Large Heritage Green conservation subdivision postponed after residents raise flooding and access concerns

The board heard a lengthy presentation and vigorous public comment on the Heritage Green conceptual sketch plan (tab 4), a proposed rural conservation subdivision on roughly 217 acres in the Mount Dora joint planning area. Mike Fitzgerald, Planning and Zoning director, said the applicant seeks approval of a conservation subdivision concept that would cluster up to 265 lots and preserve the applicant’s stated 61% open space. Fitzgerald warned that one access option would require developer improvements to Abington Road and other options would require coordination with county plans for the Round Lake Road extension.

An applicant representative (S3) said the team is exploring three access options, confirmed they are talking with the City of Mount Dora about flow allocation for wastewater, and said the development would either connect to Mount Dora or Eustis utilities or use a decentralized on‑site wastewater treatment system if central service is unavailable. The applicant also said they propose to "hold 100%" of the 100‑year storm on site and complete a hydrogeologic study and management plan during the preliminary subdivision process.

Residents spoke in strong opposition. John Suarez (S17) called for a development moratorium until countywide flooding issues are resolved; Verna Sharp (S20), Luana Folse (S9) and others described ongoing flooding in Wolf Branch Estates after recent storms and said more development would worsen downstream impacts. Cindy Newton (S22) and other commenters disputed the applicant’s density calculations and legal interpretations of how many buildable acres remain; several speakers urged the board to shelve the proposal until hydrologic analysis, sewer capacity and traffic access issues were resolved.

Commissioners expressed process and technical concerns: multiple members said a hydrogeologic analysis is required in the Wekiva study area and questioned whether primary access options would require cutting protected canopy and cross a floodplain. Several commissioners said the conceptual materials lacked a detailed management plan and that relying solely on an HOA for long‑term open space management may be inadequate compared with MSBU or other public mechanisms. After the discussion, the applicant offered to return after addressing questions and asked for 60 days; the board voted to postpone the item for 90 days (returning April 1) to allow staff and the applicant to provide more detailed studies and conditions.

Next steps: applicant and staff will provide additional hydrologic/hydrogeologic studies, a management plan that specifies long‑term maintenance and protections for primary conservation areas, clearer wastewater options, and refined access plans for board review.