A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
MAY
22, 2007
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Mr.
Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, gave the Invocation and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
Commr.
Cadwell stated that they had an emergency ordinance, and asked Mr. Sandy
Minkoff,
Mr.
Minkoff responded that the ordinance would require a four-fifths vote of
approval by the Board today and should be added to the Agenda, if the Board
wished.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the emergency ordinance on the
Agenda.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously,
the Board approved the
Budget
Request
for approval of the following Budget Change Requests:
1. Budget transfer - General Fund, Department of
Facilities Development and Management, Facilities Management Division. Transfer
$117,247 from Contractual Services to Overtime ($27,082), Professional Services
($55,165), and Repair and Maintenance ($35,000). Additional funds are needed
for the following projects: Overtime for work to remodel the
2. Budget transfer - General Fund, Department of Facilities Development and Management, Facilities Management Division. Transfer $52,500 from Contractual Services to Utility Services. Additional funds are required for Energy Management for utilities due to increases for additional facilities not included in the adopted budget as well as rate increases. Funds are available in Facilities Services Contractual Services due to lower cost for actual custodial contract than estimated in adopted budget.
Community
Services
Request
for authorization to
advertise for bids for Lake Kathryn Community Development Block Grant Phase VI
Paving Project No. 2007-02 at an estimated cost of $183,442.00. Funding will be
through the Community Development Block Grant.
Growth Management
Request for approval and execution of a Release
of Fine, Property Owner: Sherry L.
Puckett, Code Case#2005010140 - Commission District 5.
Public Works
Request for approval for execution of SJRWMD Participation Agreement, Memorandum of Agreement,
and approval of PEC Scope for design of Hollondel Road Regional Stormwater
Pond. TRACKING # STR 07016 - Commission District 3.
Request
for approval of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of
Mascotte for the Sunset Avenue Project Development and Environment (PD&E)
Study --- TRACKING # SDY 07015; CRC # RI-0706 - Commission District 3.
Request
for execution of the Statement of Commitment for Upper Ocklawaha River Basin
Management Action Plan.
Request
for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute satisfaction of liens
for the attached four (4) road assessments.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tab 9
and the Addendum No. 1-I, as follows:
Request
for approval of Agreement with Stricklen Appraisal Services, P.A. for CR 466
Segment A Project – Commission District 5.
Addendum
No. 1-I
Request
for approval of renewal of lease agreement between
PUBLIC
HEARING
EMERGENCY
ORDINANCE INCREASING HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR
SENIOR
CITIZENS
Mr. Sandy
Minkoff,
AN
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY,
FLORIDA; DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS; AMENDING SECTION 13-290 OF THE
LAKE COUNTY CODE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM
$25,000 TO $50,000 FOR PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF 65 WHO MEET CERTAIN INCOME
RESTRICTIONS; PROVIDING THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION SHALL BE AVAILABLE
RETROACTIVELY TO JANUARY 1, 2007 FOR THE 2007 TAX ROLL; PROVIDING A SEVERANCE
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that this year the legislature created Law 2007-4, which
authorized this increase, and authorized it retroactively if the Board acted
and delivered a copy of an ordinance by June 1 to the Property Appraiser. He stated that it was noted in the summary
that approximately a little over 4,000 homesteads had qualified for this
exemption in
Commr.
Cadwell asked if the income restriction for that ordinance was $20,000.
Mr.
Minkoff responded that it was actually a little more than $20,000, because
another part of the act called for an increase in that as the cost of living
went up, so it was slightly higher than $20,000, but still relatively low. He also explained that it was adjusted gross
income, so that there might be some people who had some income that would not
be included in that, but for the most part, this would be for very low income
people.
Commr.
Cadwell asked what happened after the legislature met and they put this in as a
constitutional issue.
Mr.
Minkoff responded that the bills they had seen so far had a combination of
revenue restrictions for this year and proposed constitutional amendments that
would be on the ballot that would become effective in the future, and once they
saw what they did, they would have the ability to readdress it if the Board
wanted to.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that there were a lot of people in this county that could
utilize that, but the down side was that they needed to apply for it every year
and the County would not be able to fund a program to make sure that they did
that, but they would get a notice that informed them that they needed to file
every year.
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. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Emergency Ordinance No. 2007-22 increasing
the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 for people over the age of 65
with limited income.
PUBLIC
HEARING
SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Mr. Sandy
Minkoff,
Mr. Minkoff
explained that the first case involved Ordinance No. 2004-90, Hart Family LLC,
which was a proposal originally to redesignate 142 acres from Rural to Urban
Expansion. He showed on an overhead map
where the property was located, using Hartwood Marsh Road and Hancock Road as
reference points, pointing out that the City of Clermont surrounded the
property almost on three sides. He
stated that the proposed settlement called for repealing the ordinance, which
would leave those 142 acres rural. He
went on to explain that the second case was 2004-99, which was Vrablik and was
an ordinance that designated 355 vacant acres from Suburban to Urban
Expansion. He showed the location of the
property on the overhead map, using US Hwy 27, the entrance to the Industrial
Park, the
Commr.
Cadwell commented that it would be simpler to divide the three cases out.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on the Hart Family case, Ordinance No.
2004-90.
Mr. Steve
Richey, Attorney, stated that he represented the Hart Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, and pointed out that this went back to a large scale Comprehensive
Plan Amendment which was done in 2004, and it was rezoned and sent to the
State. He related that the State issued
a notice in February of 2005 that they were going to find it in noncompliance,
and they were advised as the property owners that they needed to undertake to
defend that action. They did that, and were
advised by the
Commr.
Renick stated that she recalled that the City of Clermont had a concern with a
density issue in addition to the JPA issue, and that Clermont had wanted it to
come before them instead of the County Commission, since it was surrounded on
three sides by the City, and Clermont was concerned that it would not be given
as low a density as they would have given.
Mr. Richey
responded that now they would be bound by the JPA, which was far less than the
four units to the acre that was in the Comp Plan Amendment, and that the
density issues were now moot.
Commr.
Cadwell asked the
Mr. Sandy
Minkoff,
Commr.
Cadwell commented that he hoped the Board would deny the settlement agreement
and let them come back with something else, considering the water and sewer,
being surrounded by the City, and the school concurrency situation.
There
being no one else who wanted to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commr.
Renick stated that the stipulation agreement rescinded the Comp Plan and the
change from Rural, and as the District 2 Commissioner, her recommendation was
to approve it the way they currently had it.
Commr.
Renick made a motion to approve the settlement agreement the way it currently
was presented before the Board, which was seconded by Commr. Stewart. The motion failed by a vote of 2-3, with
Commr. Stivender, Commr. Hill, and Commr. Cadwell voting “no.”
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill, and carried by a motion of
3-2, the Board denied the settlement agreement that was before them that day
and allowed staff and the applicant to go back to DCA.
Commr.
Renick and Commr. Stewart voted “no.”
Mr. Richey
explained that the same scenario that he had alluded to had taken place on the
case of Vrablik also, and that in addition to that, this case in particular had
complete construction plans approved to build on this piece of property and
develop it. He noted that they also had
all their water and sewer permits for distribution from DEP (Department of
Environmental Protection) and all the other agencies with regard to the St.
Johns River Water Management District.
He stated that they ended up getting a PUD that approved a certain
number of density units and that it would be making housing available to serve
the needs of the workers in the Industrial Park, which was still the intention
of this project, and that this property was comp planned and zoned at that time
based on those representations. Also,
they had entered into an agreement with Groveland to provide central water and
sewer, which provided those services to the Industrial Park. Mr. Richey also noted that Groveland was in
the process of spending millions of dollars to upgrade utilities in that area
based on that utility agreement to serve this project. They anticipated that this project would be
under construction a year ago, and that the developer and the City both had
obligations of millions of dollars on that utility agreement. He noted that more than one hundred acres of
this property was comp planned at seven units to the acre, which they had the
ability to develop, and the original proposal from DCA was to do a blending to
reduce the density on that to four units to the acre and increase the density
on the other half of the property. He
proposed that the Board reject the revoking of the Comp Plan Amendment and
allow them to come back and work out this blending issue. He emphasized that the density that they were
proposing was less than what the Comp Plan on the total parcel would allow,
which could avoid them having to go through a Comp Plan Amendment ultimately.
Commr.
Cadwell asked Mr. Richey if he was willing to put some language in any future
settlement agreement or any PUD that would spell out the workforce housing if
they denied the settlement agreement he currently had.
Mr. Richey
stated that they could probably work out some wording that would accommodate
potential changes in impact fees but yet have that initial workforce housing,
and he agreed to put that in writing.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that he did not agree totally agree with everything that Mr.
Richey said, but that if the Board rejected the agreement today, they would
bring something back to the Board after working with staff to develop that. He also commented that they might have to
have a closed session to discuss how they approached it, and he did not want
specific directions on a settlement that day.
Mr. Allen
Sherrod, Vice Mayor of the City of
Commr.
Cadwell asked if he was speaking on behalf of Groveland or as just one member.
Mr.
Sherrod responded that he was speaking as one member, but he knew that the city
had over $9 million in the treatment plant that was on Hwy 19 and Hwy 27.
Commr.
Stewart asked how many units would be on the property.
Mr. Richey
responded that there would be 577 units on 455 acres.
Mr.
Minkoff commented that this was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would govern
the entire property and set it at a maximum of four units to the acre, and then
other zoning issues would address the density.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of
4-1, the Board moved that they deny the rescinding of Ordinance No. 2004-99
with the understanding that they would work with staff on blending and making
sure that workforce housing was part of the new settlement agreement.
Commr.
Renick voted “no.”
Mr. James Johnston, Attorney, of Gray Robinson in
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Johnston added that he knew there were rejections of the other two
items of this agreement and that they were “married” together, and requested that
if this portion was approved, that they could continue to move forward, since
this had been going on since 2004.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that Mr. Johnston was requesting approval for
that portion of the settlement agreement.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Minkoff commented that this was a package deal with DCA, and he
suspected that they would allow them to parcel it out, but he did not have
assurance of that, but that he would aim to do that.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried
unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the stipulated settlement
agreement to rescind the portion of Ordinance 2004-98 that proposed to change
the future land use designation on the 80-acre Corbett parcel from Rural to
Urban Expansion and Commercial Activity Outlay so that the future land use
designation on that parcel will remain rural and amend the ordinance with
respect to the 18.397 acres to change the land use designation to Urban
Expansion and Commercial Activity Center Overlay.
PROCUREMENT
Commr. Cadwell asked if there was a
zoning case related to this issue.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Cadwell commented that when
they got to that Tab, he had gotten a request to postpone the rezoning, but he
did not want to postpone the purchase of this.
He commented that they were going to build the tower, no matter what
happened with the zoning, but did not know if the Board would be more
comfortable waiting for after that discussion to approve this.
Mr. Gary Kaiser, Public Safety
Director, stated that they needed to go ahead with the tower.
Commr. Hill asked that if they went
ahead and approved the contract, whether there was a time frame that it had to
be done in or it would cost the County more money.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board
approved the contract to Motorola, Inc. for the purchase of a communications
tower and related equipment on the premises of Fire Station 13 in Paisley.
AGREEMENT WITH MV CONTRACT
TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Mr. Barnett Schwartzman, Procurement
Services Director, stated that they had completed some very complex
negotiations last week regarding the MV Contract Transportation, Inc. Agenda
item, and a new contract was prepared by the
Commr. Stivender thanked staff for
working on this diligently to get it done and that the buses were running and
articles were written up in the newspaper about the service, but that they had
some fine tuning to do.
Commr. Hill clarified with Mr.
Schwartzman that this was not from the general fund, but that federal grants
would be taking care of that contract.
Mr. Schwartzman responded that he
believed that was correct.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community
Services Director, stated that they did provide a match for the grant, and
currently they were supplying enough money from the general fund to exceed that
match requirement.
Ms. Hall clarified that the contract
they were looking at combined both the fixed rate and the TD (Transportation
Disadvantaged), and the TD had the general fund supplement to it.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board
approved the agreement with MV Contract Transportation, Inc. for Public
Transportation Services.
PUBLIC HEARING
VACATION PETITION NO. 1109 – T.
BERRY LONG – PLAT OF PARK HILL
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works
Director, stated that this was Vacation Petition No. 1109, T. Berry Long for
Park Hill Homeowners, to vacate the right of way and cease maintenance on a
portion of a cul-de-sac of a county maintained road, known as
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board regarding this vacation, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill,
seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the
Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1109 and execution of Resolution No.
2007-82.
PUBLIC
WORKS
FINAL
PLAT FOR PARK HILL PARTIAL REPLAT
Mr.
Stivender stated that this was to accept the temporary easement agreement that
was referred to in Vacation Petition No. 1109 (Tab 13) that they had just discussed.
On
a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 11, to accept the final plat for Park
Hill Partial Replat and Tract B and all areas dedicated to the public as shown
on the Park Hill Partial Replat and Tract B plat, accept a temporary easement
agreement with Long Farms North, Inc., accept a performance bond in the amount
of $55,739.00, and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of
Improvements between Lake County and Long Farms North, Inc.
PUBLIC
HEARING
VACATION
PETITION NO. 1100 – A. TOM HARB – PLAZA COLLINA
Mr.
Stivender stated that this had been before the Board on many different
occasions, and showed on a map using Hwy 50, Old Hwy 50,
Commr.
Renick stated that she would be asking for this to be postponed. She explained that even though she understood
staff’s position that there was no need to keep this easement, she would be more
comfortable if they were far enough along to see the site plan before they
actually voted on an easement. She
believed that this could be voted on at the end of the process rather than the
beginning.
Commr.
Cadwell explained that the reason they did it that way was so the developer did
not spend engineering money and site plan money over a parcel that they did not
own.
Mr.
Stivender added that it would continue to create a cloud over the title on the
property, and they would not be able to move forward with anything.
Ms.
Cecilia Bonifay from Akerman Senterfitt, the attorney representing Plaza
Collina, stated that they had submitted this last November, so they had not
rushed in to do something hurriedly, and they had been working with the staff
at a number of meetings, which the public attended. She also stated that when the County accepted
the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) development order, they talked about
the access roads through this project.
She noted that they also approved PUD zoning for this, and attached to
that was the concept master plan at that time, which clearly showed the access
points for the project. She stated that
the two right of ways had no impact in terms of being used as access for the
site, but they were creating a cloud on title when they had perspective tenants
that they were marketing to.
She
commented that the clients gave right of way all along the property boundary
for the West Orange Trail, and that was done because the County was at risk of
losing their federal grant because they did not have the remaining piece that
would connect what they had to the West Orange Trail. She emphasized that this developer went
forward with that without requiring anything of the County at that point, but
in good faith gave that trail. She also
noted that now that the trail was opened, the County also needed an additional
15 feet, which was part of this vacation, which was going to be given to the
County. She added that they were also
accepting the County’s drainage, which was not accommodated. She related that Mr. Stivender indicated that
the County asked the developer to now give an additional easement to realign
the trail so that it would actually connect up on the other side with the
Commr.
Renick commented that she was not suggesting any kind of extensive delay, but
staff knew that she had a number of people concerned about the trail and Old
Hwy 50, and she understood that they would be updated before anything else came
before them.
Ms.
Bonifay commented that she had tried repeatedly to have meetings with Commr.
Renick and her client, and she had refused to meet. However, she pointed out that Commr. Renick had met with representatives of the City of
Mr.
Stivender commented that one of the concerns regarding the trail was getting
the additional 15 feet, which would allow them to eliminate the barb wire fence
in that location. Also, he explained
that they had a signed agreement regarding the additional right of way, which
had not been recorded yet; it was subject to getting this vacated or the site
plan, whichever came first. He related
that this would realign the trail so it would line up better with the
Commr.
Stivender asked if he was saying that the easement that was there had no public
use and was surrounded by the developer’s property, and as a trade-off, what
they had done was give the County the right of way to complete the bicycle
trail, which they needed.
Mr.
Stivender responded that the County had already completed it, but this would
enhance it.
Commr.
Cadwell asked Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, if this road
vacation would affect that site plan in regard to the concerns.
Ms.
Stricklin responded that when this vacation petition was presented in November,
they did not recommend moving it forward because they did not have sufficient
information that the site plan would be processed to determine that there would
be adequate site access and bicycle and pedestrian access. She related that the site plan had been
submitted in three parts, which was reviewed by their development review
services in March and had been resubmitted earlier that month. Based upon those submittals, they had
recommended approval of the vacation petition, because they believed that the
site plan submittals demonstrated that there was not a need for those right of
ways and easements at this time.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that an additional two weeks until the next Board meeting
might give everyone a comfort level regarding this.
Ms.
Stricklin commented that at that time they would have completed their review of
the revised submittal they had received, and they would be happy to present the
staff’s findings regarding the site plan to the Board.
Commr.
Cadwell emphasized that at that time, the site plan discussion would be an
informational type thing for the Board and not a public hearing, and asked Ms.
Bonifay if she had a problem with a two week postponement.
Ms.
Bonifay commented that she hoped it would be determined that it would be taken
up for a vote at that time.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that they should have policy discussion possibly at a
workshop in the future. He emphasized
that this was a big project and they wanted to make sure everything was done
correctly.
Ms.
Bonifay opined that the vacation issue was a totally separate issue from the
site plan once it was determined that the roads were not necessary. However, in an effort to try to be open in
the process, she stated that she would agree to that, but that she was concerned
that the information that was available was not gathered. She would also like a date certain that this
would be voted upon.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing to comment on the two-week postponement.
There
being no one 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 5-0, the Board moved to postpone Vacation Petition 1100 until June
5 at 9:00 a.m.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:07 a.m., the Chairman announced
that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
It was noted that this meeting had
been properly advertised and that there were five items on the Rezoning Agenda,
but that one of them was a request for continuance.
Commr. Hill disclosed that she had
talked to people regarding Tab 2 and Tab 4.
Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he had
talked to staff about Tab 2, and he talked to Mr. Greg A. Beliveau about the
timing of the case, not the substance of the case. However, he disclosed that he heard Mr. Keith
Schue speak as a Nature Conservancy advocate on that case.
Commr. Renick stated that she had an
e-mail and that Ms. Nancy Clutts at the League of Cities spoke positively about
the project in Tab 2.
Commr. Stivender disclosed that she
spoke to people regarding Tabs 3 and 4.
VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF CUP’S - TRACKING
NO. 34-07-CUP/REV
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Growth Management, suggested to the Board that the Voluntary Revocation of
Conditional Use Permits in Tab 5 be moved to the Consent Agenda, if possible,
to be dealt with in a single motion.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public
hearing on any of the revocations of the conditional use permits in Tab 5.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board
approved the Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permits in Tab 5, Tracking
No. 34-07-CUP/REV, and Ordinance No. 207-23, for the following:
CUP #148-2, B 3 Leesburg South
Venture LLC, Annexed by City of
CUP No. 97/4/2-3, Bruce and Nancy
Sanford, Annexed by City of
CUP No. 269A-2, Royal RV Resort,
Annexed by City of
CUP No. 679-2, Florida Power Corp,
Annexed by City of
CUP No. 92/4/1-5, City of Umatilla,
Annexed by City of
CUP No. 92/1/2-2, Edgar Revis,
Annexed by City of
REZONING CASE NO. PH15-07-1 – MARION
ZIMMERMAN – THOMAS G.WENSKI, BISHOP, ARCHDIOCESE OF
Mr.
Alfredo Massa, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, presented Rezoning
Case No. PH15-07-1, which was a petition to rezone property submitted by the
owner, Ms. Marion Zimmerman, and the Applicant, Thomas G. Wenski, Bishop, of
the Archdiocese of Orlando. He stated
that they received a request from the Applicant’s attorney to change the name
on the record to Thomas G. Wenski as Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando and the
Successors in Office, a Corporation Sole.
He explained that the property in question presently was under the land
use of Urban Expansion (UE) and Suburban with a zoning of R-1 (Rural
Residential), permitting one home per acre.
He further explained that the property was in Commission District 1 and
was surrounded by rural land uses and R-1 zoning.
Mr. Massa read the Summary of Analysis
in the backup materials, including that it consisted of 37.72 acres on
Ms. Massa stated that given the
aforementioned findings, staff recommended approval for the rezoning, and that
on May 2, the Zoning Board voted 6-0 in favor of it with the conditions that
there shall be no outdoor group activities from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., there shall
be no music played outdoors or other outdoor activities causing excessive noise
from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., the number of overnight guests shall be limited to two
persons for each bedroom, and the overall number of people allowed on the
property at any given time shall not exceed 70.
Ms. Francis A. Aguilar, a resident of
Commr. Stewart asked Mr. Aguilar if
he felt that he would be less impacted by having this piece of property
developed with up to 37 homes than he would be by this.
Mr. Aguilar responded that he felt
that the people who owned those homes would have a better stewardship of the
property, and that currently most people were building on a larger number of
acres.
Mrs. Leslie Aguilar, wife of the
previous speaker, stated that they were very thankful to find a piece of property
that was quiet and on a dirt road that would restrict a lot of traffic from
going through. She also clarified that
there would only be a maximum of 17 single family homes on buildable land if it
was developed, because some of that land was wetlands. She stated that it was important to them to
find an area that was healthy, because she had chemical sensitivity. She was also concerned about having to look
out her window at 70 vehicles in a parking lot and about future uses and
whether this retreat would ever be converted to a full-scale church or other
high-traffic facility.
Commr. Cadwell stated that in this
particular zoning district, the County could be specific in regards to what
they could do with that, and it would have to come back to a full-blown public
hearing if the Board chose to put that wording in there for any change in use
or buildings.
Mrs. Aguilar asked whether there
would be parking restrictions imposed.
Mr. Massa responded that during the
site plan review process, that would all be taken into review and
consideration.
Ms. Cynthia Raleigh of Baker,
Hostetler, who was representing the Diocese of Orlando, clarified that there
was a buffer strip on the southern portion of the property, which was
approximately 25 feet. She also commented
that any issues regarding cars being seen from their property could be
adequately addressed with buffering, and she opined that the Diocese was a good
and a quiet neighbor, and that the retreats were quiet retreats for
contemplation and not a place for loud music or parties. She did not believe that there should be
concerns about the noise level.
Commr. Stewart inquired about their
future plans.
Ms. Raleigh stated that there were no
plans to build anything additional on the property, and commented that the
house was in bad shape, and it was going to cost a lot of money just to bring
it up to commercial code.
Commr. Renick commented that
according to the backup notes, Mr. Wilde from her law firm stated that the
retreat would only be attended by about 30 to 40 people, rather than 70, and
that the Zoning Board was looking at a worst case scenario. She also commented that this was a retreat
for adults and that it should be quiet.
She inquired whether there was room for an additional buffer in the
event that there was a problem.
Mr. Massa stated that restrictions
could be placed in the ordinance.
Ms. Raleigh commented that the
Diocese had these facilities all over
There being no further individuals
who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded
by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-1, the Board
approved Ordinance No. 2007-24, Tab 1, Rezoning Case No. PH15, 07-1, Tracking
No. 22-07-CFD, as amended by the Zoning Board with changes to decrease the amount
of people allowed on the property to 40, any additional construction to come
back before the Board for approval, change to Type C buffering on the southern
portion of the property, pervious surface to be used for parking to the extent
possible, and to adhere to shoreline regulations.
Commr. Stewart voted “no.”
REZONING CASE NO. PH26-07-5 – LAKE
COUNTY PAISLEY FIRE DISTRICT –
TRACKING NO. 33-07-CFD
Commr. Cadwell stated that this was
the case that he mentioned earlier that he would like to request a 30-day
postponement for, and that they might have some other options in the same
general area. He noted that the tower
might have to be moved a little bit, but that the
The Chairman opened the public
hearing in regard to the 30-day postponement.
On a motion by motion by Commr.
Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0,
the Board moved to postpone Tab 2, Rezoning Case No. PH26-07-5, Lake County
Paisley Fire District, Rob Richardson,
REZONING CASE NO. PH10-07-3 – ELY
FRANK SYMPHORIEN – CHURCH
IGLESIA REFUGIO DE AMOR – TRACKING NO.
16-07-CFD
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner,
Planning and Community Design, presented Rezoning Case No. PH10-07-3, and
stated that this was a property owned by Mr. Ely Frank Symphorien and that the
Applicant was the Church Iglesia Refugio De Amor. He explained that the Applicant was
requesting a zoning amendment from Rural Residential (R-1) to Community
Facility District (CFD) in order to build a church. He noted that this case was originally
presented to the Board on April 24, 2007, so he would give a brief overview,
stating that the parcel was located in the Minneola/Clermont area at the
intersection of Turnpike Road and CR 561A and was within the Suburban Future
Land Use Category (FLUC). He also
commented that a church was a permitted use in the CFD District, and that the
City of
Mr. Sheahan also reported that the
Public Works Department had requested that two additional conditions be added
to the ordinance having to do with the access management, and that one of those
conditions was that a site entrance be located at CR 561, but after further
review, staff had requested that that condition be removed from the ordinance
and worked out at the site plan review process.
Commr. Stivender commented that they
had looked at the intersection shown in the site plan coming out at CR 561 and
did not feel that it was a viable option and that it would be a hazard. Also, she related that in her discussions
with the owner, she gathered that they were starting out very small, and she
had talked to staff and they thought that maybe coming off of
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. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board
approved Ordinance No. 2007-25, Tab 3, Case No. PH10-07-3, Ely Frank Symphorien,
Tracking No. 16-07-CFD, with the requirement that the entrance to the site be
determined by staff at the site plan review and that there be no requirements
to pave the parking spaces at this time.
REZONING CASE NO. PH17-07-5 – WESLEY
D SCOVANNER, ET AL – LPG
URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC –
TRACKING NO. 24-07-CFD
Mr.
Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, stated that this
also was a case that was brought forward to the Board at the April 24 meeting,
and that there were concerns by several residents and neighbors about this
particular application. He noted that there
was a community meeting with the neighbors to work out their differences that
was held on May 3 at the home of Terry and Wendy Ashton and was attended by a
member of their staff and that further meetings and conversations were held
with the Nature Conservancy representative, resulting in several revisions of
the site plan to address the concerns of the neighbors. He reported that site plan was provided to
staff on that Friday, and the information was not included in the backup
materials. He also related that Mr.
Keith Schue, of the Nature Conservancy, had submitted an e-mail to staff late
the night before in support of this application.
Mr.
Sheahan briefly explained that this application was to rezone 57.11 acres from
Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to allow for the
construction of a seminary used in conjunction with a training facility. He specified that differences from the
previous presentation by staff of the ordinance revolved around a relocation of
the driveway to a point acceptable under their access standards away from the
intersection between CR 44 and Eustis Sand Lake Road, elimination of one of the
loop trails, which was a concern by the adjacent property owners, and a proffer
by the applicant to place 80 percent of the site under a conservation easement.
Commr.
Hill stated that she noticed in the ordinance that there were to be no
overnight guests, that there was outdoor lighting mentioned, and that there may
be some evening activities. She asked if
they could include in this ordinance time frames as to noise and outside
activities similar to the original Zoning Board recommendations in Tab 1.
Mr.
Sheahan responded that they could certainly include those conditions.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and
Regional Planners, representing the applicant, stated one additional item was
put in the ordinance, which was a request to allow them to use pervious
surfaces for part of their parking. He
further specified that they had computed the number of parking places that they
felt was more than they currently needed and wanted to leave the rest as grass,
leaving the possibility to improve it in the future if necessary.
Commr. Stewart commented that she
thought this was a very good project, especially since all the neighbors were happy
with it, and she was excited that they were preserving 80 percent of its land
as conservation easement. She wanted to
make sure that the wording of the conservation easement specified that it was
protected well into the future, and suggested to LPG that they allow the Nature
Conservancy to review their easement.
Mr. Beliveau stated that they had
consented to that and that they had already been provided a sample copy of
their template.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Ms. Wendy Ashton of
There being no further individuals who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded
by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved
Ordinance No. 2007-26, Tab 4, Case No. PH17-07-5, Wesley D. Scovanner, et al,
LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., Tracking No. 24-07-CFD, with the
inclusion of leaving the pervious surface spaces and limiting the outdoor
activities on the property.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER
– DISTRICT 3
ARLINGTON RIDGE CONCERNS
Commr. Stivender stated that she and
staff went to Arlington Ridge last week and met with the owners of Arlington
Ridge as well as a representative of Prestige.
She felt that the meeting went very well, and they were working on a
site plan to address some of the citizens’ concerns.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL –
CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
WORKSESSION TO DISCUSS HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL USE POLICY
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he would be in
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
Commr.
Cadwell commented that he wanted the Board to talk about policy only at that
session and not talk about specific cases.
Commr.
Renick stated that the public should be made aware of what the County was doing
in terms of a site plan at Arlington Ridge and what was required and what would
be in place for Prestige specifically that was not in place for the South Lake
location and that they were not just moving the problem as it was to the new
location.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that would be two issues, and that if they wanted to have a
public meeting in front of the whole Board in regards to that particular site
plan, the Board needed to instruct staff to do that. However, he commented that talking about new
rules in general for the industry would be a separate issue from that, and that
it would not be good policy to think about only one project while discussing
what industrial rules in general should be in place.
Commr.
Stivender commented that at the
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, requested direction regarding the
timing of the Prestige site plan and whether they should extend the site plan
review process.
Commr.
Stivender asked if they had met the requirements by staff.
Ms.
Stricklin responded that they would determine that after they received the
resubmittal that week.
Commr.
Stivender commented that if they had met the requirements, there was no legal
right to not approve it, and asked the
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Cadwell suggested that they extend the site plan review and have a presentation
to the Board on what was going on with it.
He stated that this case was different from most, because they had been
involved in it from the beginning.
Mr.
Minkoff commented that they probably would not have the ability to put
additional requirements on this proposal that was not in the current code, but
opined that a week or two’s delay in approving the site plan would not cause
them any major issues.
Commr.
Cadwell directed the
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
____________________________________
WELTON
G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK