Leesburg planning staff recommendation rejected for Leatherleaf project after commission roll call

Leesburg Planning Commission · December 20, 2024

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Department recommended approval for the Leatherleaf comprehensive plan amendment and PUD (LSCP24253 / PUD24254), but the commission recorded roll-call votes rejecting the proposals and will forward that recommendation to the City Commission.

The Leesburg Planning Commission voted on Dec. 19 to reject the Leatherleaf large-scale comprehensive plan amendment (LSCP24253) and the associated PUD rezoning (PUD24254) after staff recommended approval.

Staff described the project as an annexation and rezoning of roughly 73.2 acres north of County Road 48 and east of County Road 33 to allow 235 detached single-family homes, 48 paired villas (duplexes) and about 120,000 square feet of commercial uses. Planning staff noted required infrastructure and transportation improvements that Lake County Public Works requested, including left- and right-turn lanes, additional right-of-way on County Road 48 and 33, and accommodations for the West Lake Trail. Staff also noted school concurrency and a 48-month phasing clause that would revert the property to R-1 zoning if substantial commencement does not occur.

After the staff presentation and applicant remarks, a motion to approve failed for lack of a second. A later motion to reject the application carried on roll call. The transcript records Commissioner O'Kelley, Commissioner Simeone, Commissioner Ackerman and Commissioner Kaplan voting "Yes," while Commissioner Sandals and Commissioner Senate voted "No" on the LSCP item. The commission took a separate roll call on the PUD item with similar mixed votes recorded in the transcript; the chair closed discussion and the rejected recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for final action.

The record shows the commission was concerned about transportation impacts and infrastructure obligations under county review. Staff had recommended approval conditioned on meeting statutory and compatibility criteria, but the commission's recommendation was to reject, meaning the City Commission will see a negative recommendation from the planning commission.