A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JANUARY 28, 2003
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 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; Robert A. Pool; Jennifer Hill; and Catherine C. Hanson. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; William “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Stivender gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
The Chairman noted that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing four items.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to have the Board discuss the issue of a letter being sent to the Department of Community Affairs expressing the Board’s concerns and considerations of the Wekiva Basin Task Force recommendations.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, interjected that said item was on the Addendum.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, under his Reports, he would be giving the Board an update on the Governor’s budget.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Budget and Administrative Services - Procurement Services
Request for approval and authorization for the Procurement Services Director to distribute surplus personal computers and related peripherals to local non-profit educationally oriented organizations.
Request for approval and authorization for the Procurement Services Director, working with the applicable Department Director, to purchase heavy equipment and related equipment at public auction.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Commr. Cadwell brought up for discussion a request from the Lake County School Board that a moratorium be placed on residential building, until an impact fee study is completed and a joint funding agreement is entered into between the Board of County Commissioners and the Lake County School Board. He stated that he discussed the matter with the Chairman of the School Board, Mr. Jimmy Connor, and he felt 90 days would be sufficient time for them to finish the impact fee study and for the Board to enter into an interlocal agreement with the School Board. He stated that he did not consider any action the Board would be taking as a moratorium, but just to postpone any rezoning cases that would impact school population, until after the Board has entered into the interlocal agreement. He stated that, if someone has something that is already on the ground, they can continue to pull permits, but, the Board will not hear any new rezoning cases that will impact the school system until after the interlocal agreement has been entered into.
The Chairman passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Stivender, and made a motion to postpone any rezoning cases that impact the school population for 90 days, until an interlocal agreement is entered into between the Lake County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners, including any cases scheduled to be heard this date.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the Board should take public comment, before taking any action on the motion.
The Vice Chairman passed the gavel back to the Chairman, who opened the public hearing regarding the matter.
It was noted that the 90 day postponement would not relate to the case that the Board of County Commissioners has scheduled to be heard, with regard to the purchase of a parcel of property by the County for the Public Safety Office.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman & Senterfitt, addressed the Board stating that she had two items scheduled to be heard on the Rezoning Agenda, one for Battaglia Properties, Ltd. and the other representing the City of Minneola. She strongly urged the Board not to delay said hearings, noting that, in the Battaglia Properties case, they have finally come to the point where the case is scheduled to be heard, after taking two years to get a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in place, primarily through the County’s error, which cost them a year. She stated that it had to be adopted twice. She stated that said case has been delayed in moving forward to a rezoning for that period of time and they have now been in that process for 90 days. She stated that, with regard to the case involving the City of Minneola, they have other mitigating factors, in terms of their need to move forward, to provide service to their residents.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she did not know how the Board could postpone cases scheduled to be heard this date, when the applicants have applied for a permit, paid their fees, and are ready to be heard. She stated that the School Board has had since June of last year, when the Governor signed into law the Growth Management Act, to get together with the County and the cities and enter into an interlocal agreement. She stated that it has taken months to schedule a date to have a meeting with them and now she understands that said meeting has been moved to the middle of February. She stated that she has seen no evidence that, if the Board postponed action regarding any rezoning cases involving the issue for 90 days, the County would be in any different situation at the end of those 90 days than it is today. She stated that what really needs to happen is for the School Board to come forward with some viable solutions that can be supported by local government and by the people that they are going to ask to pay the bill, which is going to be the development community. She stated that she did not know how the Board could move forward with solutions to a problem that is this complex in 90 days.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that it appeared Rezoning Agenda Item No. 7 (International Development Partners - A to PUD); No. 11 (Anita Simpson, Representative of H. James Simpson - R-2 to R-3); and No. 12 (Robert F. Vason, Jr. - A to R-4) were the cases that would be affected by the 90 day postponement.
Mr. Jim Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., addressed the Board stating that two of the cases that were alluded to by the County Attorney were cases that he was representing. He stated that postponing the cases, after his company has worked on them for approximately four months, would cause a serious financial impact to the company, their employees, and subcontractors that they utilize in the area. He stated that they were counting on said projects to move forward, as they are in the process of completing other subdivisions in the immediate area and would need them to continue operating in Lake County. He stated that he felt the best approach to the matter would be to allow public input at a future meeting and allow those projects that are in the system at this point in time to continue.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing a case scheduled to be heard this date (International Development Partners) that the County Attorney alluded to as being a case that would be affected by the 90 day postponement, addressed the Board stating that it involves a condominium project in south Lake County. He stated that he planned to propose to the Board that the PUD be limited to short-term rentals of 30 days or less; therefore, it would not be subject to the motion for a 90 day postponement that is currently on the floor.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that the issue of the PUD being limited to short-term rentals of 30 days or less would be spelled out in the Ordinance pertaining to Mr. Richey’s case.
It was noted that the case would be heard by the Board this date.
Mr. Richard Lindgren, Assistant Superintendent, Lake County Schools, addressed the Board and submitted a Press Release and two letters, for the record, with regard to the motion on the floor and growth related Agenda items that the Board was scheduled to hear this date. He read into the record the Press Release, dated January 27, 2003, that he had given to the newspapers, indicating the Lake County School System’s position regarding growth and development in the County; an excerpt from the letter from Mr. Jimmy Conner, Chairman, Lake County Schools, to Commr. Welton Cadwell, Chairman, Lake County Board of County Commissioners, dated January 24, 2002, stating that one of the planners that the School Board hired to do an impact fee study had given inaccurate statements about the Lake County School System’s position regarding the issue of growth; and the letter from Mr. David Moore, Senior Managing Consultant, Public Financial Management, to Mr. Jim Drake, Director of Finance, School District of Lake County, dated January 24, 2003, responding to Mr. Conner’s request for an update on the District’s financing capacity. He stated that what he read into the record dealing with the issue of growth does not take into consideration the recent turn of events that occurred in November of 2002, when the class size amendment in Pre-K was passed. He stated that the impact of it is going to be incredible, noting that the School System is looking at the first year impact alone, just relating to the class size amendment, being between 150 to 200 more teachers, so there will be that many more classrooms, as well. He stated that the Superintendent of Schools has requested a forum, where she hopes the School System and the County can work something out regarding the matter.
Ms. Elaine Renick, City Councilwoman, City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that she supported Mr. Lindgren’s comments and wanted to remind the Board that this is what the City of Clermont requested in the letter that they presented to the Board on December 19, 2002, where they requested a moratorium on rezoning for a number of reasons, one of them being what they feel is out of control growth in south Lake County. She stated that she hoped the Board would go forward with said request.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray, Harris & Robinson, addressed the Board and questioned whether they were talking about postponing this month’s agenda for 90 days, next month’s agenda for 60 days, and the following month’s agenda for 30 days and was informed that they were. He stated that, if the Board approved to do so, it would probably take three days to go through the Rezoning Agenda when the cases are finally heard. He stated that he agreed with Ms. Bonifay’s comments and that he sympathized with the people who were scheduled to have their rezoning cases heard this date, noting that it takes anywhere from six months to two years to get through the process. He stated that people extend a great financial, emotional, and business commitment to get through the process, only to be surprised at the last minute by a request for postponement, which he does not feel is fair to said individuals, especially since the impact of any rezoning that will be heard within the next 90 days will be somewhere between 9 and 18 months out, if the developer moves forward as quickly as possible. He stated that there has been 10 years of lack of planning among the Board, the local governments, and the School Board and they are finally turning that around, but to make an emotional statement that does not really address the problem is not today.
Commr. Cadwell amended his motion to include that a letter be sent to all the cities in the County asking them to do the same thing, during the 90 day period.
Commr. Hanson seconded the amendment.
Mr. William Hillard, a resident of Lake County since 1952, addressed the Board stating that he remembered when it only took 20 minutes to drive to Leesburg, but now there is gridlock on Hwy. 441, as well as other roads in the County, with traffic signals at every intersection. He stated that he felt the Board should address what has caused the problems and try to resolve them, before moving forward with any additional rezoning.
Mr. Scott Gerken, Attorney, representing the City of Minneola, addressed the Board and questioned exactly what they meant by “developments that impact the school system.”
Commr. Cadwell stated that it would pertain to any development that will increase the population of the schools, be it single-family, multi-family, age restricted, or commercial development.
Commr. Pool stated that, while he supports school planning and feels that the County, the School Board, and the cities should be working together cooperatively, he feels that those people who have paid their fees and have asked for an opportunity to develop their land at current densities should be allowed to come before the Board for approval to do so. He stated that he feels the Board should stop any potential projects from coming forward, but that those projects currently in the pipeline should not be denied the opportunity to have their cases heard. He stated that he supports an increase in impact fees and feels that there is a solution to the situation, but does not feel a 90 day postponement is going to stop, or slow, what is going to happen in the long run.
Commr. Stivender stated that she agreed with Commr. Pool, noting that the whole issue about the school system is mostly in the south Lake County area and pointed out the fact that there is not one case on the Rezoning Agenda this date that is in south Lake County. She reiterated the fact that, when she was first elected, one of her goals was to get the County, the School Board, and the cities to work together, with regard to this issue, and it has taken two years to finally get a meeting with them. She stated that the School Board has been asked numerous times to come to the impact fee meetings, but no one from the School Board has shown up at the meetings. She stated that the Board is trying to work with the School Board, thus the reason for the meeting that has been scheduled for February 13, 2003. She stated that the Board wants to work with them and the municipalities to come up with a better plan. She stated that she did not feel it was right for the Board to stop those people that have already put their money into their projects from going forward with them.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that the School Board and the Board has met, it is just that the meetings have not been productive. He stated that he feels both sides share the blame for that, because neither side wanted to give up anything in the process. He stated that now they know that they need to and he feels the meetings will be productive and a time line is important to make them productive.
Commr. Hill stated, for clarification purposes, that there have been meetings with the School Board regarding the issue of impact fees and she feels it has progressed during the last two years. She stated that, although there have been delays, they hope to bring the matter forward and in a timely fashion. She stated that she feels staff, particularly Ms. Wendy Wickwire, Impact Fee Coordinator, has done an excellent job in getting the numbers and information together. She stated that she would support the 90 day postponement, if the School Board would provide some documentation to support their position. She stated that, if they want a moratorium, they need to adhere to the legal requirements for a moratorium. She stated that she would support the motion, but would like to reserve a time at one of the Board Meetings in February to sit down with the School Board and crunch some numbers.
It was noted that the numbers Commr. Hill was referring to were different numbers than the ones from the School Board’s independent financial advisor.
Commr. Hanson stated that it appeared to her the Board was dealing with two different issues, one being impact fees and the other being an interlocal agreement, which she elaborated on. She stated that, although she seconded the motion, she would rather have two motions and have the Board deal with each one individually. She stated that she felt a moratorium was going to make a significant impact on those people who have gone through the process, acting in good faith that they would be heard.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that the motion was not for a moratorium on development, but for a 90 day postponement of any residential rezoning cases where approval of the development would affect the County’s school population.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board would not know whether said cases would be approved or not, but the individuals paid their fees to be heard. She stated that she agreed with Commr. Hill and fills that the public should be put on notice, if these types of things are going to happen. She stated that she did not have a problem with postponing the cases for 30 days, but the motion is for more than 30 days.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel everything could be finalized in 30 days, but, in discussing the matter with Mr. Conner, School Board Chairman, he feels the School Board and the Board can work closely enough together to have the issue settled in 90 days.
Commr. Pool stated that he wants to make sure whoever develops in Lake County will pay their fair share in impact fees.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, for a 90 day postponement of any rezoning cases dealing with residential development that would impact the population of the Lake County School System, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Stivender and Pool voted “No”.
REZONING
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PH40-02-4 - R-1 TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS/BOB STEVENS
Commr. Hanson brought to the attention of the Board the fact that she received a letter from the law firm of Potter Clement Lowry & Duncan, requesting a 60 to 90 day postponement of this case. She requested the Board to approve to continue the case for 90 days, until March 25, 2003.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to continue Rezoning Case No. PH40-02-4, Lake County Board of County Commissioners, Bob Stevens, Tracking No. 70-02-CFD, until the Board Meeting of March 25, 2003.
PH49-02-1 - AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE NO. 88-88 - ROBERT C.
GRIGSBY/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that Rezoning Case No. PH49-02-1, Robert C. Grigsby, was not properly advertised; therefore, the case was being pulled from the Agenda.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the case, addressed the Board stating that there were people present to hear the case; however, after he advised them that he had asked for a 30 day continuance, because a request he made last November to readvertise the case to provide for a caretaker’s residence had not been done, they left the meeting.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30 day postponement for Rezoning Case No. PH49-02-1, Robert Grigsby, Steven J. Richey, P.A., due to the fact that the case was not properly advertised. ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONT’D.)
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
LETTER TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REGARDING WEKIVA
BASIN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that, on January 15, 2003, Mr. Jim Quinn, Bureau Chief, Department of Community Affairs, and Ms. Sandra Glenn, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, appeared before the Board and discussed the potential impacts of the Wekiva Basin Area Task Force recommendations. He stated that Mr. Quinn asked that both the County and the Cities of Umatilla, Eustis, and Mt. Dora, provide him with any comments that they might have on potential impacts of the recommendations. He stated that no legislation has been drafted yet, with regard to the matter, so they are not sure what they might be required to comment on in the future. He stated that, according to Mr. Quinn, the Governor has not responded to the recommendations of the Task Force yet and no legislation has been drafted. He stated that, based on the report, the cities have asked that the western boundary of the potential springshed area be adjusted to reflect their current utility service areas, because they already have commitments there. He displayed a map of the area, noting that it would have to be adjusted to include the utility service areas of Mt. Dora, Eustis, and Umatilla. He stated that it appears the lines were arbitrarily drawn, based on roadway and section lines. He stated that it is hard to say what might happen to the rest of the items in the recommendations, once they get to the Legislature. He noted that all involved clearly support the idea of maintaining the water recharge, the habitat, etc.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board needs to realize that the springshed area goes much further south into Orange County, who will also be dealing with some of the same issues, however, noted that it also goes as far west as Clermont and some of those areas, which have been left out of the protection area. She stated that she felt the direction was left to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to determine where the actual springshed is, which is one of her major concerns - how it deals economically with the cities that are involved.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County would be better served to wait until the SJRWMD designates those areas and then send a letter stating that the Board wants to wait until the County and the cities have input into the process.
Mr. Welstead interjected that the potential problem with that is that staff does not know what the result might be.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels the cities should send a letter and take a stand on the issue. She stated that many of the other issues will be dealt with as the sector study is done in the remaining area. She stated that she was not sure the Board needed to take a stand, but feels that the cities certainly need to.
Commr. Pool stated that he feels the cities are asking the Board to ensure their opportunity to have their say, because they have made financial commitments and have drawn service boundary lines and expect to be able to serve those areas, and he feels it is important for the Board to try to help honor those requests.
Mayor Gwendolyn Manning, City of Eustis, addressed the Board and read into the record a letter that she drafted concerning this issue, in which she states that the City of Eustis has always supported the protection of the County’s water resources and springs; however, the proposed Wekiva Springshed Protection Area does not consider the previous or ongoing planning efforts of the affected cities and/or the County and strongly urged the Board to adopt a resolution that supports the protection of the County’s ground water resources and springs, while establishing the western boundary of the proposed Wekiva Springshed Protection Area, to be coterminous with the adopted eastern utility service area and joint planning area boundaries of the cities of Eustis, Mount Dora, and Umatilla. She further stated that she felt it was unfortunate that the cities were not consulted about the proposed extension of the Springshed Protection Area into their planning and utility districts, as well as into the cities themselves; however, she believed setting the western-most boundary of the Wekiva Springshed Protection Area to be coterminous with eastern utility and planning area boundaries of the three cities she alluded to is fair, and it accomplishes the major purpose of protecting the County’s most important water resources without unduly and negatively impacting those three cities.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted the Board to be at the table and participate, however, noted that it was hard for him to argue that the SJRWMD drew those lines without any scientific reasoning and that it looked like it was purely to mitigate most of the problems in Lake County, as opposed to Orange County. He stated that he was concerned about the reasoning that, because they drew their lines arbitrarily, Lake County should be allowed to draw one.
Mr. Welstead readdressed the Board stating that, in the last paragraph of his letter to Mr. Jim Quinn, where he refers to future potential implications of rules that may be developed and implemented in the future by the SJRWMD, he does not know where that might be at this point in time, however, noted that the potential, based on some of the discussions that have been held, were that it might extend as far south as Clermont and Minneola and into Seminole and Orange counties and those areas have not been included.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, addressed the Board stating that he was representing the City of Umatilla and that they support the letter to the SJRWMD, as drafted. He stated that some of the arguments heard this date are valid, noting that the cities are not opposed to the basis for the requirements and they agree with Commr. Cadwell that, when those conditions come out and they know what they are, as far as resource protection, they are not issues that the cities are going to ignore, but are going to embrace. He stated that what they are looking at is the fact that the boundary is coterminous with their utility service areas, which have been in place for years. He stated that the City of Umatilla is supporting the letter and supporting the Board’s position, but they are looking at it from the position that they were not allowed to participate in the process to begin with and were not allowed to give their input, as to where the line is going to be drawn. He stated that he felt for the line to be drawn at the utility service area is a valid one, noting that one of the conditions and resources that they are trying to protect are a response to the central systems that they provide, as far as the cities’ central water and sewer. He stated that those are things that the cities are already providing and are areas that they hope to be providing in the future. He stated that their only option is to go east, because they do not have any other place to go, noting that they cannot go west, because of lake boundaries and geography that is stopping them, because of wetlands. He stated that, as far as citing of plant facilities and customer bases, most of those areas are already designated as areas of either urban expansion or suburban predominantly. He stated that they are not areas that are predominantly rural in nature. He stated that they are not looking at increasing densities predominantly higher than what is currently being allowed. He stated that, if the Board looked at the map he alluded to earlier and those considerations, they would find very little differentiation in the issues.
Mr. Welstead readdressed the Board stating that the Eustis Wastewater Treatment Plant that is under construction at CR 437 and CR 44 is not in the utility service area and they have acknowledged that it would be subject to the limitations that may arise out of this.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board should have received the report stating that one of the recommendations is that there be a freeze on the general area, as far as new land use amendments are concerned, until the sector study is done and in place, which she noted she has no problem with. She stated that some of the design standards that are recommended are clustered zoning and larger amounts of open space. She stated that she supported the recommendations, but felt this was a valid concern and that the Board needed to look at it very seriously.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he agreed with Commr. Hanson’s comments, he just worried about a sentence that states that the area is wrong, because it was drawn arbitrarily.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board had to realize that the boundary was drawn before the Governor’s Wekiva Basin Area Task Force ever met, so it was predetermined. She stated that it actually goes into the city limits of Mr. Dora and Eustis. She stated that Seminole County should look at springshed protection in all the areas surrounding the springs, whether they are built out or not
Commr. Cadwell suggested changing the language contained in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the letter to be sent to Mr. James Quinn, Bureau Chief, Department of Community Affairs, to read as follows: “Since it appears to each of us that the western boundary of the proposed “Springshed Protection Area” was drawn arbitrarily within Lake County, following a highway and section line, we simply ask that any discussion in regards to the true placement of that line include the cities and the counties in those discussions.”
Commr. Hanson suggested that the wording, “and consideration for their utility boundaries.” be added, as well, to the last sentence alluded to by Commr. Cadwell.
Commr. Cadwell agreed to said wording.
Commr. Pool interjected that he felt the sentence, “As long as those rules are developed based on scientific evidence and are equally and fairly applied throughout the affected region, we have no argument with their implementation, at this time.” states it best. He stated that the key is that there be a little science behind the need, rather than drawing a line across a section line or road. He stated that the cities have stated what their future holds and what is important to the 180 service areas. He stated that the boundaries may change, but he feels the County should be on their side of the issue. He stated that he felt the letter to Mr. Quinn spells it out, noting that it does not eliminate their opportunity, it just states to base it on science.
It was noted that the Board felt the letter should come from the Chairman, Commr. Cadwell, rather than from Mr. Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, so that change would be made.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to submit a letter to Mr. James Quinn, Bureau Chief, Bureau of State Planning, Department of Community Affairs, expressing their concerns and considerations of the Wekiva Basin Area Task Force recommendations, with the change in language, as noted by the Chairman, Commr. Cadwell.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 986 - LPG EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. - TAVARES
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board stating that this request was for approval to vacate an unnamed road in the Plat of McNaughts Subdivision, on the south side of Lake Saunders. He reviewed an aerial of the property in question, which he noted is located off of Old Hwy. 441. He stated that the request was postponed a few months ago, to do some reassessments. He stated that staff has looked at the request, from the standpoint of putting in a boat ramp on the adjacent property, which is in private ownership. He stated that there is not a good place to turn around; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2003-13 - Vacation Petition No. 986, by LPG Express Services, Inc., Sherie D. Lindh, to vacate an unnamed road in the Plat of McNaughts Subdivision, in Section 27, Township 19 South, Range 26 East, in the Tavares area - Commission District 3.
REZONING (CONT’D.)
REZONING CASE NO. PH3-03-5 - R-1 TO A - ROBERT AND ANN ROSE
TRACKING NO. 3-03-Z
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this case involved a request for approval to rezone a 20 acre parcel abutting Grays Airport Road, approximately two miles east of Lady Lake, from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture). He stated that the property is predominately scattered oaks and pasture land and the petitioners would like to rezone the property back to agriculture, to allow for a private horse ranch and other uses that are permitted in the agricultural zoning district. He stated that the zoning classification on the properties located to the east, west, and south of the property in question is R-1 and the property to the north is Agriculture. He stated that the proposed zoning is consistent with the County’s future land use and zoning maps; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-4 - Robert and Ann Rose, Rezoning Case No. PH3-03-5,Tracking No. 3-03-Z, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture), to allow for those uses permitted in the Agricultural zoning district.
REZONING CASE NO. PH4-03-4 - AMEND RP ORDINANCE NO. 2002-69
LEONARD R. SORENSEN/DEREK A. SCHROTH - TRACKING NO. 4-04-RP/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this case involved a request to amend a previously approved RP (Residential Professional) zoning, which was for a specific use. He stated that the case was heard by the Board in August of 2002, for a speech therapy office, however, noted that the petitioners would like to amend the request, to include other professional uses, such as low impact, low traffic single occupancy professional type offices such as a realtor, engineer, architect, clerical service, etc. He stated that the property is located at the intersection of Triangle Drive, Bay Road, and Short Street, just south of Eustis. He stated that the request is compatible with the County’s future land use and the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-5 - Leonard R. Sorensen/Derek A. Schroth, Rezoning Case No. PH4-03-4,Tracking No. 4-04-RP/AMD, a request to amend RP (Residential Professional) Ordinance No. 2002-69, to allow additional residential/professional office uses.
REZONING CASE NO. PH11-03-3 - A TO CFD - ROSE MIDDLETON
LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/LAKE COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY - TRACKING NO. 12-03-CFD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Environmental Specialist, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this case involved a rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the placement of a 30 by 55 foot modular building, for temporary use as a fire station and accessory uses. He stated that the parcel, located in a Suburban land use category in the Shirley Shores area, consists of approximately 5.17 acres and is currently used for agriculture. He stated that staff reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, they were recommending approval of the request. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, as well, by an 8-0 vote. He noted that the applicant went through a minor lot split, to subdivide the parcel, which has been completed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-6 - Rose Middleton/ Lake County Board of County Commissioners/ Lake County Public Safety, Rezoning Case No. PH11-03-3, Tracking No. 12-03-CFD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a fire station and accessory uses.
REZONING CASE NO. PH2-03-2 - A TO C-2 - BATTAGLIA PROPERTIES, LTD.
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE, AKERMAN SENTERFITT
TRACKING NO. 2-03-Z
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Environmental Specialist, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this case involved a rezoning from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial), to allow for C-2 uses. He stated that the size of the parcel is approximately 30.18 acres and is located in the Four Corners area of south Lake County. He stated that the parcel is currently used for agriculture and is located in the Urban future land use category, which was recently changed from Urban Expansion. He stated that staff reviewed the request and found it to be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-3A.1, since the parcel is not located in a commercial corridor along U.S. 27, as designated on the Future Land Use Map, however, noted that staff found the request to be consistent with the Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.15. He stated that, since staff found the request to be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-3A.1, they were unable to recommend approval of the request, therefore, were recommending denial. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, by a 6-2 vote. He noted that a petition, containing 64 signatures, was received by the County from some of the residents in the Eagleridge subdivision, in opposition to the request.
It was noted that the property in question was not part of the original PUD.
Commrs. Hill, Stivender, Pool, and Hanson stated, for the record, that they had spoken to Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the petitioner, on January 24, 2003, regarding the case.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board stating that she was representing Bob and Bill Battaglia, the applicants, who were present in the audience, should the Board wish to question them, in terms of any history on the property, or any future use. She displayed an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the property, however, noted that it was several years old, because she was not able to obtain an up-to-date aerial from the County, which would show that there has been even more development in and around the property in question. She stated that there is nothing but development up and down the Hwy. 27 corridor, with few exceptions. She stated that it is not evenly divided by Golden Eagle Boulevard, noting that approximately two-thirds of the property is to the north and approximately one-third to the south. She stated that, although Eagleridge is a PUD that is located behind the property, it only buffers a smaller portion. She stated that Citrus Valley Campground, which was an RV park for a number of years, has just started converting to conventional housing over the last several years. She stated that the applicants asked for a change from Urban Expansion to Urban and one of the real issues was the provision of commercial services along the corridor. She stated that, when the Board adopted the change in land use from Urban Expansion to Urban, Ms. Sharon Farrell, former Senior Director, Growth Management Department, indicated that the property was for commercial or multi-family use; however, because the County does not have a separate provision in its Comprehensive Plan for multi-family use, they are treated as commercial use. She stated that, in terms of representation, some of the people who live in Eagleridge have indicated that they never knew that this would be developed for anything but single-family, however, noted that the property in question has never been part of that PUD.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she asked Mr. Joseph Garner, Vice President, Condev Properties, to provide a letter (Applicant’s Exhibit B) indicating exactly what was represented at that time, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that he indicated two or three different builders constructed the housing in Eagleridge and Condev Properties did not control the property, which they let the builders know; therefore, when the builders would inquire, they told them to inform others that the south parcels were just that, south parcels, and that they were owned by the same company from whom they had bought their property and that it was not included and had a different use other than single-family residential. She stated that everything along that corridor has been developed, at which time she displayed and submitted, for the record, various (22) photographs (Applicant’s Exhibit C) showing development along the corridor, which she reviewed with the Board. She stated that it is no longer economical or viable for the Battaglias to continue to try to maintain their 30 plus acres of isolated citrus groves in the present location. She explained why the applicants were asking for a C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning on the property and noted that the Staff Report indicated that the property would be used for either multi-family and/or commercial. She stated that she was aware of the fact that there is a technical issue in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the commercial corridor, however, noted that she reviewed some similar cases over the last year or two where the Board stated that it only makes sense to put that kind of use in the location in question. She stated that the applicants feel the time is right for such type of development and hope they will not be penalized for waiting to see what the established development patterns would be and try to serve those needs.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Dawn Ockstadt, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she was concerned about the issue of traffic, noting that Hwy. 27 has a heavy volume of traffic and the intersection in question, which is the entrance to the Eagleridge subdivision, is directly across the road from the entrance to the Greater Groves subdivision, so there will be a lot of oncoming traffic from the different directions. She asked that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection, if the Board was going to allow commercial development at the site.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works, addressed the Board stating that the development in question will be required to do a traffic analysis and, if a traffic signal is required, the developer will be asked to furnish one at that location.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Pool stated that he agreed with Ms. Ockstadt’s comments that a traffic study should be done in the area and, if a traffic signal is warranted, that one should be installed. He stated that he appreciated staff’s position, in their denial of the request, however, noted that he feels the whole area will benefit from having some commercial properties along that corridor, at which time he made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-7 - Battaglia Properties, Ltd./ Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Akerman Senterfitt, Rezoning Case No. PH2-03-2, Tracking No. 2-03-Z, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial), to allow for C-2 uses, as presented.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned whether, as the applicants move forward through the DRC process and site plan approval, the County was going to be raising the bar for commercial projects.
Mr. Kruse stated that, in terms of this project, staff would use the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) as they are written today and address those issues when the applicants come in for site plan approval.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff was moving forward with looking at those requirements and was informed that it would have to be done as part of a review of the entire LDRs, which it was noted they have started to pursue.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that staff is currently looking at Chapter 9 of the LDRs, which includes part of the provisions that are being discussed, and they hope to bring a proposal to the Board regarding it in the very near future.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH7-03-2 - A TO CFD - JOHN F. LOWNDES, TRUSTEE
CITY OF MINNEOLA/POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN/CECELIA
BONIFAY, ESQUIRE - TRACKING NO. 7-03-CFD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Environmental Specialist, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this case involved a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for construction of a wastewater treatment plant. He stated that the size of the parcel is approximately 32.21 acres, located along Grassy Lake Road and Sullivan Road in the Minneola area. He stated that the parcel is currently vacant, however, noted that it was previously used for agriculture. He stated that it is located in the Suburban future land use category. He stated that staff reviewed the application and found the request to be consistent with the Land Development Regulations, however, found it to be inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies, which he noted were listed in the Staff Report, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that there is documentation that scrub jays have been utilizing the site and, to date, staff does not have any management or mitigation plans for the scrub jays. He stated that there are currently no customers in the area that will utilize the proposed plant; therefore, staff feels it will promote urban sprawl. He stated that staff was recommending denial, however, noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by a 6-2 vote.
Commr. Cadwell stated, for the record, that he had met with the Mayor of Minneola, as well as the City Attorney, and Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the City of Minneola, with regard to this case.
Commrs. Stivender, Hill, Hanson, and Pool disclosed, for the record, that they had met with Ms. Bonifay prior to this meeting, as well.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board, representing the City of Minneola, and introduced various consultants and city officials who were present in the audience, should the Board wish to question them. She stated that the firm of Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J) serve as the City’s consultants for this particular wastewater treatment facility. She gave a power point presentation regarding the request, at which time she submitted, for the record, a booklet (Applicant’s Exhibit A) containing maps, charts, and information she covered during her presentation. She stated that the purpose of the request for rezoning is to remove the property from an old Planned Unit Development (PUD) called the Highlands PUD that was done in the early 1990's, which is no longer in effect. She stated that the developers of the Highlands PUD did not attempt to have it vested, so it is no longer a viable PUD; however, because there is an old designation, the applicants filed a legal to show the original land area and to remove this particular parcel from it and rezone it to Community Facilities District (CFD).
Ms. Bonifay stated that the City of Minneola is proposing to use the property in question for the development of a wastewater treatment facility, with a capacity of 250,000 to 500,000 gallons per day in the initial phase. She stated that the plant will also have the ability to treat effluent, for public reuse, in fact, noted that the City requires developments within its boundaries to have reuse lines installed, for the provision of same, when available. She stated that they will have on-site rapid infiltration basins, or ribs, to back up the reuse and it will be sized with a smaller plant, to start with, so that it can be increased over time, if there is demand. She stated that the maximum capacity will be somewhere between two to three million gallons per day. She stated that they will be starting off with a very small increment, to serve today’s users and existing customer base. She reviewed the history of what has occurred, with regard to this request, up to this point in time. She stated that the property is under contract, contingent upon the City obtaining a rezoning for a CFD. She stated that it has been said that the property is too remote, too far from the City; however, she displayed a map (contained in the handout) showing that the property is centrally located inside the T-180 Service Area. She stated that it is adjacent to the Florida Turnpike to the north, Grassy Lake Road to the west, and Sullivan Road to the south, so it is pretty much located in the center of the City’s Chapter 180 district.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the City also looked at the County’s visionary road network, in terms of their future growth and development, at which time she displayed a map of the County’s future road development plans, noting that the County has a number of road improvements planned in and around the proposed location of the wastewater treatment plant, so it obviously feels it is an area where growth and development is going to occur. She then displayed a map illustrating the County’s existing zoning, along with sites that are currently used for utilities, and the fact that the project site is currently zoned PUD and is adjacent to an exiting utility site. She displayed an aerial of the subject property; a photograph of the site, taken from Grassy Lake Road; and photographs of a nearby Florida Power Substation and Cell Tower, as well, all contained within her handout (Applicant’s Exhibit A).
Ms. Bonifay stated that, when the City entered into the Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), they were directed to do four things, being (1) to look into connecting with the Clermont sewer system; (2) to provide a central sewer system of their own; (3) to coordinate with the County to establish a regional system; and (4) to allow subregional sewer plants, in conjunction with the development of ongoing approvals, with the idea that there would be a regional facility at some point, so that the package treatment plants could be eliminated, moving toward a centralized facility. She stated that she disagreed with staff’s statement that there is no customer base, noting that there is currently in existence a customer base of over 700 single-family residences that have reuse lines in place and are waiting for reclaimed water. She stated that the City feels this is good planning and not leap frog sprawled development and that the facility should be in place, prior to the demand. She stated that they are trying to plan for what the residents need today, with a plant that could be expanded in the future. She stated that, in terms of what may happen, in addition to the current 700 single-family residences, there is a proposal for a project called Heritage Hills, which she noted would be a joint venture with F. Browne Gregg and Lennar Homes and the Sugarloaf development, which she noted is an existing development of regional impact. She stated that the Quail Valley development is in the vicinity of the proposed project, as well as Highland Oaks and The Highlands, which is currently pending. She stated that all those developers have signed agreements with the City, requiring the City to provide them with central services, with a time frame. She noted that they have already paid their impact fees, so the City has an obligation to get into the central sewer business, or they will have to refund said fees and the developments will stay on package treatment plants. She stated that staff has testified that the project is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, utilities are allowed in the Suburban future land use, and a CFD is the appropriate zoning designation. She stated that The Highlands is not a vested PUD; therefore, any development that occurs on said property would have to be “renegotiated” and have the rezoning approved by the County, or, by the City of Minneola, should they annex in the future. She stated that the applicants will be clustering, or co-locating with other utilities, and the Florida Turnpike will act as a barrier. She stated that there are other utilities that they will be serving. She stated that there is no compatible land available in the City and the City does not feel there is any detrimental impact on adjacent properties. She stated that there are no wetlands on the site, however, noted that there are some scrub jays located on the southern part of the site, although there are none in the area where the actual treatment plant is to be located. She stated that she went back through the Comprehensive Plan and the Code and did not find any requirement requiring an applicant, prior to obtaining zoning, to conduct a series of costly environmental studies and have a habitat plan negotiated with the State, prior to receiving approval to proceed on the site, however, noted that the City will meet all requirements. She stated that the City feels the plant will be greatly advantageous over individual septic tanks and will protect the groundwater in the area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Barbara Benfield, a resident of the area in question since 1965, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request. She stated that many of the residents in the area are strongly opposed to the proposed wastewater treatment plant, but could not be present at this meeting because of work and other commitments. She read into the record some of the concerns that have been expressed by said residents.
Mr. Thomas Benfield, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and submitted, for the record, a petition (Opposition’s Exhibit A) containing 81 signatures of residents in the area of the proposed wastewater treatment plant that are opposed to the request. He stated that they are concerned about the amount of land that they are going to have to give to the County for right-of-way; the fact that they feel the roads they live on are going to be torn up; and their loss of privacy.
Ms. Melodie Brogdon, a resident of the area, addressed the Board stating that she was asked to speak for another resident of the area who had to leave the meeting. She stated that he was concerned about the fact that the wastewater will be pumped up hill and lift stations will be everywhere. She stated that he has experience in that field and wondered if the proposed site was the best place to put a wastewater treatment plant. She stated that the residents in the area moved to the area to get away from the City, noting that, if they wanted to live in the City, they would have built there. She stated that most of the homes are fairly new and it will cost the residents a lot of money to hook up to the sewer system. She stated that it seems the plant should be closer to The Highlands and to the Sugarloaf Mountain area, since they are the neighborhoods that it is mainly meant for.
Mr. Richard Lindgren, Assistant Superintendent, Lake County Schools, addressed the Board stating that the Lake County School Board does not support the request at this time, noting that, approving the wastewater treatment plant now would greatly accelerate the residential growth in the area. He stated that, as stated before, the School Board currently, and for the foreseeable future, does not have the funding capacity to build any new schools. He stated that they are currently dealing with student rezoning issues in the area, because of existing school capacity issues.
Mr. John Hall, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that approximately two years ago a rezoning case involving the Sugarloaf Mountain area was brought before the Board by Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing said case. He stated that the case involved 1,433 acres, which was to have 2,259 single-family residences, 175 multi-family residences, and 12 acres of commercial property. He stated that the County’s Growth Management Department staff recommended denial of that rezoning case, for a number of reasons, which he noted. He stated that the Board followed staff’s recommendation of denial and voted 5-0 against the case, which he noted was urban sprawl. He stated that staff was recommending denial of this request, as well, on basically the same basis that staff recommended denial of the rezoning case he alluded to. He stated that there are eight reasons for staff’s recommendation of denial. He stated that there was a resolution from the City of Montverde opposing the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD, based on the points that have been made before the Board this date, such as the fact that it is urban sprawl, it is surrounded by agricultural land, large lot residential development, etc., as well as resolutions from the City of Minneola, the Town of Montverde, and the Lake County Water Authority, due to the fact that Sugarloaf Mountain is situated in a high recharge area of Lake County. He stated that the resolutions were sent to the Governor of Florida and noted that the Board sent a resolution to the Governor, as well, urging him to have the property purchased by the State, to prevent urban sprawl in that area of the County. He stated that the Board has, up to this point in time, followed the wishes of the citizens of the County, in restricting large population growth in the Sugarloaf Mountain area. He pointed out the fact that the proposed 32 acre rezoning case being addressed this date is just one mile from the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD he alluded to earlier. He stated that the site is two to three times the distance from the City of Minneola as it is from Sugarloaf Mountain, therefore, questioned whether the sewage treatment plant was being put in for Sugarloaf Mountain, or for the City of Minneola.
Mr. Hall stated that it has been documented that scrub jays, as well as plant and animal species, were found on the property in question in 1991 and that he had a Pollution Control report which states that land within the basin having lakes with internal drainage shall be regulated to prevent any land uses which possess the potential to cause adverse effects on the quality of the Floridan aquifer. He discussed other concerns he had with the request, such as an issue with the property being in a recharge area and the fact that he felt surrounding property owners were not properly notified about the rezoning. He asked the Board to postpone action regarding this request and have the City of Minneola come before the Board with a master plan showing exactly what they are proposing.
Ms. Louise Hunt, a resident of Minneola, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and submitted, for the record, a petition (Opposition’s Exhibit B) containing 36 signatures from other residents and property owners in the City of Minneola who would like for the request to be denied. She stated that she was concerned about the wildlife in the area, especially the scrub jays that have been found on the property, at which time she discussed the habitat of the scrub jays and the fact that they are very territorial and do not tolerate relocation. She discussed other concerns the residents who signed the petition have with the request, being increased taxes to pay for the treatment plant, when the main focus of the plant seems to be for new development in the area, rather than for those residents who are within the City and have been there for a considerable period of time; the high density development they feel is going to follow the waste treatment plant, once it is constructed; and the fact that the site for the plant is at a higher elevation than the nearby lakes, so the residents are concerned about contamination of their lakes. She stated that the residents and property owners listed on the petition were requesting the Board to deny the rezoning change.
Ms. Ann Griffin, a homeowner on the Harris-Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she has come before the Board previously about this situation. She stated that she had some information that she felt obligated to pass on to the Board, noting that she is on the consumptive use permit list for the St. Johns River Water Management District, so she receives reports from them about any consumptive use permit applications. She stated that she was shocked to learn what impact development around the Cities of Clermont and Minneola would have on Gourdneck Springs, the headwaters of the Harris-Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes, and, as an individual who lives on the Harris-Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes, she objects strongly to the decrease in the springs, which will cause a major threat to the levels of the Harris-Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes and to the future of the lakes. She stated that what goes on in Clermont and Minneola is going to have a regional impact.
Ms. Griffin read into the record excerpts from various documents, contained in a handout (Oppositions’s Exhibit C) that she had prepared for the Board’s perusal, which she submitted, for the record, one being that, 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. She stated that Section 373.0395 of the Florida Statutes states that each water management district shall develop a groundwater basin resource availability inventory covering those areas deemed appropriate by the governing board; what the inventory shall include; the fact that, upon completion, a copy of the groundwater basin availability shall be submitted to each affected municipality, county, and regional planning agency; that the inventory shall be reviewed by the affected municipalities, counties, and regional planning agencies, for consistency with the local government comprehensive plan, and shall be considered in future revisions of such plan; and that it is the intent of the Legislature that future growth and development planning reflect the limitations of the available groundwater, or other available water supplies. She stated that Senate Bill 1906 states that, beginning January 1, 2003, water management districts must develop an information system on hydrologic conditions of surface and groundwater sources, suggest conservation measures for those sources, and distribute the information within the geographic areas. She stated that she did not believe the County or the cities had said inventory and, until they do, she did not feel any further development should be considered for said area.
Commr. Pool stated that the area in question will take off and develop at some time in the future and questioned whether there was any place in the vicinity that Ms. Griffin would recommend placing the sewage treatment plant, to which she responded that she did not believe a sewage treatment plant should be placed anywhere in the area, because she feels one will harm the Chain of Lakes.
Ms. Nancy Fullerton, President, Alliance to Protect Water Resources, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she is a resident of south Lake County. She stated that the Alliance to Protect Water Resources is asking that the Board approve staff’s recommendation for denial of the request, which she noted they have based on inconsistencies with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. She stated that it comes down to a basic question, which is whether the Board follows the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that one of the things they hear quite often, with regard to development, is capacity, at which time she noted that there is going to be capacity for years, if the plant goes through, and the consequences of it is the extreme growth of up to 10,000 homes. She stated that, if there was ever a case that would qualify for postponement, it would be this one, as far as having an impact to the population of the schools. She stated that she felt the Board had enough evidence and cause to deny this request and that she felt the St. Johns River Water Management District should have had a representative present, to address the issue of water supply.
Commr. Pool asked Ms. Fullerton the same question that he asked Ms. Griffin, to which she responded that she felt the plant should be built as close to the City of Minneola as possible.
Mr. Bob Resetar, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he would like to appeal to the Board’s common sense. He stated that he read in the Staff Report that the request is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, with the surrounding land use, with the rezoning application justification, that it will have a greater demand on public facilities and existing land use, it will create an immediate adverse impact to the national environment, and that it is not the result of logical development patterns; therefore, he did not see how the Board could consider approving the request. He stated that something is wrong when staff says that the request is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, yet the Board considers approving it. He stated that, if Ms. Bonifay is correct, the Comprehensive Plan should be justifiable and staff could make a recommendation of approval, but, until that happens, it does not make any sense for the Board to approve the request.
Ms. Elaine Renick, City Councilwoman, City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that Commr. Pool questioned Ms. Griffin and Ms. Fullerton about where they felt the sewage treatment plant should be built, but that she would like to know why he felt obligated to help the City of Minneola grow in the area in question. She stated that she feels it is the City’s obligation to find a location closer to the City for the plant. She stated that she felt the people present at this meeting were being asked to believe that the request is not about growth, but that she did not feel anybody present was naive enough to believe it. She stated that the area in question is set to take off; therefore, it is about growth. She stated that the best way to answer the question was whether the City of Minneola had a representative present requesting approval to build a plant on the site, or whether it was a developer from the area that was looking at not only selling that particular parcel of property, but maybe to develop it. She responded to several aspects of Ms. Bonifay’s presentation, one being the myth of reused water and another being the visioning session that was held with the City of Minneola, with regard to the development of the area. She stated that the Board had a choice of whether to help the City of Minneola, or to tell them to do it on their own, if that is what they are bound and determined to do.
Mr. Keith Schue, Group Chairman, Central Florida Sierra Club, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the Board had heard some very important testimony this date by residents and experts regarding the substantial impacts that such a wastewater treatment plant could have in the area in question. He stated that the Board heard about impacts to water resources, the Harris Chain of Lakes, and Gourdneck Springs, as well as testimony regarding urban sprawl, and how it will affect sound comprehensive planning, by considering it. He stated that the issue of a municipal wastewater treatment plant being established in an area far outside the City of Minneola, with a capacity to serve up to 10,000 homes, which is in an area that is rural, does not add up. He stated that the Board heard testimony regarding wildlife impacts and a scrub jay population that exists on the site. He stated that, as a resident of Lake County, he could think of no stronger testimony than when a representative of the School Board comes before the Board stating that the School System does not have the capacity to handle the school children that will have to be provided for, if the Board promotes the level of development being discussed in the area in question. He urged the Board to listen to the testimony that was given.
Ms. Lucy Alves, a resident of the area, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she and her husband purchased five acres in the Clermont area a few years ago and built a beautiful home, using all their savings to do so. She discussed a concern about the plant being proposed to be built so far from the Minneola city limits, noting that she feels there must be a place to construct it closer to the City; a concern about the odor that will be emitted from the plant; and a concern that the property value of their home may be affected by the plant being built so close to it.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made regarding the request.
Mr. Scott Gerken, City Attorney, City of Minneola, addressed the Board stating that the next phase of the proposed project is the facilities design plan, which will take much longer than the 90 day postponement period that the Board is considering putting in place. He stated that they are looking at December of 2004, before a plant could possibly be on line. He stated that, before they can prepare the design for the facility, they have to have a location. He stated that the City has a pending contract for the property, which they have already requested an extension on, because they are trying to go through the process, and he would not want to have to go back and request further extensions. He stated that the proposed plant is located to centrally serve not only the existing customers within the City of Minneola, but to also serve future development, however, noted that approval of the request would not be a vote for that future development. He stated that, when it comes through, the City will look at all the Comprehensive Plan factors, as well as all the other components, such as schools, roads, etc. He asked the Board not to shoot down what seems to be an excellent way to deal with the issue, by having a regional plant, just in an effort to stop future growth. He stated that it is not known whether that growth will occur or not, but, if it does, the plant is deemed to be the best way to serve it. He stated that the City of Minneola feels the proposed location is a good one for the plant, because it is near the Turnpike and other utilities, and, hopefully, will not negatively affect a large number of people.
Commr. Pool stated that the press has, on numerous occasions, criticized the City of Minneola for not planning for its future, for what will happen in the next five to twenty years, and now they are being criticized for wanting to do something to plan for the future.
Commr. Hanson stated that the things that are being considered right now for the City of Minneola are exactly what should have happened in the City of Clermont ten years ago, noting that, because it did not happen, there are package treatment plants and lots of septic tanks in the area. She stated that this is an opportunity for the City of Minneola and will provide for the residents that are in the area at the present time. She stated that an issue that has not been discussed is clustered development in springshed areas, at which time she noted that she hopes the County will be looking at more clustered development; however, in order to do that, they are going to have to have utilities, or the County will be looking at more septic tanks. She stated that it is a consideration that needs to be looked at. She stated that, with regard to the issue of odor coming from the plant, there should not be any odor problems with sewage treatment plants. She stated that, if there is an odor, it means that there is a problem with the system, which would need to be corrected. She stated that she feels the City of Minneola is planning for the future, by proposing the plant in question.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-8 - John F. Lowndes, Trustee/City of Minneola/ Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan/Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. PH7-03-2, Tracking No. 7-03-CFD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a wastewater treatment facility.
Under discussion, Commr. Stivender stated that staff is still working with Ms. Bonifay and her clients to make the proposed plant as least intrusive on the residents in the area as possible and to protect the environment at the same time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that his concern is with the location of the plant. He stated that, after discussing the matter with the City of Minneola, he realized the plant was designed to serve a lot larger area than the 700 homes that it was stated it will serve. He stated that he is afraid it will put the County in a position of assisting the City in the annexation frenzy that seems to be going on with most of the cities in the State of Florida and he does not want to be a part of it. He stated that he would not be voting in favor of the motion, at which time he passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Stivender, and made an amendment to the motion, to limit the plant to 300,000 gallons per day.
Commr. Pool seconded the amendment, for discussion, however, questioned whether the City would be able to get by with said limit.
Mr. Craig Ferguson, PBS&J, addressed the Board, in response to Commr. Pool’s question, stating that his firm is preparing to do a preliminary design and feasibility study, which will identify the current capacity and look at other capacities in the immediate area. He stated that they will be doing a planning process, to come up with logical phasing of the facility, as well. He stated that, to limit the plant to 300,000 gallons per day would significantly restrict potential economics in the design of the phasing and, at a minimum, would be more costly. He stated that it would also cause some problems in proper planning for the City.
The Vice Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which failed, by a 4-1 vote.
Commrs. Hanson, Pool, Stivender, and Hill voted “No”.
The Vice Chairman passed the gavel back to the Chairman, Commr. Cadwell.
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Cadwell and Hill voted “No”.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 12:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
REZONING CASE NO. PH45-02-2 - A TO PUD - INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE
TRACKING NO. 78-02-PUD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Environmental Specialist, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), to allow for a multifamily housing development. He stated that the request involves a 20 acre parcel in the Four Corners area of the City of Clermont. He stated that the parcel is currently in its natural vegetative state and is located in an Urban future land use category. He stated that staff reviewed the application and found the request to be consistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan in the Urban residential density point system of five and one half dwelling units per acre. He stated that the opportunity to increase the density to six dwelling units per acre is in place. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, with conditions, and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, with conditions, as well, by an 8-0 vote. He stated that some of the requirements for the PUD would be a wetlands survey and habitat consideration. He noted that there was one letter of opposition on file.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that there was a lot of discussion regarding this case at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, due to the fact that the issue of short-term rentals came up for discussion. He stated that the next case on the Rezoning Agenda deals with taking 116 lots and converting them to short-term rentals, or allowing it to be an option, so there was a discussion about the 80 units being proposed for this case being short-term rentals. He stated that he had informed the Planning and Zoning Commission that he felt like short-term rentals would probably be the way that the property would be developed, but, at that time, he did not have a commitment from his client to do that. He stated that, since that time, he has met with the applicant and they are proposing that this project be a short-term rental resort, which shall be defined that no rental unit shall be rented for longer than a 30 day period. He stated that, due to that fact, there will be no participation in the County’s school system, nor will the units be subject to Homestead Exemption, or the 3% increase, which is a Homestead Exemption cap. He stated that, as the units are rented, they will pay the County’s resort bed tax that is imposed on short -term rentals, such as motels, hotels, etc.
Mr. Richey stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission placed several conditions on the request, one being that the density shall be limited to 73 units, however, noted that the project has been reevaluated and it now has enough points to allow the applicant to go up to 80 units, which was originally proposed. He asked that, should the Board approve this project, the applicant be allowed to develop it up to 80 units, based on the County’s Urban Area Residential Density Point System verification. He stated that there was also a condition placed on the project by the Planning and Zoning Commission, with regard to buffering, at which time he noted that the applicant would be providing a 35 foot buffer, with a fence or wall, and a Class C planting, which he noted is a dense planting. He stated that he had provided a letter to Mr. Kruse stating said fact, dated January 17, 2003, and asked that, if the Board approved this project, that they approve it subject to the Class C buffer, as set forth in said letter, up to 80 units, which would be subject to the Urban Area Residential Density Point System; along with a provision that states that the project is a short-term rental project, with no rental being longer than 30 days.
Mr. Richey stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission also placed a condition on the project that the rear portion of the property be secured with fencing and that there be no access to existing residential subdivisions, so that the people renting the units will not be traveling through them. He stated that the applicant was also asked to keep the height of the rental units to two stories; that the poles for any outside lighting be limited to ten to fifteen feet; and that all lighting be directed internally. He stated that the applicant has no problem with said conditions. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission also required the applicant to do things that they are already required to do by the County’s Code, dealing with wetlands; gopher tortoises that have been located on the site; and the impacts of mitigation. He addressed a concern that was expressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, with regard to the possibility of a higher crime rate with short-term rentals and that of traffic being generated by said rentals, noting that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office verified that there is no indication that short-term rentals caused any additional crime in south Lake County and that, with regard to the issue of traffic, short-term rentals have less traffic impact, by a substantial degree, than normal subdivisions, without the benefit of short-term rentals.
Commrs. Stivender, Hill, Pool, and Hanson noted, for the record, that they had spoken with Mr. Richey about this case and the next case, which he represents, prior to this meeting.
It was noted that the issue regarding short-term rentals would be put in the Ordinance and that, in order for the applicant to change the development to a single-family residential community, they would have to come back before the Board and amend the PUD.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Dawn Ockstadt, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she was not only representing herself, but the homeowners in Woodridge, Phase II, as well. She distributed a handout (Opposition’s Exhibit A) that she had prepared for the Board’s perusal, at which time she discussed some concerns the homeowners have with the project, which were addressed in a letter that had been submitted to the Board (contained in the Board’s backup material), being that of the wetlands that are on the property; the proposed layout of the buildings that will be constructed on the site, in that there is no indication of a retention pond for the property, so they are concerned about where the water runoff will be directed; with traffic having access through the Woodridge subdivision; wildlife and habitat that has been found on the property; the rental units, which is a huge issue with the homeowners; excess traffic generated by the renters; safety of the school children in the area; litter/trash being left in common areas; excess noise generated by the renters at all hours, who are usually on different time zones than the United States; a lack of services in the Four Corners area of the County; and a negative impact on surrounding property values. She stated that the residents of Woodridge subdivision are hopeful that the Board will consider their concerns and deny the request.
Ms. Ockstadt stated that they are asking that there be a resurvey of the wetlands, taking into account where the displaced water from the wetlands will be going and how it will affect the surrounding subdivisions; that a retention pond be addressed; that the applicant maintain the maximum wetlands area, to help preserve wildlife habitat and to coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Bureau to identify the gopher tortoise burrows and necessary mitigation, as a result; that the buildings be limited to two stories; that an additional buffer be required and that, on the western side of the property, rather than the buffer running half-way, it continue along the entire property line, up to 660 feet; that a vegetative buffer of dense trees and shrubs be installed; and that it be specified that the fencing be located within the property line and that it have a vegetative buffer, so that the residents do not have to look at it from their homes; that a height limit be placed on the street lights; and that the development have a gated entry, to deter crime. She stated that the residents were also requesting that the Board not allow short-term rentals, noting that they feel it would be great if the development had permanent residents, because it would add to their sense of community, however, noted that, if short-term rentals are going to be approved, that they be restricted, to where only half of the units can be used for rental purposes.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made regarding this request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-9 - International Development Partners/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH45-02-2,Tracking No. 78-02-PUD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), to allow for a multifamily housing development, with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission being met, with the exception of No. 1 being amended to increase the 73 units to up to 80 units.
It was noted that the Ordinance is to state that there will be no single-family homes and that the rentals will all be short-term rentals.
REZONING CASE NO. PH5-03-2 - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-63
ZUREIQ INVESTMENT/SILVER CREEK SUBDIVISION/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.
TRACKING NO. 5-03-PUD/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Environmental Specialist, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment to Ordinance No. 2002-63, to include short-term rentals in the PUD. He stated that it involves a 30 acre parcel in the Four Corners area of Clermont, which is currently being developed for single-family residential use and is located in the Urban future land use category. He stated that staff reviewed the application and found it to be neither consistent nor inconsistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, noting that short-term rentals are not addressed in either. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, as well, by a 7-0 vote.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the property in question is a parcel of property that has already been through the PUD process and has been platted, consisting of 116 lots. He stated that the PUD contained wording that stated that it could not have short-term rentals, however, noted that no one could tell him how said language got into the Ordinance, since every other development around the property in question allows for short-term rentals. He stated that the applicant is requesting to take the 116 houses that have already been approved and allow, as an option, an individual to purchase said houses and put them into a short-term rental pool. He stated that the request would not be increasing density or intensity, but would be allowing short-term rentals within a subdivision that is already built.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-10 - Zureiq Investment/Silver Creek/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH5-03-2, Tracking No. 5-03-PUD/AMD, a request for an amendment to Ordinance No. 2002-63, to include short-term rentals in the PUD.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH87D-03-3 - AMENDMENT TO PLANTATION AT
LEESBURG DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT - EARL THIELE,
PRESIDENT, LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY/THE PLANTATION AT
LEESBURG - TRACKING NO. 13-03-PUD/DRI/AMD; AND REZONING CASE NO.
87E-03-3 - AMENDMENT TO PLANTATION AT LEESBURG PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT - EARL THIELE, PRESIDENT, LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY/THE PLANTATION AT LEESBURG - TRACKING NO. 14-03-
PUD/AMD
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that these two cases were tied together. He stated that one is a request to change the Plantation at Leesburg Development of Regional Impact (DRI), to eliminate Parcel MM (southern commercial parcel), allowing no additional units, but to expand the residential into an area that was otherwise designated as commercial in the Master Development Plan and transfer the square footage up to the northern parcels. He stated that there were two additional requests, one being to clarify the uses that an adult living facility would be allowed within the commercial parcels, as well as self-service storage units. He stated that one condition was placed on the property by the developer, which is that the self-service storage units not all be located on Parcel U. He stated that the other request was to change the Planned Unit Development (PUD). He stated that staff was recommending approval of the two requests.
It was noted that, although the Board was hearing the two cases together, there would be two separate votes.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Donald McIntosh, Donald W. McIntosh & Associates, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he concurred with the comments made by Mr. Richardson, however, noted that there is a traffic signal that has recently been warranted by the Florida Department of Transportation at the entrance to The Plantation at Leesburg, which is currently in the design phase and will be installed in the near future. He stated that a letter has been entered into the record from The Plantation Residents Organization (PRO), a board of nine directors elected by the residents to represent them, dated January 14, 2003, stating that they have no opposition to the request.
Mr. Carl Fimmano, President, Plantation Residents Organization (PRO), addressed the Board stating that he had been in correspondence with the members of the Board, however, noted that he had made an error in his letter to the Board, which he would like to correct at this time. He stated that he only referenced one of the two cases being heard, therefore, would like to add Rezoning Case No. PH87D-03-3 to his letter. He stated that he only referred to three parcels of property, when there are actually four parcels involved with the requests. He stated that the PRO Board reviewed the recommended changes by the developer and do not have any opposition to the request. He stated that they look forward to it, welcome the opportunity, and endorse it. He submitted a corrected letter (Applicant’s Exhibit A) to the Board, for the record.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-11 - Earl Thiele, Plantation at Leesburg, Lakewood Development Company/ Miranda Fitzgerald, Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.,
Rezoning Case No. PH87D-03-3, Tracking No. 13-03-PUD/DRI/AMD, a request for an amendment to the Plantation at Leesburg Development of Regional Impact (DRI), to convert Parcel MM (southern commercial parcel) to residential and transfer the commercial square footage allowance for Parcel MM (42,500 s.f.) to Parcels R,S,U (northern commercial parcels) of the DRI. No increase in the overall residential unit limit of the current DRI is proposed. The amendment also clarifies that an adult living facility and self-service storage would be allowed on the commercial parcels.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-12 - Earl Thiele, Plantation at Leesburg, Lakewood Development Company/Miranda Fitzgerald, Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH87E-03-3, Tracking No. 14-03-PUD/AMD, a request for an amendment to the Plantation at Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development), to transfer five (5) acres from the commercial parcel to the residential development. No increase in the overall residential unit limit of the current DRI is proposed. The amendment also clarifies that an adult living facility and self-service storage would be allowed on the commercial parcels.
It was noted that the following rezoning cases were postponed 90 days, due to the approval of the motion for a 90 day postponement on any rezoning cases dealing with residential development that would impact the population of the Lake County School System :
Rezoning Case No. PH8-03-4, Anita Simpson, Representative of H. James Simpson,
James Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc.,Tracking No. 8-03-Z
Rezoning Case No. PH9-03-4, Robert F. Vason, Jr., James Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc.
Tracking No. 9-03-Z
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS TO ELDER AFFAIRS COORDINATING COUNCIL
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed the following individual to the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council, representing District 2:
Dr. Cara Jakob
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed the following individuals to the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council, representing District 4:
Diana Graeber
Kent Youngren
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
REQUEST TO HOLD CLOSED SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested approval to hold a Closed Session some time next month regarding a case involving the Lake County Medical Examiner’s Office.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to hold a Closed Session next month, to discuss pending litigation, with regard to the case of Impett, Moran, Daily, Young and Williams v. Lake County.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4
GOVERNOR’S ELIMINATION OF STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HOUSING TRUST FUND FROM PROPOSED FY 2003/04 BUDGET
Commr. Hanson brought up for discussion the issue of the recommendations of the Governor and the cuts that will be proposed for the State’s FY 2003/04 budget. She stated that a significant one will be the County’s Affordable Housing Program, noting that the cuts will cut said budget almost in half. She stated that the dollars were originally approved from the documentary stamps, to go into the trust fund for affordable housing, but the Governor is recommending that those dollars be moved into General Revenue. She stated that she feels it will affect the manner in which each county gets its dollars in the future for Affordable Housing.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that it is going to be a challenge this year in Tallahassee, noting that none of the trust funds are safe. He stated that he would be prepared to write a letter to the Governor, on behalf of the Board, in support of said programs, should the Board wish him to do so.
Commr. Stivender noted that Senator Anna Cowin was scheduled to hold a Town Hall Meeting in Tavares this date with Representatives Brummer and Gibson and that she would be attending said meeting and would pass the Board’s concerns about the matter along to Senator Cowin.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that staff has been monitoring said actions at the State level and that he has formed an in-house task force, consisting of Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director of Budget and Administrative Services; Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Community Services, and other department directors, who are indirectly involved. He stated that they will be preparing a report card of sorts of unfunded mandates and other cuts that are currently going on in the Legislature and the potential impacts from Lake County, on the revenue, as well as the program side, and that they hope to get it to the Board by the end of this week, or early next week. He stated that they will monitor it on an ongoing basis and will give the Board updates every other week or so. He stated that they will be using it to communicate with the County’s lobbyist at the Florida Association of Counties, as well. He stated that he predicts $8 to $12 million of additional expenses this fiscal year and/or a combination of loss of revenues for the County. He stated that he communicated to the Board a few weeks ago the change in the Florida Retirement System rates, which is going to have an impact of anywhere from $1.5 to $1.8 million in the General Fund and approximately $2.5 million countywide. He stated that it is an expense that the County is going to have to pay, starting July 1, 2003.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2003-14, indicating that the Board does not support the Governor’s elimination of the State Housing Trust Fund (funds programs such as SAIL) and the Local Government Housing Trust Fund (SHIP programs) from the proposed Fiscal Year 2003/04 Budget, that they feel those trust fund dollars should be left as they were intended, for Affordable Housing assistance and rehab.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Bryan Summers, a resident of Fruitland Park, addressed the Board and discussed a problem that he has encountered, with regard to obtaining legal access to his property, since purchasing 10 acres of a 40 acre tract approximately three years ago. He stated that he has attempted to purchase legal access from the families that own the other 30 acres, to no avail. He further elaborated on the matter, noting that the road that he has been using to access his property, Timber Top Lane, along with the other families that live along said road, has been used for said purpose since 1948, even though it is not a legal access. He asked for the Board’s assistance in the matter.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if, in fact, Mr. Summers is landlocked, he would be able to obtain access across the other parcels of property to CR 466A through legal action, noting that the State of Florida has a law that states that no one can be landlocked. He stated that they can obtain legal access through the courts. He stated that another alternative would be for Mr. Summers to go back to the Board of Adjustment and ask for an additional variance from the road dedication requirement.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2
PIG-ON-THE-POND EVENT
Commr. Pool informed the Board that the South Lake County Community Foundation has scheduled a Pig-on-the-Pond event for Friday, February 28, and Saturday, March 1, 2003, with 24 barbecue cooking teams participating. He invited everyone to attend, noting that it will be a great asset to south Lake County.
PUBLIC HEARING
TRANSMITTAL OF EAR BASED AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board requesting approval to transmit the following EAR based Amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs:
Aviation
Mass Transit
Recreation and Open Space
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Sanitary Sewer
Economic Development
Stormwater
Solid Waste
It was noted that the Department of Community Affairs asked that the Traffic Circulation Element not be transmitted to them at this time, pending completion of an update to the Future Land Use Map.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that staff did some yeoman’s work in a very short period of time, in revamping things and putting the book together, creating a much clearer format that everyone can understand and wanted to publicly recognize them for it.
Mr. Welstead informed the Board that he would try to have staff adhere to said format in the future, so that they would have before them, in addition to comments, a clear understanding of exactly what they would be approving. He noted that the Department of Community Affairs has already provided staff with some feedback on the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to transmit the above noted EAR based Amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
________________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK