A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JUNE 2, 2009
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Elaine Renick; Linda Stewart; and Jimmy Conner. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Pastor Brooks Braswell, First Baptist Church of Umatilla, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda update
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, pulled Tab 8, a request from Public Works for approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Groveland for a SR 50 Corridor Study (from CR 565 to SR 33) – Commission District 3, as this project will be managed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and Tab 10, a request from Public Works for approval and signature on a Resolution authorizing the posting of a "STOP" sign, southbound on Lake Yale View Loop (6746B), at the intersection of Scenic Ridge Drive (6746C), in the Eustis area, in Section 29, Township 18, Range 26 - Commission District 4, until a later date. She noted that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing a request from Procurement for approval to award a contract to Ernie Morris Enterprises, Inc., and an Addendum No. 2, containing a request from Public Works for approval of two agreements with FDOT for the Lois Drive Bridge project.
MINUTES APPROVAL
Commr. Renick requested the following changes:
Regarding the Minutes of April 28, 2009, on Page 16, Line 27, the word “Compensation” should be changed to “Comprehensive”.
Regarding the Minutes of May 5, 2009, she noted that, on Page 7, Lines 13 and 14, the language “according to the answers given on the survey, the Board is pretty much on the same page as the Water Alliance” should be changed to “according to the individual Commissioners’ answers given on the survey, the Board is pretty much in agreement.”; on Page 9, Line 16, change the language “to construct the facility” to “for the election”; and on Page 18, Lines 29 and 30, replace the current language with the following: “It was the consensus of the Board that the St. Augustine grass be removed and replaced with Bahia.”
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of April 28, 2009 (Regular Meeting), as corrected; the Minutes of May 5, 2009 (Regular Meeting), as corrected; and the Minutes of May 12, 2009 (Special Meeting – Budget Workshop), as presented.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 10, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk’s Office.
Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases
Request to acknowledge receipt of Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending April 30, 2009, in the amount of $172,122.72. Same period last year: $187,562.13.
Resolution from City of Eustis
Request to acknowledge receipt of certified copy of Resolution No. 09-01, from the City of Eustis, approving the vacation of the portion of the EUS-UMA Plat C, lying east of the Atlantic Coastline Railroad, per F.S. 177.101(4).
Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2009/10 Budget
Request to acknowledge receipt of Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District’s proposed Fiscal Year 2009/2010 budget, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and notification of the public hearing for adoption of this item scheduled for August 7, 2009, at 2:00 p.m., at the office of Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott, Inc., located at 350 N. Sinclair Avenue, Tavares, Florida.
Notice Before Florida Public Service Commission
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission – Docket No. 090034-WS; Order No. PSC-09-0302-FOF-WS; Issued: May 6, 2009 - In re: Application for quick-take amendment of Certificate Nos. 496-W and 465-S, to extend service area in Lake County, by Lake Utility Services, Inc. Order Acknowledging Quick Take Amendment of Certificate Nos. 496-W and 465-S, by Lake Utility Services, Inc.
City of Clermont’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Clermont’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008, along with copy of Clermont Community Redevelopment Agency’s (CRA) Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008.
Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District’s Proposed Budget for 2009/10 Fiscal Year and Notice of Public Hearing
Request to acknowledge receipt of Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District’s proposed budget for the 2009/2010 Fiscal Year and notice of public hearing to consider adoption of proposed budget, scheduled for August 25, 2009, at 11:30 a.m., at the Marion Baysinger Memorial Library, 756 West Broad Street, Groveland.
City of Tavares’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ending September 30, 2009
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Tavares’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ending September 30, 2008.
Pine Island Community Development District’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2010
Request to acknowledge receipt of Pine Island Community Development District’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2010, in accordance with Section 190.008(2)(b).
Founders Ridge Community Development District’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2010
Request to acknowledge receipt of Founders Ridge Community Development District’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2010, in accordance with Section 190.008(2)(b).
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 12, pulling Tabs 8 and 10, and adding Addendum No. 1, as follows:
Community Services
Request for approval to accept payment and Satisfaction of Claim for Probate Court Case No. 2009-CP-29, Estate of Warren Lee Wade.
Request for approval of distribution of funds among local jurisdictions applying for funding, and signature authority for Chairman on original letter of support for Lake County. Also, approval for Chairman to sign applications submitted by Sheriff's Department, as well as grant documents, including application, certificate of acceptance, EEO certifications, and subsequent grant related documents.
Environmental Utilities
Request for approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement between Lake County and Lake Aircraft Radio Kontrol Squadron (LARKS), to increase general liability insurance minimum limits and coverage, as required by County Risk Management Section.
Request for approval of Lease Agreement between Lake County and Southern Eagle Squadron, model airplane club, for use of Lady Lake Landfill for recreational use by Southern Eagle Squadron; and authorization for Chairman to execute Lease Agreement, subject to County Attorney approval.
Growth Management
Request for approval to accept sponsorship funds to pay for speaker costs at Green Team workshop, to be held July 8, 2009; and approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution No. 2009-74, for this and other upcoming FY 2008/09 Green Team functions.
Public Works
Request for approval of Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and City of Groveland, for Bible Camp Road Roadway Improvements from CR-565 to SR-19 - Commission District 3.
Request for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2009-75, authorizing the posting of "STOP" sign on Greenbrier Street (7697), at intersection of Coconut Avenue (7597), in Royal Trails subdivision - Commission District 5.
Request for approval of Wildlife Cooperative Extension Agreement between Lake County and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and authorization for Chairman to sign same.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)
Procurement
Request for approval of award under state contract to Ernie Morris Enterprises, Inc. (EMEI), to furnish and install furniture for new Lake County Tax Collector and Property Appraiser’s Offices. The cost of said contract is $121,239.84.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Commr. Renick and seconded by Commr. Stewart to approve the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tab 13, as follows:
Request for approval of lease agreement with SDG Macerich (Lake Square Mall) for Sheriff's Office space - Commission District 1.
Under discussion, Commr. Conner questioned why some funding involved with the request was coming out of the County’s budget, rather than the Sheriff’s budget.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, responded that the County provides space for all the constitutional officers, however, noted that the Sheriff indicated he would be providing some computers and furniture that is needed for said office out of his budget.
Commr. Conner commended the Sheriff for having a presence at the mall and stated that he felt SDG Macerich was very gracious to give the County some space for the Sheriff’s Office at the mall, however, noted that there are other expenses involved with the request.
The Vice Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
The Vice Chairman presented the following Employee Awards, with Ms. Susan Irby, Office of Employee Services and Quality Improvement, commenting briefly about each employee’s service to the County:
Presentation of Award to Employees with Five Years of Service
James Dickerson, Assistant Fire Chief
Public Safety/Fire Rescue
Presentation of Award to Employees with Ten Years of Service
Scott Auker, Trades Crew Leader
Facilities Development and Management/
Jail and Sheriff Facilities Maintenance
Charles Cox, Environmental Programs Supervisor
Environmental Utilities/Water Quality Services
Anthony Cuellar, Fire Lieutenant/Paramedic
Public Safety/Fire Rescue
Presentation of Award to Employees with Fifteen Years of Service
Barbara Schamel, Program Specialist
Community Services/Community Development Block Grant
Presentation of Award to Employee with Twenty-Five Years of Service
Clarence Archie (Mr. A), Park Specialist
Public Works/Parks and Trails
BOARD/COMMITTEE CERTIFICATE PRESENTATIONS
The Vice Chairman presented the following Board/Committee Certificates:
Historical Museum Advisory Committee
Paul Rogers - for service from 2006-2009
Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee
Priscilla Bernardo Drugge - for service from 2004-2009 (Not Present)
G. Curtis Duffield - for service from 2004-2009 (Not Present)
Jeanne Etter - for service from 2004-2009
Leslie E. Garvis - for service from 2008-2009 (Not Present)
Dr. Ronald E. Holman - for service from 2004-2009
Judith C. Weis - for service from 2005-2009 (Not Present)
Lisa M. Yonke - for service from 2008-2009
Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board
Bobby Gibson - for service from 1999-2009 (Not Present)
PRESENTATION
CITY OF MASCOTTE RESOLUTION FOR SUNSET AVENUE PD&E STUDY
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating that the City of Mascotte entered into an agreement with Lake County to use impact fees to do a PD&E Study on Sunset Avenue, and the firm of Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. (DRMP) was hired to do the study.
Mr. Ralph Bove, Vice President, DRMP, addressed the Board stating that his firm was hired to do the preliminary engineering and final design for the Sunset Avenue project in the City of Mascotte. He gave a brief power point presentation overview of the preliminary engineering study and what has been involved in the process, thus far, such as establishing a website for the project, on behalf of the City, holding public meetings, and obtaining input from the City, as well as from the residents, remarking that public involvement was a very important part of the process. Some of the comments they received was a need to look at a potential lighting scheme for the roadway, to provide features for pedestrian access, and to make sure that their recommendations were consistent with the community redevelopment agency’s vision for future development. He stated that the Interlocal Agreement covers the preliminary engineering study, the field survey, and the design and permitting process. He commented that it has been a collaborative effort between the City of Mascotte and Lake County, with the City providing the project and contract management, committed staff time and resources, and helping his firm with a hands on approach and being very proactive during the study, and the County providing project funding through the Impact Fee Program and technical oversight, in reviewing DRMP’s final recommendations. They are at the end of the study phase and are moving into the design phase and the next phase will be construction. He commented that there was a lot of coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), at the intersection of SR 50, and they discovered during their study that there was an ongoing resurfacing program for SR 50. Based on the traffic analysis that they had conducted for Sunset Avenue, they identified the need for additional turn lane geometry at the intersection and, working with FDOT, they were able to get an agreement from them to include the intersection of Sunset Avenue in their plans, noting that they follow a different set of standards and would be responsible for the funding and implementation of the intersection. He indicated that the construction schedules are just about parallel with each other, so there should be minimal disruption to traffic, while both facilities are being constructed. He reviewed the time line for the study, noting that they wrapped up their final recommendations at the end of May and anticipate the schedule for the final design will take them through the rest of the Summer and into the Fall, finalizing the plans and getting the project ready to go to construction by October. He stated that the City Council adopted their recommendation on May 4th, by way of Resolution No. 2009-05-406, through a public hearing process and that Resolution has been forwarded to the Board for approval and authorization for them to move to Phase 2 - Final Engineering and Permitting.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works to accept Resolution No. 2009-05-406, from the City of Mascotte, for the completion of the Sunset Avenue PD&E Study - Phase 1; a request to move forward to Phase 2 of the project - Final Engineering and Permitting; and to implement the improvements contained in the City of Mascotte Sunset Avenue Preliminary Engineering Study Report - Commission District 3.
COMMISSIONERS
At this time, Commr. Cadwell arrived at the meeting and the gavel was turned over to him by the Vice Chairman, Commr. Hill.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
ENERGY EFFICIENT CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT (EECBG)
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that staff recently brought forward a recommendation for approval of a project installing solar photovoltaic panels above the top level of the Parking Garage, to use an energy grant that the County is receiving as part of stimulus money, in the amount of $2.8 million; however, the Board requested additional information related to the solar panels and some of the return on investment costs, but the Facilities Development and Management Department needed to look into it a little further, to make sure that the structure of the solar panels would be covered by the grant and how much it would cost. She indicated that Mr. Jim Bannon, Facilities Development and Management Director, looked into the matter and provided some information to the Board regarding same. Staff was also asked by the Board to run the idea past the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council, which they did, and received a letter from them, containing a recommendation from Mr. Ray Gilley, Chief Executive Officer, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC).
Ms. Shelly Weidenhamer, Business Development Director for Lake County, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, addressed the Board and introduced Mr. Scott Lee, Chairman of the Industry Cluster Committee of the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council, who informed the Board that the Committee looked at the grant and the opportunities afforded in the grant, and several of the alternatives that are eligible include activities such as economic stimulus, by promoting business growth in the area of energy conservation and efficiency. The Committee’s task is to promote that type of activity – to create and retain jobs, so they looked at the alternatives and did some investigation in other areas that have developed strategies for these grants, such as Palm Beach County and the City of Gainesville, that have very defined programs and are leveraging the grant money to provide a much longer and much more sustainable impact than a single construction project. He stated that, not that there is anything wrong with the application of the funds for solar energy, but, if said monies can be leveraged to grow businesses and retain jobs in Lake County, it seems to also be a good use of the funds. He informed the Board that the letter that was provided to them by Mr. Bannon, alluded to earlier by the County Manager, summarized the recommendations of the Committee.
Commr. Cadwell questioned, if the Board went with the recommendation of the Committee to have a study done to see how the County should spend the money, whether the County would be in jeopardy of losing it and was informed by the County Manager that the EDC has looked into an extension of 120 days, but that she had not personally done that, so it would be something that the County would want to be certain about.
Mr. Lee interjected that the Committee looked into the matter and it appears that development, submittal, and gaining approval of a strategy is required for the Board to actually receive the funds. He stated that it is a fast developing program and that requirement may not have been promulgated when it was first looked at, but it appears that it is required. He indicated that the way the application literature reads no more than $250,000 will be allocated, until a plan is developed, submitted, and approved by the Department of Energy (DOE). He noted that there are no real guidelines as to what the plan is to entail, other than to look at all the alternatives.
Commr. Hill commented that she appreciated the Committee submitting their idea to the County and that she felt the award was based on the best and highest use of taxpayer dollars. She stated that a project was identified that was ready to go and she thought that was part of the benefit of getting the grant money so quickly. She indicated that, like Commr. Cadwell, she too was concerned about jeopardizing the funding, but she was also concerned about the vision that the Board has put out to the community, which is that they have a commitment to continue with sending a message that the County is energy friendly and has some other countywide uses for energy savings. She noted that the Health Department and the School Board have done likewise, as well as the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector, which she feels sends a positive message to the community, and this item is just an ongoing vision that the County has had. She remarked that the County has money set aside in the Economic Development budget for incentives and questioned whether those incentive dollars could be used to fund a plan to coincide with going ahead with this project.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he does not feel it sends a negative message, if the Board takes the recommendation of the EDC, noting that he feels it shows they are looking at energy efficiency, but they are also looking at jobs creation. He commented that the County can do both of those at the same time, where they may just be doing energy with the proposed project.
Commr. Hill interjected that it will also create jobs, for the life of the project, and that was one of the major components of doing something and it being ready to go; however, she feels it is being done piecemeal and would like to see an overall plan of the County’s energy efficiency and was asking whether the County could do both, since there is money within that department for incentives.
Mr. Lee informed the Board that the Committee’s recommendation was intentionally designed to be very broad, at which time he noted that within the Committee they are focusing on certain types of industry and clean technology and energy efficiency and generation is one of the technologies that they feel would be beneficial to the County to try to grow and, within that context, looking at the eligible activities within the grant, they see many opportunities to advance that cost. He feels having a capital project, where the County has invested in something that is visible and tangible would be good evidence of the commitment of the County, but having the programs to go along with it, to help create jobs and bring in businesses associated with that type of industry would also be good. He stated that they feel, in development of the plan, it should be possible to develop a strategy to achieve both goals.
Commr. Stewart interjected that she likes the Committee’s plan and feels that the Board has made a commitment to the County to promote economic development, so she feels everything can be accomplished.
Mr. Lee stated that additional funds may be forthcoming at some point, and the Committee would like to assist the County in being in a position to receive said funds, noting that they may be competitive based, rather than grants, and they feel having a program in place would better position the County for the future.
Commr. Hill remarked that the project has not been bid out, so it may not cost what they think it will cost. She feels there may be enough money to do both, but is afraid that, if the County just indicates it is going to do a plan, it may only get back $250,000, rather than the whole $2.8 million that it could be allocated and she does not want to jeopardize the whole grant.
Mr. Lee stated that he understood Commr. Hill’s concern, however, noted that, in reading the application, it appears the County has the grant and all the Board has to do is get the DOE to approve the plan, in order to receive the grant funds.
Commr. Renick stated that she feels everybody has a concern about the matter, because it looks like the DOE’s grant works a little differently than other grants, but, in looking at the information she has received, it appears the County will get 120 days and it comes down to whether or not the Board wants to take the 120 days. She does not feel it will risk the $2.8 million grant, if they do. She indicated that she does not see what is being discussed as two different projects, but an overall plan, and having the solar panels installed on the parking garage will be a part of that plan. She stated that it gives the County 120 days to consult with a lot more experts in the field, to see how the County can best do the project and leverage the grant money.
Commr. Conner commended the Board for asking for input from the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council, stating that he was impressed with the information they received from the Industry Cluster Committee in a very quick timeframe and that he feels all they are suggesting is that the County take a broad comprehensive approach, rather than say they are going to do just one project, which he agrees with 100%. He stated that sustainable jobs would be a component of it, but the Board is not ruling out the solar panels – all they are saying is that they want to take a comprehensive look at it and, if they go through that process, they will be much more informed on what their range of alternatives are and will have the pros and cons on each alternative and be able to make the best choice. He remarked that he has heard from many respected leaders in the environmental community in the County who have reservations about the solar panels, and he finds it interesting that the recommendation by the Committee is consistent with what he is hearing from the leaders in the environmental community, which is to take a broad comprehensive look at the issue and explore the options, before committing the $2.8 million. He expressed his appreciation to the Committee, stating that it is the way that he likes to see information come to the Board, rather than having a project presented to them with a recommendation that it be done. He feels the Board makes better decisions, when they have a wide range of options.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved a request from Facilities Development and Management for approval to apply for an Energy Efficient Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) that has been allocated to Lake County, in the sum of $2,807,500, with an identified project being to install infrastructure and solar photovoltaic panels above the top level of the new parking garage located on Sinclair Avenue, in Tavares, as part of the Phase 2 Judicial Facility Expansion, but to accept a recommendation by the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council’s Industry Cluster Committee that the Board authorize development of an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS), to determine the best set of options to implement for said grant. The completed grant application and supporting documents’ deadline is 8:00 a.m., on June 25, 2009.
Commr. Hill voted “No”.
PUBLIC WORKS
SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND BAYWOOD VILLAGE, LLC
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating that he was looking for a policy decision, noting that the County’s Code requires a two year timeframe for constructing a project and there are several projects currently on the books that are within two to three months of that two year timeframe running out. He indicated that some of the projects have obtained a one year extension, but the policy states that two years is the limit.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there is a new Statute and, once it goes into effect, all of the projects currently on the books will get an automatic two year extension. He noted that it was his understanding that the Governor has signed the Bill, but that it has not yet become law.
Mr. Stivender stated that there would be up to seven projects moving forward, however, noted that four of them are landscaping projects. The construction part of the projects has been completed, but the landscaping and other improvements that are tied to the sell of the lots have not been completed.
Commr. Hill indicated that she would be willing to grant those projects an extension, but, due to the problem that the County seems to be having involving the upkeep of vacant, platted developments, questioned whether the Performance Bond with Baywood Village could be amended, authorizing the County to utilize some of those funds, if a need arises where the County will have to maintain the property.
The County Attorney stated that, with the new Statute, the projects are going to get an automatic two year extension, so action by the Board will not be necessary.
Mr. Stivender informed the Board that there are two things that have happened with the subdivisions that are sitting idle, being (1) vegetation and (2) silt fencing, noting that the County’s stormwater personnel have been on top of all the silt fencing, making sure they are kept in place, because what is not weeds is barren ground and there is a chance of erosion, with the Summer rains coming up. He stated that the question that needs to be addressed is that of proper maintenance consistent with current codes on the vacant properties, where the roads are in good shape, but maintenance on some of the lots is questionable.
It was determined that, if the Governor signed the Bill yesterday, it would become law before 30 days are up, so no action would be required by the Board this date regarding a request from Public Works for direction regarding a Second Amendment to the Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Baywood Village, LLC, for an extension of their term by one year - Commission District 3. Baywood Village consists of 16 lots and is located in Section 26, Township 19 South, Range 26 East - Commission District 3. Staff is to look into the matter of proper landscaping maintenance on vacant properties in subdivisions under development, consistent with the current Lake County Code, and bring a report back to the Board at a later date.
ADDENDUM NO. 2
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (cont’d.)
PUBLIC WORKS
lois drive bridge project
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, informed the Board that staff was trying to fast track the Lois Drive Bridge project, noting that they had only received the agreements pertaining to it last week. He stated that the project is shovel ready, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has offered to manage it for the County, and the funding will come through the Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement, as it is a county road, so the County is ready to move forward with it. The LAP Agreement is for $2.6 million and the estimated cost for construction is $1.8 million, so there is enough room that the County will not be burdened with any costs involved with it. He stated that staff feels comfortable with FDOT managing the project, noting that they will keep an eye on it and keep the Board in the loop, as things progress. He indicated that it will probably be later this year, if not early next year, before it actually goes out to bid.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of two agreements with FDOT for the Lois Drive Bridge project. The first agreement is a “Locally Funded Agreement”, which allows the FDOT to bid and manage the project on Lake County’s behalf. The second agreement is an “Off System Maintenance Agreement”, which states that Lake County will maintain the bridge upon completion of the project.
Mr. Stivender gave a brief update on other LAP projects involving the County, with regard to stimulus money, noting that the County has received ten agreements dealing with resurfacing projects and the verification of right of way and staff is in the process of getting all those projects certified.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PRESENTATION REGARDING 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Mr. Bill Gearing, Community Enhancement Coordinator, Community Services, addressed the Board stating that this public hearing was for the purpose of amending the County’s regular Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for this year and the Community Development Block Grant Recovery Act (CDBG-R) proposed budget and activities that were added this year. He stated that the amendment to the regular program was advertised on May 3, 2009 and has been available for public comment for the 30 days that is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He commented that staff is proposing to take funds from the 2007 plan that are unused and still available for the Altoona Charter School Renovation Project, along with some funds that were left over from various projects from that year, and move them to this year’s budget and add an additional $50,000 to the Altoona Charter School Renovation Project, which has already been approved by the Board, and then use the remainder of the funds to start the Women’s Wellness Clinic Project that involves renovating the old Leesburg Health Clinic – a county owned building in Leesburg, so that the present Women’s Wellness Clinic, which is a leased building in Leesburg, will be able to move into the renovated building, upon completion of the renovations. He stated that the CDBG-R proposed budget is an additional allocation that the County is receiving this year, because of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, noting that it was advertised on May 24, 2009 and has been available for public comment for the seven days that is required by HUD. He then discussed various projects that are proposed to receive additional funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 towards the FY 2007/08 Community Development Block Grant allocation, indicating what each project entails.
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 portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2009-76, adopting changes to the 2008 One Year Action Plan, and authorized the Chairman to sign two Applications for Federal Assistance (Form SF 424), the Adoption Resolution and required certifications, and any future related documents, for acceptance of this funding (as may be required).
ordinance amending allowed uses in r-6, r-7, and cfd zoning districts
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its second and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 3.00.02, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PURPOSE AND INTENT OF DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 3.01.03, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; CHANGING CEMETERY FROM A CONDITIONAL USE TO A PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD); ADDING MULTI-FAMILY USE AS A PERMITTED USE IN R-6 AND R-7 ZONING DISTRICTS; ADDING GENERAL AGRICULTURE AND NON-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CFD ZONING DISTRICT AND REMOVING AS CONDITIONAL USE FROM THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board, informing them that this Ordinance changes the conditional and permitted use structure for cemeteries and places agricultural uses within the CFD (Community Facilities District) category and allows multi-family in the higher density zoning districts. He stated that, as the Board directed at the first hearing, the condition to include a management plan for agricultural uses in CFDs was removed from the Ordinance.
Commr. Stewart interjected that she thought the Local Planning Agency (LPA) requested a management plan only for the conservation land, using the CFD that is already in conservation.
Mr. Sheahan stated that it was already a policy, so placing it within the zoning district would be redundant. He noted that all management plans come before the Board.
Commr. Renick remarked that all the Public Lands Acquisition Advisory Committee (PLAAC) is doing at the present time are management plans, noting that every park in the County has to have a management plan and it will be spelled out in each of them.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Keith Schue, a member of the LPA, addressed the Board stating that he voted in favor of the proposed Ordinance. He stated that the reason the PLAAC suggested adding the conservation land provision to CFD zonings is due to the fact that, if one were to look at the table on Page 4 of the Ordinance, what has been amended is to add “P”, meaning permitted uses, under the CFD zoning district for the General Agriculture and Non-Intensive Agriculture categories, which includes conservation lands in Lake County. He indicated that the PLAAC suggested adding the provision that states that, if there are any conservation lands in a CFD zoning district, an approved management plan will be required. He commented that he heard the County has them for the public conservation lands, but he was not sure the County has them for all the public conservation lands, and he did not know if it was in the Code; therefore, in order to make sure it is documented, he would suggest that the Board include said provision.
Mr. David Hansen, Public Lands Program Manager, informed the Board that it is the County’s policy to do management plans for the lands purchased under the Public Lands Program and that is what staff is currently working on, noting that they are approved by the PLAAC, as well as the Board. He stated that they do not feel it is necessary to have a management plan as a prerequisite to a rezoning, as all the properties are rezoned to CFD, because that is where they belong.
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. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2009-29, Amending Allowed Uses in R-6, R-7, and CFD zoning districts, as presented.
REMEDIAL ORDINANCE FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES AMENDMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2008-80, BY UPDATING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, INCLUDING REVISED POLICIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
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 portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Remedial Ordinance No. 2009-30, regarding the School Facilities Amendment Settlement Agreement, as presented.
remedial ordinance regarding vrablik property settlement agreement
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
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
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 portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Remedial Ordinance No. 2009-31, regarding the Vrablik Property Settlement Agreement, as presented.
remedial ordinance regarding hart property settlement agreement
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RESCINDING ORDINANCE 2004-90 AND REPLACING IT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 142 ACRES FROM RURAL TO URBAN EXPANSION AREA FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HANCOCK ROAD AND HARTWOOD MARSH ROAD; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CREATING A POLICY LIMITING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO A MAXIMUM OF 320 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON SAID 142 ACRES; PROHIBITING ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNTIL AND UNLESS IT IS ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF CLERMONT AND THAT ANNEXATION BECOMES FINAL; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
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 portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Remedial Ordinance No. 2009-32, regarding the Hart Property Settlement Agreement, as presented.
recess and reassembly
At 10:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT’D.)
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; RENUMBERING AND AMENDING S. 3.11, RELATING TO NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT; DELETING SURPLUS NONCONFORMING PROVISIONS OF S. 6.13; ADDING DEFINITIONS TO CHAPTER II; REPEALING AND REWRITING IN ITS ENTIRETY S. 9.01, LANDSCAPING AND SITECLEARING STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR WATERWISE AND FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING; PROVIDING GENERAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING INTERNAL LANDSCAPING FOR PARKING AREAS AND OTHER SITE AREAS; PROVIDING LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND DUPLEXES; PROVIDING FOR PROHIBITED PLANT SPECIES; REPEALING AND REWRITING IN ITS ENTIRETY S. 9.02, TREE PROTECTION; PROVIDING FOR TREE PROTECTION; PROVIDING FOR PROTECTED TREES; REQUIRING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS TO TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF TREE REMOVAL PERMITS; PROVIDING TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR LOCATION OF TREE REPLACEMENT SITES; PROVIDING FOR VOLUNTARY PLANTING; PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR HISTORIC TREES, SPECIMEN TREES, AND HERITAGE TREES; PROVIDING FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION; AMENDING CHAPTER 14 ADMINISTRATION; AMENDING S. 14.07.05, TO ADD LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING S. 14.07.06, REGARDING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; AMENDING S. 14.08.00, REGARDING GUARANTEES AND SURETIES; AMENDING S. 14.09.01, SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING S. 14.10.02, MASTER PARK PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING S. 14.14.01, DEVELOPMENT PERMITS; AMENDING S. 14.14.04, TREE REMOVAL PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that this Ordinance represents many staff hours, as well as input from the private sector - the Lake County Home Builders Association, various nurseries, the Florida Native Plant Society, and many other landscape interests. The Board has conducted three workshops, to date, in addition to the public hearings that have been held and the Local Planning Agency (LPA) has conducted over ten public hearings and obtained input regarding the Ordinance. He stated that the issues remaining before the Board this date were pretty narrow in scope, being non-conforming landscapes, use of the term “drought tolerant”, a limit on overhead irrigation, and deletion of non-applicable language. He then reviewed specific sections of the Ordinance, the first being Section 1.08.04-C.1., on Page 4, noting that staff was requesting that the word “principal” be added to the sentence, so that it will read, “Existing development shall comply with the landscape regulations of Section 9.01 and 9.02, when the floor area of a principal structure or parking area is increased by twenty-five percent or more.”, the purpose being that the entire main structure is counted and accessory structures, such as pool enclosures, pool decks, etc., are not. He remarked that staff wanted the language to be very specific that garages, or anything that is part of the main house or main structure, are to be included.
It was the consensus of the Board that the word “principal” be added to Section 1.08.04-C.1., on Page 4 of the Ordinance, as requested.
Commr. Conner questioned whether said Section pertained to residential, commercial, or industrial uses and was informed that it pertained to all three of them. He then questioned what staff’s original recommendation was to the LPA and was informed that they provided input to the LPA that they could go with the existing provision, which is twenty-five percent - what is adopted in today’s Code, or “substantial improvement”, being fifty percent or more. He noted that his concern is providing a disincentive to people to expand and making it cost prohibitive. He commended the work of the LPA, noting that he feels they have done an excellent job, but reminded the Board that the County is spending three quarters of a million dollars a year on economic development. He stated that mainstream business people are telling him that their first criteria, if they go to expand, would be not to expand more than twenty-five percent, so it was something that he wanted to discuss with the Board. He feels, if the Board took staff’s original recommendation over the twenty-five percent, they would not be changing the substance of the Ordinance, being that it is a minor provision.
After a brief discussion regarding the matter, it was the consensus of the Board that the percentage contained in Section 1.08.04-C.1., on Page 4 of the Ordinance, be changed from twenty-five percent or more to fifty percent or more.
Mr. Sheahan referred to Section 9.01.03-C.2, on Pages 6 and 7 of the Ordinance, noting that a considerable amount of time has been spent on this Section related to the meaning of specific grasses. He commented that the term “St. Augustine grass” was removed, leaving the language, “Bahia grass, Zoysia grass, and other drought tolerant turf shall be used. Non-drought tolerant grasses shall be prohibited for new construction.”, and staff was asking for direction from the Board regarding said language, noting that their options are to leave it as is, remove the reference to the specific grasses and leave the term “drought tolerant” and “non-drought tolerant”, or to remove the entire statement. He informed the Board that it was suggested by the Lake County Agricultural Extension Service that references to specific grasses be deleted entirely.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that it comes down to educating the general public about properly preparing the soil before turf is installed and defining what “drought tolerant” turf is and whether or not the County is going to limit irrigation, period.
Commr. Renick referred to the Plant List, contained in the Board’s backup material, that is to become a part of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), noting that, under the heading “Lawn Grass”, it indicates moderate to high water usage for both St. Augustine and Zoysia grass, and she feels staff needs to insert language stating that Zoysia grass will go dormant under drought conditions, but that St. Augustine grass will die. She stated that there has got to be a way to distinguish between those two grasses and suggested that Section 9.01.03-C.2.of the Ordinance state “drought tolerant turf” versus “non-drought tolerant turf”, as long as the Board is in agreement that the Plant List be redone, making it clear as to what is what. She indicated that it would be strictly for new construction, noting that the Board is not asking anybody to tear out their St. Augustine grass, but is asking that, if they want to replace fifty percent of their yard, they go with a drought tolerant grass, such as Zoysia or Bahia.
It was the consensus of the Board that references to specific grasses, such as Bahia and Zoysia, be deleted from Section 9.01.03-C.2., Limit irrigated lawn areas, on Pages 6 and 7 of the Ordinance.
With regard to Section 9.01.03-C.4., Efficient and well-designed irrigation systems, on Page 7 of the Ordinance, Mr. Sheahan stated that the issue has been discussed extensively at past workshops, however, noted that the Extension Service has recently revised its recommendation from twenty percent to sixty percent. He indicated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) has also commented that they desire to increase the amount of irrigation to sixty percent. He brought to the Board’s attention the fact that the County recently passed a Wekiva amendment that has policies in it that require no more than fifty percent overhead irrigation, which he has discussed at length with the Extension Service and the SJRWMD, both of which are amenable to revising the recommendation to go with fifty percent. He noted that staff stands behind the original recommendation of twenty percent and, in the Options, they would like to ensure that, if the Board does change the recommendation, it be done for pervious areas and not landscaped areas, as stated in the Options.
Commr. Renick stated that she did not understand why the first sentence of that paragraph states, “Up to a maximum of twenty percent of the pervious area of any single family or duplex residential lot…”, noting that she feels “single family or duplex residential” should be deleted, leaving just the word “lot”, since the Ordinance pertains to any new development, be it commercial, office space, etc.
Mr. Sheahan interjected that said language has been in the Ordinance for quite some time. He stated that, if “single family or duplex residential” were to be deleted, it would apply to all properties equally, but, if it were the Board’s intent to exempt industrial, the sentence needs to specifically state “except industrial”.
Commr. Renick stated that that is what she would recommend.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board was comfortable with the twenty percent, at which time it was determined that Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Stewart, and Commr. Renick were comfortable with the twenty percent and Commr. Hill and Commr. Conner were more comfortable with the fifty percent, unless pop up sprinklers were allowed, and, if so, Commr. Conner would be more comfortable with the twenty percent.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the percentage will remain as it currently exists in the Ordinance, for the time being.
Mr. Sheahan clarified the fact that, with the noted changes, the first sentence of Section 9.01.03-C.4. will now read, “Up to a maximum of twenty percent of the pervious area of any lot, except industrial, may be irrigated with an installed irrigation system, excluding micro-irrigation, drip systems, and temporary irrigation necessary to establish new plantings.”
Commr. Renick stated that, under Section 9.01.03-C.4.a., Rain Sensors, the language “soil moisture sensors” was deleted, on the recommendation of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD); however, she discovered that Mr. Kirby Green, the Executive Director of the SJRWMD, does not object to them, and the Regional Planning Council is working on their regional policy plan and is encouraging the use of them, so she would recommend that said language be added back to that section.
Mr. Sheahan referred to Section 9.01.04-B., Diversity, on Page 11 of the Ordinance, noting that this requirement is to prevent disease susceptibility, indicating that there have been some issues with elm disease, pine beetles, etc. He stated that staff was requesting language requiring that, when four or more trees or shrubs are installed, it be a diverse amount of trees – that no one tree be twenty-five percent or more. He commented that, for clarification purposes, staff was requesting that an additional sentence be added to the paragraph, which states, “Existing non-invasive vegetation shall be exempt from the Diversity requirements and shall count towards planting requirements.”, noting that it will handle those situations where a site is heavily wooded, such as a buffer of oak trees. He stated that staff wants the applicant to be able to count those trees towards a requirement and not have to take some out, in order to put in a different species, and it will apply to any required landscaping.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Hill stated that she felt said language was a little over the top.
Commr. Renick interjected that she understood the reason for staff’s request, in that it protects the trees from disease, etc., but she felt what Commr. Hill was saying was that, if an individual’s trees get a disease and they have to be replaced, it would be their decision. She stated that she does not feel the County needs to mandate it.
It was noted that it even pertained to shrubs, so one would not even have a consistent hedge around their property.
Mr. Sheahan clarified the fact that the Board was directing staff to strike that section.
Commr. Renick informed the Board that, under Section 9.01.01, Purpose, on Page 5 of the Ordinance, she feels it should be stated that one of the purposes of this Ordinance is to promote water conservation.
It was noted by the County Attorney that staff would amend that section, to include language that one of the purposes of the Ordinance is to conserve water.
Commr. Renick then commented that, on Page 6 of the Ordinance, under Section 9.01.03-C.1., Use of mulch, she feels it needs to state that cypress mulch is prohibited, but requiring that mulch be maintained around all trees is asking a little much.
It was clarified by the County Attorney that the language “and maintained” was being asked to be struck from Section 9.01.03-C.1.of the Ordinance.
Commr. Renick indicated that she was confused about the chart contained on Pages 16 and 17 of the Ordinance, noting that the way the LPA originally stated it walls and fences are only required if one goes for the smaller width option. She stated that she did not quite understand the language contained on Page 17, which states, “Note 1 – Commercial and office uses are not required to have walls, fences, berms or combinations, thereof, along roads.”, noting that she did not see it as being required, in that it was always there as an option.
Mr. Sheahan interjected that it was determined that it would never be appropriate to put a wall on a frontage road, in front of a business. He stated that one of the premises of providing the different width options was to provide flexibility in the amount of plantings required and to maximize the use of the land, which he elaborated on.
Commr. Renick referred to Section 9.01.07-D., Preservation of existing trees, on Page 30, noting that the language contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 could be combined, to state, “Trees and other vegetation in fire prone areas.”, period, deleting the remaining language, in that she feels density does not have anything to do with it – it is whether trees are located in a fire prone area or not.
Mr. Sheahan stated that, when this issue originally came up, density was viewed as being critical criteria, because of those subdivisions having a higher density. He noted that the language has to be approved by the Lake County Fire Chief.
Commr. Renick commented that she finds Paragraph 3, under Section 9.01.07-D, on Page 30, to be confusing, because one always needs to get a permit to remove trees or vegetation that are protected by other laws, such as in wetlands, which cannot be removed without prior written approval from the SJRWMD, or the appropriate jurisdictional agency.
Mr. Sheahan remarked that what Commr. Renick was stating was correct, however, pointed out the fact that it was consistent with other language elsewhere in the Ordinance.
Commr. Renick noted that Paragraph 2, under Section 9.01.08-C., Removal, on Page 31, contained the same language.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, recapped the changes that were recommended this date, as follows:
On Page 4, Line 34, the word “principal” was added in front of the word “structure” and “twenty-five percent” was changed to “fifty percent”.
On Page 5, Line 33, the word “provide” was deleted and the language “encourage conservation of water and to provide” was added in front of “minimum standards for landscaping…”
On Page 6, Line 40, the language “and maintained” was deleted.
On Page 7, Line 2, the language “Bahiagrass, Zoysiagrass, or other” was deleted; on Line 17, the language “single family or duplex residential” was deleted; and on Line 19, the language “Industrial property” was added before the words “Golf course.”
On Page 11, Lines 8 through 10, the entire Paragraph B., Diversity, was deleted.
Commr. Conner indicated that he had had a conversation with Mr. Sheahan about Table 2, on Page 16 of the Ordinance, with regard to 10 foot buffers versus 15 foot buffers, and asked that Mr. Sheahan refresh his memory about their conversation, at which time Mr. Sheahan stated that Commr. Conner had asked whether it would create any non-conformity under current conditions, which he noted it would. He stated that many, many of the commercial sites that have been approved over the last 10 to 20 years have been required to install a 10 foot wide Type A buffer. He commented that the new requirement does not have a provision for 10 feet, which would make those properties non-conforming, meaning that, should they now have an expansion of more than 50%, they would have to install a minimum 15 foot wide buffer, and, in some cases, it would mean that 5 feet of parking area may be required to be ripped out.
It was noted that there is no grandfathering or vesting language to deal with that issue, which could create some problems.
The County Attorney was asked how the County would address any problems that might come up with non-conforming properties and responded that the County could write a specific grandfathering clause, but it could get fairly complex, noting that, in some cases, it will be impossible to comply, because they will not have enough property to allow them to make their buffer larger.
Commr. Renick questioned why “non-conforming uses” could not be added to the chart, at which time Mr. Sheahan indicated that he felt staff could write language dealing with the matter rather quickly, if they could be allowed a few minutes to do so.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (CONT’D.)
Mr. Sheahan informed the Board that staff was suggesting that on Page 16 of the Ordinance, under Table 2, another Width Option be created for 10 Feet, with the Landscape Requirements being: Three (3) canopy trees; Two (2) ornamental trees (Optional); and One (1) single row of shrubs, with an applicable note at the end of the Table, as follows: Note: This buffer type only available for projects originally approved prior to June 30, 2009, and any such amendments to such projects. He noted that said language would take care of the non-conforming issue.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Hansford, President, Lake County Home Builders Association, addressed the Board stating that the Association sent the Chairman a letter asking a couple of questions, but has not yet received an answer, one being whether this Ordinance would take precedence over existing deed restrictions, homeowner association bylaws, etc., to which the County Attorney responded that it would depend on what the Governor does, noting that, currently, the Florida Statutes provide that Florida-friendly type landscaping can be allowed, even if a subdivision’s Covenants do not allow it, if the subdivision was approved after a certain date; however, a Bill was recently passed, which is pending the Governor’s signature, that would remove that date. He stated that, to the extent that Florida law allows the County to require Florida-friendly landscaping, it would apply, but to the extent that Florida law would not allow the County to do that, it would not apply.
Mr. Hansford stated that another question the Home Builders Association had was about the Economic Impact Statement that was prepared, which he noted, in their opinion, does not say a lot. He stated that, to do an Economic Impact Statement, the County needs to put together some examples, comparing a 2,000 square foot single family home, a doctor’s office or professional building, and an industrial site, with the current Code requirements versus the proposed Code requirements, and then they will get a true economic impact difference. He commented that, to say less irrigation and energy savings from canopy trees in the future is going to adequately offset the increase in cost does not answer the question for him and that he did not feel the County was going to get any kind of payback from that standpoint. He remarked that it has been said that the purpose of this Ordinance is to preserve water, but he feels it is not going to do that, noting that the County recently approved the Irrigation Ordinance, which allows irrigation to be monitored, and that is the only way he feels it is going to be effective, noting that the County can require new construction to adhere to this Ordinance, but the County cannot make the homeowners maintain their landscaping. He stated that, as soon as some of the plants die, the homeowners are going to plant whatever they want to plant. He feels the Board is creating a lot of cost, aggravation, and upset people, in passing an Ordinance that is not going to do what they want it to do, which is preserve water. He stated that an individual is not going to buy a house that is landscaped according to this Ordinance, versus a resale that has a nice established landscaping package. He remarked that the Country is in a recession and the Board does not need to be adding on additional costs for doing business in the County, noting that they say they want to promote industry and bring more jobs to the County, but, if they make it more difficult for a new office to be built, or a doctor’s office to be expanded, etc., with all the unnecessary regulations, they are shooting themselves in the foot – they are saying one thing, but doing just the opposite.
Mr. Hansford commented that Lake County has some of the highest impact fees in the State, noting that a lot of cities and counties are rescinding impact fees, rolling them back, and putting moratoriums on them, to try to promote a little bit of growth and construction activity, but Lake County has chosen not to do that, and he feels the Comprehensive Plan that the County is currently working on is just going to drive another nail in the coffin. He remarked that the Board says they want growth, but, with every Ordinance they approve, they are putting a big sign out that says, “Do not come to Lake County – Go next door and they will take care of you.” He commented that history has a way of repeating itself, and, if the Board were to go back 30 to 40 years, they would find that housing has led the Country into every recession that it has had, but the flip side to that is that it is also what has gotten the Country out of a recession and, until the housing industry is fixed and back on some sort of an even keel, the economy is not going to change.
Dr. Richard Tyson, Extension Agent, University of Florida Extension Service, who is an expert on turf grasses, addressed the Board and discussed a test that the University of Florida conducted on the various turf grasses that are used in Florida, where they stopped irrigation for 60 days, and what they found was that the Bahia grass and Zoysia grass varieties turned brown first, with the St. Augustine and Bermuda grass varieties staying green a little longer. He stated that, when Bahia and Zoysia grass shuts down and turns brown, the average homeowner or manager of commercial property is going to want to water it more, compared to St. Augustine grass, which will stay green a little longer under the same conditions. He remarked that the Floratam St. Augustine variety compared equally to the Empire Zoysia variety in the trials that were conducted, which were done over a two year period. He commented that the Board needs to look at unbiased research, when they make their decisions, and they need to think about the unintended consequences of their decisions, which may mean that people will be watering more, if they restrict the use of certain types of grasses.
Ms. Cindy Barrow, Lake County School Board member and a member of the Local Planning Agency (LPA), addressed the Board and asked that they stop allowing new developments to use St. Augustine grass, to consider the County’s water resources, and to stop chemicals from going into the lakes, causing the algae blooms, but, most importantly, to enforce the County’s water restrictions, noting that many people are watering their lawns daily, and to stick with the twenty percent figure, which allows macro-irrigation, with the remaining eighty percent being for micro-irrigation. She stated that she hoped the proposed Ordinance, which the LPA worked on for so long and so hard, is going to create a change that will actually make a difference. She disagreed with Dr. Tyson’s comments, noting that she believes economics and money is what changes peoples’ behavior, which she elaborated on, indicating that she feels those people with Bahia and Zoysia grass will greatly reduce their watering, while those with St. Augustine grass are going to feel like they have to protect their investment and water more frequently.
Ms. Linda Bystrak, a resident of The Villages, addressed the Board stating that three years ago she volunteered for the Watershed Action booth on Government Day in The Villages, which offers one-stop help in planning and organizing service-learning projects to prevent water pollution, and dozens of people came by her booth and talked with her. She indicated that those individuals from the Sumter Landing portion of The Villages informed her that, in their section of The Villages, which is under Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) rules, they had to plant Zoysia grass, they had to use pine needles for their mulch, they had to have more native drought tolerant vegetation, and their irrigation system was set up so that The Villages controls it, rather than the homeowners. She stated that they were very proud of where they lived and spent quite a bit of time telling her about that pride and the fact that they wished other parts of The Villages were required to do the same. She then discussed a Florida Scrub Jay survey that she conducted and, while doing so, was impressed to find that a subdivision called Olde Mill Run on the other side of Lake Dora had not removed the scrub trees, noting that they built all their houses with minimal tree removal, so that whole neighborhood is scrub jay friendly. She suggested that the Board look at the Landscape Ordinance and make sure that it does not cause people who live in such areas to remove the scrub trees and put in things that will scare the birds away from those areas. She briefly discussed the use of a chemical that is banned throughout Europe and 49 other states, due to it being a suspected carcinogen, yet is used in the State of Florida, because it controls insects in St. Augustine grass. She stated that many of the suggestions presented this date are endorsed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and will help improve our water quality. She commented that she supports the twenty percent irrigation rule and that the members of the Board of Directors of the Ocklawaha Audubon Society voted for one day per week irrigation, because they feel that is all that is needed, even for St. Augustine grass. She mentioned the fact that, if people had smaller lawns, they would use less gas mowing them, and that she feels low impact development is something the Board needs to endorse, as well as having less trees removed, so that developers do not change the hydrology, causing more stormwater runoff.
Mr. Keith Truenow, Lake Gem Farms, Inc. and Director of The Florida Sod and Garden Association, addressed the Board and presented, for the record, a letter from Mr. Richard Royal, a resident of Umatilla who could not be present at this meeting, informing the Board that he feels the Landscape Ordinance needs more evaluation and addressed the following issues: Irrigation - questioning whether drip irrigation is always the most efficient method to use on every soil type and suggesting that the Board consider limiting the amount of water per acre per year a home site is allowed and let them decide how to ration it; Mulch - questioning why cypress mulch is going to be prohibited, especially in a weak economy, which will limit potential income and job producing options for landowners, noting that not all cypress trees grow slow; Limits on Turf Grass Choices - questioning what data said rule is based on, noting that tests out of Texas show little difference in drought tolerance between approved and non-approved varieties; Plant Diversity - indicating that, if a homeowner wants only magnolias, red cedars, and camellias in their yard, why should the Government say otherwise; and Plant Size - noting that the objective is supposed to be water conservation, but then the rules specify larger trees, which require more water to establish them.
Mr. Truenow referred to Section 9.01.03-C.2., Limit irrigated lawn areas, on Pages 6 and 7 of the Ordinance, stating that, speaking for himself, he feels the language contained in Lines 2 through 7, on Page 7, should be struck and the language, “drought tolerant grasses are encouraged” inserted, noting that it will encourage the right plant for the right place and right type of soil. He feels people should have a choice in the matter. He stated that the Water Star Program and other programs recognize sixty percent as the irrigated space in a landscape, and with the new technology and the new types of spray heads, water will not blow away in the wind, as the spray heads will water where they are supposed to. He noted that it has been proven that there will be a fifty percent savings in water. He commented that there are systems now that come on and go off at different times of the day, noting that they come on for ten minutes and go off and then come back on an hour later for another ten minutes, so that the water perks down into the ground, rather than running off into the street. He feels the County should stick with what the SJRWMD and other people that have done tests and know what is going on have recommended. He stated that, in the future, if the Board sees that the County is not saving enough water, they can change things. He feels the Board needs to do what works for the County now and enforcement is the key, noting that people that overwater should have to pay for it and that is where enforcement comes in. He briefly discussed native plants and parking lot islands and the fact that parking lot islands are raised above the parking lots, questioning what good that does, noting that they should be sunk below the level of the parking lots, so that the water will run into them, rather than into retention ponds. He stated that he feels the public is every bit as aware of the need to conserve water as the Board is and they understand what needs to be done.
Ms. Nancy Christman, Intergovernmental Coordinator for Lake, Orange, and Seminole Counties, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), addressed the Board and thanked them for moving forward with the Landscape Ordinance, noting that the SJRWMD believes it is a water conserving Ordinance. She stated that some of the changes discussed this date may make it a little more, or a little less effective, but, overall, they feel the County is moving in the right direction. She commented that they have found that turf is where most of the water usage is with the average homeowner, as well as the commercial user. She noted that a micro-irrigation system is exempt from their irrigation rule and from the Landscape Ordinance, so it can be used any time, and the reason for it is that it uses much less water. She touched on the Water Star Program and the fact that it encourages the limitation of turf – the amount of turf that can get enough points in the system to be considered water star consistent, and it deals with the right plant in the right place, noting that, as many people have mentioned, it is hard to grow grass in highly sandy soil and keep it looking good, with a minimal amount of water.
Ms. Christman addressed the issue of soil moisture sensors and the fact that the SJRWMD is recommending that the Board not put that requirement in the Landscape Ordinance at this time, however, noted that they do see it as something promising for the future, and, when it happens, technology will take over and water restrictions will likely change at that point in time, where the County will not be on a fixed watering schedule. She stated that the SJRWMD feels that the Landscape Ordinance, along with the Irrigation Ordinance, will conserve water and that the County needs them, informing the Board that new development is where their opportunity is to have requirements in place that will limit high water use type plants and require homeowners to go with the plants and irrigation system that is in place when a home is purchased.
Mr. Don McGruder, representing Citizens for Better Government, addressed the Board stating that the experts from the University of Florida, as well as the experts in the field, have indicated to the Board that they are not sure that they have the right assumptions on the grass and trees and the amount of irrigation that will be allowed. He stated that, for the first time, he has seen the University of Florida seem somewhat dismissed that the Board is not listening more to the experts, and he feels the proposed Ordinance infringes on freedoms, noting that he does not see where this Board, or any other Board, has the right to dictate what people can plant in their yards. He remarked that, if one wants to plant Magnolias in their yards, they have the right to do so, and, if they all die, they have the right to plant them again. He feels the residents of the County cannot ignore these personal freedoms and property rights issues and he would hope that consideration will be given to them. He remarked that the proposed Ordinance will cost jobs, such as the sod farmers and irrigation installers, who are going to be put out of business, noting that said farmers and irrigation installers are not going to be able to get the necessary capital to adjust their business models. He touched on the issue of the economic stimulus package and the fact that the Board needs to consider real world situations, rather than hypothetical ones – to get the experts to price them out fairly. He feels that proper economic studies were not done, which concerns him, and that the Board is authorizing a Landscape Ordinance in the blind, which he elaborated on, questioning how they could vote for something in the blind, when they do not understand it. He stated that it is going to affect thousands of people and a common sense approach needs to be addressed. He commented that everyone is for conservation, noting that he does not feel anyone wants to create havoc on the environment. He stated that his group is opposed to the Ordinance, because they feel the Board has not done due diligence on the economic impact side of it, and they have dismissed the opinion of the experts who addressed the Board.
Mr. Keith Schue, a member of the LPA, who worked on the Landscape Ordinance, addressed the Board stating that he finds it highly unusual to talk about the proposed Ordinance as being a personal freedom or personal property rights issue, noting that they are talking about a resource that belongs to everybody, which is water. The County is in a crisis situation, in that it is running out of water and needs to collectively do something about it, which means that the County has to apply appropriate regulations that conserve water. He stated that, if the Board really wants to have an affect on the future of water conservation, they cannot take baby steps anymore, they have to take bold steps, noting that, as he speaks, there are significant strides being made to promote more water waste – to design a permanent infrastructure of pipes and pumps to tap river water and ocean water, where water will continue to be wasted. He stated that it does not pertain to just how much one waters, but also the types of plants that are used. He feels it is an important and essential move for the Board to ban St. Augustine grass for new construction, noting that they are not asking anybody to rip out their existing lawn and replace it with something other than St. Augustine grass – they are only talking about requiring it for new construction. He pointed out the fact that, as Commr. Renick indicated, it is something that the Regional Planning Council is doing for Developments of Regional Impacts (DRIs) and there is no reason why Lake County cannot do it, as well, noting that the County needs to have an Ordinance that can be implemented.
Mr. Schue informed the Board that he supports very strongly the twenty percent figure, but does not feel that it alone is going to get the County where it needs to be, the reason being that, if one has a lawn with a broadcast sprinkler in the middle of it, the only difference between twenty percent and a hundred percent is if the property owner adjusts that sprinkler to where it needs to be adjusted. He stated that twenty percent by itself is not going to get the County where it needs to be – the Board has actually got to address the types of grasses that will be installed, which means that they are going to have to require in the Ordinance that drought tolerant grass, such as Zoysia and Bahia, be used and that non-drought tolerant grass, such as St. Augustine, not be used – that the Board needs to spell out the fact that St. Augustine grass is not recognized as a drought tolerant plant. He stated that the plant list contained in the Ordinance currently states that there are a couple of varieties of St. Augustine grass that are drought tolerant, but the County is never going to be able to enforce it, because one is not going to be able to just look at grass and say that it is one variety of St. Augustine over another, so the property owner may or may not be fined.
Mr. Schue noted that he had provided the Board with a letter a few days ago, where he addressed various issues of concern about the Ordinance, which he elaborated on, having to do with buffering for different zoning types and the fact that he felt a good idea was offered by staff, in terms of adding a note that addresses the buffer size for commercial properties; however, he feels the Board might want to couple that with another note indicating that, if one has commercial property, they will not have to have walls erected. He feels adding staff’s note makes sense, but the Board will need to keep in mind that they will have to take out the other note that is problematic. He indicated that, overall, when the different buffer types and the number of trees that have been suggested in the Ordinance are considered, the Board needs to remember that it has been reduced, in general, noting that the LPA’s recommendations were more on target with it, to start with. He discussed the issue of tree removal, noting that there is a provision in the Ordinance that states that up to three trees can be removed in any three year timeframe, without a permit, but questioned how the County would ever know if it was somebody’s third or fourth tree that was being removed within that three year time frame. He discussed the requirement about prohibited plants and asking people to remove prohibited invasive plants, when they are developing a site, noting that a provision in the Ordinance pertaining to wetlands is worded in such a way that they are saying that the landowner does not have to remove invasive plants, if they are in a wetland area, and he does not feel that is what the County means to say, but rather that the County will require it, but will expect the landowner to get the proper permit first. He noted that the language he feels needs to be changed appears under Sections 9.01.07-D.3.and 9.01.08-C.2.of the Ordinance, which states that prohibited vegetation shall not be required to be removed from wetlands or natural water bodies that are regulated or protected by the Water Management Districts or other regulatory agencies without approval, and he feels it should be changed to indicate that the County wants landowners to remove prohibited vegetation, but they need to get the proper permits first, and asked that the Board consider making said change.
Mr. Andrew Knut, Vice President of the Lake County Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board and shared some personal insights to the Landscape Ordinance, noting that, with regard to St. Augustine grass, there are a lot of preconceptions about it. He stated that there are seven (7) different varieties of St. Augustine grass and they all have specific purposes, noting that some do better in sun, some in shade, some in soils with muck, and some in sand. Some of the problems involved with it is that people plant it in the wrong place, causing it to go into stress, and then they want to water it. He commented that there is a 30 day watering period with Zoysia grass and it is far more expensive than the St. Augustine varieties. He feels the bottom line is that the County is going to have in place an Ordinance requiring people to water less, which will work with St. Augustine grass. He remarked that, if property owners do what they are told regarding the St. Augustine grass, there will not be a problem with it, other than monitoring water usage and people not doing what they are required to do. He stated that everybody has a personal opinion and an agenda that they want to impose on others and people want to have a choice. He briefly touched on the twenty percent, the fifty percent, and the sixty percent figures, with regard to rotor sprinklers, giving an example of a typical home site and how much square footage would be left that would need to be irrigated, once the footage for the home, garage, entry lanai, first floor, driveway and sidewalk are subtracted, noting that the formulas may not always apply. He stated that the percentages should be looked at, based on the size of the property, as opposed to just the twenty percent, the fifty percent, and the sixty percent, because there are different situations that apply.
Ms. Nadine Foley, a member of the LPA and a representative of the local chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society, addressed the Board and discussed the issue of diversity, noting that it would not kick in unless one were landscaping a parking area, or something like that. She stated that, normally, in a typical lot, there are going to be about three canopy trees and, if one did not want to choose diversity at that point, they would not need to. She stated that, in looking at the original draft of the Ordinance that the LPA sent forward, the diversity issue kicked in when there were a lot more plants involved, whether it was trees or shrubs. She encouraged the Board to approve the Landscape Ordinance and move it forward, noting that she feels it is a step forward on how the County handles plantings, the retention of the natural diversity across the County, and the provision for keeping a Florida look, which is what “right plant, right place”, or Florida-friendly Landscaping, tries to address - retaining what is wonderful about Florida, but at the same time giving people plenty of choices for adding other things to their landscapes. She reminded the Board that the Landscape Ordinance addresses new developments; therefore, in a lot of cases, they will be starting with a fairly open space and will be installing some of the desirable plants that the LPA would like to see returned to the natural mix that exists in Florida. She feels the general population is ready for the proposed Ordinance and hopes the Board will endorse it.
Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, addressed the Board stating that he has been studying the proposed Ordinance for some time, which was started in November of 2007 and has evolved over eleven LPA meetings, various workshops, and a lot of input. He commented that he has worked on landscape projects in 46 cities and 14 counties in the State of Florida over the last 10 years and Lake County has the thickest document in the State. He stated that, when he started working on the proposed Ordinance with Mr. Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, and the LPA, his goal was to make sure that the Ordinance could be applied to a site and it could be proven to staff and one’s client that one was doing what it said to do, which could not be done with the original document. He remarked that timeliness criteria has been an issue in the County since 1992 and there have been four different staff opinions about how to apply it, yet the words have never changed, and he did not want that to happen with something as simple as a Landscape Ordinance, however, noted that it has not been so simple. He indicated that a lot of issues he has with the Ordinance were addressed this date, one being buffer widths, noting that there has been a problem with the 10 foot buffer width, in that there are many, many sites where not only the parking lot, but the building itself is 10 feet, so an amendment to the Ordinance takes care of that, as well as takes care of projects that are in the process of being developed that have master commercial site plans. He stated that, with one building out of six being under construction, the other five sites would be in jeopardy, if this Ordinance had passed with 15 foot buffer widths, because they were designed with specific uses, but not built yet with 10 foot buffers.
Mr. Green stated that another issue of concern is the 300 square foot islands, which is a major change from the 200 square foot islands that are in place at the present time, and it has been interpreted to be a 10 by 20 foot parking space, which is not 200 square feet of surface area, or impervious area, because of the radiuses and curbs - it is really about 188 square feet. He stated that it really throws off parking lot designs, noting that they will now have more asphalt, not less, and the stormwater systems will actually be larger, not smaller, but that is something engineers will have to learn to deal with. He remarked that non-conforming irrigation being increased from twenty-five percent to fifty percent will help in many situations, in that the way it was written, even changing it to “principal structure” would be an issue with existing homes adding a family room. He stated that, in some cases, the entire site would have to come up to code and, with one only being allowed to irrigate twenty percent of their lawns, rather than sixty percent, they would have to remove existing irrigation and their lawns would suffer severely, or die, so those changes will be helpful. He feels the one provision that the County has never had before has to do with who is required to place the buffer on a site, noting that the way the current Code reads, it is the most obnoxious one that has to provide the buffer, which may hurt some agricultural users. He touched on the issues of existing trees on a site and not wanting to have to take them out, to meet diversity requirements; overhead irrigation; and internal road buffers, which are now required, if there is a road in a subdivision that is adjacent to the property boundary, meaning that internal roads in subdivisions are not going to be able to be shared with adjacent subdivisions, which he elaborated on. He indicated that he had concerns about the Master Plan development, however, noted that the Board took care of it and the vesting of those Master Plan sites.
Mr. Rob Kelly, a member of the Citizens Coalition of Lake County, as well as the LPA, addressed the Board stating that there are a lot of different types of Bahia and St. Augustine grass, and he feels the County is splitting hairs, when they get to looking at what types of grass are good for shade, or what types are good for sun, etc. He commented that it is a known fact that St. Augustine grass requires more water than other types of grass, at which time he noted that he feels the County needs to push getting rid of the non-drought tolerant grasses and encourage drought tolerant grasses. He discussed the twenty percent irrigation figure, suggesting that the Board approve it, noting that property owners will install rotor sprinklers that will disperse water further out than twenty percent of their property, reducing the amount of water usage and lawn coverage, and it will prompt them to install drought tolerant plants, and he does not feel that commercial or industrial properties should be exempt from the irrigation requirements.
Ms. Vicki Zaneis, a member of the LPA, addressed the Board stating that, if the County wants to continue to grow, it must conserve not only water, but the blessings of the environment. She stated that change is hard, but it has to happen, and she feels the County should be prepared for a prolonged period of drought, which goes beyond 60 days, indicating that it has had to be done in the states to the north of Florida, where no irrigating of anything was allowed for a long time. She discussed the fact that several years ago the University of Florida developed a chinch bug resistant type St. Augustine grass that performed great in the studies, but, after it was used for a couple of years, it was a complete failure. She feels St. Augustine grass should be prohibited, in that, beyond requiring more water to keep it alive, it requires too many chemicals. She commented that, for the good of everybody, the County needs to conserve its resources.
Mr. John Potts, Sumter Electric Company (SECO), addressed the Board and discussed the requirement that mulch be used around all trees located in turf grass areas and planted areas, as indicated on Page 6 of the Ordinance, in Lines 40 through 42, under Section 9.01.03-C.1., Use of mulch, noting that he hopes the County will permit the use of rock with some of the wonderful solid, but permeable weed blocks, in that it requires very low maintenance. He stated that the language contained on Page 6 contradicts what is stated on Page 8, Line 26, which states that each planting area shall be landscaped with a mulch ring, groundcover, or other landscape material, in addition to the required tree, noting that it would be his preference to take out the language that states, “in landscaped areas not planted or not appropriate for growing turf grass.”, contained on Page 6, Line 41, or at least to take out the word “organic”, on Line 40 of Page 6. He then referred to the language contained on Page 7, Line 19, which excludes “golf course fairways and greens, public active recreation fields…”, questioning whether the Board would want to encourage people in residential subdivisions to put in active recreation fields as part of the common area, noting that he would hope, if a homeowners association owns a field, they would be allowed to irrigate it. He suggested that the word “public”, on Line 19, be struck, noting that he felt it would probably be the easiest fix to the situation. With regard to the language contained on Page 19, Line 17, which requires that seventy-five percent of the required landscape buffer be located on the right-of-way side of any required fencing, walls, or other screening structures, he feels the property owner who owns a residential lot on the other side of the wall might prefer to plant their own landscaping and suggested that the language, “a minimum of seventy-five percent” be used, rather than the current language, which will permit a property owner to plant a hundred percent on the street side of the wall, leaving the property owner the flexibility to plant whatever they want on their side of the wall. Regarding the language contained on Page 31, Lines 25 through 27, he questioned whether it was the intention of staff that, when it comes to wetlands, they were talking about those areas that are within 150 feet, or 50 feet, from construction, noting that his concern is that it not be something where the County is requiring someone to go through acres and acres of wetlands, which could be impractical. He commented that, if that is the intent, he would ask that the Board insert the word “feasible”, noting that most people who own wetlands do not plant invasive species – they are introduced to the property by other means, which he elaborated on. He stated that, if one does not have to do it for more than an area of 150 feet from the construction site, he would not have any objection to it.
Mr. Potts informed the Board that he feels the biggest issue concerning the proposed Ordinance is where the County went from one extreme, where it had a very draconian provision for protecting specimen trees and other large trees on a construction site, to the point where it is now at the other extreme of not doing much to protect trees that are landmarks from coming down, when a big box store goes up. He stated that there is a way to take care of the situation, but there are costs involved and the Board may not want to deal with those costs. He remarked that the existing provisions should apply to any commercial development that is ten acres or less in size, which he elaborated on. He stated that, in a commercial development, it could involve about $90,000 worth of land being set aside to preserve one large tree that has a 50 foot radius and, if smaller developments were involved, it would be a big burden on the developer. He feels the requirement should be applied to larger developments and that the County should limit the amount that has to be taken out, without some compensation, noting that the tradeoff is whether the Board wants to let people have fewer parking lots, in order to save a big tree that is worth saving, because it gives a sense of place – things that people remember when they grow up. He stated that there needs to be a couple of limits, one being that no matter how much one is saving, they have to put in at least twenty percent of the minimum number of islands, and the other being that the County needs to have a way to eliminate people from taking 30 acres and peeling off a 10 acre portion that has a large tree on it and saying that, because it is 10 acres, it is exempt. He further elaborated on the matter, noting that he felt it was good that the Board eliminated the diversity requirement within single family lots, but, on very large commercial developments, to preserve the trees that already exists, diversity is important, and, if the County is dealing with very large developments, where there are 50 to 100 trees, or several hundred plants, it would be good to put the diversity requirement back in the Ordinance.
Mr. Jim Bible, Showcase Homes, addressed the Board and commented on the issue of landscape buffering, contained on Page 12 of the Ordinance, under Section 9.01.05, Landscape Buffer Requirements, noting that the Ordinance will require developers to install Type A buffers between residential developments, consisting of 10 to 15 feet of plantings, over a quarter of a mile of property, and, for a homeowners association, the two largest costs involved are maintenance of landscaping and street lighting. He feels that, in those situations where a Type A buffer is needed, the Board should consider allowing a fence to be installed, which is not a high maintenance item for a homeowners association, or they should eliminate the requirement for a Type A buffer between residential developments. He commented that he would have to raise the price of his homes over $1,000, in order to cover the cost of installing the buffer, and it will cost each homeowner several hundred dollars more per year. He referred to Section 9.01.07-D., Preservation of existing trees, on Page 30 of the Ordinance, which states that existing trees that are classified as protected trees and greater than three inches in diameter shall be preserved, unless they are within the areas required for access, infrastructure, building footprint, or within a five foot offset of the footprint of the residence, in which case, they can be taken out; however, if they are within five feet of same, they cannot be removed. He feels there are going to be a lot of situations, because of significant grade changes between houses, where a tree will be stuck up in the air five feet, or down in a hole five feet, and there is no provision in the Ordinance for him to take it out and allow a replacement tree to be planted.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, with regard to the comments that were made about the cypress industry, like everybody else, he assumed it was a dying industry and that there would no longer be cypress farms. He asked that staff do some research regarding the matter.
Mr. Charles Fedunak, Environmental Horticulturist, University of Florida, addressed the Board stating that cypress is an excellent material and there is nothing wrong with it, it is just that there is no way of knowing where it comes from – whether it is harvested from construction sites, or from a plantation, or whether it is harvested illegally, and that is why the University of Florida does not promote the use of it.
A brief discussion occurred regarding various aspects of the proposed Ordinance, at which time Mr. Sheahan and the County Attorney answered questions regarding same.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he felt Mr. Hansford, President of the Lake County Home Builders Association, had a good suggestion, which was to bring in representatives from industrial and commercial companies, to see what a difference the costs involved with the proposed Ordinance will be, before voting on it, noting that he feels, if they have that information before them, they can make a better decision about it, and it will allow them to go back through the Ordinance and decide what to do about the issues that they do not agree on.
Commr. Renick asked that staff readdress the language on Page 30, Lines 40-42, under Section 9.01.07-D.3., and on Page 31, Lines 25-27, under Section 9.01.08-C.2., which pertain to the same issue, and possibly come back with some new language. It was suggested that a new plant list be derived for the Ordinance, as well, at which time Mr. Sheahan interjected that it was his understanding that the SJRWMD and the DEP are still struggling with the plant list, as to whether plants are drought tolerant or non-drought tolerant, whether they require high water usage or low water usage, and whether they are native plants or not. She noted that she feels the issue of diversification needs to be readdressed, as well.
Commr. Stewart stated that she felt a lot of the people that came before the Board made some good points and she wanted to make sure that, as was mentioned earlier, the Board is aware of all the facts, so that they do not create some unintentional consequences – things that they have not thought about that may backfire on the County in the long run.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that action regarding the Ordinance be postponed until the Board Meeting of July 7, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. time certain.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone action regarding the Landscape Ordinance until the Board Meeting of July 7, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. time certain, with the proposed changes, as indicated to staff, being incorporated in the Ordinance that will be brought back for approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
REAPPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed individuals to upcoming vacant positions on the Public Safety Coordinating Council, to serve four year terms beginning July 13, 2009, as follows:
County and State Jobs Programs and Other Community Groups Who Work With Offenders and Victims
Norbert Thomas
Mike Stone
Kelly Smallridge
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved reappointments to the Public Safety Coordinating Council from County and State Jobs Programs and Other Community Groups who Work with Offenders and Victims, as follows:
State Probation Circuit Administrator
Linda Brooks, Circuit Administrator, Florida Department of Corrections
Director of County Probation or Pretrial Intervention Program
Tony Deaton, Probation Division Director
Director of Local Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Jonathan Cherry, President/CEO, LifeStream Behavioral Center
REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval to extend an Agreement between Lake County and Charles D. Johnson for Code Enforcement Special Master Services for another year, at a rate of $175.00 per hour.
reports – county manager
joint facility project between lake county, lake county school board, and city of tavares
The County Manager requested approval to move forward with some discussions that the County has been having, at the staff level, with the City of Tavares and the Lake County School Board, to look at some joint facility opportunities, noting that the first step that the County will need to take is to work with the City of Tavares, to fund an environmental study and appraisal of the property that is located on Alfred Street, across from the Judicial Center, where the School Board currently has their fleet and building facilities, with the idea being that the County might be able to use that land for city and county facilities and use the Astatula location for fleet facilities for all three of the entities.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for approval for the County to partner with the City of Tavares on the cost of an appraisal and environmental study for parcels of property owned by the Lake County School Board on Alfred Street and used for their Transportation, Maintenance, and Facilities Departments, for joint facility projects involving the County, the City of Tavares, and the School Board, to accommodate needs of all entities.
A memo from the Superintendent, which outlines the concepts that have been discussed, was distributed to the Board, for their perusal, and further progress in the discussion relies upon information related to the cost and suitability of the parcels. The estimated cost for Lake County is $4,000 and will be paid from funds available in the Facilities Development and Management Department.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
REPORT ON MOSQUITOES AND LEACHATE AT LAKE COUNTY LANDFILL
Commr. Hill informed the Board that, due to the amount of rain that the County has received recently, there might be a problem with mosquitoes at the landfill, as well as a problem with leachate; therefore, she has asked the County Manager to look into the cost for mosquito control and as to whether there will be any additional costs involved, with regard to the leachate, and bring a report back to the Board at a later date.
sale of bricks for cooper memorial library
Commr. Hill stated that the Cooper Memorial Library is selling bricks, through the Lake-Sumter Community College Foundation, at $50.00 each, to be used for the entryway to the library, for anyone that might be interested in purchasing some of the bricks.
reports – commissioner stewart – district 4
display of recycling and natural disaster projects in administration building
Commr. Stewart invited those present to take the time to look at the recycling and natural disaster projects that were on display in the Rotunda area of the Administration Building, from Ms. Kay Borglum’s Science Class at Eustis Middle School, noting that the students did an excellent job on the projects. She stated that she visited Ms. Borglum’s class last week and, if our future is in the hands of the kinds of students that she saw in that class, we are going to be just fine.
citizen question and comment period
No one present wished to address the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
_________________________________
welton g. cadwell chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK