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