The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 28, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Pete Wahl, County Manager; Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Reverend James M. Brazzell, Bethel United Methodist Church of Eustis, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
AGENDA UPDATE
The Chairman stated that she had requested staff to move Tab 5, under Other Business, appointments to the Fire and Emergency Services Advisory Board, up on the Agenda, to be heard between Tabs 2 and 3.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
MINUTES
Regarding the Minutes of January 17, 1995 (Regular Meeting), the following changes were requested:
On Page 33, Lines 10 and 11, add the following language, after the word "tax": and allows for each category to be figured at 73%, it would amount to approximately $2,200 for a three bedroom home."
On Page 10, Line 26, change the word fortunately to unfortunately.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of January 17, 1995, as corrected.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Sheriff George Knupp appeared before the Board and presented Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, who had resigned, effective March 3, 1995 (this meeting would be the last meeting that he would be attending as County Manager) with a plaque, baseball cap, and lapel pin (a Sheriff's star) in appreciation of his service to Lake County and the Sheriff's Department during his tenure as County Manager. Sheriff Knupp stated that Mr. Wahl had been very easy to work with and had worked as a partner with him, with regard to the operations of the Jail.
PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 764 - JOSEPH COURSEY - LANE PARK
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate streets and lots in the Tavadora Subdivision, Section 6, Township 20, Range 26, Lane Park area. He requested postponement of this case, until the Board Meeting of March 28, 1995, due to the fact that the resident to the north of the streets in question does not have legal access to his property, except through this plat. He stated that another plat is to be recorded, in relationship to this vacation, however, staff has not yet received said plat. He stated that the postponement would allow staff time to obtain the noted plat and review it.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board postponed action regarding the Resolution pertaining to Road Vacation Petition No. 764, by Joseph Coursey, to vacate streets and lots, Tavadora Subdivision, Section 6, Township 20, Range 26, Lane Park area - Commissioner District 3, until the Board Meeting of March 28, 1995.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board appointed the following individuals to vacant positions on the Fire and Emergency Services Advisory Board:
Mr. Ralph Boartfield, District 3, replacing Mr. Thomas Townsend, who resigned.
Mr. John Jolliff, District 4, replacing Mr. Frederick Brummer, who resigned.
Mr. Henry Wolsmann, Lake County League of Cities' Representative, replacing Mr. Duane Gorgas, who resigned.
REZONING
The following members of staff were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development
Mr. Mark Knight, Senior Planner, Planning and Development
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development
Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, stated that there were no postponements or withdrawals.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 83-85A-2 - AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 1994-223 BRIAN J. SCHMIDT
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it had been before the Board a couple of months ago, at which time staff had noted that a warehouse would be utilized for storage, however, had not included mini-warehouses, as requested by the applicant. He stated that staff was recommending approval, due to the fact that they found it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 7-0 vote, to add mini-warehouses to the original Resolution. He then answered questions from the Board regarding this request.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted a plat (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the employment center was the old designation of the employment center, or the current Comprehensive Plan designation.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the current Comprehensive Plan vested, as shown on the existing Land Use Plan Map, everything that was zoned industrial at the time that the Land Use Plan Map was originally adopted, which shows the property in question as an employment center.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to have this issue clarified, noting that all industrial zoning was designated and, in the Comprehensive Plan, there is a specific provision which states that they were to be considered as appropriate land uses. He stated it was not the intent that all those parcels zoned industrial would be called employment centers and that, to continue to do so would be inconsistent with the definition of employment center. He requested the Planning and Development Department and the County Attorney's Office to clear the matter up.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that, on Page 2, Item 1. E., of the Resolution that was approved by the Board when this case was previously heard, there was a condition, with regard to the hours of operation. He stated that he did not see that condition in the Resolution before the Board this date and requested that it be placed in the Resolution, because that is what the Board imposed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to Resolution No. 1994-223, to add mini-warehouses to the existing uses, with an addition on Page 2, Item 1. E., with regard to the hours of operation, which were contained in the original Resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. CUP95/1/2-2 - CUP IN A - JOHN R. ARNOLD
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that the applicant proposes to operate a golf driving range adjacent to a fruit stand on U.S. Hwy. 27 six months out of the year, when hay is not being harvested on the site. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and, due to the fact that they felt said use did not meet commercial locational criteria, was recommending denial of the request. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and approved it, by a 6-1 vote, and added the following conditions to the Resolution: Hours of operation limited to daylight hours, to 9:00 p.m. during the months of October through March, with adequate parking provided and a site plan being received and approved by the Lake County Technical Review Committee. He then answered questions from the Board regarding this request.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County has needed for some time another classification that was recreational/commercial that would lend itself to the rural land uses that the County has and that she felt the matter should be looked into. She noted that staff had to recommend denial of this request because of the classifications set forth at the present time.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and submitted a site plan (Petitioner's Exhibit A) of the driving range in question, for the record. He stated that he had submitted to staff a list of other uses that are conditional uses in A (Agricultural) that would be allowed that do not have to meet locational criteria for commercial. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission, in addition to recommending approval of the requested use, found that it met the criteria of the Ordinance for "no more noxious or detrimental to the area." He stated that the parcel in question is an out parcel of 80 plus acres that surrounds it. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Arnold, Petitioner, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding this request.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the driving range was a creative use of land that sits idle during the winter months.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the request would be a good supplemental income for the agricultural use and was not detrimental to the other existing uses.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff recommended denial, because it would be inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that using the concept of "no more noxious or detrimental to the area" staff also indicated that, while that is a possibility, it is designed to be used for those things which are similar uses to agricultural and a golf driving range is not similar to agricultural. He further stated that it did not meet the locational criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan that deals with commercial development in rural areas. He stated that, if the Board approved this request, it would be hard pressed to not approve just about anything on agricultural rural land of a commercial nature and that it would be ignoring what the Comprehensive Plan states.
Commr. Hanson stated that that is the way the rules are written; however, this request involves a case that makes sense, versus how the rules are written. She reiterated the fact that she feels there needs to be an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan that allows for rural recreational semi-commercial activities. She cited another example, being equestrian activities, noting that often horses are not from a farm - they are brought on site. She stated that Lake County is rapidly becoming an equestrian county and she feels that the County is going to be caught in several situations where the rules do not allow the latitude that the Board needs, to allow citizens to take advantage of the recreational aspects that are in the rural parts of the County.
Commr. Swartz interjected that the Board should change the rules, if they feel they need to be changed, but not ignore them. He stated that, if the majority of the Board wanted to submit a plan amendment that would allow for this type of activity, then he felt that would be appropriate.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Stubbs answered questions from the Board and Mr. Richey about locational criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, for a CUP, and what types of things meet said criteria.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board directed staff to bring language forward identifying commercial recreational uses in the LDRs that would be acceptable on agricultural land.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for CUP in A (Agricultural), for a driving range, with the following conditions to be added to the Resolution: Hours of Operation: Limited to daylight hours, to 9:00 p.m. during the months of October through March, with adequate parking provided and site plan approval received.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed Commr. Good that, due to the fact he had made a staff recommendation that was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, he would need to state the reason why his motion was inconsistent, for the record.
Commr. Good stated that the reason for his motion was that a request had come forth to address acceptable recreational/commercial uses in A (Agricultural), to provide recreational services and facilities for agricultural residents.
Commr. Cadwell stated that his second to the motion was based on the fact that the requested use is no more detrimental than existing uses and is a supplemental use in A (Agricultural).
Commr. Gerber stated that she would not support the motion, because she felt the Board should follow the rules that are in place at the present time and then move forward with any changes that need to be made at a later date.
Commr. Good questioned the time frame for the clean up language to move through the process and make this project acceptable.
It was noted that it may take as long as nine months.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had before them two different issues, noting that it was not an issue of just clarifying something in the LDRs. He stated that it is the Comprehensive Plan that indicates what is allowed in a rural land use designation, therefore, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He urged the Board to not vote for this request until they had thoroughly thought through what they were proposing to do - modify the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he did not think the Board would be able to create language in the LDRs that would overcome the obstacles which staff referred to, that are related to the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Good stated that, in his opinion, there was language in the LDRs that would support this type of activity on agricultural land.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, based on the language, the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and did not have to meet locational criteria.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would support the motion, if the language was changed; however, she felt that the Board was putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, stated that all land uses are allowed within the rural land use category, except for the following land uses: residential developments over one dwelling unit per five acres; commercial developments greater than 5,000 square feet; corridor/commercial; commercial developments not serving a rural community; and heavy industrial, which he read into the Minutes.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board directed staff to bring language forward identifying commercial recreational uses in the Comprehensive Plan that would be acceptable on agricultural land, as a conditional use.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 6-95-4 - C-1 TO CP - DONNA J. DROSS
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial) for boat sales and services. He stated that it was for an expansion of the existing use and that staff reviewed the request against the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan and found it to be consistent with same. He stated that staff also found it to be consistent with commercial locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the request. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 7-0 vote, for boat sales and service, with the following amendments to the Resolution: Page 1, Line 6, SR 40 should be SR 450; Line 8, site plan approval should be rezoning approval; Under Terms, on Page 2, Line 9, uses should be structures; Under Terms, Paragraph E, on Page 2, delete the requirements for site plan approval and preliminary plat.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted a plat (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that this request is for an expansion of an existing use, which is primarily the sale of pontoon boats, however, is not limited to same. She stated that it is a reuse of an empty building, which at one time was a restaurant. She stated that it is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use and staff was recommending approval. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the request, as well, finding it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with surrounding land uses. She stated that the applicant only anticipates interior renovations, thus the reason for requesting administrative approval only on the site plan, which she noted is not subject to county review.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial), for boat sales and service, with the following amendments to the Resolution: Page 1, Line 6, SR 40 should be SR 450; Line 8, site plan approval should be rezoning approval; Under Terms, on Page 2, Line 9, uses should be structures; Under Terms, Paragraph E, on Page 2, delete the requirements for site plan approval and preliminary plat.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 11-95-Z - CP TO A - HARDWARE ENTERPRISES, INC.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to A (Agricultural), for a plant nursery. He stated that the applicant initially wanted to use the site for retail sales, however, based upon staff's review, that could not be allowed, because it did not meet commercial locational criteria. He stated that the applicants then amended their application, to enable them to have a nursery on the site, and staff felt that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs, therefore, recommended approval. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 7-0 vote, and noted that the Board's backup material contained a letter from the City of Eustis, regarding the request, as well as the old CP Ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to A (Agricultural), for a plant nursery.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 5-95-5 - C-1 TO R-4 - CAMILLA COLLINS
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), to enable the selling of a lot (approximately 1/3 acre) which is now commercial, located in the Leesburg area. He stated that the site did not meet commercial locational criteria, so the applicant requested that it be rezoned to residential. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and found it to be consistent with same. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 6-0 vote, to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential). He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted a picture (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), to enable the selling of a lot which is now commercial.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 9-95-3 - R-6 TO RP - ARET E. TRASK
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), for a duplex or triplex. He stated that the property in question was approximately one acre in size, located in the Tavares area. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and found it to be consistent with same. He stated that staff was recommending approval and that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the request, by a 7-0 vote, to RP (Residential Professional), as conditioned, for residential use only. He stated that the approval was limited to a duplex only, because staff felt that a triplex at the location in question would be inconsistent with surrounding uses. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RP (Residential), for a duplex, as conditioned, as outlined in the proposed Resolution and Developers Agreement, limiting it to residential.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION CUP95/2/2-4 - CUP IN A - KEVIN P. MCGINNIS
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agricultural), for an ostrich ranch, on five acres off Willow Murphy Road, in the Umatilla area. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the policies and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and was recommending approval. He stated that staff had placed conditions in the Board's backup material, which he noted were consistent with those approved previously. He stated that this would be the third ostrich ranch in Lake County and felt that, if the County continues to get such requests and staff finds that there are no problems associated with them, since the State has already classified them as an agricultural use, over a period of time, the County needs to remove such requests as a CUP and staff will request that that be done at a later date. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted a plat (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Wayne Sargent, representing the applicant, Mr. McGinnis, appeared before the Board to comment about the request.
It was noted that Mr. Sargent did not have to be sworn in, due to the fact that he would only be commenting about the request.
Mr. Sargent questioned why a CUP is required for this request. He stated that he recognized the fact that a lower governmental body could impose more restrictive criteria than a higher governmental body; however, in this case, the State has defined ostriches as livestock, specifically, and, if the County chooses to restrict them, then he feels that the County should do so at the level that the State has defined, i.e., if they are in the same category as other listed restrictive use animals in agricultural they should be identified as such, rather than being arbitrarily thrown into a category, after the State has made the definition, and allowed to be passed capriciously without any reason.
Mr. Sargent stated that neither his wife, who tried to follow up on the code violation citation that was filed against the applicant, nor the applicant, Mr. McGinnis, has yet to receive a reasonable answer to their question. He stated that there is no definition laid out at the County level that addresses the State regulations in a specific nature and that he had written a letter to the Board regarding the matter and was told that the letter would not be disseminated until this Board meeting, due to the fact that it pertained to Zoning.
The Board questioned why they had not received a copy of said letter and was informed by Mr. Stubbs that his office had just received the letter and had not had a chance to copy it for them.
Staff was directed to, in the future, make sure that the Board received any letters concerning cases coming before them prior to the meeting, if possible, and, if not, to receive them at the meeting.
Mr. Stubbs stated that local governments can be more restrictive in their guidelines than the State and that Lake County was being more restrictive and cautious for the public's health, safety and welfare.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for CUP in A (Agricultural), for an ostrich ranch, as conditioned.
Commr. Hanson requested counsel from the County Attorney concerning the lack of swearing in of Mr. Sargent (the Chairman had stated that Mr. Sargent did not have to be sworn in, because he would only be commenting about the request), due to the fact that it was not how the Board had previously been conducting meetings.
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, stated that the Chairman had made her determination independently and that he felt she had done so after reading an article concerning the Snyder case, in which a land use attorney from Orlando pointed out the fact that some local Boards had been much too formal with people in hearings, referring to two situations where it was felt that sworn testimony was really not necessary, and that maybe it would be a good idea not to subject people to what some find intimidating.
Commr. Hanson concurred, stating that she felt the Board had been much more restrictive in the past than it should have been.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the County Attorney come back to the Board with a modification of the policy regarding same, at which time the Chairman noted that the matter would be addressed at the Board Retreat, to be held on March 14, 1995.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. CUP95/1/3-2 - CUP IN A - LEILA CLAY, TRUST
SOUTH LAKE ANIMAL LEAGUE
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for CUP in A (Agricultural), for an animal shelter for abandoned and abused animals. He stated that the property in question is located on the north side of Millstream Drive, off of SR 33, in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, within the Transitional Land Use Designation and/or Rural Conservation Land Use Designation. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and was recommending approval to CFD (Community Facilities District), which he noted they can condition just like a CUP, if approved. He stated that his office had received two letters and a petition with 48 signatures in opposition to the request and two letters in support of the request. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and approved it, by a 7-0 vote, for CUP in A (Agricultural).
Mr. Stubbs stated that a letter was contained in the Board's backup material from Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, in which she notes that a CUP could be issued for such a use as this request.
Discussion occurred regarding the density of the area in question, at which time it was noted that said area should remain rural for quite some time.
Commr. Hanson stated that a ruling had just been passed that kennels could only be located in commercial locations, noting that the one in the Wekiva River Basin had been eliminated, and questioned where the County currently is regarding that regulation.
Mr. Stubbs stated that kennels are not permitted in the Wekiva River Basin, however, they are permitted in the rest of the County.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a site plan (County Exhibit B) of the property in question; several publications (County Exhibit C) and a newspaper article (County Exhibit D) from the South Lake Press about the shelter in question; a plat (County Exhibit E) of Edge's Subdivision; and a copy of the Future Land Use Map (County Exhibit F), as it pertains to the Leila Clay Trust property, for the record.
Mr. George Hovis, Attorney, representing the South Lake Animal League, appeared before the Board stating that he and the League have tried to alleviate the fears of those people involved and that, hopefully, they would be able to do so this date. He submitted an aerial (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record. He stated that one overriding consideration is the fact that the animal shelter needs to go somewhere and that the League has been looking for a site for six years and the site in question is the best site they can come up with. He stated that the League is prepared to live by the conditions of the CUP and has taken great measures to control noise.
Ms. Beth McCabe, President, Lake County Animal League, appeared before the Board and gave a brief history of the League and what they stand for. She stated that, in the seven year existence of the shelter, they have never had a complaint from a neighbor and plan to continue to be a good neighbor. She stated that the League would be addressing the concerns of noise, smell, running dogs, and disposal of liquid waste and any chemicals used to dip the animals in, as regulated by the County and State.
Ms. McCabe addressed the matter of increased traffic on the road that fronts the property in question, which she noted has been a major point of contention, stating that she has offered to help maintain said road.
Ms. McCabe stated that the League also has a thrift shop, which opens its doors to abuse centers, churches, hospitals, families burned out of their homes, etc., as well as a recycling program, which has recycled, over the last three years, 190 tons of newspaper, glass, and aluminum. She stated that all the work done at the shelter is volunteer and that most of the members hold down full time jobs.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Dr. Dwain Zagrocki, Veterinarian, All Care Mobile Animal Hospital, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy
Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he has practiced in Lake County since 1986 and has a stationary and mobile practice that covers the south Lake County area, as well as the Winter Garden area. He read a statement into the record about the Lake County Animal League and the fine job that they do for the community. He requested the Board to approve the request before them and answered questions regarding same.
Mr. Michael Diandrea, a resident of Millstream Estates, whose property is adjacent to the property in question, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that the shelter would be located at the entrance to Millstream Estates and the residents of the subdivision would have to drive past it every day. He stated that there are currently 28 residents in the subdivision and only one resident is in favor of the request. He addressed various issues that he was concerned about, such as smell, noise and running dogs.
Mr. William McGee, a resident of Millstream Estates, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He discussed the deed restrictions for Millstream Estates, which he noted limits the number of animals a resident can have, as well as the issues of smell and barking dogs.
Mr. James Morcom, a resident of Millstream Estates, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He addressed the concerns noted in the petition (contained in the Board's backup material) that was submitted by residents of Millstream Estates, being (1) the shelter will decrease the value and desirability of the property; (2) the noise factor; (3) shelter animals barking; (4) animal feces and urine waste on the shelter grounds, which will bring odor, disease from flies and other insects, and possible rabies, mange and scabies from abandoned animals dropped off at the shelter; (5) unwanted nonresidential development; (6) unwanted traffic bringing noise, litter and illegal dumping; and (7) the unwanted traffic will worsen the road conditions that presently exist.
Mr. Ben Reid, a resident of Millstream Estates, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He reviewed an aerial of the property in question, stating that he felt it was lakefront property and was concerned about how the dog runs were going to be controlled, in terms of drainage. He stated that he and his wife had researched the area in question for two years, before purchasing their property, to make sure that uses such as the one in question would not be going in around them and was concerned that, if the animal shelter is allowed to go in, a chicken farm might be next.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a five minute recess.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D.)
PETITION NO. CUP95/1/3-2 - CUP IN A - LEILA CLAY, TRUST
SOUTH LAKE ANIMAL LEAGUE (CONT'D.)
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the McGuire Land Corporation, appeared before the Board stating that her client is the single most effected property owner, by the animal shelter, in that their property borders the site in question on three sides. She stated that the property abuts SR 33, so the entire access of said property is Old Millstream Road, which she noted was incorrectly stated to be a publicly dedicated road.
Ms. Bonifay addressed some issues that were discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and requested that the Minutes of that meeting, which she noted were fairly extensive and referred to several exhibits that she had entered into the record (contained in the Board's backup material), be made a part of the record for this hearing. She stated that her client does not object to the purpose of this request, only to the location of the shelter, based on land use criteria and what the County's Comprehensive Plan calls for, not only on consistency with the Plan, but compatibility with the surrounding land area. She stated that they feel it is a commercial operation and, as such, should have been given a commercial zoning classification.
Ms. Bonifay stated that there has been some confusion about this application, in that it is listed as a Community Facilities District (CFD), but is titled a CUP, and the Land Development Regulations state a "kennel", which she noted this request is, is not allowed in a CFD, nor is a veterinary clinic, which the shelter could also be construed to be, so any assertion that the request is a CFD would not be allowed, by the County's own rules and regulations.
Ms. Bonifay stated that it had been noted earlier that kennels are no longer allowed in the Wekiva, due to the fact that they are considered to be a commercial operation, and was concerned that one would be allowed in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, which she feels is a more pristine and fragile area than the Wekiva and needs to be protected more than any other area in the County.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the Future Land Use Map that was previously submitted by staff as County Exhibit F, stating that it shows the property in question being located in both the transitional area (which allows for some rural, however, due to the Board reinterpreting it, it is subject to timing, and, given the densities in the area, would not meet timing criteria, so that density would then go back to one dwelling unit per ten acres) and in the rural conservation area (which is at one dwelling unit per twenty acres). She stated that, based on those facts, the residents are not going to be allowed to do anything with their property, other than at those densities, and, as those residents testified, that was their attraction to the area in question - that is why they chose to locate there and they are very happy in having those densities and in keeping them.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, from a land use standpoint, the major point is that a commercial use should not be given a CUP in A (Agricultural), because it is a commercial operation and would not meet commercial locational criteria and, from an environmental standpoint, the proposed shelter is in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, which has been the subject of controversy as to stormwater runoff, the handling of waste - human and animal, and the fact that the County has had to have special requirements, in terms of septic tanks and larger drain fields.
Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, a Septic Tank Limitations Map (Opposition's Exhibit A), obtained from the Lake County Water Authority, showing the area for septic tank limitations to be either severe or slight. She stated that, either way, there will be problems. She stated that there have been many assertions about how these are going to be handled, but, waste disposal is not a condition of the CUP and she feels that the only way the County has any enforcement power, whatsoever, is to make those conditions of the CUP. She stated that, somehow the rules seem to be different in the requirements for this case, although it is in an extremely environmentally sensitive area, and this concerns her.
Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, Flood Zone "A" Map (Opposition's Exhibit B), which she noted is a FEMA map, which is used on all subdivision reviews, which are then conditions of the PUD zonings, which tell the applicant that they are probably going to have to go back to FEMA and get rule changes and are going to have to have their facilities located at certain heights. She stated that they make those conditions of every development approval, if it is a PUD, or anything else. She noted that staff had testified at the last public hearing that they were using Water Authority maps and not FEMA maps, therefore, if the County has changed its policy, in any future applications or rezonings that she would be bringing forward, she would like the Board to disregard the FEMA map and would like a statement to that effect in the record. If not, requested that this exhibit be considered, noting that it shows the site in question to be one of severe limitations.
Ms. Bonifay stated that noise abatement, hours of operation, the actual housing of the animals, and waste disposal when the dogs are on their runs, as opposed to when they are in the facility, are not addressed in the CUP and the only enforcement mechanism the County has are the conditions of the CUP, so, if none of the concerns she noted are addressed in the CUP, it matters not what the intent was, or what was stated this date, on the record, only what is recorded in the public records of Lake County and what gives the County enforcement powers.
Mr. Bruce McGuire, President, McGuire Land Corporation,
appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, his attorney, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that his family is in the orange grove business in Lake County and has a timber operation in north Florida. He addressed the issue of access to the property in question, at which time he submitted and reviewed a map (Opposition's Exhibit C), which he had sketched of the property in question, as well as the surrounding property, noting that his map was correct and that the map (Applicant's Exhibit A) submitted by the applicant's representative, Mr. Hovis, was incorrect.
Mr. McGuire pointed out the property that his family owns (Lots 7 and 8, all the property to the north and south of the property in question, and the property between Lots 5 and 6 and SR 33) and stated that his contention was very simple - Millstream Drive is a private road which his family owns the right-of-way to and has given an easement to Millstream Estates and no one but Millstream Estates.
It was noted that Lots 5 and 6, on the map, is where the proposed shelter is to be constructed.
It was further noted that it is Mr. McGuire's intention not to let the Lake County Animal League use the right-of-way.
Mr. McGuire stated that his family supports the League, however, feels that a shelter would be inappropriate for the property in question. He noted, for the record, that his family has offered the League property at another location, which they feel would be suitable for a shelter, at the same price.
Mr. Hovis, Attorney, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. McGuire about his testimony. He submitted a recorded plat (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the Edge's Subdivision on which Ms. Sally Stoddard, Right-of-Way Agent for Lake County, notes that the strip of land lying southerly of Lot 6 and northerly of Lots 7 and 8 has not been vacated, according to records in the County Right-of-Way Office, as of January 30, 1995. She further notes, however, that a search of the public records has not been made to verify this information.
Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board, stating that she was still in the process of presenting her case and had not finished questioning her client, Mr. McGuire, about the property in question, at which time she submitted, for the record, the following documents: Grant of Road Easement (Opposition's Exhibit D) and a Trustee's Deed (Opposition's Exhibit E). She continued questioning Mr. McGuire about the request.
Mr. Hovis reappeared before the Board and submitted a copy of the contract (Applicant's Exhibit C) between Leila Clay, Trust and the South Lake Animal League, showing the potential sale of part of Lots 5 and 6. He referred to the copy of the aerial (Applicant's Exhibit A) that he had submitted earlier, stating that the legal description in the contract pertains to the selling of a portion (the south side) of Lot 6, running all the way down to the platted road, as shown on the plat of Edge's Subdivision. He stated that, according to Ms. Stoddard, it has not been vacated and that he had done an extensive search of the records and agrees with Ms. Stoddard that the road in question is a viable public road.
Ms. Bonifay further questioned Mr. McGuire about the property in question and about concerns that Mr. Hovis raised regarding same.
Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Swartz noted that the Board would not be able to make a determination, this date, as to whether there is access or not. He stated that there is a possibility the issue could end up in court, trying to decide
whether or not there is right-of-way, but there would have to be a condition somewhere in the CFD, or the CUP, making it clear. He stated that neither staff, nor the Technical Review Committee, would approve a development that did not have access.
Ms. Bonifay stated that it has been her contention all along that there would have to be a condition in the CUP, regarding the issue of right-of-way, however, she did not see one. She stated that maybe it is just because it is so basic that it was felt that it did not have to be written down, because there is not a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, or the Land Development Regulations, that states a site has to have legal access before it can be zoned. She stated that maybe she was stating the obvious and maybe they are being very deliberate, with regard to this case, but, so far, those questions have been raised and have not been addressed. She stated that there is nothing in the record - no condition, so, if the zoning is approved this date, over their objections, they would hope that all those things are in the record, so that, if subsequently it is determined that this property does not have legal access, as they contend, then the applicant cannot go forward.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, noted, for the record, that the County issues building permits without legal access on a regular basis, which he elaborated on.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Mr. Don Griffey, Engineer, Public Services, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that the County has a provision in the LDRs, under the Transportation Standards, that addresses access to site plans; however, it does not state one has to have legal access, it states that site plans have to have paved access to the nearest paved road. He stated that he felt Ms. Bonifay was correct in that it is such a basic assumption that it is not written in the LDRs that, if the League cannot get to their property and cannot prove they have an access, then they are stuck and will not get to square one with the Development Review Process. He stated that, apparently, they have a platted right-of-way, but, if it goes through wetlands, then the modifications they would have to make and the mitigation they would have to go through may make it not cost effective. He stated that, legally, on paper, they probably do have access.
Mr. Hovis stated that the contract in question is a contingent one and that the League will not close on it until they know exactly where the right-of-way is. He recommended that the Board approve the request and, if the League does not have legal access, they will find that out.
Ms. McCabe, President, Lake County Animal League, reappeared before the Board and addressed some concerns that residents of Millstream Estates had noted.
Commrs. Swartz and Good reviewed the site plan of the property in question and questioned Mr. Stubbs regarding same.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he intended to support the request, because he did not know of anywhere else in Lake County with such a sparse population than the property in question. He noted a concern he had in people abandoning animals at the shelter, however, feels that with someone being there 24 hours a day, it would alleviate some of his concerns. He addressed the issue of right-of-way, however, noted that it would not effect his decision.
Commr. Hanson stated she recognized the fact that there is a need in this area and she supports the League's efforts, however, to be consistent with what the County has done in the Wekiva Basin, which she elaborated on, she could not vote in favor of the request. She further stated that she feels it will disrupt the neighborhood and addressed concerns she had about the issue of access, the septic tanks, and the flood zone.
Commr. Good addressed a concern he had about the vagueness of the Operation Standards contained within the Resolution and the compatibility of the shelter with the community that exists at the site. He further stated that he felt it was premature, based on the statements made this date, for him to approve a request to rezone the property in question as a CFD.
Ms. McCabe, President, South Lake Animal League, reappeared before the Board and responded to Commr. Good's concerns.
It was noted that this site is the third site that the League has considered for the animal shelter.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Hanson to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request for a CFD, for reasons noted, and encourage the South Lake Animal League to look for another site.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she found it to be highly inconsistent on the part of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to not have an objection to a kennel in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, yet they had an objection to one in the Wekiva Basin.
Commr. Swartz stated that it was an issue of compatibility between the County's LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Gerber stated that this decision was a very tough one, but she would not be able to support the request, because she too was having a problem with the compatibility issue.
Commr. Swartz suggested amending the motion, to make the denial without prejudice and to allow the permitting costs that have been paid to be applied to another site, other than the actual cost of advertising, which he stated would be a real cost. He noted, however, that he would make it specific, so that the applicant would not be able to bring the site in question back before this Board.
Mr. Hovis stated that, if the Board was going to deny without prejudice, then he would withdraw the request, because the League fully expected to bring this site back before the Board with a little more information and less fear tactics as to what can happen in the future.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the League's intention is to bring the same site back before the Board, it would make more sense to ask for a postponement; therefore, it would not have to go back before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it could come back to this Board in 60 days.
Mr. Hovis stated that he heard concerns this date, based upon information furnished to the Board that may or may not be accurate, and wanted the chance to check them out, to see if they are accurate, and, if so, they will be the first to acknowledge it.
Commr. Hanson stated that her objection had nothing to do with the operation, or the concept of the facility, it was a consistency vote with what the Board has done in other parts of the County and bringing the request back before the Board at a later date would not effect her vote.
Commr. Swartz amended the motion, to make the denial without prejudice, but that the applicant not be allowed to resubmit the site in question, for consideration; however, the funds that have been paid for the review, excluding actual advertising costs, may be applied as part of a new site.
Commr. Hanson seconded the amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried.
Commr. Cadwell voted "No".
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion to deny, as amended, which was carried.
Commr. Cadwell voted "No".
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 12-95-4 - A TO CFD - JAMES A. GETFORD
C/0 LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facilities District), for a public school site on 28 acres in the Eustis area, off Bates Avenue, accessing from C-44A. He stated that staff reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed it and approved it, by a 7-0 vote, for a CFD (Community Facilities District). He stated that his office received five letters in support of the request, which he noted was included in the Board's backup material, and one letter from the City of Eustis, noting a concern they have regarding utilities. He stated that there were no additional letters for or against the petition.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted a site plan (County Exhibit A) of the proposed school (Middle School BB) in question; a Preliminary Site Study (County Exhibit B) of the proposed school; and a letter (County Exhibit C) from the Eustis Heights Elementary Parent/Teacher Organization in support of the Bates Avenue site for the location of the proposed school.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and requested the Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and the Minutes from the Technical Review Committee (conditions set at said meeting have been incorporated into the redraft of the Resolution that staff and the County Attorney's Office prepared), contained in the Board's backup material, be made a part of this hearing. He then presented, as evidence, a map showing the middle school boundary lines (Applicant's Exhibit A); an Educational Plant Site Inspection (Applicant's Exhibit B); and a revised Preliminary Site Study (Applicant's Exhibit C), noting that it was a revision to the original study, which fleshes out the buffering, etc.
Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, had provided to him this date a redraft of the Resolution, which references Applicant's Exhibit C (revised site plan). He stated that he and Mr. Hoban discussed the fact that in the Resolution, on Page 2, it talks about the level of service and ADT (average daily traffic) and it was suggested by Mr. Don Griffey, Engineer, Public Services, and Mr. Hoban that they will need to put in the Resolution what the LDRs specifically require, which is, if ADTs change, or other things change, the applicant will be bound by the current LDRs.
Mr. Jim Harrell, Program Manager, Daimwood Derryberry Pavelchak, Architects, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He was then questioned by Mr. Richey regarding the fact that he worked on the proposed site plan for the Eustis Middle School, for the Lake County School Board; that said site plan (introduced as Applicant's Exhibit C) is a revision to the original site plan that went before the Technical Review Committee (TRC); and the actual changes that were made to the site plan and why said changes were made.
Mr. Jerry Cox, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Administration for the Lake County School System, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He then answered questions from Mr. Richey as to his association with the project in question, noting that 13 different sites were looked at before arriving at the site in question, based on the extraordinary development costs and the location being close to the center of the population for future growth for Eustis Middle School. He noted that said site was originally brought before the Board in January of 1994.
It was noted that there was a question, with regard to sidewalks, and that sidewalks are going to be provided along the frontage of the site plan, on Bates Avenue. However, rather than constructing sidewalks all along Bates Avenue, in meeting with the community and talking with people at the existing school, there was a desire to have buses transporting people from the existing neighborhood to the site in question.
Mr. Cox further elaborated on the issue of sidewalks.
Mr. Richey then clarified the fact that the site in question had been submitted and approved by the State and that the backup to the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes was a certification from the State indicating that the site in question had been approved, subject to architectural review by the State, and requested that same be noted in the Minutes.
Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Cox about the fact that an environmental assessment had been done on the property in question and that it was found to be free of any hazardous waste material.
It was noted that Mr. Cox had reviewed the Resolution, the TRC Minutes, and the requirements of the Public Works Department and the School Board, in conjunction with the City of Eustis, and is prepared to meet all the conditions of the requirements.
Mr. Cox then answered questions from the Board regarding this request.
Mr. Charlie McDaniel, Principal, Eustis Middle School, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He was questioned by Mr. Richey regarding evaluation of the various sites and who was involved in said evaluations and the fact that a committee had been created, comprised of a broad representation of the community, who decided that the site in question was the best possible site for the proposed school.
Mr. Randy Wiseman, a member of the Lake County School Board, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He answered questions from Mr. Richey about the fact that the current Eustis Middle School is going to be used for another school and will continue to be a part of the community.
Dr. Tom Sanders, Superintendent, Lake County School Board, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He was questioned by Mr. Richey regarding the fact that the site in question is the best site available for the proposed school, elaborating on the matter.
Ms. Pat Mayhill, Planner, Development Services Division, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She testified to the availability of water and sewer to the site, from the City of Eustis, and the City's intention to help the School Board with road improvements. She noted that a letter, dated January 27, 1995, was contained in the Board's backup material, regarding a meeting that the City held concerning said issue and the fact that the City confirmed that they had sufficient water and sewer capacity to service the site, subject to the terms and conditions of the City of Eustis, with regard to covenants and agreements that are normally required of any other development.
It was noted that the City of Eustis would work with the School Board in providing, in the benefit zone, Transportation Impact Fees and road improvements (impact fee proposal will be submitted next year recommending the widening of Bates Avenue from C-44 to Estes Road) that may be required for relocating the school. Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, noted that the following language, contained on Page 2, Paragraph 1.C.1., of the Resolution, should be struck: all the language starting with the word Based, on Line 20, and ending with the word then, on Line 26, and, in the same paragraph, all the language starting with the word In, on Line 31, and ending with the word Avenue, on Line 37.
It was noted that the reason for said language being struck was due to the fact that what said language stated was not going to occur.
No one was present in the audience in opposition to this request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facilities District), for a public school facility.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board needed to look, in the future, at the land development patterns that the County has been creating and continues to create, because what the Board is seeing, with this proposed school, is a result of those development patterns. He stated that the Tavares Middle School and the proposed school (Middle School BB) are schools which children cannot get to, except in a vehicle, and he feels that is a sad commentary for the County to put the School System in. He stated that the only reason he can justify voting in favor of this request is that, eventually, there will be residential development going up around the proposed school, because the designation is Urban/Urban Expansion.
Commr. Swartz stated that it also troubles him that berms are being created around schools and there is not even a sidewalk for children who decide to walk or ride a bicycle to school to use, short of walking or riding on the road that buses and cars will be traveling on. He then addressed the costs of developing those roads and higher impact fees, with regard to trip distances that have to be driven.
Further discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Commr. Hanson called for the question.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 2:30 p.m., the Chairman stated that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 3:00 p.m.
TIMES CERTAIN
PRESENTATION - DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/HUMAN RESOURCES
Ms. Lois Martin, Director, Human Resources, explained this request, stating that the Board had before them the David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., Report and Recommendations on a Classification and Compensation Plan, which they were charged to do and started November 7, 1994. She reviewed a memorandum which she had prepared and distributed to the Board, in which she describes step by step the Scope of Work Accomplished and Recommendations pertaining to said study, as follows:
Comprehensive Position Questionnaire
Recommendation: Continue the use of the Comprehensive Position Questionnaire for changes in positions, new positions, etc.
Compensation and Classification Plan
Recommendation: Adoption of the Classification and Compensation Plan, as presented.
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Status
Recommendation: Adoption of the "exempt" and "non-exempt" designations, as presented in the Classification and Compensation Plan, to be in compliance with FLSA.
Pay Plan Consolidation
Recommendation: All full-time employees will work a standard work week of 40 hours, except designated 24-hour fire shift personnel. The County's standard hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Plan Implementation
Recommendation: A. Adjust affected employees rate of pay to the minimum of their new pay grade range.
B. Adjust affected employees rate of pay, based on longevity (i.e., using the employees established anniversary date), in accordance with DMG's formula, for one-time implementation adjustment.
C. Plan implementation adjustments, if any, to be effective at the beginning of the first pay period in April (April 2, 1995).
Job Descriptions
Recommendation: Authorize the County Manager to approve job descriptions for all authorized position classifications.
Ms. Martin stated that the projected annual cost for implementation of the Classification and Compensation Plan, to include FICA and Retirement, is: $1,198,539 and that funding for the remainder of this fiscal year (April 2, 1995 thru September 30, 1995), to include FICA and Retirement, is projected to be: $599,269. She stated that funds have been budgeted in the Reserve for Pay Equalization Account, in the amount of $600,000, for the remainder of this fiscal year. She stated that it is not anticipated that an across the board salary adjustment will be implemented in October, 1995, for Fiscal Year 1995/96. She further stated that David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. will provide to the Board each fiscal year, during annual budget preparation, an updated analysis of the market and any changes for the Board's consideration, in order to keep the pay plan competitive with the market.
Ms. Martin reviewed the Scope of Work to be Completed, being Benefits Report, Policy Review and Recommendations, and Training, which she elaborated on. She stated that the action being requested this date was approval of the recommendations listed on Pages 1, 2, and 3.
Mr. Michael Hartley, Manager, David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the Classification and Compensation Plan. He stated that the adjustment to implement said plan is an increase annually of 9.53% over the totals that exist today. He stated that he would recommend, in the future, after this fiscal year, that employees' salary adjustments be based upon performance, which would include cost of living and merit increases in one funding pool and not a continuation of everyone receiving across the board salary increases for cost of living and an additional merit, but combining those two, so that, if an employee is performing and meeting expectations, they should receive cost of living and maybe some merit and those that performed at a higher level could receive even additional merit. He stated that those that did not meet expectations would not be eligible for such salary increases.
Discussion occurred regarding salary increases, at which time Mr. Hartley stated that it was his understanding that the merit increases would continue through the remainder of this fiscal year.
Ms. Martin stated that she did not feel it was ever the intent for employees to go a whole fiscal year without any additional increases, however, knew that it definitely would not be across the board increases. She stated that there had been discussion about going back to giving the increases all at one time, or continuing with the anniversary date, and that this was something that would be brought back to the Board at a later date.
Ms. Martin stated that the action being requested is approval by the Board of the recommendations under Scope of Work Accomplished and Recommendations A. 1. thru 6.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Swartz to adopt the Classification & Compensation Plan, as presented by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., and adopt the implementation schedule, as presented, effective April 2, 1995, and approve Recommendations A. 1. thru 6, listed in the memorandum from Ms. Lois Martin, Director, Human Resources.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that, during the budget review process, the Board needs to look at the increase in salary (approximately $150,000 per year) as an issue.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the word needs to get out that the Board has finally done what it said it was going to do and that even though the employees will be working extra hours, the money is going to be there. He stated that, even though this is not going to satisfy everybody, he hopes the employees will realize that the Board is moving in the right direction and that this is going to make them compatible with other people in the work force and that what is being accomplished this date is a positive and not a negative.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was going to support this request, because she could see some benefit to the Plan and she knows how important this issue is to the employees.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was going to support it, but the County needs to somehow make sure that the 131,000 additional hours that will be worked translate into fewer employees.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that the Bramalea Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approved in August of 1984 had been unresolved; however, the current owners had reached a meeting of the minds with various people who occupy the space, including, but not limited to, the Publix grocery chain. He stated that, in order for them to proceed, legally, under the Development Order, staff had to do some transposition of requirements, in addition to land, which he elaborated on.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that the County agreed to put in a police substation, a fire station, fire equipment, and police equipment for the value of the land. He stated that they allowed the payment to be over a five year period. He stated that the County is in the current position of withholding approval of the final site plan, because the outstanding issue has not taken place. In addition, they have a potential closing with the Publix Corporation, who is currently refusing to close until all these matters have been satisfactorily taken care of, by both the County and the developer. He stated that this agreement, plus a down payment to be made, will satisfy all the County's concerns and will not be a major substantial deviation to the DRI, simply the fulfillment of the terms acceptable to both parties. He stated that he had also consulted with the School Board and, although they have been informed that they will be able to get a ten acre site, there will have to be a school impact fee. He stated that they were requesting approval for the Chairman to execute the agreement before the Board this date.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that she was present with the owner of the property in question, Mr. James Peak, and that she had three original copies of the agreement that the developer had executed and notarized and requested approval of same.
Commr. Hanson clarified the fact that, in addition to impact fees, there would be a credit in those areas for which the monies were to be paid, being fire, police and schools.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the proposed Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Orlando 311, Ltd., and authorized the proper signatures on same.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES
HUMAN RESOURCES
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved a request from Human Resources for approval and execution of the Professional Services Agreement Executive Search Services (County Manager) Addendum to Classification and Compensation Study with David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., at a cost of $7,500.
Commr. Good voted "No".
ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONT'D.)
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGETS/BUDGET TRANSFERS/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for approval to transfer $16,470.00 from General Fund Contingency to the Sheriff's Budget, for the purchase of six radar units, which will go to the Florida Highway Patrol, to replace existing units.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
MEETINGS/STATE AGENCIES
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of the Sunshine Pipeline Public Hearing date of August 28, 1995, at 6:00 p.m., with the State Hearing Officer, for the purpose of discussing all issues related to building the pipeline through Lake County.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that this was his last meeting as County Manager and wanted to thank the Board and staff for the opportunity of serving as County Manager for the last three years. He stated that he and his family would be staying in the area and that he intended to stay active in the community. He wished the County success in meeting the challenge of Lake County's future and stated that he would be willing to help in any way that he could.
The Board thanked Mr. Wahl for bringing Lake County through some very controversial times, noting that his leadership and guidance put Lake County in a much more stable position than it was when he came on board.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER'S BUSINESS
RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution creating the Countywide Solid Waste Study Committee.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER'S BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
Commr. Hanson questioned the Interim County Attorney, Mr. Rolon Reed, as to what the status was, with regard to vesting determinations.
Mr. Reed stated that the status had not changed since his last communication with the Board, except for the fact that there are one or two determinations currently being written.
It was noted that the County is moving forward in a timely fashion, regarding said determinations, and that there are no moratoriums in effect regarding same.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER'S BUSINESS
COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Commr. Swartz requested the County Manager, Mr. Pete Wahl, to communicate with Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director, Planning and Development, regarding the current status of the ad hoc committee that was created for the Planning Department.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER'S BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Commr. Cadwell brought to the attention of the Board an area in east Umatilla that constantly has problems with platting, etc. He stated that it was one of the areas in the County that they need to look at, with regard to a Comprehensive Plan amendment, because there are areas where there are large non-buildable lots. He stated that it needed to be a county initiated amendment and requested approval to put the matter on a future Board agenda, for discussion, and to direct staff to look into the matter.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was the consensus of the Board to put the issue of Comprehensive Plan Amendments on a future Board agenda, for discussion.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
_______________________________
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/2-28-95/3-27-95/boardmin