The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners' Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; G. Welton Cadwell, Vice Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, BCC Administrative Assistant; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested that Tab 8 be pulled from the County Manager's Consent agenda and placed on the agenda for discussion.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Manager, stated that he had two items he wanted to add to the agenda, the first being the PrimeCo versus Lake County lawsuit that is pending in the United States District Court, and there were two technical issues on the Fire Ordinance that he wanted to discuss with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add the two items on the agenda, as requested by the County Attorney.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 1 through 12 for the following requests, with the exception of Tab 8 which was pulled for discussion:
Accounts Allowed/Economic Development
Request for approval and execution of a one-time Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund Award to Sunrise ARC of Lake County, Inc., in the amount of $12,000 to provide for employment for disabled workers.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Fairgrounds
Request for approval and execution of Lease Agreement between Lake County and the Lake Agriculture and Youth Fair Association, Inc. for the use of the County fairgrounds and exposition hall for their annual fair to be held March 25, 1999 through April 30, 1999.
Accounts Allowed/Fire and Emergency Services/State Agencies
Request for approval and execution of Disaster Relief Funding Agreement between Lake County and State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, in the amount of $1,300,000, which provides the rules and regulations for the eligibility, documentation, and reporting of damages for reimbursement.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Fire and Emergency Services
Request for approval and execution of Memorandum of Understanding for Special Needs Evacuation Facility between Lake County and Oakwood Center.
Bonds - Mobile Home
Request for approval of cancellation of Mobile Home Bond for Christos Anthony.
Bonds - Mobile Home
Request for approval of cancellation of Mobile Home Bond for Michael Mulholland.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Road Projects
To advertise for bids for Countywide Guardrail Project No. 3-98 at an estimated cost of $105,525.
Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Road Projects
Request for approval and execution of Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for eight (8) road assessments, as follows:
Assessment # Name Amount
654143 Teiko Rushing $ 664.71
654144 Teiko Rushing $ 670.20
669053 John A. Batchelor, Jr. $1,069.48
673008 Edwin G. Webber $1,515.83
677024 Henry & Jennie Lataille $ 933.71
686021 Sandra Wynant $1,239.85
687016 Curtis & Susan Nelson $2,355.03
689005 William Deckman $1,927.47
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request for acceptance of one Non-Exclusive Easement Deed, 13 Statutory Warranty Deeds and one Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deed.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Subdivisions
Request for acceptance of final plat for Lake Smith Estates Subdivision, acceptance of a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $54,747.47 and approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements between Lake County and Jerry and Lovella McConnell.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies/Tourist Development
Request for approval and execution of Registration Information Sharing and Exchange (RISE) Level I Agreement between Lake County and the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, concerning the exchange of occupational licensing information.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS/ROAD PROJECTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Tab 8, the request for acceptance of a Maintenance Map for Lake Emma Road (#2-2119), to establish Lake County's Right-of-Way for planned widening and resurfacing, Road Project #WNR 97-108, which was pulled for discussion. He stated that some of the property owners were questioning the validity of the County's map, and they were here today to discuss the issue. Mr. Stivender stated that there was haste bringing the issue before the Board today, and he would like to meet with the property owners to discuss all of the issues associated with this maintenance map. He stated that there may be areas where the County has been too aggressive. Mr. Stivender stated that it was surveyed and researched, but he would have pulled it earlier from the agenda, but it would not have given those individuals planning on attending the meeting time to be notified.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board could take some comment today, but the best thing to do would be to let the property owners meet with Mr. Stivender to try and resolve some of those differences. He stated that it will come back to the Board for discussion, and the Board will address any outstanding issues at that time.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing those individuals who would be meeting with Mr. Stivender, stated that he would be happy not to comment today, and to come back after meeting with Mr. Stivender.
It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
No action was taken by the Board at this time.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, discussed the article that was in the Citrus Magazine for the State of Florida (July), which addressed the fruit fly, and noted that the article referred to the residents of Lake County and how they were a joy to work with during the eradication of the pest.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 867 - DARELL CHANEY - OKAHUMPKA AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, presented the request for Vacation Petition No. 867 by Darell Chaney, Okahumpka area - Commissioner District 2 and noted that Florida Power would like to have a non-exclusive easement, which has already been addressed by staff.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for Vacation Petition No. 867 by Darell Chaney, to vacate Right-of-Way (Second St.), Plat of Okahumpka, Sec. 15, Twp. 20S, Rge. 24E, Okahumpka area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.
PETITION NO. 868 - JOANNA FOX - DEER ISLAND AREA - DISTRICT 3
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, presented the request for Vacation Petition No. 868 by Joanna Fox, Deer Island Area - Commissioner District 3.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 868 by Joanna Fox, to vacate Utility Easement, Squirrel Point Subdivision, Sec.3, Twp. 20, Rge. 26, Deer Island area - Commissioner District 3, as advertised
PETITION NO. 869 - A. C. JANNEY - TUSCANOOGA AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, presented the request for Vacation Petition No. 869 by A. C. Janney, President of Association of Christian Ministries, Inc., District 2, and stated that there has been a request by the petitioner for a postponement, because of some title issues. Mr. Stivender stated that, before this is vacated, they need to make sure that there is a clear title associated with Youth Camp Road.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, informed the Board that, after some discussions with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney for the petitioner, he was going to request a postponement of this vacation, until the next meeting when road vacations are heard by the Board. Ms. Campione stated that the petitioners were going to deed her clients access over the triangle piece of property, because their only access is the little piece of property that is being vacated. She stated that they have worked out the deeds for their conveyance to them for access, however, they have not had the opportunity to search the title and be certain that what they are giving them is good title.
Mr. Stivender indicated that staff did not have a problem with the request for postponement.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the petitioner, stated that he was requesting a postponement of the request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for postponement to the next appropriate meeting, for Vacation Petition No. 869 by A. C. Janney, President of Association of Christian Ministries, Inc., to vacate Right-of-Way, Sec. 18, Twp. 21S, Rge. 24E, Tuscanooga area - Commissioner District 2.
PUBLIC HEARING - SA-88 - PINE LAKES AREA
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ASSESSMENTS/RESOLUTIONS/ROAD PROJECTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, presented SA-88 Spruce Drive, Pinecrest Road and Beach Road - Pine Lakes Area. Mr. Stivender noted that one property on the west side was left out of the assessment, because the property is connected to the Wekiva. He stated that there were some ladies here today who have worked very hard for this assessment.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Betty Petry, Pine Lakes, Lots 1, 2, Block G, addressed the Board and stated that she does not want the paved road. She stated that there were others that could not appear today who also did not want the road. She questioned whether there was any way to stop the project and how much her taxes were going to be.
Commr. Swartz stated that the decision today by the Board will determine whether or not the special assessment is approved and the road paved. He addressed the issue of taxes and stated that whatever occurs in the neighborhood that causes the prices of any of the properties to rise can cause the taxes to rise, but the road itself will not necessarily mean that the property taxes will go up, but it will be an issue of whether the property has increased in value.
Mr. Stivender stated that Ms. Petry has two lots on a corner, which would be calculated at 230 feet on one side and 265 feet on the other side. He stated that 61% of all of the property owners, and 56% of the front footage property owners wanted the assessment.
Ms. Dorothy Sebree, Pinecrest Road, addressed the Board and stated that she has worked for four years on trying to get this petition approved, and prior to her work, someone else had worked on it for three years. She explained that Ms. Petry lives on a corner where she can get in and out of her property, but she lives on the hill where there is a lot of sand and ruts on the road, and she was concerned about her neighbors with health problems having to drive up and down this road. Ms. Sebree felt that the project would make their property values go up, it would help the neighborhood to look better, and the road is very much needed.
Commr. Hanson stated that another option, that the Board is discussing, is the possibility of property owners extending their financing longer than seven years. The County has managed to reduce the interest rate from 12% to 6.5%.
Ms. Sebree stated that she has the highest assessment, in the amount of $5,544.00.
Ms. Lorraine Eckley, Spruce Drive, Pine Lakes Lots 7, 8, Block F, addressed the Board and stated that she has lived there since 1964. She stated that the road is a problem, but it is not as bad on Spruce Drive, and she wants to extend her thanks to Commr. Hanson for working with them. Ms. Eckley stated that she was one of the individuals that started this process in 1982, and even though she does not have any problems, her heart goes out to those that do. She also extended her appreciation to Mr. Stivender, and Ms. Barbara Schamel, Assessments Specialist.
It was noted that the policy addressing a longer pay out period for the assessments is in the process of being brought to the Board, and it may affect this particular project, if approved.
Mr. Junior Biller, Pine Lakes Lot 12, Block G, addressed the Board and stated that he has no objection to the paving of the road. He stated that there are two ferneries in this area, and one is assessed for 50 feet, and the other is assessed for a considerable amount, and they are side by side. He was here to discuss fairness, because he was never approached for his opinion of the assessment project. He drove a thousand miles from West Virginia for this meeting today, and he did not feel the assessment was fair for everyone.
Mr. Stivender addressed the two ferneries in question and explained that the assessment is based on front footage, and one of them has a very large footage. He stated that the County upgraded the road and did not pass this cost on to the special assessment. He explained that, because of the upgrading, the truck traffic from those ferneries will not do as much damage to the road.
Ms. Petry addressed the fernery with the short frontage and stated that Michael and Virginia Moore own this property, and they had said before that they would help pay for the road, because their trucks will be using it.
Mr. Ethel Swager, Pine Lakes Lot 8, 9, 10 Block G, addressed the Board to discuss the construction of the road and stated that the roads should be heavier treated to have a lasting effect. He did not feel that the road was worth the price being proposed, and he could do without it.
Mr. Stivender stated that the road design on Pinecrest was the same one that the County has been using for subdivisions for the past 20 to 25 years, and the County was not getting any excessive wear. He explained that the south road is beefed up to the industrial park standards that are used throughout the County. It was noted that the County will be maintaining the road.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson questioned how staff would be addressing the turnaround for garbage and school buses.
Mr. Stivender stated that he did not have the design drawings with him, but those areas of concern have been addressed.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County was picking up the share on the property located on the west, but even though that property is in the Wekiva, it will have some greater potential because it is on a paved road. She felt that the property owners should be assessed some amount, because she did not feel it was right to completely exempt them. She stated that there will probably be the same situation in other areas of the Wekiva, and in the Pine Lakes area, that are not part of a subdivision, and she felt that the Board would be setting a precedent by not assessing them.
Mr. Stivender explained that the assessment that would have been appropriated for the property to the west will be born by the County, and it will not be affecting the other property owners' assessments. It will only be affecting the amount of money that the County would be sharing in the costs.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the Board wants to come back and re-evaluate and assess that portion of property, staff would have to provide notice to that property owner and an opportunity to be heard, so it could be done at a later time. He explained that the Board could approve what was before it today and then approve the additional assessment for that property. There would be no amendment to the assessments today.
Commr. Hanson commended the group that was present today for their hard work and stated that it sets an example, for the many other roads that need to be paved in this area, in the cost sharing plan with the County.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if there is development potential for the property in the Wekiva, there probably needs to be some cost sharing by those property owners, because it appears they will benefit as well.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve SA-88 Spruce Drive, Pinecrest Road and Beach Road - Pine Lakes Area, to approve to award Project No. SA-88, Spruce Drive Pinecrest Road and Beach Road, in the Pine Lakes Subdivision, Special Assessment Lump Sum Construction to Art Walker Construction, to approve to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $160,333.08, and to approve the execution of Resolution 1998-110 adopting a Special Assessment Roll for the paving, grading, curbing, and drainage of Spruce Drive, Pinecrest Road and Beach Road.
Under discussion, Mr. Stivender noted that Art Walker Construction was very aggressive and would be starting the project immediately.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/GRANTS/PARKS AND RECREATION
Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the request for reconsideration of the Clermont Boat Ramp Project for Fiscal Year 1998/1999. Mr. Pula stated that, on May 5, 1998, the Board had asked the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for another recommendation.
Mr. Jim Myers, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, addressed the Board and stated that the Advisory Board did meet on June 29, 1998 and had the opportunity to review the previous recommendation, and after a lot of discussion on the Clermont application, the Advisory Board discussed the process that it had gone through to bring the recommendation forward. He stated that, based on those applications for grant funding that the Advisory Board had received in October, it felt that the position of the Advisory Board had not changed. He stated that, based on the process that had been established in looking at the Boating Improvement dollars, the Advisory Board did not think it was fair to go back and re-address the other projects, so the recommendation to the Board remains the same. If the Board does not wish to reconsider this item, the Advisory Board is requesting that the funds be carried over and reallocated and awarded in the upcoming year. Mr. Myers stated that the Advisory Board did not feel that the other projects would be underway or completed within the time frame allowed.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County has had a number of grants that have been given and they had initially a one year time period to complete them, and very often they were not able to complete them for a variety of reasons and they have come back and been extended.
Mr. Pula stated that the time frame has been extended on various grants where they have run into some difficulties. He stated that the grants are set up for the fiscal year, and if there is a problem with the project, staff asks them to request an extension. He noted that $62,500 is remaining in this fiscal year.
Commr. Swartz stated that Eustis has received $7,500.00 and the contract has been signed, but this might be an example of one that will have to come back for an extension, because it was just approved last month.
Mr. Myers stated that most of the other projects that were submitted were not far enough in the permitting stage to even know if they were going to be able to complete the projects. The Advisory Board has a grant cycle that it goes through and, if the project does not meet the criteria at that point in time, the Advisory Board is not in a position to make another recommendation. He stated that it did not seem to appear to be fair to those persons that may not have submitted an application at that point in time, because they were not far enough into the process either.
Mr. Pula presented an overview of the grants that were awarded through the program.
Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager of the City of Clermont, stated that the City appreciated the Advisory Board's original recommendation, and they were happy to see that, when they reviewed it again, they stood by their original recommendation. Mr. Saunders stated that the City was not aware that the actual grant agreement was going before the Board at the last meeting, otherwise, he would have been present. He stated that the project was justifiable, because the Clermont Chain of Lakes only has one other public access on Hull Road. The survey shows that this is not a Clermont boat ramp and less than 20% of the users are actually Clermont residents. The funding being requested and what is being recommended by the Advisory Board represents less than 10% of the total cost of this project. The City of Clermont has already spent in the excess of $300,000 on this project. There had been a question originally about whether or not the Lake County Water Authority supported the project, and Mr. Saunders believed that they had expressed their support by giving the City a grant of $120,000 to help toward this project. Mr. Saunders stated that it is a regional facility for the Clermont Chain of Lakes, and it is a project that is needed. He stated that, after reviewing the last decade of Boating Improvement projects, he found the following information: District 5 - Marsh Park received $66,000; District 4 - Astor Boat Ramp received $95,000; District 1 - Singletary Park received $79,000; District 3 - Tavares Park received $137,000; and District 2 - Johns Lake received $36,000. In looking at these figures, it shows that South Lake County is deserving of these monies, because there has been a total of $86,000 over the past 20 years allocated to District 2. Mr. Saunders stated that there is a need for the project, and the dollars can be justified, and he requested that the Board move ahead with the Advisory Board's recommendation. He stated that, if the City is not able to build that project, the County would probably have to build the entire project, at some point in time, and it may have to come to the City for some help.
Commr. Good stated that there were problems with the application, because there were statements made about support that were very misleading, and it may have been just an unfortunate choice of words, but on the application, it could lead one to conclusions that there was support for this project by agencies that he found did not exist. He questioned whether the support being identified entered into the Advisory Board's decision making process.
Mr. Saunders stated that this point was made clear at the first presentation, and now it has been back to the Advisory Board a second time, and the Advisory Board is certainly aware of the unfortunate choice of words in the application. There was certainly no intent to mislead anyone, and he believes that the Water Authority has shown that they do support the project. He noted that it was a 2 to 1 vote by the Authority.
Dr. Bob Taylor, Executive Director of the Lake County Water Authority, addressed the Board and stated that, when the Water Authority considered the request by Clermont, the over-riding concern was the limited access to the Clermont Chain of Lakes, and the fact that there is only one other public boat ramp on the Chain. Dr. Taylor stated that they felt that this fact needed to be taken into account and there needed to be other access provided, and it was the main reason for support by the Water Authority.
It was noted that there was no further public comment at this time.
Commr. Good stated that the request has been discussed many times, and he would like to find a way to resolve the issue where everyone can be satisfied, but he did not feel this was a reality with this particular project. Commr. Good felt that, with all of the money that the City of Clermont has and can spend on this project, more funds needed to be allocated to this particular project. He stated that it has been a very controversial project in the community. Commr. Good stated that he would like to see the money put into this year's cycle and not hold up the recreational grants program, which was the recommendation that he was going to make to the Board. He did not feel that the money was fairly distributed, and he did feel that there were ways to extend the time frame for the grant program.
Commr. Hanson stated that she respected Commr. Good's opinion, but she did believe that the Advisory Board is the committee that should be making the recommendation to the Board, with the Board making the final decision. She appreciated the information provided by Mr. Saunders about the way the dollars have been spent throughout the County, and the $62,500 merely equalizes some of the imbalances that have been there historically. The Board had asked that this issue be sent back to the Advisory Board to be re-evaluated, and to make sure that more of the community was behind the project than was opposed to it. She stated that she was hesitant about voting to send it back to the Advisory Board, but she did feel that the money should be given to Clermont for the project, since there are so many other funding agencies that have also come to the table to help make it succeed.
Commr. Gerber stated that she had also supported sending the issue back to the Advisory Board to have them look at it again, and to her, the secondary approval and the recommendation of the Advisory Board acts as a mind changer in her case, and the fact that the Water Authority has signed off on it and has determined that there was no other logical place to put the facility. She had received several calls from individuals who live nearby who told her about the unsafe situation of the boat ramp launching facility as it is today. She felt that the point made today about it being a joint venture and Clermont being ready to go with the project made it possible to reconsider the issue, because some cases do not go forward because they are so dependent on the County. Commr. Gerber stated that she was going to support sending the Advisory Board's recommendation back to the Board for a stamp of approval today.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he feels this is a good project, and he has felt this way about it from the very beginning.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Mayor Duane Gorgas from Howey-in-the-Hills was not able to be present today, but he had asked him to convey to the Board his community's desires to have some funding that would help out with the project that they are proposing for the renovation of the old bridge as a fishing pier. Secondly, when all of those improvements to those various parks were made, that which was done at Tavares actually was in District 3, and he was the Commissioner representing south Lake County. When those three projects were done, they were done as a result of not having done anything for years. The County had built up a significant amount of money in the Boating Improvement Fund, and the County was able to go forward and do all three of those projects at one time, and those were the three that had the most serious safety problems associated with the boat ramps. The County has done a good job over the years of taking the money and putting it where it is needed without strict regard for which district it is in. Commr. Swartz stated that this was the first time the County has done the Boating Improvement through the process with the Advisory Board, and it was the first time that there was anyone from any of the communities that said they did not want the money and to not do it. The actions, in part, that the Water Authority took impact his feelings on this and the fact that there was some misunderstanding. Commr. Swartz stated that Board should probably go ahead and complete the funding of the Clermont ramp, but say to Mount Dora and Howey that the County will get the process started right away for their projects and move forward as quickly as it can to get those started. He further stated that, in this process, if this request is approved, it needs to ensure that the contract provides for sufficient time to do it.
Commr. Good stated that dividing the money is not a solution. He felt that the action of the Lake County Water Authority is not based on a long term study, or extensive study. They did make a decision to support it with $120,000 for the project, but he felt that this was a reactive decision and not a proactive decision. Commr. Good explained that every lake system in the County is not the same, and to make blanket decisions dooms the waterways of the County, especially these in south Lake County, which are more pristine and more sensitive to the impacts that regional boat facilities put on some of the lake systems. He felt that, in the south Lake area, there is a need to designate these areas as outstanding Florida waters, as special use areas, and to treat them differently than the large lake systems in the center and northern part of Lake County. He stated that this "Coney Island" type of approach, to the use of this lake, is not responsible, and he felt that it would end up damaging the lake system, and it will cost the people in Clermont the quality of life that they have on those lakes. Commr. Good stated that he cannot support this project, and he would like to ask the Commissioners to reconsider the reconsideration by the Advisory Board. As an alternative, he suggested that they split the money between the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills and the City of Mount Dora and extend the contract so that those projects can move forward, and to let the City of Clermont, if they want to, put in this ramp and take the responsibility for these actions, which he feels will not have positive impacts on a beautiful lake system that is outstanding Florida water.
Commr. Good made a motion for the Board to split the money ($62,500) between Howey and Mount Dora and extend the contracts to allow them to move forward with their projects and let Clermont take the responsibility, if it wanted to, for putting an 80 parking space boat ramp on that lake.
The motion died for the lack of a second.
Commr. Swartz felt that everyone was concerned about the lakes in general and the lakes on the Clermont Chain, and he felt that it would be a totally different issue, if the Board was talking about building a new ramp, as opposed to relocating an existing ramp. He was not sure that the County, nor the Water Authority, has been able to identify another ramp location that would be better. Commr. Swartz stated that he did agree with Commr. Good on one issue, and he has sent a letter to the Water Authority very recently, and he would suggest that the Advisory Board look at this issue, which is the increasing number of complaints that the County is getting from people who are either on the lakes, or who live around the lakes, about some of the very unsafe boating activity that is occurring. He stated that this would be an independent issue from the one before the Board today, but he would like Dr. Taylor to take this issue, because the Water Authority has looked at this in the past, and he would like the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Commr. Cadwell to work with them, and in conjunction with that, there are small lakes that should not have outboard motors running on those small closed lake systems.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the Clermont boat ramp project and enter into a contract with the City of Clermont for $62,500.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned when the funds would be available from the State for the new fiscal year.
Mr. Pula stated that the $62,500 is available now, and staff has already received a letter from the State saying that $75,000 has been appropriated to the County beginning October 1, 1998.
Commr. Swartz urged staff to find an appropriate way to deal with those projects that have already submitted their applications, perhaps in terms of updating their submittals, so that they do not have to go completely through the process again. Commr. Swartz clarified that the motion would include enough of a time frame in the contract to ensure that they can adequately expend those funds.
Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that this lake is different than other lakes in Lake County, because it is an outstanding Florida water. It is a high quality lake and it does not need high intensity use. He stated that the Board needs to address this issue, if it is going to responsibly make decisions about the south Lake County lake system. He stated that this motion takes the Board down the road of not recognizing that resource use has limits, and it sets a bad precedent of the County of being in the business of putting more people on the lakes rather than trying to look at how the lakes can be used and looking at the quality of use that the citizens get of these very special resources. Commr. Good stated that he feels very strongly about this issue.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he has supported this project from the beginning, because it is a good project, and it has been an unsafe boat ramp for a long time, and he supports it.
Commr. Swartz stated that this was an example of a new ramp that is going to have to meet all the new permitting requirements, and if there are any additional requirements because it is an outstanding Florida water, it will clearly have to meet those, but it will have to meet all of the new permitting requirements, none of which the old boat ramp had to meet.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Good voted "no".
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PARKS AND RECREATION
Mr. Jim Myers, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, addressed the Board to discuss whether the Parks and Recreation Regional Park Master Plan should be developed by contracting with a consultant at an estimated cost of $40,000, or by utilizing staff with limited assistance at an estimated cost of $10,000.
Commr. Cadwell felt that the joint venture between County staff and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, along with some assistance from Mr. David Barth, Glatting/Jackson, would be the best way to address the issue.
Commr. Hanson suggested that staff consider assistance from students at Lake Sumter Community College.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Advisory Board could get assistance from other outside agencies that have expertise in this area, particularly if it was at no cost.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County's policies require competitive selection even less than $5,000, so under any circumstances, consulting work would be done competitively.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to move forward with a Parks and Recreation Regional Park Master Plan utilizing staff, with some limited assistance, and for Mr. Minkoff to come back and let the Board know it if needs to go out to bid, and the cost.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the request for approval and execution of a Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Robert A. and Jean S. Macchi and stated that this was an old existing commercial building, and there has been some bankruptcies involved with it. It came back to the County as a vested rights case, and the agreement allows the building to be used for some commercial uses, but eliminates other commercial uses. The building originally was a service station/gift store/convenience store, and it does require that some improvements be made to the site, pursuant to the Staff Review Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the execution of a Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Robert A. and Jean S. Macchi.
Commr. Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, the Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that there few changes to be made to the zoning agenda. Ms. Farrell stated that Item No. 6, James and Joy A. Ray, PH#32-98-2, have requested a 30 day postponement.
Commr. Swartz asked if there was anyone in the audience that was present for this particular public hearing. It was noted that there was no one present.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day postponement, until August 25, 1998, for Petition No. PH#32-98-2 James and Joy A. Ray, Tracking #53-98-CP.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff and the applicant are requesting a 30 day postponement for Item No. 7, Judith M. Sellards, John W. Ariale - OPM USA Inc.
Commr. Swartz asked if there was anyone in the audience that was present for this particular public hearing. It was noted that the applicant was present.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day postponement, until August 25, 1998, for Petition PH#6A-97-5 Judith M. Sellards, John W. Ariale - POM USA Inc., Tracking #54-98-CFD/AMD.
PETITION NO. PH#41-98-2 - ORRIN & NANCY JOHNSON - CP to A
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the applicants are in the Green Swamp and have CP zoning, and they want to bring the property into conformance for construction of a new home.
Staff submitted the aerial map of the site, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A", and the site plan, which was marked as County Exhibit "B".
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to A (Agriculture) to bring property into conformance for replacement of an existing residence, Petition #41-98-2, Orrin and Nancy Johnson, Jim Walters Home, Tracking #50-98-Z, and Ordinance 1998-55.
PETITION NO. CUP#98/7/1-2 - JACK & LLOYD ZOLTAN - CUP in R-1
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the applicants are requesting a CUP in R-1 to have a nursery on the site. She stated that the Land Development Regulations state that, if you are in R-1 and over five acres, you have to get a CUP. Staff submitted the aerial map of the site, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in R-1 (Rural Residential) for a holding nursery, Petition CUP#98/7/1-2, Jack and Lloyd Zoltan, Tracking #51-98-CUP and Ordinance 1998-56.
PETITION NO. PH#21-98-2 - L. A. OGDEN - RE to MP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the applicant is requesting rezoning from RE (Estate Residential) to MP (Planned Industrial). Ms. Farrell stated that the request was postponed on June 23, 1998, and the applicant has been working with staff on some potential commercial uses that would be compatible with him also living on the site. She stated that staff was not comfortable with those uses, however, staff has found something that it can present and recommend approval on. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant wants to place a mobile home on the site, which he intends to live on, and to have a building on the property for mail order of car parts. The impervious surface area ratio (ISR) is limited to 50% for site development in the Ordinance. She stated that staff was comfortable with making it an MP and tying it to a specific use and not subjecting him to the annual inspections. She noted that, under Terms, it states that no storage of vehicles is permitted
Discussion occurred regarding whether the MP, in the long term, was something that would be used in the future, because there may be someone in the future who may not want a home mail order automotive parts facility. Further discussion occurred regarding the surrounding zoning.
Ms. Farrell clarified that the applicant would not meet commerical locational criteria and staff was limiting the request to no on-site retail sales.
Staff submitted the following documents, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as exhibits: the aerial map of the site - County Exhibit "A"; four photographs - County Exhibit "B" (composite); and a site plan - County Exhibit "C".
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Larry A. Ogden, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he would be glad to answer any questions of the Board. Mr. Ogden stated that he did not feel all of the pictures were presented, because the property in question joins HM zoning to the east, which is being used as heavy commercial, and the property across the street is zoned heavy commercial and used as heavy commercial. He stated that the request was classified to have an on-site watchman.
Ms. Farrell noted that the on-site watchman was not included in the Ordinance and staff had added the placement of a mobile home for residential use. It was noted that this issue needed to be clarified in the Ordinance.
Mr. Ogden explained that the property in question is not suited for residential, and the County is going to control the terms of the Ordinance. He intends to use the property to stock and catalog classic car parts, and they will be sold through mail orders.
Ms. Farrell noted that the parking issue, as well as other issues, will be determined at the development review level.
Mr. Ogden stated that he would appreciate the Board approving the request, because this business is his livelihood. He stated that he would be getting his shipments by delivery trucks, such as UPS.
Commr. Swartz called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the request for rezoning from RE (Estate Residential) to MP (Planned Industrial), Petition PH#21-98-2, L. A. Ogden, Tracking #34-98-CP/Z and Ordinance 1998-57.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson asked staff to look at the parking issue, because she did not know if there was any flexibility in the requirements, but if there is truly not going to be the typical use of industry, either by people coming in, or employees, then staff might have the flexibility to allow less parking.
Commr. Swartz understood that on one side of 565A there are industrial uses, and on the other side of the railroad there are some mixed residential types, and there are mixed in the RE zoning below, but he was concerned about having industrial zoning moving and intruding into this area. He stated that, if it was some type of real industrial use, he did not think staff would be recommending it. He questioned what staff was going to do in site plan review to ensure that what residential develops from the RE zoning up to this site is buffered.
Ms. Farrell explained that staff has discussed with Mr. Ogden about putting the residential use on the side of the property that is RE and putting the actual building for his warehousing on the HM side and do some really good buffering to get it to look more residential than industrial.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. PH#34-98-5 - JOHN & WINIFRED C. KENNEDY - A to R-1
TRACKING #48-98-Z
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the applicants were requesting rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential) for construction of single family residences. Ms. Farrell explained that staff had made some errors, in this particular case, as it came through the process, and when staff revisited the staff report after Planning and Zoning, their recommendation has changed. In lieu of postponing the request for 30 days, staff has chosen to come forward to disagree with the applicant's representative. She stated that there were some issues that staff missed during the first review, and although it is still a good request, it was the staff's position that it would recommend approval for R-1 and not R-2. Ms. Farrell noted that, in the staff report, it leans to the R-2, because they have enough points, and they are in an area that will be residential and is becoming more residential every year, however, when staff looked at it on a parcel by parcel basis in the surrounding area, and when addressing the question of a logical development pattern, staff leaned more toward the R-1. Staff has met with the applicant and they feel that R-2 is certainly justified, but staff is recommending R-1.
Ms. Farrell reviewed and submitted the honeycutt maps of the site, which the Deputy Clerk marked as County Exhibit "A", and a copy of a plat - Bryan Groves Fern Division, which was marked as County Exhibit "B".
Ms. Farrell stated that she road to the site last week, and after going through the actual parcel layout, as far as a logical development order and her concern from just a compatibility issue, she felt that the R-1 would be more appropriate on this site. It will be on well and septic, and central water is not in this location yet from the City of Umatilla, and she did not know if it would be anytime soon. Ms. Farrell noted that a lot of the development around Lake Pearl and the other lake is basically one acre or greater, and although it is an old plat (Plat Book 1), it is still a development pattern that exists there.
Ms. Farrell noted that the applicants would be able to get 15 to 16 homesites under R-2 zoning, and about ten under R-1 zoning. She stated that a residential use was certainly appropriate, they met the point system, and they are in urban expansion and meeting all of those tests to do residential development. Ms. Farrell stated that, from an orderly development pattern around the lake and around that particular area in Umatilla, it was staff's position that R-1 would be more appropriate.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, representing Mr. John Kennedy, addressed the Board and stated that they worked with staff on the point system and came up with 56 points; they looked at the timeliness issues for urban expansion and they more than met the requirements for timeliness; they looked at a one mile radius which was very favorable to the R-2 zoning; and they feel very strongly that R-2 zoning is the future land use for this area. Ms. Roof stated that they have talked to some of the neighbors, and they understand their position, but if the Board was to consider the future land use and what the County went through with its Comprehensive Plan in putting the urban expansion designation in place in this area and establishing strict rules and regulations, this project meets everything. Although there are other one acre and two acre lots in this area, she feels that, in looking at the long range plan for this area, the higher densities that the R-2 would support is going to be the trend in this area. Ms. Roof stated that they did look at the clustering process, but because this property is a little over ten acres, the best use would be to create the one-half to three-quarter acre, to one acre lots. She stated that, if the Board looked at it today, there are one, two and five acre parcels in this area and some very large parcels south of the property in question, but if it looked at the future, there is a Umatilla subdivision to the east, which is relatively high density; on the west shore of Lake Pearl, there ia a high density RV park; and the City of Umatilla is less than a mile from the property. Ms. Roof stated that Mr. Ted Wicks was present to answer any technical questions of the Board. She spoke to the City of Umatilla, and this property is in their planning area, but they do not have water and sewer to the area yet, and it is not in their five year plan, but there is sewer and water to the south. She stated that Mr. Kennedy was willing to do a Developer's Agreement and have dry lines. The lots on the lake will be strictly individual residential lots, and there will be no community access to the lake. Ms. Roof stated that they found many schools, parks, and the City of Umatilla within a one mile radius of the property.
She stated that this was a perfect area for urban expansion, and the Board needs to look at the future and not just at what is there right now.
Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Kennedy contacted him last year to discuss his particular piece of property, which was a historically producing citrus grove, but it suffered from the freezes. He stated that Mr. Kennedy was trying to find a way to recover some of the economic benefit of being a landowner. Mr. Wicks stated that he did an analysis of the land and looked at a number of things including the soil characteristics. He stated that there was no particular environmental sensitivity here, and some lake frontage will be protected. They put together a plan that provides for densities at 1.37 units per acre. At 10.2 acres of gross land area, they could not find a way with staff to facilitate what they wanted to do, so they petitioned for the rezoning. Their analysis indicates that, from a resource standpoint, and from a land viability standpoint, their plan is the best plan to put 14 units on the 10.2 acres. This would include the one unit that is already there. Mr. Wicks stated that they simply relied on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to tell them what they could specifically do with this piece of property. They feel it will be directly influenced by the City of Umatilla. He stated that they did not particularly want to be R-2, if they can figure out a way to do 1.37 units per acre. Mr. Wicks stated that they talked to staff about a PUD, but it seemed to be so expensive and so cumbersome to get through the process on a small acreage like this that they decided against it.
Commr. Swartz explained that a PUD would allow the applicant to get the density that he wants without having to go to an R-2 zoning, and if it is zoned R-2, it will allow the applicant a density that is greater than the 1.37, as indicated by the applicant.
Mr. Wicks stated that, after looking at the marketing strategy for this area, they feel that the smaller lots are in keeping with future development in the area. He was not sure that they could market a larger lot. He stated that, if you look at what has happened in this area, most of those larger lots occurred either through the plat that was recorded in Plat Book 1, or they were created when people cut off pieces of agricultural land through the administrative lot split, or through the minor subdivision process, so these lots are not really of record, as far as a plat is concerned. Mr. Wicks stated that this is what has dictated the character of that area up until now. Ms. Farrell noted that information was submitted to the City of Umatilla, which included a copy of the most recent print of the Comprehensive Plan, and staff did not receive any comments back from the City.
Mr. Doug Smith, Fletcher Road, addressed the Board and stated that he moved to Umatilla about five years ago, because he wanted to live in a rural area. Mr. Smith stated that he owns about three and a half acres on Lake Pearl, and his property backs up to the property in question. He stated that he owns about 350 feet on Lake Pearl. He further stated that all of the property along Fletcher Road is at least two acres to four acres in lot size, and most of the homes are at least $250,000 and up and have a minimum of 2,000 square feet. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Kennedy has a right to develop his land, but the neighbors were concerned about the density and whether the request would depreciate their land in the next ten years. Mr. Smith stated that everyone in this area is on well and septic tanks, and he did not know whether 14 homes would affect either lake in this area. He discussed other developments that were being proposed in the surrounding area and noted that those lots were going to be over an acre to keep the rural setting. Mr. Smith stated that he was concerned that, after Mr. Kennedy develops his property and sells the 14 lots, he will move away to another rural area. He would agree to one house per acre, but not 14 houses. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to protect his investment, but yet let Mr. Kennedy develop his property the best way possible.
Mr. Smith submitted 14 photographs, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the Opposition (composite).
Mr. Bill Barubi addressed the Board and stated that he owns property on Lake Pearl next to Mr. Smith. Mr. Barubi stated that he and his family bought the house about five years ago, and the neighbors were not against Mr. Kennedy developing his property, but it needs to be in fairness to the people that own the property around him. He further stated that they were concerned about 14 houses being placed on the property and whether perk tests have been done on it, because the property slopes quite a bit in this area. He also understood that Planning and Zoning had approved the request, and no one had been out to the property to look at it. It was noted that his property was approximately two acres in size.
Mr. Ed Peterson stated that his home overlooks Lake Gibson, which also overlooks all of Mr. Kennedy's property, and he did not think he wanted to overlook a group of houses. Mr. Peterson stated that his property is over one acre, and in order for Mr. Kennedy to meet the flood plain requirements, there should be eight houses plus his own. He did not feel that anyone in this area wanted to be incorporated into the City of Umatilla, so there would probably never be any water and sewer in this area.
Mr. Robert Niemann, Webster Hill, stated that he moved to this area a short time ago, and someone mentioned earlier that it would be difficult to sell one acre tracts close to town, and he could guaranteed the Board that one acre plots that are close town are not going to be hard to sell. He noted that earlier in time, the Board had said that it would be a very good idea that this area stay in one acre plots. He does not like the idea of urban sprawl in this area, and he looked long and hard for a pristine area like this in Lake County. Mr. Niemann stated that he really appreciated the fact that the Board is very careful about urban sprawl. He explained that no one wanted to see the back side of homes on small lots. He stated that, if it is zoned R-2, and in the future it was placed into an estate, the neighbors would not know what it would become. He further stated that it would be unfair to say to Mr. Kennedy not to build there, so he was requesting R-1 zoning and keeping it to a full acre for every piece of property, which may allow the homes to face the lake.
Ms. Lourdes Ungson stated that she and her husband bought a house in this area about a year ago, because of the rural setting, and they wanted to raise their family in this type of environment. Ms. Ungson stated that they own about five acres on Fletcher Road, and, as Mr. Smith had said earlier, their property may not depreciate right now, but eventually it will when they build small houses behind them. She stated that her family would like to retire in this area. Ms. Ungson stated that her husband has his practice in Leesburg, and they do not mind traveling the distance, because they wanted this type of setting.
Ms. Helene Peterson stated that, in 1995 when Paul Bryan came before the Board to request a variance, his property was already zoned R-2, and he could have developed 20 or 30 houses, however, he wanted to keep it in line with the area, so he requested a variance for seven lots. At that time, the County had recommended six lots, because they thought seven would be detrimental to the area, and they wanted one acre of land above the 100 year flood zone. The neighbors did not contest the seven lots, because they were large enough for the area, and it was platted into seven lots. She stated that the people were not a group of homeowners that did not want to get along with Mr. Kennedy. They just want what is consistent with the area and what has already been recommended.
Mr. Wicks stated that they simply relied on the LDRs to bring forth what they felt would be a development that would be compatible to the area. They do not disagree with the development pattern that is there today, and that is the reason they want to develop at 1.37 units per acre. He stated that they ran through the point system, they looked at urban expansion, and they could have come in with a plan for four units per acre, and they could have put in a central water system and tanks and met the plan development regulations. Mr. Wicks stated that, even though the Board cannot commit to the development plan that they want to use through the rezoning process, he can assure the Board that Mr. Kennedy does not want to do anything to destroy the investment that he has made in that property. His perception is to be able to do this on the basis of the plan that they put together, which is 14 lots on the 10.2 acres. Mr. Wicks stated that Mr. Kennedy's place is located on almost an acre, and the two additional lake front lots will be almost an acre each. They tried to take advantage of some design flexibility, and it is not necessarily a cluster concept, but it is an attempt to create larger lots along the lake front and smaller lots as you move up the hill. Mr. Wicks stated that the width of the property dictates that you have a road down the center to be able to provide the lot frontage. They have looked at some concepts of both split levels and some other two story type homes than can be oriented on the lots, so that they can take advantage of the view of the lake. In response to the individual who noted that they did not want to see the back of the houses, Mr. Wicks stated that this would not necessarily be the case, because they will probably orient these so they have a view of Lake Gibson. He stated that the design flexibility is there, and the smallest lot will be a half acre, and the largest lot will be a little over an acre. They anticipate eight half acre lots, and the larger lots would be from three-fourths of an acre up to an acre in size.
Ms. Roof discussed the R-2 zoned property, which is contiguous to Mr. Kennedy's property, and stated that this is the property that came in for a variance. She stated that the variance was to exceed the number of lots this area allowed under the administrative process. She further stated that the R-2 property did not go through the platting process. Ms. Roof stated that they were asking for the same zoning that is contiguous to the property in the urban expansion designation, and to come in and go through the development review process.
Ms. Farrell clarified that there is not a minimum lot size requirement under R-1 zoning or R-2 zoning. It would be one unit per acre across the 9.5 acres, but because they are on septic, they will have to have a minimum of half an acre. Ms. Farrell noted that 18 to 19 lots would be allowed in R-2, and nine to ten lots in R-1. The minimum home size would be 1,200 feet of living in either zoning.
Commr. Swartz pointed out that, whether it be R-1 or R-2, the Code may not yet require the same size houses that many of the people in the audience enjoy.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the area in question has developed very nicely, and he was a proponent of peoples' property rights and being able to derive some use out of their property. He stated that the R-1 zoning will allow the applicant to develop some nice homes, and they will get nine as opposed to 16 or 17. Commr. Cadwell stated that he believed that anything more dense than R-1 would not be appropriate for the area.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was very familiar with the area being discussed, and she was happy to hear that staff came back with the R-1 recommendation, and she supports the change to R-1.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in the staff recommendation, on all of the points, it was concluding orderly and logical development, and in this case, staff would believe that, with the understanding of the Comprehensive Plan, and understanding the development characteristics, this would not be the case now.
Ms. Farrell explained that this would be one of the tests for this Board for rezonings in Chapter 14, and that is one of the questions that staff is charged to address, which staff did not properly address. She stated that the response from staff today would be that it did not find it orderly and logical. She further noted that staff has determined that it would not be consistent in R-2, in terms of the existing and proposed land uses. She stated that there was also a Policy 1-12.4 in the Comprehensive Plan, which reminds staff that the densities as found on the Land Use Map are not right, and that staff does have to look at other issues when granting rezonings.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if higher densities were really needed, and if it was urban expansion, it ought to be in more close relationship to the City's utilities, and the ability to provide utilities, and it is not. If the time frame came that those utilities were available, it would make a stronger case than what exists now, but for all of those reasons and the staff's change of the recommendation, he feels that the R-1 would be the only reasonable change. He stated that the PUD would allow a higher density, but he would support Commr. Cadwell's position in this district rezoning.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the rezoning recommendation from staff from A (Agriculture) to R-1 for the construction of single family residences, as recommended by staff, Petition #34-98-5, John and Winifred C. Kennedy, Tracking #48-98-Z and Ordinance 1998-58.
Under discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that the Commissioners had made clear statements of the findings of fact.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. 217A-89-2 - SENNINGER IRRIGATION INC.
AMENDMENT TO MP - TRACKING #52-98-MP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, presented the request for an amendment to MP (Planned Industrial) Ordinance #96-89 to add one mobile home as a caretaker's unit on one of the lots within the park. She stated that this was a 34 acre industrial park, and the mobile home shall be placed on Lot 39.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for an amendment to MP (Planned Industrial) Ordinance #96-89 to add a caretaker's residence to the existing storage warehouse and testing building, for security purposes, Petition #217A-89-2, Senninger Irrigation Inc., Tracking No. 52-98-MP/AMD and Ordinance 1998-59.
PETITION NO. CUP#707E-2 - CLERBROOK GOLF & RV RESORT
DALE WILLIAMS & LORI BALDWIN - TRACKING #55-98-CUP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, presented the request and stated that this is a cleanup amendment for the Clerbrook Golf and RV Resort. She stated that for years the applicants have had some models in the interior of the park, and during the staff's annual CUP inspection, they found that this was not a use that was permitted in the Ordinance. The applicants are requesting permission to place the model on the site, and staff has recommended approval of ten park models to be allowed for the park, to be placed interior to the site, not to be rented, and not to be hooked for water and sewer.
Ms. Farrell presented a site plan of the property, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".
The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, explained the location of the property, as shown on Exhibit "A", and noted that they have had park models parked and unhooked on the site, and people have been there manning them, and then they have been placed on RV lots. They will be there for display, as they have historically. There are none there now, because they pull them out every season and put new ones in there, and they will not be fronting on Highway 27, but will be interior to the property.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permits to keep the existing park models on site as a display sales center with the Manager's/office site, Petition CUP#707E-2 Clerbrook Golf & RV Resort, Dale Williams and Lori Baldwin, Tracking No. 55-98-CUP/AMD and Ordinance 1998-60.
PETITION NO. PH#31-98-2 - LHL CORP. & WINTER PARK HOLDING CO. &
HBC MANAGEMENT, LARRY GODWIN, PRESIDENT
(Donald McIntosh Assoc. & Cecelia Bonifay, Esq.)
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the basic request is to rezone the entire site from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), in South Lake County. The property is located on US Highway 27 and US Highway 192. Staff is recommending approval for the site, and it will be in the South Lake Utilities District. The location is appropriate for this particular use and staff found it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Ms. Farrell stated that, through the Site Plan Review process, staff will enforce the 40% open space, as required in the Green Swamp area, and the 40% ISR. The applicant is proposing 167 lots as a timeshare use. She stated that there were some concerns raised by the Green Swamp office on the open space issue, but staff was comfortable that it will enforce the 40%, and it will not be a concern.
Ms. Farrell presented the Preliminary Development Plan for High Grove, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
It was noted that Ms. Cecelia Bonifay was present representing the applicant, and no one was present in opposition to the request.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Donald McIntosh was present today, who is the President of Donald McIntosh & Associates, the engineers, and Mr. Larry Godwin, the owner and developer of the site, was also present, and both would be available for questions.
Ms. Bonifay explained that the site was located between the two wastewater treatment plants located in the Green Swamp. She stated that the Polo Park is located to the south of the site in question, which is in Polk County. She stated that it started out as a mobile home development, and then it went to some conventional development. The wastewater treatment plant is located to the south, and there are some residential units. To the north is the South Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is a regional supplier for the South Lake DRI, as well as being the wastewater treatment supplier for this project. Immediately in front of the property in question is Roxie's, which is an adult entertainment establishment and tavern. Mr. Godwin has been studying this for quite some time and has looked at the market in this area. He has done a number of other developments in Orange County, and in Polk County, and they feel that this will be a good mixed use development, because there will be commercial on the front, which has been cleared through the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and through staff. There will be 167 residential units, which will look like single family units in appearance, however, they will be timeshare. They are still working with the State to determine whether it is platted as a condominium, or they will continue to plat it through their process, and Lake County will be continuously involved in the development review process for this development. Ms. Bonifay stated that there have been a lot of meetings with staff to work out issues, and there has been no finding of adverse environmental impact. She stated that there will be a 60 foot buffer along the southern boundary protecting them from any residential neighbors to the south. They were continuing their discussion with the DCA on the exact calculation of open space, and there should be a correction on the site plan to indicate 40% and not 49%. She stated that they have met the 40% open space. They also asked for a variance, which was also approved by Planning and Zoning, and since the Ordinance does not specifically include it, she would ask that the variance be included, which would allow for 25 feet of road frontage for the lots. All of the commercial will have internal access, and the community, which is residential, will be private, so this will allow them to have a gated area. Ms. Bonifay noted that there was a typo in the staff report, but it was correct in the Ordinance, which states four parcels, or a total of 20,000 square feet of commercial, which was approved by the DCA.
Commr. Gerber clarified that the Ordinance states 20,000 square feet on 4.05 acres, not parcels.
Commr. Swartz called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request to rezone the property from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for development of vacation ownership/timeshare housing sites in a single family setting, including the request for waivers, as noted above, in Petition No. 31-98-2, LHL Corp. & Winter Park Holding Co. & HBC Management, Larry Godwin, President, Donald McIntosh Associates, Ordinance 1998-61.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m.
PETITION NO. LPA#98/2/1-2 - PRINGLE COMMUNITIES INC.
ROYAL HIGHLANDS
LPA#98/2/1-2 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT)
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Long Range Planning, stated that this was a request for an amendment to change the current land use designation from Rural to Urban Expansion to add additional lands to the vested Development Order for the Royal Highlands PUD and DRI. Staff has drafted a Developer's Agreement to accompany the request, and the developer will not increase the density, but will transfer the density from the approved Development Order and spread it over the total acreage, which will total approximately 1,080 acres from the existing 760 plus acres. Mr. Richardson stated that staff was recommending approval based on the project's ability to economically provide public facilities and services at an adequate level. There is presently water and sewer provided to the development from the City of Leesburg. The project has the ability to provide for the efficient use of land while providing for the retention of adequate levels of open space and native habitats consistent with the character of Lake County, and the primary function of the Urban Expansion category.
Mr. Richardson reviewed the Royal Highlands - Planned Unit Development - Master Development Plan, Map H-1, which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as County Exhibit "A". Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney for the applicant, submitted the same map, in reduced form, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the Applicant.
Mr. Richardson pointed out on the Master Development Plan the tracts that would be added, which included the Lowery Tract to the north, and the Hester Tract to the southwest, which would add approximately 307 acres to the development, with the change in the future land use, which is presently rural. He stated that staff has analyzed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the main issues focusing on whether the site is appropriate for the change in land use classification to the Urban Expansion land use category. He stated that this is the same type of request that was approved in 1994, for Urban Expansion. In Policy 1-1.6, Function of Future Land Use Categories, it allows, in the Urban Expansion Area, from one to a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, with the main point being to contain urban sprawl, to economically provide for public facilities and services, and to provide for the efficient use of land while providing for the retention of adequate levels of open space and native habitats. Mr. Richardson noted that there was also a definition for urban sprawl in the Administrative Code, as noted in the backup material. After thorough review, staff did not find that the proposed amendment would fall completely under the definition of urban sprawl contained in the Code. The original DRI may have been premature for the area, and there is existing development presently under construction. The addition of lands would provide for a lower density, as well as decreased potential environmental impacts. Under the present development plan there is approximately one and a half acres of wetlands that would be impacted, and under the new development with the addition of lands, there would be less than half an acre of wetlands impacted, and the open space would be increased with regard to the overall development. The additional acres would eliminate approximately 50 units from the total allocation. He noted that they would still be limited to 1,500 single family units, and 300 RV units. Mr. Richardson noted that staff has reviewed the request in relation to the noted policies in the backup material. He reviewed the provision of buffers along the Palatlakaha River and conservation areas to be dedicated along the River, as well as to the wetlands area to the north on the Lowery Tract. He reviewed the Findings and Standards for Review and was recommending approval of the request.
Commr. Swartz expressed some hesitancy about how the larger lot size will help to avoid some potential environmental impacts, as noted in the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of July 1, 1998.
Commr. Good questioned how someone can add more land to a development and reduce the impacts on the natural habitat. He stated that it will be important for him to understand, if the project was going to get his support.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, informed the Board that one parcel is owned by the Robert Hester Estate, and one parcel is owned by the Chap Lowery Trust, with both property owners being out of Orlando. Mr. Richey stated that, when the Development Order was done by Lake County, only one document was prepared. There was a Development Order with the State, and a PUD with Lake County all in one document. He stated that the applicant has filed a nonsubstantial change with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), to the Development Order to add the additional lands, which will be a substantial change to the County's PUD. Mr. Richey stated that this was also a transmittal hearing involving a Land Plan Amendment, which will ask the State to review adding the 306 acres to Urban Expansion. Once the Board takes action, then the State will send back their objections and comments, and the Board will address the changes to the PUD. He noted that the State had suggested the process they were going through now, to ask for an Urban Expansion Comprehensive Plan designation, to limit the density on the land, to the density that was already approved in the Development Order. He noted that the following individuals were present to answer questions of the Board: Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group; Harry Williams and Ted Bolin, Pringle Communities; Trevor Davis and Jim Hersha, resident advisors to the Pringle Communities.
Mr. Richey offered Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, as an expert witness, in the area of land use and governmental approvals, and zoning and Comprehensive Plans.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that this was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so there will be no testimony, and it was not a quasi-judicial hearing.
Mr. Beliveau stated that he concurs with staff's representation that this request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He reviewed the map in the backup material that showed the existing vested DRI property, the Lowery and Hester Tracts, the utilities service area for the City of Leesburg, and the water and sewer and electric service utility area and stated that the other areas were existing DRIs or PUDs that are existing on the books and are vested. He noted other subdivisions in the Leesburg service area and stated that there are two interchanges, and the property in question is located about an equal distance between the two entrances. He referred to the Master Development Plan (Exhibit A - Applicant), and stated that the Lowery Tract is 143 acres with 176 units, and the Hester Tract is 163 acres with a little over 400 units. He explained that the 50 units would be gone and the existing 1,500 units would be spread out over the additional 300 acres. Mr. Beliveau stated they utilized the 100 year flood plain as the constraint line on both tracts, which allowed them to have a buffer greater than 100 feet from the wetland line. He stated that they worked very closely with the Lake County Water Authority and utilized their last imagery, which was shot in March. There will be a .21 acre wetland area impact on the Lowery tract for a road crossing, and there will be a one and a half acre impact on the existing tract, which has been mitigated and is already being monitored. Mr. Beliveau noted that no wildlife species were found on the Lowery tract, and there were a few gopher tortoises found on the Hester tract.
Mr. Richey stated that the previous DRI permit required them to take out structures and return the marsh area back to its natural flow, which has be done, so the monitoring on the Hester and Lowery tracts was done after they reestablished the natural flow of the marshes as part of the original Development Order.
Mr. Beliveau stated that the wetland lines have all been approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Mr. Richey explained that the ability to add the additional lands is allowing them to develop the 300 acres with less intensity than they would develop the original project in its intensity.
Mr. Beliveau stated that they would be giving more protection to the river than the agricultural utilization that was there in the past by providing larger buffers, and they would also be protecting it from a stormwater management system. He noted that the Lake County Water Authority required an easement from the Pringles, as well as the Hesters, for drainage purposes along the Palatlakaha River. It was noted that, in the previous parts of the development, they were not required to use the 100 year flood plain.
Mr. Richey explained that they can develop the 1,500 units on the land that they currently have today, however, they are asking the Board to give them the opportunity to develop larger lots and make the project nicer, because the market has absolutely been for larger houses,
Mr. Beliveau stated that they are able to develop 1.3 units per acre gross, and they analyzed the impacts to service, including the road system, recreation, water, and sewer and drainage. It was noted that a traffic study had been done, which showed a decrease in trips. He stated that there was over 60% open space including the golf course, and they are adding an additional 13% open space with these two tracts, and there will be an enhancement to recreation with these sites.
Mr. Richey stated that he addressed, with his clients, the provision that says there will be no more acreage granted to the 1,500 units. If the Board wants to add to the provision, between now and the time it comes back from transition, if it chooses to send it, some language to the Development Order, they will be happy to accomplish this provision, because this is their intention.
Mr. Jim Hersha addressed the Board and stated that he has been a resident of Royal Highlands since May, 1996. He is also an elected resident advisor to the Royal Highlands Property Owners' Association Management Committee. Mr. Hersha stated that, in this capacity, he has had the opportunity to hear both the residents and the developers comments regarding the issue today. His was the sixth home completed in this community, and he has had the opportunity to see this community grow to over 300 homes at the present time. The residents feel that the Pringle development is building one of the finest retirement communities in Lake County, and they would like to see this trend continue. Mr. Hersha estimates that, once the community is completed with 1,500 homes, it will generate in excess of $2.4 million annually in tax revenue to Lake County based upon the current tax rate. It will also generate in excess of $123,000 in annual fire fees based on the current rate for next year. He stated that they do not negatively impact the County's school budget, and the most important point is the fact that the residents of Royal Highlands spend their dollars in Lake County, which helps the economy. When they heard Pringle Development's plans to add additional acreage to the community without increasing the number of homes, Mr. Bolin met with the residents to answer questions regarding the proposal. Almost everyone was in favor of supporting the proposal, and there was only one dissenting vote. The major impact to this proposal is that the developer would probably only develop 1,200 homes on the present property, and he feels that this would have a negative impact on the developer, the residents, and Lake County. The developer will benefit by selling larger lots with more expensive homes; the residents will benefit since the community will continue to grow in a positive manner and there will be 1,500 homes to generate the necessary fees to operate the community; and Lake County will benefit because 1,500 homes rather than 1,200 will generate approximately $480,000 in additional tax revenue. On behalf of the residents and himself, he urged the Board to approve the proposal.
Mr. Trevor Davis stated that he is a resident advisor at Royal Highlands, and since Mr. Bolin met with the residents, he has not heard any discouraging comments regarding the additional property. As a resident, he feels that the develop has gone through all of the rules and regulations and procedures to satisfy the requirements. He was pleased with the work that the developer has done so far in Royal Highlands. Mr. Davis stated that he lives on a 78 foot lot, and he would like to see more 78 foot lots occupied. With the present amount of land, as stated, there will not be as many 78 foot lots. He urged the Board to approve the developer's request.
Mr. Richey explained the history of the project, which started in 1987 when the DRI was approved for 1,500 single-wide mobile homes and 300 RVs, and he explained the relationship that the property in question had with the Bradshaw property. He summarized that they came in and asked for additional lands, they have utilized that land, and now they are coming in and asking for 306 additional acres, which is adjacent to the vested DRI and meets the criteria that the State established in the last amendment. Mr. Richey addressed the 12 acres that had been allocated for the 300 RVs and noted the location that had been proposed for those sites.
Commr. Swartz called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Good stated that historically he was not supportive of the request, because it was an unkindly siting and it "leapfrogged", which has been a concern of his. He stated that times have changed and now there are 350 homes and a community of people there, and the impacts on the environment are there and the interactions with the economy. Commr. Good stated that now there is a community asking to get bigger but not more dense, and he was still very concerned about the impacts on the rural lands, but it does appear that there are really attempts to mitigate the impacts of those. He stated that, with the 100 year flood plain as a guide, he feels the County is doing a better job trying to spread the homes out a little bit and still not impact the wetland systems. He likes the idea of removing the 300 recreational units and specifying it as storage, and getting a statement that this community would not come back and ask for more land, and the units being distributed across the additional acres. He does not feel that this is an area that is primed for additional development at this time, and he thinks it is premature. Even though it is within the wastewater area of Leesburg, he would rather see more infill occur before other development occurs around this particular rural community. He stated that, if the Board can find a way to get the 300 RVs out of the development, so it is a 1,500 unit project, and if the Board can get a closure statement, and a determination that there would be a defensible position for the County, then his vote in the past on this project could change.
Mr. Minkoff explained that such a statement, as referred to by Commr. Good, in the Development Order would be good until the next time they asked to do away with that statement, so there would be no legal binding. Most County contracts basically say that the contract cannot be amended until both sides agree. He explained that it could have some impact on policy making decisions, but from a legal perspective, it could be changed at any time by the Board upon request of an applicant.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he supported this development when it came to the Board in the past, he feels that the Board can see the quality of the development, and therefore, he will support the transmittal.
Commr. Hanson stated that her comments would be the same as Commr. Cadwells, and she feels it will be an enhancement of the development.
Commr. Gerber explained that, through her own analogy of the "banking" of units, the proposal today would be putting 515 units on the ground that the map today does not support. She supported the request last time, because she felt it was something good that they were going to do, as far as making the larger lots, but now they have had the chance, they took the risk and they were given it the first time, so now she was not inclined to do this again. She did not feel that she could support sending this to DCA. She stated that this is a beautiful development, however, she would never have supported putting it there in the first place, because it is too far from things as they stand today. She stated that, to add 300 more acres to this development would be a premature thing to do.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the original DRI was approved before he was on the Commission, he felt it was an inappropriate change in the land use to provide for the development of 1,800 units, including mobile home RVs, in an area that was a great distance from other urban development. He stated that it was economically ill advised, because it never could develop, and therefore, the DRI, which has a five year life, had to be extended and expanded, and the Board did that and he voted against it, because he felt it was inconsistent with the Land Use Map, because there had to be a plan. Commr. Swartz stated that he took every opportunity he could not to support going forward with this development. When he asked Mr. Richardson if, in fact, did this not represent essentially another larger expanse of predominantly low intensity, low density, single use development, his answer was yes, and that is one of the definitions of urban sprawl. In the concept of lower density, the Board was actually making it worse, because they will be taking more land and making it even less dense, and this will destroy Lake County, if the Board continues, because it needs to look further to the future. Commr. Swartz stated that the issue of the 300 RVs is absolutely immaterial at this point. It is an example of urban sprawl, and it does impact the rural environment. Commr. Swartz stated that he has a problem with the Bradshaw property Land Plan Amendment, and he will not be able to support what is inconsistent and clearly going in the opposite direction.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board has promoted the idea of clustering, and this is clustering and protecting the natural environment, because the County is allowing the applicant to buffer the development from the river and from the wetland areas, and there is a large amount of open space. There are really fewer units, and the utilities are already in place. While it may, in the technical sense of the word, be urban sprawl, it is there, and the Board will be making a good development better. She noted that they are still locked in to the 1,500 units. Commr. Hanson stated that she would be supporting it, because she feels it will be an enhancement and an improvement for Lake County.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber, and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request for transmittal of LPA#98/2/1-2 Pringle Communities Inc./Royal Highlands, an amendment to change from the current land use designation of Rural to Urban Expansion to add additional lands to a vested Development Order.
Commrs. Cadwell and Hanson vote "no".
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained the request he had received from Mr. Leonard Baird, Attorney for the County, to execute a Satisfaction of Mortgage to Herbert I. Wilkes, Sr. and Johngie M. Wilkes.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request, as stated above.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/DEEDS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the application for tax deed by the County on all parcels except homestead on property valued greater than $5,000 and homestead property where total taxes due are greater than $100, as presented by the County Attorney.
ASSESSMENTS/ORDINANCES/FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, in regards to the proposed fire ordinance, the draft that he received on the assessment ordinance had two issues that needed to be resolved by the Board, so that it can be presented to the Board in writing later this week. The first issue was the Board's final recommendation on the institutional properties. He stated that Government Services Group (GSG) has indicated that the maximum amount of fire proceeds the County would receive from institutional tax exempt properties would be about $235,000. He questioned whether the Board wanted to exempt them totally, or exempt them partially, or have a flat rate per building. Mr. Minkoff stated that staff has an initial list that it is going over to check each parcel to make sure it would qualify for the exemption.
Commr. Swartz noted that the Board had asked for some analysis of what these different options would do to some of the institutions, as compared to what they are paying now. He thought the Board's sentiment was to continue to have some payment by these organizations, but to have a reduced rate.
Commr. Gerber stated that she had asked staff to look at the list and what they are currently paying and determine an average amount for the properties and do a flat fee for the institutional, but she understood that GSG was telling the Board to either completely exempt them, or do it by the book.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the County is currently collecting about $80,000 from the list of institutions being provided today. The County would have to make up the difference from the General Fund during the first year.
Commr. Hanson stated that this was one of her objections to the assessment rate of $82, because she thought they should pay part ad valorem and part assessment.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the County did part assessment and part ad valorem, they would pay whatever part was on the assessment side and pay nothing on the ad valorem side. He questioned whether the Board was in agreement of seeking some level at which the institutions will pay as a part of the special assessment, which they are doing now.
Mr. Minkoff noted that, from the information that he has received, it looked as though it was going to be less than $200,000 total amount. He stated that GSG has recommended that the institutional be exempted, but there were other alternatives to be considered.
The Board directed Mr. Minkoff to prepare the Fire Ordinance to reflect a 25% cost range for institutional structures, but to bring to the Board figures reflecting 25% and 50%, as well as an up-to-date list showing how the institutions will be impacted. Mr. Minkoff noted that, in the Ordinance that was prepared by Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., they included a partial year assessment. It was set up so that, for any Certificate of Occupancy (CO), for a use that would now require a fire assessment that previously would not require one, it was computed for the months remaining in the year for which the assessment was done, with the fees being collected at the time of the CO.
COURTS-JUDGES/REZONING
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Judge Hodges, United States District Court, Jacksonville, issued an Order on Primacy, which staff received on Friday, in regards to the PrimeCo case. Mr. Minkoff stated that Judge Hodges ruled that the County should have granted the permit for the tower. He explained that PrimeCo had sued the County not only to overturn the decision, but also for money damages. Judge Hodges ruled against PrimeCo on the money damages, and he suggested that the case was moot at this point. Staff will be seeing an order closing the case, and it will be left for appeal. Unlike regular zoning cases, under the tower cases, the burden was on the government to establish, by evidence, that the permit for the tower should not have been issued. The Judge did not agree that any evidence that was provided saying that this particular tower should not have been approved. He would be providing the Board with the opinions. Mr. Minkoff noted that there was no evidence from anyone in the audience, and the staff report was against it, but the Judge basically threw it out as being totally conclusory allegations and no facts. He stated that the County's attorney has suggested that, because there is still the issue of attorney's fees, and the case could conceivably go forward, the Board may want to discuss dropping any further action in the case, if they agree not to go after any fees or costs. He stated that the County has a very short window to do that type of activity in discussions, and the County has a very limited right of appeal. The Court Order is a Federal Court Order, which is 31 pages and very well drafted, and an appeal, in the outside counsel's opinion, would not have good chances of success. Mr. Minkoff stated that the County was to advise the Judge yesterday whether it thought the rest of the issues were moot. He stated that the outside counsel is asking if the Board is interested in appealing, and if not, does it want to engage in discussions where it will agree that the case is over, and no one will pay any costs and fees. It was noted that the Judge did a summary ruling and the County never got to trial. He stated that the Board needed to make a decision within two weeks.
Commr. Swartz asked that the information be placed on the agenda next week and that the Board be provided with the backup material to review.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT #2
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Dr. Marcella Vogelmann-Peper as a District 2 representative on the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Linda Mahaffey to the vacant District 2 position on the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children.
MEETINGS/WATER RESOURCES
Commr. Good reported that he had a very interesting meeting with Mr. Henry Dean and the Leesburg Chamber last week regarding the Lake Lowery issue. He noted that he may be bringing this issue to the Board depending on whether the Chamber responds positively to the suggestion for a long term resolution, and the possibility of developing a joint symposium between this Board, the Water Authority, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the United Chamber of Commerce, on water conservation techniques and technology.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Commr. Good presented the Board with a copy of The Orlando Sentinel article "Regional planning key in Oregon, Central Florida", which was written by Mr. R. Bruce Stephenson, an associate professor of environmental studies at Rollins College and an occasional instructor at Portland State University.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:38 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR/BOARDMIN/7-28-98/8-21-98