A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JUNE 26, 2007

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 26, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Elaine Renick; Debbie Stivender; and Linda Stewart.  Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Reverend Dr. Isaac Deas from The Father’s House, in Leesburg, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she would like to pull Tab 2, because they were still working with the residents on that item, and Tab 6, which was an Interlocal Agreement with Umatilla, because they were going to be doing their own building department.  She also stated that the presentation scheduled by the Supervisor of Elections had been postponed until a later date.  She noted that there was also an Addendum No. 1 added to the Agenda, which was a presentation by Mr. Robbie Hollenbeck, Community Services, to present information regarding the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.

PRESENTATION OF THE GORDON JOHNSON AWARD

Commr. Cadwell stated that before they got into the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, they had some special guests to make a presentation.

Mr. Joseph Jarret, County Attorney from Polk County, stated that he was the recent past President of the Florida Association of County Attorneys.  He explained that every year, the Florida Association of County Attorneys gave out its most prestigious award, which was the Gordon Johnson Award, to the local government attorney who had exemplified the essence of local government law, professionalism, pride, and service.  He reported that this year’s recipient was Lake County’s Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff.

Mr. Gordon Johnson, the award’s namesake and the immediate past County Attorney from Marion County, presented the award, stating that it was a real honor and pleasure for him to be before the Board that day to present it, and that he had known Mr. Minkoff for a long time.  He commented that he was sure they were aware of all the sacrifices Mr. Minkoff had made to his office and also that he had taken over as acting County Administrator a couple of times.  He presented the award, noting that it was for his many years of outstanding service to the Association above and beyond the call of duty and that they appreciated all that he had done.

Mr. Minkoff accepted the award, thanking his staff and stating that without one’s staff, one could not be successful at anything, and thanked the presenters of the award.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Renick wanted to pull Tab 8 to ask if there was a time element on that item, or if they could put it out for bid again, because she hated to only have one bid.

Mr. Barnett Schwartzman, Procurement Director, responded that the price that they did get from the one bid was considered fair and reasonable, and when that was the case, generally the best course of action was to proceed.  He opined that he hated to only get one bid also, but in this particular case, they did market research and learned that the price seemed to be right.

Commr. Stivender asked Mr. Schwartzman that if they go back out to bid, if it could come in higher.

Mr. Schwartzman stated that it could come in higher, lower, or with no bid at all.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they would come back and address that one individually.

Commr. Stewart wanted to pull Tab 11 for discussion to ask about the four-foot bicycle lanes for the Britt Road project.

Mr. Stivender responded that the original design was for a twelve-foot trail, a sidewalk, and a road.  He explained that the current design eliminated the trail itself, but they still had the paved shoulders on the road, which were sometimes called by the terms paved shoulders, multi-use shoulders, and bike lanes, and this was based on the direction of the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 11, pulling Tabs 2, 6, and 8,  as follows:

Community Services

Request for approval of 1) distribution of Byrne Grant funds among local jurisdictions applying for funding. 2) signature by Chairman on original letters of support. 3) approval for submission of applications for the Sheriff's office. 4) signature on grant documents including application, certificate of acceptance, EEO certifications and subsequent grant related documents.

Growth Management

Request for approval of very low-income and low-income impact fee waivers as refunds to lenders on behalf of qualified individuals – Commission Districts 2 and 3.

Request for approval and execution of Release of Fine.  Unlicensed contractor fine paid – Commission District 5.

Request for approval to advertise the rewrite of Chapter 6 of the Lake County Code, entitled Building and Construction.

Information Technology

Request for approval and signature of Embarq contract No. 07PLBN73UK7V for renewal of internet service provider.

            Procurement

            Request for approval of donation to LASER and to declare the mobile home surplus to County needs.

Public Works

Request for approval of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and The Town of Lady Lake for maintenance for a portion of the right-of-way on C.R. 466 - Commission District 5.

Request for approval of Fourth Amendment to amend the Scope of Services to provide for the road design to be changed from a rural road design to an urban road design with four foot bicycle lanes, and to include stormwater ponds - Commission District 4.

Commr. Renick commented, regarding Tab 8, that she wanted to know what the rest of the Board thought about only having one bid, but if the Board was comfortable with it, they could go ahead and approve it.

Commr. Cadwell stated that generally Commr. Renick would be absolutely right about that, but that he knew the due diligence that their Purchasing Department went through, and he did not think they would be comfortable at all stating this was a good deal unless it was.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 8, the request from Procurement for approval to award ITB No. 07-0830 for a Thermoplastic Striping Trailer to M-B Companies Inc. in Montgomery, PA for the amount of $58,221.00.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Renick stated that she was pulling Tab 12, which was the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Central Lake Community Development District (CDD).  She stated that she understood that if a CDD was increasing the acreage to where they could expand their utilities, then they were just allowing for more growth and not necessarily in an area where they would want it.  She commented that her reaction was to vote “no” and to ask that they not let them increase their acreage.

Commr. Stivender explained that the reasons for a lot of the expansion there were the rezonings that came before the Board, where they were told that they had to have water and sewer connection, and this CDD was their only option for that connection.

Commr. Stewart commented that her only concern was that she noticed that most of their new spaces were actually filling in empty spaces within the Howey district, and she was concerned about the extension to the marina.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the original CDD was the yellow area on the map contained in the packets, and that the CDD and the County entered into an agreement which would let Central Lake CDD provide utility service outside their CDD area.  He continued to explain that they came in six or eight months ago when they expanded, and when they ran the legal descriptions, they noticed some errors that they had on their property.  He pointed out on the map the area that they had left out, which was right in the center of their property.  When it was pointed out to them and they were asked to look at their map again, they came back and made a second request to fix the legals and to include other property that they owned and had facilities on that were provided with at least water.  Mr. Minkoff also stated that they had met with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills about this each time an expansion came up, and the Town did not object to this one, even though they did raise some objection to another one.  He pointed out that the actual agenda item would authorize the CDD to provide water and sewer services to those areas that were in the blue crosshatch.

Commr. Renick asked what Howey’s reservations had been.

Mr. Minkoff responded that he met with Howey’s outside counsel about it, and he thought they were engaged in discussions with the owners of Mission Inn and the CDD about wastewater services and that Howey believed that the blue area by the marina was in their 180 District, which pertained to sewer and not water, and was in an area where they had proposed to serve with water.  He summarized that it was an issue of who served the area.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 12 of the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, which was the Approval of the Second Amendment to the Interlocal between Lake County and Central Lake Community Development District.

Commr. Renick voted “no.”

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, Tabs 13 through 15, as follows:

Request for approval of Settlement, Lake County v. Buford; Sleepy Hollow Road Realignment Project – Commission District 1.

Request for approval of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Kristen L. Bartch Family Limited Partnership – Commission District 3.

Request for approval to retain the law firm of Shulman Rogers from Washington DC.

ADDENDUM NO. 1-I

PRESENTATION

EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that this was to request approval on behalf of the Sheriff to submit the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant application to the Bureau of Justice in the amount of $79,656.00 to implement some programs, including a crisis negotiation vehicle, some software for sex offender tracking, as well as some radar speed detection devices.  He explained that this was a grant that the Federal Government gave that required the money to be targeted in six different areas, which were law enforcement, prosecution, prevention, community programs, drug treatment, and community corrections.  He also stated that no local matches were required.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, the Board approved Addendum No. 1-I, a request from Community Services on behalf of the Sheriff to submit the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant application to the Bureau of Justice.

Mr. Smith added that there was a 30-day public review of the grant application and that they send any comments that anyone in the public may have to the Bureau of Justice.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES

APPLICATION FOR FTA SECTION 5309 DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that this was the application that they made for the bus facility that they were hoping to locate somewhere in the south Tavares campus.  He specified that it was a $7 million grant and that there was a cash match to this.  He noted that they submitted it through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) through the federal government, and that hopefully if they received this grant, they could alleviate some of their problems as far as maintaining the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) buses and the fixed route buses.

Commr. Hill stated that she was concerned, because she thought this might be a little premature, since the fixed route had not been in existence for a year, and possibly they were committing quite a bit of funding for something that they did not know if they would be able to or want to continue.  She asked if they could donate property rather than the cash for the cash match.

Mr. Smith responded that they have had that thought to make that match with property.

Commr. Stivender pointed out that this was also for the Transportation Disadvantaged.

Commr. Hill asked that if the worst-case scenario happened and they did not have the fixed route anymore, would this grant be too large for just that function.

Mr. Smith answered that they did not think it would be, and that as the County grew, the number of vehicles that they would need to provide service would increase as well.  He opined that this should be adequate to serve that.

Commr. Cadwell pointed out to the Board that they should not lose focus when they were talking about the bus service that  they were in the business not only to try to provide the service, but also because they were required to do so in order to receive a certain amount of the federal gas taxes.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to submit the grant application for the FTA Section 5309 Discretionary Grant Program.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT

ELLIS PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT

Mr. David Hanson, Public Lands Manager, stated that this was a request to approve a contract with Mr. Frank Ellis and Ms. Christine Ellis for approximately 88 acres in the Paisley area on County Road 42.  He explained that the property had almost 1000 feet of frontage on Lake Akron, which was about a 200-acre lake.  He also stated that this property had forested wetlands and mixed upland forests with large oak trees and a variety of wildlife, including sand hill cranes, turkeys, black bear, and deer.  He stated that they ran it through their green print model and it scored or tied with the highest of any properties that they had analyzed with the model so far, which was 9 out of 13 of their primary site evaluation criteria.  He noted that there was a home on the property that was about 3800 square feet that they envisioned to use as an educational center/ranger station.  He opined that it was a very beautiful piece of property and would provide some public low-key access to that lake and the grounds themselves.

Commr. Hill asked if they were prohibited from putting the emergency services communication cell tower on this property.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, responded that this purchase would not prohibit them from doing that, and that would be discussed further during the zoning case later.

Commr. Stivender asked Mr. Hanson if the amount to be paid was the same as the appraised amount.

Mr. Hanson answered that it was slightly higher than the appraised value.

Mr. Minkoff mentioned that they had cleared all the title issues that were there and that they had allowed Mr. Ellis to remain on the property for a short period of time while he relocated.  He also stated that there was a mobile home with a tenant on the property and that they anticipated the mobile home being removed, although they might have to work with that tenant to give him a little time to move.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request for approval of the Purchase and Sales Agreement between Lake County and Frank K. Ellis, Trustee, and Christine C. Ellis, Trustee, and to authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary closing documents – Commission District 5.

Mr. Frank Ellis addressed the Board and stated that this had been a long, educational experience for them, and he congratulated everyone that was involved in this from the beginning.  He also commented that Mr. Hanson had been fantastic, and that the experience had been very rewarding.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

ORDINANCE REGARDING COURT RELATED FUNDS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor for reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 9-16, ENTITLED ADDITIONAL COURT COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES, TO PROVIDE THAT A PORTION OF THESE COSTS ARE USED AS COUNTY FUNDNG FOR COURT RELATED FUNCTIONS TO MEET LOCAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Minkoff explained that this was a very small amendment to one section of the Code that made the Code conform to the State Statutes.

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 Ordinance No. 2007-28, amending Section 9-16, clarifying that funds collected under this section may be used for court related functions as required by law.

            VACATION PETITION NO. 1108 – DONALD HEINRICH – GROVELAND AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was Vacation Petition No. 1108, Donald and Earla Heinrich, to vacate the right of way in the Groveland area, which was in District 2.  He showed the property on the map, pointing out that it was north of Groveland with a large development on the east side of this in the City of Groveland.  He said that when this development came in, they dedicated just about all the right of way for the entire roadway as part of their agreement with Groveland, and that was where the paved road got placed.  He stated that this was an unusual case where the County actually had excessive right of way, which could be granted back to the property owner.

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. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1108 and execution of Resolution No. 2007-93, Donald and Earla Heinrich, to vacate right of way located in Section 34, Township 21, Range 25, in the Groveland area.

            VACATION PETITION NO. 1115 – STEVEN GLIDEWELL – GROVELAND FARMS

Mr. Stivender stated that this was to vacate an unnamed right of way, in the Plat of Groveland Farms, located in Section 4, Township 23, Range 25, in the South Clermont area, Commission District 2.  He showed where the property was located on the overhead map, showing CR 565B to the South, a lot of wetlands, and a house in the middle on an island.  He commented that he did not see any public purpose for this particular easement and recommended vacation.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1115, Steven D. Glidewell, to vacate unnamed right of way in the South Clermont area, and the execution of Resolution No. 2007-94.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Department of Growth Management, placed on the screen the Proof of Publication for the day’s Rezoning public hearings.  He called their attention to the Consent Agenda.

REZONING CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Renick wanted clarification on Tab 3, Summer Bay, Rezoning Case No. PH28-07-2, regarding the five-year extension.  She asked if the extension was from December 31, 2004 or from today’s date.

Mr. Bennett answered that it was from the 2004 date, and it would take it through 2009.

Commr. Renick stated that she did not have a problem with that.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out to the Board that the Governor signed a bill on June 19 or 20 granting an additional three year extension for all DRI’s in the state, so this DRI would probably get the benefit of those additional three years as well.

Commr. Renick commented that maybe they should ask the two other counties that were affected by this DRI if they were in agreement with it, since it was in the Four Corners area.

Commr. Cadwell commented that if it was a substantial deviation, then he would have a little more concern about it, but that this just concerned the time frame.

Mr. Bennett stated that with the new law, they would get three years plus the five years that this provided.  He explained that originally, when they submitted this, they were asking for more time that would have triggered a substantial deviation, in their opinion.  Therefore, they had suggested that they bring it back under the threshold for substantial deviation.  He noted that they had already submitted another Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to address many more issues that would be addressed collectively with the other counties very shortly, such as the addition of some square footage, extension of the build-out date even further, and other items.

Commr. Cadwell asked that if this Board decided to give them an additional two years to give them a total of five, and then they came back under their substantial deviation public hearing, would the Board then have the final decision to grant that.

Mr. Minkoff responded that the Board could address it at that time.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant, Mr. John Adams with R J Whidden & Associates, stated that he understood the confusion with the Governor’s action, but the only thing they wanted to do was to extend this Development Order (DO) to 2009, five years from the expiration of 2004.  He explained that they had initiated another NOPC involving many development changes in the program, and they were looking for a five-year build-out from the time they would get that approved.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

Mr. Minkoff told the Board that they needed to give them at least three years, because they let it lapse in 2004, so if they did not extend it three years, which would get them through today, they would not get the benefit of the new statute.  He further commented that if the Board approved three, they would get that plus three more.

Mr. Adams stated that they would be fine with being given a date certain of December 31, 2009.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a time extension of the Development Order expiration date to December 31, 2009, including the three-year extension that was granted by the legislature this year, of the following:

Ordinance No. 2007-29

Summer Bay

John F. Adams, R J Whidden & Associates

Rezoning Case No. PH28-07-2

Tracking No. 40-07-PUD/DRI/AMD

DRI/PUD to DRI/PUD, reviving an application for NOPC

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, except for Case No. PH28-07-2, which contained cases that were recommended for approval and which were not controversial, as follows:

Ordinance No. 2007-30

Donald Markey

Rezoning Case No. PH27-07-3

Tracking No. 39-07-CFD

A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) to allow a family cemetery.

Ordinance No. 2007-31

Tracking 41-07-CUP/REV

Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permits for the following:

CUP No. 99/2/1-5, L. J. Norman

CUP No. 516-3, J & H Investments of Clermont, Inc.

CUP No. 98/11/3-2, Sherry Jean Turner

CUP No. 93/6/3-1, Carol Ann Hudson

CUP No. 697-5, Herschel and Earlene Locke

CUP No. 94/1/1-2, William T. Marshall

CUP No. 840-4, DTZ, Inc., Clay Reynolds III

CUP No. 89/3/5-1, Carl W. Stewart Jr.

CUP No. 97/4/1-3, Philip and Anita Jones

REZONING CASE NO. PH22-07-2 – F & J DEVELOPERS LLC – FRANK SCALA

TRACKING NO. 32-07-PUD

Mr. Bennett stated that they had received a letter requesting a 30-day continuance for Case No. PH22-07-2 to a date specific, which would be July 24.  He explained that the basis for that was that there was at least one right of way issue that Public Works and the Applicant would need to work out before it came back for a final action from the Board.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

At this time, Commr. Stivender and Commr. Hill disclosed, for the record, that they had spoken to the applicant or the applicants’ representatives prior to this meeting regarding this case.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board postponed Tab 4, Rezoning Case No. PH22-07-2, F & J Developers LLC, Frank Scala, Tracking No. 32-07-PUD, until July 24, 2007.

REZONING CASE NO. 24-07-1 – COMMUNITY WESLEYAN CHURCH

TRACKING NO. 36-07- CFD

Mr. Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, stated that this was a rezoning request made by Community Wesleyan Church, and the Applicant was Clayton McPherson.  He explained that this was a request for a Rezoning Amendment from Rural Residential (R-1) with CUP No. 510-1 to Community Facility District (CFD) to continue the existing church uses and add a daycare and playground and to revoke the CUP.  He read from the Summary of Analysis, which stated that the parcel was roughly five acres and located in the Leesburg area.  He commented that staff found that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and the parcel was surrounded by single-family homes and low-density development.  He explained that the rezoning was required to continue the use, because current zoning did not allow for the use of the day care.  He stated that they had received one supportive letter, which was in the backup, and that the Rezoning Board recommended approval 7-0.

Commr. Renick inquired about how big the day care facility would be, and was concerned that it would generate traffic at the drop off and pick up times.

Mr. Sheahan responded that those types of issues would be addressed at the site plan review stage, and they would be limited to the capacity of the road.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Hill noted that this was in the Sunnyside area, and they had an Interlocal that they had worked very diligently on.  She commented that she did not get any comments from the City or the unincorporated residents opposing this rezoning, and she felt that this was a good use for the area.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-32,  Tab 2, Rezoning Case No. PH24-07-1, Community Wesleyan Church, Tracking No. 36-07-CFD.

REZONING CASE NO. PH26-07-5 – LAKE COUNTY PAISLEY FIRE DISTRICT –

FRANK K. ELLIS, TRUSTEE AND CHRISTINE ELLIS, TRUSTEE – TRACKING

NO. 33-07-CFD

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that originally this case was only for a small portion of the existing fire station, and it was postponed to add the rest of the legal description, and that the ultimate impact of that would be to rezone all the property for public use and allow conservation use, the fire station, and a tower.  He also noted that it did not specify where on the site those would be, and a variance was obtained to allow the tower on either of the two parcels.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they staked out where the new site for the tower would be, which was also unsettling for him.  He commented that this was a beautiful piece of property, and he did not want the tower to be right in the middle as people were coming in, and he wanted to go back to where they originally talked about the tower being that he previously was opposed to and now was not.  He further explained that it would be worse if the tower were placed in the center of the Ellis property rather than in the corner to some extent, and he thought they should go back to that.  He asked Mr. Minkoff to be sure that legally they did that.

Mr. Minkoff responded that the zoning action in front of them would allow the tower anywhere on the parcel, subject to the variance requirements, which were very minimal.  He further noted that the site location then would be chosen by the Board and the County Manager, and he did not think where they put it was impacted by the rezoning today.

Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, commented that that was correct, as long as it met the setbacks that were incorporated in the variance.

Commr. Renick confirmed that when PLAAC bought a piece of property, it was rezoned to CFD (Community Facilities District).  She asked why they did not portion out the part that they wanted to be CFD rather than rezone the whole 88 acres.

Mr. Brian Sheahan answered that if PLAAC was buying the property for conservation, it might be placed in a conservation district, and that parks could only be placed in CFD, and there was a distinction between conservation uses and park uses.

Mr. Minkoff added that their goal right now would be, as they were acquiring them, to get them properly zoned to make sure that they did not have problems, so until the new zoning classifications were done, they would have to put them all into CFD.

Mr. Hartenstein stated that this was Rezoning Case No. PH26-07-5; the owners were Frank K. Ellis, Trustee, and Christine C. Ellis, Trustee; and the Applicant was Lake County Public Safety.  He explained that the property was located in the Rural Village and the Rural Land Use District, and that the request was to rezone the approximately 88 acres from Agriculture (A) and Planned Commercial (CP) to Community Facility District (CFD) to allow a fire station, emergency services communication cell tower, and conservation/passive recreational uses.  He stated that the Applicant was requesting to rezone this property to correct a nonconforming zoning district for the fire station and permit the placement of a 480-foot self-supporting lattice telecommunication tower on the site to provide emergency first responder communications for the surrounding northeastern area of Lake County; utilize the existing home and mobile home as Park Ranger caretaker’s units, office space, educational classroom space, and/or storage as determined by the County Manager or designee; and provide conservation/passive recreational uses for the citizens of Lake County.  He commented that the recommendation of staff and the Zoning Board was approval of the request.

Commr. Stivender confirmed that the tower would be the replacement for the one that went down in Royal Trails during the tornado.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no individuals 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 Ordinance No. 2007-33, Tab 5, Rezoning Case No. PH26-07-5, Lake County Paisley Fire District, Tracking No. 33-07-CFD.

REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

PROPOSED ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IV RE: LOBBYING

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Tab 21 was approval to advertise a proposed ordinance dealing with registration of lobbyists, as directed by the Board at the Workshop.  He explained that the ordinance would require that persons who were defined as lobbyists to sign a registration form whenever they lobby members of the Board regarding matters that might come in front of the Board.  He noted that it did not apply to people who talk to County staff, and it was only for paid lobbyists.  He mentioned that there was no annual registration or fee.  He stated that Commr. Hill pointed out to him that this ordinance did not replace the requirement that they disclose who they talk to on zoning cases, so even when they talk to non-lobbyists, they still were required to disclose those discussions on zoning cases.  This ordinance would pertain to matters other than zoning.

Commr. Renick stated that she wanted to add the Department of Growth Management to the list of people that lobbyists had to register before seeing, because she thought the purpose of the ordinance was so people would know what was going on as far as growth issues.

Commr. Cadwell did not think that would be a good idea, because it would be cumbersome.

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that if the Board wanted a record of who talked with staff, it should be for all County-wide staff, because she would not want to single out a particular department as if there was a reason they would be under scrutiny more than others.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not know how feasible it would be every time a lobbyist helped someone get a building permit, for example, that they register.  He suggested that if they wanted to go that route, that they limit it to division or department directors or some higher level employee as opposed to just every employee.

Commr. Cadwell stated that it would almost give the appearance that the Board did not trust the employees and would not give a positive impression. 

Commr. Renick asked if it would be safer to advertise the ordinance leaving language in that included staff and then have the discussion later.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would prefer to have Mr. Minkoff come back with language to similar to what Commr. Renick said to identify what type of employee it would be.

Mr. Minkoff clarified with the Board that they wanted to add employees that were division directors or above, attorneys, and manager status to the language in the ordinance.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they would not take any action, and they would just reschedule it and bring it back after Mr. Minkoff looked into the language.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

BUDGET RETREAT

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, mentioned that there was a budget retreat coming up on Thursday, June 28, at the Agricultural Center, and that they were getting a sound system that was being put in to improve sound quality.

REPORTS – COMMISIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1

IMPACT FEE DISCUSSIONS

Commr. Hill stated that she was receiving a lot of e-mails and phone messages and that there were a lot of theories, opinions, reports, and studies regarding impact fees.  She wanted to know if the Board would feel more comfortable if they included at the Budget Workshop on June 28 some impact fee discussion and maybe have the attorney give them an opinion on some of the information that they had been receiving.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he and the County Manager had set up some meetings with the home builders, but that he did not think that they would be ready by this week to have those meetings and report to the Board.  He commented that perhaps after they sit and talk with them, they could discuss that with the Board.

Commr. Hill asked Mr. Minkoff if they would be receiving an opinion from him before the Board went to the adoption hearing for any of the impact fees.

Mr. Minkoff responded that they would, and he had also sent a copy of the home builders report to their outside counsel, and he would be discussing it with them and formulating an opinion with them as well.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2

PLAZA COLLINA

Commr. Renick stated that she thought they needed a legal opinion as to whether or not there had been significant changes enough to warrant bringing the Plaza Collina back to the Board.  She commented that one thing that jumped out was that it was approved with the town homes, but she did not think the town homes were any longer in the plan.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not think he wanted to do that today, but that he was glad to sit down with staff and review that.

Commr. Renick also wanted to look into thresholds that they had briefly touched on, such as how many square feet.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the problem now was whether they could change their LDR’s (Land Development Regulations).

Mr. Minkoff responded that they could make changes to the LDR’s that were consistent with the current Comp Plan, and the process was that they would go through the LPA (Local Planning Agency) and come back to the Board with a recommendation.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3

            STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

            Commr. Stivender related that about a year ago, Mr. Scott Blankenship from the Zoning Board and Mr. Sean Parks from the LPA came to her with some design standards for non-residential development, which were focused on South Lake.  She had given that document to Ms. Amy King, Deputy Director, Growth Management, to look into how to implement that and come up with some type of document that the County could impose now, similar to what Commr. Renick was just talking about earlier, where they could change the LDR’s to include this.

            Ms. King stated that she had been working on those standards diligently and had them on hold until the Comprehensive Plan was completed.  She wanted to postpone any LDR amendments until the Comp Plan was done.  She mentioned that she had been working with Ms. Dottie Keedy, Economic Growth and Redevelopment Director, however, on some more county-wide standards that were considered economic-development friendly, and could show those to the Board.

            REZONING OF PARKS

            Commr. Stivender, as liaison to the Parks and Trails Board, informed the Board that the Parks and Trails Board had come up with a process with Growth Management and Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Parks and Trails Director, to rezone some of the parks that had not been rezoned yet, such as PEAR (Palatlakaha Environmental Agricultural Reserve) and Ferndale.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18 a.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK