A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH
27, 2007
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular
session on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County
Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares,
Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Vice
Chairman; Elaine Renick; and Linda Stewart.
Commissioners Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman, and Debbie Stivender were not
present due to illness. Others present were Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney;
Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County
Manager’s Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan
Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Reverend
Jim Lively, from the St. Matthias Episcopal Church in Clermont, gave the Invocation
and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that there was an Addendum No 1, which was a
presentation for the National Boys & Girls Club. She also requested to add a request under her
business to add to the list of impact and permit fee waivers a piece of
property where the individual’s sister of one of the deceased had adopted her
children and would like to build a home suitable for the children.
On
a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously,
by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved adding the impact and permit waiver
request to the Agenda.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On
a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously,
by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1
through 9, including Addendum No. I and pulling Tab 5, as follows:
Community
Services
Request for approval of Annual Progress Reports for 2005 and 2006 Justice
Assistance Grants and to authorize 1) electronic submission by typing
Chairman's name on report documents; 2) submission of report by grant point of
contact, Robbie Hollenbeck.
Procurement
Request
for approval to (1) declare the items on the attached lists surplus to County
needs, (2) authorize the removal of all the items on the attached lists from
the County's official fixed asset inventory system records, and (3) authorize
the Procurement Services Director to sign vehicle titles.
Public
Safety
Request for approval of Agreement
between Lake County and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by the
Lake County Board of County Commissioners, providing a license to FEMA for the
use of office space in the Hunter Building.
Public Works
Request
for approval of Resolution No. 2007-42 to
install stop signs with a three-way plaque for northbound Sunnyside Dr. (4122)
and eastbound Sunnyside Dr. (4122) in the Leesburg area - Commission District
1.
Request for approval of
Resolution No. 2007-44
authorizing the reduction of the speed limit on Griffin View Dr. (7212)
and establishing the speed limit on McKinney Rd (7314) in the Lady Lake Area -
Commission District 5.
Request
for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2007-45 authorizing the reduction
of the speed limit on County Road 561 (3047) in the Minneola Area - Commission
District 2.
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to
execute satisfaction of liens for the attached eleven (11) road assessments.
Request for approval and signature on Resolution No.
2007-46 authorizing the posting of speed limit signs on the following roads:
Grant Av 5869C, Harlem Av 5869B, Dixie Av 5869A, Suanee Av 5969, Coolidge St.
5869, Getford Rd. 5970 - Commission District 1.
ADDENDUM NO. 1-I. Request for approval, execution, and
presentation of Proclamation No. 2007-50,
designating March 25-31, 2007 as National Boys & Girls Club Week to
recognize that the young people of Lake County are tomorrow’s leaders, and many
such young people need professional youth services to help them cope with a
wide range of social and financial hardships.
Commr. Renick stated that Tab 5 was changing the speed
limit on Anderson Hill Road, which was right outside Clermont, from 35 to 30
miles per hour. She commented that she
saw the letter from the residents that wanted the speed reduction or possibly a
stop sign there. She opined that she was
not sure that just lowering it five miles per hour on that road would make a
big difference, and asked Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, about
other options such as putting a stop sign in.
Mr. Stivender responded that normally stop signs were not
used for traffic speed control, and that side streets would have to be equal or
equivalent in the traffic volume to justify a four-way stop situation. He stated that he could look at the speed
report, and commented that all the side streets had 25 miles per hour speed
limits, and that a five-mile an hour increase would be normal for a collector
for the side streets.
Commr. Renick stated that she had no problems with this
being their first step, but that she did not think it would solve that problem
on Anderson Hill Road.
Mr. Stivender commented that the traffic volume on this
road should decrease as the traffic volumes on Lake Shore Drive decrease, and
that there was a rollover effect on traffic volumes that should occur on this
road as traffic on other roads north of this decrease as a result of the
southern connector giving vehicles a direct route out and making it more
difficult to get on Lake Shore Drive. He
opined that it would allow them to manage the speed better.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart
and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved Tab 5 of the
County Manager’s Consent Agenda, as follows:
Public Works
Request for approval and signature on Resolution No.
2007-43 authorizing the reduction of the speed limit on Anderson Hill Rd.
(1146) in the Clermont Area - Commission District 2.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Renick stated that there was a huge increase in
rent from the good deal that they had with Minneola City Hall going into the
American First Bank building. She
inquired whether the County had pulled their building people out of Clermont
City Hall.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he was
not aware that they had done that.
Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director,
responded that a couple of months ago they reduced the number of staff
permanently assigned to that office based on the reduction of building
permits. She explained that they still
had two Permit Technicians and a Plans Examiner from the Building Division and
an Associate Planner from the Zoning Division there.
Commr. Renick stated that she had talked to the Assistant
City Manager and thought if there was room in Clermont City Hall, that maybe
something could be worked out with Clermont.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they had approached them the last
time and that this was 1680 square feet, which was a substantial amount of
space, but that they had not talked to them this time.
Ms. Quinnette Durkin, Property Manager, County Attorney’s
Office, stated that the Property Appraiser as well as the Supervisor of
Elections would be adding some additional staff down there.
Mr. Minkoff added that they had tried to put the Clerk
together with them, but there was not enough room and that the Clerk had asked
them to look for increased space in the Clermont area. He also commented that Minneola had exercised
their option a year ago to ask the County to leave, because they were in dire
need of that space for themselves, and that it was not a question of money.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart
and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved Tab 10, the
County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, as follows:
Request for approval of Sublease between Lake County and
American First Bank and Shopping Center Lease between Clermont Center, Ltd. and
Lake County; and approval of associated Budget Transfer.
PRESENTATION
PROCLAMATION
OF NATIONAL BOYS & GIRLS CLUB WEEK
Commr.
Hill stated that this would be a Proclamation to the Boys & Girls Club of
Lake County, and read Proclamation No. 2007-50 aloud, which designated March 25-31 as National Boys & Girls
Club Week and calling all citizens to join in recognizing and commending the
Boys & Girls Club organizations in our State for providing comprehensive,
effective services to the young people in our communities.
Ms. Beth
Work, Chief Professional Officer, Boys & Girls Club of Lake and Sumter
County, addressed the Board to thank everyone, and stated that the Boys &
Girls Clubs have been in this County for 32 years and that they had just opened
their second unit a year ago January.
She commented that it was through the generosity of this community and
this Commission that they were able to fund this program.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PRESENTATION
BY SHERIFF BORDERS REGARDING SALARY SURVEY
Sheriff
Gary Borders stated that the Sheriff’s Office was a 730 member agency, and they
responded to over 250,000 calls for service in 2006 and put over 13,000 in
jail. He explained that they started a
salary survey because they had so many openings and were having a problem recruiting,
even with a full-time recruiter. He
specified that between the deputy sheriffs, detention deputies, and the
dispatchers, they had a total of 33 vacancies.
He opined that the starting pay of $32,500 for deputies was too low to
attract perspective employees. They had
surveyed twelve agencies and found that they came in 11 out of the 12
agencies. He commented that he would
like the salary to rise to at least the same level as the Lake County Fire
Department at $35,482.00. He also stated
that in the dispatch area, they came in tenth out of ten, even though it was
probably the most stressful job in the Sheriff’s Office as well as the
lowest-paid job with a starting salary of $18,359.00. He was asking for a 9.18 percent increase in
dispatcher pay.
Commr.
Renick commented that starting pay was very important for recruiting employees and
opined that when someone was in a job, they might not leave or stay based on
pay. She also stated that she thought
this was a universal problem the County and municipalities were having. She also mentioned that an individual she
talked to commented about how safe he felt after the tornadoes due to law
enforcement coverage.
Commr.
Stewart commented that law enforcement was just about the most important job in
our society, but unfortunately was one of the lowest paid. She opined that we do not want to pay them
the salaries they deserve. She noted
that law enforcement puts their lives on the line every day to keep everyone
safe and that they certainly deserve more than they had been receiving.
Commr.
Hill commented that the full Board was not present at that time and that this
was a little before mid-year budget, and asked Sheriff Borders if he would
consider talking to the County Manager and looking at the budget for funding
sources.
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that they were planning to bring the
mid-year budget to the Board in April, and she would be glad to get with the
Sheriff to work out the timing and bring that back.
Ms.
Regina Frazier, Budget Director, stated that they were scheduled to bring the
mid-year budget forward April 17 at the regular meeting. She mentioned that she could get together
with the Sheriff and Mr. Lewie Wise to look at how to fund that and that there
may be some salary money from vacancies that could cover part of it for the
rest of this year and that they could just transfer the difference.
Commr.
Hill stated that she would like the merit increase figured into the
calculations when compared to the fire fighters.
Ms.
Frazier stated that they just changed the employees to a performance based
merit increase on the anniversary date in last year’s budget.
On
a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously,
by a vote of 3-0, the Board voted to postpone this issue regarding salary
increases at the Sheriff’s Office until April 17.
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
PURCHASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND ANDREWS/LAUX
Mr.
David Hanson, Public Lands Manager, stated that this was brought back from a
prior meeting regarding the Andrews property in Lady Lake that comprised about
60 acres, a lot of which was lake bottom.
He related that there were concerns from surrounding residents, but that
some of those issues had been resolved.
He explained that the Public Land Acquisition Advisory Council (PLAAC)
expressed their desire to acquire this property at their March 27 meeting and
bring it before the Board for discussion and approval. He specified that the idea was not to have
public access on this property and to limit it for preservation only.
Ms.
Valerie Fox stated that she was an attorney representing the seller, Ms.
Marilyn Andrews, and that she had recently met with the surrounding homeowners
regarding this property and that she was under the impression that they were
all on the same page. She noted that
they all agreed that it was very fragile, environmentally sensitive land with
an abundance of species of concern existing there, such as sand hill cranes,
wood storks, and Sherman’s fox squirrels.
She related that at the meeting, the neighbors stated that they would
not oppose the County’s purchase to this property if the County would
subsequently adopt an ordinance which would limit this property to have no
public access and to be preservation only, and that if that ordinance was ever
to be modified in the future, the notice would go out to surrounding property
owners to give them a chance and a voice to speak regarding any modifications
to that ordinance.
Ms.
Leslie Campione, representing the adjoining property owner, stated that their
concern was that there be a limitation that this would be for preservation
only. She stated she would go a little
further than just the ordinance mentioned by Ms. Fox, that not only the
adjoining property owners be given notice, but that the ordinance provide for a
change to be made to the land use, that it would actually go through something
similar to a rezoning in that the criteria would be spelled out that would have
to be met in order to make that change from conservation to active recreation
or any other things being suggested at that time. She stated that this would result in
considerations such as environmental impact and impact on adjoining property
values being taken into consideration.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that if they put that provision in the
Code, that in order to change that section, they would have to have a public
hearing and provide that notice. He
explained that this would be a site-specific ordinance that would be named and
provide these requirements in there that it would be conservation only and a
management plan, and any change to that would require the public hearing.
Mr.
Garth Phillips, a property owner on Lady Lake, opined that the appraisal the
County had obtained on this property was not valid, containing flaws and bad
assumptions, and that the value of the property was worthless. He was concerned that the County was spending
a quarter of a million tax dollars to buy the bottom of Lady Lake that was not
accessible to anyone at the present. He also stated that he thought that the County
purchasing this was ludicrous and ill advised.
Commr.
Hill inquired whether the appraisals were done by certified appraisers.
Mr.
Hanson responded that they had a pre-approved list of appraisers who were
certified members of the Appraisal Institutes and were generally on the State
list. He commented that the County got
eight acres of uplands on a lake for a little over $25,000.00 an acre, which
was a bargain in today’s market.
Commr.
Stewart stated that she had some concerns about buying lake bottom that could
not be touched anyway, but she also knew that the PLAAC Committee looked into
this and that she had confidence in and trusted them. She was also confident that they had done
their homework and was aware of everything surrounding it.
Commr.
Renick commented that she had changed her mind on this property numerous times,
because people wanted the County to purchase environmentally sensitive lands,
but they wanted them to acquire the lands where there was a real threat of
development. She stated that PLAAC was
not torn about the purchase of this property, that the decision was unanimous,
and that she was going to go with their recommendation and support this.
On
a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously,
by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved the purchase and Sales Agreement between
Lake County and Marilyn Andrews, Pamela Laux, and Ronald Laux for a 60 acre
parcel in the Lady Lake Area and authorized the Chairman to execute the
necessary closing costs – Commission District 5, including a site-specific
ordinance stating that this property be used for preservation only and that a
public hearing would be required to change the use of the property.
PUBLIC
WORKS
FINAL
PLAT FOR SAWGRASS BAY PHASE 1A
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that the developer of
Sawgrass Bay had been in the process of construction on the project and that
they were at the point where they wanted to record the plat, and were
requesting that the County accept a performance bond issued in the amount of
$56,800.40 to cover work that still needed to be done and to execute a
Developer’s Agreement for construction of improvements between Lake County and
Deluca Enterprises, Inc. He commented
that he recommended approval.
Commr.
Renick commented that she had a number of e-mails from residents of a
neighborhood adjacent to Sawgrass Bay called the Savannahs, who were worried
about pedestrian access for a school.
She wondered if it was wise to accept the final plat before they looked
into working something out regarding access through this development.
Mr.
Stivender stated that this was a different subject that he could investigate
and look into if the Board wished to postpone this.
On
a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously
by a vote of 3-0, the Board moved to postpone Tab 13, regarding the final plat
for Sawgrass Bay Phase 1A, until Mr. Stivender looked into adding to the plat
some kind of walkway.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
DCA V. LAKE COUNTY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that this was a settlement agreement with the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), which would resolve three objections that the department filed
on Comp Plan Amendments that had been approved in 2004, which was the Hart
Case, the Vrablick case, and the 2001-27 case.
Steve Richey, Esq. addressed the
Board and stated that he represented the property owner on the Vrablick and
Hart cases. He explained that two weeks
ago, he asked DCA to send him some additional information which he thought
would be relevant for their consideration based on the stipulations. He stated that he had not received that yet
and would like the Board to continue the three cases for two weeks or 30
days. He also stated that he talked to
Mr. Minkoff and the Growth Management Department and thought that they did not
have objections to the postponement.
Commr. Hill opened the public
hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the postponement.
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. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
moved to postpone Tab 14, the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Department of
Community Affairs v. Lake County for 30 days.
PROPERTIES, INC. REQUEST TO WAIVE
POTABLE WATER REQUIREMENT
Mr. Richey explained that this was his
request for a waiver of a water requirement. He noted that it was in Commr.
Cadwell’s district and asked the Board to continue it to get the benefit of
Commr. Cadwell’s wisdom and knowledge in this matter.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and
asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the postponement.
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. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously,
by a vote of 3-0, the Board moved to postpone Tab 15 for 30 days, which was a
request for approval with conditions for a waiver of the requirement to connect
to a regional potable water system by Properties, Inc.
ORDINANCE AND TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA
DCA OF WEKIVA
PARKWAY AND PROTECTION ACT
Mr.
Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management, addressed the
Board and stated that this was the Wekiva Amendment, which had been much
anticipated.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that even though they were technically
approving an Ordinance, that he would not be reading the two pages of title,
because this was a transmittal only hearing and final adoption would not occur
until after comments were received back from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA).
Mr.
Sheahan stated that this was an Ordinance to address the Wekiva Parkway and
Protection Act, which was enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2004. He explained that this Ordinance would
implement the findings and recommendations of the Wekiva River Basin
Coordinating Committee appointed by Governor Bush. He specified that the Governor signed the
Parkway and Protection Act in Chapter 369 of the Florida Statutes into law on
June 29, 2004, and that the Act authorized building the Wekiva Parkway and
provided protection to the Wekiva River system.
This act was amended by Senate Bill 908 in the 2005 legislative session. The Act required local governments in the
Wekiva Study Area to adopt certain amendments to their comprehensive
plans. He went on to explain that the
Board transmitted an amendment to the Comp Plan on July 25, 2006 to meet these
requirements, and DCA stipulated at that time that they would only provide
courtesy comments to that ordinance because the County was prohibited, and
remain so, from making amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with certain
exceptions. He stated that in November
of 2006, the County received those comments and staff proceeded to meet with
multiple parties in order to address those comments and revise the ordinance so
that it was consistent with those comments.
However, in February of 2007, the County received word that DCA had
amended its former position and allowed the County to transmit the revised
ordinance. He stated that staff
continued the revisions and met with the representatives of the St. Johns Water
Management District, the Department of Health, and multiple County agencies. Mr. Sheahan went on to state that the LPA
(Lake County Local Planning Agency) considered this ordinance on February 23,
2007 and approved it unanimously.
Mr.
Sheahan explained that subsequent to these changes, four minor additions were
made to the ordinance. He stated that
on page five of the ordinance, the graphic that indicated the conservation
lands within the Wekiva area needed to be changed from 2006 to 2007, and that
on that same page, lines 12 to 14, in the second to last sentence the words,
“Chapter 369, Part III” and the entire last sentence needed to be deleted. Also, on page 15, line 46, he stated that the
LPA requested that the word “or” be changed to “and,” Another
change he pointed out was on page 54, line 5, adding “preferred” in front of
“land uses” to indicate what the preferred land uses were.
Mr.
Sheahan gave some highlights of the specific changes in the policies. Regarding the future land use element, he
explained that the definition of open space included a requirement that a
minimum quantity of buildable area be preserved as open space, with the new
definition excluding wetlands and water bodies, impervious surfaces, active
recreation areas, residential lots, rights-of-way, and parking lots. He also noted that under the proposed
definition, only naturally vegetated areas outside the regularly maintained
fairways of golf courses may be counted toward the required open space. He commented that the golf course issue was
discussed at many meetings and represented a consensus of the parties that
participated. He stated that another
policy that was added was land use strategy within the Wekiva Study Area
outside the Wekiva River Protection Area, and that three overlay districts were
created, which were the Wekiva Traditional Rural District, the Wekiva
Transitional District, and the Municipal Joint Planning Areas and Mount
Plymouth-Sorrento. He explained that
those overlay districts did provide for open space and density requirements in
those areas in compliance with the required provisions of the Wekiva River
Protection Act. He stated that in the
conservation element, new policies were added relating to the establishment of
landscape guidelines at County facilities, protections of sinkholes, and
sensitive karst features. Another
addition to the conservation element was protection of waters and water sheds,
which required development to demonstrate the water quality and flood plane
functions would not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. Also, he noted that policies were added
requiring the County to incorporate best management practices into the Land
Development Regulations (LDR’s). Another
policy was added to conserve natural upland plant communities, such as Longleaf
Pine/Sandhill, Sand Pine, and Xeric Oak Scrub.
He
stated that policies were added that required vegetative communities and
wildlife habitats be protected from the effects associated with development and
required the establishment of a methodology to be used when developing property
within areas containing listed species.
He opined that the participation of the Department of Health was
incredible in the Public Facilities Sanitary Sewer Element, which required the
provision of central sewer services and discharges and coordination between all
agencies having jurisdiction. He
commented that DCA was seeking to require that Lake County inspect septic
systems based on advanced treatment standards, but that they had reached a
consensus that they would enter into an Interlocal Agreement so that the
Department of Health had jurisdictional authority over those issues. He stated that some of the Stormwater
Elements were that the County would cooperate on a regional basis on the Wekiva
Study Area (WSA) Master Stormwater Management Plan and institute Best
Management Practices within the WSA.
Commr.
Hill commented that the central sewer issue was a very heated concern
throughout the community, and clarified that any new development would be
required to have a super advanced treatment type of facility, and the Health
Department would have jurisdiction authority over those. She also inquired how the retrofitting would
take place.
Mr.
Sheahan responded that she was correct that there was enormous discussion on
that, and answered that if development could be served by a central system, it
was required to do so, but if it did not meet the densities required for a
central system, then they must institute the most advanced septic system
available.
Commr.
Hill asked what the time frame was for the existing homeowners who were on
septic presently and who would help pay for the retrofit.
Mr.
Sheahan answered that it would be determined partly by the Department of Health
and the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection.), and that the residents
would be required to have a retrofit system when their system fails or a
central system becomes available.
Commr.
Renick commented that references to karst features were about vulnerability of
the aquifer, because there were some areas in the County where there were thin
to none confining areas to protect it, and development in those areas would
threaten the aquifer. She commented that
the process to hammer out the policies with the LPA has taken a long time, but
resulted in the product that we got, and she was glad that time went into this
and that they had some comments from DCA in advance. She hoped that a lot of the Wekiva policies
turn into Lake County policies.
Commr.
Stewart thanked everyone that had anything to do with this process, and opined
that the Wekiva Basin was priceless and that these policies were exactly what
former Governor Bush, the State Legislature, and the vast majority of Lake
County voters wanted.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing regarding the transmittal of the ordinance to
DCA.
Mr.
Gary Cooney, an attorney practicing in Leesburg, representing Merrygro Farms
outside of Eustis, stated that the policy on Page 46, Policy 1-25.2,
subparagraph 2, creating various transitional districts, required any property
owner in that area to come back to the Board with a subsequent Future Land Use
Amendment over and above this policy. He
stated that if the County thought it was a good idea, they should just impose
it and make everyone follow it and not come back with subsequent amendments,
which he opined was a waste of time and money and negated what the County was
trying to accomplish in the transitional district. He requested that the County remove the
language on Lines 40 and 41 that dealt with considering an amendment to the
Future Land Use Map and suggested using language more akin to the paragraph
above which stated “land not otherwise vested may be allowed to develop…” He commented that he applauded the policy,
but thought the policy should be imposed now.
Mr.
Brent Spain, an attorney, stated that he was going to echo some of Mr. Cooney’s
comments and gave the Board a handout.
He went on to explain that the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act was
adopted in 2004, imposing a requirement on this county as well as others to
adopt certain plan amendments to the Local Comprehensive Plan by January 1,
2006. He stated that the Board
transmitted a proposed ordinance in July of 2006, and that his firm had been
working with the Department of Community Affairs and the County since August
2006, and they submitted about 12 comments on a 65 page document, and that many
of their revisions were incorporated and favorably received by the County. He suggested that in Policy 1-25.2 that the
language in subparagraph 1 be mimicked in subparagraph 2. He stated that looking at it from a planning
perspective, imposing the plan amendment requirement might have the unfortunate
consequence of thwarting the upside in a win-win situation of preservation of a
large amount of open space. He also
commented that the boundaries to the Transitional District were established by
this ordinance and not something that was subject to change, and that the
boundaries and the criteria to meet the goal that the County was putting forth
through diligent and good-faith efforts over two years would then be
potentially delayed another six or nine months with an amendment that DCA
probably would not have any substantive comments on. He respectfully asked that the Board consider
sending it up to DCA with his suggested revisions.
Mr.
Jim Miller, a property owner near this area, wanted to speak in support of the
current wording of the LPA. He commented
that he purchased his property in 2000 based on expectations of how the
property would be developed, which was one house per five acres. He stated that when he purchased his 20-acre
parcel, it was a lifestyle he purchased, and he was concerned that there not be
a high density of development.
Ms.
Nadine Foley, Chairman of the LPA, stated that at the last LPA meeting, all the
members respectfully requested that Mr. Keith Schue address the issues
regarding the Wekiva Ordinance and that they considered him their guru
regarding the Wekiva area.
Mr.
Keith Schue, a member of the LPA, addressed the Board and stated that the
document they had in front of them represented a tremendous amount of work by
the LPA and Lake County staff looking at what made sense in terms of protecting
the value of the natural resource of the Wekiva Basin and adhering to the
provisions of the Wekiva Parkway Protection Act. He commented that a good job had been done incorporating
comments from DCA so that they had a solid product. He hoped that the Board would adopt it as it
was presented to them from the LPA. In
response to the reference to the land use strategy that was identified in the
proposed language, he stated that the area of land that was in question was an
area that was outside the Joint Planning Areas of Mount Dora near the area of
Mount Plymouth/Sorrento, and that there was a tremendous desire by the
residents who moved into that area to protect their rural quality of life. He opined that the policies that were before
the Board represented the highest level of protection and safeguard that one
could put together as it relates to this area, recognizing some of the dynamics
that were there. He also commented that
there was a rational cap that was provided for those seeking to increase
density in that area, by going through a PUD zoning process and a Land Use Map
Amendment. He also noted that even if
the language that was suggested by one of the attorneys who spoke was included,
it would not obviate one from seeking a Land Use Map Amendment.
Commr.
Hill asked Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, about the reference to vested
rights which were mentioned on Page 45 in the Wekiva Traditional Rural District
section but not in the Wekiva Transitional District section.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that the plan respected vested rights in all the districts in
another section of the actual Comprehensive Plan, so he opined that if it was
listed in one place and not another, he did not think it would matter, because
at the beginning of the plan, it honored the Statute. He went on to explain that those who obtained
a vesting certificate would be able to complete development in accordance with
that vesting certificate.
Mr.
Brian Sheahan stated that he thought it would be fine to put the exact same
phrase into the second policy and that it would not change the intent or the
implementation of the policy, because if someone was vested, he would be able
to move forward based on that vesting determination, but to make it abundantly
clear, they could certainly add that phrase to the second section.
Mr.
Minkoff suggested that alternatively, it could be deleted from Paragraph 1,
because vesting was actually covered in another part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr.
Hill commented that if it was in one and not the other, some might think that
vesting applied to one category but not the other. She opined that they should have it both in
or both out.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that he thought it would be better to delete those words on Line
24, with a clear understanding that if a person could establish either common
law or statutory vesting, they would be able to go forward with their project.
Commr.
Hill asked if that was the concern brought up by the attorneys that spoke.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that the language they had suggested in Paragraph 2 was that the
current plan in front of them would require people to come back for a land use
plan amendment in order to have the density of one dwelling unit per one
buildable acre in the Transitional District, and they wanted to take out that
requirement to come back for a plan amendment.
He opined that it was a higher level of scrutiny the way it was
presently proposed and a lower level of scrutiny the way the two attorneys
proposed it.
Commr.
Stewart commented that it was a compromise between the residents there and
potential developers of the area, because the developers were not being denied
anything but were just having to go one more step. She also opined that the people who lived in
that area were fiercely protective of their rural lifestyles and very vocal
about that, and that she thought that this was a good compromise.
Commr.
Renick stated that she was not interested in changing the language of the
second paragraph that spoke about land use amendment.
Ms.
Foley stated that she thought that striking the wording regarding vesting from subparagraph
one was probably the better way to address it.
Overall, they were accepting that vested rights would be respected and
that it was just a given from the very beginning, and that it called attention
to something that did not need to be called attention to.
On
a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously,
by a vote of 3-0, the Board moved to transmit the Ordinance to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs requesting review to meet the requirements of
the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act, deleting the “otherwise vested” language
in the first subparagraph on Page 46 and the changes made by Mr. Sheahan that
were incorporated.
VACATION
PETITION NO. 1094 – SHAMROCK HOMES – GRAND ISLAND
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that they requested a
postponement, because this had not been resolved as yet. He stated that there was a modification of
the retention pond that was on the back side of the lots he showed on the
overhead and the affect on the lots north.
He stated that they asked the developer to resolve some issues regarding
the area between some of the backyards and the fence as part of the easement
area, and he asked for a 30 day postponement so that could be resolved and that
part of the issue completed before they bring it back before the Board.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board regarding the postponement, the Vice Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
agreed to postpone Vacation Petition No. 1094 of Shamrock Homes, a vacation of
a portion of a drainage easement in the Plat of Biscayne Bluff, located in
Section 29, Township 18 S, Range 26 E, in the Grand Island area, for 30 days.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1086 – SILVER
LAKE ESTATES – LEESBURG
Mr. Stivender stated that this was a
petition to vacate a portion of the right of way in the Silver Lake area, and
showed on the overhead map the area using County Road 44 as a reference. He showed the areas that were not to be
vacated because it was legal access to the properties to the north and only
vacating the portion in red on the overhead map that went through the middle of
the proposed plat.
Commr. Hill asked if this was annexed
into the City at any time.
Mr. Stivender stated that he did not
think so, but that the City could be providing the utilities out there.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved Vacation Petition No. 1086, in the Plat of Silver Lake Estates,
located in Sections 9 and 10, Township 19, Range 25, I the Leesburg area. Commission District 1 and execution of
Resolution No. 2007-47.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1106 – TREASURE
ISLAND SHORES – LEESBURG
Mr. Stivender stated that this was
the Water Authority property for Treasure Island Preserve, and showed the
original plat and the lots that were bought by the Water Authority several
years ago. He reported that they wanted
to vacate any public access and any public use other than what the Water
Authority wanted to control themselves.
He recommended approval to vacate.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved Vacation Petition No. 1106, a portion of North Shore Drive and Lake
Griffin Drive and a canal, in the Plat of Treasure Island Shores – First
Addition, located in Section 5, Township 19 S, Range 25 E, in the Treasure
Island/Leesburg area, Commission District 1, and execution of Resolution No.
2007-48
VACATION PETITION 1107 – FLOWING
WATERS PRESERVE – GRAND ISLAND
Mr. Stivender stated that this was a
vacation in Flowing Waters Preserve along Haines Creek of a right of way that
still existed in the preserve area, and he recommended vacating the right of
way in that area.
Commr. Hill asked that if there was a
brushfire and the property had to be accessed, whether they could get on this
property.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that if there was an emergency, the fire department would access the
property, even if they had to cross other private property to get there.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved Vacation Petition No. 1107, vacating the deeded right of way lying
within Flowing Waters Preserve, located in Township 19 S, Range 25 E, in the
Grand Island area, Commission District 1, and execution of Resolution No. 2007-49.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – REZONING
REZONING CASE PH NO. 9-07-4 – JACK
CASSELL/BIG CANOE OF SWATARA
TRACKING NO. 13-07-PUD/AMD
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Planning and Development Services, Growth Management, addressed the Board, stating
that the applicant for Tab 7, PH No. 9-07-4, Jack Cassell/Big Canoe of Swatara
and Leslie Campione, wanted to address the Board regarding postponing that
particular application.
Ms.
Leslie Campione, the Applicant, stated that at the last zoning hearing there
was discussion about getting input from the City of Eustis on the commercial
element that they were requesting. She
explained that at the last City Commission meeting that last Thursday, March
22, the City of Eustis discussed this but did not make an official determination
or recommendation, and discussed opposing a moratorium for all new development
in the City except for their Downtown Redevelopment Area. She noted that the City instructed their
attorney to bring back a proposed ordinance on April 5. She asked the Board for a postponement of her
rezoning case so that she could participate in the Eustis public hearing and
that the Board would have the benefit of taking under advisement what would
occur with regard to the adoption of the moratorium.
The
Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Ales, City Commissioner,
City of Eustis, noted that he was representing himself individually, not the
City Commission. He wanted to clear up
some confusion regarding where Eustis was, and stated that the City had hired a
land-use attorney to assist them in the process of fixing their LDR’s (Land
Development Regulations) so that they were complimentary to the Comprehensive
Plan and instituting regulations that would reflect last year’s election. He went on to explain that currently the
attorney was in the process of drafting a moratorium that would last six months
along with several specific issues that they were trying to implement to assist
the City’s progress. He specified that
one of the things that had been discussed within that drafting process was
allowing annexations to continue, the only caveat being that anyone that would
annex would be subject to the regulations that they adopt. He stated that it was the City’s expressed interest
to control the land that was bordering the City, especially on three
sides. He stated that currently Eustis’ Mayor
and acting City Manager were reviewing proposals from an RFP (Request for
Proposal) that they sent out for planners and that they were committed to
accomplishing this task expeditiously.
He stated he was pleased to hear Mr. Bennett commenting at the last
meeting that the key element in this project was hearing from Eustis. He also applauded the applicant for allowing
the City to have the opportunity to be involved in the project, and stressed
their desire and interest to create a functional government in Eustis to the
extent that all the parties knew what the rules were, could act accordingly,
and streamline the process. He also
commented that the City had a meeting next week, and if the County and City staffs
could more closely coordinate, it would be beneficial to get it advertised and
on the agenda. He also opined that it
was not their desire or interest to prolong or extend this any further than it
needs to be.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board concerning the postponement, the Vice Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
postponed for 30 days Tab 7, Case PH No. 9-07-4 by the Applicant Leslie
Campione PA, Tracking No. 13-07-PUD.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 11-07-2 – CABIN
BOYZ INVESTMENTS LLC/DCS &
CONSULTING - TRACKING NO.
17-07-CP/AMD
Ms. Stacy Allen, Case Manager,
presented Tab 1, Case PH No. 11-07-2, stating that the owner was Cabin Boyz
Investments LLC and that the applicant was Sharon Martin of DCS &
Consulting. She noted that this parcel
consisted of 9.32 acres and was located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of State Road 33 and Redwing Road in the Groveland area, and that
the applicant was requesting to rezone the northern 4.32 acres of the site from
Agriculture and Planned Commercial to Planned Commercial for the restaurant
site. She opined that even though the
remaining five acres that would be left as Agriculture complied with the
Comprehensive Plan, the restaurant site was inconsistent with the Comp Plan,
since it did not meet either the requirements of the Commercial Location Criteria
as seen in Policy 1-3A.1 or the requirements of the LDR’s Section 6.13.04 A.
1. She noted that the property was
located within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern Transitional
Future Land Use Category and did not meet all the criteria for a Neighborhood
Convenience Center. She noted that in
this case, with the expanding or enlarging of the property, the restaurant must
be brought into full compliance with LDR Chapters III, VI, VIII, IX, and XI,
including building setbacks, landscaping, parking, and other County Department
requirements. She further explained that
the site failed the commercial location criteria as seen in 1-3A.1 4a, since it
was not located along a collector road or at the intersection of two collector
roads and also failed compliance with LDR Chapters III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X,
and XI that pertained to building setbacks, landscaping, parking, and other
County Department requirements. She did
note, however, that this request was an attempt to bring the property more in
conformance to eliminate encroachment issues, and by increasing the size of the
restaurant site and extending the boundaries further south and east, the
existing structure would meet setback requirements to these property
lines. She also noted that the remaining
five acres left as Agriculture complies with the Comp Plan Policy specifying
residential density of one dwelling unit per five acres.
She stated that staff recommended
denial of this request as explained in the analysis to rezone 4.32 acres from
Agriculture and CP to CP for the restaurant site and amend CP Ordinance No.
32-93 with a new legal description for the restaurant site, with the remaining
five acres left as Agriculture. She
commented that there was one written comment in support of this request
received from a neighboring resident. She related that the Lake County Zoning Board
recommended approval of this request by a 5-0 vote, with the conditions of no
further expansion of the improvements and a granting of a conservation easement
on that portion of the property within the CP zoning that was considered
wetlands, and that those changes have been incorporated into the proposed
ordinance.
Commr. Stewart commented that this
restaurant had been there since 1949.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Brett Jones, attorney for the
applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the restaurant had been there
since 1948, which was before the current regulations and zoning regime. He stated that the construction of the
building was more or less parallel with State Road 33, and that the building
was located on half commercial and half agricultural parcels. He commented that he was happy with the
Planning and Zoning suggestion that they limit development to almost nil.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Renick understood that staff
had to recommend denial because it could not be built with today’s regulations,
but that it had been there since 1949 and was an institution and a delightful
restaurant. She commented that she did
not see any problems with this at all and that the Zoning Board addressed the
concerns they had.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 3-0, the Board
recommended approval with the conditions specified of Tab 1, Rezoning Case PH
No. 11-07-2, Cabin Boyz Investments LLC, DCS & Consulting, Tracking No.
17-07-CP/AMD, and execution of Ordinance No. 2007-13.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 42-05-3 – M. L.
SPIKES – TRACKING NO. 54-06-CP
Ms. Stacy Allen stated that Tab 2 was
Rezoning Case 42-05-3; the owner was M. L. and Jonnette Spikes; and the
applicant was Lake County. She specified
that the subject parcel consisted of 2.66 acres and was located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 48 and Lakeshore Drive in
the Yalaha area, and that staff requested to correct the legal description recorded
in Ordinance No 2005-48. She noted that
the property was located within a Neighborhood Convenience Center with
underlying Urban Expansion Future Land Use Categories. She stated that staff and the Zoning Board
both recommended approval of the request, and that no written comments had been
received in opposition or in support of it.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. James Luebcke, owner of a piece
of property on Lakeshore Drive in Yalaha, stated that if the zoning was going
to be changed to commercial, he would like a landscape buffer between his piece
of property and the commercial property, and that he would like to have the
buffer as dense as possible.
Commr. Stewart stated that a 15 foot
vegetative buffer would be required between the commercial and residential.
Commr. Renick asked whether they
could address any issues, such as increasing the buffer, other than just
correcting the error. She commented that
it did not strike her as a commercial area, and that she thought they would
need to buffer it as much as they could from the residents around there.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that this was a staff-initiated rezoning and that the notice that was
given was probably just to correct the legal description. He noted that the Board had the authority to
initiate rezoning at any time and could eliminate the commercial zoning
altogether if they wanted to do that.
However, if they wanted to make changes other than to the legal
description, he recommended that they postpone it and give notice to the
property owner so that he was aware that those items would be discussed in
advance.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board concerning the postponement, the Vice Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Wayne Bennett stated that the
Board had two options as a result of Mr. Minkoff’s advice, which was to either
change the terms and conditions of the existing ordinance to address the buffer
issue and/or to address the entire rezoning of the property, and that the two
of those would have different notice requirements.
Mr. Minkoff suggested that they
renotice that the entire ordinance would be discussed so that the Board could
be free to discuss the whole thing and not get into another postponement issue.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried by a vote of 2-1, the Board postponed
Tab 2, Rezoning Case No. 42-05-3, M. L. and Jonnette Spikes, Lake County,
Tracking No. 54-06-CP to give staff time to address the buffering issue and
look into the zoning and give notice to property owners.
Commr. Hill voted “no” to the
postponement.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 12-07-2 – HEART
HOUSE MINISTRIES/GRIFFITH –
TRACKING NO. 18-07-CFD
Mr. Alfredo Massa, Case Manager,
presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case PH No. 12-07-2, and related that the owner was
Heart House Ministries and the applicant was E. W. Griffith. He explained that the requested action was to
rezone the property from Agriculture District (A) to Community Facility
District (CFD) to build a church and expand the uses of the applicant’s
ministry. He reported that the parcel
was approximately 4.48 acres and was located within the Clermont Joint Planning
Area (JPA) at the intersection of Johns Lake Road and Hancock Road, and that
Haley’s House Maternity Home was currently located on the site. He further explained that currently the
Agriculture zoning permitted one dwelling unit per five acres and that at this
time, churches were not a permitted use in the Agricultural Zoning
District. He also mentioned that the
site was surrounded by the Agriculture Zoning District with Rural Residential
immediately northwest and Urban Residential immediately southwest of the site. He made a correction to page 2 of the site
information, changing the Road Classification information to “Johns Lake Road
and Hancock Road, which are local roads.”
He noted that staff found that the project was consistent with all
applicable provisions of the Comp Plan and LDR’s, and recommended approval of
the request and commented that it would not change the nature of the
surrounding area. He also specified that
water and sewer service were presently available and supplied by the City of
Clermont and that the site would access from Johns Lake Road and that right and
left turn lanes would be required for a Hancock Road driveway connection. He also reported that the Zoning Board
recommended approval of this request by a vote of 6-0.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Bill Griffith, the Applicant,
addressed the Board and commented that staff had been very helpful to them in
helping them move this project along. He
explained that they would like to move from a storefront to a church building.
Mr. Douglas Faivre, a member of the
Magnolia Park Board of Directors for the Homeowners Association, east on
Sunburst Lane, Clermont, stated that traffic and safety were the main issues he
was concerned about. He commented that
Hancock Road was heavily traveled as a cut-through from US Hwy 27 to Hartwood
Marsh Road to Hancock Road to State Road 50, and that this would only be
compounded with the planned Hartle Road extension, and that motorists used this
cut-through to the turnpike. He pointed
out that heavy traffic from current communities in future planned developments
that were currently on Hartwood Marsh Road, Hancock Road, and SR 50 would use
this route to gain access to the Super Walmart and that there was still
currently no traffic light at this intersection. He mentioned that many accidents have
occurred at this intersection and he felt that to approve this request would
further endanger the safety of the motorists who used the roadways and further
back traffic up there. He also opined
that the southeast sector of District 2 was out of control and requested that
the Board set up a study to evaluate the area and how the planned future
development already approved was going to impact the traffic and safety of the
residents.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Renick stated that she had
concerns about this issue, some of which Mr. Faivre had shared, and noted that
this was the intersection that had to have a sheriff’s deputy on duty morning
and night in order to ensure the safety to the school. She stated that the County was working on
improving that intersection and that there would be a traffic signal and
additional lanes added. She commented
that she thought the applicant’s timing was too early and should wait until the
road situation was taken care of. She
also commented that since this was in the Clermont Joint Planning Area (JPA),
the County should get input from the City of Clermont.
Commr. Stewart stated that she agreed
that Clermont’s comments were important, because the County should move toward
more cooperation with the cities in the JPA areas.
Commr. Renick stated that
unfortunately, staff had not taken this request to the City Council. She stated that she thought this should be
postponed for at least 30 days to give the applicant time to advertise it and
go before the Council.
Mr. Griffith stated that he did not
understand why he needed to go to the City of Clermont for permission to do
something on County property.
Commr. Renick stated that he did not
have to appear if he did not wish to do so, but that the JPA that the County
worked out with the cities gives them that opportunity, even though ultimately
it was the County’s jurisdiction and decision.
Mr. Griffith stated that he already
had an application filed with the City of Clermont for their utilities and that
he tentatively had a meeting with the City Council on April 10 to resolve the
utility issue. He also mentioned that he
had sold property to the County as a right of way on Hancock Road.
Commr. Renick suggested that Mr.
Griffith could do both things at the same time, because if the City had no
problem and wanted to go forward with the utilities, then the County would get
a strong message from Clermont that they had worked that out already. She stated that she was glad that Mr.
Griffith was already on the agenda and that information would come back to the
Board so that they could make their decision.
Commr. Stewart explained that JPA’s
were areas where the cities and the County should be planning jointly, and that
it would be hard to plan if one did not know the feelings of the other entity.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
moved to postpone for 30 days Tab 3, Rezoning Case PH No. 12-07-2, Heart House
Ministries, E. W. Griffith, Tracking No. 18-07-CFD.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 8-07-4 – CENTEX
HOMES/ DALY DESIGN GROUP –
TRACKING NO. 11-07-PUD/AMD
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
stated that there was an applicant who was at the end of the Agenda who had
informed him that the attorney for the applicant had an appointment this
afternoon at 1:30 p.m. in Sanford, and requested that the Board hear their case
next. Mr. Bennett also opined that he
thought this case would go quickly.
After some discussion, the Board moved Tab 8 up on the agenda to be
heard next.
Mr. Bennett explained that this item
was brought forward from a February 27, 2007 Board Agenda, and there was a
concern expressed by the Board at that point concerning the request to insert
into the PUD the ability to go to a five foot rear yard setback in order to
accommodate pools and other types of accessory structures on those particular
lots. There was a concern about the effect
on drainage. He related that staff met
with, Mr. Daly, the designer; Centex Homes, the builder; the Sullivan Ranch
people; and Mr. Madden, the engineer. He
related that staff agreed by consensus that they would have a lot by lot specific
rating and drainage plan that would be certified by a registered engineer, and
commented that the applicants already had that.
Also, when the final survey work was done on each lot in preparing for
the real estate transaction, there would be a check of the original lot by lot
plan against what was actually constructed.
He commented that he thought a good check and balance system was in
place in terms of issuing the permits and the certificate of occupancy to be
sure that they have addressed the grading and drainage issues. He also noted that this particular five foot
setback affected potentially about a couple of hundred lots, but that about 30
to 40 percent of the lots opened up into green space and would not be of
concern as much because there would be no one behind it. He stated that the applicants had agreed to
this solution.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Tom Daly, representing the
Applicant, stated that they completely concurred with the language in the
Development Order that County staff was recommending.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved Tab 8, Rezoning Case PH No. 8-07-4, Centex Homes, Daly Design Group,
Tracking No. 11-07-PUD/AMD with the conditions mentioned, and execution of
Ordinance No. 2007-14.
REZONING CASE PH #10-07-3 – ELY
SYMPHORIEN – TRACKING #16-07-CFD
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planner, Planning
and Community Design, stated that Tab 4 was Case No. PH No. 10-07-3; the owner
was Ely Frank Symphorien; and the applicant was Church Iglesia Refugio de
Amor. He explained that the applicant
was requesting a change from Rural Residential (R-1) to Community Facility
District (CFD) to build a church. He
related that the parcel was approximately 2.5 acres and was located in the
Minneola/Clermont area at the intersection of Turnpike Road and County Road 561A,
which was within the Suburban Future Land Use Category (FLUC), which permitted
non-residential uses and residential uses up to one dwelling unit per acre. He noted that churches were not permitted
within the R-1 District. He commented
that the proposed zoning was consistent with the surrounding land uses of low-density
residential development and that the parcel was adjacent to vacant land to the
north, east, and south of the property.
He stated that the applicant was proposing to go with individual well
and septic systems, since central utilities were not available. He related that due to sight distance
concerns, the site entrance would have to be located on County Road 561 at the
northeast property corner and that right and left turn lanes would be
required. He stated that based on
staff’s analysis, they were recommending approval, because it was consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies and conformed with the general land use
criteria and with the LDR’s. He noted
that the ordinance stated that the uses on the property would be specifically
limited to a church, which would be a relatively small one since it consisted
of only 2.5 acres.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Francisco Symphorien, the Pastor
of Assembly of God Church, stated that they were in a storefront in Clermont
and were planning in the future to have their church on this property. He opined that the area was not very
populated and had no other churches, and that a church would be very good for
that area.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Renick commented that this was
the road that the Board reduced the speed from 55 to 45 miles per hour on the
Consent Agenda, because there was so much traffic, and that it was at a bad
intersection. She was concerned with how
big a church could end up going there in the future after changing the zoning
to CFD.
Mr. Sheahan responded that there was
a proportional relationship with the size of the church and the amount of
parking required, as well as setbacks, landscape, and stormwater provisions of
the plan, but that he could not give her an exact building size. He suggested possibly placing a size
limitation into the proposed ordinance.
Commr. Hill asked that if they did
limit the size of the church, if they had the regulations as far as parking and
landscaping and asked if there was a range of size that could go there.
Mr. Sheahan stated that they would
have to run those calculations and could not provide those on the spot.
Commr. Renick asked that this go back
to staff to look at the limitations they would need to put in the zoning to
guarantee that it would be a very small church and what could be expected as
far as traffic generated from this.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
postponed for 30 days Tab 4, Case PH No. 10-07-3, Ely Frank Symphorien, Church
Iglesia Refugio de Amor, so that staff could come back with a rough site plan
and traffic plan.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 07/3/1-3 – HANSEN – TRACKING NO. 19-07 CUP/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner
with Planning and Community Design, stated that this was Case No. 07/3/1-3 and
that Andrew and Joni Hansen were the owners and the applicants, who were
requesting to renew their Conditional Use Permit No. 05/12/1-3, which would
expire in March of 2007. He specified
that the owners were also requesting to remove the restriction to the number of
sliders (ski ramps) permitted, the restrictions to lake use, and the
requirement for annual review in regard to the use of the lake as part of the
training facility. He noted that the
existing CUP allows the Owners to operate and maintain a ski school and
wakeboard training facility from the existing location on Lake Morgan in the
South Lake County area between Groveland and Howey-in-the-Hills.
Mr. Hartenstein related that the
applicants were asking for a change in the number of sliders from four to
eight, and showed on the overhead pictures of what the sliders looked like. He also noted that the applicants would like
to delete the restriction on the number of boats allowed to operate from the
school and to delete the operation restriction that states that when Lake
Morgan was being used by abutting property owners and/or guests, the wakeboard
facility cannot operate a boat on the lake.
They would also like the elimination of the requirement to seek renewal
every year for the operation of the school on Lake Morgan.
Mr. Hartenstein gave a history of the
facility, and started by explaining that the applicant first received approval
by the Board for the school in 1998. In
December of 1998, the Board approved the CUP for the water ski and wakeboard
training facility on the owner’s property with restrictions on the number of
boats that could be operated, hours of operation on the lake, and a review
cycle of every four years. On February
23, 2003, the Board reviewed the CUP and continued these restrictions, but
reduced the review cycle to every three years.
On December 20, 2005, the Board kept these restrictions and added that
only four sliders could be placed on the lake and reduced the review cycle to
one year. Mr. Hartenstein also commented
that from 1998 to the present, Code Enforcement had received no valid
complaints regarding this school and it passed its annual inspection of the CUP
each year with no violations. He noted
that in previous approvals, the ski school was allowed as an “Obnoxious Use,”
since the ski school preexisted the abutting residential subdivision, so that
it could continue operation with appropriate conditions to reduce its impacts
on the new neighbors. He opined that the
renewal of the CUP would not have an undue adverse effect upon nearby property,
and the conditional use was compatible with the existing or planned character
of the area in which it was located with the appropriate conditions placed on
use. He also commented that the request
for more than one boat operating from the school at a time would have the
tendency to create a potential hazard, considering the size of the lake, and
recommended against eliminating this requirement. He added that the slider apparatuses were
located on the owners’ side of the lake, which limited the impacts to the
adjacent property owners, and all but one were floating apparatuses that could
be located on various areas on the lake as deemed necessary. He stated that they had received 14 e-mails
from various people all in favor of the CUP.
He reported that the Zoning Board’s recommendation was 6-0 for the
renewal of the CUP in Agriculture zoning for the operation of the ski school
and wakeboard training facility as CUP No. 07/3/1-3, and that their
recommendations would be that the number of sliders would be increased from
four to six; that only one boat from the school shall be in operation on the lake
at one time; the restriction that stated “when the lake is being used by
abutting property owners and/or guest, the wakeboard facility cannot operate a
boat on the lake” be deleted; and the requirement to seek renewal each year for
the operation of the school on Lake Morgan be changed to every two years for
the renewal process.
Commr. Stewart commented that she was
concerned that as the subdivision gets more developed, it would pose some
problems, but that with the renewal of the CUP, the Board could deal with
that. She also disclosed that she met
with Mr. Hansen and discussed this and had received e-mail from some residents
on the lake who were in opposition.
Commr. Renick also disclosed that she
had spoke with Mr. Hansen as well as went out to the property to see it.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Andrew Hansen, the Applicant,
stated that his facility had over 30 years of history of operating on this same
lake through the CUP. He commented that
he had to come back nine years ago before the County because developers saw the
opportunity to earn money by developing the property, and they were forced to
move from their previous location across the lake to their current location,
but that they continue to do what they had always done and opined that all the
complaints that the County had received were false and initiated due to people
wishing to develop the surrounding property for personal gain. He explained that people come to their
facility from all over the world to be trained, and they do many events and
work closely with municipalities, the County, and the community. He opined that they have a beautiful facility
and a great building and do everything they can with the Fish and Game
Department to abide by their rules and regulations, as well as other
governmental authorities, including the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP).
Mr. Hansen addressed the three
requests that were on their current application. He commented that his recommendations in the
application were similar to what Mr. Hartenstein presented, with the exception
of the sliders. He stated that he was
permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection to first put the
sliders in after they changed to wakeboarding, and were permitted to use ten
sliders at that time. He explained that
last year during the public hearing, new residents to the area complained about
the sliders being an eye sore in front of their lots and showed blown up
pictures of the sliders that made them look larger than they actually were, causing
the Board to reduce the amount of sliders allowed from ten to four. He requested to delete the restriction of
sliders altogether, so that they could go back to following the decision of the
DEP. He added that if the Board did
decide to restrict the amount of sliders, he requested that the number of
sliders be increased to six, with half of them being permanent, because the
floating ones were an additional $300,000.00 cost that they would have to bear
due to the engineering that goes into it.
He also commented that he did not plan to operate any more than one boat
at a time, and concurs with that decision, but wanted to delete the provision
that they would have to give way to anyone that comes on the lake. He noted that he had kept a log of anyone who
was out on the lake and found that there were 19 times that other boats were on
the lake this past year, 11 to 16 of which were not a Ranch Club or Lake Morgan
property owner, and none of which operated during the ski school’s operating
times. He also wanted the requirement of
having to apply for a conditional use permit every year deleted. He named a very long list of inspections,
permits, and fees that was required every year for his facility and opined that
they had proven themselves year after year and that his family had worked hard
to purchase a program that had a conditional use permit. He handed out an outline of his proposed
changes.
Mr. Kristan Larson, a resident of
Moon River Drive, Groveland, and President of the Ranch Club Homeowners Association,
handed to the clerk an additional 25 petitions that came the previous night to
be presented to be added to 55 that he reported had been already received. He stated that the Board previously saw fit
to place restrictions on the number of sliders that the Hansens could place,
and he agreed that there should be such restrictions and that ten was too
many. He commented that he appreciated
Mr. Hansen’s efforts to be a good neighbor.
He related that his core argument was that they did not feel it was appropriate
for any operation of this size to operate on such a small lake and that all 116
residents who purchased property at the Ranch Club would have deeded access to
the lake. He stated that his dock last
year needed to be cleaned up and repaired after the hurricanes, but as of two
months ago, he could use his dock again and intended to do so. He commented that there were cameras on the
gates and that they had asked unauthorized users of the lake to discontinue
that and that they intend to police any trespassers on the lake as best as they
can. He opined that each year since
1998, the restrictions on the ski school had been either kept or increased for
good reason. He stated that they do not
intend to be hostile toward the ski school or interfere with them, but that
they oppose the renewal of the CUP.
Commr. Stewart asked Mr. Larson if he
lived on the lake right now and how many times he had used the lake.
Mr. Larson answered that his property
was not a lake-front property, but he moved to his property on March 1, which
had deeded lake access. However, he
stated that he did not currently own a boat and had not had an opportunity to
use the lake yet, other than picnics and enjoying the view of the lake.
Commr. Stewart asked if he felt that
the last year went pretty smoothly.
Mr. Larson responded that he did not
have any valid complaints and had tried to cooperate with the Hansens. He clarified that he was there in the
capacity of President of the Ranch Club representing people who used that lake
and as himself as a homeowner for his ability to use that lake in the future
and to avoid having any increased erosion of the deeded access.
Ms. Stacey Ferrari, a resident of
Winter Garden, and owner of Lot 16 in the Lakes Community directly on Lake
Morgan in the Ranch Club, opined that 17 of the 18 property owners on Lake
Morgan were in opposition, in addition to other Ranch Club property owners, and
that the issue was with the business operation on Lake Morgan in what was zoned
Residential and Agricultural. She stated
that she did not think that the issue of a developer coming in and developing
the Ranch Club was relevant, and that the World Wakeboard Center(WWC) knew when they located to Lake Morgan that it
was a private lake and that other people would be coming in at some point. She commented that, like the Hansens, they
had worked very hard to be able to afford a piece of land out there where they
ultimately wanted to build their dream home.
She stated that she had sent e-mail photographs of the damage that was
being done to her shore line due to the constant use of Lake Morgan by
wakeboard boats, which were heavy and then weighted more to give height to the
wakes. She showed a permit that she had
for the clearing of her shore line issued by DEP, Bureau of Invasive Plant
Management of St. Johns River Region, and that she was in full compliance with
it and replanted in accordance with the permit.
Commr. Stewart asked if she currently
lived on the lake and how many times she boated on the lake in the last year.
Ms. Ferrari responded that she did
not live there right now, but that she was out there almost daily over the last
year supervising the cleanup of the shoreline and maintaining the plants that
were planted. She stated that she boated
three times on the lake in the past year.
Mr. Trevor Hansen, Villa City Road,
Groveland, son of the Applicant, stated that he had been water skiing since he
was six months old, had been part of water skiing his entire life and started
wakeboarding at twelve years old at his parents’ wakeboard center. He stated he was 22 years old and starting
his sixth year of professional wakeboarding.
He stated that during his ten years of wakeboarding, he had met
thousands of people who enjoy the same sport that they do every day, traveled
the world and visited other countries and experienced different cultures. He had been in wakeboarding magazines, on
television shows, and in videos, and that none of that would have been possible
if it had not been for the WWC and what his parents do there. He commented that there were many
professionals with the same success story due to the WWC. He had experienced how wakeboarding had
strengthened the communities in different countries and gave the youth
something to aspire to do. He stated
that he hoped the Board would help the WWC get their CUP so that they could
continue to help young people and change their lives.
Mr. Andrew Hansen, the Applicant,
gave a rebuttal to the people opposed to his CUP, and stated that they were
great people and that the Hansens did their best to get along with them, but
that he felt they misrepresented the same issues that were misrepresented at
the last hearing. He also opined that
the opposition stemmed from a time when the Hansens opposed a request from some
residents for a slalom course on the water years ago, when they were told that
those residents would make life difficult for them and get the Ranch Club
against them. He also commented that the
Ranch Club area had an environmental easement around it and that the erosion
Ms. Ferrari had spoken of was caused by the illegal clearing that she and
others had done on their property. He
also reported that St. Johns River Water Management District staff performed an
aerial inspection of the Ranch Club on February 15, 2006, when they observed
unauthorized work in the conservation easement, including removal of a
significant amount of vegetation on the shore of Lake Morgan on Lot 77. He also pointed out that if the Ranch Club
owners did not like the school being there, they should not have purchased the
property in the first place.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Stewart commented that she
thought it was an awfully small lake for 116 homes, and that no matter what
they decided that day, there were going to be problems on that lake, and that
down the road something different would have to be done.
Commr. Hill asked how many homes had
been completed.
Mr. Hartenstein responded that it was
not very many and that only about 10 to 15 percent had been developed.
Commr. Renick stated that the ski
school was there first, and that if she wanted a lake that was quiet all day
long, she would not purchase property on a lake where there was a legal ski
school. She also commented that their
operation was closer to shore than many other ski schools, which was good for
this situation. She stated that she did
not find anything aesthetically objectionable when she went out there. She also mentioned that she understood that
they had normal business hours of operation.
She noted that when vegetation was removed from the shoreline, serious
problems could develop with the lake.
She commented that she did not have any objections to what staff had
recommended, with the only change being that she recommended changing the
renewal process to every three years rather than the two recommended by the
Zoning Board, especially since they received an annual inspection and other
checks from Code Enforcement.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit CUP No. 07/3/1-3 with the
conditions recommended by the Zoning Board, with the exception of changing the
requirement to seek renewal changed from every two to every three years, for
Tab 5, Andrew and Joni Hansen, Tracking No. 19-07 CUP/AMD, and execution of
Ordinance No. 2007-15.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 87F-05-3 –
PLANTATION AT LEESBURG/MIRANDA F
FITZGERALD, ESQ. – TRACKING NO.
128-05-PUD/DRI
Mr. Ryan Guffey, Senior Planner,
Planning and Community Design Department, presented Rezoning Case PH No.
87F-05-3, in Commission District 3, and stated that the Applicant was Miranda
F. Fitzgerald, Esq. from Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed and that
the owner was the Plantation of Leesburg Limited Partnership. He stated that the application was a rezoning
basically from PUD (Planned Unit Development District)/DRI (Development of
Regional Impact) to PUD/DRI and that he would explain that in the course of his
presentation. He specified that this
application was a nonsubstantial Notice of Proposed Change, which means that
this change would not create additional regional impacts under Florida
Statutes. He noted that there were two
associated ordinances with this petition, a PUD Development Order Ordinance and
a DRI Ordinance. He stated that the
Applicant was requesting a reduction from 3,050 to 2,830 dwelling units and a
reduction from 565 to 216 multifamily dwelling units allowed under the existing
Development Order, reduction of commercial square footage from 234,600 square
feet to 166,990 square feet, and no changes planned to the golf course. He noted that the Plantation at Leesburg was
a retirement development composed primarily of residential and recreational
uses, and that the proposed change to the PUD/DRI was requested so that the
final development order would reflect the actual build out totals. He also stated that the project contained
many wetlands and straddled the Palatlakaha River south of the City of
Leesburg. He stated that staff
recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the PUD/DRI, subject to the
Notice of Proposed Change and Development Order and Ordinance, and that there
were no written comments in opposition.
He related that the Zoning Board recommended approval by a unanimous
vote.
Ms. Miranda Fitzgerald, attorney with
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, Orlando, the Applicant, stated
that Mr. Guffey did a great job informing the Board about this and that she was
happy with the staff recommendation and was willing to proceed in accordance
with all the conditions. She also noted
that this would be the last amendment to this DRI, since it was approaching
buildout, and that they had gone through all the traffic monitoring and
modeling to move into the third phase, which was the last phase of the project,
and now they were just trying to match this to the existing development. She stated that she would appreciate the
Board’s approval.
The Vice Chairman opened the public
hearing.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hill clarified that this was
clearly a reduction in single family, multifamily, and commercial development.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that the Board could make one motion, and that would work fine for this
case.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved Tab 6, Rezoning Case PH 87F-05-3, The Plantation at Leesburg’s request
for approval of the DRI/PUD Ordinances No. 2007-16 and No. 2007-17.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT TO HISTORICAL MUSEUM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that that the Historical Society wanted the Board to appoint Ms.
Harryette Anne Duncan as the member and Ms. Jamie Hanja as the alternate, and
that there was one other vacancy with three applications.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
appointed Ms. Harryette Anne Duncan as a member and Ms. Jamie Hanja as an alternate
member representing the Historical Society to serve a three-year term on the
Historical Museum Advisory Committee beginning March 28, 2007.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
appointed Ms. Bonnie Roof as a member of the public at large to serve a
three-year term on the Historical Museum Advisory Committee beginning March 28,
2007.
REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER
IMPACT FEE WAIVER FOR INDIVIDUAL
ADOPTING CHILDREN
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, noted
that the Board had waived permit and impact fees for individuals who owned
property that was homesteaded in the area that was destroyed by the tornadoes
and wanted to build site built homes, and requested that an additional waiver
be granted for an individual who was going to be adopting children from a
couple who died as a result of the tornadoes.
She explained that even though this individual’s property was not among
the ones that were destroyed, she did need to construct a home large enough for
the children to live in. She further
explained that she would take down her mobile home, located on property in the
area affected by the tornadoes, and build a site built home large enough to
support the children that she would be adopting from the deceased.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 3-0, the Board
approved the County Manager’s request for the impact fee waiver.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL –
DISTRICT 1
WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH EVENT
Commr. Hill reported that they had
attended the Women’s History Month event at the federal prison and were very
well received. She also commented that
there was a packed house, which included men as well as women, and that they
were very well received and presented the proclamation.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
__________________________________
JENNIFER
HILL, VICE CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK