A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FEBRUARY 28, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Debbie Stivender; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool.  Others present were: Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Reverend Bruce Hamilton, Lake Square Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that Tab 2, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, a request from Employee Services for approval of an offer to settle Laura Johnson’s claim for vehicle damage from a February 7, 2006 accident, would be pulled, to be brought back before the Board on March 14, 2006, and that there was an Addendum No. 1, containing one item under the County Manager’s Departmental Business, regarding the Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for FY 2006.  She stated that she would like to add to the Agenda two other items for discussion and approval, under the County Manager’s Departmental Business, being:  (1) a request from the Budget Office for approval of a Change Order, having to do with the implementation of the County’s financial software; and (2) a request from LifeStream Behavioral Center, Inc., for federal funding for a children’s behavioral center.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said items on the Agenda.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests, pulling Tab 2, until the Board Meeting of March 14, 2006:

            Budget

            Request for approval of very low-income and low-income impact fee waivers, as refunds to lenders, on behalf of qualified individuals.

            Growth Management

            Request for approval and signature on Satisfaction and Release of Fine, for property owned by Ernest Paul and Angela Gail Templin, Code Enforcement Case No. 2005120192.

            Procurement Services

            Request for approval to declare items, as submitted, surplus to County needs; authorize removal of said items from County's official fixed asset inventory system records; and authorize Procurement Services Director to sign vehicle titles.

            Public Works

            Request for approval to terminate Agreement between Lake County and Art Walker Construction, Inc., for Special Assessment Project No. 100, Hilltop-Sorrento Subdivision Road Construction Project.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            GROWTH MANAGEMENT

            ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT WITH RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP

            Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management Department, stated that staff was requesting approval of an addendum to the contract with Renaissance Planning Group, noting that they needed additional time with them to complete the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  She stated that staff has asked them to do peer review, to appear before the Board and the Local Planning Agency (LPA), and to make sure that the County is consistent with Rules 9J5 and Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval of a contract addendum with Renaissance Planning Group, in the amount of $38,070.00, for Comprehensive Planning Services.

            PUBLIC WORKS

            BARRICADE AT VISTA DEL LAGO IN THE VISTAS SUBDIVISION

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, informed the Board that the request before them was for discussion and approval of a recommendation to continue to keep barricades in place at Vista Del Lago Boulevard, in The Vistas subdivision, until such time as the Southern Connector is completed, noting that approximately two years ago said road was closed at the south end, where it intercepts with Lake Louisa Road.  He stated that, prior to that date, over 3,000 cars per day traveled through The Vistas, where a lot of driveways back off onto the road.  He stated that it was barricaded and, since that time, the trips inside the subdivision have dropped to approximately 1,400 cars per day, a dramatic reduction.  He stated that a light was warranted at the intersection of Lake Louisa Road and has been installed and, as of a couple of weeks ago, the traffic count was approximately 6,000 cars per day on Lake Louisa Road.  He stated that, earlier in the month, the Board approved the contract for the Southern Connector, which will reduce the amount of traffic in the general area, thereby reducing the amount of cut-through traffic through The Vistas.  He stated that there has been a request to remove the barricades – not by the homeowners association, but by others; however, staff is concerned that, if they open that road up, as many as 500 cars per day may choose to use it.  He stated that staff would like to keep the barricades up, until the Southern Connector is in place and there is a major change in the traffic pattern in the area, and then reassess the situation and make a decision about opening it or closing it at that time.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that some of the residents feel the County plans to never open said road back up.

            Mr. Stivender stated that it was not staff’s intention to make such a request, noting that they feel having an alternate access to the subdivision is a good thing.  He stated that it would be an access to the south, which would allow a better flow of traffic and solve the overall problem.

            Commr. Pool stated that the Board was not going to be able to make everyone happy, noting that whatever decision they made this date, someone would think they did the wrong thing.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, from a safety point of view, she felt the Board should approve staff’s recommendation, but that there be no intent on the part of the Board that it be a permanent solution - that her intent would be for the road to be reopened, with traffic calming devices, otherwise, they would be creating a private road, which was not the intent.

            Ms. Nancy Madden, a resident of The Vistas, addressed the Board stating that, as she had pointed out to them in many previous communications, the closure of Vista Del Lago presents a variety of safety concerns for herself, other residents in the subdivision, and other subdivisions along Lake Louisa Road.  She noted that there is now a traffic signal at Lake Louisa Road and Hwy. 27, which has alleviated many of the safety concerns that she had presented to the Board previously, however, noted that there is still the matter of delayed emergency response time.  She stated that the placement of the barricades has added response time to emergency vehicles coming from the west to her subdivision, which can be as much as four to five minutes of additional time.  She stated that there is a growing problem of crime in her neighborhood, as well.  She stated that the Board needs to consider the safety of the residents in her subdivision and remove the barricades.

            Commr. Pool interjected that he had received emails about taking the barricades down, as well as leaving them up, and the emails asking that the barricades be left in place far outnumbered the ones asking that the barricades be taken down.

            Commr. Stivender stated that, if it is the wish of the homeowners to make the road private, the County needs to transfer ownership of the road to the homeowners association, which would solve the problem.  It was noted, however, that maintenance of the road would become the responsibility of the homeowners association.

            Mr. Stivender stated that staff would like to have an alternate access to the subdivision, long-term, but how it is done needs to be worked out with the homeowners association.

            Mr. Bob Case, Attorney, representing The Vistas Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that vehicles speeding through the subdivision was not the issue, the issue was the number of cars traveling through the subdivision, causing a problem with safety, which he elaborated on.  He stated that, given the type of road that it is and where it is located, 1,300 cars per day traveling on it is exactly what it was designed for, if one were to look at the Code.  He stated that it was not designed for 3,000 plus cars per day and, given the growth in the area, it is probably now approaching 4,000 cars per day, which is a lot of cars traveling through a community.  He submitted, for the record, petitions containing 279 names of people in favor of leaving the barricades in place and keeping Vista Del Lago Boulevard in The Vistas closed.

            Mr. Jack Lascallas, Vice President of the Vacation Village Condominium Association, in Clermont, addressed the Board stating that, since Vista Del Lago Boulevard has been closed, the majority of the traffic that used it now uses the private road that goes through Vacation Village.  He stated that the residents of Vacation Village have done everything possible within their means to prevent it, but it has been very difficult.  He stated that most of the people that live there are elderly and walk along the roads for exercise and, although speed bumps are in place, cars speed through there.  He stated that the additional traffic has created pot holes in their road, as well, which has been estimated to cost over $20,000 to fix.  He stated that Vista Del Lago is a public road and should be reopened.

            Mr. Stivender stated that the County will put up larger signs stating, “Private Road – No Public Access” at the entrance to Vacation Village and counters will be placed at each end of the road.

            Commr. Stivender suggested that staff check into what it will cost to resurface the road in Vacation Village, even though it is not a public road, since the closing of Vista Del Lago Boulevard created the problems alluded to by Mr. Lascallas.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works to continue to keep barricades in place at Vista Del Lago Boulevard, in The Vistas subdivision, until the Southern Connector is completed, estimated to be in approximately 300 days, allowing the County time to change the traffic pattern and study the issue at that time, with the understanding that, along with that process, the County will be working with the community to install traffic calming devices and with Vacation Village, in repaving their road.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT’D.)

            COMMUNITY SERVICES

            BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR FY 2006

            Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, addressed the Board stating that staff was requesting approval to submit an electronic application for the Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant for FY 2006, in the amount of $43,926.00.  Said funds are available to units of government to support local initiatives that provide technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and information systems for criminal justice for any one or more of the following purpose areas:  (1) Law Enforcement Programs; (2) Prosecution and Court Programs; (3) Prevention and Education Programs; (4) Corrections and Community Corrections; (5) Drug Treatment Programs; and (6) Planning, Evaluation, and Technology Improvement Programs.  He noted that the grant application must be submitted on or before March 2, 2006, and part of the request is to designate Ms. Robbie Hollenbeck as the Program Contact Person.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval to submit an electronic application for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) FY 2006, in the amount of $43,926.00; designate Ms. Robbie Hollenbeck as the Program Contact Person and Mr. Fletcher Smith as the Alternate Program Contact Person, designated by the Board to serve as day to day contact on program related matters, including completing this application, accepting the grant award, reporting, and other activities related to this grant (this Program Contact Person and Alternate has the ability to bind Lake County to all terms and conditions related to this grant, including report requirements); and to authorize the Chairman to sign any related documents, as may be required.

            BUDGET

            CHANGE ORDER REGARDING NEW AUTOMATED FINANCIAL SOFTWARE

            Ms. Regina Frazier, Budget Director, addressed the Board stating that there were two issues that she was requesting approval of, being: (1) a project change order, relative to the implementation of the County’s new automated financial software, which changes what and how the County is doing the conversion of the old data to the new data, with the net effect being zero dollars; and (2) approval of any additional change orders, authorizing the County Manager to sign same, as long as they are within the threshold of the project itself, dollar-wise, due to the fact that the project is extremely time sensitive.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Budget for approval of a project change order, relative to the implementation of the County’s new automated financial software; and authorization for the County Manager to sign any additional change orders, as long as they are within the threshold of the project itself, dollar-wise, due to the project being extremely time sensitive.

            COUNTY MANAGER

            REQUEST FROM LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL CENTER FOR SUPPORT OF

            SPECIAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATION

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she received a letter from LifeStream Behavioral Center asking the County to support their request for a special projects appropriation of $3.8 million, for land acquisition and the cost of constructing/renovating a school for Severely Emotionally Disturbed children in Lake and Sumter counties.  She stated that they are requesting that the Board send a letter, under the Chairman’s signature, to the County’s federal legislators, as well as its lobbyists, acknowledging the fact that the Board supports the request.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager, Ms. Cindy Hall, for approval to support a Congressional Special Projects Appropriation of $3.8 million to LifeStream Behavioral Center, for land acquisition and the cost of constructing/renovating a school for Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children in Lake and Sumter counties.

            CHANGE IN PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS

            Commr. Hanson informed those present that the County had changed its procedure, with regard to public hearings, which she noted were intended to help them go more smoothly and allow the Board to get through its lengthy agenda in a timely manner, at which time she reviewed how the new procedure would work, noting that a Consent Agenda has been created for items that are recommended for approval, which will be approved in one motion.  She stated that an item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Board member, at the request of staff, or if a speaker request card is turned in.  She stated that anyone wishing to speak about an agenda item would need to complete said card (located on table by entrance doors to BCC Chambers) and submit it to staff, prior to their appearing before the Board.  She stated that, as each item is called, the Board will hear a staff presentation, after which she will open the Public Hearing and the applicant will be given 20 minutes for their presentation, followed by questions from the Board.  She stated that an additional 5 minutes will be provided for rebuttal, at the end of the Public Hearing, and, following the applicant’s presentation, she will call on the public to speak, using the speaker request cards, noting that each speaker will be given 5 minutes to present their comments.  She stated that, after all the speakers have been heard, the applicant will give their 5 minute rebuttal, after which she will close the Public Hearing for Board discussion and a vote.  She stated that staff will be available to summarize any issues, or answer any Board questions, after the Public Hearing is closed; questions of the applicant will be addressed through staff; and any additional testimony or comment by the applicant, or the public, will require an approved motion, to reopen the Public Hearing.  She stated that the Board would see how the new procedure works, however, noted that there may be some modifications to it at a later date.

            PETITION NO. 1067 – ALLAN ROE/REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE DUNCAN

            LEESBURG AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was a request to vacate a few rights of way in the revised and corrected plat of Silver Lake Estates, located in the Leesburg area.  He pointed out the rights of way in question on an aerial (contained in the Board’s backup material) that was on display.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that his client had originally wanted to vacate a portion of Walker Road; however, an adjacent property owner, Mr. Hammond, expressed a concern about it, so the applicant withdrew that request, leaving the 50 foot right of way open, so that Mr. Hammond would have access to his property directly off of Destiny Circle and would allow him, when and if he is ready, to develop his property.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. John Hammond, the owner of the parcel of property located directly north of the property in question, alluded to by Mr. Duncan, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to make sure that the roads being vacated and the one being proposed will not effect his easement – that he will not be landlocked, noting that his family usually uses said right of way to access their property.

            Mr. Allan Roe, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the rights of way he was requesting be vacated were 30 foot rights of way that were platted years ago, which nobody uses.  He pointed out a 25 foot access that Mr. Hammond would be able to use, noting that he would not be closing the additional 30 feet that goes into Mr. Hammond’s property.

            Mr. Stivender stated that the vacation of the rights of way will occur at the time of platting, so no public access will change by approval of this request.  He stated that the private easement will always be in place – it will not be affected by the vacation, or the plat.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board, for informational purposes, that Mr. Hammond was his son’s father-in-law, but that he was not aware of said issue.  He noted that they were both awaiting the birth of a new grandbaby at any time.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Cutrale Citrus, which operates a spray field on a couple of parcels that are contiguous to the property in question, addressed the Board stating that his client’s only concern is the fact that they do operate a spray field on their property.  He stated that they consented to this vacation to assist in vacating the roads, but wanted to put people on notice that they have a use that may or may not be compatible with residential development.

            Mr. Peter Plate, the owner of a five acre parcel located between the property in question and the Cutrale Citrus property, addressed the Board stating that he was concerned about Walker Road, which adjoins his property and Destiny Estates.  He stated that he had been promised a 30 foot right of way from the Destiny Estates property to his property and wanted some kind of guarantee that he would get said right of way and that he wanted it to be permanent, not temporary.

            Commr. Pool stated that neither Mr. Plate, nor any of the property owners around him, would be denied access to their property by any action taken by the Board did this date.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-27 - Petition No. 1067, by Allan Roe, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate a few rights of way in the Revised and Corrected Plat of the Resubdivision of Silver Lake Estates, located in Section 9, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Silver Lake/Leesburg area – Commission District 1.

            PETITION NO. 1074 – DALHOUSIE MEADOWS, LLC/REPRESENTATIVE

            BEN CHAMPION – EUSTIS AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was a request to vacate an ingress/egress easement, in the Plat of Lake Meadows, located in the Eustis area.  He stated that all the issues have been worked out regarding legal access for all the property owners involved, however, noted that there is a question about a legal description – not the one that was vacated, but a replacement legal.  He stated that staff would like to recommend approval of the vacation, but hold off on the recording of it, until the County gets the corrected legal description for the replacement easement.

            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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-28 - Petition No. 1074, by Dalhousie Meadows, LLC, Representative Ben Champion, to vacate an ingress/egress easement in the Plat of Lake Meadows, located in Section 29, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area – Commission District 5.

            PETITION NO. 1075 – PALMER HOMES/REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE DUNCAN

            UMATILLA AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was a request to vacate a citrus loading easement in the Umatilla area.  He stated that a staging area that was used for parking citrus trucks is no longer being utilized, so staff was recommending approval of the request.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Jennifer Post, a resident of the Umatilla area, addressed the Board and voiced some concerns she had about whose land would be used when the road is put in for the proposed subdivision and the fact that she has been contacted by the County about giving up a portion of her property for the road for said subdivision and wanted to know if she could get any answers to her questions this date, or whether she would have to wait until a later date, or contact a different area of county government.

            Mr. Stivender stated that he was not aware of any issues associated with the road in question.

            Commr. Pool assured Ms. Post that the action being taken this date would not affect her property.

            Commr. Cadwell noted, for the record, that the Board had received a form letter from Ms. Elaine Oliver and Mr. Kent Martin, property owners contiguous to the property in question, indicating that they did not wish to relinquish any part of their property for the easement being vacated.

            Mr. Stivender informed the Board that an easement that runs along the north side of the property in question will remain open.

            There being no further individuals 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 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-29 - Petition No. 1075, by Palmer Homes, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate a citrus loading easement, located in Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.

            REZONING

            Commr. Hanson informed those present that, in complying with the new procedure that has been put in place regarding public hearings, anyone wishing to speak to the Board about any of the cases on the Rezoning Agenda would need to fill out a speaker request card and submit it, prior to them appearing before the Board.

            At this time, each Commissioner disclosed, for the record, those cases where they spoke with either the applicant, or the applicant’s representative, prior to this meeting.

            REZONING CONSENT AGENDA

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, informed the Board that four individuals wished to address them regarding Item No. 9 - Rezoning Case No. PH29-06-2, School Board of Lake County, therefore, questioned whether they wished to pull said request from the Rezoning Consent Agenda and put it under their normal business.

            Commr. Hanson stated that it appeared no one wished to speak in opposition to said request and questioned whether the speakers that were in favor of the request still wished to speak, knowing that there was no opposition and that the request would be approved, as presented.

            It was noted that an individual did wish to speak regarding the case; therefore, the request would be pulled from the Rezoning Consent Agenda and heard under the regular Rezoning Agenda.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she had received a speaker request card from Ms. Amara Smith, requesting information regarding Item No. 13 – Rezoning Case No. PH15-06-5, Peter Fleck, Fleck Holdings 3 LLC, Mark Maciel, on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, and questioned whether Mr. Hartenstein had spoken with her.

            Mr. Hartenstein stated that he had and that she did not have any issues regarding the request.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, which contained cases that were recommended for approval and which were not controversial, as follows:

            Ordinance No. 2006-18

            Thomas and Ethel McEaddy/Steven J. Richey, P.A.

            Rezoning Case No. PH14-06-3

            Tracking No. 15-06-Z

 

            Applicant’s Request:  A request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to AR (Agriculture Residential) 5.17 +/acres, in the Urban Expansion Future Land Use Designation, for the creation of two (2) residential lots.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-19

            Charles E. Frommeyer

            Rezoning Case No. PH19-06-2

            Tracking No. 16-06-Z

 

            Applicant’s Request:  A request to rezone from AR (Agriculture Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential) 2.40 +/acres, in the Urban Expansion Future Land Use Designation, for the purpose of dividing it into two parcels, through the minor lot split process.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-20

            St. Johns River Water Management District/Gene Caputo

            Rezoning Case No. PH10-06-3

            Tracking No. 7-06-CFD

 

            Applicant’s Request:  A request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) 42 +/acres, in the Rural Future Land Use Designation, for the purpose of bringing the property into compliance, for the continue use and operation of the District’s restoration of Lake       Apopka.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-21

            Peter Fleck, Fleck Holdings 3 LLC/Mark Maciel

            Rezoning Case No. PH15-06-5

            Tracking No. 28-06-Z

 

            Applicant’s Request:  A request to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to R-3 (Medium Residential) 26.6 +/acres, in the Urban Expansion and Urban Future Land Use Designations, for residential development.

 

            Mr. Hartenstein informed the Board that staff had received a request for a 30 day postponement for the following cases:

 

            REZONING CASE NO. PH93-05-2 – A TO PUD - NOLA LAND COMPANY,

            INC./SEAN FROELICH, VP, PARK SQUARE ENTERPRISES/STEVEN J.

            RICHEY, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 110-05-PUD

            No one was present in opposition to the request for postponement.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. PH93-05-2, Nola Land Company, Inc./Sean Froelich, VP, Park Square Enterprises/Steven J. Richey, Attorney, Tracking No. 110-05-PUD, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of March 28, 2006, as requested.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH17-06-1 – A TO R-4 - ROBERT LEFRANCOIS/FRED

            HAMILTON - TRACKING NO. 19-06-Z

            No one was present in opposition to the request for postponement.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. PH17-06-1, Robert LeFrancois/Fred Hamilton, Tracking No. 19-06-Z, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of March 28, 2006, as requested.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH27-06-3 – R-1 to R-4 - RON AND DEBRA CHAPMAN,

            TRUST/BRUCE DUNCAN, P.A.– TRACKING NO. 20-06-Z

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Richard Immersi, a resident of Mt. Dora, addressed the Board in opposition to the request for postponement, stating that there were a number of residents from the Mt. Dora area that had taken time off from work to attend the Zoning Board Meeting that was held a few weeks and had done so this date, as well, and would like to address the Board regarding this request.

            Mr. James Russell, a resident of Mt. Dora, addressed the Board stating that he saw no reason for this request to be postponed.  He stated that the rezoning being requested did not belong in the area in question and that nothing that would be said would sell the residents on the idea.

            Mr. David Jenner, a resident of Mt. Dora, addressed the Board stating that he had taken time off from work to attend this meeting and would like for the case to be heard.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicants, stated that a notice was sent to a resident of the homeowners association that was the primary source of the opposition notifying them of the applicants’ intent to request a postponement of this case.  He stated that they did so, in order to allow as many residents as possible to be notified of the request for postponement, but that many of them did know about it.  He stated that the purpose for the postponement was to allow the applicants to sit down with those residents that are opposed to the rezoning and try to come up with some changes to their plan that may or may not address some of their concerns, noting that the applicants are trying to be fair about the request.

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

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff had made every effort to make sure that the residents that would be affected by this rezoning request were notified of the request for postponement and was informed that they had, however, noted that they did not receive the request for postponement until the Friday before this meeting, so they did not have much time to act on it.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, was asked whether the County could require a longer time frame between a public hearing and a request for postponement and was informed that they could.  He was then asked to put something together that would address the matter.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. PH27-06-3, Ron and Debra Chapman, Trust/Bruce Duncan, P.A., Tracking No. 20-06-Z, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of March 28, 2006, as requested.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH29-06-2 – R-6 TO CFD - SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE

            COUNTY/GREG A. BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL

            PLANNERS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 23-06-CFD

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this request, which was pulled from the Rezoning Consent Agenda.  The request is to rezone a 37.5 acre parcel, located in an Urban Future Land Use Designation, within the Clermont Joint Planning Area (JPA), from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a public school.  Staff has reviewed the request and determined that it meets the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and its Comprehensive Plan, therefore, were recommending approval of the request.  Since the property is located within Clermont’s JPA, the applicant will have to develop to their standards.  The County has not received any comments from the City of Clermont regarding the proposed rezoning.  The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, as well, by a 6-0 vote.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, addressed the Board, representing the applicant, stating that only one issue of concern was presented at the Zoning Board Meeting, with regard to this case, being that of access during construction, which was rectified with an abutting property owner.  He stated that a points analysis was conducted for this case, based upon the Department of Education’s requirements, and the property in question met 14 of the 16 requirements, with two pending – one pertaining to soil borings and the other one pertaining to archeological sites.  He displayed and presented, for the record, an updated aerial map (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the property, which he reviewed with the Board.

            Ms. Cindy Barrow, a resident of Clermont and a representative of VOICE (Voters Organization Involved in Children’s Education), addressed the Board stating that her group only asked that this request be pulled from the Rezoning Consent Agenda, in order to voice their appreciation to staff for working very hard on school concurrency and to inform them that they appreciated the excellent meeting that was held by staff on Monday, February 27, 2006, with regard to the matter.  She stated that getting the site in question rezoned for a school was absolutely crucial, with a legacy problem of 7,000 children overcrowding the south Lake County schools and approximately 28,000 properties that have been vested, or approved, that have not yet been built, so the area is going to need multiple schools.  She stated that representatives of VOICE would be traveling by bus to Tallahassee on March 13, 2006, and that numerous community leaders would be joining them on said trip.  She stated that they would love for one or more of the Commissioners to join them, as well.  She stated that the School Board needs additional funding, in order for schools to be built in the County, and that is their primary goal in going to Tallahassee.  She invited the Board to check out their website, www.lakevoice.org, as well as a Fact Sheet that they produce, at which time she asked them to approve this request.

            Mr. Robert (Bob) Foley, a resident of Montverde, addressed the Board stating that the schools in south Lake County are desperately behind in their programs, as far as education is concerned, so the proposed school is extremely important to them, in that it is going to give some relief to Windy Hill Middle School, Clermont Middle School, and Cecil E. Gray Middle School.  He stated that it is not the best location for the school, but feels they can work through it.  He noted that he hoped to see the Commissioners in Tallahassee.

            Ms. Michele Bodzioch, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that she was grateful for the proposed school, however, wanted to remind them that this is just a baby step towards what south Lake County has and what it needs.  She stated that she loves Clermont and the south Lake County area, but is frightened for her children, for what is to come of the area and wanted the Board to know that it is not fun to live like that.  She stated that south Lake County needs many more schools, to handle the huge amount of growth that is coming into the area, and they need the Board to continue to help the School Board find more land for schools.  She asked the Board to step up to the plate, be the leaders, and show everyone that what is important to them, as a Board, are the children – not the future residents that will be moving into the area, but the ones that currently live here, and help them to stop living in fear.  She stated that it is important for the Board to respect the fact that what they are living with at the present time is becoming very detrimental.

            Commr. Stivender interjected that she wanted everyone to understand that VOICE may have been started in south Lake County, in the Clermont area, but it is for the children, the parents, and the teachers that live in all of Lake County, not just in south Lake County.

            Ms. Kerrie Ireland, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board and thanked them for approving the rezoning for the Bosserman property, where the proposed school is to be constructed, noting that it is a tiny step towards getting all the education and student stations that are needed in south Lake County.  She noted that she has three children in school in the area and is very concerned about their future.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-22, School Board of Lake County/Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Rezoning Case No. PH29-06-2, Tracking No. 23-06-CFD, a request to rezone a 37.5 acre parcel in the Clermont area from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a public school, as presented.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH20-06-2 – A TO PUD - COLE WHITAKER/GREG A.

            BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC./STEVEN J.

            RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 17-06-PUD

            Ms. Jennifer DuBois, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this request.  The request is to rezone a 79.9 acre parcel, located in the Groveland area, southeast and southwest of the intersection of SR19 and S. O’Brien Road, from (A) Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development).  The applicant submitted a conceptual plan depicting four development scenarios, being: (1) a conventional single family residential concept, with a maximum of 217 dwelling units; (2) an apartment/townhome option, allowing up to 400 units; (3) a mixed-use scenario, permitting up to 105 conventional single family units, 138 multifamily units, and 82,000 square feet of commercial space; and (4) a commercial/office concept, featuring a maximum of 542,000 square feet of gross leasable area.  The applicant wishes to have the flexibility to select any one of the four scenarios, if the rezoning is approved.  The property lies within two land use categories, being:  Urban, with a maximum allowable density of seven dwelling units per acre, and Rural, with a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per five acres.  Approximately 56.3 acres are presently designated Urban, while the remaining 23.6 acres are classified as Rural.  The site is located within a Regional Activity Center, in which 500,000 square feet or more of gross leasable area is permitted.  The applicant wishes to expand the more intense Urban land use into a ten acre portion of the Rural section of the property, consistent with the provisions of Policy 1-1.11 of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.  Two of the development scenarios presented on the conceptual plan, being the mixed-use concept and the commercial/office option, allows commercial development and the applicant has requested that it be limited to general retail, banking, medical services, personal care services, professional offices, research services, general restaurants, self-service laundries, theatres, and wholesale and warehouse facilities.  The City of Groveland has indicated that it will provide central water and sewer service to the site.  Staff is concerned about the development’s impact on the severely overcrowded public schools in the vicinity and the fact that it has the potential to add 105 new single family dwelling units and 138 new multifamily units to the area that will contribute 78 new students to the Lake County School System, which would only exacerbate the problem, therefore, recommends denial of the rezoning request.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out the fact that the Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, with the condition that, if and only if there are available student stations at elementary school, middle school, and high school levels for the proposed development, building permits could be issued for residential units, and that he wanted to make sure that the language is strong enough that the applicant cannot construct any residential homes until school concurrency is met.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Zoning Board’s recommendation should have stated “plats”, rather than “building permits”, noting that that is how the County is going to be measuring school concurrency, with regard to new development.  He stated that, if the applicant gets to the point where the lots are available and people purchase them, there is going to be a mess, because people will purchase them not knowing about that requirement.  He stated that the language should state that no residential platting can commence, until an adequate number of student stations are available in the schools, or until one has obtained written approval from the School Board.

            Ms. DuBois interjected that it is also the recommendation of the Zoning Board that this project include a commercial component, which would eliminate either the conventional single family concept, or the apartment/townhome concept.

            It was noted that Ms. DuBois’ recommendation for denial was based strictly on the current school situation.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that, at the Zoning Board Meeting, the applicant removed the two options that were just residential and left the two options that had a component of commercial, based upon the Board’s direction last month, when a contiguous parcel of property came before the Board with the same four options and they limited it to the two mixed-use options.  He stated that the applicant understands he will have to meet school concurrency and what the conditions are and is willing to live with it.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether, if the proposed development were to be annexed into the City of Groveland, all the issues with the PUD would remain with the property.

            Mr. Beliveau stated that the policy they are looking at is one that is consistent with what the applicant’s PUD states, with regard to the land use density and the mixed-use requirements for having the commercial component, at which time he submitted, for the record, a Conceptual Development Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit A) for the proposed development (Ridgeview).

            Ms. Cindy Barrow, a resident of Clermont and a representative of VOICE (Voters Organization Involved in Children’s Education), addressed the Board and thanked everybody for working together and looking out for the schools, noting that she appreciated the way the applicant is being required to meet school concurrency, before constructing any residential homes, or until the School Board states that student stations are available.  She stated that it is the way that she would love to see things continue to happen, as far as new residential housing being approved is concerned, when the schools are overcrowded.

            Mr. Robert (Bob) Foley, a resident of Montverde, addressed the Board stating that he heard a reference made to the proposed Groveland Charter School earlier in the meeting and wanted the Board to know that the City of Groveland has informed the School Board that said school will not come on line in the Fall of this year – that it may be another year before it comes on line.  He stated that what the Board was doing, in working with the cities and county staff to try to get some control over what is going on regarding the issue of school concurrency, was a positive step and thanked them for taking that step.

            Ms. Michele Bodzioch, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board and discussed the issue of the proposed charter school and the fact that it is a volunteer situation – one is not zoned to attend a charter school, one asks to attend a charter school, and, if it is not run well, people will not want their children to attend it, so it cannot be counted in the mix of opening up student stations in the public schools.  She asked the Board to make the language requiring developers to delay constructing residential homes until school concurrency is met as strong as possible and to close any potential loopholes regarding same, so that no student will be able to attend any school until student stations are available – period.

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

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No. 2006-23,Cole Whitaker/Greg A. Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH20-06-2, Tracking No. 17-06-PUD, a request to rezone a 79.9 acre parcel in the Groveland area from (A) Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for a proposed development, as presented.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would be in favor of the mixed-use development, rather than the straight commercial.

            Commr. Pool interjected that he felt the commercial opportunity that may arise would present more job opportunities for the local residents and that, with the 80/20 mix the County now has, he would like for the Board to create as many job opportunities as they possibly can.  He stated that, if it should go to the commercial side, it is what the property and market would bear.  He stated that his motion allows the applicants to do what they want to do - it does not mandate that they do one or the other.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would not want to see the entire amount of square footage be utilized for commercial.  She stated that, although the County needs commercial, she feels a mixed-use is important, but would go along with the motion.  She called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH8-06-5 – R-1 TO PUD - ROGER D. AND BARBARA G.

            HOWARD/ROBERTO BOSELLI – TRACKING NO. 6-06-PUD

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this request.  The request is to rezone a 10 +/- acre parcel of property located in the Lady Lake area, on the east side of Gray’s Airport Road, just south of the intersection with Lake Griffin Road, from R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the construction of a 17 lot single family residential subdivision, as shown on the conceptual plan included with the rezoning application.  The site lies within the Urban Expansion Future Land Use (FLU) Designation and has a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, which the development will be limited to.  The proposed rezoning and its subsequent land use are consistent with the land uses and development patterns in the immediate area, which consists of low density residential properties.  The PUD requires 25% open space and a 15 foot wide vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the site.  The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs); however, the Comprehensive Plan requires residential developments in the Urban Expansion FLU category to have central potable water service and the Town of Lady Lake has provided documentation confirming that water and sewer services are not available.  The applicants state that central water will be available from Aqua Utilities, which they must connect to at the time of development, or provide an interim potable water system.  The Public Works Department has indicated the following:  All subdivision lots shall have internal access; the Gray’s Airport Road entrance shall meet sight distance requirements; and additional right of way dedication must be required.  The School Board has indicated that the proposed rezoning has the potential to add seven (7) new students to the Lake County School System.  Staff recommends denial of the request, due to the fact that it is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.9, which states residential densities shall be compatible with available public facilities and their capacity to serve development and there are not adequate public facilities to serve the proposed development.

            It was noted that the applicants have offered to restrict the development to an age restricted (55+) community.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, although the PUD requires 25% open space, in looking at the conceptual plan, it is not what she would consider clustering, and questioned whether staff had looked at doing conservation easements on the lots themselves, in order to gain additional open space.

            Ms. Allen stated that that could be an option.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would prefer it to an age restricted community, which she is not in favor of.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Darcy Unroe, Unroe Engineering, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that they agree with staff’s recommendation.

            Mr. Roger Howard, one of the applicants, addressed the Board stating that they have complied with everything they have been asked to do, relative to the last hearing.  He stated that the only reason the Zoning Board denied the request was due to the number of students being added to the school system.  He stated that they made adjustments to comply with said issue, only to be denied again, based on something else.

            Ms. Jean Roop, a resident of Lady Lake, addressed the Board, on behalf of some of the residents in the area that could not be present at this meeting.  She stated that they are concerned about their privacy being affected by the proposed subdivision; their wells; the fact that they do not want what is known as “affordable housing”, or “low cost housing” constructed near their homes; a concern about an increase in the amount of traffic on Gray’s Airport Road; and whether the subdivision will have a wall constructed around it, noting that she currently has a view of the lake near her home and would not want that view to be obstructed, in that she feels it would ruin the value of her property.

            Commr. Stivender interjected that, when she speaks about “affordable housing”, she means houses that are affordable for people to live in, she does not mean an “affordable housing” program.  She stated that the County needs affordable housing, however, noted that today it is $200,000, which she does not consider affordable.  She stated that her understanding of the request is that the subdivision is not going to be something that will not fit into the community, but will be an upgrade for the community.

            It was noted that the applicants submitted a letter to the Board indicating that the houses being proposed for the subdivision will start at $240,000.00.

            Ms. Patricia Bailey, a resident of Lady Lake, addressed the Board stating that her concern about the rezoning request is the number of homes (17) being proposed for such a small parcel (10 acres) of property and the additional volume of traffic that the subdivision will generate on Gray’s Airport Road.  She stated that she is concerned about possible contamination of the wells in the area, as well as the number of students that will be added to the school system, and she would like to see the subdivision be kept at one house per acre, if possible, which would keep it rural.

            Mr. Bob Jesanis, a resident of Lady Lake, addressed the Board stating that his fiancée, Ms. Bailey, loves her home and the area in which she lives, which was zoned R-1 (one house per acre) when she purchased it.  He stated that the property in question is smaller than it appears, in that two and a half of the acres are part of a pond and another one-half acre is considered wetlands, leaving only seven acres for the proposed subdivision, rather than the 10 acres indicated in the request.  He stated that, on behalf of some of their neighbors that could not be present at this meeting, they would like to keep the area zoned R-1.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-24, Roger and Barbara Howard/Roberto Boselli, Rezoning Case No. PH8-06-4, Tracking No. 6-06-PUD, a request to rezone a 10 +/- acre parcel in the Lady Lake area from R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the construction of a 17 lot single family residential subdivision, as presented.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH28-06-5 – A TO PUD – LOUIS MEUCCI/MARK AND

            SUSAN DAIGNEAU/GREG A. BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND

            REGIONAL PLANNERS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 21-06-PUD

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this request.  The request is to rezone a 106.58 +/- acre parcel of property, located in the Lady Lake area, southwest of the CR 466 and Rolling Acres Road intersection, in the Urban Expansion Future Land Use (FLU) Designation, from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), to allow for an age restricted (55+) residential subdivision, consisting of four (4) dwelling units per acre.  The proposed development will have no impact on the schools in the County and the Town of Lady Lake will provide central water and sewer services.  Staff finds the applicants’ request to be consistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and its Comprehensive Plan, therefore, recommends approval of the request.  The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, as well, by a 6-0 vote.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the County did not have any information on the schools, because it is a request for an age restricted community, however, noted that she felt, in the future, it would be important for the County to have said information, just in case they did not go with the age restricted community.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that age restriction is one way for the County to meet school concurrency, because there would be no impact to the schools.  He stated that the Board could restrict a development, by indicating that it has to meet school concurrency, and then an applicant can go either way – if there is capacity, they can allow children in the development, but, if there is not capacity, they can eliminate them.  He stated that it could be done, if the County had the appropriate LDRs and Comprehensive Plan policies in place.

            Commr. Pool noted that, according to the demographics, more young people are moving into the County than older people.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board, representing the applicants, stating that Mr. Minkoff’s proposal would be fine with them, however, noted that, according to all the statistics, there is still a need for age restricted communities, especially as the baby-boomers come on line.

            Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, addressed the Board stating that, with regard to Commr. Pool’s statement about the County getting younger, rather than older, the south Lake County area is getting younger, but the rest of the County is getting older.  He stated that there was some opposition to this request, however, noted that he and the applicants met with the homeowners in the Lady Lake area, to try to alleviate any concerns they might have.  He stated that they came away with only one issue not being resolved, being an emergency access gate that is to be installed in the development, which he noted is being required on a normal basis for all developments, at which time he submitted, for the record, a Conceptual Development Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the proposed development, which shows said gate.  He stated that he contacted several members of staff, to try to relieve the applicants of that requirement, but they were not receptive, even though he made the argument that the proposed development will have a dual boulevard at the entrance to the development, should there be a problem with one of the accesses being blocked.  He stated that the abutting property owners would also like to request that that requirement be deleted and that the dual access boulevard be utilized for emergencies only.   He stated that, if that does not go away, their alternative would be to install a crash gate, sign it, and do a reinforced stabilization between the cul-de-sac and said gate, because there is a public right of way that links the two, and comply as required.  He reiterated the fact that it is not the applicant’s choice to have said gate - it is staff’s requirement and that, if they deem the dual access boulevard is appropriate and satisfies that requirement, the people who are opposed to it will probably be satisfied.  He noted that emergency vehicles will utilize Rolling Acres Road and will only utilize the crash gate, if there is blockage at both entryways.  He stated that, other than that, they know of no other issues.

            Ms. Michele Hewitt, a resident of Lady Lake, addressed the Board stating that she was representing the San Polo Villas Homeowners Association, with regard to Via San Polo Road, noting that it is the only way in and out of their subdivision.  She stated that they do not want their road being utilized for any type of access.  She thanked the applicants for meeting with them and answering their questions, noting that they were very gracious and made them all feel very comfortable.  She stated that the only issue they have is said road being used for emergencies, noting that the proposed development is going to have a dual access boulevard, so the residents should not need to use their road at all.  She stated that they welcome the development, but they do not want the residents using their road and hope that the Board will close the access to it altogether, so that it cannot be used.  She submitted, for the record, a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit A) from their attorney, Mr. Michael D. Millhorn, Esquire, requesting, on behalf of the homeowners association, a mandate closing off the right of way at the west end of Via San Polo Road.

            Commr. Stivender stated that, over the years, there have been problems with said requirement in some of the old plats and questioned why the County is still requiring it.

            Mr. Richey stated that, historically, a dual access boulevard has been required for developments, in lieu of installing a crash gate, or emergency access gate, which the applicants are being asked to do with this development.  He stated that neither the applicants, nor the residents of San Polo Villas, feel the gate should be required, since the proposed development will have a dual access boulevard, and would like to have the requirement removed.

            Mr. Beliveau readdressed the Board stating that, for clarification purposes, in their applications, they had a five foot (5’) side setback on all their single family lots, but the Ordinance references a seven and a half foot (7.5’) setback.  He stated that they would like for the Ordinance to be corrected to read five feet.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether the applicants could find more opportunities for open space, noting that the 25% open space being proposed for the development is minimum, and was informed by Mr. Beliveau that the applicants have commissioned for a tree survey to be conducted, to have all the trees on the property identified, noting that they are going to try to retain as many of the trees as possible and weave the roads through them as much as possible.  He stated that there will be open space within the pods, as well, noting that they are going to try to strive for something better than the 25% alluded to in the request.

            Commr. Stivender clarified the fact that language regarding the applicant having to meet school concurrency needed to be inserted on Page 2 of the Ordinance, under Paragraph A.1.b. - Land Uses, as well as the fact that the side setback footage requirement needed to be changed from 7.5 feet to 5 feet from the side property line.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-25, Louis Meucci/Mark and Susan Daigneau/Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Rezoning Case No. PH28-06-5, Tracking No. 21-06-PUD, adding language requiring the applicants to meet school concurrency, before any residential construction begins; changing the side setback requirement in the Ordinance from 7.5 feet to 5 feet; and deleting the requirement for an emergency access gate to be installed for the proposed development (The Highlands at Lady Lake) at Via San Polo Road, due to the development having a dual access boulevard at the entrance to the development.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH24-06-3 – A TO C-2 - JIM LYDEN AND DON

            NICHOLSON/CRAIG J. KOSUTA – TRACKING NO. 26-06-Z

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this request.  The request is to rezone a 10.5 +/- acre parcel located between the City of Leesburg and the Turnpike Interchange, off of US 27.  It lies within the Suburban Future Land Use (FLU) Designation, with a Neighborhood Activity Center Designation overlay, which allows up to 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area.  The applicants want to rezone the property for commercial uses, to support the market conditions in the area.  The requested rezoning and the intensity are not compatible with the Neighborhood Activity Center Designation overlay and would be more appropriate in the Community Activity Center Designation overlay; however, the existing underlying Suburban Future Land Use Designation would prohibit a change to a Community Activity Center Designation overlay.  The subject parcel meets the commercial location criteria for a Neighborhood Activity Center and fronts on an arterial (US 27) at the intersection of a minor collector (Bridges Road).  Staff finds that the applicants’ request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial) is inconsistent with the policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), therefore, recommends denial of the request.  The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 6-0 vote.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Craig Kosuta, Craig Kosuta & Associates, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that what staff stated was correct, however, noted that there is another aspect to the request, which he feels is why the Zoning Board recommended approval of it.  He stated that the property also meets the criteria for a Community Activity Center, having access roads, internalization of roads, control of access points on a main highway, and everything that goes with that.  He stated that there are two key pieces, being:  (1) the Suburban district specifically states that one can rezone, without a change in the land use, if one meets the criteria, which the applicants do; and (2) if one is adjacent to a C-3 employment district, one can rezone without a land use change, at which time he noted that a C-3 employment district exists across Hwy. 27 from the property in question.  He stated that the whole package of the area is set up for that flexibility and with meeting the Community Activity Center criteria within the Suburban Future Land Use Designation requirement.  He noted that central water and sewer, which is required by the LDRs, will be furnished by the City of Leesburg, at which time he noted that he is involved with a parcel of property across Hwy. 27, as well.

            Commr. Stivender questioned whether the PUD on the west side of Hwy. 27 had been annexed into the City of Leesburg yet and was informed that it had not yet been annexed into the City.

            Mr. Kruse stated that said development, which consists of residential, commercial, and an office component, was The Golden Fleece PUD and was on the Rezoning Agenda for March 28, 2006.  He stated that it is owned by the same applicants and was originally supposed to have come before the Board at this meeting.  He stated that the residential part of it, located on the north side of the PUD, has been platted and is undergoing construction of the residential units.  He stated that an application has been submitted requesting a change to the PUD, to increase the commercial and lower the office component.  He stated that staff’s biggest concern is the fact that, if one looks at the location in question, it has the potential to exceed 400,000 square feet of commercial, which triggers the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) threshold.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned what caused the other parcel of property (The Golden Fleece PUD) to be put on the Rezoning Agenda a month behind the request currently being heard by the Board and was informed by Mr. Kruse that staff had requested a letter from the applicants for a clearance letter from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).  He stated that he felt the Board should hear all the cases together.

            Mr. Kosuta informed the Board that the main reason the Golden Fleece PUD was postponed was due to the school concurrency issue, noting that the applicants were looking towards going to a mix that would be more appropriate for the area, would be more supportable, and was more livable.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he definitely felt all the cases should be heard together, since the applicants own all three parcels of property scheduled to come before the Board – the two that are on this meeting’s agenda and The Golden Fleece PUD, scheduled to come before the Board on March 28, 2006.

            Mr. Kosuta stated that the parcel of property located across Hwy. 27 from the parcel in question is not contiguous - they are separate parcels and his clients have no intention of developing them as contiguous.  He stated that the applicants are going to construct their own building on the 10.5 acre parcel and the 29.9 acre parcel is ideally situated, from all the demographics, to be a C-2 piece of property, which is what the applicants are requesting, however, noted that it is not in any master plan – that half of it may be sold tomorrow and somebody else may do their own thing with it.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she would prefer to postpone this request and hear all the cases at the same time, however, noted that she would like for the Board to hear the commercial cases before the residential one, so that the applicants understand that, if the Board approves the commercial on that side of the road, then they need to amend their PUD, but, if the Board does not approve their request for commercial, they may want to keep their commercial in their PUD.

            Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that staff feels it would be appropriate for the Board to be able to consider both the east and the west sides of Hwy. 27, in terms of the land use pattern that is being created, therefore, would support looking at the area more comprehensively, in the sequence that Commr. Stivender suggested.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she also felt the Board should hear all the cases together.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board postponed action regarding Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson/Craig Kosuta & Associates, Rezoning Case No. PH24-06-3, Tracking No. 26-06-Z; and Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson/Craig Kosuta & Associates, Rezoning Case No. PH25-06-3,Tracking No. 27-06-Z, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of March 28, 2006, to be heard prior to hearing The Golden Fleece PUD, Rezoning Case No. PH16-06-3.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH22-06-5 – A TO R-2 – ROBERT GRANGER, JR.

            TRACKING NO. 29-06-Z

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this request.  The request is to rezone a 6.4 acre parcel that is presently vacant and zoned A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision.  Potable water will be supplied by a private central water system and sanitary sewer disposal will be achieved via individual septic tanks.  The maximum allowable density is 2.5 dwelling units per acre, but the applicant is only requesting two dwelling units per acre.  The desired use is consistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and its Comprehensive Plan; however, the Lake County Schools Growth Planning Department has indicated that the proposed rezoning has the potential to contribute five (5) new students to the County’s school system, which would have an adverse impact on it.  Based upon said impact, staff was recommending denial of the request.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and displayed an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the property in question, stating that the property is sandwiched between existing PUDs; the rezoning being requested is a lower density than what currently exists in the area; it will have a very de minimis impact on the school system; it is infill; it is compatible; and it is an appropriate land use change.  She asked the Board to approve the request.

            Commr. Hill questioned whether Ms. Campione had met with Mr. Bill Kemper, who had appeared before the Zoning Board representing his daughter in law, who owns property in the Wedgewood subdivision, regarding an issue involving one of the roads in the area, and was informed that it was a homeowners association civil matter.

            There being no further individuals 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 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-26, Robert and Mary Granger, Rezoning Case No. PH22-06-5, Tracking No. 29-06-Z, a request to rezone a 6.4 acre parcel in the Grand Island area from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision, as presented.

            REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

            UTILITY EASEMENT TO CITY OF GROVELAND FOR LIFT STATION

            LOCATED IN CHRISTOPHER C. FORD COMMERCE PARK (LAKE COUNTY

            CENTRAL PARK)

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this was a request to grant a utility easement to the City of Groveland, for a lift station that was constructed on Lot 3, in the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, without an easement having been granted to them for utilities, when Southern States Utilities owned the plant.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved and authorized proper signatures on a Utility Easement to the City of Groveland, for a lift station that is located on Lot 3, in the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park (Lake County Central Park).

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            INCREASE IN COUNTY HEALTH CARE PLAN FEES

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the County will be increasing its health care plan fees, in order to have a more consolidated approach to the plan.  She noted that staff will be bringing some ideas back to the Board at a later date.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            NEXT SCHEDULED SCHOOL CONCURRENCY MEETING

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that staff is trying to schedule the next School Concurrency Meeting for Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 1:00 p.m., at Lake Receptions, at which time Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the lawyers have met and are writing a draft interlocal agreement that will contain several options for the group to consider.  He stated that, hopefully, said draft will be completed and distributed to the Board this week, which will give them a chance to meet, go through it, and form their positions on the options that have been laid out before the March 16th meeting, possibly at the Board Meeting scheduled for March 14, 2006.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2

            IBINI TERA LAKES CLEANUP PROJECT

            Commr. Pool stated that he would like to applaud those individuals that participated in the recent Ibini Tera Lakes Cleanup Project, noting that they did a great job.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2

            ANNUAL PIG ON THE POND EVENT IN CLERMONT

            Commr. Pool reminded everyone about the annual “Pig on the Pond” event, to be held March 9-11, 2006, in Clermont.  He noted that the band, Confederate Railroad, will be performing March 9th and the tickets will be $12.00 each.  He stated that it is a great event and encouraged everyone to attend.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3

            ILLNESS IN FAMILY

            Commr. Stivender thanked everyone for their thoughts, prayers, and consideration during the last month, with regard to the illness of her father.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3

            REDUCTION IN SCHOOL IMPACT FEES

            Commr. Stivender informed the Board that she had received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Beard, with regard to an issue that has been addressed by the Board before and one that she feels might need to be addressed again, which is a reduction in the impact fees for those people that are over the age of 55, noting that, if one does not live in an age restricted (55+) community, they have to pay school impact fees. She stated that the couple in question is 64 years of age and they have no children or grandchildren, but have to pay school impact fees.  She stated that she would like for the County Manager, Ms. Cindy Hall, to reply to the letter, explaining the situation.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5

            LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE

            Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he would be attending a Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C. next week, therefore, would not be present at the March 7th Board Meeting.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4

            DROWNING PREVENTION MONTH IN LAKE COUNTY

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2006-30, proclaiming May, 2006, as Drowning Prevention Month in Lake County.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4

            EVENT HONORING T. H. POOLE

            Commr. Hanson informed the Board that the Lake Eustis Institute and the City of Eustis Library put on an event Monday, February 27, 2006, honoring Mr. T. H. Poole, for his contributions to not only Lake County, but to the Nation, in finding peaceful solutions to some of the issues involving the Civil Rights Movement.

            REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY (CONT’D.)

            EUSTIS HIGH SCHOOL BOY’S BASKETBALL TEAM

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded those present that the Eustis High School Boy’s Basketball Team will be playing in the State’s semi-finals on Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 4:00 p.m., in Lakeland.

            ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK