A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEBRUARY 24, 2004
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 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:
Debbie Stivender, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: William A. “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Bill Neron noted that there is an Addendum No. 1 with two consent agenda items and a County Manager’s report item.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, under his business, he will request a Closed Session to be scheduled for the Board’s March 2, 2004, meeting.
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 County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 6 and Addendum No. 1, I. A. and B.
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Nikos Lukaris (CEB Number 2001030233).
Program Analysis and Contract Management
Request from Program Analysis and Contract Management for approval of the Transportation Coordination Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the Easter Seals Camp Challenge.
Request from Program Analysis and Contract Management for approval of the Transportation Coordination Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and Beacon College.
Request from Program Analysis and Contract Management for approval of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, Lake County’s Community Transportation Coordinator.
Request from Public Works for approval to continue with design services for the upgrades/renovation of the Agriculture Center and encumber $14,500.00 from the existing budget to cover necessary additional design requirements.
Request from Purchasing for approval to declare the items on the attached lists surplus to County needs and authorize disposal as described; accept the attached missing item investigation reports and authorize the removal of the items from the County’s Official Fixed Asset system; and authorize the Purchasing Director to sign the titles for the vehicle that will be donated.
Program Analysis and Contract Management
Request from Program Analysis and Contract Management for approval to increase the amount paid for the transportation study from $50,000.00, as previously approved, to $60,000.00 with the additional $10,000.00 paid from Metropolitan Planning Organization planning funding, and to award the contract to Tindale-Oliver & Associates, the firm that presented the original study (subject to County Attorney approval).
Request from Public Safety for approval of an addendum to an existing Agreement with SPRINT-FLORIDA that will provide for the installation of T-1 lines to support and enhance fire rescue service in the County and approval of the necessary budget transfer in the amount of $48,450.00.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he has the honor of representing Florida’s counties on the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, Inc. Last week, the City of Clermont Police Department became the first accredited police department in Lake County. He expressed his great pride of Clermont’s achievement.
Commr. Pool read and presented a Certificate of Accreditation effective the 18th day of February 2004 to Clermont Police Chief Randall Story.
Chief Randall Story thanked the Board for its recognition and stated that his staff has worked hard for two years on this project. He stated that the Clermont Police Department will be able to help other agencies, throughout the state, with the process.
Commr. Cadwell added that this voluntary accreditation process is extensive and getting it completed in just two years is an accomplishment. The accreditation lets residents know their police department is professional and abides by rules that are set forth. The process is ongoing and will involve reaccreditation.
Chief Story stated that he will attend the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.’s (CALEA) national conference March 17-24, 2004, in Pasadena, California, where the Clermont Police Department will receive national recognition.
PUBLIC HEARING - VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 1016 - DON M. BUCKNER, LEESBURG AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, presented Vacation Petition No. 1016, by Don M. Buckner to vacate Lots 13 and 14, Block 5, as shown on Plat Number 2, Cisky Park, located in Section 31, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Leesburg area, Commission District one. He showed the site map, which is included in the backup material, and stated that some legal questions have come up regarding the park site. Staff recommends a 30-day postponement.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted the presence of the petitioner.
The petitioner, Mr. Don Buckner, stated that he has made a request for a postponement.
Mr. William McBride, who owns property directly across from the park, stated that, while he received a notice of the hearing, approximately 19 other non-lakefront property owners were not notified. He stated that the hearing should be postponed and the other owners should be given an opportunity to be present.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill, Mr. McBride explained that his February 23, 2004, letter to the Board (included in the backup material) stated his reasons for requesting denial of the petition.
Mr. Bob Williams, Attorney, Williams, Smith & Summers, P.A., appearing on behalf of Mike and Donna Hall and Bill Moorehead, referred to his letter dated February 19, 2004 (included in the backup material). He stated that he has no objection to a postponement although he does not feel the postponement will change his clients’ position and their legal standing.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to postpone for 30 days Vacation Petition No. 1016, by Don M. Buckner to vacate Lots 13 and 14, Block 5, as shown on Plat Number 2, Cisky Park, located in Section 31, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Leesburg area - Commission District 1.
PETITION NO. 1018 - MARY S. ATKINSON, ESTATE, EUSTIS AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, presented Vacation Petition No. 1018 by Mary S. Atkinson, Estate, Representative Steven J. Richey, P.A., to vacate a 30.00 foot unnamed right of way, in the Plat of Eldorado Heights, located in Section 33, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area - Commission District 4. He showed the site map, which is included in the backup material, and stated that staff recommends approval for vacation.
Commr. Cadwell noted that this property is now in Commission District 5.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted the presence of the petitioner’s representative. No one was present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote ov 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1018 by Mary S. Atkinson, Estate, Representative Steven J. Richey, P.A., to vacate a 30.00 foot unnamed right of way, in the Plat of Eldorado Heights, located in Section 33, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area - now in Commission District 5; and approved execution of Resolution 2004-31.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING - POSTPONEMENTS
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, advised the Board of the following requests for 30-day postponements for Rezoning Agenda No. 4, Long Farms North, Inc., and Rezoning Agenda No. 7, Pringle Communities, Inc.
REZONING CASE PH#68-03-1 - LONG FARMS NORTH, INC.,
MARGARET STOKES CALL, VIRGINIA H. ALLEN, B.A.W., INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #102-03-Z
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing on Rezoning Case PH#68-03-1, Long Farms North, Inc., Margaret Stokes Call, Virginia H. Allen, B.A.W., Inc., Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Tracking #102-03-Z. She noted the presence of the applicant’s representative and the request for a 30-day postponement.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, on behalf of Long Farms North, Inc., noted the presence of Mr. Berry Long, who has the property under contract. She complimented staff members Rick Hartenstein and Fred Schneider for their responsiveness during recent meetings with the Sunnyside Homeowners Association. Because an agreement has not been effectuated to date, Ms. Bonifay stated that she has submitted a written request (Applicant’s Exhibit A-1) for another 30-day extension.
No one was present in opposition to the request to postpone. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30-day postponement, until March 23, 2004, of Rezoning Case PH#68-03-1, Long Farms North, Inc., Margaret Stokes Call, Virginia H. Allen, B.A.W., Inc., Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Tracking #102-03-Z.
REZONING CASE PH#71-03-3 - PRINGLE COMMUNITIES, INC.
LPG URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNERS, STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing on Rezoning Case PH#71-03-3, Pringle Communities, Inc., LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking #115-03-PUD/AMD. She noted the presence of the applicant’s representative and the request for a 30-day postponement (A copy of the February 9, 2004, letter is included in the backup material).
No one was present in opposition to the request to postpone. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30-day postponement, until March 23, 2004, of Rezoning Case PH#71-03-3, Pringle Communities, Inc., LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking #115-03-PUD/AMD.
At this time, Commissioners Hanson, Stivender, Hill, and Pool disclosed for the record that they had met with the applicants’ representative on the following rezoning cases: PH#7-04-2, Shirley Badalamento; PH#1-04-2, Lake Utility Services and PH#5-04-2, Mohamed Elaswad.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING
REZONING CASE PH#6-04-1 - DAN E. CAMPBELL, ET AL
ROE PROPERTIES/WICKS CONSULTING SERVICES - TRACKING NO. #7-04-Z
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Lake County Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Number PH#6-04-1, Dan E. Campbell, et al (Owner) and Roe Properties, Ted Wicks, Destiny Estates (Applicant), Tracking No. #7-04-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP#95/11/4-5) and R-1 (Rural Residential) and CFD (Community Facility District) to R-1 Rural Residential. He displayed an aerial map of the subject property which is included in the backup material. This parcel, approximately 42.13 acres, is located in the Silver Lake area on State Road 44 between Lisbon and U.S. Highway 441. The site would be served through individual wells and septic tanks. The applicant wishes to develop the property for single-family residential purposes at a density of one dwelling unit per acre and would be qualified for 2.5 dwelling units per acre under R-1 zoning. The proposed rezoning will result in an increased demand on public facilities as it increases the number of potential homes in the area from one dwelling unit per five acres under its current Agriculture zoning. With the school system in an above-capacity situation, this development will contribute to the overcrowded conditions for schools in the area. Other staff findings are included in the backup material. Mr. Hartenstein stated that staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to R-1. Staff received one letter of support and one letter of concern and the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission recommended approval by a 7-2 vote.
Discussion ensued regarding wells and septic tanks, the nearest utility service area and the Cutrale (Cutrale Citrus Juices USA, Inc.) spray fields.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that it was basically determined during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that it would be the developer’s responsibility to ensure that a good water supply would be available.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and noted the presence of the applicant’s representative.
Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, stated that he is assisting the applicant in this petition to rezone property. He explained that the letter of concern came from Cutrale and the subject property borders about 300 feet of Cutrale’s existing wastewater disposal system. Mr. Wicks stated that he understands Cutrale is in the process of upgrading their wastewater treatment system and past problems should be eliminated. Cutrale has a buffer of approximately 100 feet and the applicant will provide whatever buffer is required. He advised that disclosure will be provided at the time of marketing and within the deed restrictions placed on the homeowners’ association. He stated that there has not been any documented groundwater contamination at the spray field. He explained that today is only the first stop in a long, hard effort to develop the property. The development review process, construction plan review, and well permitting through the Health Department will follow. He stated that the applicant could have asked for higher densities based on the point system. Because Leesburg utilities are almost one mile away, it appeared the development would be best served with lower densities with individual wells and septic tanks. He explained that the soil is quite conducive to the operation of septic tanks and no groundwater contamination problems are anticipated.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the applicant had any dialogue with the school system after the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission hearing and whether the applicant would agree ahead of time to another program, besides the impact fee program, that involved some monetary input.
Mr. Wicks responded that they did not communicate with the schools after the P&Z hearing. He stated that the ultimate developer, obviously, will do whatever is necessary at the time through the impact fee program and will live up to any additional restrictions that might be imposed. Mr. Wicks stated that he is not in a position to commit to another program but he feels Mr. Roe would be willing to do that. While not particularly in favor of the Martinez Plan, something in that direction might be palatable.
Commr. Hanson inquired of Mr. Wicks if he was familiar with the requirements that were put in place, along those lines of the Martinez Plan, by the Board for a development that was approved at the January 27, 2004, Board meeting.
Mr. Wicks stated that he did not follow that case closely and that he is not a land use attorney.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding clustering, Mr. Wicks replied that, because this is a small project, clustering concepts do not seem to fit this particular geometric scheme and some wetland soils probably will be set aside as conservation easements. Lot sizes will be varied with some larger lots in the back near the Cutrale spray field area.
Commr. Hill explained that the only complaints with Cutrale have been in regard to smell. She opined that the applicant should mention odor in their disclaimer.
Mr. Wicks explained that odor comes about when you hydraulically and organically overload the spray fields. He understands that Cutrale is doing things to control both the hydraulic and organic loading which should virtually eliminate the odor. He verified that the applicant would do that work in the HOA (homeowners’ association) documents, the deeds and the upfront disclaimers.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that a PUD (Planned Unit Development) was approved at the January 27, 2004, Board meeting. It involved a voluntary contribution of $2,000 per home payment to the School Board for each home, over and above impact fees.
Commr. Cadwell clarified with Mr. Minkoff that, while last month’s agreement was possible because it was a PUD, this is straight zoning and cannot be restricted like that. In this case, the Board could ask for a postponement and a developer’s agreement could be made, beforehand, between Mr. Roe and the School System.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, under the so-called Martinez Plan being considered, the Board of Commissioners does not approve developments until the School Board has given assent that there is capacity or arrangements have been made to provide capacity. If the developer were to offer that additional payment to the School Board, then that would satisfy the Board of Commissioner’s concerns about schools.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that some type of framework, from the School Board, needs to be in place. That plan needs to be fair to both large and small developers.
Commr. Pool stated that the School Board and the County Commission need to determine a dollar amount.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he prefers that no developments be approved until such a plan is in place with the School Board. He remarked that the only way to fix the problem in the long run is for the Board of Commissioners to continue to say “no” or say the developer should have the School Board on its side before appearing before the Commission.
Commr. Stivender stated that she intends to meet with Ms. Kyleen Fischer, Chairman of the School Board, within the next two weeks to try to come up with some of the solutions to bring back to both Boards and to get both Boards together to try to resolve the issue, rather than continuing a piecemeal approach.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if that is the case, he does not intend to vote for any development that adds a rooftop. He remarked that he would hope the Board would not approve any developments if it is in a position to move forward fairly quickly on some type of plan that would help.
Commr. Hanson agreed that school population is a problem, that growth is creating that problem and the School Board is doing some things with redistricting that will help to address some of the issues. She referred to comments in the P&Z minutes by Commissioner Murray regarding the schools that are being closed. (A copy of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 4, 2004, is included in the backup material.) She commented that those closings impact the over capacity of Treadway Elementary School. She stated that she has no problem with postponing this case one month.
Commr. Hill stated that a new school will come on line September 2004 in this area.
Commr. Cadwell clarified his position on postponement in that if a developer wanted to do that voluntarily, it could, as opposed to this Board saying it will not hear any rezoning cases. He stated that if the cases are heard and there is no agreement with the School System, he does not intend to vote for the rezoning.
Mr. Al Roe, Roe Properties, stated that he is a small time developer and almost feels he is being held hostage by the School Board for something over which he has no control. He remarked that he is more than willing to do what he has to do to help the schools. He is willing to pay the newly increased impact fees, but, as far as other monetary value, he does not know if this small, 42-acre project could support that. He remarked that he is doing everything he can to bring this project through the system based on the requirements that have to be met today. He expressed that he is not comfortable negotiating with the School Board because if he does not give them what they want they will recommend denial. Mr. Roe stated that he does not want denial and reiterated that he is at the mercy of the Board and has no way to go but to agree.
Commr. Pool stated that the School Board is willing to work toward a formula or plan, and that a postponement of 30 to 60 days may be beneficial versus denial.
Mr. Roe emphasized that he is under contract and, while he is willing to postpone 30 days, is obligated to fulfill the terms and condition of his contract. He opined that if he has to do that then others need to operate within their means as well.
Commr. Cadwell reiterated that something must be done to get everyone to the table, large developers as well as small developers like Mr. Roe. He noted that a developer has recently told the City of Minneola he has $5 million to offer them.
Commr. Hill, and other Board members, asked to hear from the School Board.
Mr. Terry Adsit, Senior Planner, Lake County Schools, stated that the three schools being closed were essentially mandated through an audit. These schools are very small and very inefficient to operate. One school is being converted to a Pre-K center. The new school will not recover all of the permanent seats that will be lost from all three schools. Treadway Elementary School, currently at 148% over capacity, will be affected by this rezoning. While some permanent capacity is being planned there, it will not be enough to accommodate additional students. Mr. Adsit remarked that his comments today mirror comments made at the February 4, 2004, P&Z meeting by Dr. Kathleen Farner-Thomas. He agreed that Mr. Roe has a good point and small developers do not have the resources to come up with creative solutions. He added that, while 42 dwelling units are not a lot, unfortunately at least 490 other units have been approved in this particular area.
Commr. Hill confirmed that, whether or not this development is approved, the schools in the area are over capacity and will be even after the new school is completed and even after Treadway is expanded.
Mr. Adsit opined that the schools’ plant survey recommends redistricting when a school site can only take so many students and there is no more room for increased capacity.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Adsit stated that there are some schools in the County that are under capacity, but not in the Treadway area. While he stated the information is available, Mr. Adsit could not provide information on the net loss of seats.
Commr. Hanson stated that two other issues need to be addressed. (1) Lots that are already existing that would not be subject to these additional costs. She opined that probably half of the permits being pulled are on existing lots, not on subdivisions. Additional costs might force an even higher level of building on lots as opposed to new subdivisions being created. (2) Half of the development in the County is going on in the cities.
Mr. Adsit could not confirm, for the school system, that some framework or formula could be available within 30 days.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool, Mr. Minkoff confirmed that Ms. Fischer can meet individually with each Commissioner as long as Ms. Fischer does not poll them to get their opinions.
Discussion occurred regarding meeting individually with Ms. Fischer and a future joint meeting between the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, due to unsolved and unanswered questions, the Board approved to postpone for 30 days Rezoning Case Number PH#6-04-1, Dan E. Campbell, et al (Owner) and Roe Properties, Ted Wicks, Destiny Estates, (Applicant) Tracking No. #7-04-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP#95/11/4-5) and R-1 (Rural Residential) and CFD (Community Facility District) to R-1 Rural Residential.
REZONING CASE PH#7-04-2 - SHIRLEY BADALAMENTO - STEVEN J.
RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. #8-04CP/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Lake County Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Number PH#7-04-2, Shirley Badalamento, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. #8-04-CP/AMD, a request to amend CP (Planned Commercial District). He displayed an aerial map of the subject property which is included in the backup material. This request is to amend the CP zoning to include a fitness center with the existing permitted use of an automobile and watercraft sales and service business. This parcel, approximately 4.87 acres on U.S. Highway 27, is in Clermont’s Joint Planning Area. Utilities for central water would be provided by Lake Utility Services, Inc., and an individual septic tank would be utilized. Mr. Hartenstein presented the Findings of the case, which are included in the backup material. He noted that this rezoning is in conflict with Section 9.01.02B and Section 11.05.00 of the Land Development Regulations and the applicant has agreed to come up to Code with the sign ordinance and the landscaping. Because of the septic system, there is a risk of groundwater contamination and any potential adverse impacts will be addressed during the development review process. Zero letters were received and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approved to amend the CP by a vote of 10-0. Staff recommends approval.
Regarding the letter which was received from the City of Clermont, Mr. Hartenstein stated that those recommendations on landscaping will be addressed during the development review process, and a 15-foot landscape buffer will be required and highway signage will have to be upgraded from a pole sign to a monument-based ground sign. He confirmed that the applicant is aware of and agreeable to these requirements.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the format the City used on this zoning was very helpful.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted the presence of the applicant’s representative.
Mr. Steve Richey, attorney for the applicant, asked that the staff report be corrected to reflect that this is not a request to rezone the property but is adding an additional use. He stated that, by adding a 7,000 square foot fitness center, the applicant will bring it up to current Code for the sign, the landscaping and everything else. He acknowledged that the most stringent Code, between the City of Clermont and Lake County, will apply and will be required.
No one was present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance 2004-7, Rezoning Case Number PH#7-04-2, Shirley Badalamento, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. #8-04-CP/AMD, a request to amend CP (Planned Commercial District) to include a fitness center.
At this time, Commr. Hanson disclosed for the record that she met with Mr. Gene Caputo, St. Johns River Water Management District, before the petition (Case Number PH#9-04-1/5) to rezone the property was filed.
REZONING CASE PH#9-04-1/5 - ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT - GENE CAPUTO - TRACKING NO. #4-04-CFD/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Lake County Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Number PH#9-04-1/5, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), Gene Caputo, Tracking No. #4-04-CFD/AMD, a request to amend the current CFD (Community Facility District Ordinance 1995-32) to permit the District to place a recreational vehicle on site as a caretaker’s residence during the bird watching season January through June, which is a peak use time for the Emeralda Marsh Conservation Area. He displayed an aerial map of the subject property and presented staff Findings. (The map and Findings are included in the backup material.) The property is located in the Leesburg/East Lake Griffin area and an individual well and septic tank would be utilized. He noted that the need for a caretaker’s residence was not addressed in the original 1995 ordinance and would have no impact whatsoever on the school system. The use of an individual septic system presents a risk of groundwater and surface water contamination but any potential adverse impacts will be addressed during the development review process. Mr. Hartenstein showed three photographs (included in the backup material) of the property. There was one letter of support and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request by a vote of 10-0. He stated that staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions as set forth is the proposed ordinance.
Commr. Hanson commented that several years ago the County, the District, the Tourist Development Council, and the Audubon Society met to determine how Emeralda Marsh could be made a tourism destination for bird watchers. It is a success story, but the gates have to be opened and closed on a regular basis. She stated that the District went over and beyond expectations regarding the enhancement of the area. She added that this might be an opportunity for other parks to reap the benefits of visitors to Emeralda Marsh.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and noted the presence of Mr. Gene Caputo of St. Johns River Water Management District. She noted that there was no one present in opposition to the request and that this area is in both Commission Districts 1 and 5.
Mr. Gene Caputo, St. Johns River Water Management District, added that a retired couple will volunteer their services and be much more than caretakers. They will offer public education and park host type services and will assist visitors in any way possible. He reminded the Board that the County is a partner with the District in this project and might be a model for other public owned properties. He extended his gratitude to the staff who went above and beyond to make this work. He publicly commended Mr. Hartenstein in helping make the Board look good.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance 2004-8, Rezoning Case Number PH#9-04-1/5, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), Gene Caputo, Tracking No. #4-04-CFD/AMD, a request to amend the current CFD (Community Facility District Ordinance 1995-32) to permit the District to place a recreational vehicle on site as a caretaker’s residence during the bird watching season in the Emeralda Marsh Conservation Area.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:05 a.m., Commr. Stivender announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING (CONTINUED)
REZONING CASE PH#1-04-2 - LAKE UTILITY SERVICES/PATRICK C. FLYNN-
STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. #1-04-CFD/AMD
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Lake County Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Number PH#1-04-2, Lake Utility Services/Patrick C. Flynn, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. #1-04-CFD/AMD, a request to construct and operate a regional water treatment plant and to amend CFD Ordinance 2002-62 to remove one acre from the site. The proposed water treatment plant would be constructed on this parcel. She stated that 72 letters of opposition have been received and that 67 of those were form letters. She displayed an aerial map of the subject property and presented the Findings. (The map and Findings are included in the backup material.) She explained that Ordinance 2002-62 was approved on July 23, 2002, and allows for an elementary school. The proposed facility would contain a 750,000-gallon ground storage tank. She clarified that the proposed ordinance was written to include a one million-gallon tank; the number was not specified in the application; the one million number came from a prior conversation between herself and Lake Utility Services; a subsequent letter was received from Lake Utility Services clarifying their intent to construct a 750,000 gallon tank. The facility will also include four high-service pumps, a control building, sodium hypochloride (liquid bleach) storage and a generator with a fuel tank. The property is located in the south Clermont area on County Road 561. She noted that the project is not consistent with Objective 1-10, Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which discourages urban sprawl. While the facility itself is not necessarily considered to be urban sprawl, the location of the facility and the nature of the service being provided may become an accelerator of sprawl into rural and less urbanized areas in the vicinity. She presented other staff Findings regarding urban sprawl which are included in the backup material.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., the meeting was recessed due to a fire alarm in the Lake County Administration Building.
Commr. Stivender reconvened the meeting at 10:40 a.m.
REZONING CASE PH#1-04-2 - LAKE UTILITY SERVICES/PATRICK C. FLYNN -
STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. #1-04-CFD/AMD (CONTINUED)
Ms. Kapner continued her presentation of the Findings of Rezoning Case PH#1-04-2, Lake Utility Services/Patrick C. Flynn, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. #1-04-CFD/AMD. She concluded by stating that staff recommends denial of the request for a regional water treatment plant because of the threat that the facility would promote urban sprawl in the area.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding a current central water system that is in place, Ms. Kapner confirmed that customers to the east of the site are currently being served by Lake Utility Services and some are experiencing pressure problems. She added that no additional customers could be added to the current service. Only with the rezoning could utilities be offered to additional customers to the south and the west.
Mr. Steven Richey, attorney for the applicant, pointed out that Ms. Kapner is not an engineer and she does not know the capacity of the system. He asked her basis for indicating that the utility could not hook up any more customers.
Ms. Kapner stated that her information is from Water Resources Management. She confirmed that the school is being served by central services from the utility.
Mr. Richey stated that Ms. Kapner indicated in her testimony today that putting this facility where it is proposed to be put would open up the potential in the transition area to the west. He asked Ms. Kapner if she knows whose service area that is. He stated that testimony at the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting was that property to the west of the subject property is in Clermont’s utility service area.
Ms. Kapner stated that she does not believe it is in Clermont’s utility service area.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and noted the presence of the applicant and his representative. She noted, by a show of hands, those persons present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Richey stated that four years ago, and before the school was built, Lake Utility Services (Lake Utility) was trying to deal with the same issues of pressure and fire flow problems. He stated that Lake Utility is not trying to increase one gallon of capacity in its system at all. He stated that the application was denied four years ago by the Board because there was evidence that the County landfill on Loghouse Road has an intrusion of pollutants and has the potential of a flume coming down where the wellfield was proposed. He stated that the School System determined, rather than spend several hundred thousand dollars, that it would give an acre of land to Lake Utility to provide fire flows to the school. He stated that the line is drawn at the Green Swamp and Lake Utility serves no customers in the Green Swamp. He stated that the City of Clermont does have some of the Green Swamp in its utility area. He stated that Lake Utility has no plans to go into the Green Swamp. He remarked that there has been a lot of rumor, innuendo and gossip with regard to what this particular facility will or will not do.
Mr. Richey requested that Mr. David Orr be sworn in.
County Attorney Sandy Minkoff stated that it is not the policy of the Board to swear witnesses at its meetings.
At this time, Mr. David Orr, Regional Manager for Lake Utility Services, Utilities, Inc., was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Orr displayed a map (which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant) of the C.R. 561 WTP Area of Influence. He referred to the June 2000 application for a well which was denied by the Board. They have now acquired a one-acre site from the School Board just south of the site brought before the Board four years ago. This site is at a very high elevation with respect to the rest of the system. He stated that the pressure in their system is very low and the problem is specific to high demand periods. He stated that the intent of the water plant is (1) provide additional pressure within the certificated service area and (2) provide adequate fire flow for the service area. He stated that, over the last four years, many millions of dollars worth of improvements have been done “Band-Aiding” the system. He stated that in 2000, he had 1,642 connections to the system in the area south of the bridge and on the western side and today he has 2,349 connections. He stated that there are 2,600 platted lots within this area and that another 251 homes could be built on tomorrow. He stated that does not include any vacant land already existing that is (a) zoned or ready for residential or (b) agricultural inside the certificated service area that can be rezoned for additional homes. He stated that there appears to be two major issues in opposition. First is growth. He stated that he controls no growth and that he cannot serve outside the certificated service area legally without Public Service Commission (PSC) approval. He stated that the only way he would have the ability to serve areas to the west in the Green Swamp would be if granted that opportunity by the PSC. He stated that he does not want growth in the Green Swamp and it does not matter to him if one development is approved west of this boundary. He stated that he needs this facility in order to serve customers, just as they talked about four years ago.
In response to a question by Mr. Richey, Mr. Orr stated that if this Board approved no other developments in this area, there would still be a need for this facility. Mr. Orr stated that, in the master plan, CPH Engineers was specifically tasked with (a) what can we do, how can we find a site and (b) what area will this serve. He pointed out that the gray shaded area on the map (Exhibit A-1), bordered by their certificated service area boundary, is the area that will have hydraulic influence by this plant. He stated that the areas that are the highest in elevation have the highest probability of having problems. He stated that they have had, on average, 90 pressure complaints annually for a total of 258 complaints over the last three years.
In response to a question by Mr. Richey, Mr. Orr confirmed that Lake Utility has lines running now in the suburban area that are contiguous to the school and south of the school and would serve those developments if they were developed. He stated that they had worked with the School Board to acquire this site for the purpose of putting in a booster station and a ground storage tank. He stated that there will not be a well at this site and that water will be brought from the two existing water treatment plants located in Lake Crescent Hills and in Crescent West, just to the north of C.R. 561. He stated that a raw water line will be run from those two wells down to the site, increasing their storage and using the high service pumps to increase the pressure within the service area. He explained that, in order to solve Lake Utility’s peak hour problem, they are putting in about 3,000 gallon per minute high service pumps, as called for by the design. He stated that the raw water going into the facility will only be able to go through two wells at 500 gallons per minute; that means they have a 2,000 gallon per minute deficit. He stated that, hydraulically, it is necessary to have that adequate storage volume in order to handle the peaks and the valleys.
In response to a comment by Commr. Cadwell in assuming the current systems were not under designed, Mr. Orr stated that the growth in the area has been absolutely phenomenal.
Commr. Cadwell asked if Lake Utility is required to take on additional customers whether or not they have capacity within their certificated service areas.
Mr. Orr stated that, under the auspices of the Public Service Commission (PSC), they have the obligation to be ready, willing and able to serve customers, existing or not.
Commr. Cadwell asked if Lake Utility has ever provided service anywhere outside its service area, specifically in the adjacent Clermont Joint Planning Area.
Mr. Orr stated that they have not and they would have to apply before the PSC in order to do so.
Commr. Pool stated that there are a variety of subdivisions in the area. He recalled that four years ago the perception was that pumping from that facility in five or ten years may, with the landfill so close, create a potential problem. He added that he asked Lake Utility to find other locations for their wells four years ago. He stated that he has received many calls from residents and has contacted the County Attorney regarding fire flows and forcing Lake Utility to bring their system up to where it needs to be. He emphasized that the current Board members did not approve the existing growth in these subdivisions.
Mr. Richey stated that there are hundreds of acres of vacant land in this area that are zoned R-6 (Urban Expansion) and not subject to timeliness.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Orr if he is telling now applicants “no” since Lake Utility does not have enough water pressure.
Mr. Orr replied “no.” He stated that the pressure is the same exact situation as four years ago. He stated that subdivisions were already approved at that time that were under construction and still going. He stated that they have done many modifications associated with the system to allow themselves to bring the water from the east to the west, creating “Band-Aids.”
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Orr how many additional customers have been taken on since Lake Utility recognized there was a problem and what happens if Lake Utility cannot take new customers.
Mr. Orr stated that in June 2000 there were 1,642 connections. He stated that he will find a way to take new customers because it is his obligation as a utility company within his certificated service area.
Commr. Cadwell asked again what happens if Lake Utility cannot take new customers and does that mean the development will not go forward. He also asked what happens with Lake Utility’s certificate.
Mr. Orr stated that the Public Service Commission will determine Lake Utility’s feasibility associated with providing service within its certificated service area.
Mr. Richey stated that the School Board’s member on the Planning and Zoning Commission voted for the recommendation for rezoning and indicated that their two new buildings were dependent upon this rezoning happening in order to be able to expand that school.
Commr. Pool remarked that Lake Utility currently has two separate consumptive use permits for two wells that will be combined into a storage facility instead of two water treatment plants.
Mr. Orr concurred that Lake Utility’s service area has a single consumptive use permit that encompasses not only the western area but the eastern area as well. He stated that withdrawal is covered under that consumptive use permit. He stated that Lake Utility is not increasing the withdrawal under the consumptive use permit with this change and that they are only maximizing the ability to pull the water out of the ground at a rate over a longer period of time than the demand requires. He stated that DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) states that your wells are, in essence, considered to be 100% used and useful if they run 16 hours per day and that his wells for Lake Crescent Hills and Crescent West run 16 hours per day.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Orr if it is still financially feasible to build the new plant if they do not take on another customer.
Mr. Orr stated that he has to do this.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Orr if he will agree to do this and not take on one more customer into that system.
Mr. Orr stated that he would have to define what Commr. Cadwell means by “take on one more customer.”
Mr. Richey stated that they already have legal obligations to take on additional customers.
Mr. Orr stated that he can promise to not take on one more customer west of his system because that has its own separate obligation anyway. He stated that if the City of Clermont chooses to serve it, then so be it. He stated that he understands that the City has written a letter objecting to this facility based on the premise of growth. He stated that he does not want to see development in the Green Swamp either and that is not his concern nor does he have anything to say about it.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Orr if he would agree to language that he would not extend his lines or provide water into the Green Swamp area.
Mr. Orr stated that they have been approached by the Public Service Commission in other certificated service areas, not Lake Utility’s, in which they have had to serve outside their certificated service area boundary where PSC simultaneously says we want you to serve it and we will grant you the additional area. He stated that he has no control over circumstances such as being told to serve areas such as EDB (ethylene dibromide) zones.
Mr. Richey stated that Lake Utility expanded originally into this area because there was EDB in the area. He stated that, with the exception of that, they have no desire to go west into the Green Swamp and a provision in the ordinance limiting their ability to do that would be acceptable.
Mr. Orr stated that water is available to the school site, and if water is available to the school site, then water is available to the west. He stated that the timeliness issue is not a concern to him. He stated that he wanted to make very clear that he has no intent to go to the west of their service area boundary unless someone else, not of his doing, says he can go there.
Mr. Orr and Mr. Richey confirmed that if ordered, by the Public Service Commission, DEP or many of the other bodies who control their business, to go there, they would.
Mr. Richey stated that, on their own, they will not indicate a voluntary extension into the Green Swamp but want to reserve the right, if another governmental agency, superior and in conjunction with the certificated service requires it, they would be obligated legally to do that. Mr. Orr stated that, under the Public Service Commission rules, the Lake County School Board, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Clermont have their own right and ability to object through that process also.
Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Orr has indicated that this particular facility does not expand their ability, does not draw one more gallon of water and is simply to serve their current customers in the area that is already platted or already zoned for development and they are trying to fix a problem they have had for four years and deal with the future because those lands are platted or are zoned for that development and they need to be able to have reliable service there.
Mr. Orr gave the background on meetings between the school board and its representative and Utilities, Inc., and costs involved should the school build its own facility. He stated that the school board’s cost might have been $225,000 to drill a well plus put in a tank to serve the school site versus the cost of a one acre parcel valued at $15,200.
At this time, Commr. Stivender called for public comment in opposition to the petition.
Mr. Richey asked to reserve the right to call the engineer to deal with those concerns.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, City of Clermont, speaking on behalf of the City Council members, displayed a map (which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition) of the Clermont Water Service Area. She stated that the City, after a lot of deliberations, added a lot of property to the west of the City to add an additional layer of protection. The Joint Planning Agreement itself includes language that the City will support any changes that enhance the conservation efforts or make any improvements regarding the environment. She stated that on February 10, 2004, the City Council met and reviewed what was available in the County’s files and the Council unanimously opposed this change and unanimously recommended sending a letter recommending denial. (A copy of the February 12, 2004, letter is included in the backup material.) She stated that, because the City serves 23,000 residents with 1,000,000 gallons of capacity, 750,000 or 1,000,000 gallons appear to be a lot of capacity to upgrade a facility or serve a school site. She stated that the County’s staff report makes some excellent points regarding discouraging urban sprawl in that the true development patterns, regardless of R-6 zoning, are rural in nature. According to staff, the placement of a utility will accelerate urban uses in a rural area. She noted comments by Clermont residents regarding the lack of a transportation network in long range plans. In conclusion, she stated that the City Council unanimously asked that she appear today to support their original letter and to let the Board know they have some major reservations with the request.
Commr. Pool clarified that the City of Clermont has two water tanks with a storage capacity of 1,000,000 gallons. In looking at the Clermont Water Service Area map south of Lake Minnehaha, he remarked that the City of Clermont has no ability, at this time, to provide water to the west.
Ms. Farrell displayed a map (which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-2 for the Opposition) of the Clermont JPA.
Ms. Peggy Cox, a Clermont resident, referred to the map (marked Exhibit A-1) and pointed out that part of the Green Swamp is in Lake Utility Services’ certificated service area. She stated that R-6 zoning is not applicable in the urban expansion area, or suburban, and there is a limit to four houses per acre. She stated that, unless these plats have vested rights to develop at the higher densities, there is no way that R-6 will be built unless there is a comprehensive plan amendment. She referred to a discussion at the P&Z meeting regarding the size of the tank and whether it is 750,000 or 1,000,000 gallons. She stated that the County uses a figure of 350 gallons per day per single family unit while Lake Utility says its average household uses 1,200 gallons per day. At that rate, she opined, there is no doubt Lake Utility has pressure problems. Ms. Cox stated that a recent Lake Sentinel article mentioned more than 6,000 acres east of U.S. Highway 27 and south of Clermont that are in the hands of development companies that may result in 12,000 households with perhaps 30,000 people. She stated that, at least, that area is near major roads and major infrastructure and is exactly where urban development should go. She spoke of the Board’s approval of rezoning to build Pine Ridge Elementary School and the rezoning of a Planned Unit Development that is partially in the Green Swamp. She stated that today’s proposal is considerably more than is necessary to improve service to current customers and expected customers. She opined that all of this has been done to stimulate denser development to meet the timeliness requirements to develop lands in the suburban and transitional area to higher urban densities. She asked if there is a housing shortage in south Lake County and asked the Board why they are promoting urban densities in an area that was not intended for them and not equipped to handle urban densities. She stated that the road capacity is not available and there is no central sewer nor is any planned. This development, and any future development, is on septic tanks at three houses per acre. She stated that it seems the rights of mainly absentee landowners to make a greater than normal profit count more than the taxpaying residents of this remaining rural area. She stated that south Lake County and Clermont are already overburdened with exploding development and those areas are struggling to provide urban services and infrastructure. She stated that the subject area should be left as the comprehensive plan envisioned until, if ever, timeliness is met. She asked the Board to vote against this rezoning.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, speaking for the Alliance to Protect Water Resources (APWR) as their Land Use and Water Issues Chairman, noted that she maintains property in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. She referred to an APWR letter, which is included in the backup material, to the Board members dated February 16, 2004. She stated that she appeals to the Board today to rectify some mistakes that have been made in the past. She mentioned Mr. Orr’s statement that urban sprawl is not his concern and that the Board of County Commissioners approves developments. She stated that this water plan is development. Because no one was present from the school system, she referred to the minutes of the February 4, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting and asked the Board to honor the original intent of the school system’s negotiations, specifically that Lake Utility would provide a 20,000 to 25,000-gallon tank that would only serve the school. She mentioned that staff recommended, if there needs to be a storage tank because of low pressure, that it should be in a more central location.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Fullerton, Ms. Kapner stated that 72 letters in opposition were received and one letter of support, from Mr. Robert Shakar, was received.
Ms. Fullerton referred to Mr. Orr’s statement that his customers use 1,200 gallons of water a day quite often. She remarked that the County supports strong water conservation policies and that water wars are going on. She requested that the Board get rid of R-6 zoning because it does not exist. She stated that R-6 is continuously brought up as a legitimate zoning category, but it is not. She opined that the Board can deny this request because of the potential damage and cumulative effect to the groundwater and the chain of lakes and the Green Swamp. She stated that she totally agrees with Finding H on Page 3 of the staff report and that the Board has to decide if the developers want the Green Swamp.
Ms. Fullerton asked that the following questions be asked of the applicant:
(1) Is this plant going to serve any part of the (Robert) Shakar property?
(2) How hard is it to get permission to extend the boundary?
Ms. Fullerton stated that she has totally believes the Board will act as if reason and common sense and doing right will be the measure for this Board’s decisions. She stated that she has always chosen to believe the Board does listen and that there is an opportunity to sway their opinion. She expressed her regret that so many times lawsuits come about but feels that seems to be the only way the little people can do anything. She stated that, in defense of her quality of life, she has nothing to gain except that quality of life. She expressed her frustration and discouragement, as she reasons through what the environmental community does, that it makes Richey rich. She explained that is a generic term for the development community. She stated that the environmental community has come forth over the years and has raised the scrutiny and the level of effort that the development community has to make because now it is known that they have to make a plausible case to get approval for development. She observed that underlying each battle is the ever present belief that it is all about tomorrow and this is the type of world that we in government leave to our children and the future generations. She concluded that she wants the Green Swamp to be happy and healthy for future generations and asked the Board to deny this request.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool, Mr. Fullerton stated that she has a well on her property in the Green Swamp.
Commr. Pool explained that he gets calls from citizens in south Lake County who say that they cannot get a shower, something he considers to be quality of life, because it is the neighborhood’s watering day. He remarked that he is hearing that no additional water will be withdrawn but that two storage facilities will be combined into one.
Ms. Fullerton stated that during the meeting at Clermont there was one resident from Crescent Hills who said that he has never had a pressure problem. She admitted that she cannot respond to Commr. Pool’s comments and observed that no one is at today’s meeting to complain about pressure problems. She remarked that periods of high demand might cause a legitimate problem but she asked how often that happens.
Commr. Pool reiterated that he has complaints and that the water is there but is not in a pumping capacity in a storage facility.
Ms. Fullerton commented that humans rationalize to justify behavior and that plausible, good sounding reasons have been put forth for the need of this storage tank. She stated that rationalizations often just are not accurate and are not the real underlying reason. She stated that we always present our best case and her bias is that the developers want the swamp.
Commr. Stivender pointed out that the School Board member on P&Z voted in favor of approval of the request even though Dr. Farner-Thomas said the need was for a 20,000 to 25,000-tank. She stated that the School Board has said they need the water for the fire flows and for pressure at the school, especially if they add on.
Ms. Fullerton commented that, evidently, the school board thought the 20,000 to 25,000-gallon tank would provide sufficient and safe service to that school. She questioned whether there was ever discussion of providing water from this school site tank to service the rest of the community.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool as to whether she appeared before the Board in opposition to the storage facility on U.S. Highway 27 south of Lake Louisa Road, Ms. Fullerton replied that she guessed not.
Ms. Gail Ash, Clermont City Council Member, asked why homes are continuing to be built in this area if everyone is complaining about water pressure. She stated that building should have stopped 1,000 or 1,500 homes ago. She opined that, if there were pressure problems four years ago and 1,000 homes have been added since then, the pressure could not have been that bad four years ago. She stated that no homes should have been built beyond that point because they did not have the capacity to serve their customers properly and the Public Service Commission should have been down on them. Secondly, she asked if the two storage tanks north of the subject area will be shut down. She remarked that, if two tanks will be closed down, it is obvious that they do not need a 750,000 gallon tank. She stated that the City of Clermont only has a million-gallon tank for the whole City while Lake Utility says they need a million-gallon tank to service 2,600 homes and a school. Ms. Ash remarked that if a developer comes to a utility and asks to be serviced and the utility is unable to service the area, there are options. She stated that, at this point, Clermont is not able to service the area to the west and it may not be able for another two, four, five years or more. Meanwhile, if a developer came in a year from now and wanted to develop that property west of this storage area and Clermont is not able to provide water, the Public Service Commission will say Lake Utility has a storage facility there and ask if Lake Utility will service the area. She stated that, realistically, the storage tank is not meant to just serve 2,600 homes and one school.
Ms. Elaine Renick, Clermont City Council Member, stated that she thinks the Board can understand why the red flag went up for the City of Clermont and the residents present today when the original request was for 20,000 to 25,000 gallons and suddenly the request is for 1,000,000 gallons. She stated that, even at 750,000 gallons, it is a huge jump. She remarked that she wanted to be sure the Board can understand their suspicions. She asked what the Board can do, what legal recourse does the Board have, to make sure that this tank only serves the school and the existing customers. She stated that no one wants the school or the current residents to have water problems but asked how can we limit this utility to only doing what they have suggested they are going to do.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding whether she anticipates the City having the ability to help in serving that area, Ms. Renick answered that she does not foresee that and added that it was the intention of the Council that everything is for the protection of the Green Swamp. She stated that the City of Clermont Council has never been more unified than when it comes to protection of the Green Swamp. She stated that they absolutely do not want any development out there. When trying to decide on the Joint Planning Agreement, both sides tried to find out which way would offer more protection against development.
Commr. Pool asked Ms. Renick if she ever sees, if there is a problem in the area with fire flows and/or water to the area, the City of Clermont extending lines south through its service area or outside its service area.
Ms. Renick stated that she, while not speaking for the Council, does not.
Mr. Robert Kelly, a Clermont resident, asked the following questions:
(1) Is there any record of the customer problem reports that have been made as far as the nature of the reports, the nature of the problem and the length of the problem, or is the Board taking the word of a private company?
(2) Do we know the size of the existing storage tanks at the two current sites?
(3) Regarding an acceptable rate of complaints, potentially 3% to 4% problem report over the last three years, he asked the percentage increase of the water storage tanks, going from their existing tanks to 750,000 gallons, does this address the potential of 3% or 4% of problems.
(4) Regarding the existing planned unit development (PUD) for Mr. Robert Shakar, it appears half of that development is not in the Green Swamp, and it appears that half of that development is in Lake Utility’s boundaries, are they then allowed to get service for the whole development from Lake Utility and wrap around back into the Green Swamp?
Mr. Kelly requested that, based on potential accelerated growth impacts of this water plant, the Board deny this rezoning and look at initiating an independent study on what is really needed to serve the existing customers and have that independent study address how the 3% to 4% of complaints can be taken care of.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding service and pressure problems, Mr. Kelly stated that he has his own well and he does experience problems periodically.
Commr. Pool stated that, in the event projects are now approved in Mr. Kelly’s area near the Green Swamp, the Commissioners have tried to ensure that those projects would be under central metered water and/or sewer systems when available. He added that Mr. Shakar’s project was required to be central water and central sewer. He stated that it is a known fact that most people who do not pay for water use even more than 1,200 gallons per day and that St. Johns River Water Management District says that people who pay for water, historically, use less water than those that pump it for free from the ground at their own well site. He commented that the Board could have allowed the Shakar project to go forward and have individual wells or required it to be central water, which has advantages over individual wells.
Mr. Kelly suggested that the Board could rescind the Shakar development altogether because, he opined, it was illegally proposed under planned unit development. He reiterated that Lake Utility could address their problems with a much smaller tank and smaller pumps.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board to rebut statements by the opposition. He stated that it is important to hear from someone who has a degree in, and who practices, engineering. He called on Mr. Orr to answer questions and reminded him that he is still under oath.
Mr. Orr clarified that 1,200 per day is a maximum day basis and the average usage is about 650 gallons per day per connection which is about twice what DEP mandates under design criteria. Secondly, he quoted Ms. Cox by saying, “struggling to provide infrastructure and urban services.” He stated that the school board is doing it, Lake County is doing it, Lake Utility Services is doing it and it is just keeping up. He stated that he has no control over developments that continue to occur under existing orders and he has an obligation to serve those residents under the PSC. He clarified that this is a 750,000 gallon ground storage tank and that engineers arrived at the number. He stated that everybody should use common sense and asked why would he build anything larger that he has to. He stated that he is not a municipality and will not and cannot plan twenty years out. Mr. Orr stated that the idea of a 20,000 to 25,000-gallon tank came from negotiations with the school board and explained that he was not present for those negotiations. He stated that it has been Lake Utility’s intent in all the negotiations with the school board to build this facility almost identically to the one that was talked about at Pine Island Road four years ago, without the well site.
Mr. Richey stated that to get fire flows and keep the pressures up, Lake Utility has the capacity in the wells to pump to this proposed facility but it does not have the storage facility to put it in.
Mr. Orr stated that Lake Crescent Hills and Crescent West combined system pumps a thousand gallons out of the ground. He stated he already has a deficit for a fire situation without one customer. He stated that the engineers could speak to the size of the tank, but it has to meet DEP criteria and he would not build it any larger than he has to. He stated that, if a main break occurs in the line between his east system and his west system, he does not have enough water in the west system to sustain itself. He stated that is poor planning. Mr. Orr stated that he has records on the 258 complaints and those are specifically low-water-pressure, no-water complaints. He stated that, in the public records, he is under a Memorandum of Understanding with DEP to solve their issues within this area. He stated that he is obligated.
Commr. Pool stated that fire flows are very important and that ISO ratings are based on fire flows. He explained that the lower the water pressure, the worse rating you have, the worse rating you have, the higher insurance fees you pay. He commented that everyone benefits by pressure in the system, not the amount of gallons that are pumped.
Commr. Stivender asked for an answer to Mr. Kelly’s previous question regarding Mr. Shakar being able to use this water system through the front portion of his property to get back to the part that is in the Green Swamp.
Mr. Richey responded that it may very well be that some of the Shakar property is within the Public Service Commission (PSC) area that Lake Utility has and that would subject to Lake Utility serving that based on the PSC. He stated that there is no agreement and that Mr. Orr has not had any contact with Bob Shakar and they are not involved in discussions with him. He stated that, if there is not a utility to provide service into the Green Swamp area, Mr. Shakar can put his own wells and system in because he has the land and the capacity to do that back there. He stated that it would require Lake Utility to amend its PSC certificate and would require Clermont to decide it does not want to serve and it would require Bob Shakar to not build his own system if he wanted to. He stated that Lake Utility cannot get in the back door by serving part of it and it still would have to go through that whole process of the PSC certificated service and Lake Utility is not helping that today because the lines are by the school. He stated that service is available for the Shakar property that is not subject to timeliness and that the Shaker property can be served tomorrow and is part of the property that is zoned R-6 that is in the comprehensive plan for four units to the acre. He stated that he explained earlier that there are hundreds of acres out there that are not in the Green Swamp and Mr. Orr is trying to deal with those future customers because that does not require any approval from the Board. He stated that they are not going west into the Green Swamp, period.
Mr. Orr stated that (a) he has not physically spoken to Mr. Shakar and (b) he does not have a developer’s agreement with Mr. Shakar. He stated that any negotiation would occur in the future and it is not something that he is planning for right now.
Mr. Terry Zaudtke, Chief Operating Officer, CPH Engineers, stated that CPH was retained originally by Greater Construction and started Lake Groves Utilities at U.S. Highway 192. He stated that he was retained by Lake Utilities when they bought that facility to expand up U.S. Highway 27. He explained the calculations used to arrive at the size of the 750,000 gallon tank. He stated that the size of this tank is to meet the needs of the current customers in the certificated service area and to meet the needs of lots that have already been approved and property that is zoned in the area that may develop.
In response to a request by Mr. Richey to compare this tank with Clermont’s million gallon storage tank, Mr. Zaudtke stated that he had not studied Clermont’s numbers but explained that a million gallons of storage would handle maybe 3,000 to 5,000 units depending on how the numbers are worked. He discussed the differences between an elevated tank and a ground storage tank.
Mr. Richey confirmed with Mr. Zaudtke, from an engineer’s perspective, that the 750,000 gallon ground storage tank with pumps is the appropriate size for the current customer base, the currently platted property and property that will be coming on line in the near future to include the school.
Mr. Zaudtke stated that, in his opinion, DEP would not let him go any smaller than that.
Commr. Pool asked if the children would be in danger if the tank failed and all the water came out at once.
Mr. Zaudtke stated that the type of tank they are proposing is called a prestressed concrete tank, built predominately by the Crom Corporation in Gainesville. He stated that in the history of the Crom Corporation he does not know of any that have failed and, in the event of failure, the water would flow to the stormwater retention basin which is immediately adjacent to the track.
Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Dennis Reid, School Board member, spoke at the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting on February 4, 2004, in support of this project and said “This is one utility that is trying to get ahead of the curve unlike us at the School Board who are always behind the curve.” Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Lake County Planning and Development Services Division, was asked by the P&Z Commission if what he had heard changed the staff recommendation and, according to Mr. Richey, Jeff opined to the P&Z Commission, which voted for this 8-2, that he supported this request to allow Lake Utility to have this tank there, under the circumstances that were testified to at Planning and Zoning. Mr. Richey reiterated his earlier statements regarding whom the proposed tank will serve, what the tank will replace, Lake Utility’s consumptive use permit, the School Board’s reasons for giving the acre of land to Lake Utility, and the hundreds of platted lots in the area.
Mr. Richey stated that, if there is a concern about Lake Utility expanding into the Green Swamp to the west, a provision can be included in the ordinance that indicates this CFD (Community Facility District) tank is to serve the area of the utility’s Public Service Commission’s certificate east of the Green Swamp, understanding that if the utility is mandated by some environmental group, DEP or otherwise, to provide service they will have to come back and revisit that. He stated that could happen as no one can foresee the future. He stated that he wanted to make it clear that this particular facility, no matter what the Board has heard or read and no matter what the folks who doubt them say, is to serve the existing neighborhoods, existing development, provide fire flows and to provide water on a reliable, sustainable basis. He stated that this is what this is all about, nothing more, nothing less. He stated that they anticipate the continuation of that zoned property developing over time. He stated that the requirement of the utility to provide water is already mandated by law. He stated that if the Board chooses to turn this project down, the utility will find some other way to provide service, but a denial will not stop what is already happening down there.
Commr. Hanson commented that staff obviously recommended against the project because of the possible creation of more urban sprawl but that staff did not come up with a solution. She stated that development that has been approved in the past few years, if subsequent to the current comprehensive plan, would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan, particularly in an area that is designated urban expansion which is probably much higher density than any of these developments actually are. She expressed assurance that the consideration of these developments was that they would be on central water.
Addressing Ms. Kapner, Commr. Hanson stated that the Board has been told that there have been many reports of inadequate flow, that there is a pressure problem with the school, and additional houses that were previously approved are coming online. She asked Ms. Kapner, if the Board says “no,” what alternative, as a planner, does staff have.
Ms. Kapner replied that the facility that is proposed should be more centrally located in Lake Utility’s existing utility area and not on the fringe.
Commr. Cadwell asked if a smaller storage tank on that property that could take care of any fire flow problem could be the answer to the school system’s problem, just like has been required of churches and other places in rural areas.
Ms. Kapner replied that, if they needed something to solely support the school, that would not be an issue at all.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell as to whether Ms. Kapner has changed her recommendation that she made as a planner, Ms. Kapner answered that she has not.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that the existing development that has been approved in the subject area, obviously from what Commr. Pool has said, is suffering from lack of services and, whether by this Commission or some previous Commission, the deficiency exists. He stated that, in listening today, he was presented with a hint as to why it is there and that is that it is the highest piece of land around there. He stated that, in essence, it is almost an elevated storage tank because it is the highest point of ground out there. He stated that, in talking specifically about a tank for the school, if the storage tank were somewhere else in the area, he is not sure that it would provide sufficient water supply for the school.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that the problem is not where the tank is but why is it there. He commented that the real question is if there is a trust that this is just to take care of the existing problem or is it to take care of Mr. Shakar and anything else that happens down there.
Mr. Welstead stated that, if the trust is there, he can see it would not generate additional sprawl and he cannot see that it would go into the Green Swamp.
Commr. Hanson opined that those developments that are in the area could put the utilities in themselves and that could happen today.
Commr. Stivender stated that restrictions can be put on this CFD (Community Facility District) and, since there is no increase of the consumptive use permit and there is no growth into the Green Swamp, she asked if anyone feels more comfortable with this project after hearing Mr. Welstead’s comments.
Commr. Hanson remarked that the City basically offers a buffer into deep parts of the Green Swamp. She stated that the presence of EDB in the area is another issue and was a major reason, strongly encouraged the City of Clermont, that utilities were provided in the area south of Lake Louisa.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the County’s Senior Planner, Planning Manager and Director of Growth Management all have different public opinions on this case.
Commr. Hanson asked Tiffany Kapner if, after today’s testimony, staff’s recommendation was still one of denial. She said “Yes.”
Mr. Welstead stated that the two planners both agreed that the initial recommendation should be for denial based on the information that was provided.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted to know how we got to the point that three paid County staffers do not agree.
Mr. Welstead remarked that he, as a non planner, listened to today’s testimony and stated that he can see, if the level of trust is there, that it would be a reasonable application of the comprehensive plan.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he is trying to figure out why Mr. Welstead is there.
Commr. Pool stated that, when Ms. Renick and Ms. Ash became council members, they enjoyed prudent planning and adequate water pressure is a result of that planning. He explained that Lake Utility has been taken to court over water and water issues. He remarked that it is evident that this is the right decision. He stated that he wants to ensure that this certificate would not allow the utility to expand into another area. He remarked that Clermont has that area and he opined that a court battle with Clermont would ensue if Lake Utility goes to that area.
Commr. Pool made a motion for approval of Rezoning Case Number PH#1-04-2, storage facilities as provided, 750,000 gallons, not one million, and also delineate that line and that it cannot go west of that line into the Green Swamp, that Lake Utility can only provide the existing service area it now has, not an expanded area.
Commr. Pool stated that, if DEP or someone came in the utility might have to, but that would be out of his control. He stated it is his intent today to not allow the utility to expand into the Green Swamp, but provide the simple necessities of life that we all enjoy. He stated that he wants to make sure this motion would clearly state that the utility cannot expand beyond its existing region.
Commr. Hanson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson opined that the Board has listened very carefully to the comments and concerns and at the end of the arguments there is a responsibility to provide the level of service for the school and those homes that are in place. She stated that the map to the east has urban expansion and that south of this area is suburban and more than just the utilities is necessary to meet the requirements of timeliness. Rooftops have to be surrounding it. She stated that rooftops are not in the Green Swamp that would allow higher densities and meet timeliness. She stated that she does not believe this project will increase urban sprawl with the requirement that it be limited not to go to the west into the Green Swamp.
In response to a request for clarification by Commr. Cadwell regarding an agreement or language in the ordinance, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the term in the ordinance would require a binding agreement from the company before they got the development order that they would not extend their lines or provide services to the west into the Green Swamp.
Commr. Hanson stated that the ordinance should include language to make sure there is no new, or increase in, capacity.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he has heard comments today from staff, especially the person who has worked on the case from beginning to end, regarding artificial stimulus, an acceleration of sprawl, an acceleration of pressure and an acceleration of timeliness. Because he believes the approval of this project will make that happen, he stated that he does not plan to vote for the motion. He expressed his appreciation to Commr. Pool for adding language to show the intent of the Board if the motion is approved.
Ms. Fullerton remarked that Mr. Richey said the purpose of this tank is to serve existing property, platted and already approved projects. She asked if the Shaker project is considered an already approved project since it is under appeal to the DCA (Department of Community Affairs).
Mr. Minkoff explained that the motion would not allow any services to be provided west into the Green Swamp whether it was a platted lot, a house that was built or anything else.
Commr. Pool emphasized that his motion is clear that there is to be no service to the Green Swamp area.
Mr. Minkoff further explained that the portion of the Shakar property that is not in the Green Swamp could be served but any portion that is in the Green Swamp could not be served by this facility.
Commr. Pool reiterated that the line is drawn in the Green Swamp. Lake Utility is not to serve in the Green Swamp because the Green Swamp is not in their certificated area of service currently.
In response to a question by Ms. Fullerton regarding whether the Shakar project is approved or not approved because it is under appeal by the DCA, Mr. Minkoff replied that the motion does not include the word “approved.” He explained that, basically, the motion says that this rezoning would be granted with the condition that the company, prior to getting a development order, would enter a binding agreement saying they would not provide lines or service to any areas within the Green Swamp on the west side. It has nothing to do with approved or disapproved developments.
Commr. Stivender stated that there are a motion and a second to approve with the stipulation that there is no increase in their consumptive use permit and nothing provided to anything west of the line of their existing utility service.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill regarding service to areas in the south that are in the Green Swamp, Mr. Richey stated that major areas to the south are currently being served and includes those areas that are developed in the Green Swamp along U.S. Highway 27, south, where Greater built its sewer treatment plant. He stated that nothing west of the certificated service area will be served.
Commr. Hill remarked that there is an enormous amount of gray area on the map that appears to be vast, vacant areas.
Commr. Stivender remarked that she wanted to make a statement before the vote. She stated that she has no intention of making Mr. Richey rich or herself rich. She stated that she wanted everybody to understand that. She stated that she does see this one time the School Board has asked the Board to help them in a situation to have fire flows that they need for the protection of the kids. If their consumptive use cannot get any greater, if they cannot serve any more houses than the current 2,600, and if there is a stipulation that they cannot go into the Green Swamp, and the Board will watch Mr. Shaker’s property, with those stipulations, the Board has taken care of what the School Board needs and has taken care of the citizens who are having problems with their flows. She remarked that she is not on Mr. Richey’s payroll, she is on the payroll of the taxpayers of Lake County. She stated that she wanted that to be very clear.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion which was carried by a vote of 3-2 and the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance 2004-9, Rezoning Case Number PH#1-04-2, Lake Utility Services/Patrick C. Flynn, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. #1-04-CFD/AMD, a request to construct and operate a 750,000 gallon regional water treatment plant; providing that service cannot go west of the delineated line into the Green Swamp and that Lake Utility can only provide the existing service area it now has, not an expanded area; that language in the ordinance would require a binding agreement from the company, before the development order, that it would not extend its lines or provide services to the west into the Green Swamp; and that there will be no increase in the consumptive use permit; and the Board approved to amend Ordinance 2002-62 to remove one acre from the site by approval of Ordinance 2004-9A.
Commissioners Cadwell and Hill voted “No.”
REZONING CASE PH#5-04-2 - MOHAMED ELASWAD - STEVEN J. RICHEY
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Lake County Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Number PH#5-04-2, Mohamed Elaswad, Steven J. Richey, Tracking No. #9-04-PUD, a request to rezone a 40-acre parcel from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District) for short term rental of 30 days or less. He displayed an aerial map of the subject property which is included in the backup material. The proposed PUD contains a maximum of 140 residential attached townhouses. Their requested density appears to be 3.5 dwelling units per acre and is located in the urban land use category which would allow the potential for a maximum of 7.0 dwelling units to the acre. The utility area is South Lake Utilities and it has been indicated that central water and sewer would be provided. He stated that this is in the Four Corners area, adjoining the west side of the Silver Creek Estates PUD. He explained that it appears the significant issue of site access has been resolved. Mr. Hartenstein displayed Concept Plan 1 (Golden Pines Townhomes) which is included in the backup material and stated that a traffic analysis indicates that it is not going to trip service levels of the highways or the local roads. Road improvements through the Silver Creek subdivision and the infrastructure are bonded and under construction, and prior to any developments of this site, those improvements must be in place. He stated that staff’s recommendation can change from denial to approval with the conditions that road improvements be in place and that the traffic capacity is acceptable once it is completely reviewed by Public Works. He explained that, as a short-term rental, this will have no impacts on the school system. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the PUD zoning with language changed from “interval-owned” to “short term rental of 30 days or less.” He stated that staff also recommends that language be changed.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted the presence of the applicant’s representative.
Mr. Steve Richey, representing the owner, referred to the Silver Creek map, which is included in the backup material, and stated that Silver Creek and the other projects contiguous to this parcel are developed into short-term rental and roads are being put in. He stated that the project is clustered away from the wetlands area and the wetlands are intact with no crossings.
In response to an inquiry from Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Richey stated that people generally stay in these units for two weeks, sometimes one month.
In response to an inquiry from Commr. Pool, Mr. Richey stated that school impact fees will be paid on this project.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, remarked that an interval ownership has challenged the school impact fee, but, at this point, the County is still charging impact fees for time shares and short-term rentals.
Mr. Danny Legg, who owns vacant land near the subject parcel, stated that his concern is access to his five-acre parcel. He displayed two maps which were presented to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-1 and Exhibit O-2 for the opposition. He asked that he be given the same access as the applicant to U.S. Highway 27. He stated that he does not have access now but does have a right of way through the swamp.
Mr. Richey explained that his client’s property is not contiguous to Mr. Legg’s property. He stated that approval of today’s request will not hurt or help Mr. Legg, but the development’s road may be paved part way to Mr. Legg’s property.
Mr. Legg stated that he used to have access to his property through the Charles Wang property and Watson Woods, but that road has been cut off by development. He stated that he has access to the same easement that the applicant is using and he asked not be excluded from that easement. He stated that he does not want his property to be worthless because of being landlocked.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance 2004-10, Rezoning Case Number PH#5-04-2, Mohamed Elaswad, Steven J. Richey, Tracking No. #9-04-PUD, a request to rezone a 40-acre parcel from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District) for short term rental of 30 days or less, with the stipulation that approval will not limit or eliminate access to property owned by Danny Legg.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CLOSED SESSION REQUEST
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested that a Closed Session be scheduled for March 2, 2004, for an update on litigation cases. Because Commr. Cadwell will be in Washington, D.C., on that day, Mr. Minkoff stated that he can brief him separately.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
CITY OF MINNEOLA PROPOSAL (ADDENDUM NO. 1. II. A.1.)
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that the City of Minneola has issued a Request for Proposals to provide fire protection services to the City. Staff has prepared a response to that proposal which basically is the existing level of service the County is providing, with the City continuing to be part of the County’s Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU). He requested Board approval to be authorized to submit that proposal by Friday, February 27, 2004. He stated that this is the first step and, should the City accept the proposal, the next step will be to renegotiate a new agreement with them and bring that back both to the Board and to the City for approval.
Commr. Pool opined that this is a win/win situation if Minneola will come to the table. He stated that every good faith effort has been made to offer a good agreement.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to submit a proposal to the City of Minneola for Lake County to continue to provide fire rescue services within the City of Minneola.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT #2
PIG ON THE POND
Commr. Pool reminded the Board that Clermont’s annual “Pig on the Pond” event will be held on March 12 and 13, 2004.
CENTRAL FLORIDA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
Commr. Pool announced that he and Commr. Hanson attended the Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Alliance’s February 6, 2004, meeting and were asked to take a good look at how myregion.org could be helped regarding solutions for transportation and concurrency. He stated that it appears we will be trying to expand our level of service in a cooperative measure to ensure that transportation needs are provided in our region.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
Commr. Hanson announced that she will not be able to attend the Interactive Summit on Economic Development & Tourism in Lake County (Vision 2004) to be held at the Leesburg Opera House on Wednesday, February 25, 2004, because she will be attending the Wekiva River Basin Coordinating Committee meeting. She stated that she will not be able to attend the Wekiva committee meeting on Thursday, February 26, 2004, if a second day is necessary, because she will be attending the Elder Council’s symposium, “ELDERHOOD: A Continuum of Life,” from 8:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., at Lake Receptions in Mount Dora, Florida.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT #3
LAKE COUNTY DAY
Commr. Stivender stated that Lake County Day, in Tallahassee on February 19, 2004, was very successful.
The Commissioners expressed their appreciation for Commr. Stivender’s efforts and Commr. Cadwell stated that public, written recognition is planned for a later date.
LAKE-SUMTER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
Commr. Stivender reminded the Board that the first Lake-Sumter MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) meeting will be held Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., at Lake Sumter Community College in Leesburg.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HILL - DISTRICT #1
VETERAN’S CLINIC - LEESBURG
Commr. Hill announced that she attended the opening of the new veteran’s clinic in downtown Leesburg. The facility is providing an office for Lake County’s Veterans Service Director.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
DEBBIE STIVENDER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK