A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 22, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 22, 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: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing two items under Reports and one item under Other Business.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

            Budget

            Request for approval of purchase order change order, in the amount of $109,571.18; and Budget Transfer, in the amount of $85,000.00, for Greater Pines Municipal Services.

            Community Services

            Request for approval of Proclamation No. 2006-145, declaring September, 2006, to be Teen Court Month, to be celebrated in conjunction with National Youth Court Month, to be presented at the Board Meeting scheduled for September 5, 2006.

            Public Works

            Request for approval of payment, in the amount of $24,595.00, to B.P. Products North America, Inc., for intersection improvements associated with Grand Highway, at the intersection of US 27, in Clermont.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            BUDGET

            ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES SURVEY RESPONSES TO FLORIDA

            ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR 2007 FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE SESSION

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that they had before them an annual survey from the Florida Association of Counties, for the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, and that they had been given staff’s input on the matter, along with a list of items that were specifically more policy related than just a simple answer.  He stated that, if they were concerned about any of said items, they could open up a discussion regarding them, but that, if they were happy with the policy recommendations, staff would forward them to Tallahassee, on the Board’s behalf.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Budget for approval of the annual legislative issues survey responses to the Florida Association of Counties, for the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, as presented.

            COMMUNITY SERVICES

            LAKE COUNTY VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

            Ms. Helena Osborne-Ponsi, Volunteer Coordinator for Lake County’s Volunteer Program, addressed the Board and requested that the Volunteer Program formally serve as Lake County’s Volunteer Center and that it be renamed VolunteerLAKE.  She gave a brief background history of the County’s Volunteer Program, noting that it was established by the Board in August of 1993 and that it was an internal volunteer program, coordinating county volunteer services within county departments.  She stated that, in April of 1998, it got expanded and the role was to include new initiatives, which promoted volunteerism through most of the constitutional offices of the County, at which time the Emergency Operations Center was added, as well as Emergency Support Function 15, which is volunteers and donations management, as a primary responsibility of the Lake County Volunteer Program.  She stated that, in May of 2002, once again the program’s role expanded, to include the core competencies of a volunteer center, thereby, assisting the citizens and numerous non-profits, local clubs, churches, governmental organizations, and businesses to mobilize volunteers and resources, to continue to deliver creative solutions to the challenges that they found within the community.  She stated that they were able to add additional programs and services, until the Summer of 2004, noting that the hurricanes caused them to rethink volunteerism even more and they added an additional component, as seen in the Florida Volunteer Centers.  She stated that it was at that point that their ultimate goal was to become a Volunteer Center, to not only help Lake County residents, but also those counties that were in need of assistance, which they did in 2004, and, with the training that they provided in early 2005, they were very helpful with Hurricane Katrina. She stated that the Lake County Volunteer Program has come a long way, noting that it is one of ten communities in the Nation that has been selected for one of their initiatives.

            The Board thanked Ms. Ponsi for all her hard work and for being at the helm of a wonderful volunteer program, and the volunteers, for the thousands of dollars that they save the County, by volunteering their services.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services that the Lake County Volunteer Program formally serve as Lake County’s Volunteer Center and that it be renamed VolunteerLake.

            GROWTH MANAGEMENT

            AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH PLANNING WORKS, LLC

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that the County had a contract with Planning Works, LLC, as part of the County’s school concurrency efforts, however, noted that they did not use them as much as was originally anticipated, so this request was for approval of an amendment, to free up the money for use in other areas.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval of an amendment to the contract with Planning Works, LLC, as presented.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS

            PETITION NO. 1081 – MILTON S. JENNINGS/REPRESENTATIVE DON

            GRIFFEY, GRIFFEY ENGINEERING – GROVELAND

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right of way and cease maintenance on Republic Drive and to vacate a lot line drainage and utility easements in the Plat of Lake County Central Park (Commerce Park), Phase 2, and in the Home Depot Plat, in the Groveland area.  He stated that the request has been postponed a couple of times, noting that the County has not been able to get a definitive answer from Home Depot, as to whether they were in favor of the request, or whether they objected to it.  He stated that, being they are an adjacent property owner, they were legally notified – staff just has not been able to get a response from them.  He stated that staff was recommending approval to vacate the right of way and move forward with the road vacation.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Don Griffey, Griffey Engineering, addressed the Board stating that what was transpiring was the vacation of the old platted right of way, so that the County could do a plat of what was always identified as Phase 3 of the commerce park, which is Lot No. 35.  He stated that the County is planning to bring a spine road more to the middle of the property, instead of on the north end, which makes it a little more practical.  He stated that they had been through the preliminary plat process with staff and this was one of the conditions of approval that they were following up with.  He stated that, although the County had not received any written correspondence from Home Depot, they had responded verbally that they were not opposed to the vacation.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-146 - Petition No. 1081, by Milton S. Jennings, Representative Don Griffey, Griffey Engineering, to vacate right of way and cease maintenance on Republic Drive (No. 2223); and to vacate lot line drainage and utility easements, in the Plat of Lake County Central Park, Phase 2, and in the Home Depot Plat, located in Section 29, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, in the Groveland area – Commission District 3, as presented, contingent upon recording of plat known as Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, Phase III.

            PETITION NO. 1084 – HARRY SUGGS/LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS

            CLERMONT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of Suggs Road, in the Clermont area.  He stated that there was an original request from the applicant, Mr. Suggs, to vacate from the property where he stores equipment to CR 561, however, noted that there is a common piece of property that accesses Lake Nellie, for the lots in Lake Nellie Shores to have legal access to the lake, and there is a right of way that is dedicated, with the intention of the right of way being a half right of way for Suggs Road, with Mr. Suggs acquiring the other half some time in the future.  He stated that development east and north of the property in question is creating a problem with people driving onto Mr. Suggs property and into his orange grove.  He stated that the right of way being vacated will better identify the end of the road, where there is public right of way.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

            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. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-147 - Petition No. 1084, by Harry Suggs, Lake County Public Works, to vacate right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of Suggs Road (No. 0739), located in Section 13, Township 23, Range 25, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as presented.

            PETITION NO. 1088 – ANTHONY J. DANIELL – CLERMONT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right of way in the Plat of Clermont Farms, in the Clermont area.  He stated that there are several new plats located to the north and south of the property in question and that it was a piece of right of way that has not yet been vacated from the original plats, so it sits as a rear lot line access to those lots located to the north and south.  He displayed an aerial of the property in question, noting that, when the request came forward, the property owners that are identified on the aerial with green dots showed an interest in vacating said right of way, but the property owners identified with red dots on the aerial did not want it to be vacated.  He stated that staff’s original recommendation was to vacate the right of way, however, noted that there are people that are maintaining it as part of their backyards and some are using it as ingress and egress to their properties, through gates.  He stated that, originally, there were fifteen (15) letters in favor of the request and eleven (11) letters in opposition to it; however, there are now ten (10) letters in favor of the request and twelve (12) letters in opposition to it, at which time he submitted, for the record, a packet of information containing the aerial alluded to earlier, with the red and green dots showing those property owners in favor and in opposition to the request; copies of the letters in favor of the request, as well as those in opposition to it; a list of comments and concerns provided by the applicant, dated August 18, 2006; and an unsigned statement from Stewart Title, also provided by the applicant, regarding the reversion of the right of way, if vacated.  He stated that staff’s recommendation was for approval of the request, because it eliminates a right of way that does not have any potential to be paved, or that will be used for drainage purposes, etc.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the southern portion of the right of way was platted over by Hidden Hills, so the roadway is only half of the width that it originally was, which was 60 feet.  He stated that the plat to the south platted over the southern 30 feet, but the plat to the north only came to the northern line of the right of way and left the 30 foot right of way there.  He stated that there still may be a private right of access across the 30 foot portion of the right of way, noting that the County only vacates the public interest.

            It was noted that the request involves just one plat that was left over from the Plat of Clermont Farms, in Section 12, which is a much older plat, and that the southern half got the additional right of way, but the northern half did not.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff could continue to work with the property owners, to try to come to some sort of resolution.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Anthony Daniell, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he was trying to have the right of way vacated for multiple reasons, which he discussed with the Board.  He stated that he maintains said right of way and has done so for the past 11 ½ years, so he uses it to park vehicles on and to go in and out of his property, but is concerned about the safety of his son and his friends, when they play in the yard, in that cars drive back and forth down the right of way.  He stated that access to the right of way takes away from his privacy, as well.  He stated that he feels it would be a win/win situation for everyone involved, if the right of way was vacated.

            Mr. Joe Holt, a resident of Rose Hill Subdivision, 1st Addition, addressed the Board stating that his property would be the one that would be most directly impacted by the vacation of the right of way.  He stated that, while the vacation of the right of way will enlarge his property, it will also increase the amount of property tax that he would be forced to pay and it will force him to maintain a larger area of acreage, all of which would be done against his will.  He stated that, although he has not made extensive improvements to his property, to date, he has installed a double gate that opens onto the easement and its existence, plus the public access of the easement, would allow him to officially and economically make improvements to his home.  He stated that, due to the pie shape of his lot, with a very narrow frontage, making improvements through the sides of his property would be extremely difficult and very costly, noting that there is an eight foot area between the side of his house and his property line.  He stated that it would require that a six foot fence around his property be torn down and that several large trees on the side of his property be removed, as well.  He noted a concern about the fact that he does not have city water, that he only has a well, and should there be a problem with his well, it may be impossible to repair without access through the easement.  He stated that a lack of water for his property will render it virtually worthless.  He stated that he was appealing to the Board to follow established Florida law, which directs the Board to use its discretion to vacate or continue the public right of way to the general interest and welfare of the public.  He stated that the Board must determine that the vacation would not be injurious to the public welfare, or violate individual property rights, and must not act in an arbitrary manner, without regards to the interest and convenience of the public.  He stated that the Board must find that vacating the right of way is in the best interest of the public and not simply the possible increase in gain of one property owner.

            Mr. Brian Gaitan, a resident of Rose Hill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that he maintains the 30 foot portion of the right of way in question and is willing to pay his part of the taxes for said property.  He stated that the 30 foot right of way was taken from his property, when the adjacent subdivision to the south was constructed, and that he feels the property owners that were affected should have their 30 feet given back to them.

            Mr. Stivender readdressed the Board, stating that what Mr. Gaiten was referring to occurred in 1922.

            Mr. Steve Covert, along with his wife Donna, residents of Rose Hill Subdivision, addressed the Board regarding a concern about the property located directly behind them, on the southern portion of the right of way, which is owned by the Lynns, residents of Oak Hill Estates, who have had a sprinkler system installed in their yard to the north of the right of way, which is past the 30 feet in question.  He stated that he and his wife would like to have a resolution to the problem, so that they will know what to do with their property.  He stated that it seems to be in their best interest that the right of way be vacated, giving them back the 30 feet that was taken away from them, noting that they would be willing to pay the taxes and upkeep on it.

            The Board suggested that the Coverts apply to have the old cul-de-sac (before Rose Hill Subdivision, 1st Addition, was constructed and the cul-de-sac was opened up) located in the front of their property vacated, which would enlarge their front yard.  It was noted that the Public Works staff would assist them in doing so.

            Mr. Robert Bains, along with his wife Elizabeth, residents of Rose Hill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that he and his wife were opposed to the vacation of the right of way, primarily because of the opportunities that the property owners have to develop their property.  He stated that they have put many improvements into their property, including a pool, a patio, a patio roof, approximately 8 yards of concrete, numerous pallets of sod, and most recently a large shed and workshop.  He stated that all these improvements were done, by utilizing the right of way, and the only reason they were able to do that was through the generosity of their neighbor, Mr. Holt, who granted them access across the corner of his lot.  He stated that, in making said improvements, they have increased the value of their home by approximately $100,000 and, if the right of way is closed, the benefit that they had of utilizing the right of way will be denied to other homeowners in the subdivision.  He stated that all the residents of Rose Hill purchased their property, with the understanding that the right of way was a legal right of way for them and they have used it over the years, for numerous improvement projects, pools, etc. that not only benefit individual homeowners, but the entire community.  He stated that the majority of the residents in the area are in the community for the long term, noting that it is where they want to live and raise their children, but it is evident that the applicant, Mr. Daniell, is interested in cashing in on land that he has used for years and taking that money and leaving the neighborhood.  He stated that changes in the right of way will be left for those families who are still there and have an investment in the area.  A statement was read into the record by Mrs. Bains, suggesting that the right of way behind Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 be vacated, but that the right of way behind Lots 4, 5, 6, and 15 be left open, noting that traffic utilizing the right of way is not an issue and never has been.

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

            The Board discussed possible solutions to the problem involving the right of way and the fact that, if they were to approve the vacation of the entire right of way, who would determine which families get what portion of the 30 foot right of way – whether they would have to go through a legal proceeding in civil court, to decide who gets how much of it, or whether the Board should wait until they get a legal opinion, as to who owns what, if the right of way is vacated, at which time Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the legal concepts would guide where the 30 feet would go, noting that opinions from title researchers would probably be what would be relied upon, if there ever was a dispute.  He stated that, if there was a dispute, it would be up to a judge to resolve the problem.

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool that the Board approve Resolution No. 2006-148 – Petition No. 1088, by Anthony J. Daniell, to vacate a right of way in the Plat of Clermont Farms, located in Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as amended, vacating the right of way for Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Rose Hill Subdivision (area shown in red on map), but denying the vacating of the right of way for the remainder of the lots located along the right of way, until some issues involving the applicant’s neighbors and their access to their properties is resolved.

            Commr. Stivender seconded the motion, but asked that Commr. Pool amend it, in that, should there be a negotiated settlement, the applicant will not be charged again to reapply to the County for vacation of the right of way.

            Commr. Pool amended his motion to include a caveat that the applicant not be charged twice, should he be able to resolve some of the issues involving his neighbors and resubmit his request at a later date.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

            PETITION NO. 1089 – EDWARD A. NEAL/REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD L.

            DOWNING, ESQUIRE – CLERMONT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate rights of way, in the Plat of Lake Highlands Company, in the Clermont area, in conjunction with the replat known as Colina Bay.  He stated that it is to clear title on the property, eliminating the old plat; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, representing the applicant, Colina Bay, addressed the Board stating that this project has moved forward, noting that the infrastructure is in place and a preliminary plat has been approved for the project.  She stated that the applicant is at the point of doing the final plat and was not aware of the fact that, in Lake County, they needed to vacate the underlying plat, before they platted it, which is where they are today.  She stated that the Public Works Department has been furnished with a survey that shows the dedicated easements for ingress and egress for those property owners to the north of the property in question and asked that the Board approve the plat vacation, so that the applicant can move forward with the project.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-149 - Petition No. 1089, by Edward A. Neal, Representative Harold L. Downing, Esquire, to vacate a right of way in the Plat of Lake Highlands Company, located in Section 23, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in conjunction with the re-plat known as Colina Bay, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2 and 3, as presented.

            PETITION NO. 1090 – HOWARD B. LEFKOWITZ/REPRESENTATIVE AARON

            D. MERCER, BOOTH ERN STRAUGHAN & HIOTT  – CLERMONT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of Grassy Lake Road and N. Grassy Lake Road, in conjunction with a replat known as Founders Ridge, in the Clermont area.  He gave a brief history of what has transpired with this case, up to this point in time, noting that the County is working on an agreement with Founders Ridge, to reconstruct a portion of Grassy Lake Road to the west, prior to any construction occurring on the site.  He stated that Grassy Lake Road runs north and south and N. Grassy Lake Road goes off to the west.  He stated that there are tight curves and steep slopes throughout the area; however, as part of the development of the site, they will all go away and the new alignment will run along the edge of the lake and up the hill, at a much more gradual slope, and the north/south traffic will go around and slope down to the north.  He stated that there is going to be a lot of construction going on in the area, so staff would strongly recommend that the Board close said roads, to allow for the construction traffic, in building and developing Founders Ridge and the platting of the new roads, and then, once the new roads are platted, in place, and approved, that the two roads in question be reopened.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Aaron Mercer, with the engineering firm of Booth Ern Straughan & Hiott, in Tavares, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that they concur with staff’s recommendations on this issue, noting that the property is currently in the City of Minneola’s jurisdiction and the applicant has a preliminary plat that has been approved.  He stated that the current construction drawings are being drawn up and the applicant will be working with county staff to submit right of way permits for Grassy Lake and N. Grassy Lake Roads, as they commence the construction process.  He asked the Board to approve the vacation of said roads.

            Ms. Patricia Donahue, the owner of a parcel of property located near the property in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she has been opposed to the PUD from the beginning and that, when she bought her property, the density on the land across the street from her property, which has been approved as Founders Ridge, was to be one dwelling unit per five acres.  She stated that she and her family sacrificed a great deal, to buy their property, noting that they moved into a home that was quite inferior to what they were used to, in order to build their dream home and raise their children in a rural area.  She stated that the area that she lives in is approximately 315 feet above sea level, the second highest point in the Peninsula of Florida, with Sugarloaf Mountain being the highest point in the Peninsula of Florida, which is approximately 345 feet above sea level.  She stated that the land has gorgeous vistas overlooking Lake Apopka, as well as three endangered species.  She stated that the County has a national treasure in its hands and appealed to the Board to stall the proposed development, noting that there is still a chance that that national treasure can be saved.

            Ms. Sherry Rife, the owner of a parcel of property on N. Grassy Lake Road, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that there were several issues that she has with the request, such as the fact that the width of N. Grassy Lake Road is only 19 feet 3 inches, rather than 28 feet, as required; the fact that trucks involved with various construction projects in the area have to drive down the middle of the road, because it is so narrow; the fact that the County does not mow the right of way along N. Grassy Lake Road, as they are required to do (June 21, 2006 was the first day that she had seen anybody mowing the right of way); the fact that some of the property owners in the area have not been informed about what is occurring with said road, being the fact that the County is taking 7 feet of the right of way along the road, which they claim they maintain, so that the road can be widened to four lanes; and the fact that the construction trucks that will be traveling the road are going to cause some safety issues, because things are not being done properly.  She submitted, for the record, various photographs that she had taken of N. Grassy Lake Road, to back up her claim that the County was not maintaining the right of way, as well as the fact that the road is not 28 feet wide, but 19 feet 3 inches wide.

            Mr. Stivender readdressed the Board stating that a traffic signal is warranted for the road, at the intersection of Hwy. 27, which the Department of Transportation is going to be installing, and the County is working with the developer of Founders Ridge to install turn lanes at the intersection, to accommodate the residents, as part of Phase 1 of the construction project.

             Ms. Susan Hillebrandt, the owner of a parcel of property on Sullivan Road, addressed the Board stating that she did not see any problem with the County vacating the rights of way and ceasing maintenance on a portion of Grassy Lake Road and N. Grassy Lake Road; however, she feels the County needs to be wise and not do things prematurely, noting that she feels the County should not vacate the rights of way in question, until the developer has met his agreement and actually constructed the road that he says he is going to construct.  She stated that, to have the rights of way in question vacated, before the developer has actually completed the new road would not be wise.  She stated that she was looking at the Developer’s Agreement between Founders Ridge and the City of Minneola and it seemed to her that the issue of the right of way being between Hwy. 27 and the western boundary of Founders Ridge should be addressed first, before even considering doing other vacations of rights of way.  She read a portion of the Developer’s Agreement into the record, with regard to the right of way and the widening of N. Grassy Lake Road, noting that she found it interesting that the City of Minneola does not want to mess with the situation of the right of way on Hwy. 27.  She stated that the City is not going to use any of its money to widen the road, and it is not going to use the power of eminent domain – it is looking at the County to do it.  She stated that a 28 foot wide section of road is what is needed, to get anything going, and, since the County does not have that and there are some problems with redefining the maintenance boundary map, she feels the County needs to hold off on widening the road.  She stated that, if it is true that the right of way in question belongs to the people that live along N. Grassy Lake Road – that it is their property, it is not right for the County to redefine the boundaries of the maintenance map and take their property.  She stated that the County should let the developer work things out with the property owners and purchase the needed property from them, if necessary, to widen the road, and not put the burden of the widening of the road on the County, or the taxpayers.

            Mr. Randall Baker, Land Art Landscape Architecture, in Orlando, addressed the Board stating that he was representing several residents that live on N. Grassy Lake Road, who are concerned about their property being taken by the County, through the creation of a right of way maintenance map, for purposes of widening the road.  He stated that one of the residents points out the fact that there is no right of way for his property - that it is only a roadway easement and that the road is actually on the northern properties.  He stated that the residents are concerned about the fact that N. Grassy Lake Road is located in a very hilly area and there is already a large amount of construction traffic that travels the road and now there will be an increase in that traffic from the Founders Ridge development, and they are concerned about endangerment to scrub jays that exist in the area.  He stated that they would urge the Board to not approve this request and wait until the entire plan is in place, noting that, when the maintenance map in question was originally drawn up, there were developments planned that are no longer in the works and a school was proposed for the area, as well.  He stated that, with all the unknowns, he did not understand why there was such a hurry to destroy the road and put the residents in another traffic nightmare situation, for something that may not happen.  He stated that, if they develop the road into a four lane road, which will connect to a two lane road, it is going to create a traffic nightmare.  He noted that a letter was sent to Attorney General Charlie Crist, regarding the “taking” of said rights of way, through the maintenance map, at which time he submitted, for the record, a packet containing a copy of said letter, along with various photographs of N. Grassy Lake Road, charts, letters from some of the property owners, etc., for the Board’s perusal.

            Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing Founders Ridge and Mr. Howard Lefkowitz, the owner of the property in question and developer of this project, addressed the Board stating that she could appreciate some of the comments that were made by the residents in the area, however, noted that their questions were raised when the developer went through the zoning process and the annexation process, which has already been concluded.  She stated that the parcel in question is now within the City of Minneola and has been zoned and become a part of the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated that the applicant started this project over two and a half years ago and was present this date requesting approval to vacate the rights of way in question, so that his property can be platted.  She stated that they have been working very closely with Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Works, in trying to make sure that they are doing what the County wants, in terms of rebuilding, and then coming back and putting in a new road.  She stated that, with regard to the comment that was made that the road is not 28 feet wide, no improvements have been made to it yet.  She stated that, when the improvements are made, the applicant will widen the road, in conformance with what is in the Developer’s Agreement with the City of Minneola.  She stated that the County improved the maintenance map for the project, so the applicant is moving along in the way that the County wants the project phased in, which is the normal procedure.  She stated that the developer will stand behind the commitment that he made, at the time that those improvements are done, however, noted that the applicant has to vacate first, before he can do the improvements.  She stated that, with regard to the letter that was sent by the residents to the Attorney General, private citizens cannot demand the Attorney General’s opinion, noting that, if they want an opinion, it must come from the local government and through an act of that local government.  She urged the Board to approve the request before them and allow the developer to move forward.

            Mr. Stivender informed the Board, for informational purposes, that there is litigation involving the maintenance map that the Board approved last month.

            Commr. Pool questioned, if the Board were to make a decision this date, whether it would be subject to and dependent upon the outcome of that litigation.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it is possible that some of the relief requested is that the map be determined to be invalid, which would mean that the right of way that county staff claims exists does not exist.  He stated that the case involved in the litigation is asking for inverse condemnation, which means that they are asking for damages and attorney’s fees against the County.

            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. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-150 - Petition No. 1090, by Howard B. Lefkowitz, Representative Aaron D. Mercer, Booth Ern Straughan & Hiott, to vacate right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of Grassy Lake Road (No. 1846) and N. Grassy Lake Road (No. 1944), in conjunction with the replat known as Founders Ridge, lying in Sections 5 and 6, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as presented.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:00 a.m.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

            STRAW BALLOT QUESTION FOR GENERAL ELECTION FOR VILLAGE

            CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

            Mr. Gary Moyer, Supervisor of the Village Center Community Development District, and a representative of The Villages, addressed the Board stating that the Village Center District provides the Recreational Amenities Program to properties lying north of CR 466 and that they have completed the vast majority of their development activity north of CR 466.  He stated that there are some citizens who, for a period of time, have requested that, since the Village Center District is a commercial district and does not have residents, they come up with a way of providing the residents the opportunity to serve as Board members, to determine the level of service that they will receive from the Village Center District.  He stated that, since they are at that point now, they are proposing to do it through a referendum and are asking the Board to approve language to go on the ballot on November 7, 2006.  He stated that they changed what the Board originally had in their Agenda package, to be responsive to the Supervisor of Elections’ request that it be put in a “Yes” or “No” format, for the ballot.  He submitted, for the record, a copy of the language that will appear on the ballot.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that said language was submitted to his office, prior to this meeting, and that they forwarded it to the Supervisor of Elections, Ms. Emogene Stegall, who approved the format and indicated that it meets the Florida Statutes.  He noted that it will have to be advertised, but that his office will take care of it.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-151, authorizing the placement of a straw ballot question on the General Election Ballot, on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, for voters within The Villages, living in Lake, Sumter, and Marion Counties, with a “Yes” or “No” slot provided on said ballot, as to whether they like the way Amenity Programs, Facilities and Services are currently being provided by the Village Center District and would prefer they continue to be operated as they are now; or whether they would prefer to change the way that Amenity Programs, Facilities and Services are being provided north of CR 466, by establishing a separate Administrative entity, by interlocal agreement, among the numbered districts, Lake County, and the Village Center District, as presented.

            REZONING

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and introduced a new Senior Planner that has been hired for his department, Ms. Karen Ginsburg.  He then informed the Board that there was a change in the Rezoning Agenda, with regard to Agenda Item No. 2, Rezoning Case No. PH80-06-3, Florida-Georgia Lutheran Church/Michael Mahler, Vice President, Tracking No. 93-06-PUD, noting that staff received a letter from Mr. Mahler requesting a 30 postponement, to provide some additional traffic information to staff, as requested at the Zoning Board Meeting, in order to allow staff to complete their Staff Report.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            No one was present in opposition to the request for a 30 day postponement.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a postponement for Rezoning Case No. PH80-06-3, Florida-Georgia Lutheran Church/Michael Mahler, Vice President, Tracking No. 93-06-PUD, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of September 26, 2006, as requested by the applicant.

            REZONING CONSENT AGENDA

            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. 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. 2006-80

            Jim Granger

            Leslie Campione, P.A.

            Rezoning Case No. PH76-06-4

            Tracking No. 91-06-RP

            A (Agriculture) to RP (Residential Professional), as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-81

            Michael and Patricia Perez

            Rezoning Case No. PH73-06-3

            Tracking No. 95-06-Z

            A (Agriculture) to AR (Agricultural Residential), as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-82

            Chester and Ivy Graham

            Rezoning Case No. CUP06/8/4-5

            Tracking No. 98-06-CUP

            Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture), as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-83

            John and Joan Pyle/Dad for Boys International, Inc.

            Rezoning Case No. PH79-06-5

            Tracking No. 99-06-CFD/AMD

            Amend CFD Ordinance No. 47-90, to delete 10 acres from a 248+/- acre site and rezone those 10 acres from CFD (Community Facility District)

            to A (Agriculture), as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-84

            Lauriston and Barbara Izlar

            Rezoning Case No. PH69-06-3

            Tracking No. 83-06-HM

            A (Agriculture) and LM (Light Industrial) to HM (Heavy Industrial), as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-85

            Heathrow Land Company, LP

            Gatwick II – Heathrow Country Estates

            Rezoning Case No. PH70-06-4

            Tracking No. 102-06-PUD/AMD

            Amendment to the Gatwick II – Heathrow Country Estates PUD Ordinance No. 2001-122, to address a minimum rear setback of five (5) feet

            for pools, spas, pool enclosures, and pool ancillary structures, as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-86

            Lake County Acreage, LLC

            Land Use Associates, LLC

            Rezoning Case No. PH74-06-4

            Tracking No. 103-06-CP/AMD

            Amend CP (Planned Commercial) District Ordinance No. 28-90, to expand permitted uses to include professional office, restaurant general, retail

            general, day care center, and primary school, as presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-87

            Thomas Beckel

            Rezoning Case No. CUP06/8/3-5

            Tracking No. 104-06-CUP

            Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning, to permit the construction and operation of a wholesale plant nursery, as

            presented.

 

            Ordinance No. 2006-88

            Jose G. Cuevas

            Rezoning Case No. ACUP004-2002

            Tracking No. 105-06-CUP/REV

            Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permit, which was for the placement of a mobile home for the care of the infirm, as presented.

 

            REZONING CASE NO. PH77-06-1 – AMEND CP ORDINANCE NO. 24-84

            ROGER ROJAS/ORLANDO GARCIA – TRACKING NO. 97-06-CP/AMD

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request to amend CP Ordinance No. 24-84, to allow an automotive repair shop.  The area lies within the Urban Expansion future land use category and is currently zoned for the specific use of an office and hardware store, as established in Ordinance No. 24-84, recorded June 25, 1984.  The request is not consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, specifically Policy 1-1.14(2)(b); however, the site could be considered to be compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses and zoning, as this is a historically commercial area.  She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request.  She stated that the County has not received any written comments in support or in opposition to the request and noted that the Zoning Board recommended approval, with a 7-0 vote, with a condition that no more than three cars shall be parked on the site overnight.

            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. Hill, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-89, Roger Rojas/Orlando Garcia, Rezoning Case No. PH77-06-1, Tracking No. 97-06-CP/AMD, a request to amend CP Ordinance No. 24-84, to allow an automotive repair shop, as presented, with a condition that no more than three (3) cars shall be parked on the site overnight.

            REZONING CASE NO. CUP06/8/5-5 – CUP IN A – DOUGLAS HILL, SR.

            LAURA BELFLOWER,VERIZON WIRELESS – TRACKING NO. 100-06-CUP

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request for a Conditional Use Permit, to lease a 75’ x 75’ parcel, for the construction and operation of a 180 foot monopole communication tower and associated accessory uses.  The owner is presently utilizing the 35.75 +/- acre parent tract, zoned Agriculture, as pasture.  The request is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations; therefore, staff recommends approval of the request.  She stated that the County received three written comments, in opposition to the request, but that the Zoning Board recommended approval, by a 5-2 vote, with the following language being added:  If Sunshower Lane/Road is to be used during the construction of the tower, applicant shall clear grade said road prior to commencing construction.  Applicant is required to reasonably maintain Sunshower Lane/Road during construction of the tower.  Applicant is required to repair any damage to Sunshower Lane/Road during or after construction of the tower caused by applicant’s construction, or use of the tower, or tower site.

            Ms. Laura Belflower, representing the applicant, Verizon Wireless, addressed the Board stating that the request is consistent with all the requirements of the Land Development Regulations, as indicated by Ms. Allen, and the applicant is in agreement with the conditions, including the additional condition that was requested by one of the adjacent property owners, as it relates to Sunshower Lane/Road, and was asking for the Board’s approval of the request.

            Mr. Joseph O’Dell, a resident of the area in question, in opposition to the request, addressed the Board stating that he and his father own 160 acres to the south of the property in question.  He stated that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states, in Section 704, that all refusals must be “reasonable” and that negative property values and a failure to abide by the setbacks will qualify for “reasonable”.  He stated that, over 14 months ago, their attorney, Ms. Leslie Campione, applied to the Department of Growth Management for the northern portion of their property to be designated Urban Expansion, under the Comprehensive Plan revisions.  He stated that the southern portion of their property was already designed Urban Expansion.  He stated that, according to the Department of Growth Management, Verizon applied for their CUP in May of 2006, however, noted that they made their request in May of 2005, for changes to be made.  He stated that the Local Planning Agency now has a new map, with the entirety of their property designated the new term, Traditional Neighborhood District.  He stated that the proposed cell tower will negatively effect their property value, at which time he noted that he had two letters (contained in the Board’s backup material) from local real estate brokers indicating that the proposed tower will have an overwhelming effect on their property value.  He discussed the results of a survey that was taken regarding what effect a cell phone tower will have on the property value of surrounding properties, at which time he stated that, for the reasons of property values, setback requirements, The Appraisal Journal survey, and local experts, they would respectfully request that the CUP be denied, noting that said tower would stick out like a sore thumb and would be very detrimental to their development plans.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. Joseph O’Dell and his father, addressed the Board stating that the property in question is in the Joint Planning Area with the Town of Lady Lake, noting that the Town has invested a huge amount of money to put their water and sewer lines down Rolling Acres Road, to accommodate growth in that area, that has been planned for some time.  She stated that they have upsized their water plant, their sewage treatment plant, and, approximately one month ago, at the Lady Lake Town Commission Meeting, they considered a very substantial land use amendment, which has since been transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs.  She stated that three very large projects were approved on Rolling Acres Road, two of them being further north of the proposed site, with the third one being in close proximity to said site, which is proposed for 660 homes.  She stated that, with the tower being located in the middle of the site in question, the applicant has the benefit of the setback that would apply, had there been a home on the site, which is four times the height of the tower setback; however, the O’Dells do not get the benefit of that setback, because they do not have a house already built on their property and are going to have to bear the burden of the fact that their setback does not meet the four times of the height of the tower requirement.  She stated that, in the future, as the O’Dells go forward with plans for their property, they will be the ones that will have to move away from the cell tower site, if it is permitted to be located on the property in question.  She discussed the Agricultural zoning that is on the property, noting that it is somewhat deceptive, because the land use on the property is Urban Expansion and there are developments that are in the pipeline that are being adopted by the Town of Lady Lake.  She stated that the development patterns in the area are for residential uses and, while there are Agricultural uses still in the area, it is where the Town of Lady Lake has been targeting its growth and has been planning, with their public facilities, for said growth.

            Ms. Campione discussed the issue of property values and what effect cell phone towers have on the marketability of lots, noting that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 changed the way that the County does business, with regard to permitting towers, at which time she noted that she had compiled some information (Opposition’s Exhibit A) regarding limitations on tower sitings that were imposed on the County, which she submitted, for the record.  She stated that, under said Act, there were six impositions placed on State and Local Governments by the Federal Government, with the County subsequently making provisions to the County’s Code, being: (1) Municipalities Cannot Prohibit Wireless Facilities; (2) Competitors Must Be Treated Equally; (3) Health Concerns May Not Be Considered; (4) Denials Must Be Based on Substantial Evidence; (5) Decisions Must Be Rendered Within a Reasonable Period of Time; and (6) No Barriers to Entry, in that no municipal law or Planning or Zoning Board action may prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the ability of an entity to provide any inter-state or intrastate telecommunications service.  She then read into the record an excerpt from a report containing general findings of Mr. Thomas Andolfo, MAI, Andolfo Appraisal Associates, Inc., with regard to whether existing telecommunications monopoles or towers, including other like-kind facilities, had caused any negative impact on abutting and/or surrounding property values, noting that the report indicates that the appraiser found no overriding evidence of adverse effects on property values, as a result of proximity to telecommunication facilities, as predominately, such facilities are located in appropriate areas, as directed by local zoning ordinances – commercial, industrial, or wireless telecommunications overlay districts.  He reported, however, that such facilities can have the potential to affect proximate neighborhood values in residential areas, if not properly accommodated for.  He states that old fashioned “common sense” is found to be the most important factor, when considering where a facility should be located and that careful selection is crucial in gaining municipal and neighborhood acceptance for a “host” cell site.  She asked the Board to find the site not to be appropriate for a tower, noting that, in light of all the development activity in the area, while the homes are not there yet, they will be there in the future – that it is an area where the Town of Lady Lake wants to grow and is where they put their municipal services.  She stated that the applicants were requesting the Board to find that the site in question is not of a width that is sufficient to sustain the proposed tower, that it has an undue burden on the O’Dells and the utilization of their property, and that it will change the use of their property, and it is unfair to burden them, as a result of what the applicant is attempting to do with their property.  She noted that the O’Dells just recently took out some of the trees on their property and are growing hay on it, but had they known that the tower in question was being proposed, they probably would not have taken the trees out.  At this time, she submitted, for the record, an article (Opposition’s Exhibit B) entitled, The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods.

            Ms. Belflower, Verizon Wireless, readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made regarding this request.

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

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County had received any correspondence from the Town of Lady Lake, with regard to the Joint Planning Area, and was informed that the County had not.  It was noted that the Town of Lady Lake is being notified about such requests, since the County now has a Joint Planning Area Agreement with them.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-90, Douglas Hill, Sr./Laura Belflower, P.A., Verizon Wireless, Rezoning Case No. CUP06/8/5-5, Tracking No. 100-06-CUP, a request for a Conditional Use Permit in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a 180 foot monopole communications tower and associated accessory uses within a 75 foot by 75 foot lease parcel/compound, with the following language being added:  If Sunshower Lane/Road is to be used during the construction of the tower, applicant shall clear grade said road prior to commencing construction.  Applicant is required to reasonably maintain Sunshower Lane/Road during construction of the tower.  Applicant is required to repair any damage to Sunshower Lane/Road during or after construction of the tower caused by applicant’s construction, or use of the tower, or tower site, as presented.

            Commr. Hill voted “No”.

            REZONING CASE NO. CUP06/8/1-5 - CUP IN A - PRESTON O. SLOAN

            TRACKING NO. 101-06-CUP

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented this case, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), for the operation of a turtle farm and alligator meat processing facility in the A (Agriculture) zoning district.  Staff finds the request is consistent with the applicable policies contained in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, more particularly, Policy 1-1.6, which permits agricultural uses within the Rural land use designation.  The raising of the turtles is considered aquaculture and is not a part of the CUP, other than the fact that it was in the request on the application.  It is a permitted use in Agriculture.  What is of question, with regard to this request, is the ability to be able to process the alligators, in that it is more of a slaughter house, which is a permitted use in Agriculture, with a CUP.  Staff found that the request was consistent with the Land Development Regulations, as well, however, wanted to clear up something that came out during the Zoning Board Meeting, being that it was understood that the applicant was a nuisance alligator trapper, but he actually processes alligators for nuisance alligator trappers.  Although the applicant processes the alligators year round, it is usually during the normal alligator hunting season, which is approximately 10 weeks long.  The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 7-0 vote, and the County received one letter of opposition.  Staff recommends approval of the request, with the conditions set forth in the CUP.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            The applicant, Mr. Preston Sloan, addressed the Board, in response to a question as to how he would be disposing of the waste from the alligators, to which he responded that it would be hauled to the dump.  He noted that he also raises soft shell turtles, but that they are not butchered on the site.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

            On a motion by Commr. 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. 2006-91, Preston O. Sloan, Rezoning Case No. CUP06/8/1-5, Tracking No. 101-06-CUP, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture), for the operation of a turtle farm and alligator meat processing facility, as presented.

            OTHER BUSINESS

            REAPPOINTMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed Ms. Susan Moore to the Comprehensive Health Care Committee, as a Representative from the Home Health Care Field Serving Lake County, representing Associated Home Health Industries of Florida, Inc.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed Mr. Tom Grimmer to serve as Hospice of Lake and Sumter Counties’ Alternate Member on the Comprehensive Health Care Committee.

            APPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COUNCIL

            It was noted that this request was being pulled until a later date.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

            OTHER BUSINESS (CONT’D.)

            APPOINTMENT  TO COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. R. J. (Bob) Fegers to the Comprehensive Health Care Committee, as a Representative of the Elderly Consumer, to complete an unexpired term ending August 16, 2007.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            AWARD TO INFORMATION OUTREACH DEPARTMENT

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that the County’s Information Outreach Department has won another award, noting that it is the fourth year in a row that said department has won an award from the Florida Festivals and Events Association.  He noted that they received the award this year for an ad (contained in backup material) advertising Lake County, which has been placed in a number of magazines.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the County has a very high quality group of employees in the Information Outreach Department and that the ad that won the award speaks for itself.  She stated that they do a very good job for Lake County.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that said department put together a power point presentation for the Board, showing some of their work, so that the Board can recognize them for their efforts.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            SCHOOL CONCURRENCY MEETING

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, reminded the Board about the School Concurrency Meeting, scheduled to be held August 23, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., at Lake Receptions, for the purpose of discussing the Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners, the School Board, and the Municipalities regarding said issue.

            Commr. Hanson stated that it is important that the School Board and the public understand that, in the meantime, until it is approved, the County is requiring new development to meet whatever stipulations come forth from the negotiations with the 14 cities, the School Board, and the County – that school concurrency is not being ignored.  She stated that, apparently, some of the School Board members may not understand that and understand what the County is doing to require that the schools be in place when the students arrive at the schools.  She stated that concurrency will require that those issues come back to the School Board and the School Board will actually be doing the negotiations with the development community.  She stated that the Board has taken a very proactive and aggressive approach to helping solve the problems involving school concurrency, which is not the perception that the general public has about the matter.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2

            ARTICLE IN LOCAL NEWSPAPER REGARDING URBAN SPRAWL

            Commr. Pool informed the Board that he wanted to address an article that recently appeared in one of the local newspapers, where he was misquoted, noting that he has received calls at his home regarding said article, questioning whether he had made the comment contained in the article, regarding the issue of urban sprawl.  He stated that he has never uttered said words, publicly or privately, and that urban sprawl is not something that he has ever embraced.  He stated that he feels the current Board has done a very good job, with regard to urban sprawl, and that he is proud of the steps that the Board has taken to ensure that what they do is properly done. He stated that, for the columnist to infer or insinuate that he would say publicly, or privately, that urban sprawl has been marvelous for Lake County is absurd and he wanted to set the record straight.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the County’s Comprehensive Plan is bridling growth, noting that, if one were to look at where it was before the County had the Comprehensive Plan, versus where it is now, they would see that it is much lower than what it was prior to the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated that it is not just the County’s Comprehensive Plan, but the Comprehensive Plan that each of the cities have, as well, in helping to control and manage growth.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3

            ANNUAL BARBEQUE FOR LEADERSHIP LAKE COUNTY

            Commr. Stivender reminded the Board about the annual barbecue for Leadership Lake County, scheduled to be held this evening, between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., at Lake-Sumter Community College, noting that the Boys and Girls Club of Lake County will be serving Chet Blackmon’s barbecue at said event.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3

            BEST PLACES TO WORK EVENT AT MISSION INN

            Commr. Stivender stated that Wednesday, August 30, 2006, a Best Places to Work event is being held at Mission Inn, with individuals such as the President of Worldwide Operations for Disney being present, as well as a health care panel, to address any questions there might be.  She stated that it was a good opportunity to hear what other people are doing and give the County some input on how it should be doing things.  She stated that there will be a discussion on economic development and those types of things and invited everyone to attend.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it was important for the Board to support said event, noting that the County could probably have a table for staff members and those people that might be interested in attending it.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONT’D.)

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5

            SELECTION OF NAME FOR NEW NORTHEAST LAKE COMMUNITY PARK

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved North Lake Community Park as the official name for the park located in Northeast Lake County.

            It was noted that the groundbreaking ceremony will be held on Thursday, August 31, 2006, with various groups in the area to attend the ceremony.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

            2006 STATE OF COUNTY EVENT

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request to schedule the 2006 State of the County event for Thursday, October 26, 2006.

            ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK