consider transmittal and, if forwarded, the item will enter state review and return to the city for any required revisions before final action.
