[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.