[1:31] Thank you.

[1:58] Welcome everybody to the planning and

[2:01] zoning meeting June 10th, 2026.

[2:06] And we will call to order.

[2:09] We'll start with the pledge of

[2:10] allegiance.

[2:16] To the flag of the United States of

[2:18] America and to the stands one nation

[2:22] under God, indivisible with liberty and

[2:25] justice for all.

[2:33] » Roll call.

[2:34] Board member Whitten.

[2:38] >> Board member Broker.

[2:41] Board member Weiss,

[2:44] Vice Chair W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Wsworth

[2:46] >> here,

[2:48] >> Chairwoman Aerolano

[2:49] >> here.

[2:54] » All right, first on the agenda

[2:57] is the approval of the minutes

[3:02] March 11, 2026.

[3:05] So, I have a couple of

[3:08] things that I noticed in the minutes.

[3:13] Under resolution 20262,

[3:16] the fourth paragraph ends in a statement

[3:19] that says he explained what would be

[3:21] located at the store and when the

[3:23] situation would clear up. I have

[3:25] absolutely no idea what that's in

[3:27] context to from the conversation.

[3:40] at the at the moment the town clerk

[3:42] isn't here, but I can go ahead and go

[3:44] back and answer that question for you

[3:46] after whenever I get the chance.

[3:49] >> Okay. Um then further down near the

[3:53] bottom of the page, um actually the

[3:56] bottom of the page is correct. What's

[3:58] incorrect is the last paragraph or first

[4:00] paragraph on the second page uh the vote

[4:04] says that it was a 40 vote and only

[4:07] three people were eligible to vote as

[4:09] chairman Ariano had recused herself from

[4:12] that vote.

[4:14] >> Good catch.

[4:15] >> So it's correct. It's 300

[4:17] near the bottom of page two, but it says

[4:20] four and four to zero at the top.

[4:34] So we can let them make those

[4:36] corrections and regroup next time. Okay,

[4:41] >> good catch.

[4:48] All right. So, next on the agenda is

[4:50] ordinance number 2026-03.

[4:59] Oops.

[5:01] An ordinance of the town of Mont Verd,

[5:03] Lake County, Florida, amending section

[5:05] 4-52C

[5:06] and article 3, chapter 4 of the land

[5:09] development code of the town of Montver

[5:11] prohibiting construction with slopes

[5:13] exceeding a 45% grade and encouraging a

[5:16] maximum slope of 5 to one or flatter

[5:19] within the town of Montb providing for

[5:22] repeal of all conflicting ordinances,

[5:23] providing for severability, and

[5:25] providing for an effective date. There's

[5:28] a staff report in your agenda packet

[5:31] that was prepared by Parks Consulting

[5:34] explaining um the ordinance. What was

[5:37] changed is in underline and stricken

[5:41] language can be seen within the body of

[5:43] the ordinance primarily on page two of

[5:47] seven.

[5:49] and it's changing the slopes um stating

[5:53] that they shall not exceed a 45% grade.

[5:57] Currently, it's a maximum of a 25% grade

[6:00] which causes issues within Magnolia

[6:03] Terrace and other communities where

[6:05] they're sloping. Um it will affect

[6:07] Montbird Estates um as as they come in

[6:11] for development and many of the

[6:13] properties in Magnolia Terrace would not

[6:16] comply with your code. Um and those were

[6:19] developed quite some time ago. Of

[6:21] course, I think um we have some slides

[6:24] that parks consulting um provided

[6:28] on the left showing the 4:1 slope which

[6:31] is what you currently have um and then a

[6:35] five to one slope which is what is

[6:37] encouraged.

[6:42] The next slide

[6:45] 45% this would be the maximum that's

[6:48] proposed.

[6:55] So I have a lot of questions about this

[6:58] overall change in ordinance and the

[7:00] logic behind it. I'm a bit concerned

[7:02] that we're not represented by

[7:05] our town manager or our city planner in

[7:09] this meeting. I don't think that anybody

[7:11] here is probably qualified to answer the

[7:14] questions that I'm about to ask.

[7:16] >> Okay. I mean, if the PNZ board wants to

[7:20] table it until Mr. Parks can be here or

[7:23] if you want us to have the town engineer

[7:27] available by Zoom at the next meeting in

[7:30] addition to Mr. Parks, I'm sure we could

[7:33] arrange that.

[7:34] >> I I need more information, too.

[7:36] Yeah, I think

[7:38] >> I think that would be good, but I would

[7:40] like to know your questions now so we

[7:42] could think about them if that's okay.

[7:44] >> I'm perfectly happy to go through the

[7:45] questions because I have about four

[7:47] pages worth. So, it was

[7:49] >> I mean, it's pretty generalized, but

[7:52] >> yeah, may and you don't have to go in

[7:53] depth, but maybe just outline them so we

[7:55] can all think about them.

[7:57] >> Okay. So to me, at least initially, I

[8:02] kind of feel like we have a drafting

[8:03] error here. Or maybe we're,

[8:08] how do I want to word this?

[8:10] The two things don't match. So today,

[8:13] it's 25%, which is 4:1. It's represented

[8:17] here as a 25- foot rise in a 10-ft run.

[8:23] um changing that to a five to one is

[8:27] less of a slope, not more.

[8:31] But yet then we're changing the maximum

[8:33] to 45. That's incredibly steep.

[8:38] Lake County itself has limited the slope

[8:42] to 25% 4:1 themselves. They've done

[8:46] ample research

[8:48] into having higher slopes than that

[8:52] increases erosion. It increases runoff

[8:55] of nutrients into like the lakes and the

[8:58] rivers

[8:58] >> and ponds.

[9:00] >> When you start getting above about 40%

[9:02] in sandy soil in heavy rains like we

[9:06] just had last year, that creates slide

[9:09] risks

[9:10] >> because we're not built on bedrock here.

[9:12] >> I mean, there there's a lot

[9:14] to 45 deg or 45%.

[9:17] So that means you're going up two feet,

[9:19] two and a quarter feet for every

[9:22] foot or you're going up a foot every two

[9:25] and a/4t.

[9:26] >> Mhm.

[9:26] >> That's pretty steep elevation and could

[9:29] lead to an awful lot of problems here.

[9:31] So that was my first question.

[9:33] >> Nope. Nope. Definitely. I agree.

[9:36] >> Uh that kind of bred bled into one

[9:38] number two because I already talked

[9:40] about Lake County. Um,

[9:43] so it just seems odd that we're

[9:44] effectively going to allow for almost

[9:47] twice as aggressive slopes as what Lake

[9:50] County is allowing.

[9:52] >> Yeah. And we're pretty much the hilliest

[9:55] spot.

[9:57] >> Yeah. I mean, it's we could have some

[9:59] serious issues. Mhm.

[10:00] >> Um,

[10:02] another piece of my research turned up

[10:04] that at a state of Florida level, they

[10:07] allow up to 50%,

[10:10] but that requires some really extensive

[10:12] and expensive engineering

[10:14] >> to allow 50% and it's primarily for

[10:18] elevated roads and things like that, not

[10:20] really building. So,

[10:23] >> um

[10:26] I think on watershed protection, that's

[10:28] one of my biggest concerns.

[10:31] >> Those kind of slopes, your water's going

[10:34] to move very quickly down it. It's not

[10:36] going to soak into the soil. It's going

[10:38] to strip nutrients out of the top and

[10:40] just take it straight down into the

[10:42] basins, which then feed out into the

[10:45] rivers.

[10:54] My next concern was really where is this

[10:57] coming from because it seems like it's

[10:59] out of left field. Um,

[11:03] so I guess I wanted to ask the question

[11:04] which won't be answered, but was this

[11:07] proposed by either of the active PUDs

[11:11] that we've already approved based on

[11:13] design, based on retaining walls and

[11:16] grading?

[11:18] And if this is to support them, then

[11:21] shouldn't they need to be coming back to

[11:23] planning and zoning for a variance on

[11:25] the PUD, not changing the entire

[11:27] ordinance, which would affect all future

[11:30] development in our town?

[11:32] >> I'm not aware that it came from a

[11:34] developer.

[11:36] I would I don't I'm not involved in all

[11:38] those conversations. So,

[11:40] >> great. That's why I said

[11:41] >> to my knowledge, it's not, but Mr. um

[11:43] Lorino or Parks would have to answer.

[11:46] >> Yeah, exactly. That's why I didn't

[11:47] expect you to answer tonight because who

[11:49] I expected to answer those questions is

[11:51] not here tonight. So

[11:52] >> yeah um

[11:53] >> it could have been done you know as

[11:55] precaution with the upcoming

[11:59] development on the horizon. Well,

[12:02] >> you know,

[12:02] >> if if we use

[12:06] Bellacina, I'll call it because I can

[12:07] never remember the new name that they

[12:09] have branded it, but we use the new

[12:10] extension to the Bella Kalina, we

[12:13] approved

[12:14] that zoning based on certain retaining

[12:19] walls up to certain heights in certain

[12:21] places complying with our current code

[12:23] of 25% grading. That would require them

[12:26] to build a substantial amount of walls

[12:28] there. If they're now coming in to

[12:31] saying, "Well, we don't want to do that.

[12:32] We want to have 45% grades, which allows

[12:35] us to have a whole lot less retaining

[12:36] walls at a much lower cost,

[12:39] >> then we shouldn't be changing our code.

[12:41] We should be having them come back and

[12:43] ask for a revision to their PUD,

[12:47] >> asking for those exceptions, and we

[12:49] would then get to choose whether or not

[12:50] we want to or not." Right. So,

[12:56] um,

[12:59] we talked about soil conditions.

[13:04] Anything over 30 to 35 degrees is pretty

[13:06] much not

[13:08] it's frowned on, let's put it that way,

[13:10] or 30 to 35%. Um, so 45% is pretty

[13:15] strong.

[13:17] >> Yes, ma'am.

[13:22] Yes, they did.

[13:25] I don't think it was different in their

[13:27] PUD. I can double check that before the

[13:29] next meeting, but to my knowledge, it's

[13:31] not in the PUD.

[13:34] >> How would this affect Mag Terrace today?

[13:37] I understand it was

[13:39] >> that was plotted and graded

[13:41] >> prior to

[13:43] >> code. There's one lot on the lake that's

[13:46] extremely like this. And how how would

[13:48] it affect that particular lot?

[13:50] >> They would have to come and ask for a

[13:52] variance if they couldn't meet the code

[13:54] whenever they go to build.

[13:55] >> Okay.

[13:56] >> Um

[13:58] >> or they would have to put in retaining

[14:00] walls to

[14:01] >> to step and maintain the 25%.

[14:03] >> I think we've had some of those.

[14:05] >> Some have done it and some have not.

[14:08] >> Right.

[14:08] >> Which obviously it looks better to the

[14:10] ones that have done it.

[14:12] >> Yes.

[14:12] >> I mean because then you have flat nice

[14:14] walls flat. I know part of our

[14:16] conversation and staff meeting was that

[14:19] there are probably some in Magnolia

[14:21] Terrace that do not comply with the

[14:22] code.

[14:23] >> Um and so this would help them if they

[14:26] ever had to redevelop their property.

[14:29] But um

[14:31] >> yeah.

[14:31] >> So they're currently grandfathered in

[14:33] though because they were built correct

[14:35] prior to the legally existing

[14:37] non-conforming use. I'm assuming the

[14:39] code at that time allowed it or it was

[14:42] just overlooked when they came in for

[14:44] permitting. I mean those built a long

[14:46] time ago.

[14:46] >> Yeah.

[14:47] Most of them.

[14:48] >> But if this or something similar to this

[14:51] was passed, the vacant lots that have

[14:53] not been built on would have to comply.

[14:55] >> Correct. They would

[14:57] >> they would have to Well, anything not

[14:59] built currently would still have to

[15:00] comply, right, with the current code

[15:03] andor this if we pass this, right?

[15:05] >> Correct.

[15:06] >> Yeah.

[15:07] >> Which Yeah.

[15:10] >> Okay.

[15:11] Um, I mean that's the the gist and I was

[15:14] waiting to hear answers to a lot of

[15:16] those questions

[15:17] >> and then would have other questions I'm

[15:19] sure but I don't think we can answer any

[15:22] of those questions tonight. I think we

[15:24] need to know if this is

[15:26] >> specifically being driven because a

[15:29] certain developer doesn't want to stick

[15:33] with what was already approved and is

[15:35] trying to avoid a change um a PUB

[15:38] revision. Um, but then I'm also just

[15:40] concerned in general about what this

[15:43] opens up everywhere else.

[15:45] >> Mhm.

[15:45] >> What other lots

[15:48] I guess technically the big large vacant

[15:51] property off of South or was that East

[15:53] Ridgewood could be impacted by this

[15:57] >> potentially.

[15:58] >> Um,

[15:59] >> and I don't know if there's anything

[16:00] around Franklin Pond left that

[16:03] >> that's all built there.

[16:04] >> There's there's a couple lots right when

[16:06] you first pull in, but they're pretty

[16:07] flat.

[16:11] lakes the lake front side

[16:13] >> not fully built when you first

[16:15] >> except for the one that they just built.

[16:16] Yeah.

[16:17] >> Yep.

[16:19] >> Yeah. But there's actually is a lot back

[16:20] there still behind

[16:22] >> because there's still another one back

[16:23] there.

[16:24] >> Mhm. Yeah.

[16:24] >> Okay. Um

[16:28] so I would say table I mean is my

[16:30] current stance because I can't

[16:32] >> make a decision based on

[16:34] >> lack of information. So

[16:37] >> I'd be hard

[16:40] And I would like to know who's actually

[16:48] the property, you know, makes a good

[16:51] point once we approve something like

[16:54] this.

[17:00] » It's kind of scary.

[17:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. And you have to think about

[17:02] how developers would think, right? If

[17:05] they what you're writing or what's the

[17:07] way it's written is we'll allow up to

[17:09] 45%.

[17:11] But we effectively want you to try and

[17:13] stay at 20. They're going to come in

[17:16] immediately look at it and go cool, I

[17:18] can go 45%.

[17:19] >> 100%.

[17:20] >> And that's all they're going to the the caveat of encouraged

[17:26] 20% is going to be meaningless. You

[17:28] might as well just not even have that

[17:30] even in there.

[17:31] >> Yeah.

[17:31] >> So,

[17:32] >> well, once we learn more, if if you guys

[17:35] want to table it, we can go that route,

[17:37] then we can obviously amend it and, you

[17:40] know, correct go from there.

[17:44] I have a copy of all of my questions

[17:46] which I plan to submit to the town clerk

[17:48] as a resident because I think it's

[17:50] important that these questions are

[17:51] answered and that council is aware of

[17:54] all of these questions explicitly versus

[17:57] what may be summarized in a packet. So I

[17:59] have a copy that I was planning to

[18:01] submit as well.

[18:02] >> That'll be good. And that way we can

[18:03] submit that to um to parks consulting

[18:06] and if we need to consult with the

[18:08] engineer and be able to answer your

[18:10] questions at the next meeting.

[18:12] >> Okay. I'd like to get a copy of it, too.

[18:16] >> Here you go.

[18:17] >> I couldn't give it to you ahead of time.

[18:20] Any if anybody else wants a copy, I do

[18:22] have extra copy.

[18:22] >> Sure. So,

[18:24] >> you want a copy, Josie?

[18:26] >> Actually,

[18:28] I'll give that one to you.

[18:30] >> I don't have that many. Somebody wants

[18:32] to make more copies.

[18:34] >> Um,

[18:36] >> we can make copies.

[18:38] >> Yeah. I mean, you're That's the last

[18:40] copy that I have. I have one for the

[18:42] official record and one more that

[18:44] somebody will give it to Joseph.

[18:46] >> They can make copies.

[18:46] >> You can make copies of this one.

[18:48] >> Um.

[18:50] >> Yeah.

[18:50] >> So all of you have one. Yes. Okay.

[18:53] >> Perfect.

[18:54] >> And then they can make a copy for the F.

[19:00] So, I would make a motion to table

[19:04] ordinance 2026-03

[19:07] until we can have parks consulting andor

[19:10] town manager. I wouldn't mind the

[19:12] engineer as well. So, one of my

[19:14] questions is has the town engineer gone

[19:17] over this and what's his concept or

[19:19] thoughts here. Um,

[19:22] so

[19:22] >> well, there is a staff report, but I

[19:24] agree we need more information. So,

[19:27] you're making a motion to I'll second

[19:30] >> table it.

[19:31] >> Yeah. Make a motion to table 2026-03

[19:34] until we can have proper staff here to

[19:37] answer the questions.

[19:39] >> Okay.

[19:40] >> All those in favor say I.

[19:42] >> I.

[19:45] Nobody's opposed.

[19:57] So, if we're

[19:59] good to go, I guess I just need a motion

[20:01] to adjurnn.

[20:03] >> Do we have any reports from

[20:05] >> No.

[20:06] >> town attorney even.

[20:07] >> I do have just um

[20:10] we initially did not expect a meeting in

[20:12] July, but I think we'll be having a

[20:14] meeting in July so that you can consider

[20:16] this ordinance. Um, we do expect to have

[20:19] a meeting within the next 60 to 90 days

[20:22] on Mont Vera Estate's final engineering

[20:24] and development plans.

[20:27] >> No sir, that's close to Bella Kina. Yes.

[20:30] So, they've submitted. We have to review

[20:33] those and provide them comments and then

[20:35] there'll probably be some revisions. So,

[20:37] we're not sure um exactly when, but um

[20:40] the town manager indicated 60 to 90

[20:42] days. So,

[20:44] >> yeah, these builders may they're asking

[20:46] for various

[20:47] come in and address

[20:50] the board. I just think it's courtesy.

[20:52] >> And did I hear last night Paul said that

[20:55] Ozgood has filed their final grading and

[20:58] have been issued their permit. So

[21:00] they're they're set and starting to do

[21:02] their or ready to do their work.

[21:03] >> They received their mass grading permit.

[21:05] Um and I think they're getting ready to

[21:07] file for final plat. Um that's correct.

[21:11] Okay,

[21:14] » that's all I have. Thank you. Anybody

[21:20] else have anything?

[21:23] >> I'll motion that we close.

[21:26] >> Ajourned.

[21:27] >> Can I get you get a second? All those in

[21:29] favor say I.

[21:31] >> I.

[21:31] Well, thank you everyone for a very

[21:34] short meeting. My goodness. We'll

[21:37] repeat.

Montverde Planning & Zoning: June 10, 2026

Transcript