Eustis LPA stalls annexation transmission after residents press flood and development-agreement concerns; members agree to return both items next month

The City of Eustis Local Planning Agency spent the bulk of its meeting debating two related annexation and future-land-use requests: a roughly 10-acre parcel and an adjacent 2.8-acre parcel near the intersection of County Road 44 and County Road 44A. Staff described both properties as having water and sewer available, no wetlands or 100-year floodplain on the parcels, and recommended transmittal to the City Commission for consideration.

Kyle Welch of Development Services told commissioners the 10-acre request would change the site from Lake County urban low to general commercial with a suburban corridor design district. He said utilities are available and that staff recommends approval for transmittal.

Residents urged caution. "We have recently experienced the hundred year flood and a 500 year flood," said Sabrina Lewis of the Spring Ridge community, questioning whether commercial development would affect her neighborhood. Applicant Travis Sawchuk told the panel his property and the 10-acre parcel remained "absolutely dry" during recent storms and said he had prepared architectural drawings showing a low-density, park-like development. Sawchuk also told the LPA he had proposed in a developer's agreement a 30-year moratorium on certain uses residents had flagged — listing "no gas stations, no laundromats, no cannabis of any kind, no freestanding liquor stores" — and said he was willing to incorporate protections in a written agreement.

Legal staff and commissioners repeatedly clarified a statutory constraint: annexation cannot be conditioned on a voluntary developer's agreement. As one staff member put it during discussion, "The annexation cannot be contingent on the development agreement." That legal limit framed much of the debate: residents and some commissioners said they wanted binding protections before annexation, while others noted the agreement is voluntary and cannot be used to legally condition annexation.

When commissioners voted on the motion to transmit the 10-acre item for next action, roll-call voting showed a majority of Nays (Mister Holland Nay; Mister Aspadi/Osbodie Nay; Vice chair Ashcraft Nay; Chairperson Lee Nay) and one Aye (Mister Hawkins). The motion failed and the item did not transmit as proposed.

Staff then presented the separate 2.8-acre request (Ordinance 26-10), noting similar findings about utilities and absence of floodplain or wetlands; the applicant reiterated the 2.8-acre parcel is separate ownership and described low-key commercial uses consistent with that parcel’s proposed MCI (city mixed commercial industrial) designation. Commissioners and residents continued to press for clarity about what uses are permitted under county versus city zoning and how protections could be made enforceable.

To address concerns and provide the public a clearer record, commissioners voted unanimously to pull both items back for additional work: a motion to return the annexation and land-use items to LPA next month after staff and the city attorney review and provide a fully fleshed-out developer's agreement framework carried on a unanimous roll call. Staff said the intention is to make the draft agreement viewable to the public and to present both the annexation components and the agreement in a coordinated package so LPA and the City Commission can review the agreement language before any final decision.

No final annexation or land-use approvals were adopted during this meeting; the LPA concluded by directing staff to coordinate review with the applicant and the city attorney and to place both items on the next LPA agenda.