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