A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JUNE 28, 2005

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; and Robert A. Pool.  Commissioner Debbie Stivender was not present, due to another commitment.  Others present were: Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

RECOGNITION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS

The Chairman recognized Commr. Ray Goodgame, Clermont City Council, who was present in the audience, as well as Clermont City Manager, Wayne Saunders.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing two items under the Consent Agenda and one item under Departmental Business.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Budget

Request for approval of Resolution No. 2005-100, amending the General Fund, in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2004/2005, in the amount of $50,740.00, deposited into the Homeland Security Equipment Acquisition Grant, and to provide appropriations for the disbursement for Machinery and Equipment.  Emergency Management will purchase a Reverse 911 capability and the equipment necessary to conduct live television broadcasts from the Emergency Operations Center over Government Access Television during emergencies.

Community Services

            Request for approval of the Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement for July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008.

            Growth Management

Request for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Bobby Lee Harris, Case No. CEB 45-92.

Public Safety

Request for approval of acceptance of a Wal-Mart gift card donation and Board recognition, in appreciation of the efforts of the third through fifth grade students at Tavares Elementary School, for raising funds and collecting other items for Lake County Animal Services.

Public Works

Request for approval of a grant with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for $2,410.00, for materials and supplies needed for Scrub Habitat restoration.  No county funds are required, as part of this grant, and the Palatlakaha Environmental Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Association is providing the match through in-kind services.

Request for approval of the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Citizen’s Advisory Board and staff, for approval and execution of the Revocable Non-Exclusive License Agreement with the Palatlakaha Environmental Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Association.

Request for approval and signature on Proclamation No. 2005-101, designating July as Recreation and Parks Month.

Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Tuscany Estates at the Lakes and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Tuscany Estates at the Lakes final plat; accept a cashier’s check, in the amount of $193,000.00; and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and NMK Holdings, Florida, LLC.  Tuscany Estates at the Lakes consists of 27 lots – Commission District 2.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)

Community Services

Request for approval to submit Operations Step Up Fall 2005 grant application, made available through Volunteer Florida, in the amount of $8,000.00, contingent upon County Attorney review; and signature on Application for Funding Assistance, by the Chairman of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.  Program goal completion would be December of 2005.  No match is required and concept is sustainable.

Public Works

Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Woodgate and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Woodgate final plat; accept a Cashier’s Check, in the amount of $120,523.62; and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Tierra Properties, Inc.  Woodgate consists of 20 lots – Commission District 5.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. Gary Kaiser, Public Safety Director, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it will amount to a little over a $2 million savings to the County, should the County be awarded the grant.  An additional benefit to the County is that the staffing increase and immediate tanker/pumper(s) response support ISO recommendations.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Safety for approval for the Department of Public Safety, Fire Rescue Division, to submit an application for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant to the United States Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.

PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER XV – JOINT LAND DEVELOPMENT

REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY

            Ms. Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first reading, by title only, as follows: 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, RESERVED; CREATING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ENTITLED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING SECTION 15.00.00 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING SECTION 15.00.01 PURPOSE, INTENT AND APPLICATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS).; CREATING SECTION 15.02.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED CLERMONT JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY, SUCH BOUNDARY DESCRIBED AS: BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE AND THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF RANGE 26 EAST TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE WEST TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT- OF -WAY LINE OF US HIGHWAY 27; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF -WAY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE EAST-WEST CENTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO. 50; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY SHORE OF THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL; THENCE IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID EASTERLY SHORE OF THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL TO LAKE HIAWATHA; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE HIAWATHA TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14  TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 565-A;THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 561-A; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SHORES OF LAKE MINNEOLA; THENCE SOUTHERLY, EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG THE WATERS OF LAKE MINNEOLA TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DIVISION STREET, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT; THENCE EAST TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 17 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 17; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 17; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 17 TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 17; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 16 AND 15; TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ; CREATING SECTION 15.02.01, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LAND USE AND ZONING STANDARDS; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LOT SIZE AND FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS MATRIX; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01B, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED  FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01C, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED  RESIDENTIAL SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01D, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01E, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.02, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED TREATMENT OF LAND WITHIN WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.03, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED UTILITY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS; CREATING TABLE 15.02.03A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED MINIMUM HYDRANT SPACING BY LAND USE; CREATING SECTION 15.02.04., LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.05, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED ROADWAY AND STREET DESIGN STANDARDS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.06, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED SIGNAGE STANDARDS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.07, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LIGHTING STANDARDS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.08, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LANDSCAPING; CREATING SECTION 15.02.09, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PARKING REQUIREMENTS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.10, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED GRADING STANDARDS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that, on January 20, 2005, staff brought the proposed Ordinance before them for an initial reading, but there were several areas that the Board directed both the City of Clemont staff and county staff to go back and try to address,  including waivers for lot size and lot width; setbacks relating to clustered development and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs); right of way width, relating to internal streets, for clustered subdivision designs; minimum pavement widths; commercial site access; limitation on 100,000 square foot gross leasable space, for any single tenant retail user; and some issues regarding landscaping.  He stated that they were able to work out most of the items in one shape or another, with some alternative language, however, noted that there were some deletions, one being on Page 12, regarding additional right of way requirements, noting that the proposed language originally read:  Where additional right of way is determined to be required and justified lot sizes shall be adjusted to continue to meet the minimum requirements after dedication of right of way.  He stated that staff from the City and the County could not come to an agreement, so they elected to delete said language from the Ordinance.  He noted that, currently, the County does not penalize for dedication of right of way, by making one readjust their lot size.  He stated that the other issue the two staffs were not able to come to full agreement on related to pine trees and palm trees being included as part of the landscape requirements, noting that they tried to come to some sort of a happy medium and agreed that 25% of them could be counted, but they were not able to come to a complete agreement on it.  He stated that they tried to address the other issues through the addition of language, to allow the Board, through public hearings, to grant waivers with PUDs, regarding clustered subdivision designs, as they go through the process.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Richardson was comfortable with the Joint Planning Agreement, as it relates to where the County is going, with regard to its Comprehensive Plan, and was informed by Mr. Richardson that staff was not comfortable with it entirely, noting that there will still be some things that will need to bring a clustered subdivision to a public hearing, to grant some of the waivers, and that is not holding in the spirit of the direction that staff would like to go, which is encouraging clustered development.  She stated that she was rapidly coming to the conclusion that everything she approves is going to be clustered development, with corresponding open space, so she wanted to be sure that the County and the City is consistent and that they are all on the same page.

            Mr. Richardson stated that there will probably have to be some revisions to the Ordinance, as the County moves forward with the Comprehensive Plan rewrite, which he elaborated on.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the Board would not want people to have to continue to come before them for a waiver, when it becomes a standard practice.

            Mr. Richardson interjected that, if the County builds standards into the general Code, the Ordinance will need to be amended, to reflect those standards.

            Commr. Pool stated that he was not sure he shared the thought that, as a standard, clustering will be the way that the future will be, noting that every community has its own design standards and thoughts and not everyone wants to live in a clustered development.

            Commr. Hanson interjected that there will be many developments that are already approved that will not be clustered, but, from where she is coming from, that is what she wants them to be.

            Mr. Richardson stated that, implementation wise, what the two staffs have come to an agreement on so far and are bringing forward to the Board is that the County can implement that with minimal friction.

            Commr. Pool stated that he wanted to make sure, along the lines of the 100,000 square foot “big box”, if it is through a PUD or some understanding and/or a variance agreement that they have that ability, that the County have that same ability built in on its side.  He stated that he felt it was a good agreement and appreciated both staffs working on it.

             Commr. Hill referred to Table 15.02.01E – Other Setback Requirements, on Page 5 of the Ordinance, stating that it indicates that structures cannot exceed two stories in height and questioned whether it meant that, within the Joint Planning Area, they are not going to allow more than two to three stories, with the third story only being if they allow a church steeple.

            Mr. Richardson stated that, with the peak of the roof on a structure being two to two and a half stories high, variances will still be able to be applied for, to exceed those height limitations.  He stated that they probably will not run into that issue quite as much for structures that have a flat roof - the issue on the height will pertain more to peaked roofs than flat roofs, at which time he noted that county staff agreed with the City of Clermont that they would use their measurement technique, which is the peak of a roof.

            Commr. Hill stated that she was curious as to why a city of that nature would be so opposed to going up in height.

            Commr. Hanson interjected that that is part of the answer - to go up.

            Commr. Hill stated that another thing she was disappointed in, with regard to the Ordinance, was the tree aspect of it, covered under Section 15.02.08 – Landscaping, on Page 13 of the Ordinance, noting that it requires that 60% of the canopy trees be live oak trees.

            Mr. Richardson stated that the two staffs could not come to a full agreement on that particular issue.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the logic behind it is to build a canopy.

            Mr. Richardson stated that there are other alternatives for canopy trees and some that may be a little less water intensive.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, by the time a shopping center builds out and the trees are grown, there is a change in use, or the shopping center becomes obsolete and the trees sometimes go by the wayside, after they are mature, if they are in a parking lot, because they are not maintained.  She stated that the City and/or County can get the benefit sooner from trees other than live oaks, because it takes a long time for a live oak to get to the point where it creates a canopy.

            Commr. Pool interjected that oak trees can sometimes create problems between sidewalks and roads, when they are planted in small corridors or tight spaces, noting that it is nice for the first 20 or 30 years, but eventually they become a hazard and create havoc with the sidewalks and roads crumbling from the root system of the trees.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and thanked them for getting the City to where it is today, noting that it has been a long time getting to this point and it was a good feeling to finally be there.  He thanked the County’s staff, particularly Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director; Ms. Amy King, Chief Planner, Long Range Planning, Growth Management Department; and Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, noting that they worked very hard and spent a lot of time with the City of Clermont’s staff going through the Ordinance.  He stated that he was happy to say that the only issue is about a few trees and that they are in total agreement on everything else.  He stated that the reasoning behind the tree requirement and the fact that the palm tree is not included in the City’s Code is that, although the palm tree is the State tree, it is not on the preferred tree list, even by the State of Florida, because it is not a native tree.  He stated that the City of Clermont adopted their preferred tree list, based on the State’s preferred tree list, through the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).  He stated that they were more concerned about having a canopy type tree than any other type of tree, however, noted that that is the only issue that is out there.  He stated that they totally support everything else and, hopefully, will see the Ordinance move along.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was any way to include the “green building” concept in the Ordinance and was informed by Mr. Saunders that it was something they would all like to do, but he did not feel there was enough specific language, at this point in time, to include it in the Ordinance.  He stated that, as Mr. Richardson had indicated earlier, the Ordinance is going to have to be amended, as they go along.  He stated that “green building” is something the City of Clermont is looking at and feels that, at some point, they will need to include in the Ordinance, but he did not feel the two sides could come up with language this date to enable them to include it in the Ordinance at this time.  She stated that she was thinking more in terms of guidelines, certification, incentives, and encouragement - not necessarily mandatory.  She stated that she felt it was something that should be mentioned, but was not willing to hold the Ordinance up because of it.  She suggested that, perhaps, it be addressed during the next amendment to the Ordinance.

            Mr. Saunders stated that the two staffs have talked about some areas that they know will have to be amended, as they go along, and that was certainly one of them.  He stated that it is just like any development code, noting that the City of Clermont has amended its Code several times over the years, because they find things that work and things that do not work and changes that need to be made, to ensure the way that they want the City to look and grow.

            Commr. Hanson stated that they need to look at conservation design and smart growth principals, which include transportation opportunities – future opportunities for mass transit, which the County and, particularly, the City of Clermont knows it is going to need to be looking at.  She stated that that is why clustering is so important – to have those people together, so they can be picked up by a bus, or some other opportunity for mass transit.  She stated that she feels the County and the City need to be talking about it and that the language ought to be there, so that, as they move forward, they are at least saying that it is important.  She stated that it is just easier if it is in both areas – then it is not a problem.

            Mr. Chris Roper, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, addressed the Board, on behalf of several clients in Lake County, as well as Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, a fellow attorney with Akerman Senterfitt.  He stated that she asked him to make a few comments about the proposed Ordinance, the first being with regard to commercial restrictions on 100,000 square foot “big box” retailers, addressed on Page 11 of the Ordinance.  He stated that they appreciate the new language, however, questioned what benefits there would be by imposing the 100,000 square foot limitation, noting that they do not see a benefit, but an additional cost and expense, in terms of having to go through the PUD rezoning and having a site plan up front.  He questioned Table 15.02.05 – Roadway and Street Design Standards, Item A. – Access to Commercial Sites, on Page 12 of the Ordinance, noting that it states commercial sites cannot be approved, unless they have access to public rights of way, which he and Ms. Bonifay find to be an unnecessary regulation, considering the fact that all commercial sites would have access to public rights of way - they would not be approved if they did not have said access.  He stated that it runs the risk of somebody interpreting it as something that it was not intended to be interpreted as.

            Mr. Saunders was asked whether he had a problem with said language and informed the Board that the City’s Code currently states that one has to have frontage on a public roadway, in order for a commercial project to be approved, but the County’s Code does not state that, so the two staffs developed the hybrid language contained in the proposed Ordinance, which states that there has to be access, but it does not have to be frontage on a roadway - it gives one an option.  He stated that the language states, “This may be accomplished by utilization of existing street frontage or through platting of streets internal to the commercial development and connected to an external public right of way.”  He stated that it was just a clarification between the County’s Code and the City’s Code, in that the County is not as strict as the City, which says there has to be frontage and gives a developer the option of coming through somebody else’s property.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that that was clear enough for him.

            Mr. Richardson stated that the intent of the alternative language was to allow for scenarios where there is frontage roads, reverse frontage roads, or commercial out parcels that may have been developed first, but, as long as cross access easements are there, or platted rights of way are there, in order to be able to access the public rights of way, then the commercial development has that access.

            Mr. Roper stated that there was still the issue of additional right of way requirements, noting that they are not sure whether or not, within the JPA, the property owner will be penalized for actually donating right of way.  He stated that, by deleting the language, he assumes the County regulations will control it and they will not be penalized, but, by actually having the language in the document and then stricken, there is an interpretation that they should be penalized.  He requested clarification on the matter.

            Mr. Richardson stated that the strike through is just to show that the language was there and that the suggestion is to eliminate it, noting that, when the final document goes to print, said language will not be in there.

            Mr. Roper stated that his final comment pertained to Table 15.02.10 - Grading Standards, on Page 14 of the Ordinance, Item A.6., which states, “Elevation changes in topography shall be limited to ten (10) feet.  He stated that their concern is that the limitation is imposed at the ten (10) foot elevation change for residential and fifteen (15) foot for non-residential, however, noted that it does not provide a mechanism for a variance, so they were hoping that something could be put in there regarding same.  He stated that, throughout the Ordinance, where the restrictions are imposed, it states that one may request a waiver through the PUD process, or a variance through the formal variance process, and they would like to see said language cleaned up, noting that the problem is that, since it is already stated elsewhere in the document, with regard to other requirements, such as the height requirement and the commercial building space requirement, it looks like it is to the exclusion of the grading requirement.  He stated that there are two projects in the City of Clermont that involve a PUD, but the City is still requiring them to apply for a variance – separate applications, separate filing fees, separate hearings, and separate reviews, although the hearing will be for a PUD.  He stated that there is some confusion as to whether one can request a variance or waiver from that kind of restriction and actually embody it within the PUD request, or whether they actually have to file a separate variance request.  He stated that he was looking for some clarification on the matter, because they run into that problem a lot in the City.

            Mr. Richardson stated that the intent is that anything the Board of Adjustment (BOA) or the Board of County Commissioners has to grant as a waiver or variance still remains throughout the entire Ordinance.  He stated that, if somebody comes in with a BOA request that they need to go 12 feet, rather than 10 feet, on a residential subdivision, that request can be heard.  He stated that the County will use the same process that it always does, noting that, if something comes in as a PUD and is requesting waivers, it does not separately go to the BOA – it is heard as part of that entire planned request.

            Mr. Saunders stated that the City of Clermont does it a little differently, noting that all variance requests come before their City Council, where the BOA handles all the variance requests for the County, which is why staff put it in the PUD, because it would require them to come before the Board for approval.  He stated that, as far as the City is concerned, they require them to go through the variance process for the grading and a lot of times it is folded in, as part of the PUD, but it is also a variance.  He stated that, because the County’s process is a little different, the Board will see two or three times in the Ordinance where it refers to PUDs, rather than a variance.  He stated that it is the same type of public hearing, it is just called something different.

            Ms. Elaine Renick, a member of the Clermont City Council, addressed the Board stating that she wanted to make a quick clarification, noting that the City used to do things differently, but it has changed.  She stated that the way they used to do it, grading changes were allowed in a PUD, but, what would happen is that the public, being very partial to the hills in Clermont, would not realize that there was a grading change, just with an advertisement that said PUD.  She stated that it was something that was very near and dear to her heart, so she asked that a grading variance always be published separately, so that people that did not necessarily have a problem with that particular development, but did have a problem with the grading, would know to come.  She stated that a grading variance cannot just be folded into a PUD – it will always be advertised separately in Clermont.  She stated that they will come up at the same time, but will be listed separately.

            There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

            Commr. Hanson commented about the issue of sound barrier walls, noting that she feels, as the County and the cities move forward, they need to look at the proximity of said walls to roads – the buffer between roads and the actual building site, so that they do not create situations that the County has to then come back and take care of.  She stated that it is something that needs to be looked at in the future, in order to avoid such situations.

            Mr. Richardson stated that he and Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works Department, have been discussing said issue, specifically with regard to the Turnpike, as more and more developments are backing up to the Turnpike.  He stated that they are looking at language that will address the matter, either through setbacks, berming, or walls, however, noted that, at the present time, they are trying to work out the logistics of how to bring it to the Board as an ordinance and what it will include, as well as what options will be available.  He stated that they have not yet come to a full agreement on how to implement it, especially on local county roads.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she feels it needs to be on the burden of the developer, rather than the taxpayers.

            It was noted that the date certain for the final public hearing on this Ordinance would be announced at a later date.

            Commr. Pool stated that he felt the Ordinance was a good one and he appreciated the hard work that the Clermont City Council and county staff put into it.  He stated that it has been a long time coming and he was happy to pass it forward to the next reading.

            Mr. Richardson requested clarification, with regard to the issue of the palm trees and pine trees being used as a component of the landscaping plan, under Section15.02.08 – Landscaping, Item C, on Page 14 of the Ordinance, noting that it was language that county staff suggested, as an alternative.  He stated that the City of Clermont’s preference would be that pine trees and palm trees not count at all. 

            It was noted that the County would be requiring the more stringent regulation, but would allow more palm trees or pine trees to be planted, if the developer chose to do so - they just would not count towards the minimum landscape requirement.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the first reading of the Ordinance Creating Chapter XV – Joint Land Development Regulations for Joint Planning Areas of Lake County (City of Clermont), as amended.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS:  VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 1044 – HOSSEIN AND EUGENIA FARAJI – HOWEY IN THE HILLS

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Hossein and Eugenia Faraji to vacate unused right of way on East Dewey Robbins Road, in Howey in the Hills.  He pointed out the road in question on a map (contained in the Board’s backup material) on display, noting that East Dewey Robbins Road goes through the wetlands; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.  He noted that there were no letters of opposition on file.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

            There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2005-102 - Road Vacation Petition No. 1044, by Hossein and Eugenia Faraji, to vacate unused right of way on East Dewey Robbins Road, located in Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, in the Howey-in-the-Hills area – Commission District 3, as presented.

            PETITION NO. 1045 – MICHAEL T. AND DEBORAH KIELY – CLERMONT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Michael T. and Deborah Kiely to vacate a lakefront drainage easement, in the Plat of Lake Crescent Hills Subdivision, in the Clermont area.  He stated that the issue regarding this vacation has been worked out with the St. Johns River Water Management District, however, noted that this vacation has to be approved, in order for the applicants to put in a pool that is planned for the area.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, contingent upon approval by the St. Johns River Water Management District.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

            There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2005-103 - Road Vacation Petition No. 1045, by Michael T. and Deborah Kiely, to vacate a lakefront drainage easement, in the Plat of Lake Crescent Hills Subdivision, Plat Book 32, Page 27, located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as presented.

            Commr. Pool asked that Mr. Stivender work with the residents of Green Valley subdivision, noting that some of those residents have the same type of situation, with regard to their proposed pools, and was informed by Mr. Stivender that he would do so.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS:  REZONING

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that the following cases were requesting a 30 day continuance, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005:

            John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke

Rezoning Case No. PH5-05-3

            Tracking No. 10-05-Z

 

            C. A. Meyer, Jr./Jimmy Crawford

Rezoning Case No. SLPA05/4/1-2

            Tracking No. 35-05-SLPA

 

C. A. Meyer, Jr.

Jimmy Crawford

Rezoning Case No. PH36-05-2

            Tracking No. 38-05-PUD

 

            Harbor Hills Development

Steven J. Richey, P.A./Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners

Rezoning Case No. PH45-05-5

            Tracking No. 55-05-PUD/AMD

 

            Lake County Public Schools

Harry Fix, AICP

Rezoning Case No. PH50-05-2

            Tracking No. 56-06-CFD

            It was noted that the Board would vote on each case individually.

REZONING CASE NO. PH5-05-3 - R-1 TO R-2 - JOHN NELSON/NELSON FAMILY

TRUST/TIM HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE - TRACKING NO. 10-05-Z

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request for a 30 day continuance of this case.

            There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke, Rezoning Case No. PH5-05-3, Tracking No. 10-05-Z, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.

            Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest regarding this case at a prior meeting, for reasons indicated, therefore, abstained from the discussion and vote.


            REZONING CASE NOS. SLPA05/4/1-2 - CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE

DESIGNATION - C.A. MEYER, JR./JIMMY D. CRAWFORD, ESQUIRE, GRAY

ROBINSON, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 35-05-SLPA; AND PH36-05-2 - HM AND MP

TO PUD - C.A. MEYER, JR/JIMMY D. CRAWFORD, ESQUIRE, GRAY

ROBINSON, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 38-05-PUD

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request for a 30 day continuance of these cases.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of C. A. Meyer, Jr./Jimmy Crawford, Esquire, Gray Robinson, P.A. - Rezoning Case No. SLPA05/4/1-2, Tracking No. 35-05-SLPA; and C. A. Meyer, Jr./Jimmy Crawford, Rezoning Case No. PH36-05-2, Tracking No.38-05-PUD, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.

REZONING CASE NO. PH45-05-5 - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PUD - HARBOR

HILLS DEVELOPMENT/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A./GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS - TRACKING NO. 55-05-PUD/AMD

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request for a 30 day continuance of this case.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of Harbor Hills Development/Steven J. Richey, P.A./Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Rezoning Case No. PH45-05-5, Tracking No. 55-05-PUD/AMD, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.

REZONING CASE NO. PH50-05-2 – PUD TO CFD – LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC

SCHOOLS/HARRY FIX, AICP – TRACKING NO. 56-06-CFD

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request for a 30 day continuance of this case.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of Lake County Public Schools/Harry Fix, AICP, Rezoning Case No. PH50-05-2, Tracking No. 56-06-CFD, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.

REZONING CASE NO. PH51-05-5 – A TO AR – DEANNA M. DONAHUE AND

BOBBY R. GREEN – TRACKING NO. 58-05-Z

Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that staff was recommending approval of the request to rezone from A (Agriculture) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to AR (Agricultural Residential).  She stated that the Zoning Board approved the request, as well, by a 7-0 vote.  She stated that the subject parcel is located south of Umatilla, off SR 19, at the intersection of CR 450A/Willis V. McCall Road at Josha Turner Lane (driveway).  She stated that the parcel consists of 16.58 acres and the site lies within the Urban Expansion future land use category that permits up to four (4) dwelling units per acre.  She stated that the requested AR zoning district allows a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per two acres and the applicant is requesting AR zoning, to allow two proposed lots in the rear of the property, to be less than five (5) acres each.  She stated that the existing home will remain on the resulting 8.58 acres.  She stated that Section 14.11.01(D)(1) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) stipulates that only two lots can be created from a parent parcel, through the minor lot split process.  She stated that, in addition, Section 14.11.01(D)(2) states that lots created with frontage on a publicly maintained clay road, private road, or easement must contain a minimum of twenty acres, with at least one acre of uplands required.  She stated that, in order to proceed with development, a variance to this two lot limit and 20 acre parcel size may be granted by the Board of Adjustment, or three lots may be created, without a variance, for the subdivision process.  She stated that staff finds the applicant’s request for AR zoning consistent with the policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant’s representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-49Deanna Donahue and Bobby Green, Rezoning Case No. PH51-05-5, Tracking No. 58-06-Z, a request to rezone 16.58 acres in the Umatilla area from A (Agriculture) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to AR (Agricultural Residential), to allow two proposed lots in the rear of the property, to be less than five (5) acres each, as presented.

REZONING CASE NO. PH47-05-03 – AR TO A – SUSAN M. MILLER AND

THEODORA S. KAFFENBERGER, JTWROS – TRACKING NO. 62-05-Z

Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the  Board and explained this request, stating that staff was recommending approval of the request to rezone from AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agriculture).  She stated that the Zoning Board recommended approval, with a 7-0 vote, as well.  She stated that the subject five (5) acre parcel is located in the Ferndale area, on Grace Ridge Road, on the south side of CR 561A and west of CR 455.  She stated that the site lies within the Suburban future land use category and the requested Agricultural zoning district is allowed under said category.  She stated that the applicants were requesting the Agricultural zoning district, to allow a tree nursery on the property.  She stated that the proposed use is allowed in the current zoning district, by a conditional use, however, noted that the owner wishes to rezone the property to the Agricultural district, where a tree nursery is a permitted use, as this would alleviate the conditional use requirements and annual inspection fee.  She stated that the site lies within the Lake Apopka Overlay District and the request is consistent with Sections 6.15.00 through 6.15.06 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations, which regulate land use and development within said district.  She stated that the request complies with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as well.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-50Theodora Kaffenberger and Susan Miller, Rezoning Case No. PH47-05-3, Tracking No. 62-05-Z, a request to rezone a five (5) acre parcel in the Ferndale area from AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agriculture), to allow a tree nursery on the property, as presented.

REZONING CASE NO. CUP04/12/1-5 – SIX MONTH REVIEW OF CUP – ROBERT

AND NANCY GRUNER /STEVEN J. RICHEY – TRACKING NO. 83-04-CUP/AMD

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a six month review of a case that the Board had granted an amendment to in December of 2004.  He stated that it involves a saw mill operation, at which time he noted that the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) did not specifically include some of the uses that the applicants wanted to do on the site; however, the amendment that was approved in December added those uses back in.  He stated that staff inspected the site and found the sawmill operation to be in compliance, therefore, were recommending a continuance of the operation, under the CUP.

Commr. Hill questioned whether the CUP would stay on a six month inspection, or whether it would go to a one year inspection.

Mr. Richardson stated that a normal annual inspection would take place from this point on.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant’s representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Cadwell disclosed, for the record, the fact that he has an interest in some property on Quail Grove Road, which is in the area of the property in question, however, noted that the property he has an interest in is far enough away from the property in question that he does not feel it will affect this case.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-51Robert and Nancy Gruner/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. CUP04/12/1-5,Tracking No. 59-05-CUP, a request for a six (6) month review of Conditional Use Permit No. 04/12/1-5, as directed by Ordinance No. 2004-92, Section (2) (C) (2), as presented.

REZONING CASE NO. PH52-05-4 – R-1 TO R-3 – ROBERT STOCKER,

SHAMROCK HOMES/LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 57-05-Z

Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential).  He stated that the subject site is approximately eleven (11) acres and is located north of CR 44 and south of S. Fish Camp Road, in the Eustis area.  He stated that water will be supplied by the City of Eustis, while sanitary disposal will be achieved via individual septic tanks.  He stated that the applicant has obtained a total of 35 points, through the utilization of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart system.  He stated that Section 3.03.03(F)(2) of the Lake County Land Development Regulations states that, if the zoning district density is less than the point system density, the maximum allowable density shall comply with the zoning district density.  He stated that, as an R-3 zoning permits a maximum of three dwelling units per acre, this density shall take precedence over that of the point system density.  He stated that staff has reviewed the request and finds it to be consistent with the provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however, noted that the Zoning Board recommended denial of the request, by a 4-3 vote.  He stated that it was his understanding that the Zoning Board’s recommendation of denial was based on school overcrowding in the area in question.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether there was enough road right of way on S. Fish Camp Road to not present a problem and was informed by Mr. Kruse that he had not received any negative comments from the Public Works Department regarding it.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was any opportunity for open space in the proposed development and was informed that, due to the fact that it is an 11 acre site, the opportunity for open space would be limited.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, addressed the Board stating that she was representing Shamrock Homes and Mr. Robert Stocker, the owner of the property in question.  She stated that the property is an infill piece and is located directly south of the Biscayne Heights subdivision and east of the Wedgewood subdivision.  She stated that there are three phases to the Biscayne Heights subdivision, which Shamrock Homes purchased several years ago from Mr. Craig Butterfield, who initiated the subdivision.  She stated that Shamrock Homes platted the last two phases of it and this is an opportunity for them to continue with that same type of development plan, which she noted has been very well received.  She stated that, as far as the right of way on Fish Camp Road is concerned, there will be some dedication of additional right of way, to meet the 33 foot requirement, for a total of 66 feet of right of way.  She stated that, in talking to Mr. Shamrock about the traffic distribution, she found that what he has observed is that a lot of people will go north on Fish Camp Road to CR 452 and then, depending on where they are going, will take CR 452 up to the light, if they are going out towards SR 19, and, if they are going towards the City of Leesburg, they will go up to CR 44 and make a right.  She stated that it was her understanding that there is sufficient capacity at Treadway Elementary School and that, with this being a very small subdivision, it will entail very nominal impacts, overall.

Commr. Hanson stated that she noticed, from the Zoning Board Minutes, that one of the Zoning Board members commented that the middle school in the area of the proposed subdivision is overcapacity, but that the elementary school and the high school were alright.  She stated that she felt, by the time the proposed subdivision is completely built, the school numbers will have shifted somewhat, probably eliminating the overcapacity situation for the middle school.  She questioned whether there would be any opportunity for open space and was informed by Ms. Campione that, because of the size of the proposed development and the fact that it is very limited, the fact that the property is pie shaped, the frontage involved, and the fact that it is currently an orange grove there is no plan to have any open space, such as a park, although she noted that there will be a nice entranceway into the development.  She stated that most residents will have their own swimming pool, or a playground in the back yard.  She stated that it will be more of a suburban feel, as far as the size of the lots is concerned.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the reason he brought up the issue of the frontage was because he was concerned about the front footage of the development, at which time it was noted that the entrance to the development will be off of Fish Camp Road and will not connect to Biscayne Heights, which will cut down on the amount of traffic traveling through it.  He questioned whether the County had received a letter from the School System, regarding the issue of the school situation, and was informed by Mr. Kruse that the County had not.  He noted that, for the majority of cases being heard this month, the County had not received any letters from the School System.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, informed the Board that, due to the loss of Mr. Terry Adsit, Senior Planner, Lake County Schools, approximately one and a half months ago, the School System’s staff is spread thin, however, noted that his understanding is that they now have a replacement for Mr. Adsit, so the County will probably start receiving comments regarding the school situation from the School System again around August or September of this year.

Mr. Kruse stated that staff does not have a magic number indicating at what percent over capacity they should deny a request.  He stated that they need to have some guidelines in place.

Commr. Pool concurred, stating that the County needs to be consistent, as it moves forward, with regard to percentages over capacity, however, noted that the Board needs to have the true picture.  He stated that, in many instances, there are student stations in portables, but the School System does not count those portables.  He stated that he feels they certainly should be counted as capacity for a school, because it does adjust the capacity numbers.

Commr. Cadwell interjected that he feels, when the County gets true school concurrency, which he believes is going to happen between now and the next legislative session, it may solve a portion of the problem.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cindy Barrow, a member of Voters Organization Involved in Children’s Education (VOICE), addressed the Board stating that she spoke to the Zoning Board, with regard to the development in question, and that, although it only involves an 11 acre parcel, VOICE wanted the Board to know what the numbers are, since representatives from the School System were not present at this meeting to give the Board that information.  She reviewed and submitted, for the record, a portion of an article (Opposition’s Exhibit A) that appeared recently in one of the local newspapers, titled Schools Jammed, which lists all the schools in the County and what their current capacity is, as well as what they project the enrollment and over capacity figures will be for the 2005/2006 school year.  She disagreed with a statement that was made by Ms. Campione that it was her understanding that there is sufficient capacity at Treadway Elementary School, noting that it is at 33% over capacity.  She noted other schools in the area that are over capacity, as well.  She stated that the Board needs to think about the cumulative impact of their actions, noting that each time a new development comes before them that they feel is not that big and they approve it, it does nothing but bring more and more students into an already overcrowded situation.  She stated that, if one takes a look at what is on the School Board’s Capital Five Year Plan, they will see that no new schools are planned for the area in question, to relieve the overcrowded situation.  She begged the Board to consider the situation and deny the request before them.

Mr. Randall Pinkard, the owner of Land Art Landscape Architecture, addressed the Board stating that he was representing some environmental groups in the area and questioned whether an environmental assessment had been conducted on the site and whether they planned to work in accordance with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

 Mr. Kruse readdressed the Board stating that, with regard to environmental assessments, the County does not require them at the time of rezoning, but when the applicant goes through the site plan approval process.  He stated that sometimes applicants will do an initial preliminary environmental assessment – get somebody to walk through the property, to see if there are any endangered species on the property.  He stated that the County only considers environmental assessments valid for six (6) months, so staff normally does not require one until the applicants come before the Board and get approval of their request and, if there are environmental constraints, the applicants have to design their subdivision around those environmental constraints.  He noted that, should scrub jays, for instance, be found on the property, the matter would be turned over to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for any kind of permitting restraints.

It was noted that the proposed development would consist of approximately 30 lots, considering the fact that roadways and stormwater retention ponds would have to be put in.

Commr. Pool questioned whether there was a formula that is used by the School System for determining how many children there will be per household and was informed by Ms. Jo Frost, a member of VOICE, that it is .41 children per household.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether all the schools in the area of the proposed development, as well as the schools in Umatilla and other areas, are under capacity, or whether all the schools in the area are over capacity, other than the high school and elementary school listed in the newspaper article alluded to earlier.

Mr. Kruse stated that he did not have those figures, but that, based on what is happening in general in Lake County, he would say that the majority of the schools in the area are at or over capacity.  He noted that staff relies on the School Board to give the County that information.

Commr. Hanson interjected that the County is not getting that information, at which time she noted that redistricting is not popular, but it would be part of the solution.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the Zoning Board’s recommendation of denial and approved Ordinance No. 2005-52Robert Stocker, Shamrock Homes/Leslie Campione, Rezoning Case No. PH52-05-4, Tracking No. 57-05-Z, a request to rezone an eleven (11) acre parcel in the Eustis area from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for the creation of a single-family residential subdivision, as presented.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

“BRANDING”

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, brought to the attention of the Board the issue of “branding”, which she noted is something that she has been interested in for approximately a year or so and has worked on, periodically, with the County’s Outreach Team, although they have not yet brought anything regarding it to the Board.  She stated that the “branding” process was unveiled at the last FAC (Florida Association of Counties) convention, noting that FAC has a new logo and tag line and is going through a whole unveiling process to establish an identity throughout the State of how they want to be perceived and what their direction is.  She stated that they hired a firm to help them do it, who worked with focus groups, the Board members, some of their staff, etc., to come up with a comprehensive and unified direction for them.  She stated that it was her opinion that the timing was very advantageous for Lake County to do a similar type process, noting that the County is growing and emerging as a diverse county and she feels that, if it could come up with a common direction and focus, countywide, it could embrace a new identity.  She questioned the Board’s thoughts on the matter and whether there would be a consensus to do a Request for Proposal (RFP), to go out for a similar type process.  She stated that FAC included in their RFP things that Lake County would not, which she elaborated on, noting that some of the things they included the County would do in-house, so she sees the County’s RFP as being a little bit more comprehensive and a little bit more restrained than FAC’s RFP.  It was noted that the new logo would be phased in over time, because switching everything over at one time would be very costly for the County.

It was the consensus of the Board to do the RFP, in that they found the concept to be exciting.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5

FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Commr. Cadwell thanked everyone for their support, in allowing him to serve as President of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC).  He stated that he had asked Commr. Hanson to serve as Vice Chairman of the County’s Growth Management and Environmental Legislative Policy group and that she had agreed to do so.  He stated that he had also asked Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, to serve on a Growth Management and Impact Fee working group that will bring some language, early on in the process, back to certain committees that it affects, such as the one that Commr. Hanson will serve on, and he has agreed to do so, as well.

Commr. Pool thanked Commr. Cadwell for the time that he has invested, to get to where he is today, noting that it benefits all of Lake County.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2

FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Commr. Pool informed the Board that he has gone through the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) certification process and is now a certified County Commissioner, at which time he noted that his class was the largest graduating class of certified Commissioners that FAC has ever had.

It was noted that 170 Commissioners, statewide, have now gone through the certification process.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4

FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (CONT’D.)

Commr. Hanson stated that it was very exciting for Commr. Cadwell to have been elected President of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC), but that she felt it was also very exciting for Lake County, in that it will give the County an opportunity to be at the limelight and she feels that Commr. Cadwell is a great leader to do that.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL

Commr. Hanson brought to the attention of the Board the issue of a workshop that she had attended on the Public Safety Council, which dealt with the number of prisoners that are in the County’s jails that might not need to be there, which she elaborated on, noting that it was an opportunity for the County to save dollars.  She stated that there are some prisoners that need to be in jail, but there are also some that are just rolling through and the jail is just a place for them to live, rather than being there to serve justice.  She stated that Sarasota County has a Public Service Council, but they also have created a sub-committee that deals with a Criminal Justice Council, made up of the Clerk, the Chief Judge, and most of the elected officials.  She stated that it is a smaller group, consisting of eight to ten members, whereas the Public Safety Council has 23 members.  She stated that they felt they could focus more on the Jail concerns and the growing needs of jails, if they were a smaller group and had the people that were making the decisions on the other council.  She stated that Lake County has already approved the creation of a Public Safety Coordinating Council, but has not yet implemented it, and does not have the appointees in place yet, at which time she recommended that the Board go ahead and create a Criminal Justice Council that could fall in later under the Public Safety Coordinating Council, noting that time is of the essence.  She stated that Sarasota County’s numbers were similar to Lake County’s numbers and, in a year’s time, they eliminated 100 stays per day.  She stated that they attributed the reduction in numbers to a 24/7 pre-trial assessment.  She stated that they got people into treatment, or a better alternative than jail.  She stated that she understands the jail is costing the County $50 to $60 per day, per inmate; however, she suspects the cost is probably higher than that, when one looks at the infrastructure costs, etc., which amounts to close to $2 million per year.  She stated that the County does not always consider the cost of the jail and it is going to keep growing and, as it continues to grow, the needs are going to continue to grow.  She stated that Sarasota County has been able to keep that number constant in a growing population.  She stated that she feels the Board needs to look at what Sarasota County has done and decide if they want to create a Criminal Justice Council for Lake County.

Commr. Hill stated that she would prefer that Commr. Hanson present her proposal to the Judiciary, giving them her thoughts and ideas.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would be glad to do so.

It was noted that the Board would like to have representatives from Sarasota County come to Lake County and give them a presentation regarding the matter and, when they do, they will invite the Judiciary to hear the presentation, as well.

Commr. Hill stated that her main concern is protecting the citizens of Lake County.           Commr. Hanson stated that it is something the Board should look at and that both Sarasota County and Volusia County could give them better insight into the matter.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2 (CONT’D.)

SUPREME COURT’S DECISION REGARDING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY

Commr. Pool brought to the attention of the Board the issue of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the condemnation of property for shopping centers, etc., noting that this Board uses that power very sparingly.  He stated that he did not feel this Board would ever have the intent or goal to do something like that, noting that they want to make sure that the general public benefits from their decisions and that, while it is a Supreme Court decision, they do not want to let anyone in the County with private property think that this Board would condemn their property for the benefit of private gain.  He stated that he did not want to stir something up, but wanted to make sure that this Board understands and respects private property rights – that it is not something to take or tread on lightly.  He stated that, perhaps, the Board could address the matter at a later date, noting that he had received several calls from people that were concerned about what this Board would do.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board should probably have a dialogue about the matter.

Commr. Pool stated that it could be about what the Board’s goals and intent would be and what they think their focus should be in Lake County.  He stated that other counties can do what they want, but he does not feel they should ask this Board to do it.

Commr. Hanson interjected that she does not see this Board changing its stance on the matter.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1

            FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY

            Commr. Hill informed those present that the next Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting would be held July 12th, rather than July 5th, due to the Fourth of July holiday.  She wished everyone a safe and happy Fourth of July, at which time she noted that there will be a lot of parades in the County and invited everyone to go out and enjoy them.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

 

__________________________

JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN

 

 

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK