A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD
OF
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
The Lake County Board of
INVOCATION
Reverend Karen Burris, from the
INTRODUCTION
The Chairman announced that Ms.
Joann Jones, a professor at the
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Cindy Hall,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved the
Budget
Request for approval of Resolution
No. 2008-23, to amend the Parks Capital Projects Fund, in order to receive
unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2008, in the amount of $200,000,
deposited into FDEP Grant; and provide appropriations for the disbursement for
Improvements - PEAR Park ($21,218), Improvements - Twin Lakes ($72,303),
Improvements - Pine Forest ($68,719), and Improvements - Undesignated
($37,760).
Community Services
Request for approval and
authorization for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the
amended contract between
Environmental Services
Request for approval of Agreement between
Public Works
Request for approval to accept a
performance and payment bond, in the amount of $1,404,348.17, as surety for a
Developer's Agreement between
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2008-24, authorizing the reduction of the speed limit on a portion of CR 466A (5803), from the Sumter County Line to 200’ west of Marguerite Avenue, from 55 mph to 45 mph, in the Fruitland Park Area - Commission District 1.
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2008-25, authorizing the posting of “No Parking on Right of Way” signs on West Huff Road (5789), in front of Seminole Springs Elementary, in the Eustis area, in Commission District 4; on CR 561 (0634), in front of Pine Ridge Elementary, in the Clermont Area, in Commission District 2; and on Schoolview Street (4905B), in front of Rimes Elementary School, in the Leesburg/Fruitland Park area – Commission District 1.
Request for approval to terminate the Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg, for rental lighting services on US 441, from College Drive to CR 473 - Commission District 1.
Request for approval to file the
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for
Request for approval to file the
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE LIMITING SIZE
OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN
RELATION TO SIZE OF PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE
Commr. Renick asked that this
request be pulled from the
Ms. Terrie Diesbourg, Zoning Manager, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board in response to Commr. Renick’s concern, noting that, if the property is zoned Agricultural and is for an agricultural use, the property owner would be able to do so.
It was noted that the Ordinance does not currently state that fact.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval to advertise a proposed Ordinance changing Section 10.01.00 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), limiting the size of accessory structures, in relation to the size of the principal structure.
Commr. Renick asked that Tabs 12 and
13, dealing with an eminent domain settlement between the County and the Glenie
Marie Byrd property, and a Settlement Agreement between the County and J. Malever
Construction Company, be pulled from the
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved the
Request for approval of Workers Compensation Claim settlement, in the amount of $86,790.00, for Emily A. Lee.
Request for approval of Agreement with Rhys Allan Cobb, for right-of-way needed for the CR 466 Road Widening Project - Commission District 5.
Request for approval of Interlocal
Agreement with
GLENIE MARIE BYRD PROPERTY
EMINENT DOMAIN SETTLEMENT
Commr. Renick asked that this request be pulled from the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, for discussion and clarification regarding the amount of the settlement, at which time it was clarified that Glenie Marie Byrd would receive $45,300 for her property, which is what it was appraised for, with the total settlement being $90,000, to cover attorneys’ fees and costs.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of an eminent domain settlement regarding the Glenie Marie Byrd property - Commission District 2, as presented.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Commr. Renick asked that this request be pulled from the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, for discussion and clarification regarding the reason for the Settlement Agreement, noting that it seems the County is paying $20,000 to correct a mistake that was made by the contractor. She questioned whether there were extenuating circumstances involving the project.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, informed the Board that there are mistakes that the contractor made that need to be rectified, but that there are also costs incurred associated with the base bid, which is where the additional money is coming from.
Commr. Renick stated that she understood the $20,000 is to cover an increase in the cost of asphalt since the contract was first awarded in 2005, but that it looks like the County is eating that cost, rather than the contractor that made the mistakes, and she had a problem with that. She questioned whether the matter would be renegotiated.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied a request from the County Attorney for approval of a Settlement Agreement between Lake County and J. Malever Construction Company, to resolve a contract dispute, for construction of the South Lake Trail/Lake Minneola Trail Phase II Project - Commission District 2.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
CTC/MEDICAID PROVIDER LETTER OF
AGREEMENT
Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, addressed the Board stating that, in an effort for the County to coordinate transportation services to those citizens of Lake County who need to go to medical treatment facilities, for doctor’s appointments, the American Cancer Society desires to enter into an agreement with the County to help ensure that cancer patients in the County receive transportation services for their treatments, so they are working with the County to help coordinate those services and will help fund the cost of some of the trips. In addition, they will help educate clients about their medical conditions and work with the medical facilities to coordinate and arrange treatment for those clients.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of the American Cancer Society CTC/Medicaid Provider Letter of Agreement, as presented.
LAKEXPRESS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Ken Harley, Public
Transportation Manager, informed the Board that the LakeXpress Task Force has
recommended that the County purchase two 30 foot El Dorado EZ Rider II buses
for its fixed route. The County has some
Bluebird and International buses that it currently utilizes on its fixed route
service, but there is no longer a distributor available for the Bluebird buses,
and the
Mr. Harley stated that the FTA will
allow the County to piggyback off of another organization that has already
purchased said vehicles and made provisions in their RFP (Request for Proposal)
for it, however, noted that the County would have to prepare a set of bid
specifications. He informed the Board
that the buses will be utilized for the
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of the LakeXpress Task Force recommendation for the County to purchase two 30 foot El Dorado EZ Rider II buses, with sign boards, for the fixed route; and Resolution No. 2008-26, for unanticipated revenue and associated budget change request, as presented.
Commr.
Renick voted “No”.
PUBLIC HEARING
VACATION PETITION NO. 1114 -
GREGORY SOOKRAJ - PLAT OF TRAILS OF
MONTVERDE
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public
Works Director, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate
a portion of right of way known as Appaloosa Trail and two utility easements in
the Plat of Trails of Montverde. He
stated that the Trails of Montverde extend east and west for approximately
one-half mile and, when it was approved in the mid-1980s, there was a rear
access to the development that was tied to a clay road, pointing out the
location of said right of way on an aerial contained in the Board’s backup
material. He stated that staff found
that the connection and the way that the development was originally laid out is
not what is happening in the area and it has become a public nuisance, because
people sneak out the back way, which is not barricaded. The residents are requesting that said
portion of right of way be vacated between the two lots in question, but that
the utility easement access be retained, which the County has taken care
of. Because the area has not developed
the way that it was planned 20 years ago, staff recommended approval of the
request.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
No one was present in opposition
to the request.
There being no one present who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of
the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Vacation Petition No. 1114, Gregory Sookraj, to vacate a portion of right of way known as Appaloosa Trail and two (2) utility easements, in the Plat of Trails of Montverde; and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2008-27, pertaining to same - Commission District 3, as presented.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1129 –
RILEY E. DAVIS, JR. AND DONNA DAVIS –
ASTOR
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public
Works Director, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate
a portion of right of way known as Mink Road, a road that was laid out before
the canals were cut in, which runs along the entire shoreline, in the
unrecorded plat of Astor Forest Campsites.
The canals were put in and snippets of
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
No one was present in opposition
to the request.
There being no one present who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of
the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Vacation Petition No. 1129, Riley E. Davis, Jr. and Donna Davis, to vacate a portion of right of way known as Mink Road, according to the unrecorded plat of Astor Forest Campsites, in the Deland area; and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2008-28, pertaining to same - Commission District 5, as presented.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1130 –
LARRY M. AND CONNIE F. EVERLY – PLAT
OF
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public
Works Director, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate
a portion of a drainage easement, in the Plat of Lake Dora Harbor, in the
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
No one was present in opposition
to the request.
There being no one present who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of
the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Vacation Petition No. 1130, Larry M. and Connie F. Everly, to vacate a portion of a drainage easement in the Plat of Lake Dora Harbor, in the Mt. Dora area; and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2008-29, pertaining to same - Commission District 3, as presented.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1124 –
CUROTTO, SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public
Works Director, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate
lots, a tract, and an unnamed right of way in the Plat of Groveland Farms, in
the Groveland area. He pointed out the
layout of the subdivision on an aerial contained in the Board’s backup
material, noting that the lots in the Plat of Groveland Farms were all laid out
over 100 years ago. The tracts in
question are 10 acre tracts and the petitioner is vacating them and turning
them into a totally different subdivision.
An issue that came up at the last meeting that was held regarding this
request was that of ingress and egress involving a parcel of property owned by
Nancy and Kris Ector, which he pointed out on the aerial on display, noting
that it is away from the shoreline of the lake, but below the 100 year flood
plain. He stated that every few years
the property owners may be able to access their property and fish, but every
few years the property will be under water, which is a dilemma for them. The current legal access to the property is
the same one that has been in place for over 100 years and the majority of
Parcel 11, belonging to the Ectors, is lake bottom, except for a small portion
that is located in the northwest corner of the lot, which is below the 100 year
flood plain. According to all the
information the County has been provided about the proposed subdivision, Parcel
11 is 100% wetlands, as far as the subdivision review process is concerned,
thus, the reason staff is recommending approval of the request.
Commr. Stewart stated that the
owners of Parcel 11, the Ectors, have indicated in a letter that was submitted
to the County that they are considering building a vacation home on the
property and questioned whether that would be possible.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney,
representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that his office
received notice last week that the Ectors, who are in opposition to the
request, had retained Mr. Tim Hoban, a local attorney, to represent them and
that he had asked for a continuance of this request, however, noted that he was
informed that Mr. Hoban wanted to present testimony this date and then ask for
a continuance. He stated that he had no
opposition to that, in that Mr. Hoban’s clients are down from Indiana and he
did not want to put them out by requiring them to come back to Lake County;
however, due to the fact that he had just been hired by the applicant to
represent him, would request that the Board continue this matter until a later
date. He stated that, if the Board
wanted to hear from the opposition and take their testimony, so that they would
not have to travel back to
Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney,
representing the Ectors, the owners of Parcel 11, addressed the Board stating
that they had flown down from Indiana, because they did not know whether the
Board would approve a continuance of this case, or not. He gave a brief background history regarding
Parcel 11, at which time he noted that it was purchased by Ms. Ector’s father
in 1950, but, in 1968, her father passed away and the property was deeded to
her. She and her family have visited the
property often over the years and continue to do so. In 1988, when the original PUD was first
proposed, the Ectors repeatedly contacted the County, to make sure that access
was granted to their property. He stated
that, in 1996, they participated in a Special Master Hearing over the Pretty
Lake PUD, at which time he read into the record a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit
A), dated April 30, 1996, from Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the
Langley v. Lake County Settlement Agreement, to Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County
Attorney, indicating that, after the Settlement Agreement was signed by all
parties involved, it was discovered that the access easement agreed to by the
parties was inadvertently excluded from the Agreement. She asked that Mr. Minkoff represent to the
Board that Mr. Langley would provide the agreed upon access easement to Parcel
11. He then submitted a copy of the
Minutes (Opposition’s Exhibit B) from the Board of County Commissioner’s
Meeting of May 21, 1996, in which he highlighted a portion of the Minutes that
stated that Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that Nancy and Kris
Ector and Jim and Marie Mackey, adjacent property owners to the property in
question, participated in the Settlement Agreement and that the developer had
agreed to grant them legal access to their property, but no access was ever
granted.
Mr. Hoban stated that, under the
Lake County Code, Parcel 11 is a buildable lot and the Health Department will
issue a septic tank permit for it, if the well and septic tank can be placed 75
feet apart, and there is enough land on Parcel 11 to do that. For the past 57 years, Ms. Ector and her father
before her have paid property taxes on the property and, from the time of her
childhood until the current owners of the Plat of Groveland Farms fenced off
their property, she and her family frequently visited the property. He stated that they are nearing retirement
age and would one day like to build a boathouse on the property, at which time
he displayed a copy of the Preliminary Plat (Opposition’s Exhibit C) that has
been approved for the subdivision in question, to be known as Lago Bonito,
pointing out a road that he feels could have easily been flipped, to provide
legal access to the Ector’s property, without losing anything, and it would
have prevented the Ectors from having to hire an attorney to represent their
rights. He stated that it is a classic
example of a big developer trying to squeeze out a small property owner. He then displayed a copy of the plat to
Magnolia Pointe (Opposition’s Exhibit D), a large subdivision that he
represented upon leaving the
Ms. Nancy Ector, the owner of
Parcel 11, addressed the Board and answered questions from Mr. Hoban about her
property and as to how many times they have been flooded out, to which she
responded that, to her knowledge, not at all, however, noted that she has not
been present at the property at all times, due to the fact that she and her
husband live in Indiana. She noted that
she was raised in
There being no further
individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board continued a request from Public Works for approval of Vacation Petition No. 1124, Lake 64 LLC, to vacate lots, tract and unnamed right of way in the Plat of Groveland Farms, in the Groveland area; and approval and execution of a resolution pertaining to same - Commission District 2, for 60 days, until the Board Meeting of April 22, 2008.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: REZONING
REZONING CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that the Rezoning Consent Agenda contained only one case, which had been requested to be continued until the Zoning Board Meeting of March 5, 2008, however, noted that there were three cases to be heard on the Rezoning Regular Agenda.
The meeting was properly noticed.
REZONING CASE NO. PH40-07-4 –
AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 1999-75 – WLW
CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED AND JOHN
F. WAGNER, III ET AL
Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner,
Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented this
case, stating that the applicant was requesting to amend Ordinance No. 1999-75,
for the addition of a truck yard, which is also the heavy equipment storage
area, and to expand the existing Planned Commercial (CP) Zoning District, which
would entail rezoning 2.02 acres from Urban Residential (R-6) to CP. The CP district would increase from 2.14
acres to 4.16 acres. The site is located
in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area, on the south side of SR 46, between the
intersections of SR 46 and CR 437, to the east and west, and is located in the
Urban Compact Node, Non-Wekiva Future Land Use Category (FLUC). Based on the following Findings of Fact,
staff recommended approval of the request:
The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations and the site meets the commercial location criteria for
a
Ms. Allen informed the Board that the County Attorney’s Office advised staff to remove any references to specific sections and policies of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan, suggesting that they just be referenced in general, and that, if the Board agreed to it, it would need to become part of the motion.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Sullivan, Attorney, Lowndes,
Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed, Orlando, representing the applicant,
addressed the Board stating that the applicant is in agreement with staff’s
report and analysis, noting that they talked through a couple of issues at the
Zoning Board Meeting and are comfortable with the conditions and increased
buffering that was discussed at that meeting.
He gave a brief background history of WLW Construction, noting that they
have been a member of the
Mr. John Wagner, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he wants to be a good neighbor to the surrounding property owners and feels that he has been, up to this point in time, always doing what he needs to do to make his property look presentable, since it is his office and where he spends the majority of his time. He noted that he was not involved with the original zoning request – that it was his father-in-law and some other relatives, so he was unaware of some of the aspects of it, until he received a complaint several months ago. Since that time, he has been going through the process of changing his zoning classification, to where everybody involved will be happy and he will be allowed to run a small business, while at the same time be a good neighbor, which is what he was hoping to accomplish this date, with the Board’s approval of the request.
Ms. Jacqueline DeWitt, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board stating that she is concerned about what the vision is for the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area, noting that her vision is one of residences and small businesses, not industry. She stated that she has lived on her property for the past 17 years and the applicant’s property was residential at that time. The home on the property became the office for WLW Construction and the property developed as an industrial site. The land was paved over and raised somewhat, to develop a hard surface for the large industrial vehicles, and there are utility poles on the property. If one were to drive by the property, it does not look like it belongs in the middle of residences, and she does not understand how it was allowed to be developed as industrial. She stated that she contacted various county departments in 2006 regarding this request and received an email from the Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, which she read into the record, indicating that the use of the property was in violation of the County’s Code and that the matter had been turned over to the Code Enforcement Department for action. She stated that there needs to be some consistency in the development of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area and the vision that the County has for it. She noted that she has no problem with the office being located on the site, but feels the heavy equipment and trucks should be required to be stored in another location. She stated that Mr. Wagner is a fine gentleman and a good neighbor who has always responded to any of her complaints in a good way, but she feels his business, being it is industrial, should not be located in the middle of a residential area.
Mr. Sullivan, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and rebutted some of Ms. DeWitt’s comments, at which time he noted that there were several other residents that spoke in opposition to the request at the Zoning Board Meeting, but they were not present at this meeting, and he feels it is because the applicant has addressed a lot of their concerns.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the hours and days of operation could be restricted, in order to allay some of the issues that Ms. DeWitt commented about. She noted that she had gotten the impression that the request was temporary, due to the slow down in the construction industry, and that the trucks would not always be stored on the property.
Commr. Stewart concurred, noting that she was under the impression that it was a temporary thing, as well, and that, when the construction industry picks up again the equipment will be located at the various construction sites.
Mr. Wagner interjected that his company has approximately 140 pieces of equipment, such as bulldozers, back hoes, loaders, etc., but that only about four pieces of equipment are currently stored on the property. He stated that, at any given time, there is going to be a few pieces of equipment in transit, but that it is not a temporary situation – it is something that is ongoing. He noted, however, that he has no intention of filling the property with heavy equipment - it is merely a stopping point - more like a hub.
Commr. Renick stated that she got the impression this was a temporary situation, too, but is now learning that it is not a temporary situation, but a permanent one.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he has driven by the site several times in the past and feels the applicant is a good neighbor, therefore, sees no problem with approving the request.
A motion was made by Commr. Stewart and seconded by Commr. Stivender to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No. 2008-10, WLW Construction, Incorporated and John F. Wagner, III et al/WLW Construction, Incorporated, Rezoning Case No. PH40-07-4, Amend Ordinance No. 1999-75, for the addition of a truck yard (heavy equipment storage area) and to expand the existing Planned Commercial (CP) Zoning District and rezone 2.02 acres from Urban Residential (R-6) to CP, as presented.
Under discussion, Commr. Renick asked that time restrictions be placed on the request, such as from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., in order to alleviate some of the concerns of the surrounding property owners.
Commr. Stewart amended her motion, which Commr. Stivender seconded, adding a stipulation that any activities occurring on the company’s premises, outside of the building, take place from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., except in emergency situations.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted “No”.
Ms. Allen, Senior Planner, asked that the Board include in the motion that specific references to the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan be removed from the Ordinance, as well, due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is changing and the LDRs are being rewritten.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. PH09-08-2 –
AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 2000-36 –
SHEPHERD OF THE
Mr. Steve Green, Chief Planner,
Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented this
case, stating that it was a request to amend Ordinance No. 2000-36, to add a
cellular communications tower and apparatus as an allowable use within the existing
Community Facility District (CFD). The
property consists of approximately 11.25 acres and is located on the southwest
corner of the intersection at Hwy. 27 and
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lauralee Westine, Attorney, representing T-Mobile, addressed the Board stating that her client is co-locating on the tower in question and that this request is more of a cleanup measure than anything else.
Mr. Jim Purvis, a resident of the
City of
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the County can require that a flag be flown from the top of the tower, but it cannot require what type of flag is to be flown, or what symbol is to be on the flag, noting that it would be a First Amendment issue and the First Amendment of the Constitution is probably the utmost right that everyone has, which is that Government is prohibited from telling people what types of messages they can or cannot place on their property. He stated that the requirements are similar to what is contained in the County’s Sign Ordinance, noting that the County is not allowed to regulate content in any way and by telling them what type of flag it has to be regulates content.
Mr. Darren Gray, Assistant City
Manager, City of
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2008-11, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Lake County BCC, Rezoning Case No. PH09-08-2, Amend Ordinance No. 2000-36, to add a cellular communications tower and apparatus as an allowable use within the Community Facility District (CFD), as amended, adding a requirement that a flag of the church’s choosing, whatever size it may be, be flown from the top of the cell tower.
A representative from the church addressed the Board and discussed problems that the church encounters with flying a large flag, noting that they currently fly a flag that is approximately 20’x30’or 20’x50’. He stated that the flags range from $900 to $1,300 each, plus the church pays an additional $160 to $170 per month to light the flag, and they constantly have to repair it, because it gets tattered and torn. He commented that a large flag creates a problem, noting that he currently has to hire a crew from the Tampa area to take the flag down, when it needs to be repaired, because just one person cannot do it, due to its large size. He indicated that he is currently trying to find a local crew to take the flag down for him, when needed.
It was noted that the City of
REZONING CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one present wished to address the Board.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, as follows:
Steve and Pamela Hunihan
Leslie Campione, PA
Rezoning Case No. PH08-08-5
Delete language in Ordinance No. 2005-71
(Continued until March 5, 2008 Zoning Board Meeting)
REZONING CASE NO. PH35-07-4 – CP,
R-1, R-6, AND A TO CP – CAROLE AND
MICHAEL READING,
Commr. Stewart informed the Board that, when this request first came before staff, she realized that the proposed project was not in compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and said something to staff about it and the fact that she did not think it was a good project, however, noted that, since then, she has learned that she needs to keep an open mind, which she has done. She commented that she met with a group of people who endorse the project and was also present at a presentation given by the applicant, Mr. Fabrizio.
Commr. Cadwell noted, for the record, that he had met with people on both sides of the issue, at which time Commrs. Hill and Stivender noted that they had, as well, and that they had received quite a few emails about the request, as well as DVDs and petitions.
Ms. Karen Ginsberg, Senior Planner,
Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented the
case, stating that the County received quite a few letters of opposition, as
well as support of the request, after the Staff Report was compiled and that
she now has a total of 161 letters of support, in addition to 21 video
testimonials, and 655 letters of opposition.
The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A), Rural Residential (R-1),
Urban Residential (R-6), and Planned Commercial (CP) and is located south of SR
46, at the intersection of SR 46 and
The Public Works Department has
determined that the three intersections near the proposed site will not meet
concurrency. The intersection at
1. The application is consistent with Section 3.00.03, Land Use-Zoning Matrix, of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that permits Planned Commercial zoning in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) Future Land Use Category (FLUC).
2. The application is consistent with LDR Table 3.02.06, which permits a maximum Floor Area Ratio, or intensity, for Urban Compact Nodes of forty percent (40%) of gross land area.
3. The application is inconsistent with LDR Table 3.02.06, which limits the maximum Impervious Surface Ratio to fifty-five percent (55%) for the Urban Compact Node Land Use.
4.
The application is inconsistent with the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) land use designation (
5. The application is inconsistent with Policy 1-3A.1 (3), criteria for Neighborhood Activity Centers.
6. The application is inconsistent with Policy 1-3A.1 (2), criteria for Community Activity Centers.
7. The application is inconsistent with Policy 1-10.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states that land use patterns shall promote orderly, compact growth and that the County shall encourage growth and development in developed areas where public facilities and services are presently in place, and in those areas which public facilities can provide the most efficient service.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and questioned Ms. Ginsberg as to what the Zoning Board recommended. She informed him that they recommended approval, by a 4-2 vote. She was then questioned as to whether there were any conditions placed on that approval, to which she responded that the development was required to comply with the submitted site plan and that the architectural design comply with the submitted renderings. He stated that he would present evidence indicating that staff is incorrect in several instances, with regard to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that he thought it was interesting that the Planning and Community Design staff had a contrary view, which they advised the Zoning Board about, but has now gone back to the old view, which he hoped to clarify.
Mr. Louis Fabrizio, the applicant,
addressed the Board stating that this is a project that they have been working
on for four years, at which time he presented a power point presentation
(Applicant’s Exhibit A), noting that the catalyst for the proposed project (The
Village Commons) was the growing population in the area and the fact that there
was a significant lack of services for both everyday goods, as well as
professional services. The Board of
County Commissioners, concerned about the growth in the area, created a
committee to study the area, with one of the guiding principles of their study,
which was published in 2003 and adopted by the Board in October of 2003, being
that Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento is a hub community for a larger area outside the
urbanized areas of Mt. Dora and Eustis.
The report also notes that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in
1990 designated the land use to be in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact
Node and that the future land use designation of the Urban Compact Node was the
second highest intensity land use in Lake County, with the conclusion being
drawn that, based on that review, Lake County intends for the Urban Compact
Node to develop substantially as an urban area.
He displayed an aerial of the property in question (contained in the
power point presentation), noting that the market report defines the market
trade area for the village common site to be an area where the population would
come from, given competing opportunities.
He discussed how the population in the area has grown from around 10,000
people in 1990 to an estimated population of 19,167 in 2006, with a projected
population of 24,000 by 2011. He stated
that the Market Square is intended to create a mixed-use center that will serve
as the highest intensity center of the community within the Market Street
Corridor (hub community with the Market Square in the center), which will serve
the demands of pass-by traffic, but more importantly, it is to serve the
overall community as a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use center at the intersection
of the realigned CR 437 and SR 46. The
residents of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area currently have to drive 6 ½ miles
to
Mr. Fabrizio reviewed how the plans for this project came about, noting that they came to the area in 2004 and found a site, consisting of 17.7 acres, at the southeast corner of the intersection of CR 437 and SR 46. They drew up a site plan, which they tweaked a bit, and, in 2005, they applied for a rezoning, for a 130,080 square foot mixed use center. The Zoning Board ruled in their favor, by a 5-2 vote, but prior to coming before the Board they started to meet with some of the people in the community and their plan, which was for a strip center at that time, was not well received, so they tweaked it further, before bringing it before the Board; however, there was still a group of people that were not happy with the plan and when it was brought before the Board, it was denied without prejudice, by a 4-0 vote. They were asked to go back to the community and come up with a plan that would be better received and would meet the vision that the community has for itself, so they met with neighborhood groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, etc., and heard from members of the community that they wanted to maintain the community’s character; they would like to have a traditional Main Street design; they wanted sustainability; smart growth; sense of place; pedestrian friendly; connectivity; on street parking; street trees; parks; civic uses; a place for community gatherings; a school, etc., such as what one would find in the Winter Park, Mt. Dora, and downtown Sanford areas. He stated that they listened to the community and knew that they would have to come up with a plan that would incorporate their wishes and a design that would fit the community’s vision, but they realized that they could not meet those concerns on a 17 acre site, so they looked at other available opportunities and assembled three additional tracts, to create a 31 acre site, which is the current parcel. They studied other towns in the area, talked to people in the community, looked at photographs of small towns that were given to them by residents of the community, met with their architects and discussed how they could pull it all together and came up with a plan, concepts, and renderings and invited the entire community, over 3,200 people, to attend a meeting that was held on October 25, 2007. They presented their plan to the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, as well, and asked for their approval, which ended up being a 5-5 tie vote, due to the fact that one of the 11 members of the committee was not present at the meeting.
Mr. Fabrizio stated that they had a
great turnout at the October 25th meeting that was held, with the
majority of the people present being pleased that they were being asked for
input, by way of a questionnaire (Applicant’s Exhibit B), which was submitted,
for the record. A petition (Applicant’s
Exhibit C) containing 161 signatures in favor of the plan was submitted, for
the record, as well as an audio CD and a video CD (Applicant’s Composite
Exhibit D), containing testimony from citizens in support of the project. He stated that the site plan before the Board
this date is the plan that they came up with, incorporating convenient
shopping, professional office space, a community gathering space, and a
walkable town center setting, with a downtown feel, having the buildings on the
road, lining the street, with shops below, offices above, and the core of the
Main Street having a park, as a gathering place. He was then questioned by Mr. Richey,
regarding the fact that the largest building in the plan consists of 45,600
square feet of net leasable space, with the purpose of keeping the square footage
down being to keep a store such as a Wal-Mart from going in; that it is
anticipated the build-out of the project will be 8 to 10 years, based on market
absorption, which will be contingent upon getting tenants; and that central
water and sewer will be provided on site, unless the City of Mt.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Woodward, Attorney, representing various individuals opposed to this project, addressed the Board, at which time Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, objected to Mr. Woodward participating as an attorney, noting that the County has a quasi-judicial process, which requires individuals to file a Notice of Appearance, if they will be representing a particular group, and, if they will not be representing a group and do not file a Notice of Appearance, they are to be limited to three minutes like the rest of the people that come before the Board. He stated that, if Mr. Woodward intended to speak longer than three minutes, he should have to comply with the County’s rules and asked that the Board hold him to those rules.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, was asked for an opinion on the matter and informed the Board that Mr. Richey was correct, in that the County does have the process in place that he alluded to, however, noted that it would be up to the Chairman as to how he wanted to run the meeting, which would be subject to the Board.
Mr. Woodward commented that he was not aware of that rule, but would be glad to submit a written Notice of Appearance at the first opportunity, if it would work toward satisfying the Board’s requirements.
Mr. Richey further requested that Mr. Woodward be required to follow the Lake County Code, if he planned to testify about it and illicit testimony and arguments regarding it.
Mr. Woodward was allowed to proceed, at which time he noted that he was present representing various residents of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento community, who were not against any and all commercial development on the site, but would favor commercial development that is of an appropriate scale for the community and that complies with the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan, which addresses issues of scale and does so in a very straightforward way. He stated that his clients supported the recommendation of denial by staff, for all the reasons that were set forth in the Staff Report, at which time he referred to the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report, pointing out the fact that the application for the proposed project is inconsistent with the LDRs, the Future Land Use Map designation for Neighborhood Activity Centers, the criteria for Neighborhood Activity Centers, and the criteria for Community Activity Centers, and that, in order for this rezoning to go forward, there would have to be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Activity Center to, at minimum, a Community Activity Center, but even it would not meet the criteria. He stated that the application is also inconsistent with the area’s land use patterns, which he elaborated on, questioning whether the project is a good thing or a bad thing for that particular location. He suggested that, whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing, it was a policy question that would be appropriately addressed in an application for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map; however, because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it now exists, they are not in a position to make that call – whether it is a good thing or a bad thing – it is something that is not legally permissible. He stated that, because it is not consistent with the existing FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan policies, the Board does not have the legal discretion to approve it, through a rezoning, without first doing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He submitted, for the record, a copy of Policy 1-3A.1, 3. – Neighborhood Activity Centers (Opposition’s Exhibit A), which he reviewed with the Board, noting that it is the existing Comprehensive Plan requirement that governs the use of that particular location, which is designated a Neighborhood Activity Center, with 50,000 maximum square feet of gross leasable space and approximately 35,000 square feet of it has been allocated and is being used, leaving approximately 15,000 square feet and there is no getting around that. In closing, he noted that, from reading the Minutes of the Zoning Board Meeting, there was some confusion about the legal significance of the fact that, in August of 2005, the Board denied a previous application without prejudice. He stated that he got the impression the Zoning Board believed it meant there was some sort of presumption of approval, when the applicant came back before them with a new and approved version of their plan, but what it actually meant was that it was a waiver of the normal one year sit out period, noting that, normally, when a rezoning application comes forward and the rezoning is denied, the applicant has to wait a full 12 months before coming back with a different plan. He stated that the denial without prejudice simply meant that the applicant could come back in a lesser time period than a year with a plan that did conform to the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan of Lake County. He further stated that Mr. Richey indicated at that meeting that the applicant would be back within 60 days, but two and a half years later the applicant is coming back before the Board with a plan that still does not comply with the County’s LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it does not come with any presumption of approval or goodness attached to it, merely because it was denied without prejudice by the Board two and a half years ago.
Mr. Tim Bailey, a resident of
Mr. Charles (Chuck) West, a resident
and business owner in
Mr. Clark Morris, a resident of
Ms. Priscilla Bernardo, a resident
of
Ms. Betty Ann Christian, a resident
of
Mr. Keith Schue, a resident of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area for the past 15 years, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that conventional or even outright poor development proposals can be made to look pretty, depending on the colors used and the angles and advantage points selected in putting the proposal together, but, fortunately, the County’s staff and the Board looks at facts, and, when one looks at the facts, it is very clear that the proposed project must be denied, in that it violates the County’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as its LDRs, in many ways, which staff has reviewed with the Board and he elaborated on, noting that, if the project is approved, there will be more asphalt and concrete than what a typical commercial development would bring, less open space and places to plant trees, and less places for the aquifer to be recharged. The proposed rezoning is on the edge of the Wekiva River Protection Area and in the heart of the Wekiva spring shed. He stated that any project coming forward should be expected to live up to a higher standard, not a lesser one. He discussed how the project will affect existing facilities and the roads and intersections that have been identified. He stated that the applicant is requesting that a determination of transportation concurrency be deferred and questioned why the Board would approve that, when it impacts SR 46 and the County’s ability to protect it as a two lane road, which has been the single most unifying objective of the community. He stated that the project has been promoted as smart growth, but he does not think there is anything smart about approving something and thinking about the consequences later. The entire site approaches the threshold of a DRI (Development of Regional Impact), so there is a problem with the scale of the project and the capacity of surrounding transportation facilities. He discussed the issue of water and sewer services for the site and the fact that the sources for them have not yet been secured. He discussed the fact that some of the residents want a gathering place, or park area, for people to meet, at which time he submitted, for the record, a copy of the site plan (Opposition’s Exhibit B), pointing out the area that is intended for said gathering place, noting that it is approximately the size of two small residential lots, or one-quarter the size of Mt. Dora’s community park that is located at the corner of Donnelly and Fifth Streets, and that he feels the people of Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento deserve more than that. Mr. Gene Hately, a resident of Mt. Plymouth for the past 20 years, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that he and his wife, as well as a lot of the residents in the area, would like to close the gate and not allow further growth, but one cannot fight progress. He stated that Mr. Fabrizio has worked with the community and all the advisory committees, in trying to give them what they would like to have, and asked that the Board approve the request.
Mr. Nakul Patel, a resident of Mt.
Plymouth and the owner of a small IGA grocery store in the area that he
purchased 10 years ago, addressed the Board in opposition to the request,
stating that, when he moved to the area from England, he was looking for a
rural community with a low crime rate to run a business and, out of all the
places in the United States, he chose Mt. Plymouth, because he felt it was one
of the best places that he had ever been to, and he has lived in five different
countries. He stated that he has never
spoken openly about the proposed project and has let the residents decide what
should be done, however, noted that he feels strongly about it and must give
the Board his perspective on it, as well as other people that support his
business that are not being represented this date. He referred to the petition alluded to
earlier, which contains over 600 signatures of people opposed to this project,
noting that it shows how many people are not happy about growth in the
area. He stated that it is a concrete
jungle along Hwy.27/441 all the way to
Mr. Curtis Duffield, a resident of
Former County Commissioner Catherine
Hanson, a resident of
Ms. Jeanne Etter, a resident of
Mr. Ray Palmer, a resident of
Ms. Shirley Schue, a resident of the
Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating
that she has lived in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area for over 15 years and
cherishes its small town character. She
stated that what has been proposed this date is not the commons of a village,
but a massive complex that will put 215,000 square feet of commercial and over
1,000 parking spaces in
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. PH35-07-4 – CP,
R-1, R-6, AND A TO CP – CAROLE AND
MICHAEL READING, SORRENTO COMMONS,
LLC/LOUIS FABRIZIO (CONT’D.)
It was noted that Ms. Lise Duval, Ms. Susan Brooks, and Ms. Rosa Andrews, who were present at this meeting, but had to leave, wanted it in the record that they were in favor of the proposed project.
Ms. Pam Jennelle, a resident of
Eustis, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that the proposed
site is a unique location and it is a unique time for
Mr. Don Etter, a resident of
Mr. Barry Blake, a resident of Mt. Plymouth for the past 18 years, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that he shops in Mr. Patel’s grocery store once in a while and appreciates the fact that it is there and hopes that it will be able to continue as a nice local store, however, noted that the 600 signatures that were collected in the community were not collected without a little bit of encouragement from the employees of the grocery store to some of the residents. He urged the Board to think about what is good for the community, noting that he feels the community supports the project.
Pastor Richard Green, a resident of Apopka and Senior Pastor at the First Baptist Church of Sorrento, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that he was speaking personally and not as the pastor of his church. He stated that he had several issues that he wanted to address, but that two of them had already been addressed, being community and convenience, and the third issue he wanted to address was that of careers, noting that he feels the proposed project would be the best thing for those families with low to moderate incomes, especially the teenagers. He stated that they need jobs and most of them do not have the means to travel outside of the community to get to a job. The proposed project would provide them with those jobs and he felt the community would be well served to have such a development in the area.
Mr. Doug Buskers, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that he agrees there is going to be some growth in the area, but he feels the present zoning and transportation network, with the planned SR 429 extension, the realignment of SR 46A, the new SR 46/441 interchange, and the southern bypass, among others, are going to be sufficient enough to provide for the growth that is anticipated, however, pointed out the fact that no one can agree on exactly what that growth is going to be. He stated that there are numerous parcels of land available for development along SR 46, consisting of less than one acre, as well as over five acres, for anyone who wants to bring something into the area besides a pizza parlor.
Mr. Michael Tubbs, a resident of
Ms. Heather Brush, a resident of Sorrento for the past 18 years, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that she and her family moved to Sorrento, because they thought it was the perfect rural community and they knew, in living there, they would probably have to drive 10 to 15 minutes to go shopping, but they felt it was worth it then and they feel it is worth it now. She stated that most of the people that move to that area move there, because they want that type of community. They do not want traffic or dense population, so she is confused why people move there and then are upset, because they do not have an amenity that they might want to have a stone’s throw from their home. She stated that she recognizes the fact that there is a need for commercial in the area, but not of this magnitude, noting that one this magnitude should be on Hwy. 441. She stated that it is not going to be a shopping center that is just going to handle the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento community, but one that is going to be a regional draw, bringing people in from other areas and it is going to create a terrible problem with traffic. She does not feel there should be a compromise and asked that the Board deny the request.
Ms. Christine Kverth, a resident of Mt. Dora and daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Reading, the owners of the property in question, addressed the Board on behalf of her parents, who could not be present, stating that she feels something everyone is forgetting is the fact that the proposed project is going to bring well needed tax money into the community, which the schools in the area that are suffering need, and, with regard to the issue of traffic, there is already a problem with it, at which time she listed the various subdivisions that are new to the area that are putting cars on the road and children in the schools, without needed jobs coming into the area. She asked the Board to approve the proposed project.
Mr. William Smalley, a resident of
Ms. Marilyn Whitney, a resident of
Ms. Kim Locke, a resident of
Mr. James Loyd, a resident of
Mr. Lou Londano and Mr. David
Devore, residents of
Ms. Anita Gideon, a resident of
Ms. Carol Saviak, Executive Director
of the Coalition for Property Rights, a non-profit education and advocacy
group, with members throughout the State of
Ms. Carolyn Sherman, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board stating that she is not in favor of the proposed project; however, she is not against it either, in every since of the word – she just feels the project is too big and overwhelming for the community.
Mr. Fred Cranmer, a resident of
Mr. Bob Otten, a resident of
Ms. Vicki Zaneis, a resident of
Ms. Allison Dray, a resident of
Ms. Leslie Garvis, the owner of a horse farm in Sorrento, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that she feels there is a certain sector of the community that is not being represented this date, because they are probably at home working their farms. She stated that she and her husband moved to the area five years ago, because they thought, after looking for several years, it was the perfect place to have a horse farm and business. She stated that there are a lot of horse farms in the area and she does not think people realize what a big business horse farming is, noting that she just returned from a horse show and sale in Arizona, where horses sold from $50,000 to $2.8 million. She stated that it is a huge business, elaborating on the number of people who make a good living off of the horse industry, however, noted that they keep getting pushed out of areas and there are not too many areas left for people in the horse business to go. She feels the proposed project is too large of a scale and proportion for the area and asked that the Board preserve the County’s rural communities and deny the request.
Mr. Peter Stadler, a resident of Sorrento, who moved to the area over 28 years ago, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that something people have not thought about is the working class and the fact that they cannot afford to drive 18 miles two times a week to go grocery shopping, especially with the cost of gasoline being what it is and the fact that it is going to increase even more before the Summer is over.
Ms. Kathie Beselica, a resident of
Mr. Randy Sanders, a resident of Mt. Dora, had to leave the meeting, but turned in a card indicating that he was in favor of the request.
Ms. Peggy Belflower, a resident of unincorporated Lake County, addressed the Board and asked that they vote in favor of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and Future Land Use Map (FLUM), all controlling documents for land planning and land use in the County and in favor of staff’s very thorough and well documented Staff Report, which asks the Board to deny the request of the applicant.
Mr. George Gideon, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that he is not afraid of change or growth, but is afraid of uncontrolled growth and that there are too many “ifs” involved with this request for him to feel comfortable with it. He stated that the area is facing problems with water and questioned who was going to pay to have his well re-drilled when it goes dry – he is. He discussed property rights and the fact that the residents want the Board to save their property rights.
Numerous cards were turned in, for the record, from individuals in favor of the request, who did not address the Board.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney,
representing the developer, readdressed the Board in rebuttal to some of the
comments that were made this date, at which time he asked Mr. Greg Beliveau,
LPG Urban and Regional Planners,
Mr. Richey informed the Board that, in his 30 years of being an attorney, he has found the hardest thing to do is to get people to attend a meeting in support of a project. He stated that it is always easy to get people to oppose a project, but for a community to attend a Board Meeting in support of a project is unique. He stated that the people present at this meeting in favor of the request were present at the Zoning Board Meeting, as well, because the plan before the Board is based on the vision they have for their community.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Hill stated that she had asked Mr. Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, to display examples of some local commercial developments the size of the proposed project, so that everybody could get a feel for what this project will look like, at which time he displayed photographs (County Exhibit A) of various shopping centers the approximate size of the proposed project, which he reviewed with the Board.
Mr. Sheahan disagreed with some
statements that were made about the Staff Report, with regard to this request,
pertaining to the Urban Compact Node and Future Land Use Category (FLUC) and
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Sheahan was still comfortable with staff’s Findings of Fact listed in the Staff Report and was informed that he was.
Commr. Stewart stated that, in studying this case, she came to the realization that both sides of this issue have way more in common than not, noting that both sides recognize the fact that Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento are growing; that both sides realize a sound commercial base is important; both sides want convenience of services and a walkable community; both sides want to work and shop in their community; and both sides want a beautiful Main Street commercial district, but, unfortunately, a campaign was initiated that has divided the community. She stated that it was turned into an “us” against “them” battle, with a divide and conquer mentality, which she feels is a real shame. She stated that the only issue before the Board this date is the size of the development and the fact that it is against the County’s Comprehensive Plan and that she hoped everyone present listened to staff’s report - that Mr. Fabrizio’s development is 215,325 square feet, which is the size of the development that exists between the Cities of Eustis and Tavares, along very busy four-laned Hwy. 441, that was designed to serve three cities - Mt. Dora, Tavares, and Eustis. She stated that the entire development, including the out parcels of Sun Trust Bank, Applebee’s, Gator’s Dockside, Finley’s, Sonics, and Bank First is 188,331 square feet - 26,994 square feet smaller than the proposed development, which the applicant wants to put in the middle of an area where most of the residents have stated that they want to remain as rural as possible, for as long as possible. She stated that the development would cause three nearby intersections to fail, although pointed out the fact that Mr. Fabrizio, using his proportionate share, could accommodate one of the intersections, but the other two he could not and the County has no funds in its budget to even think about touching them. She stated that the unfortunate thing is that one of those intersections would involve condemnation of existing businesses, in order to acquire the needed right of way.
Commr. Stewart reviewed the history
of what has occurred in the Mr. Plymouth/Sorrento area over the past few years,
with regard to the formation of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory
Committee and the proposed project, noting that it has almost doubled in size,
and, instead of being appalled, six people on the Committee did an about face
and began to support the development.
She stated that she did not understand their reasoning then, she does
not understand it now, and will never understand it, noting that they were
supporting a development that went against the very Comprehensive Plan Policies
they created. She stated that, upon
being elected County Commissioner, replacing former County Commissioner
Catherine Hanson, she took over the Committee, which got bogged down in arguing
about the proposed project, and, instead of moving forward, it stagnated, which
is when she decided something needed to be done, because the Committee had
important work to do. With approval of
the Board, she abolished the entire membership of the Committee, however,
invited each one of them to reapply and opened it to new members, as well,
which is when three of those six members she alluded to earlier resigned and
began their divide and conquer plan that has pitted neighbor against neighbor
and friend against friend and got the newspapers involved, as well. She stated that the fact that this issue has
divided the community the way that it has is good enough reason for her to step
back and question whether it is really good for the community and that so many
half-truths and misleading statements have been flying around that she is sure
everybody is confused, but feels that no one can dispute the fact that Mr.
Plymouth and
Commr. Stewart stated that, if the
Board approved this project, it would have to say “Yes” to the next one and the
next one and the next one. She asked the
Board to not let
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
overturned the recommendation of the Zoning Board and denied Rezoning Case No.
PH35-07-4, Carole and Michael Reading,
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess for lunch.
WORKSHOP
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Economic Growth
and Redevelopment Director, informed the Board that Mr. Alan Cox, T.I.P.
Strategies, would be presenting them with the final draft of the Economic
Development Strategic Plan for
Mr. Cox presented a power point presentation
pertaining to the adoption of the Economic Development Strategic Plan “Building
Bridges for Economic Development in
Mr. Cox stated that there are a lot
of opportunities in the County and he is very optimistic about its future,
although it is becoming more and more apparent that the Country is entering
into a national recession. He noted,
however, that he sees it as an opportunity for the County to take a breath,
understand what has been going on over the last few years, and take the steps
that are necessary to go in the direction that the County and its citizens want
to go, in terms of economic development.
He stated that the County has a good blueprint for economic development,
so it needs to go forward with it and then it will be ready when the economy
picks back up. He feels health care is a
huge opportunity for the County, in that it has three great hospitals, and he
applauds the Lake County School System for its magnet school, which is going to
have a health care curriculum, noting that he feels that is a big bonus for the
County. He stated that, with the
regional demographics of Central Florida, there is nowhere to go but up, in
terms of health care, and the strategy for that is how to get the best out of
it and not just have two or three hospitals, but to create a health care
cluster in the County and became known as having one of the Nation’s best
health care systems. He stated that he
sees a lot of opportunities, in terms of outdoor recreation, with the County
having a large number of lakes, lots of open green space, and the National
Training Center, suggesting that they all be combined, to create something
unique that will go with health care, which he feels would be the County’s best
nitch within the overall health care industry.
He feels higher education is another big opportunity for the County,
with the regional workforce being one of the upsides to becoming a bedroom
community to
Mr. Cox discussed further the
various targeted areas for the County, being Health and Wellness; Agritech;
Retail, Arts, Recreation, and Leisure; Business Services; and Clean Tech (green
building and clean energy). He stated
that the vision for the County should be as Central Florida’s emerging business
center and
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
(1) Aggressively promote economic vitality and tax base diversification.
(2) Promote environmentally sound, quality, economic development.
(3) Promote site and building locations near and within incorporated communities.
primarily and promote site and building locations outside their service areas
secondarily.
(4) Promote
economic development that supports
and sense of place.
(5) Promote the construction and maintenance of adequate infrastructure.
(6) Partner with other local organizations and regional partners.
(7) Remain committed to developing and maintaining talent, by advocating and
promoting excellence in education.
GOALS
(1) Coordinate efforts with allies and leaders.
(2) Diversify the tax base through innovation, industry attraction, and business
development.
(3) Enhance and promote quality of place.
(4) Develop, attract, and retain talent.
MAJOR INITIATIVES
· Countywide economic development partnership.
· New LSCC campus.
· One-stop shop for entrepreneurial assistance programs and economic development services.
·
New UCF regional campus in
· Economic development GIS System.
· Mixed-use development and entertainment destinations in downtown areas.
·
Marketing and image campaign, promoting
· Specialized public secondary academies that are linked to economic development targets.
Ms. Barbara Mittermaier,
representing Dr. Charles Mojock, President of Lake-Sumter Community College,
who was unable to attend the meeting, addressed the Board and read into the
record a response from Dr. Mojock, with regard to Page 35 of the plan, which
deals with the location of a Performing Arts Center. In his response, Dr. Mojock thanked the Board
for making the change that he suggested, noting that it helps to make it clear
that there are two distinct tasks and that he believes the consultants, the
Committee, and staff have done an excellent job in crafting a plan that is
comprehensive, appropriately targeted, and achievable. He stated that he enjoyed being a part of the
Steering Committee and appreciated the opportunity to serve, however, pointed
out the fact that he felt conducting a study to determine a suitable location
for a Performing Arts Center seemed to be redundant and unnecessary and
questioned whether there were other central locations with highway access,
infrastructure, and parking available, and, if so, whether it would be free,
like the land at Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg Campus is; whether they
provided significant private funding and state matching funds, like the college
does; and whether they relieve the County and the Cities of ongoing operational
expense and capital maintenance obligations, like the college does. He stated that the County may or may not
decide to provide capital funding for the LSCC Performing Arts Center, but he
feels it does not need to send a message that the community is divided on which
performing arts center project they support.
He believes the County must take the lead with the Cities on Strategy 3,
Action B, just as the County is assigned the lead in Strategy 1, Actions A and
B, regarding outdoor recreational options, and that the support of a
multi-purpose performing arts facility must be a countywide strategy, in that
we do not have a city like Orlando as the major population and business center
for the County and, therefore, capable of undertaking such a project. He stated that, if the leadership is handed
over to the Cities, a regional facility will not become a reality in the
foreseeable future, therefore, suggested the following Action B task: Support the efforts to establish a
multi-purpose
Mr. Robert Johnson, representing the Chamber Alliance and its President, Mr. Ron Wallace, who could not be present, addressed the Board and thanked them for their efforts in funding the proposed Performing Arts Center project. He noted that the matter was taken before the Chamber Alliance at their last meeting and was endorsed unanimously by its Board. However, he pointed out the fact that he was not sure they understood every word contained in the plan, but that they do understand that this is just a blueprint to get the project started and that the real work is going to have to be done by the Chambers who are committed to working with the County to make it happen.
A motion was made by Commr. Stewart
and seconded by Commr. Hill to approve the Economic Development Strategic Plan
– “Building Bridges for Economic Development in
Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that she felt the Board needed to address the point that was made by Dr. Mojock, through Ms. Mittermaier, with regard to Page 35 of the plan. She clarified the fact that the lead is under the Cities and the partner is the County in this action item, being Strategy 3, Action B, bullet point 4, noting that what is being asked is that the Board name the location for a multi-purpose facility for the performing arts. She stated that Dr. Mojock would like to have the facility located at the Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg Campus and questioned whether the Board felt there would be a problem with doing so from the Cities, because they are supposed to be taking the lead in the matter.
Commr. Stivender interjected that
she is the liaison Commissioner to the Arts and Cultural Alliance and they are
currently working with the Cities to come up with plans within their own
cities, however, noted that none of them would have the ability to pay for a
performing arts center, which would cost approximately $25 million. She stated that she hopes the Cities will
come to understand that
Commr. Stewart commented that she
felt the benefits of having it at
Commr. Hill stated that, if the
Cities are all in agreement with it being located at
Commr. Renick informed the Board that she did not know if it would be appropriate to say that Lake-Sumter Community College would be the lead and the partners would be the County/Cities, or whether the lead would be the County and the partners would be the Cities/Lake-Sumter Community College.
Commr. Stivender interjected that she felt the whole section was going to have to be changed, because the language contained in the other three bullets involve the Cities.
Commr. Hill reminded the Board that it is the County’s document. She stated that she did not want to step on any of the Cities’ toes, but that she feels they are all in agreement with the Board, in that the Board recognizes the fact that the Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg Campus is the site location for a multi-purpose facility for the performing arts. She stated that she would just like to change one sentence under bullet point four and leave the rest of them the same.
Commr. Stivender suggested that the wording “and suitable location” be struck from the first sentence of the fourth bullet, noting that the Board agrees that the location for the facility should be the Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg Campus.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Cox was asked to provide the appropriate language. He suggested that the sentence read, “Support the efforts to develop a performing arts center at the Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg Campus, where existing infrastructure and capacity are in place.”
Commr. Stewart amended her motion to include the language suggested by Mr. Cox, which was seconded by Commr. Hill.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS TO
COMMITTEE
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed the following individuals to the to the new Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, for two-year terms, effective from the date of appointment, as follows:
Priscilla Bernardo Drugge
G. Curtis Duffield
Jeanne Etter
Leslie Garvis
Dr. Ronald E. Holman
Scott Taylor
Judith Weis
REPORTS –
PLAAC PROPERTIES PROCESS UPDATE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
REPORTS –
PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS
Ms. Cindy Hall,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board prioritized the requests for funding, as follows:
First - 800 Mhz Communications System - $642,500 (balance of $1million requested in 2007)
Second -
Third - EOC Technology Systems - $1,500,000
EOC Facility Construction - $3,300,000
The 2007 request for EOC was $6,000,000. Due to Federal funding programs/requirements, this request was broken into constituent parts to increase potential funding for technology.
RESCHEDULING OF BUDGET WORKSHOP
The County Manager informed the Board that the Budget Workshop, originally scheduled for 2:00 p.m. this date was being rescheduled for Friday, March 7, 2008, in Room 233 of the Administration Building, and that a workshop originally scheduled to be held on that date between the Board and the departments of Procurement and Employee Services would be rescheduled for a later date.
OTHER BUSINESS (CONT’D.)
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC)
ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Jerry Smith, Emergency
Management Director, informed the Board that the Turkey Point power production
facility in
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2
EAST
Commr. Renick stated that she had attended the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Meeting and that myregion.org initiatives were discussed, as well as the Department of Environmental Protection’s Ecological Greenways Map, and that Polk, Orange, and Lake Counties agreed that environmentally sensitive lands should be identified on the map, but the other four counties disagreed, indicating that they did not want it on the map. She noted, however, that the map has not yet been voted on.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STEWART – DISTRICT 4
4-H CLUB COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECT
Commr. Stewart reminded those present about the elementary school student (Angelina Carnecchia), who is participating in a 4-H Club community service project, helping children from abused families, noting that last month a record breaking number of abused children were taken out of their homes and they have so many needs. She stated that gently used books, videos, DVDs, and complete board games are being collected for Angelina for the benefit of said children at the Lake County Agricultural Center and asked that people donate their pennies and spare change, or purchase new items and drop them off for her at the Ag Center, as well.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
____________________________________
WELTON
G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK