REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
JULY 24, 2007
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Cadwell commented that, under his business, he had gotten the report back from the Library Board. He stated that he did not know if they needed to take any action, and they would just wait to decide if they needed to place it on the Agenda as an action item.
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Request for approval to transfer the Geographic Information Systems Division to the Office of Information Technology effective August 1, 2007.
Request for approval, acceptance, and execution of the agreement between Herb Grothe and
Request for approval to record a satisfaction of assessment lien to correct owner’s name – Commission District 4.
Request for authorization to release a letter of credit for performance for construction of improvements in the total amount of $86,226.25 that was posted for Savannah Ridge. Savannah Ridge consists of 24 lots and is located in Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to release a performance bond for construction of improvements in the total amount of $286,836.76 that was posted for Sorrento Springs Phase IV. Sorrento Springs Phase IV consists of 277 lots and is located in Section 13, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, Commission District 4.
Commr. Renick pulled Tab 9.
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Request for approval of Lease Agreement with OFB Commercial Properties for office space for Guardian Ad Litem – Commission District 3.
Renick stated that she did not have a problem with the ordinance on Tab 9, but
she thought that it would be a good time to bring up the issue of moving Code
Enforcement to the Sheriff’s Office instead of under Growth Management. She commented that if the Board was
interested in doing that, they could ask Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Cadwell commented that when they looked at it before, they just took a cursory look and decided not to do it at that time. He stated that was something they could have staff look at if the rest of the Board was interested.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 9, as follows:
Request for approval to advertise ordinance amending sections of the Lake County Code for clarification regarding citation issuance by Code Enforcement officers for Code violations.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 8, as follows:
Request for approval of selection of School Board members Mr. Jimmy Connor and Mr. Scott Strong and Board members Commr. Stewart, Commr. Hill, and Commr. Stivender to sit on the Value Adjustment Board. School Board member Ms. Kyleen Fischer was selected as an alternate.
SETTING OF MILLAGE RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET
Ms. Regina Frazier, Budget Director, stated this item was to set the millage rates to be included on the TRIM notifications that would go out to the property owners in the County. She specified that the rate was set at 4.7548 for the general fund, which was a 17.3 percent reduction over the current rate that was in accordance with the State guidelines of reducing to rollback less an additional 9 percent. She went on to specify that the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU rate was proposed at .4984, a 16.9 percent decrease over the current rate; the Ambulance MSTU was proposed to be set at .4651, which was a 12 percent reduction; and the Voter Approved Debt for Environmentally Sensitive Lands was proposed to remain at the same at .2 of the .33 approved by the voters.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 10, the request from Budget to set the millage rates as stated by staff for the Fiscal Year 2008 budget and approve the public hearing dates and times for September 4, 2007 at 5:05 p.m. and September 18, 2007, at 5:05 p.m. and to advertise these public hearings.
FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT FEES
Ms. Frazier stated that this was the resolution to set the initial Fire Rescue Assessment, and that the proposed rate for that was $197 for residential, which was a 15 percent increase, and that all other rates would be increased by the same percentage. She explained that the rate they were proposing was the rate from the study that was done in 2003.
Commr. Stivender noted that this was the program that they were already part of for Public Safety, so they needed to finish it out to the end.
Ms. Frazier explained that the non-ad valorem assessment for Fire Rescue was not a tax and was not affected by the State mandates and that they could not fund this from general fund taxes, because they were two different boundaries.
Commr. Stewart asked if Public Safety would be compromised if this was not approved.
Commr. Cadwell responded that if they stayed at the current rate, they would have to lay some of those employees off and they would not be able to build the new fire stations that they had planned. He also commented that this was a long range plan to get decent coverage throughout the County, and that they were almost there.
Commr. Renick pointed out that they were not setting the rate today; they were only setting the maximum.
Commr. Stivender pointed out that they instituted the plan because the public wanted the fire service in different areas.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Budget for authorization and execution of Resolution No. 2007-105, which initiates the annual process for preparation of the Fire Rescue Assessment Roll, authorizes the publication of the advertisement for the public hearing, provides direction to notice all affected parties of the proposed rates, and directs the imposition of Fire Rescue Assessment fees for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2007.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that they were requesting approval to submit a mini-grant application for Florida Healthy Kids Phase I Outreach and Awareness Campaign for Healthy Kids insurance in the school system. He explained that they were going to have two part time community health workers who would be doing outreach activities in unserved populations. He specified that the workers would be working to sign up at least ten children per week for twelve weeks for health insurance while they were in school.
Ms. Maria Granado, Community Health Worker Coordinator, stated that two community health workers would be working within their community at the schools and with the clinics to allow them the opportunity to be able to do enrollment there. She also mentioned that they had some other proposed activities in Clermont, such as participation in Kidfest, which was a large event at which they planned to do a massive enrollment, and they had hoped to also apply for Phase II.
Commr. Stivender commented that this program would be bilingual, because Hispanics have had trouble understanding the application and getting enrolled to get the free health insurance.
Commr. Stewart commented that there were so many needy children in the school system, and she thought this was a wonderful way to be able to reach them, because they had not been reached before.
Stivender commented that
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Community Services for the Department of Community Services, Community Health Worker Program to submit an application for funding by the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation Mini-Grants Program for a Phase I Project – Outreach and Awareness Campaign by Lake County Community Health Workers.
SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008
Mr. Daryl Smith, Director of Environmental Services, stated that there was much discussion about this issue at the last meeting, but that he wanted to emphasize that this agenda item was just establishing the maximum amount, and Board would have an opportunity at the public hearing to set any rate they wanted to set. He commented that gave them an opportunity to consider this as part of the overall budget preparation and review. He also wanted to emphasize that the amount they were requesting coincided with the increases that they had in the solid waste collection services over the past five years, and those collection services were only applied to their customers that were assessed for the residential collection services in the unincorporated areas and did not apply to anyone in the municipalities or the incorporated areas of the County. He opined that he thought it was important that the residents receiving the collection services paid their fair share and were up to where they should be in terms of the charges for the services.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that he figured that if they charged the residents the increase that the County had had to pay the haulers on their contract increase, the amount would be at $196. However, he commented that there was a realistic expectation that residents wanted to see a reduction in the bottom line of their property tax bill.
Commr. Stivender commented that she thought there should be a system that allowed the residents to pay for different levels of service, depending on the amount of solid waste they generated.
Mr. Smith stated that it would be difficult for residents to pay for the exact service that they used, because they could not measure the amount of bags they were generating. He noted, however, that they were going to bring back to the Board next year a recommendation for the future collection services for 2009 for some options for a “pay-as-you-throw” concept as well as options for the amount of collections, which they could not do right now because of the nature of the contract.
Commr. Cadwell stated that one system he had heard about was one in which the residents purchased official bags from the County, and the residents paid for the amount of bags they bought. He commented, however, that the problem with that was that some people would not buy the bags, and the litter problem and illegal dumping increased dramatically in those communities. He noted that there was a whole litany of graduated systems that they could have policy discussions on, and they had until 2009 to do that.
Commr. Stewart commented that their costs had gone up quite a bit over the last few years, and asked Mr. Smith how much the assessment for the citizens had gone up.
Mr. Smith responded that it had not gone up at all.
Commr. Stewart asked how the County assessment compared to those of the municipalities.
Mr. Smith presented a chart that showed that they were on the lower end of the spectrum.
Commr. Stivender commented that the cities were in the business of making money.
Commr. Stewart clarified with Mr. Smith that if they did not approve an increase, then they would have to come up with about $1.6 million somewhere else to cover it.
Commr. Cadwell commented that if that was the case, then they would have staff look internally into that enterprise fund to make it up there and not in the general fund.
Commr. Renick mentioned that the County’s contract with the hauler had a built-in increase.
Mr. Smith reported that with most of the contracts of this type, it was standard to have some kind of escalator built in to try to project what the future was going to bring for the next seven or eight years. He noted that this had been going up between 2 and 5 percent on an annual basis.
Commr. Cadwell commented that if they had not renegotiated the deal with Covanta, the assessment fee would be much higher.
Commr. Hill commented that she would like to see the fee stay the same and take it out of the general fund until they had a complete analysis, including if the tipping fee should stay the same. She also noted that they had only six or seven more years before the Covanta component was gone.
Mr. Smith responded that the negotiations with Covanta focused on the disposal cost and not the collection cost. He opined that the municipal customers that were originally part of the system were further subsidizing the unincorporated customers, because they had not increased that cost for the collection services.
Commr. Hill commented that going back to doing recycling in house rather than contracting out might save the County money and help offset some of those costs.
Mr. Smith stated that they had gotten approval from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to take the recycling over themselves and were preparing an Agenda item regarding
that for the Board’s consideration. He commented that it could be something that would mitigate the increases.
Commr. Cadwell stated that a compromise to cover the department as they should and still keep the municipal customers paying their share of the disposal costs would be to split the difference and advertise only a $13 dollar increase as opposed to a $26 one.
Commr. Stewart commented that she would like the public to know that they were trying their best to keep those fees down, and they had a lot to talk about.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the request from Environmental Services for the Initial Assessment Resolution No. 2007-106 for collection, management, and disposal of solid waste and recovered materials for FY 2007/08, including a proposed maximum residential assessment of $187 and establish a public hearing date of September 11, 2007; and direct staff to proceed with the steps necessary to have the solid waste assessment increase automatically each year, by an amount equal to the increase in the charges for the curbside collection services.
Commr. Hill voted “no.”
SUNBURST ESTATES STORMWATER POND RETROFIT SUB-PROJECT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that Tab 14 was a change order for the Sunburst Estates Stormwater Pond that they had been talking about regarding the MSTU for Commission District 2. He explained that this was to clear up the issues associated with the type of stone that was involved with it and make some other changes associated with the project.
Commr. Renick commented that this was the right thing for the Board to do, because the road was flooding and it had to be done. However, she noted that there were some mistakes made and the St. Johns River Water Management District should not have issued the permits that they had, and that Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, would be contacting the St. Johns about recouping as much of this money as they could.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Public Works to execute change order No. 4 in the amount of $38,650 for pavement reconstruction on Lake Louisa Road relating to the Sunburst Estates Stormwater Pond Retrofit sub-project of the Countywide Drainage II project and approval of the budget transfer in the amount of $38,650 from Stormwater MSTU Reserve to Improvements.
UPDATED FLEET POLICIES
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that Tab 15 were the policies for their Fleet Management System, which Mr. Dave Vasquez, their Fleet Manager who had been on board for a little over a year, had been diligently working on. She mentioned that they were also working on very detailed procedures.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Public Works of the updated Fleet Policies.
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DCA FOR DOAH CASE
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Cecilia Bonifay, with Akerman Senterfitt, stated that the issue of why it was
not in compliance with DCA was not due to the density, but was due to the issue
of the provision of central water and sewer, which they had spent several years
working to resolve. She related that
they had entered into a utility agreement with the Town of
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Lake County and DCA regarding DOAH Case No. 03-3460GM – Commission District 2.
Commr. Renick voted “no.”
POLLUTANT STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 21-158, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ENFORCEMENT CRITERIA FOR POLLUTANT STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS; AMENDING STATUTORY REFERENCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Minkoff explained that this ordinance was from Environmental Services and updated the references to the State rules.
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. 2007-34, amending Section 21-158 of the Lake County Code entitled Enforcement Criteria for Pollutant Storage Tank Regulations.
At this time, each Commissioner disclosed for the record that they had spoken to other people prior to this meeting regarding Tab 2, Case PH22-07-2.
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that there were two items on the Regular Agenda, and no items on the Consent Agenda.
REZONING CASE NO. PH25-07-2 – BISHOP
OF THE DIOCESE OF
Mr. Bennett stated that Rezoning Case No. PH25-07-2 was an application submitted by the Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando, Thomas G. Wenski, and was for a 46-acre parcel of land that fronted on US Hwy 27. He specified that this was a request to rezone from Agriculture and R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District) to the Community Facility District (CFD) for a church and associated accessory uses and facilities. He also mentioned that it was in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and was surrounded to the north by the Siena Ridge subdivision; there was an R-4 subdivision nearby to the south; and there was a PUD on the east side of the property. He related that it came forward with a positive recommendation from the staff as well as unanimous recommendation for approval from the Zoning Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this rezoning, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Renick commented that in the future, they needed to be thinking in terms of having a preliminary environmental assessment done prior to approval of all of the cases, but pointed out that it was not an issue in this case.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 1, Ordinance No. 2007-35, Rezoning Case No. PH25-07-2, by the Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando, Thomas Wenski, Tracking No. 38-07-CFD.
REZONING CASE NO. 22-07-2 – F & J DEVELOPERS, LLC/FRANCO SCALA–
TRACKING NO. 32-07-PUD
Mr. Bennett stated that the Applicants for Tab 2, Case No. PH22-07-2, were F & J Developers and Franco Scala, and that the future land use category was Urban Expansion. He also mentioned that the existing zoning was Agriculture (A), and this was an application to establish a PUD (Planned Unit Development District). He put a map on the overhead, and noted that the property lied between CR 50 and the Turnpike.
Mr. Bennett reported that one of the
primary issues related to this project was the density. He commented that they
had enough points to qualify for a density that would be in excess of 4.0, and
they came in for an application for requested density of approximately
3.1. He specified that originally they
requested 88 units, of which a portion was for single family and a portion was
for town houses. He related that the Zoning
Board’s recommendation was to recommend approval at a density of 2.5 dwelling
units per acre. He also mentioned that
the City of
Mr. Bennett explained to the Board that the ordinance in the backup materials included another issue that came up at the Zoning Board, which was regarding a wall. He explained that CR 50 was a scenic byway, and the Zoning Board was concerned that the wall should receive a different type of treatment than what was proposed, which was more consistent with what the community wanted to see in terms of design related to the CR 50 corridor. He stated that would be worked out before the formal site plan approval, and that currently there was no formal design guidelines for the materials, design, and heights for fences that would be appropriate in that area. He stated that there was also another real estate issue regarding some property that F & J owned which was on the south side of CR 50 and was between the trail and the road right of way. He explained that they were trying to work that out in terms of the location of that property and its potential use with the trail and some stormwater issues.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there was any language in the PUD that specifically talked about the type of fencing for that area and whether it would have to be signed off by any particular group or committee.
Mr. Bennett read from Page 3 of the ordinance that it should be a minimum six foot high decorative fence, such as wrought iron with brick pillars or other similar design which shall be incorporated with the landscape buffer along the CR 50 frontage as depicted on the master conceptual plan.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there was any language specific to affordable housing that would require the designation of a certain number of affordable housing units or was it just a suggestion in the PUD itself.
Mr. Bennett stated that there was language on Page 2 of the ordinance that provided guidance for what was a voluntary offer on the part of the developer, and that it was not a requirement made by staff. He noted that they had structured the language to leave it open to how it was to eventually be defined in terms of all the details of cost and length of time of ownership. He explained that they had left all of those details to a future date because they needed to work through some workforce housing strategies with the Board in general at a later date. He calculated that at the 2.5 density, with ten percent of the units offered by the developer for workforce housing, there would be seven units.
Commr. Stewart stated that she had
some concerns about this, including that it was in the
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecilia Bonifay of Akerman Senterfitt, representing the Applicant, showed on an overhead map where the property was located and the developments surrounding it. She provided a handout giving an outline of some of the issues the County was concerned about. She pointed out that surveys that were done indicated that there were only five gopher tortoise barrows and no scrub jays located on the site, and the gopher tortoises on the site would be subject to relocation. She also stated that the wetlands had been delineated, and that the site plan showed only one isolated wetland, which was shown as a pond, and the rest of the land was high and dry. She stated that their own residential density analysis, which was required in the Comp Plan to analyze the timeliness of developments, showed that this development would be entitled to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. She pointed out that her client did not try to maximize the site, and only came in with a proposal for 3 units per acre initially, and opined that they were trying to do the right thing. She stated that in terms of transportation, when Clermont first did their review and analysis around April, they did not have a final traffic analysis, and she resubmitted another traffic study, which she entered on the record today, stating that there was adequate capacity for this project and identified some intersection improvements that would have to be made and stating that the developers would have to pay their proportionate share of that.
Ms. Bonifay stated that on the issue of utilities, because they were in the Clermont Chapter 180 water and sewer district, they were required to ask each utility provider just at the point of zoning whether or not they had the capability and the capacity to serve, and Clermont issued a letter to the staff that stated that they had that capability. She related that if Clermont did not wish at some future date to enter into a utility agreement, than they had the option to seek another utility provider, but she commented that the law provided that if Clermont had the utilities and the capability, then they were supposed to be the service provider. She also commented that Clermont was in the business of making money off its water and sewer and had funded a new waste water treatment plant to serve this area. She explained that if this was approved, they would negotiate with Clermont on that agreement.
Ms. Bonifay then talked about the fence or wall that was proposed, and explained that the Scenic Byway Committee did not want to see just a solid wall and suggested some type of wrought iron fence with some brick pillars and landscaping. She stated that they were proposing something like the language that was proposed in the ordinance, and showed a sketch on the overhead to show the way that they thought it would look and an overall view of what the project would be. She also stated that they agreed with Public Works to do a right of way donation along SR 50, and were working with the County on the open space designation, commenting that this project dedicated 42 percent as open space, which was more than the County requirement of 25 percent. She also mentioned that the developer volunteered to designate 10 percent of their 88 units for workforce housing, which would be nine units of the town home product.
Commr. Cadwell asked Ms. Bonifay if the developer would still offer ten percent for workforce housing with the reduced density of 2.5.
Ms. Bonifay stated that they would still do that, but they believed that with all of the concessions and studies they previously talked about, that it would support the 88 units. She pointed out that the 2.5 density was not based on anything or required in the Comprehensive Plan, the LDR’s, or the density point rating, and to do the workforce housing, they believed that they needed a higher density than 2.5 to make it viable and to give it economy of scale. She suggested that there could be an interim number that would allow this project to be economically feasible, and they did not believe that this development was really feasible with 71 units and seven of those being affordable. She opined that they were trying to do a balanced development, which had single and town home product in it and was a well landscaped, attractive community which would be an asset to the area. She also commented that she understood that a 60 acre site offered by the Hills of Minneola for a middle school and high school was accepted by the School Board, and the money for that was in the School Board budget, and she opined that there was a lot that had been accomplished on the school site forefront.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that if they were saying that a density of 2.5 would not work if they had to do 7 affordable units, it may boil down to negotiating density against affordable housing units and looking at the additional density or cutting back on the affordable housing units.
Commr. Renick asked about the traffic analysis indication that there was still an intersection failure.
Mr. Bennett explained that there still needed to be improvements made to those intersections to accommodate the additional capacity, and that the developers would need to meet the concurrency test for transportation.
Commr. Renick stated that Clermont
had an agreement with
Commr. Renick made a motion to deny Rezoning Case No. PH22-07-2, which was seconded by Commr. Stewart. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Stivender, and Commr. Hill voting “no.”
Commr. Renick commented that staff counted wetlands in the open space percentage, and that they knew from the discussions of the LPA so far where the County was heading in figuring open space. She asked what the actual open space requirement was in relation to what had been proposed.
Mr. Bennett stated that he would have to ask his staff to figure that. He related that there was a little more than six acres of wetlands that they had included in the open space calculations.
Commr. Renick commented that since this was a PUD, they could put the requirements in there that they thought were appropriate, and opined that they needed to look at the wetlands issue. She also mentioned that she would like to have a sunset date limiting the time it could be developed before it would have to come back to the Board.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Renick stated that she thought there was something that they legally could put into place so that they would be able to put in time limitations.
Mr. Minkoff responded that his office was exploring with the LPA a way to do that under the new plan and with new LDR’s, such as a development order or a zoning overlay. He stated that he did not recommend doing it in this case, because it actually was a rezoning, which they could do at any time.
Commr. Stivender made a motion to approve Rezoning Case No. PH22-07-2 with the Zoning Department’s recommendation for a wrought iron fence and landscape buffer, that the density be changed to 3.0 to allow workforce housing on the site, and that the open space portion that was south of CR 50 be dedicated to the County for road intersection improvements.
Commr. Cadwell noted that that motion failed because of a lack of a second, and recommended that they included the language of the fence and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board of 2.5 units per acre, but then lower the required units of affordable housing units to 5 as opposed to 7.
Mr. Bennett inquired that if they did not receive central water and sewer, if the alternative was that they could do up to two dwelling units per acre.
Commr. Hill commented that she
thought the City of
Commr. Renick asked Mr. Minkoff if he received a letter regarding Plaza Collina that addressed something about this issue.
Mr. Minkoff responded that the letter mentioned the utility agreement with Plaza Collina, but that he would have to examine the letter to be sure of the details, but believed the letter inferred that there might be some issues between the City and Plaza Collina.
Commr. Stivender asked Ms. Bonifay if the recommendation that was on the table was viable with reducing the workforce housing units.
Ms. Bonifay responded that she thought the client would have to decide, and that he would work with the County on that. She wanted the record to reflect that it was inappropriate and a due process violation to bring extraneous information into these hearings regarding other projects and resulted in innuendo and misinformation that was put before the Board. She requested that the Board approve the motion.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the record would show her concern.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Rezoning Case No. PH22-07-2 by F & J Developers, LLC and Franco Scala, Tracking No. 32-07-PUD, including specifications of a six-foot high decorative fence, such as wrought iron with brick pillars or other similar design along the CR 50 frontage; the density not exceeding 2.5 dwelling units to the acre; and the developer to provide 7 percent or 5 units, whichever was greater of the total approved units for affordable work housing, which may all be town homes. Also, it was noted that if the developer was not able to get water and sewer service, then the density shall not exceed 2 dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Stivender asked when that went to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Ms. Hall informed the Board that they
received notice from the lobbyist in
REPORTS – COMMISIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
Commr. Hill stated that at the preliminary hearing with the City before their Zoning Department, the City of Tavares requested with the downtown project some type of assurance that the County would return back to the tax rolls the Clerk’s Public Records Building sometime in the future and to look at that aesthetically as more of a core downtown area without a government building. She commented that it was something they could think about and discuss at a later date, but she wanted to address it preliminarily so that the City would know that they had a concern about the look and economy of the downtown area.
Commr. Cadwell commented that with the change in the Sheriff’s location, they would have a little more space to do that, and it was something they should look at.
Commr. Stivender commented that the Minutes reflected that it was supposed to be a temporary location, and the building was supposed to go back to being a private business once they had an additional building built for the Clerk.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they would tell them that they certainly would take that into consideration and work with them in the future to try to resolve that issue once they got done with construction.
Commr. Stivender asked if they would trip the DRI process with the additional square footage.
Mr. Minkoff responded that they were exploring the issue of whether the courthouse expansion was a DRI, and the approvals they had submitted with the City said that if they were, they would comply with it for the courthouse. He noted that the garage, the office building, and the energy plant were not DRI issues, and that only the courthouse was.
Commr. Stivender asked if they brought up changing the roundabout in the meeting.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposal that they made to them was the exact drawing that the Board approved for the roundabout when they were there that day.
COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
RESTRICTIONS REGARDING CHECKING OUT OF VIDEOS FROM LIBRARY
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had a
discussion with the Library Board in regard to the restrictions on the age for
checking R rated videos out, and that the
Commr. Stewart asked how parents were made aware of that fact.
Commr. Hill mentioned that they could probably do that when they fill out the initial application to receive a card.
Mr. Minkoff noted that he believed that a parent would need to sign for a child aged 15 and under to receive a library card.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK