A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DECEMBER 17, 2002
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Debbie Stivender, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool. Commissioners not present: Catherine C. Hanson. Others present were: William A. “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Commissioners all received a Christmas card from the White House, and it had a scripture in it that he thought would be fitting for this holiday season, which he read at this time. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance.
It was noted that Commr. Hanson was meeting with the Wekiva Basin Area Task Force and would not be present for the Board meeting today.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, requested that Tabs 3 and 4, under Community Services, pertaining to Interlocal Agreements for library services be postponed until the January 7, 2003 meeting.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that, because the Evaluation and Review (EAR) based amendments that were scheduled for consideration today did not get to the Board in timely manner for review, he is asking that the Board delay consideration of these items until a meeting in January.
Tourist Development - Public Hearing - Proposed Ordinance
Commr. Stivender stated that, as the liaison to the Tourist Development Council (TDC), she would like to postpone Tab 18, the public hearing on the Ordinance increasing Tourist Development Tax from Two Percent to Four Percent, until January 21, 2003, because this is an issue relating to raising percentages on the bed tax, and she feels there needs to be a full Board present before taking action.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the issue noted has been advertised for a public hearing, and he will need to open the public hearing and take public comment at the appropriate time.
Liaisons/Members for Lake County Board and Committees
Commr. Cadwell stated that, under his business on Addendum No. 1, the item regarding the liaison/members for Lake County Board and Committees, everyone has not gotten the information back to him, so he will postpone the item until the next Board meeting.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 15 pulling Tabs 3 and 4, as requested, and Addendum No. 1, Items I. A. 1. and 2, as follows:
Budget Transfer - County Library System
Request for approval of Budget transfer - County Library System Fund, Department of Community Services, Library Services Division, in the amount of $115,000.00 is requested. Transfer $115,000.00 from Books, Publications & Library Materials to Library Materials Non-Inventoried. Funds are needed in object code 661 to purchase online and paper subscriptions from object code 661 instead of object code 660 where they were originally budgeted.
Budget Transfer - Presentation by Dr. John Crompton
Request for approval of Budget transfer - Resort/Development/Tax Fund, Department of Economic Development and Tourism, in the amount of $2,622.00 is requested. Transfer $2,622.00 from Special Reserve to Contractual Services. Funds needed to pay an invoice for a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners by Dr. John Crompton, Professor of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Science at Texas A & M University. Dr. Crompton’s presentation discussed the benefits of parks, recreation, and green spaces. Funds available in Special Reserve.
Offer to Settle Claim - Haubrich
Request from Risk Management for approval of an offer to settle Raymond Haubrich’s claim for property damage to auto in the amount of $157.12, subject to the County Attorney’s review and approval.
Grant Application - Citrus Ridge Library
Request from Community Services for approval to submit a grant application for the Citrus Ridge County Library to the South Lake County Community Foundation Grant for a special Learning is ForEver (LIFE) collection of historical significance.
Transportation Coordination Agreement - Brower
Request from Community Services for approval of the Transportation Coordination Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and Joan Brower.
Transportation Disadvantaged - Grievance Procedures
Request from Community Services for approval of the amended Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Grievance Procedures as recommended by the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board.
Transportation Disadvantaged - Bylaws
Request from Community Services for approval of the amended Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Bylaws as recommended by the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board.
Transportation Coordination Agreement - Pathways Supports and Services, Inc.
Request for approval of the Transportation Coordination Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and Pathways Supports and Services, Inc.
Settlement Agreement - Bradley
Request from Growth Management for approval of Settlement Agreement with Nancy and Donald Bradley, File Number SM-5-02.
Addendum - Purchase & Sales Agreement - Shirley Shores Road
Request for approval and signature on First Addendum to Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement for purchase of a 5.2 acre parcel of approximate dimensions of 300 feet, fronting on Shirley Shores Road, by 750 feet deep.
Request from Public Works for approval and acceptance of one Drainage Easements, three Statutory Quitclaim Deeds, five Statutory Warranty Deeds and one Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement, as follows:
F. F. And Susan W. Hughes - Crooked Lake Drive - 4-5069 -
Drainage Maint. Proj. - Book 2215 Page 0001
Statutory Quitclaim Deed
Mary Kate Powell, et al - Gere Lane - S/A - Book 2215 page 0008
Joseph M. Lewis - Lakeview Blvd./East Ave. - Deerhaven Project -
Book 2211 Page 2411
Suneagle Enterprises - SR 46 @ Suneagle Intersection - Intersection Project -
Book 2215 Page 0017
Statutory Warranty Deed
Jack Burnsed, et al - East Cemetery Road - 5-7679 - Road Project -
Book 2210 Page 0237
Raymond and Janet Harding - Fonseca Lane - Road Project -
Book 2215 Page 0011
Peter and Dolores Stadler - Gere Lane - S/A - Book 2212 Page 1098
Marshall and Dorothy Minks - Gere Lane - S/A - Book 2215 Page 0005
Handex of Florida, Inc. - SR 46 @ Suneagle Intersection - Intersection Proj. -
Book 2215 Page 0014
Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement
Kristen L. Bartch Family Ltd., Timothy Sennett - Thomas Avenue -
Road Project - Book 2212 Page 1093
Change Order - Holiday Road & Holiday Circle - Project No. SA-93
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to execute change order #1 to the Holiday Road and Holiday Circle Special Assessment Project No. SA-93 for additional work in the amount of $19,845.00 required on #4568 Morningside Drive since construction of the project was completed. The amount of the change order is over 10% of initial contract award.
Change Order - Hook Street Phase 1 - Construction Project No. 2002-02
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to execute change order #4 in the amount of $69,484.90 for work to correct additional stormwater erosion control problems, to construct a temporary paved entrance, and for existing limerock and dirt material credits relating to the Hook Street Phase 1 Construction Project No. 2002-02.
Rental Agreements - Records Management - Storaway Self Storage of Tavares, Inc.
Request from Public Works for approval and signature on four month-to-month rental agreements for storage space for the Records Management program of Budget and Administrative Services at Storaway Self Storage of Tavares, Inc.
PRESENTATION - CHRISTIAN CARE CENTER
Commr. Cadwell presented Mr. Art Ayres with the check to the Christian Care Center, in the amount of $6,425.50 representing the Proceeds of the Fifth Annual Electrical Seminar hosted by the Lake County Department of Growth Management, Building Services Division, Sponsored by the Florida Association of Electrical Contractors and the International Association of Electrical Inspectors.
Mr. Ayres extended his appreciation to the Board, on behalf of the needy people that will receive 100% of the check and extended an invitation to the Board to visit the Christian Care Center, and to take a tour of it.
CLOSED SESSION -
LITIGATION REGARDING STATE VS. HERNANDEZ
Commr. Cadwell announced, for the record, that the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, will hold a private meeting commencing at this time, 9:10 a.m.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he has requested the closed meeting to discuss the case of State vs. Hernandez, which is a criminal felony case. He stated that staff has advertised the Closed Session and given public notice, and they will now commence at an open meeting, at which point they will announce the commencement and estimated length of the meeting, which they estimate to be about 15 to 20 minutes. Those present for the meeting will be Jennifer Hill, Robert Pool, Debbie Stivender, and Welton Cadwell, as members of the Board of County Commissioners and, in addition, the following persons will be in attendance along with only the court reporter, Mr. Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney, and Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager.
At 9:25 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced, for the record, that the closed session was concluded, during which litigation matters involving State vs. Hernandez were discussed and that the regular meeting of the Board will now reconvene.
PUBLIC HEARING -
NOTICE OF INTENT - RESOLUTION
NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the agenda item pertaining to the Notice of Intent to Use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments and stated that the Board adopts this each year, and it allows the Board the flexibility next year to look at special assessments outside of the normal assessment program. Mr. Minkoff stated that it is not a commitment by the Board, but it is the first step that would be required, if the Board elects during budget to impose those.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Notice of Intent to Use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments, Resolution 2002-205.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF LAKE COUNTY
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the renewal of the Professional Firefighters of Lake County, IAFF, Local 3990 and Lake County Collective Bargaining Agreement. Mr. Minkoff noted that staff is present to answer questions of the Board. Mr. Minkoff noted that the Board had been given a memorandum earlier with the changes from the current contract.
Commr. Pool stated that he had expressed a concern to staff, in terms of competency and the same level of training for volunteers and those who have been on the job ten or 20 years, and the employee with seniority having the superiority on the scene, and he wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing in the area of competency.
Mr. Steve Nash, Public Safety Director, stated that the area pointed out by Commr. Pool was an area that concerned several of them, as they went through the negotiations. Mr. Nash explained that the statement in the contract that talks about the authorities is a little bit in conflict with the Standard Operating Guidelines (SOG), because it says that, in a firefighting situation, if a volunteer ranking officer is there and in charge, then the firefighters will take the orders from that officer.
Mr. Nash explained that it takes a minimum of three years to become a lieutenant in the firefighting area, on their paid firefighter force. In the near future, they hope to take care of this problem by having lieutenants on duty at each of the stations, on each of the shifts, who will be responsible for those scenes. They normally respond with at least two stations to every scene and, when they do, they have a lieutenant at one station that is also taking care of two stations under his shift. So there will always be a paid experienced lieutenant wherever they go. They do have volunteer lieutenants, and one volunteer captain..
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that staff is looking at other items that will also help address this issue. Mr. Neron stated that other plans and how they are currently staffing the stations will resolve this situation on a long term basis, but it was an issue that was important to the union, and they wanted it to be addressed, therefore, they left it in the agreement, and they are recommending it. Mr. Neron stated that he wanted to thank both the union members and Mr. Nash, Mr. Minkoff, Mr. Milanowski, and the whole team, because it was a joint working relationship to get to this point, and the County Manager is recommending that the Board approve the contract.
Commr. Pool stated that it is a good contract, and the firefighters are very pleased, but he wanted to make sure that this one item was not going to be a problem as they go forward.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Professional Firefighters of Lake County, IAFF, Local 3990 and Lake County Collective Bargaining Agreement, as presented.
REZONING CASE CUP#02/121/1-4 - SANDRA L. GUCKENBERGER
CUP FOR ADDITIONAL CARETAKER’S RESIDENCE - TRACKING #96-02-CUP
Mr. Ron Thomasson, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case CUP#02/12/1-4, Sandra L. Guckenberger, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the placement of a mobile home as an additional caretaker’s residence. Mr. Thomasson stated that there are approximately 18 plant nurseries along Britt Road and this particular application is very similar in operation to most of those. He stated that there is already one mobile home on the property, which is used as a caretaker’s residence. Mr. Thomasson stated that the single family residence is allowed in agricultural zoning; a second mobile home would constitute an agricultural housing/camp, but not meet the definition of an agricultural labor camp. A mobile home may be used as a caretaker’s residence in either commercial or industrial zoning, and staff clearly understands this to be an additional item not to be planned for agriculture. The future land use for this area is rural, which allows a density of one to five and, with this being a 7.5 acre tract, it would be inconsistent with this requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed conditional use would be inconsistent with established development patterns in the existing neighborhood. Mr. Thomasson stated that, before the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff toured the area and did a one mile radius search and, since that time, they have extended that search and discovered that there are parcels, approximately three, within a two mile radius, that have more than one residential structure on it. In their research, it was discovered that they all pre-date the ordinance, so this request would be inconsistent with the development patterns, and staff is recommending denial of the request.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Sandra Guckenberger, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she owns Britt Road Greenhouses. Ms. Guckenberger explained that she currently has one employee on her property, and she has found another person to hire as a full time employee that she desperately needs. There are four people within a half mile of her that do have more than one mobile home on their property, and there are 18 nurseries on Britt Road, and no one objects to her request. Also within one-quarter of a mile from her, there are two homes on one acre and right next door to them is a nursery and a home on two acres. She is trying to continue in the nursery business, and it is a conditional use as long as she has the nursery. She is not renting the mobile homes, or charge them anything to live there. She did talk to Commr. Hanson, and she did feel that she had a legitimate need.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the intent of the law is to make sure that they do not end up with a lot of labor camps.
Ms. Guckenberger explained that she is not going to want any more homes on the property, and she only has these two people working for her. They will use some temporary help during the peak seasons, and she only uses three-quarters of an acre for a nursery.
Commr. Stivender noted that staff has indicated that there are other parcels in the area that have two mobile homes, or houses on them, and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it 4-3.
Ms. Guckenberger stated that she bought the nursery three years ago, and the owner did live in the mobile home. She has a house not far from the property, but it is not feasible for her to try and move there.
Commr. Stivender noted that the CUP runs with the business so, if the business closed down, the mobile homes would have to be removed.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case No. CUP#02/12/1-4, Sandra L. Guckenberger, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow placement of a mobile home as an additional caretaker’s residence, Tracking #96-02-CUP, Ordinance 2002-99.
REZONING CASES -
REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF CLERMONT TO POSTPONE REZONING CASES
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board has before them a group of cases that were postponed from August 27, 2002. Before the Board begins these hearings, there was a letter received from the City of Clermont requesting a postponement of all rezoning and land use amendment cases, until such time a joint planning agreement can be executed. There are representatives here from the City, and Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like the Board to act on this official request before they engage in the public hearings.
Commr. Pool stated that he certainly respects the City’s request to table this action but, at the same time, he recognizes that they have had past meetings and have tabled this particular project, based on a request of a City Council member to look at annexations and opportunities, and those things never materialized. His concern is that the 450 acre tract of land, the all adult community, may or may not disappear, but there are opportunities to do business elsewhere, and it concerns him that they may, at some point in the future, still come up with the same density, the same design and the same idea, but he did not know if tabling this would get them to the end result. He stated that two of the Council members are here today from Kings Ridge, which was approved by the County and annexed by the City. He further stated that this is another opportunity for Lennar who has demonstrated their ability, in his opinion, to provide a project, an all adult community that benefits them. From his perspective, Commr. Pool stated that he is ready to go forward to hear the case, however, he is only one member of the Board, and he is willing to listen to other comments from the Board.
Ms. Elaine Renick, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that she is here to ask the Board to table the requests, and she has two points that she would like to make. It has been suggested that the City of Clermont has made less than a sincere effort to try and get together and plan for this area. Ms. Renick submitted a letter from Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, dated September 4, 2001, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition. She stated that, after the City sent that letter, the requests were pulled. When the requests started to resurface again, the Council discussed these properties at their retreat in February, 2002, and the whole Council agreed that they desperately needed a workshop with the County, to work out their problems. They directed their staff to get with County staff to arrange such a workshop and, because of all of the busy schedules, they were not able to get together until late summer. Ms. Renick explained that the workshop was time limited and a lot of the issues were not addressed, particularly in this area of concern, so they asked to meet again as quickly as possible. They were asked to delay another meeting because the County was in the middle of their budget process. When the County budget was finalized, the City asked to meet again and, once again, they were asked to delay the scheduling of a meeting, until after the elections. In defense of Clermont, Ms. Renick stated that they have been asking to meet for a long time and, even though they do not have the same Council members today, they all agree that this is an area of concern. So they did made a sincere effort, and Ms. Renick hoped that the Board would consider that when they decide whether or not to table these cases.
Ms. Renick stated that the other point she wanted to make is that she is afraid that the use of the joint planning term is somehow clouding this issue, because she agrees with the Board that trying to get the whole County together, as they did for years, was a failure, and they abandoned that idea. In speaking for the Council, she wants to be able to sit down and really look at that area and do some serious planning. The City has a workshop scheduled on January 24, 2003, and, if the Board directed their staff to focus their energies on this particular area and come up with a plan, she feels that they would be able to present something fairly quickly, and she was asking the Board to table these requests at this time.
Commr. Pool stated that he and Ms. Renick do agree that something is going to happen on that 450 acre tract of land, whether it happens in two months, or two years. He stated that this is an opportunity for an all adult community, which will be run by Lennar, and it will be consistent and contiguous with the City of Clermont. Commr. Pool explained that the City passed and put a major shopping center at an intersection and, to hear the case, it may not pass at all, but his point is that they have delayed this request two times.
Ms. Renick stated that discussing annexation with the City of Clermont would be putting the “cart before the horse” a little bit because, if they agreed to annex it, because they were afraid of what the County was going to do, then they have made it urban, and how do you hold down densities at that point. She is not suggesting that this area is never going to be appropriate for development, but right now they have serious problems they want to discuss with the Board. Ms. Renick stated that they are not asking to postpone it indefinitely, but just long enough to sit down at the meeting scheduled on January 24, 2003.
Mr. Frank Caputo, City Council member, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that he hopes that, in the many conversations that he and Commr. Pool have had about that piece of property, and his commitment that he would not vote, or approve, anything over two units per acre is still a valid statement on his part. Mr. Caputo stated that he, as a Council member, did bring a motion before the City Council, which was approved by majority vote, to
institute annexation proceedings with the landowner, Mr. Carruso. They received a letter from the landowners, to serve as their intent to file an application for annexation, and the application has been filed, but they have not submitted their fees. So he did not see where the Board could say that the City was holding up the annexation process. He agrees that the property is going to be developed and that is why he brought the motion forward for the City to annex that into the City of Clermont, in order to give the City the ability to determine what is going to be developed there. Mr. Caputo stated that it is a bit premature to say that it is going to be an all adult community, because right now the Board is looking at a land use change. He stated the Pineloch and Center Lake Properties have indicated to the City of Clermont that they are interested in being annexed into the City and, therefore, he would respectfully request that the Board, at least on that particular case, postpone doing anything. He agrees with Ms. Renick in that they need to sit down and do more planning. He feels that the City of Clermont should be able to determine what is going to be on their borders particularly on the 450 acres, which is contiguous with the City. Mr. Caputo stated that, a few meetings ago, the City approved four out of five projects that the County approved for land use changes, along Highway 50 that are very far from the City limits at this time, and there is no way possible to annex them into the City, yet they agreed to service them with water and sewer to have the projects go forward. Again the County is planning what Clermont is going to be in the future rather than giving them the opportunity to be able to make those decisions.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would be more concerned if this property was further south, but it is an existing sand mine that is adjacent to the City limits. He stated that, in hearing the case now, he feels it is timely that they go ahead and do it. He does feel that they will be able to do some joint planning, but not in the next month or so.
Mr. Jim Purvis, Kings Ridge, stated that he is a concerned citizen, and his remarks really pertain not to the specific request for the 450 acre rezoning but, to all of south Lake County. Mr. Purvis stated that, although the Board is allowing him to make his comments now, when the Board gets to the specific issue, he would like the Board to recall his comments at that time. Mr. Purvis explained that his background is that of a developer and a business person, and he tries to be active in his community, and to be informed of serious issues before he speaks. He stated that all of the applicants on today’s agenda, and on agendas to follow have a fundamental right to seek a rezoning of their property, and it is the duty of government to rule not only on such a request, but on the long term ramifications that such rulings always carry with them. He addressed the tremendous growth in Clermont noting that the City has thousands of homes already approved for construction, and it has a commitment to service those homes. The County continues to approve rezoning and development requests which in many cases are tied directly to the servicing of those developments with City utilities. Mr. Purvis stated that water, roads, emergency services, and schools are the immediate impacted entities. He stated that government is responsible for protecting its citizens, and they are charged with the future quality of life in the community. Mr. Purvis stated that the CUP issued to the City, by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), contains a mandated clause of regression to a period of consumption that will be impossible to achieve assuming that all of those homes come on line when the regression period kicks in. They are in a long range plan to provide additional water to even more connections, but with no long range plan truly in effect. He asked the Board to step back and look at these rezonings and all similar requests and table any decision either for or against until a joint plan between the cities and the County can be developed and adopted. Mr. Purvis noted that there are approximately1,600 homes in Kings Ridge, and the property is close to the property described in the rezoning cases, and he has lived there for about three and a half years.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton stated that she is speaking today as a resident of Clermont, and as President of Alliance to Protect Water Resources. Ms. Fullerton stated that the Alliance to Protect Resources has been asking the Board, since 2000, to discuss relevant land use with Clermont, and they have expressed concern about the responsibility of the County in following the inter-governmental coordination element. In assessing the progress of the joint planning agreements (JPAs), Ms. Fullerton stated that this issue should be put aside. Both sides have contributed to the failure, the City of Clermont and the County, and now they need to determine whether they quit, or keep trying. She noted that JPAs are in the works for Howey, Montverde and Mascotte, and Clermont is here today. Ms. Fullerton stated that smart growth initiatives were started ten years ago, and the County and the citizens were not ready for it. If these land use changes are adopted today against the recommendations of staff, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the concerns of the SJRWMD, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the denial of giving Clermont a chance, or opportunity, to have a say in its destiny, then the Board decision is always going to come back to her as being tainted. She explained that, with the Comprehensive Plan, the Board has the power to provide the leadership in accomplishing the planning, which the City of Clermont is asking for today. There was a meeting of City Council members in February, 2001, to discuss growth problems, and the need for JPAs and, according to the “Daily Commercial”, Commr. Pool was quoted as saying “we all need to sit down and recognize the numbers we will have in the next ten years. Together we can work it out.” She stated that the Board has that opportunity today.
Commr. Stivender stated the Board did have a meeting with the City of Clermont, as explained by Ms. Renick, and she came out of that meeting with the idea that they did not accomplish anything, but the Board did go to Clermont and meet with the Council.
Ms. Fullerton stated that she felt that, even though they were not successful on the first try, or second, they should continue to try especially in a case where these decisions of this boundary can never be taken back. It would only be a two month delay, and the applicant postponed the cases in August, 2002, until December. Ms. Fullerton stated that there are no guarantees, and Commr. Hanson is not here today, and she would think that the rest of the Board would want her here especially in the role she played in March when these were up for transmittal.
Mr. Doug Doudney stated that he is a landowner on Hartwood Marsh Road and an applicant here today. Mr. Doudney submitted a copy of an article from “Lake Sentinel” dated April 23, 2001, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He explained that his original proposal for this property has been on the books since January, 2001, and, at the April, 2001 meeting, the City Council unanimously said that they wanted to include all of these properties, and many more, into a JPA, but nothing more has been done since then.
Ms. Gail Ash, Council Member, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that she was present when the Board met with the City of Clermont at Jenkins Hall, but not as a Council member. Ms. Ash explained that the discussions really centered on monetary issues that included the County’s finances and problems with the Cooper Memorial Library, and no issues regarding land usage, or rezoning, were ever discussed. Everyone said they realized that more issues needed to be discussed and more meetings would be planned, but they never took place, because the County Commissioners were too busy with other issues of business. In response to comments made by Commr. Stivender, Ms. Ash stated that, to say that the Board met with the City of Clermont, is really not a true fact.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, stated that she is here today representing Center Lake Properties, Pineloch Management, Doug Doudney, and Harold Ward (Center Lake Properties). Ms. Bonifay submitted for the record a chronology with backup including minutes of workshops, which talk about the delays, and the time frames, for these two properties, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-2 for the applicant. Ms. Bonifay stated that, as Mr. Doudney indicated, his application has been pending for two years. Ms. Bonifay stated that Center Lake Properties originally filed its application in June, 2001, and it was never withdrawn, and they continued it to the first cycle of this year (January through June), and now they are in December of 2002. She noted that she highlighted all issues that would relate to the City of Clermont, which she reviewed briefly with the Board, and stated that, over a period of time, from 2001 through 2002, there have been repeated attempts to meet. Ms. Bonifay clarified that all the fees were paid for the applications for annexation and rezoning. She stated that the record is there and they would ask the Board to move forward and, if people have comments today, they are on notice, and they can make their comments during the public hearing.
Ms. Ann Griffin stated that she is here representing herself, and she would suggest that the Board delay action today and, not only meet with the City of Clermont, but also with the SJRWMD, the City of Minneola, and everyone else in the area. Ms. Griffin stated that she is on the consumptive use permit list for the SJRWMD, so she gets a copy of all of consumptive use applications. She received the consumptive use application for the City of Clermont, and Lake Grove Utilities, for thousands of homes that have been permitted, and she was shocked to know that the already permitted homes were expected to decrease Gourdneck Springs, one of the headwaters of the whole Ocklawaha Harris Chain of Lakes. She noted that the other one is Lake Lowery, and she is really shocked to know that anybody is even considering any more development that is not already permitted. Ms. Griffin suggested that the Board have a plan with the City of Clermont and get together with the SJRWMD and, if the Board does hear the cases, she would like to present some technical information. She explained that, not only will Gourdneck Springs decrease because of what is happening in Clermont, it is also going to decrease the flow through the locks at Apopka Beauclaire by 11%, if everything goes through. She lives on Lake Griffin and she depends on the headwaters of this chain of lakes, and Lake Apopka is dangerously low, and it is not coming up like the other lakes. She stated that everybody is working on their own, and nobody really has a detailed hydrologic plan of how this is going to affect a far reaching regional area, and a whole chain of lakes. Ms. Griffin asked that the Board postpone this until they can get together with not only Clermont and Minneola, but with the SJRWMD.
Mr. Richard Lindgren, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Support Services, Lake County Schools, stated that he would like to share some information with the Board, to help them decide whether they will move forward with the cases, or table them. At this time, Mr. Lindgren read from his letter dated December 17, 2002, and noted that he is here, on behalf of the School Board and the 32,000 students and parents of Lake County, to try and improve the relationship between the Board, the municipalities, and the School Board regarding the impact of growth in the school district. Mr. Lindgren stated that they would like to be able to form an alliance with all of the parties in this development process. Mr. Lindgren stated that, if the Board elects to approve the three Hartwood Marsh Road land plan amendments and rezonings, it will have a very significant impact on the already overcrowded and financially burdened school district. Mr. Lindgren reviewed the information supplied in his letter relating to the schools in South Lake County, Lost Lake Elementary School, Windy Hill Middle School, and East Ridge High School, and explained that, if the three land plan amendments are not age restricted communities, the developments will generate approximately 1,460 students, or a capital facilities impact of about $23 million just for the schools and does not include the cost of teachers or other related costs. Their recommendation to the Board is that, if they move forward, they try and resolve all of the outstanding issues as best they can with the exception of the school concurrency, and they would ask that everybody get together in the next 30 days, or whatever time they designate, to try and see if they can clarify these issues and reach some kind of resolution on the growth impact of these projects. Mr. Lindgren submitted his letter dated December 17, 2002, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-2 for the opposition.
Ms. Ann Dupee, former City Council member, addressed the Board and stated that, after she joined the Council in February, they had a retreat, and she asked the Council to meet with the property owners, to see if they could develop a plan. Ms. Dupee discussed some of the developments that have taken place in South Lake County, the Lake Sumter Community College, the USA Triathlon Training Center, and a first class hospital, and stated that, after talking with property owners, it is imperative that they meet with the Board. She explained that, at the last Council meeting, two workshops were scheduled but, because there were so many other issues to be discussed, the utility issue and planning were not on their agenda last night.
Commr. Hill stated that she is very sensitive to want to wait and plan, but sometimes when she sees a city incorporate a utility tax area, or a utility service area, she feels that this is their way of planning for growth and, if they do have this workshop, she questioned whether the City of Clermont would be reconsidering its utility service area and, if so, then the Board needs to know that because the County sees this as a growth area. She stated that this would be the only thing that she can see coming out of a workshop because, if the City is going to be in the utility business, that would be the only change that would affect their decision today.
Commr. Pool stated that he appreciated having the opportunity to sit in the Mayor’s seat in Clermont for many years and, as Clermont’s mayor, he had the chance to plan that particular location. He explained that they built the sewer treatment plant on the east side of Clermont to provide water and sewer to that area of lands to the east, and their overall plan all along has been to provide water and sewer. The Council has the opportunity to deny them water and sewer, and they do not have to annex these lands, but these are opportunities and Clermont has been a part of that plan and part of the process. Commr. Pool stated that, to the south, there is Conserv II, and there is no other open territories to be developed and this is their opportunity to go forward and listen.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to deny the request from the City of Clermont, to postpone the scheduled hearings, as noted on the agenda, and to proceed with the public hearings.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that, in regards to the School Board’s request, it will be brought up during the hearing process, and he hopes that the applicant, if approved today, will work with the Board in regards to the concurrency issue, because he believes the Board and School Board are very close to doing something.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would be taking a 15 minute recess.
Commr. Cadwell reminded everyone that all but two of the items on the agenda today are land plan amendments, which are not quasi-judicial, so there will be no cross-examination of individuals.
REZONING CASE LPA#02/3/1-3 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, LTD.
CECELIA BONIFAY, P.A. - HAROLD WARD, III - AMENDMENT TO THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP - SUBURBAN TO URBAN EXPANSION
TRANSMITTAL TO DCA - TRACKING #22-01-LPA
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss the application from Center Lake Properties, Ltd., for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Suburban to Urban Expansion. The parcel is approximately 120 acres and located to the west of Montverde. The existing property is vacant, and the property in question adjoins the turnpike. Staff has reviewed this as an infill type project and Land Use Map amendment, and the change to urban expansion would have some logical findings. The property is currently outside Minneola’s utility district, but it would fall into Montverde’s utility district for at least water service. The proposed plan, which the applicant has also given staff, which will come up under a subsequent zoning, shows approximately two dwelling units per acre. There is not a land use designation for that so they would have to look at urban expansion. Staff has found the information submitted by the applicant to be sufficient for the review and sufficient for staff to recommend approval of the request. Mr. Richardson noted that staff received six letters of opposition, and two more were just received.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, addressed the Board and stated that, as indicated by staff, this is a request for a transmittal of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It will go to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and come back with a recommendation from them, and it will be in one of the County cycles next year for adoption. Ms. Bonifay stated that this particular case did have the recommendation for approval and transmittal from both staff and the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission. She stated that she and the owners met with the Town of Montverde on several occasions, and the concept plan represents a reduction in density from what had been originally proposed. They understand that the City has a different classification for land within the cities, and they now want anything outside of the City to be on one acre lots. The Existing Development Map (surrounding properties), March 19, 2002, was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. In reviewing the new conceptual plan, Ms. Bonifay noted that the plan will have 43% open space and two units per acre. There is also a trail dedication and a significant vegetative buffer and bike path. The conceptual plan along with the site data was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-2 (composite) for the applicant. Ms. Bonifay explained that what was originally the Country Club of Montverde, which is now called Hillcrest, is a vested project for 368 units, with a golf course. They are also near the Trails of Montverde and another project to the north, none of which are in the City. The property in question would infill back toward the turnpike and would be in the Montverde water and sewer district, which was just amended, and staff was comfortable with the project, because it was infill and there are vested projects around it of a similar density, Pine Island and Country Club of Montverde (Hillcrest Subdivision). She asked the Board to transmit at this time the request and, then they will come back for zoning. Ms. Bonifay noted that, even though these concept plans are not binding on Comprehensive Plan amendments, if the amendment is adopted and, when they come in for rezoning, the Board will remind them that they have agreed to a density of two units per acre and other amenities, or the Board has the option to not approve the project. Ms. Bonifay stated that one issue that was raised last time was that there were insufficient roads in this area. They have done a traffic study, and Mr. Brent Lacey, Transportation Planner and Engineer, Glatting Jackson, negotiated the methodology, as he has done with DCA on other Comprehensive Plan amendments, and it has been supplied to the Public Works Department. They have found that there is sufficient capacity currently to provide for this project, if they do two units per acres, as proposed. The traffic study and South Lake Public School Information was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-3 (composite) for the applicant.
Mr. Tim Green, President of Green Consulting Group, representing the Town of Montverde as Town Planner, addressed the Board to comment on the staff report that was presented to the Board. Mr. Green stated that he would be highlighting some areas that they feel would be inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Green stated that the staff report indicates that the property is located adjacent to a major thoroughfare and, in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, being located adjacent to a major thoroughfare would not be a limited access highway. In regard to concurrency, they would expect that, prior to adoption, the applicant would be expected to show that capacity is available to be encumbered by the County for public facilities and services, as stated in the reasons for recommending approval of this transmittal and adoption. He addressed Objective 1-1: Planning for Residential Quality and Neighborhood Cohesiveness, Policy 1-1.1, and stated that this is in the planning area of the Town of Montverde, and they have sent a letter to the County Manager requesting that they enter into a joint planning agreement (JPA). As been requested, Mr. Green stated that he will be meeting with County staff tomorrow, and the Mayor is meeting with Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, tomorrow afternoon. He pointed out that, when Ms. Bonifay originally met with the Mayor, the density was 1.79 dwelling units per acre. It is adjacent to the Trails of Montverde to the north, which is not in the Town of Montverde, but it has a density of .4 dwelling units per acre. He pointed out that staff performed an analysis of the Urban Area Residential Density Point System and found that the subject property is eligible for 3.5 dwelling units per acre, for urban expansion. The zoning case could limit that and they do expect them to adhere to the requirements for water and sewer found in the urban expansion future land use policies. Mr. Green pointed out that, at the P & Z Commission meeting, it was noted that the property has suburban land use, but it may be prohibited from meeting timeliness. Mr. Green stated that he has a letter from the Department of Growth Management that is not dated, to Mr. Ward from Mr. Thad Carroll, GIS Analyst, stating that timeliness was produced by the County to see if they could meet anything other than rural, one unit per five acres. At that time, it was found to be 13% developed within the required radius of the site, and 40% is required to meet timeliness to take suburban to anything other than one unit per five acres. When the County reviewed Policy 1-1.14: General Land Use Location Criteria, 1. a - g, the staff comment was “Shopping opportunities exist in Montverde.” He hopes that there is more to that assessment than that statement. At this time, he reviewed the location of the property noting that it is adjacent to a more rural character, and there are lands approved in the area for higher densities.
Commr. Pool questioned whether the Town of Montverde anticipates annexing the Trails of Montverde, or the Hillcrest project, into its city limits.
Mr. Green stated that he could not anticipate whether or not they will be annexed, but they are in the new utility district.
Mr. Glen Burns, Montverde, stated that he has with him the Montverde Small Area Plan, which cost about $100,000. Mr. Burns stated that it was never adopted because the people in the Montverde area, and the Board of County Commissioners, at that time, were shocked that the Plan called for a total of 5,000 houses within the Small Area Plan, over the next 50 years. In September, 2000, the Plan was turned down with the understanding that the Plan would be turned over to County staff for them to “get the numbers down.” It has been two years and, from his brief encounters with staff, he has been told that they can still make something out of it, but right now, the Board has a request for a Land Use Plan Amendment, which will increase densities beyond the 5,000 number. He wanted to remind everyone that this plan is the vision of the people in the Montverde area and, even though they did not like how the plan was put together, and they did not agree with the 5,000 homes, most of the it did represent the feelings of the people in the area.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, speaking as President of Alliance to Protect Water Resources, stated that, as noted in her letter to the Board dated March 12, 2002 (in backup), they disagree with Growth Management’s recommendation for approval because they, in general, are opposed to land use changes that would allow for the potential increase in density; it would add to the accumulative effect of increased pumping from the floridan aquifer; this area is getting closer to Lake Apopka and Gourdneck Springs; and it at the Lake Wales Ridge and would affect recharge. She stated that this a classic example of a protrusion of a finger into another land use that would encourage urban sprawl. She stated that it crosses the turnpike, and they believe that the turnpike makes a very logical divide between the two land uses of urban expansion and suburban. If this is approved, it will be the “domino” effect, and it will distort all future discussion of appropriate land use, because it sets a precedent. A gentleman indicated that staff did not review the timeliness issue and, with suburban land use, this issue always comes up. Ms. Fullerton stated that they feel that this is not a common sense land use amendment for the whole area, and they would request that the Board deny this land use amendment.
Ms. Ann Griffin stated that she will be speaking on this request, but she is going to object to all of these rezonings, or any further development in the Clermont/Montverde/Minneola area. It was noted that the Board did receive her letter of opposition to the requests for Center Lake Properties dated December 16, 2002. Ms. Griffin stated that she opposes these cases because of what they do to the Gourdneck Springs. She has discussed this with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and they are mandated to take into consideration the cumulative impacts. The information she has received indicates a cumulative reduction of 28.4% in flows of the Apopka Springs. She explained that this chain of lakes depends on the headwaters and Apopka Springs is predicted to decrease by over 40% according to the SJRWMD, by the year 2010. Ms. Griffin submitted a photo of Lake Apopka, Summer, 2002, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition.
Commr. Pool noted that he was at the same location about two weeks ago, as shown in the photograph (Exhibit O-1), and it does not depict what is there today.
Ms. Griffin addressed 373.0395, Florida Statutes, which requires the County to have a groundwater basin resource availability inventory, and stated that she has talked to the SJRWMD, who indicated that they have furnished the local governments with this inventory. She does not believe any local governments have been considering these inventories. She feels that everyone is working on their own, and there is a definite need for some coordination between the County and cities. Ms. Griffin stated that she is very concerned about the development in the Clermont area, and she questioned whether the Board has a groundwater basin resource availability inventory for all of the cases on the agenda today. Ms. Griffin stated that 163.317, Florida Statutes, was passed this year, which requires local governments to include in their potable water element a work plan covering at least a ten year period for building supply facilities, for new and existing development. She made reference to the East-Central Florida (ECF) ground water flow model, that was applied by the SJRWMD, and noted that, if all of these permitted projects are developed, this will cause a 29% decrease in Gourdneck Springs.
Through his discussion with Ms. Griffin, Commr. Cadwell clarified that she wished to have her packet of information dated December 16, 2002, which was submitted to the Board prior to the hearings, to be reflected in each of the zoning cases to be heard today. It was noted that this information would be included in the packet of information for each case.
Ms. Bonifay stated that this is only a transmittal but, to try to allay fears, because Lake County does not have an intermediate land use category between suburban and urban expansion, they proposed the plan at two units per acre. On all of the plans, they have continued to decrease densities, and the Board will look at this when it comes back to them. She was not familiar with the undated letter to Mr. Ward, as noted, but stated that they have been in negotiations with him, and the acquisition took about two years, therefore, things have probably changed significantly in the area. She noted that the Board has a staff report for approval. Ms. Bonifay stated that they are looking at this as infill, there will be not direct access to the turnpike, and they are proposing a significant buffer along it. The access is provided north on Fosgate Road, and to the east along Blackstill Lake Road. They have done a traffic study (in backup material), which shows that there is adequate capacity for the number of units they are proposing in this area. When this property comes back for adoption and/or rezoning, they will look at all of the concurrency issues including utilities and potable water. Ms. Bonifay requested that the Board transmit it at this time, and they will have time to work with staff, or the City, on the development proposal itself.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved LPA#02/3/1-3, Harold Ward, III (owners), Center Lake Properties, Ltd. (applicant); Cecelia Bonifay, PA (representative), a request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map, to change the land use designation from Suburban to Urban Expansion, and transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Tracking #22-02-LPA.
REZONING CASE LPA#01/4/1-2 - DOUGLAS S. DOUDNEY
DOUDNEY INVESTMENT CO., SCOTT D. & PAMELA F. GREENWOOD,
BEN J. SCHROEDER - TRACKING #40-01-LPA
REZONING CASE PH#17-02-2 - DOUDNEY INVESTMENT
SCOTT & PAMELA GREENWOOD - A AND MP TO R-3
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss LPA#01/4/1-2, Douglas S. Doudney (applicant), Doudney Investment Co., Scott D. and Pamela F. Greenwood, Ben J. Schroeder (owners), a request for an amendment to change the future land use designation from rural to urban expansion. The property is approximately 121 acres in size and is located on the south side of Hartwood Marsh Road. To the north is the Kings Ridge development and other annexed properties within the City of Clermont. When staff was directed to do the transmittal on this request, it came back from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) with their comments, and, in April, staff sent a response to those objections, recommendations, and comments. Staff received a letter back from DCA stating that they did not find their responses sufficient and they still had some issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Richardson stated that, in terms of the staff analysis, they found it to be an inconsistent change to the Future Land Use Map, and a contributor to urban sprawl. Staff had recommended denial on the original transmittal, and they maintain a recommendation for denial on the adoption today. The Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission recommended approval of the request 6-2.
Commr. Cadwell explained that there is a zoning case that follows this one where specific issues can be addressed but, at this time, he asked that the comments be kept to the land plan amendment.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Ackerman & Senterfitt, addressed the Board and stated that this case was carried from the 2001 cycle into 2002, because there was not a school siting component in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the Board in 2002. Ms. Bonifay stated that this particular development is adjacent to the City of Clermont. She explained that the 120 acres has both an agricultural and industrial zoning on it, and 80 acres is MP and vested for a concrete plant, as well as a PVC manufacturing plant. She pointed out that Levitt Homes is under construction immediately to the west on a piece of property that was zoned and annexed by the City of Clermont. It is not an age restricted community, and it receives utilities from the City. She stated that Kings Ridge is located to the north of the site, and they felt that a lower density residential use would be much more compatible than putting another industrial use here. It would be across from that portion of the Center Lake Properties that is still being mined by Tarmac, and it is her understanding that they have an interest in a cement plant on that site, if this zoning does not go through today. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) comments were discussed at length at the P & Z Commission meeting, and they made a recommendation for approval. They have made two trips to Tallahassee and have supplemented their package with a lot of additional information, which includes a map that shows the existing city limits of the City of Clermont, as well as a utilities map for the area, since the City serves the property immediately adjacent to the property in question. As discussed, there is a larger commercial node at the intersection of Highway 27 and Hartwood Marsh, and the property in question is located to the south of Hartwood Marsh Road. She noted that they also have a site plan of Regency Hills, which abuts the Doudney property, and it was annexed into the City with a density of up to four units per acre. Even though they are only dealing with the LPA at this point, when they came back with the rezoning on this piece, it was recommended by the P & Z Commission that the density not exceed three units per acre, which was agreed to by Mr. Doudney and is now in the proposed ordinance. They also have a locational map that shows some of the other commercial in the area, the utilities map, and a number of transportation maps to put on record, which deal with the expansion of Hartwood Marsh Road. She noted that, to the northwest is the Kings Ridge development, which was approved for over 3,000 dwelling units as part of that development of regional impact (DRI). Further to the north is a Middle School, a wastewater treatment facility of the City of Clermont, as well as a City park. She noted that this actually abuts what was County urban expansion, and they are asking for urban expansion, because there is no intermediate density between suburban and urban expansion.
Ms. Bonifay submitted for the record a composite of evidence, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 (composite) for the applicant, LPA#01/4/1-2.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, even though the Board has to vote on each separate case, the following case is the rezoning on the property being discussed. He asked that Ms. Bonifay present the rezoning case at this time, so that public comments can be heard on both cases rather than having individuals repeat their concerns.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, in conclusion, when the Board looks at the staff report for the LPA case, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was not the desire of the applicant. A compromise was recommended by the P & Z Commission, for R-3 zoning rather than R-4 zoning, which he agreed to at this meeting. The staff report points out a number of reasons why this should be at a higher density, but the P & Z Commission wanted to see decreasing density along Hartwood Marsh Road. There really is not any opportunity for development to the south of this piece, because to the south, there is Conserv II, which is jointly owned by the City of Orlando and Orange County. She noted that they did meet with them, at a joint meeting, and discussed their proposed use of this area, which relates to their reuse of their wastewater treatment plant. Ms. Bonifay stated that, based on the residential density chart, which is part of the staff report, this particular piece of property would be eligible for up to 5.5 units per acre. The land use they are requesting caps at 4 units per acre, and they have agreed to go to a medium density residential, which is R-3 zoning.
In response to the question about this being an adult only development, Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Doudney will address this issue, but they have never made that representation.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if that is the case, then under the discussion of the zoning, the Board needs to discuss the school concurrency issue. Even though the Board cannot condition zoning, the Board needs some type of assurance that these projects today will at least agree to abide by the policy they create with the school system.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that case law is very clear that, whenever the applicant comes in for development, they will have to be in compliance with all Board policies in effect at that time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would use Ms. Bonifay’s comment to let the Board know that they need to move very quickly with the school system, in regards to getting that policy in place.
Ms. Bonifay stated that this is certainly a concern for the development community, and they hope that the Board will involve them in that discussion, because it is to the developer’s benefit to ensure that there is adequate school capacity and that Lake County has a sound school system, from a capital facilities standpoint, as well as a fiscal standpoint. Based on the formula in the Comprehensive Plan, they looked at the schools in this area and updated the information that was submitted as part of the Board’s backup package. There is capacity today based on the numbers they are showing, however, in the information pointed out by the School Board, it did not have in the projections the new elementary school being built on CR 561, which is expected to open in August, 2003. Ms. Bonifay clarified that none of these projects will be on line immediately, as she explained in terms of permitting and development, and noted that some counties are using Community Development Districts (CDDs) as financing vehicles.
Ms. Bonifay submitted for the record a composite of evidence, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 (composite) for the applicant, PH#17-02-2.
Mr. Doug Doudney stated that he is part owner of the subject property. Mr. Doudney stated that, as pointed out by Ms. Bonifay, there is full zoning approval for a concrete and PVC pipe plant. At this time, Mr. Doudney read into the record the Board minutes of June, 1987, as follows: “that unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from agriculture to planned industrial for manufacturing concrete products, PVC pipe, and a transportation and distribution facility for plumbing and electrical products.” He pointed out that no neighboring residents have come to any of the hearings to complain about the project and that it has always been the local city expressing concerns. Mr. Doudney explained that, as a landowner, to wait two years for a process that should take only six months is very painful financially, emotionally.
Mr. Doudney pointed out, for the record, a map that was published in the Orlando Sentinel and provided by the SJRWMD, about a year ago, with a pink dot that shows the subject property as being it the middle of a very large area. The map was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit A-2 for the applicant, case PH#17-02-2. Mr. Doudney stated that these are areas where the SJRWMD anticipates that the ground water level will rise over the next five years. The point of the article was to show other areas of Central Florida where there is going to be water level problems. Because the map is a year old now, it did not anticipate the benefits that will come from the sand mine, when they stop pumping and start using all reuse water. Therefore, he believes that the water situation in that area is quite healthy. He has been told by a hydrologist that the developed Central Florida is still not drawing as much water as the natural springs. He submitted a letter from Lake Groves Utilities, Inc., which stated that they would be willing to support their project, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-3 for the applicant, case PH#17-02-2.
Mr. Richard Lindgren, Assistant Superintendent, Lake County Schools, addressed the Board in opposition to the requests. Mr. Lindgren resubmitted his letter dated December, 17, 2002, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as O-1 for the opposition, for cases LPA#01/4/1-2 and PH#17-02-2. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1.19, which specifically addresses the need to look at school facilities, and asked that the Board looks at this and not wait until the rezoning. He respectfully disagreed with Ms. Bonifay, in terms of her information that schools are not a problem in South Lake, and asked that the Board again refer to Exhibit O-1 that addresses the capacities of the schools in South Lake, specifically Lost Lake Elementary School, Windy Hill Middle School, and East Ridge High School.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Lindgren is here presenting the School Board today, and he hopes that he will relay to them the Board’s urgency in wanting a school concurrency plan.
Mr. Frank Caputo, Clermont City Council member, addressed the Board and stated that, on behalf of the City, he would again like to go on record opposing the land use change and, in reference to the zoning, he would like to point out that Regency Hills development was approved by the City at 2.3 units per acre. He stated that, as indicated in the DCA’s report, the 450 acre Center Lake parcel is one of the largest and richest recharge areas in that area, and that is why the water is going to come up.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, speaking as a resident of Clermont and as President of Alliance to Protect Water Resources, Inc., addressed the Board and submitted her letter dated August 23, 2002, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-2 for the opposition, cases LPA#01/4/1-2 and PH#17-02-2. Ms. Fullerton stated that they agree with staff’s recommendation that this should be denied, and it is an increase in density. Their objections are essentially the same as those stated April 4, 2001, at the P & Z Commission meeting. There were concerns about sprawl, water, and impact on roads and schools. Ms. Fullerton stated that the DCA report that was presented to the Board along with their letter of June 11, 2002, states that their concerns were being based on the fact that the City of Clermont had not been included in any joint planning with the County, and the assigning of urban expansion may not be compatible with the City’s land use needs and desires. They commented on the SJRWMD’s concern with the impact of cumulative effect, but the DCA letter states that both Clermont and Lake Grove Utilities may be exceeding the amount of water withdrawn allowed under their current permits. The DCA has encouraged the County to revise its Comprehensive Plan, based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and, on that basis, Ms. Fullerton stated, for the record, that they feel the Board should deny the requests.
Mr. Miles Hinsley addressed the Board and stated that he has a 40 acre parcel near the property in question. Mr. Hinsley stated that he appreciated the applicant bringing the density down, from four units per acre to three units per acre. He stated that he does not want to see an industrial use at the proposed site, because it would not be compatible with the neighborhood, even though he knows the property is currently zoned for that use. He further stated that the Board should vote in favor of Mr. Doudney’s request, because he does not want to see more industrial uses in an area that has schools and other neighborhoods.
Ms. Ann Griffin, speaking as an individual, addressed the Board and stated that she is going to go back to the issue of the East-Central Florida (ECF) ground water flow model being applied by the SJRWMD and, at this time, she read the following into the record, as taken from the District Water Supply Plan (Draft): “If all current plans are implemented, surficial aquifer water level declines would result in regional dewatering of sensitive wetlands sufficient to result in significant harm. These wetlands impacts would occur regionally, but the ridge region of Lake County, which provides much natural recharge to the Floridan aquifer, would be impacted the greatest.” Ms. Griffin stated that the SJRWMD is saying that, if everything is permitted that is applied now, this is what is expected to happen. She referred, once again, to the legislature that stated that each water management district must develop a groundwater basin availability inventory on identified areas and provide them to local and regional agencies, as discussed earlier, and she did find the law that says they are required to give that to the Board in January, 2003. The ten year plan would be presented in 2005, but 373.0395 Florida Statutes state that, when the County considers any revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, they are supposed to have in front of them a detailed groundwater basin inventory, and the water supply plan says that, if everything goes through that is on the books now, not counting what the Board is talking about today, that area in South Lake County is going to be severely impacted, as indicated in the draft of the District Water Supply Plan (Draft).
Commr. Cadwell referred to the P & Z Commission minutes and noted that some of the Commissioners had indicated that they would be more comfortable with R-3 zoning, which would eliminate the need for a Developer’s agreement, and that they could handle the 160 acres in a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Ms. Bonifay explained that the 160 acres referred to by the P & Zoning Commission will be discussed in the next case. They did continue the 160 acre parcel that is owned by Center Lake, not Doudney, until they could do a concept plan and come back and show them a density with a developer’s agreement. The P & Z Commission insisted that this case come back as R-3 zoning (PH#17-02-02). She explained that, when they get to the 450 acres owned by Center Lake, they agreed, in a developer’s agreement, to bring it back as PUD not to exceed three units per acre, but the P & Z Commission felt it was too large to go as a straight zoning, and they wanted the 160 acres to be the transition piece. As noted on Page 18 of the August 7, 2002 P & Z Commission minutes, the P & Z Commission recommended R-3 zoning without a PUD, or a developer’s agreement. Ms. Bonifay explained that, even though individuals keep referring to the DCA report that was done some time ago, they have sent to them two supplemental packages. She stated that, although the zoning designation would have allowed up to four units per acre, it is actually at 2.28 units, so they did put a cap on the three units per acre. She further explained that, regardless of what the zoning designation might be, the densities are ending up to be somewhere around 1.8 to about 2.8, so they are all staying under the three units per acre. Ms. Bonifay felt it would behoove the County to look at some other interim land use designation.
In terms of the other comments, Ms. Bonifay stated that the request before the Board would be consistent and compatible with the area. She felt that the P & Z Commission had agreed to straight zoning, because it would be a significant reduction in intensity from the industrial land use that was allowed on the 80 acres. Mr. Doudney will have to meet all school policies, and they have submitted all of their school information for review. The Board has heard from the School Board, and they need to work together to have a policy that deals with school capacity. Ms. Bonifay requested that the Board approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment (LPA #01/4/1-2) and the separate rezoning (PH#17-02-2).
Commr. Hill disclosed that she spoke with Ms. Bonifay, and also to Ms. Elaine Renick, about all of these properties, and Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Stivender, and Commr. Pool disclosed that they met with representatives, as well as individual residents, regarding the land plan amendments.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that the Board will need two separate motions after Board comment.
Commr. Hill stated that, in June, 2001, Ms. Bonifay had stated that the City of Clermont had a retreat and, at that time, they had indicated that this was in their JPA boundaries and would most likely be the next property to be annexed into the City. She questioned why this was never done, since the property to the west has been annexed. She further questioned why the City is waiting for the rezoning to change from an industrial use, to more of a residential use.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she was not aware of this opportunity but, as noted in the backup, a determination was made for annexation, but it was never brought back to the City Council for final approval. She explained that the project to the west, which was purchased by Mr. Dale Ladd, went through the annexation process. He then brought the property back for a rezoning, and the zoning designation would have allowed up to four units per acre, but the City capped it at 2.28.
Commr. Pool stated that he appreciated all comments made today, and he feels this is the right thing in the right location, and it will be far better than some other distribution facility, which he feels would impact that neighborhood and surrounding areas. It is consistent with the area, it is urban at its best, and it is contiguous with the City of Clermont, with opportunities for it to be annexed into the City, and the City can provide water and sewer.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved LPA#01/4/1-2, Douglas S. Doudney (applicant), Doudney Investment Co., Scott D. & Pamela F. Greenwood, Ben J. Schroeder (owners), an amendment to change the future land use designation from rural to urban expansion, Tracking #40-01-LPA, Ordinance 2002-100.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#17-02-2, Doudney Investment, Scott & Pamela Greenwood (owners), Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, PA, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture)/40 acres and MP (Planned Industrial)/80 acres to R-3 (Medium Residential), Tracking #58-02-Z, Ordinance 2002-101.
REZONING CASE MSP#02/3/2-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - AMENDMENT TO MSP ORDINANCE #2001-110
REZONING CASE LPA#01/9/2-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES INC.
JAMES CARUSO - CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #122-01-LPA
REZONING CASE PH#25-02-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - A TO R-4 - TRACKING #45-02-Z
REZONING CASE LPA#02/3/2-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, LTD.
JAMES CARUSO - CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #23-02-LPA
REZONING CASE PH#22-02-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, PA - A TO R-4 - TRACKING #57-02-Z
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss MSP#02/3/2-2, Center Lake Properties, Inc., a request for an amendment to MSP Ordinance #2001-110 to exclude approximately 610 acres from the existing mining operation to allow for future development. He explained that this would include the 450 acre site and the 160 acre site, which is south of Hartwood Marsh Road. Staff is recommending approval for removal of the acreage from the existing mining site plans contingent on the execution of a developer’s agreement for reclamation of the site. Mr. Richardson noted that the agreement is included in the backup material, and it includes a density stipulation for 2.5 dwelling units per acre for the total acreage
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, stated that they have two properties that are a part of the original Tarmac Sand Mines. She explained that Center Lake Properties has a little over 1,280 acres, which has been approved over time for use as a sand mine and operated by Tarmac Industries. She noted that they have representatives from Center Lake, as well as Tarmac, here today. Ms. Bonifay referred to the existing development map and noted that the 160 acres is approved for mining, but has not yet been mined. After working for almost two years with Tarmac and Center Lake, and with County staff, they are following their recommendations and those of the County Attorney to handle these requests. First they have a MSP amendment, which takes both the 450 acre parcel and the 160 acre parcel out from under the mining site plan and the mining ordinance. Then they had to deal with reclamation and, based on the long term lease that exists between Tarmac and Center Lake, they can mine for another 60 years, and the mining ordinance currently reads that reclamation does not have to commence until a certain period of time after all mining as been completed. So they developed an amendment to the mining site plan ordinance, and then they had to develop some form of an agreement to deal with reclamation. The County said it wanted a developer’s agreement, because it wanted to tie reclamation of this site to the development of housing. The County then adopted the provisions of Chapter 163 that dealt with development agreements, and they follow what is in the County Code, the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the State legislation. Ms. Bonifay explained that, because you have to tie a developer’s agreement to a zoning, they then came in with zoning applications for both the 450 acres and the 160 acres. The developer’s agreement for the 450 acres is limited to three units per acre, but they also agreed at the P & Z Commission meeting to bring that back as a PUD before any further development took place. She noted that Center Lake Properties is under contract with Lennar Homes, and a representative from Lennar is here today. Ms. Bonifay stated that Lennar has been working with the President’s Council at Kings Ridge, and they negotiated for a number of months, but they were never able to reach an agreement. It was their understanding that, if Lennar would commit to do a stand alone, age restricted community that does not exceed three units per acre, it would be similar to surrounding neighborhoods.
In summary, Ms. Bonifay stated that the 450 acres will come back as a PUD and be limited to three units per acre. After meeting with the P & Z Commission, they put together a developer’s agreement that limits the density on the 160 acres, and they also did a conceptual plan to go with the rezoning that will be tied to that agreement.
Ms. Bonifay stated that first they need to delete these properties, the total of 610 acres, from the mining site plan. She noted that there are a couple of different ordinances in the backup, and they have submitted a legal of the 610 acres to be deleted from all of the different ordinances that have been approved over time. She further noted that existing documents include CUP#119-3 (1969); MSP#119-C3 (1993); and MSP 2001-110 (new mining expansion area). Ms. Bonifay stated that they explained to staff that they cannot delete these properties from Ordinance MSP 2001-110, because they are not covered by that ordinance. She referred to the developer’s agreement, as amended by the P & Z Commission on August 7, 2002, and stated that it has the correct legals and references attached to it.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the first item would be to approve MSP#02/3/2-2, which will release the 450 acres and the 160 acres from the mining site plans under which they were approved, and then they will proceed to the Comprehensive Plan amendments and zonings.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board will have to procedurally take action, but he suggested that the Board hear all comments and concerns on all issues at this time, and then go back and act on each case.
Because there would be discussion on each case, as well as public comment, Ms. Bonifay submitted a composite of evidence to be attached with each file, which the Deputy Clerk marked each as Exhibit A-1 (composite) for the applicant, with the identifying case number. Throughout her presentation, Ms. Bonifay made reference to evidence provided in each case and identified it as such.
Ms. Bonifay explained that Center Lake Properties has entered into a contract with Lennar Homes to acquire the 450 acres, and Lennar has committed to build a stand alone, age restricted community, which will not exceed three units per acre, and she was authorized by Lennar, as well as Center Lake Properties, in October, 2002, to advise the President’s Council at Kings Ridge of that fact, and they had indicated that, if they had that commitment, they would have no objection to this application. She explained that the DRI for Kings Ridge was approved for over 3,000 units, so there are approximately 1,350 units that Lennar has an entitlement to build but, because they built at a lower density, the density was only 2.8. She reviewed issues raised in the DCA report that they discussed with staff and noted that they have not revised their report, even though they have supplied additional data. They have submitted a letter from the City of Clermont, which says that it would be their recommendation that they serve this project with utilities, because there is capacity available. Ms. Bonifay explained that, since the time they submitted this to DCA, Lake Groves Utilities, Inc. has petitioned the Public Service Commission for the authority to serve both the 450 acre parcel, and the 160 acre parcel. Based on the County’s residential density chart, this property scores a number that would allow it to be developed at 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Lennar company has the entitlement to go forward and build 1,350 units in Lake County, and they have chosen at this point in time to enter into a contractual obligation with Center Lake. She reviewed the initial DRI, and the location of acreage and approved uses in the area.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that the development will be a stand alone adult community, it will not have a golf course, it will be age restricted, and it will not exceed three units per acre. Ms. Bonifay explained that it will not have any school impact, based on the current impact fee ordinance, and the way that the County assesses retirement communities. She clarified that those individuals in the community will be paying school taxes.
Discussion occurred regarding the conceptual plan, which showed the visionary road network, a realignment of Hartwood Marsh, and an extension of Hartle Road, with it being noted that this will require joint planning between Lennar, Center Lake, Tarmac, and the County.
Ms. Bonifay explained that the County, as part of its transportation improvement plan, has put out a request for proposals (RFPs) for the PD&E study on Hartwood Marsh Road, so the timing is very opportune, and Tarmac, Center Lake, and Lennar want to work very closely with the consultants.
At this time, Ms. Bonifay reviewed the language being proposed in the developer’s agreement, which included the insertion of the word “vegetative” buffer, and the extension of the buffer, as noted. She stated that, in terms of the school bus stop, they will not be interfering with that particular piece of property.
Mr. Richard Gonzalez, Pineloch Management and representing Center Lake Properties, addressed the Board and stated that, at this time and, with this plan, they do not envision disrupting the current utilization of the small parcel north of them for school bus purposes.
Commr. Pool wanted it clear that the vegetative buffer is never to be developed, there will no RV parking, or anything that will be obnoxious to the neighbors, and he wanted to make sure that this is put into the developer’s agreement.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that they agree with Commr. Pool’s comments and that it is consistent with their other developments to where they preserve and protect those green spaces for perpetuity. They will also be addressing other concerns by erecting a fence on the property line, as described.
Ms. Bonifay asked that the Board approve the developer’s agreement, including the following language, as it relates to Tab 9, Case PH#22-02-2 (160 acres), and to adopt the new revised concept plan, to be submitted:
Page 2 -
2. c. 50-foot vegetative buffer
e. future owners will be notified of existing hunting and agricultural uses on the adjacent property.
f. to amend concept plan to include two tiers of one-half acre lots along the eastern and northeastern boundaries as shown on the Revised Concept Plan submitted December 17, 2002
Ms. Bonifay noted that they entered additional exhibits for the record and would reserve their right for rebuttal.
Commr. Cadwell called for public comment on the five cases now before the Board.
Mr. Jim Purvis, City of Clermont, resident of Kings Ridge, addressed the Board and requested that his previous comments be entered into the record on these particular issues, as previously read. Mr. Purvis stated that he is a member of the President’s Council, and he clarified that no one on the Council is elected. They serve as a group of volunteers mostly created by members of the Board of Directors of the individual neighborhoods within Kings Ridge. He is a member of the Wellington neighborhood Board of Directors and was asked to represent Wellington on the President’s Council. Mr. Purvis sated that there was no agreement ever reached between the President’s Council and the applicants. He explained that the Council does not stand for or against the proposal, however, they cannot commit as a group or, even as a substantial group of individuals, to anything that is being discussed today. Mr. Purvis stated that he has learned more today than in the last 15 months. He stated that, if the Board should approve the requests today, they need to “nail the deal down” and know exactly what is being proposed. He questioned the noticing of today’s agenda, and the posting of the property and challenged the Board to show him proper notification to the abutting homeowners.
Mr. Frank Caputo, an elected official for the City of Clermont, stated that, through the discussion, it has been noted that Center Lake Properties has requested annexation into the City of Clermont and if, for no other reason, this should sufficient grounds for the Board to postpone that part of the hearing, because it would only be fair that the City of Clermont be given the opportunity to make its own decision. Mr. Caputo stated that, as a resident of Kings Ridge, he has not been given detailed information about the proposals being discussed today, but he and the residents in his neighborhood are strongly opposed to Lennar having any connection with Kings Ridge. If they are going to continue their DRI in the 450 acre project and use their private roads, then he feels that this proposed stand alone community should have their own sales center. The 2,400 residents in Kings Ridge are concerned that Lennar is not going to relinquish control of their community for many years to come and he urged the Board, before they act, to find out from the people of Kings Ridge how they feel about these requests. Mr. Caputo stated that he was going to hold Commr. Pool to is commitment, that would not vote for anything over two units per acre on the 450 acre parcel.
Commr. Pool explained that he would not approve any project higher than two units per acre without central water and sewer. He stated that it would be consistent with the densities that are now in Mr. Caputo’s own project (Kings Ridge).
Mr. Caputo stated that, in his conversations with Commr. Pool, it was very clear that he would not vote for more than two units per acre, and they discussed the City supplying that parcel with water and sewer, because he initiated that action. He stated that it was obvious that, if they want them in the City of Clermont, and they are going to annex them, they are certainly going to provide them with water and sewer.
Ms. Mary Eddy stated that her family has owned property located east of 450 since the 1930s. Ms. Eddy stated that they have about 100 acres of working grove, and she would like the same concessions that the Board gave to Mr. Miles Hinsley, in terms of a vegetative buffer, but she would like 100 feet of vegetative buffer, because of the nearby wetlands, and a six foot chained link fence. She explained that there will be movement of tractors and pickers and trucks, so that needs to be taken into consideration.
Commr. Cadwell explained that there is language that will protect the agricultural interest, and the hunting interest, and the buffer being offered is 50 feet, as well as a fence.
Mr. Richard Lindgren, Assistant Superintendent, Business and Support Services, Lake County Schools, stated that he would like to enter into the record his previous written comments relating to this issue. Mr. Lindgren stated that, to reiterate the importance of considering the County’s Comprehensive Plan, in terms of Policy 1-1.9 that talks about available facilities to support the uses, and also Policy 1-1.14 that states the general land use location criteria and addresses schools. He stated that he would like to address the request involving the 450 acre parcel and requested that it not be designated as an adult community, but as a adult only over 55 because, without that specific designation, there is no guarantee that it will not have a significant impact on schools. A copy of the letter from Mr. Lindgren dated December 17, 2002, was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition and identified for cases LPA#01/9/2-2, PH#25-02-2, LPA#02/3/2-2, and PH#22-02-2.
Ms. Elaine Renick stated that she is addressing the Board to state concerns of Mr. John Pyles and Ms. Sherry Tingler. Ms. Renick stated that they have a letter from Avalon Home and Property Owners Association to be presented to the Board. She stated that they are concerned about the high density being requested by the developer. They have some of the same concerns that have been expressed by others about the buffers, respecting the rural nature of the neighborhood, and the lifestyle they enjoy, and they ask the Board to deny these applications. Ms. Renick stated that some individual comments from Mr. Pyles included a “skyscraper” analogy where you would feel uncomfortable with something like that next to your home. They are also concerned that, because there are a very few residents in this area, they are not being heard. Ms. Tingler addressed issues of compatibility in the area, buffering, fencing, and other issues that they call lack of design standards. Ms. Renick submitted the letter from Avalon Home and Property Owners Association, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition and placed in the record for case MSP#02/3/2-2, and marked as Exhibit O-2 for the opposition and placed in the record for cases LPA#01/9/2-2, PH#25-02-2, LPA#02/3/2-2, and PH#22-02-2.
Ms. Renick stated that, to comment on remarks made by Ms. Bonifay, the City of Clermont always gives you a letter that says they have capacity, which only means that they have the plant, and they have the pipes, and it has nothing to do with whether they have the water. She stated that everyone gets a letter from Lake Groves Utilities who is more than willing to serve an area, and she asked the Board to take this into consideration, since the City was the first to provide required information to the SJRWMD.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, speaking as a resident of Clermont and as President of Alliance to Protect Water Resources, addressed the Board and asked them to refer to their letter of March 11, 2002, and her comments to the Board on the same day, and their letter of August 23, 2002. Ms. Fullerton stated that, since that time their objections have been strongly supported by staff’s analysis of August 7, 2002; Mr. Forgy’s memo of July 11, 2002 regarding Lake County’s long term service commitment; the DCA’s review of the amendments; the comments from the FDEP, and the SJRWMD’s review and comments of June 5, 2002.. Ms. Fullerton stated that, in the letter from the SJRWMD, it states that they are faced with potentially 2,440 new residential units, and additionally, there has not been a firm commitment from either Clermont, or Lake Groves Utilities, and, while the two utilities may have enough capacity, they do not appear to have enough water under their current district consumptive use permits, therefore, further development of additional groundwater in the area of the current consumptive use permit allocations is questionable. She feels this is reason enough to deny, or hold off on, these land use amendments.
Commr. Cadwell introduced Captain Wayne Longo, Lake County Sheriff’s Office, who is doing internship for Leadership Lake County.
REZONING CASE MSP#02/3/2-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - AMENDMENT TO MSP ORDINANCE #2001-110
REZONING CASE LPA#01/9/2-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES INC.
JAMES CARUSO - CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #122-01-LPA
REZONING CASE PH#25-02-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - A TO R-4 - TRACKING #45-02-Z
REZONING CASE LPA#02/3/2-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, LTD.
JAMES CARUSO - CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #23-02-LPA
REZONING CASE PH#22-02-2 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, PA - A TO R-4 - TRACKING #57-02-Z
Ms. Ann Griffin stated for the record that she is against the project, based on the cumulative impacts that the SJRWMD says will occur by 2006. The impact on Gourdneck Springs, the Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes plus water resources around the Clermont Chain of Lakes plus this ridge area is expected to have the most wetland impacts from groundwater withdrawals. Ms. Griffin stated that she has already gone into detail about her reasons. She stated that, with the already permitted developments, the SJRWMD has already said they expect these impacts to occur, and any new proposed development definitely should not be considered..
Mr. Miles Hinsley addressed the Board and stated that he owns a 40 acre parcel next to the 160 acre parcel. Mr. Hinsley showed pictures looking southeast (not a house for over two miles), south (not another house for over five miles); east (neighbor has a 20 acre tree farm); and property boundaries and stated that he is in favor of the development. He stated that this will be urban expansion into a rural area, and he does not see any subdivisions in the area right now, but he feels that some concessions could be made to tailor this development into the existing community. He feels this is necessary for the neighborhood cohesiveness, and he believes it is necessary to maintain their way of life. He expressed his concern with future homeowner associations taking control of this area and, he feels that both areas, the Forest Drive Stormwater Park and the 50 foot buffer, should be made into a conservation area, or some means, so that their wishes today can be preserved into the future. He suggested that language be included in the developer’s agreement to address this issue, as well as specific language for something other than a barbed wire fence. He pointed out that, in the developer’s agreement, it is not clear that the project will be on central water and sewer. He stated that the agreement refers to the 50 buffer existing along the eastern boundary of the property, but it should be eastern and northeastern corner. In regards to the access road, Mr. Hinsley pointed out the public dedicated easement where the bus turns around and stated that he feels it would be beneficial if they would dedicate that access for the school bus. Mr. Hinsley stated that it was agreed upon at the P & Z Commission meeting and is reflected in the developer’s agreement that this parcel was to be a transitional piece of property, and he would like them to consider one acre lots along this boundary to help provide for that transitional area, to comply with the ORC report from the DCA.
Commr. Cadwell explained that these types of regulations brought forth by Mr. Hinsley will be a part of the ordinance, and other regulations are within the LDRs. Also the conceptual drawing will be part of the evidence.
Ms. Bonifay stated that several issues were raised regarding the relationship between the existing Kings Ridge community and Lennar, and it is an internal issue that will have to be resolved between Lennar, as the developer of Kings Ridge, and the President’s Council, or with the appropriate mechanism. They have representatives here today, and she feels they have been clear in their intent. She explained the process taken with the President’s Council noting that they realized that the Council was not making a recommendation at that time, or a commitment, and the applicant came forward with a request for a stand alone, separate community facility that would be age restricted, not exceeding three acres. She further explained that these are really homeowner types issues being brought forth by Mr. Hinsley, and this Board really has no privity to enter into or enforce rights.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, in regards to Ms. Eddy’s issues of concern, according to Center Lake Properties, their property boundaries are currently fenced and, as indicated by the Chairman, if this is developed by a subdivision, the LDRs provide a 50 foot buffer between agriculture.
In regards to the Avalon Association, she has worked with them in conjunction with other projects in Orange County including Horizons West, which has very high densities.
To address Mr. Hinsley’s comments, Ms. Bonifay stated that her client has indicated that they will provide the appropriate type of fencing, and the developer’s agreement is legally binding and, once it is recorded, it will run with the land and, as to the extension of the buffers, they will ask that the concept plan be attached to the developer’s agreement. She noted that Mr. Hinsley has had a number of requests and they have tried to meet all of those over time. He did bring up the issue of the larger lots at the P & Z Commission meeting, and it was their feeling that they would rather see more land in open space than in backyards, and the two-tier half acre lots was a sufficient buffer. They did try to exceed the open space requirements, so that, in every neighborhood, there is park, or green area, or open space, and they also tried to incorporate retention areas into the open space plan. It was their determination that half acre lots would be sufficient.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, in regards to the annexation into Kings Ridge, it would certainly be their option, but she has heard earlier today that they may or may not give them utilities, but she would urge the County to move forward, based on the MSP amendment provided to the Board, with the correct legals, to delete the 450 and 160 acre parcels from the mining site plan; approve the LPA on the 450 acre parcel and approve the developer’s agreement that goes with it, which will limit the density and require that it be a PUD; approve the LPA on the 160 acre parcel with the developer’s agreement that includes all of the recommendations of P & Z and that they attach the concept plan that was presented today. As to the school bus site, that is land that is owned by Center Lake Properties and Pineloch Management, and they do not intend to include it, at this point, in the subdivision, and they have no intention on changing it. The County will be looking at this site, as development comes in, to ensure that nothing is done to impede access to those parcels. She stated that the Lake County School Board will be looking out for their school site and school bus drop off point, and they will be happy to work with them on any modification, if necessary, based on the design of the project.
Commr. Stivender reviewed Ms. Bonifay’s numbers that had been formulated using the Lake County Code to determine the number of students that would impact each case and stated that, from her calculations, she estimated 2.1 units per acre, for all of the projects being proposed today, and it appears to her that they are doing what Commr. Pool has implied that the Board is trying to do in South Lake County, with the 2.0 units, with water and sewer.
Mr. Julian Harper, Senior Planner, Lake County Schools, introduced himself at this time for the record.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, with the PUD on the big parcel, it gives him a comfort level, and he hopes that this proves the urgency for a true school concurrency policy, and he hopes that, when the Board meets with the School Board in February, they move forward very quickly.
Commr. Pool explained that, anything south of these properties, south of Hartwood Marsh Road, is not to be developed, because that is the Conserv II area. All of the parcels to the east of this project are in two, five, and 20 acre tracts, which are not large tracts of land to be developed. He pointed out the location of the Clermont central water and sewer plant and stated that, when it was put in this location, it was designed to cover a region, not just Kings Ridge, and to service many houses, in order to cover the debt service. He sees this as an asset and a progression to what is going on in this area, and he feels these are the right projects at the right time. He sincerely believes that what they are doing is prudent planning and proper planning.
Commr. Hill stated that she appreciates representatives of the School Board being here today, and she appreciates the input, and she feels the Board has met their responsibility to the education of school children. She stated that, not only do they have their own millage, but they have included in the County two impact fees, one for transportation, and one for infrastructure, in which they have identified and come forward with a higher impact fee, which she hopes will help with their revenue. They have also included them on the sales tax, with one-third of the penny. She really feels the County is doing its part, and they have a lot of shared opportunities other than just capital facilities with the schools, and she hopes they continue with them.
Commr. Hill stated that she understands Ms. Griffin’s concern about water use and, as the life of these mines expire, they are going to have the same situation as they did with agriculture in the 1980s, and how they are going to vision these in and around cities, because cities have encroached on these mining areas. She hopes that their vision will be the same as the Clermont’s vision. She still wants to have workshops and, in regards to the water and sewer issue, Commr. Hill stated that she is going to assume the responsibility and risks lie with the applicant, and whether that is being obtained by public or private entity, that will be determined by the applicant, but the Board is saying that they want them to provide water and sewer.
Commr. Pool stated that he would not approve these requests today without water and sewer, transportation, recreation, and the proper planning.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case MSP#02/3/2-2, Center Lake Properties, Inc. (owner/applicant), Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, a request for an amendment to MSP Ordinance #2001-110, to exclude 610+/- acres from the existing mining operation, to allow for future development, Tracking #17-02-MSP/AMD, Ordinance 2002-102.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that, on the particular cases where there are developer’s agreements, the motion will include the associated developer’s agreement.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case LPA#01/9/2-2, Center Lake Properties Inc. - James Caruso (owners), Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, a map amendment to change the future land use designation from Rural to Urban Expansion and to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tracking #122-01-LPA, Ordinance 2002-103.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission (for rezoning from A to R-3) and approved Rezoning Case PH#25-02-2, Center Lake Properties, Inc. (owner), Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) for single-family residential development, Tracking #56-02-Z, Ordinance 2002-104.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case LPA#02/3/2-2, Center Lake Properties, Ltd. (applicant), James Caruso (owner), Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, a request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation from Rural to Urban Expansion, Tracking #23-02-LPA, Ordinance 2002-105.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#22-02-2, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), Tracking #57-02-Z, Ordinance 2002-106.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FRUITLAND PARK/STATE FUNDING/WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Commr. Hill made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, for approval of a letter supporting Fruitland Park’s request for State funding for a wastewater treatment plant for the US27/441 corridor in Fruitland Park.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill wanted to extend her thanks to Fruitland Park.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF CLERMONT - OAKLEY SEAVER BOULEVARD
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, discussed the request from Public Works for approval of an Agreement with the City of Clermont pertaining to Oakley Seaver Boulevard. Mr. Neron stated that this is a normal joint agreement that the County would have with the City and is subject to the availability of impact fee funds being available. Due to the timeliness of the project, staff wanted to get it approved and, as soon as funds are identified and become available, they will proceed with the actual work on this project.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the request from Public Works for approval of an Agreement with the City of Clermont for the design, permitting and construction of the Oakley Seaver Boulevard extension from Citrus Tower Boulevard to North Hancock Road, subject to available funding.
LAKE SAUNDERS BOAT RAMP
Commr. Stivender referred to the discussion item regarding some problems at the Lake Saunders Boat Ramp and stated that the gentleman that lives next to the easement is here today, but perhaps staff could update the Board on the issue.
Mr. Bob Stevens, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that staff has been having difficulties at the Lake Saunders Board Ramp for at least three years. Mr. Stevens stated that two of the options to fix this situation require that the County own some property on which to build a boat ramp. The County could apply for a grant from the Florida Boating Improvement Program that will allow the value of the property to match the grant. He stated that, if they desire to replace this boat ramp, it would be almost a two year process. First they would have to acquire the land either through the Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) Grant, or the Land and Water Conservation Program Grant, and the next year develop the boat ramp itself, which can be done through the Boating Improvement Program Grant. The Boating Improvement Program Grant requires that they own the land and have a developed plan, and they do not have time to get in that cycle right now. He would recommend that they do a land acquisition grant now, and then next year seek the development grant, which means they are two years out from having a replacement boat ramp. The next issue is to seriously consider the closure of the existing boat ramp, because it is dangerous and poorly located.
Commr. Stivender stated that closing the existing boat ramp was the major issue, and that is why she wanted to come to the Board, because that will leave no public boat ramp for the people that do not live on Lake Saunders.
Mr. Stevens stated that there are four private boat ramps on Lake Saunders, and staff has not considered entering into agreements with them, but staff could investigate this option.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this would be the only way that he would support closing the existing boat ramp, if they have somewhere else for the public to go, even if the County had to enter into a contract with them on a short term basis.
Mr. Neron stated that this may be a less expensive way to enter into a short term contract for public usage, to see whether that takes care of the demand before they spend a lot of extra money purchasing a site. Mr. Neron asked that staff be given time to pursue a couple of options and to bring a plan back to the Board by the end of January.
Mr. Steve Maleski addressed the Board to discuss another possibility with the Board and stated that he did not see why the Board would spend this kind of money when they are going to be building another ramp at Lake Saunders Point.
OTHER BUSINESS -
APPOINTMENTS - SALES SURTAX OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk, and George E. Knupp, Jr., Sheriff, are interested in serving on the Sales Surtax Oversight Advisory Committee, and the Supervisor of Elections and the Property Appraiser are interested in making appointments to the committee. He clarified that the ordinance states Constitutional Officers, or their named designees, and he would recommend appointing Mr. Watkins, Sheriff Knupp, and Mr. Robbie Ross, Property Appraiser’s Office to the committee.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following appointments to the Sales Surtax Oversight Advisory Committee:
Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr.
Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Mr. Robbie Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Property/Agricultural Classifications as the representative of the Property Appraiser’s Office
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, noted that he had a revised request from the Lake County School Board to reschedule their joint meeting to February 6, 2003, Thursday, at 9:30 a.m. at the Magnolia Room, Lake-Sumter Community College, and he requested that the Board ratify this request.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to schedule a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and the Lake County School Board, on Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Magnolia Room of the Everett Kelly Convocation Center on the Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg Campus.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY OF CLERMONT
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that a joint meeting has been scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners and the City of Clermont on Friday, January 24, 2003. Staff will contact the City and determine the location of the meeting.
REPORTS - COMMISSION POOL - DISTRICT #2
RESOLUTION TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS -
INTERCHANGE AT INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 27 AND SR 50
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to approve Resolution 2002-206 to the United States Congress requesting appropriation of additional funding to the Florida Department of Transportation in the amount of $33 million for design and construction of a new interchange at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and State Road 50.
Under discussion, Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, responded to questions from Commr. Hill relating to federal funds.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Stivender sadly reported that Mr. Bob Sustarsic of the Public Works Facilities Maintenance Division lost his home to fire, and she encouraged monetary donations to be made through Mr. Bill Gearing, who is coordinating the collection of donations.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #5
COMMISSIONER LIAISONS/MEMBERS TO BOARD AND COMMITTEES
Commr. Cadwell stated that the appointments/reappointments of Commissioner liaisons/members for Lake County Boards and Committees and approval and execution of Resolutions appointing the Commissioner member to both the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council will be postponed until the next meeting.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, noted that, due to the holidays, the regular Board meetings of December 24, 2002 and December 31, 2002 have been cancelled, with the next Board meeting being scheduled for January 7, 2003.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE
It was noted that staff will provide Mr. Jim Purvis, Kings Ridge, with information requested regarding proper notification being given for the zoning cases heard at today’s meeting.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:18 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK