A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
june 18, 2013
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 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: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Jimmy Conner, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: David Heath, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk of Court; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Reverend Brooks Braswell from the First Baptist Church of Umatilla gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda update
Mr. David Heath, County Manager, pointed out that the amount listed on Tab 17 regarding the arthropod control budget has been revised from $18,500 to $29,456, since they have been advised by the state after the agenda was published that they were increasing the County’s budget for next year.
MINUTE APPROVAL
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 7, 2013 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Ms. Michelle Burnett, Community Service Representative for FGUA (Florida Governmental Utility Authority), which acquired several systems in Lake County, introduced herself as the County’s representative and contact for that organization. She commented that she is looking forward to working with everyone and asked that anyone with concerns or questions to contact or meet with her.
Commr. Cadwell commented that FGUA is a great innovative tool for their citizens with small systems.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 5, 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.
Audit of Lake EMS Response Times and User Fees
Request to acknowledge receipt of the BCC-108 Audit of Lake EMS Response Times and User Fees.
Ordinances from Town of Montverde
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinances from the Town of Montverde, which were No. 2013-01 amending the municipal limits of the town by voluntary petition and annexing a parcel of land approximately 31 +/- acres and 2013-02 amending the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Montverde changing the future land use designation.
Interlocal Agreement with City of Clermont for Roundabout Project
Request to acknowledge receipt of an original and one copy of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Clermont for the CR 565A Roundabout Project and request to retain original Agreement and return fully executed “copy” of same to the City of Clermont, Office of the City Clerk, 7685 W. Montrose Street, Clermont, Florida 34711.
Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Tavares
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Tavares for enactment of proposed Ordinance 2013-08.
Proposed FY 2014 Operations Budget for Plaza Collina CDD
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the proposed FY 2014 Operations Budget for the Plaza Collina Community Development District, which is located within the City of Clermont, provided in accordance with Chapter 190.008 F.S., along with cover letter transmitting same.
Proposed FY 2013-14 Budget for Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay CDD
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 for the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District. A public hearing to consider the adoption of this item has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 20, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., at the Cagan Crossings County Library, located at 16729 Cagan Oaks, Clermont, Florida 34714. This budget is being submitted pursuant to Section 190.008(b), Florida Statutes, and has also been posted on the Lake County website.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Parks pointed out that the LAP Agreement in Tab 21 will actually save the County about $531,000 and that they were making good progress toward construction of the South Lake Trail.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 21 as follows:
Community Services
Request for approval and signature of the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Agency for Healthcare Administration Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation Agreement Amendment Number 5 from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. The fiscal impact is $853,471.00 (Fully Medicaid Grant Funded).
Request for approval of the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trip and Equipment Grant funding for FY 13-14 and the supporting Resolution No. 2013-62. This grant supports medical and nutritional trips. The fiscal impact is $787,697.00 (County Portion: $78,769.00 / Grant Funded: $708,928.00).
Request for approval of Annual Update for Section 8 Five-Year Plan and signature on Form HUD-50077 CR (Civil Rights Certification). There is no fiscal impact.
Conservation and Compliance
Request for authorization for Lake County Board of County Commission Chair or Designee to sign Certificate of Participation for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for FFY 2013 Program and name Brenda Quattlebaum, Lake County Program Specialist as Program Coordinator.
Request for approval of application to the Department of Children and Families for the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse State Reinvestment Grant for 2013-2016. The fiscal impact would be $1.2 million for 36 months ($400,000 annually - Revenue and Expense).
Growth Management
Request for approval to transfer funds in the Building Services Fund from Reserve for Operations to Professional Services for private provider inspections and plan review services for the remainder of the fiscal year. The fiscal impact is $65,000.
Public Resources
Request for approval of Proclamation No. 2013-63 designating July 2013 as Parks and Recreation Month. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval to award contract 13-0431 for Playground Equipment at Ferndale Preserve to Habitat Restoration & Wildlife Protection (Eustis, FL). The fiscal impact is $149,500.00 (Expense). Commission District 2.
Request for approval to award contract 13-0435 to Sherron Building Services, Inc. (Winter Garden, FL) for an ADA Chair Lift and Staircase at the Minneola Athletic Complex. The fiscal impact is estimated at $54,697.00 (expense). Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to purchase 73 replacement computers from Dell Computer Corporation for Lake County libraries. The fiscal impact is $41,850.90, using budgeted State Aid to Libraries Operating Grant funds.
Public Safety
Request for approval and signature of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg relating to East Magnolia Street Tower authorizing the tower to be declared surplus and transferred, as well as removal of County liability. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval and execution of (1) Resolution No. 2013-64 to accept FY 2012 Assistance to Firefighter Grant funding in the amount of $295,694, by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners; (2) Authorization for the County Manager to sign future amendments/modifications that do not involve financial impact; and (3) Authorization for staff to accomplish all procurement and budget transfers as necessary. Fiscal impact: Federal share is 80 percent, or $236,556 (Revenue and Expense), and Lake County share is 20 percent, or $59,138 (Expense) to be paid from currently budgeted funds.
Public Works
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2013-65 designating the Shockley Hill Subdivision as a Golf Cart community, which is located on CR 445 east of SR 19. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 5.
Request for approval of and signature on Resolution No. 2013-66 authorizing the posting of “NO LEFT TURN” signs on CR 466A/ Miller Street (5803), on the north side for westbound traffic at the Fruitland Park Elementary School drop off driveway, in the Fruitland Park area, Section 4 Township 19, Range 24. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 5.
Request for approval and signature of the FY13/14 Detailed Work Plan Budget - Arthropod Control. The fiscal impact is $29,456 (Expenditure).
Request for approval of an agreement with the City of Clermont for the construction and maintenance by the city of a roundabout on CR 565A at the City's Inland Groves Park property. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to award #1615 Bible Camp Road Widening and Resurfacing, Project No. 2013-06, Bid No. 13-0036, to Boykin Construction, in the amount of $1,049,399.75, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $1,049,399.75 from the Road Impact Fees Benefit District 6 fund. Commission District 1.
Request for approval to terminate current and approve new contract 13-0412 for mowing and maintenance of Sidewalk, Vacant Lot, Bridge Approach, Retention Areas; and authorize the Procurement office to complete all implementing documentation. The fiscal impact is estimated at $76,558.07 (Expenditure).
Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2013-67 and execution of the FDOT Supplemental Agreement #1 to LAP Agreement (FPN #422570-2-58/68-01) for Construction of the South Lake Trail Phase 3A in the amount of $531,140.00; approval and signature of the Unanticipated Revenue Resolution No. 2013-68 to amend the budget; and request authorization to award South Lake Trail, Phase 3A, Project No. 2013-03, Bid No. 13-0027, to Commercial Industrial Corp., in the amount of $3,122,736.13 from the Federal/State Grants Fund for the South Lake Trail, Phase 3A project. The fiscal impact is $3,122,736.13. Commission Districts 1 and 2.
public hearings: rezonings
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Manager, Department of Growth Management, announced that there were no changes to the Rezoning Agenda.
REZONING CONSENT AGENDA
The Chairman opened the public hearing for anyone who wished to speak regarding the Rezoning Consent Agenda.
There being no one who wished to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda as follows:
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2013-31
PH#12-13-3
Florida Made Door Rezoning Amendment
Amend Resolution #10-73 and Planned Industrial (MP) Ordinance #2005-76 to permit Light Industrial (LM) uses and limited Heavy Industrial (HM) uses on the southern 23+/- acres from MP to Agriculture (A) and replace resolution and ordinance with new ordinances for these land areas.
rezoning regular agenda
cup #13/6/1-2 – vega kennel conditional use permit
Mr. Sheahan related that CUP #13/6/1-2 entitled the Vega Kennel is located west of Bloomfield Avenue in the Yalaha area and pointed out the location on an overhead map. He also mentioned that the subject property is zoned Agriculture and is within the Rural Future Land Use Category. He explained that the property was originally granted a CUP on May 22, 2001 for a 32-stall boarding kennel that allowed a maximum of 44 adult dogs and 12 puppies under the age of six months, with the CO for the kennel issued in 2002 consistent with the approved CUP. He pointed out that the applicant resides in a home on a portion of the property. He stated that the CUP was voluntarily revoked due to some personal issues of the applicant; however, those issues have now been resolved, and the applicant is requesting to reinstate the CUP. He specified that the applicant is requesting a maximum of 44 dogs, which can be accommodated in the existing kennel, and he noted that the CUP places conditions to ensure compliance and compatibility with the neighboring properties. He pointed out that currently Ms. Vega would be allowed to keep 20 animals on the 32-acre property without the CUP for her own pets without any conditions placed on containment within her property, and the CUP would allow an additional 24 animals to be boarded on the property. He mentioned that the existing kennel structure meets the setback requirement of 200 feet which is applied to kennels. He reported that some concerns from the neighbors have been raised, and he related that the nearest neighboring resident is 813 feet from the kennel, with all other residents over 1000 feet away from the proposed use.
Commr. Conner asked whether the dogs would be in an indoor kennel and how close they would be to the neighbors when they are allowed to go outside.
Mr. Sheahan responded that they would be housed in an indoor kennel, and there was a requirement in the ordinance that the dogs be brought out for a minimum amount of exercise and bathroom breaks. He stated that some of the operational issues that occur on a day-to-day basis would be more appropriate for the applicant to answer.
Commr. Conner commented that 800 feet is a long way away.
Mr. Sheahan elaborated that he understood that the dogs would be let out in the immediate proximity of the kennel itself.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there were any Code or CUP violations during the time that the shelter was originally permitted in 2002 until the voluntary revocation in 2011.
Mr. Sheahan responded that there were none. He elaborated that the opposition expressed by nearby residents to this rezoning centered around noise and fecal contamination issues; however, he related that staff members he sent to the site could only barely hear the dogs barking from inside the kennel when they were 15 feet away from the outside of the structure and could not hear them at all from further away. He also explained that there was a requirement in the ordinance as well as a Department of Health requirement that any fecal matter from the animals be collected and placed in solid waste containers so that it is properly disposed of; however, he opined that the potential for that contamination would likely be substantially less than would be generated by having a large number of cattle or other typical farm animals. He related that staff recommends approval, with one recommended change to the ordinance on the second page, line 27, to strike Section 2B (3), since the site plan has already been approved and the condition is unnecessary.
Commr. Campione asked if the setback from the property line was 200 feet under the ordinance.
Mr. Sheahan responded that they used to have a requirement in their accessory use provisions that provided the 200-foot setback kennels, and that was typically applied in the condition use process as well. He added that the structure and the runs are greater than 200 feet away from the nearest property line, which was a condition stated on Line 21 on page 2.
Ms. Rhonda Vega, the applicant, elaborated that in addition to being a boarding kennel operation, they would focus more on being an animal rescue than they had previously, and they have been approved for nonprofit status as a Forever Home Animal Rescue. She noted that they would be helping the Lake County Animal Shelter and have already saved several dogs from the shelter that would have otherwise been euthanized. She stated that she had eight letters from the neighbors in support of her efforts, and she showed a photograph of one of her rescued dogs that was viciously attacked by two large dogs and had been hospitalized for about a month. She explained that the proceeds from the boarding business will be going towards funding that will be needed for the rescue process.
Commr. Campione asked the applicant how often she takes animals to the outside area.
Ms. Vega first emphasized that the shelter building is soundproofed due to County requirements for the previous shelter business in 2001, which she believed contributed to an absence of complaints previously, and she explained that the dogs are taken out to the ten fenced-in runs and six large grass yards for a few hours and rotated throughout the day. She added that currently because of the summer heat, all of the dogs are usually taken inside by 12:00 or 1:00 p.m. for lunch, before taking their naps; and then they are taken out later in the day, but are required by the County to be in the shelter by 6:00 p.m. She also noted that the fenced-in yards where the dogs are kept are on the opposite side and even further away from the closest adjacent property which is 800 feet away.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Gayle Whitt Konnerth, a resident of Yalaha who lived adjacent to the proposed site, pointed out that she grew up in that home and that the property has been in her family for many years. She noted that she has since moved back to the home after her father passed away in 2010, and she commented that her parents never contested the previous kennel business because they were elderly and did not know that there was anything they could do. She mentioned that she was also representing her brother and her husband, since they both had to be at work at the time of this hearing. She commented that although she loves and owns animals herself and believes that what Ms. Vega does is wonderful, she wanted to address three concerns. She stated that the first concern was about the excessive barking, and although it has not been as bad since the Planning and Zoning Meeting as it had been previously, they could hear the barking from inside their home. She also addressed the Vega’s inability to keep their dogs confined, relating a recent incident during a gathering of family and friends at her house where a large Rottweiler which belonged to the applicant charged at her seven-year-old niece who was playing on the Konnerth’s property and severely scared her. She also related that the same dog ran towards other guests and her husband on her property while they were shooting guns during a target practice session, although the dog was ultimately stopped by a fence which separated the properties. Her third concern was that the actual kennel building was less than 200 feet from the property line and asked what the exact footage of that was. She requested that the three issues be resolved before the Board granted the Conditional Use Permit.
Commr. Cadwell asked what the size of her property is.
Ms. Konnerth responded that it was 40 acres.
Ms. Heidi Hardman with Forever Home Rescue commented that she totally understood the concerns of the neighbors about some issues, and she presented an information sheet that explains more about what they were doing. She pointed out that all of the dogs that they house there have to remain in the play yards, and they do not let them run free on the property. She assured the Board that they want to be a very responsible rescue group and keep all of the dogs on heartworm prevention and up to date on their shots, schedule regular veterinary visits, and make sure they were well taken care of. She added that they had a very structured routine and hire professional trainers to come help them with their rescue dogs. She stated that they wanted to save those dogs and find them a good home.
Ms. Tasha Romero, a resident of Winter Garden and a volunteer with Forever Home Rescue, commented that it was a great, beautiful, and large facility and that they have done a lot to fix it up to make it even better.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this rezoning case, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Campione asked the applicant to elaborate about the Rottweiler.
Ms. Vega explained that the Rottweiler was her personal dog that she had rescued several years ago after someone dropped him off in deplorable condition. She added that the dog goes crazy when he hears gunshots, but she has not ever seen the dog leave the property. She also stated that the neighbors have never complained to her about the dog leaving the property or asked her to keep him contained.
Commr. Campione suggested that the applicant coordinate with her neighbor by having them let her know when they would be shooting so she could bring the dog inside at that time.
Ms. Vega mentioned that her neighbor’s shooting range was as close to her property as possible and opined that they could avoid the situation if they move it somewhere else that would be further away on their 40-acre property; however, she assured the Board that she would keep that dog inside more.
Commr. Parks suggested to the applicant that she check all the fencing to make sure her property was secured.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the applicant would sustain liability if something happened, especially since it was on record today that an incident already occurred.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Sheahan whether the kennel met the setbacks.
Mr. Sheahan responded that he verified with his staff that the kennel did meet the setbacks, and he illustrated on the conceptual plan the 200 foot setback from the property line.
Commr. Conner expressed concern about the issues mentioned by Ms. Konnerth, especially about the dogs getting close to children on the neighboring property, and he asked how close a dog can get to the adjacent property.
Commr. Campione asked whether they would treat the applicant’s personal dog differently and how they would keep track of that.
Mr. Sheahan replied that currently there is no kennel operation on the property, and the applicant’s personal pets are not subject to any restrictions whatsoever at this time.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that they can eliminate that issue by inserting a provision into the CUP which would state that no dog would be allowed within 200 feet of the property line without an adult being present, but there is no prohibition under the current CUP about having a dog within 200 feet.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that she could have up to 20 animals right now, and he added that he believes the personal animals should count towards the 44 animals allowed. He pointed out that approving this CUP could actually make the situation better for the adjacent property owners by placing provisions in it that did not currently exist.
Commr. Sullivan opined that not separating the personal animals was a great solution.
Mr. Sheahan specified that they would insert a provision in Section C, Page 3, Line 20, in the ordinance stating that all dogs shall be contained 200 feet away from all property lines.
Ms. Vega stated that she had ten personal dogs, four of which she keeps in her house and six that are kept in a personal kennel next to her house. She commented that her front door was less than 200 feet to their property line, and she asked it to be reduced to 100 feet.
Commr. Conner suggested that she take the dogs out from another door of her house, and he related that the ordinance would have to contain the language previously specified by Mr. Sheahan in order to have his support.
Ms. Vega responded that leaving from the front door is much easier. She commented that she did not want to be so restricted that it would be difficult for her to follow the requirements of the CUP, which she truly desired to do.
Mr. Sheahan illustrated on the overhead map that the applicant has some distance before she reaches the setback line.
Ms. Vega assured the Board that she will keep the dog out back and that he will never go out the front door.
Commr. Parks suggested that the restriction be only for 200 feet from the south property line.
Commr. Campione suggested that the applicant also put a fenced boundary at the setback line to ensure that the dogs would not go beyond the setback.
Ms. Vega replied that putting in that much fencing would be expensive, and she had an area out back that was already fenced in that she could put him in.
On motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-32 for CUP #13/6/1-3, for Rhonda V. Vega, Vega Kennel CUP, to re-establish a conditional use permit for a kennel use in Agriculture zoning with a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for dog rescue and commercial boarding uses, with the additional provisions added under Section 2 (C) Setbacks requiring that no dog would be allowed within 200 feet of the southern property line without an adult being present, or a fence may be erected as an alternative to ensure that personal dogs could not encroach within 200 feet of the south property line; and personal dogs would adhere to the same requirements.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced at 10:00 a.m. that there would be a ten-minute recess.
public hearings
vacation petition no. 1193 – holiday haven campsites
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, mentioned that there were four vacations on the agenda today, with about five more coming up to be heard in the near future. He explained that the main purpose of the law which went into effect back in the 1950’s regarding vacations was to get rid of surplus right of way that had no public purpose anymore or to clear a title for residents who had a problem with that. He stated that Vacation Petition No. 1193 was brought by Dorothy Wilkenshoff to vacate a drainage easement in the Holiday Haven Campsite in the Astor area in Section 38 in Commission District 5; and he noted that they have no letters of support or opposition for this vacation and that staff recommends approval. He added that this was an easement between two lots that are on a dead-end cul-de-sac with a canal in the back that is not used for drainage at this time, and part of the applicant’s house is in the easement.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1193 and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2013-69 to vacate the drainage easement in the Holiday Haven Campsites, Unit No. 3, PB 21, Pg. 57. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 5.
ordinance adopting interlocal service boundary agreement
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the Statutes require that Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements be adopted by ordinance, and he placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY, THE CITY OF GROVELAND, THE CITY OF CLERMONT, THE TOWN OF HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS, THE CITY OF LEESBURG, THE CITY OF MASCOTTE, AND THE CITY OF MINNEOLA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak regarding this ordinance, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Parks thanked staff and the cities who have been working on this for about two years, and he commented that this was an example of government working together through agreements to make services more efficient and to plan things out for the next 20 years.
Commr. Campione commented that staff spent a lot of time on this.
Commr. Sullivan opined that this was in the best interest of the cities and the County.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-29 adopting the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) between the City of Groveland, City of Clermont, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, City of Leesburg, City of Mascotte, City of Minneola, and Lake County. The fiscal impact is $588.00 to record the Ordinance and ISBA in the public records.
ordinance regarding moratorium of pain clinic tax receipts
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATING TO PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE VII, ENTITLED “PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS”, SECTION 14-101, ENTITLED “MORATORIUM”, TO EXTEND A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS FOR NEW PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS THAT IS DUE TO EXPIRE ON JULY 1, 2013 TO OCTOBER 1, 2013; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak regarding this ordinance, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption and execution of Ordinance No. 2013-30 amending Section 14-101, Lake County Code, extending the moratorium on the issuance of new business tax receipts for pain clinics to October 1, 2013. There is no fiscal impact at this time.
vacation petition No. 1190 – wilson park parkway – groveland
Mr. Stivender stated that Vacation Petition No. 1190 was brought by Mr. Pierre Marsan of Hibiscus Homes represented by their surveyor to vacate a portion of right of way easement along Wilson Lake Parkway, and he showed the location of that easement on a map on the overhead monitor. He noted that they had a letter of support from the City of Groveland and no letters of opposition other than one which had been withdrawn. He explained that there was adequate right of way to build the parkway, since there was excess right of way dedicated as part of that road, and there was no need for it anymore. He added that the vacation would make the vineyard plat whole without causing a problem with the road itself, and he recommend approval to vacate that portion.
Mr. Sam Oppelaar, City Manager for the City of Groveland, expressed the City’s support for vacation of this strip of land, since it will clean up the plat and allow them to proceed with working with the developer to get that development completed.
Commr. Campione asked how far the strip extends.
Mr. Stivender showed on a map that it goes to the southern boundary of the plat in back of all the lots all the way to the intersection, noting that he made sure they saved enough right of way for the intersection also.
Mr. Jeff Hitt of Hitt Land Surveyors, Inc. elaborated that the area they are trying to vacate is now a 15-foot landscape buffer.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one else who wished to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1190 and execution of Resolution No. 2013-70 to vacate a portion of a right of way easement along Wilson Lake Parkway in the Groveland area. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.
vacation petition no. 1191 – plat of wolf branch estates
Mr. Stivender related that the Applicant, Mr. Wayne Ramsdale, brought Vacation Petition No. 1191 to vacate a small portion of right of way on a cul-de-sac on Wolf Branch Lane in the Plat of Wolf Branch Estates, which was platted in 1993 in the Sorrento area, and he pointed out that they had two letters of support and five letters of opposition, with no utility objections. He explained that this started originally as a Code Enforcement case due to a fence encroachment in the right of way, and he illustrated on a survey that there was a fence along the frontage of the adjacent property owner, with 12 additional feet added around the curve of the property so that the applicant could be able to properly maintain that area of the property. He commented that there was an odd situation where both this lot and the one on the other side come to a point. He mentioned that the only other person affected by this vacation would be the applicant’s adjacent property owner to the west, and the applicant got a letter of support from that adjacent owner. He concluded that although there is some controversy with this vacation, he recommended approval of the vacation, since there are no utilities in the areas, it was not part of the main roadway, and it would resolve the issue of the fence location without the fence having to be removed as a result of the Code case.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ramsdale, the applicant, pointed out that this particular piece has been fenced as previously noted by Mr. Stivender for about six or seven years, and it has not been an issue in all of that time. He added that the right of way lines are 60 feet with 33 feet on the roadways for the other cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood; however, the extra 33 feet was not given at his location due to possible draftsman error. He illustrated that he had plotted out a scenario showing a change in the right of way to consist with the 33 feet off the center line of road, which would result in the fenced-in area no longer being in the right of way if it was drawn consistently with the rest of the cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood. He mentioned that he had a letter of support from the neighbor who was affected, noting that all of his neighbors except for one as well as the Homeowner’s Association was in favor of this, and he pointed out that this vacation would not affect the neighbor who is in opposition to it.
Commr. Campione asked the applicant when he found out that his fence was in the right of way.
Mr. Ramsdale responded that it was when the neighbor called Code Enforcement during some issues regarding some political signs during the last election.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that they have a neighbors’ meeting to talk to each other.
Mr. Ramsdale replied that they had tried that, but it did not work, and reiterated that no one has raised an objection except for that one neighbor.
Ms. Bonnie Boylan, a resident of Sorrento who lived adjacent to the applicant, mentioned that her husband will go into more detail about all of the cruel and unusual things that have happened to them regarding this issue. She stated that she was the Secretary of the unofficial HOA for four years and commented that she did not believe all of the neighbors know the truth about this situation. She pointed out that she and her husband had not objected to the fencing in question until the applicant started trespassing on their property for various reasons and especially when the applicant disrespectfully put a political sign on their property that did not reflect their political views. She clarified that she did not want the County to remove all of the political signs that were up at that time, but only the one that was in front of their property. She opined that although she believed that wrong behavior should not be rewarded and the applicant has been bullying and intimidating her family, she did not want to hold a grudge against him and only wanted to get back to a point where they could be mutually and calmly respectful of each other. She mentioned that she believes the applicant knew that he built his fence as well as large stone columns on County property without a permit, since he was a general contractor. She suggested that the County give him the land that his stone columns were on so that he is not out any money for that, although he did not ask for that today, and she offered to pay the cost for the applicant to move his fence so that he does not use that land to intimidate her and her family in the future. She expressed a desire to get back to an amicable relationship with the applicant and felt that this was a good-faith gesture. She related that this disagreement has resulted in having her power line and internet cut off for days and having dead animals thrown in her driveway.
Mr. Stephen Boylan, who also lived adjacent to the applicant, stated that they did request to remove the political sign that was in front of their home from the County right of way, but the County chose to remove all of the signs in the neighborhood, at which point they ended up in a heated discussion with the applicant about that. He added that the applicant called a local news station to come out and do a story to rally the entire neighborhood against them over the sign being removed, and he talked to each neighbor present at that time to apologize for their signs being removed and offered to pay for them. He stated that they were only trying to protect their rights for peaceful existence, and he mentioned that the neighbor who lived on the west side of the applicant complies with the right of way, illustrating that there is no reason why it could not be done properly. He referred to the police reports he had made regarding some acts of aggression that were made against them, and he stated that he truly objected to this area of land being granted, because the applicant chose to erect in this parcel a ten-foot tall lighted political sign pointed directly at his house. He also clarified that the cul-de-sac is different than others in the neighborhood because it is the only one that is directly off of a roadway, and all of the other ones are off of the terminus of long streets and have a different treatment. He also commented that as a licensed contractor, the applicant should have known where his property line was and what those consequences would be. He asked for the Board not to act on this vacation request and stated that they were under no obligation to do so. He reiterated what his wife stated about them paying to have the fence relocated, and he opined that this petition is just for the convenience of the applicant; however, the inconvenience that they have suffered as a result of the applicant’s use of this property far exceeds the inconvenience of relocating the fence, particularly since they were willing to pay for it.
Mr. Ramsdale rebutted that this was the first he has heard about a lot of the accusations the Boylans had brought up, but he has gone on the other side of the fence only once in a while to fix fence posts and typical maintenance items that could not be done from his side of the property. He stated that the signs he put up were not in the Boylans’ yard, but he did apologize for the fact that they were in the right of way. He commented that he did not want to have further dialogue with the Boylans and only wished for each to be concerned with their own business.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there were any other encroachments, such as those alluded to by the Boylans’ comments.
Mr. Ramsdale replied that he believed that a portion of the Boylans fence is also in the right of way by a couple of inches according to a survey done by the County, with most of the fences in the neighborhood encroaching to some extent; however, that has not been an issue with anyone. He commented that he was just trying to do the right thing to get this corrected, and it would be difficult to keep the fence at a point.
Commr. Conner asked whether the proposal to move the fence would solve his problem.
Mr. Ramsdale responded that moving the fence would make it difficult to maintain that piece and would be inconsistent with the existing right of ways; he added it was not about the cost of moving the fence.
Commr. Conner commented that the adults should watch the example they are setting for the children about this issue, and he asked Mr. Stivender for the justification of the staff recommendation.
Mr. Stivender explained that this was a bubble on the cul-de-sac and not a principal part of the road. He added that staff tries to work with property owners, and this was a Code violation that was brought forward. He mentioned that one of the solutions was just to permit the fence in the right of way, but he did not think that was a good solution.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he did not want to do anything that would make the situation worse for the applicant’s neighbors.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the fence is encroaching 12 feet into the right of way, and she was concerned about the precedent this would set. She added that most vacations have no opposition and are to fix a title problem for a resident, which serves a valid public purpose and allows those homes to be sold and the value of those homes to be retained; however, in this case the applicant could move the fence fairly easily and inexpensively.
Commr. Conner stated that he was inclined to agree with that.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he had a hard time rewarding bad behavior, and he asked the applicant if he erected a ten-foot lighted sign.
Mr. Ramsdale answered that he put a two-sided 3 by 5-foot lighted sign just above the fence line in the front of his property, which happens to be in the front of the Boylans’ property as well. He commented that he did not call the local news channel and would prefer that he did not get into any arguments or speak at all to the Boylans.
Commr. Campione commented that she appreciated the offer that the Boylans made to pay to put the fence where it was supposed to be and support a vacation of those areas which contained the columns, and she noted that it looks like the survey shows that those columns are inside the right of way. She also opined that it seemed like a very nice way to fix this situation.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the applicant would have to go through a vacation to clear title if he ever wanted to sell that property because of the location of the columns.
Mr. Ramsdale stated that he would have to have a surveyor determine whether those columns were in the right of way, since he did not think they were, and he pointed out that it was a consistent issue throughout the neighborhood.
There being no one else who wished to speak regarding this vacation, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Campione stated that she could not support vacating 12 feet of right of way in this case and would be more inclined to recommend a right of way utilization permit with the requirement that he could not put signs in the area covered by that utilization permit.
Commr. Sullivan opined that the Board could not legislate relationships, and he believed they should just vacate this property and get out of the middle of this situation.
Commr. Parks commented that he would like to see if the compromise would work.
Commr. Sullivan made a motion to approve the vacation, which was seconded for discussion by Commr. Cadwell; however, the motion failed by a vote of 2-3.
Commr. Campione, Commr. Parks, and Commr. Conner voted no.
Mr. Stivender clarified that the direction to staff would be to issue the right of way utilization permit to the applicant stating that any other features besides the fence that are added, particularly signs, would be a violation.
vacation petition no. 1192 – plat of groveland farms
Mr. Stivender reported that the Applicant, Ms. Joanne LaPoma, wished to vacate a portion of unnamed right of way in the Plat of Groveland Farms platted in 1911 in the area south of Mascotte, Section 27, Township 22S, Range 24E, and there were no letters in favor or in opposition and no utility issues. He opined that this vacation was clearly a win-win situation, since the applicant has offered to deed right of way to the County along the edge of the existing County road in exchange for the vacated portion. He recommended approval to vacate.
Commr. Sullivan commented that this was a cleanup of something that should have been done years ago, but they could only identify those as they come forward.
Commr. Campione left the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. LaPoma related that this was simply an issue of clearing up title, and she clarified that the right of way they are giving is to the east of Mascotte Empire Road.
There being no one else who wished to speak regarding this vacation, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by those present by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1192 and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2013-72 to vacate a portion of an unnamed right of way in the Plat of Groveland Farms (PB 2, Pg. 10). There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
economic development and tourism
tdc capital funding projects
Mr. Robert Chandler, Economic Development and Tourism Director, introduced Mr. Jason Mabry as the new Coordinator for the Northwest Region of Lake County. He related that the purpose of this presentation is to provide a review of the TDC (Tourist Development Council) Capital Projects Funding Policy and information on the 2013 spring funding cycle applications. He recapped that the first capital projects policy was adopted in May 2011, and they had a number of applications that came in at that time; however, staff recognized that they did not have enough procedures in place to move forward, so they surveyed 31 counties in Florida as their first step in updating the policy and found 25 of those counties utilized capital funding as part of their strategy for TDC dollars of an average of about 33 percent of their total budget. He mentioned that during a TDC workshop, the TDC recommended that monies be allocated on an annual basis to reserves specifically set aside for capital projects and recapped that the Capital Projects Funding Policy was approved by the Board on December 18, 2012.
Commr. Campione returned to the meeting at 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Chandler went through the definition of a capital project and the eligibility requirements, including that the project needed to be open to the public and bring a substantial numbers of tourists and visitors to the county which would promote overnight hotel stays, and he reviewed the process and timeline that they had gone through to get to this decision-making stage. He mentioned that they plan to have another funding cycle in the fall and to have two cycles each year. He explained that they created a Capital Projects Impact Model (CIM) specifically for determination of capital projects funding which took the revenues that were expected to be generated from the bed tax from the project to the present value for a base award, and he noted that bonuses are awarded based on economic impact, how much the applicant is contributing, and how frequently the project is being used. He listed some things that are considered in this model, which are the net increase in hotel room nights, net increase in visitors to Lake County, capital investment that the applicant is putting into the project, the applicant’s percentage of the total capital investment equal to at least a 50 percent match requirement, the frequency of use, what the applicant would be spending in the local market to help the economy, and the projected useful life of the project. He added that other qualitative factors that impact the award include feasibility of the project, stability and management, quality and uniqueness, local competing facilities, and benefit to Lake County tourism; and he noted that staff sought out the opinions of subject matter experts when needed to help them with this model.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that the Central Florida Sports Commission plays a large part in the decision-making process regarding athletic facilities, and the County appreciates their input.
Mr. Chandler explained that after the projects receive their funding, they will be required to submit completion reports on the construction site giving a narrative summary of the completion of the project with costs and photographs as well as a project impact report two times a year for three years detailing the number of room nights and events and their marketing plan to make sure they were meeting the expectations in their application. He reported that $2.8 million is available for capital projects, which is 75 percent of the total amount in reserves of $3.7 million, and the recommended total of the awards for this spring cycle is $622,000. He specified that the TDC received four 2013 spring cycle applications, and the first application, which was from the City of Leesburg for a ski beach volleyball complex, was subsequently withdrawn. He related that the City of Tavares submitted a Pavilion on the Lake project to be used for a conference center and wedding pavilion, but staff recommended denial after determining that the project was ineligible per the policy after reviewing the application, specifically language indicating that projects were ineligible if the expenses incurred are obligated prior to or after the funding project period, since construction of the pavilion was already underway prior to submittal of the application. He noted that the City of Tavares had a second application for a request of $400,000 towards the total project cost of $3.2 million for the expansion of Wooton Park with an addition of three boat ramps, parking spaces for the boats, and restroom facilities; and the TDC recommended an award of $248,000 for this project. He also reported that an award of $374,000 was recommended by the TDC for the City of Clermont’s Lake County Rowing Facility at Waterfront Park in downtown Clermont on Lake Mineola, specifying that the total project cost will be $955,000 and that the City was requesting $477,359 towards that. He requested that the Board uphold the recommendations of the TDC board, approve the form and content of the Capital Projects Funding Program Agreement, and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements with the Cities of Tavares and Clermont for the approved projects.
Commr. Cadwell commented that as Chairman of the TDC he observed that the whole process worked very well, and it took a long time to get that policy together, but they now were moving forward with it.
Commr. Parks commented that rowing is a great opportunity and a niche sport for Lake County because of their lakes, and he opined that this will be one of the finest locations for this sport, particularly for training. He also opined that Lake County will complement Sarasota well as a training destination, and this will bring people into the county to stay overnight in hotels throughout the year. He noted that the NTC (National Training Center) and South Lake Hospital will be assisting with the marketing of this effort.
Commr. Campione added that the City of Tavares was working on creating some beachfront areas which could be used for additional rowing events as well, and there were 1400 lakes in Lake County which could present more opportunities for rowing venues.
Commr. Conner mentioned that he supported the recommended projects and opined that the Sports Commission is a great partner with the County which provides heads-and-beds information for the projects it is bringing to Lake County. He asked how they could be sure that the projects will get funded and whether the total costs given were accurate; and he expressed concern that the County might not be protected if the projects did not meet expectations.
Mr. Chandler responded that the numbers they received were provided by the cities, but they have been assured that the amount of money they are giving will enable the applicants to do everything they would need to do to complete the projects.
Mr. Bill Neron, a representative of the City of Tavares, assured Commr. Conner that the City of Tavares has the money budgeted as part of a bond issue in the amount of $3.2 million which was approved by the voters to cover the cost to buy the additional 3.61 acres of waterfront property to expand Wooton Park, and in addition to that they have a FDOT grant to help with the trail.
Mr. Scott Blankenship, Clermont City Manager, assured the Board that the City of Clermont’s project was budgeted and that the City could make up the difference between the awarded amount and the total project cost of $955,000.
Mr. Minkoff pointed out that the contracts are structured in a way that the applicants get the funding as the project progresses rather than up front.
Commr. Conner commented that he appreciated that the awards were given through an objective merit-based system.
Commr. Campione asked whether staff would look at tweaking the CIM in the future.
Mr. Chandler responded that they would be bringing it back to the TDC in the beginning of August to discuss what worked and what did not and would then bring it before the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the recommendation provided by the Tourist Development Council (TDC) regarding three capital funding applications and approval of the base contract to be finalized after agency approvals. The fiscal impact is $622,000.
growth management
economic development overlay comp plan amendment
Ms. Amye King, Growth Management Director, stated that the purpose of this presentation is to discuss the proposed economic development policies directed by the Board on April 23, specifically an Economic Development Overlay District that would reduce processing time for industrial, manufacturing, and office projects that would require a Future Land Use Map Amendment. She explained that this process on a small scale regarding lots consisting of less than ten acres would take approximately the same amount of time as a rezoning; however, most Future Land Use Map Amendments are on a large scale of over ten acres, which would take roughly a six-month timeframe to go through both the County and state processes.
Mr. Chandler pointed out that the timing is key, because business recruitment is incredibly competitive in this day and age regionally, nationally, and internationally, with every community focusing its efforts and resources to attract projects to their area; as a result, there is an abundance of supply in the market with limited demand. He commented that to be successful, markets must find a competitive advantage, and the two most important variables to attract business in the current environment is speed to market and lower risk. He related that companies currently have cash that they have been saving throughout the downturn of the economy, but now there is a sense of urgency since the economy is turning, and companies are now requiring guaranteed development timelines in their RFP before even considering locating to a certain area. He noted that the Economic Overlay would significantly reduce that development timeline from 180 days to 45 days, which would give the County a competitive advantage but which would not be possible right now under the County’s current land use policies if someone wanted to locate to a property that had an incorrect land use. He explained that this overlay would also reduce risk for those companies by guaranteeing land use to the company, and he mentioned that certified sites are also highly valued. He related that the County does have an abundance of available vacant land with a good transportation network providing access to the major markets; however, a lot of that land currently does not have a compatible land use. He summarized that the overlay would turn a negative into a competitive advantage in order to attract companies.
Ms. King gave a summary of the amendment and noted that the uses for the overlay sites shall create at least 25 new jobs at or above the average annual wage for the county, at least $10 million in new construction or renovations, or qualify for the State Incentive Funding through Enterprise Florida. She listed additional criteria for this consideration, including that the site would have to be located entirely in the overlay area, have access to an arterial roadway or rail, utility availability, adequate infrastructure, and located a specific distance away from any residential area, and she showed a map of the proposed overlay district, noting that some areas such as the Wekiva River Protection Area and the municipalities were excluded. She also mentioned that qualifying projects would be subject to quasi-judicial rather than quasi-legislative reviews, and they would have to take a look at performance issues. She asked for approval to advertise the proposed Comp Plan Amendment and FLUM Overlay for transmittal to DEO.
Commr. Cadwell expressed concern about significantly changing the Comp Plan, and he suggested that the Board slow this process down to get a clear picture of how it would work and how it would affect the cities.
Commr. Campione opined that the cities would embrace this, and she noted that timing is everything when it comes to economic development and job creation. She also opined that the Comp Plan was overdone from the standpoint of allowable areas for the type of employment opportunities that would be beneficial to Lake County residents. She urged the Commissioners to consider going ahead with advertising and then meet with the League of Cities representatives, make a presentation to them, and get their input during that process.
Commr. Conner asked for a simplified summary of what this amendment would do.
Ms. King responded that it would shorten the amount of time for a light industrial company to come to Lake County by overwriting the rules they currently have and making the land use consistent throughout the corridor, and she explained that this Comp Plan Amendment would be transmitted to the state for their review and approval.
Commr. Campione elaborated that the Comp Plan Amendment they were proposing would give them greater flexibility to add other areas for manufacturing with the understanding that the zoning would still have to be in place and the performance criteria met. She also pointed out that since the County did not provide water and sewer service, the cities would have to be involved and be ready, willing, and able to provide that infrastructure. She also believed that there was an opportunity in the Land Development Regulations for the types of discretionary criteria which would allow the Board to make a decision taking compatibility and other factors into consideration.
Commr. Cadwell commented that they should advertise it and subsequently see what happens.
Commr. Parks stated that he appreciated that the Growth Management and Economic Development Departments are working together on this, and he stressed that this would help the county compete regionally, nationally, and internationally.
Commr. Sullivan commented that this would shorten the bureaucratic process so that people who wanted to locate a business in the county could move at the speed of business as opposed to the speed of government to accommodate those business owners.
Commr. Campione asked Mr. Heath and Commr. Sullivan to work with the League of Cities and to discuss this amendment with them.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the advertising of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Future Land Use Map Overlay for transmittal. The fiscal impact is undetermined.
discussion regarding backyard chicken ordinance
Ms. King related that she would give an overview for a discussion regarding a proposed ordinance which would allow keeping a small amount of chickens by residents for the purpose of producing eggs, since the keeping of chickens is only permitted in the Agriculture and Rural Residential (R-1) zoning districts under the current zoning regulations. She commented that raising chickens has been popular for a very long time and is currently popular, and she showed an illustration of some chicken coops. She listed some common themes when considering this issue, such as the number of birds permitted per household, the prohibition of roosters, whether permits or fees would be required, chicken enclosure and containment restrictions, nuisance clauses, slaughtering prohibition, setback requirements from homes and property lines, and wildlife and rodent considerations. She also mentioned that some Florida cities and counties that already allow backyard chickens are Dunedin, Gulfport, Key West, Lakeland, Levy County, Orlando, Pinellas County, St. Petersburg, and Sarasota, noting that Orange County was currently looking into this, and she went over some of the requirements in the ordinances from other areas. She mentioned that Orlando is currently going through their urban chicken pilot program with 25 residents who are participating, which she commented was considered successful so far and is expected to be adopted next year. She noted that other issues to consider are enforcement, including whether it would be complaint driven, and zoning, including districts and setbacks. She recommended that the board adopt some zoning regulations and restrictions if the board opts to adopt the ordinance, including at least a 50-foot setback from lot lines as well as the structure itself, limiting the number of hens, prohibiting roosters, and prohibiting slaughter. She also recommended a discussion about a process for revocation of the permit if there are neighbor complaints. She requested that the Board give staff direction to either write an ordinance regarding backyard chickens or to keep the existing regulations of allowing backyard chickens in Agriculture and R-1 zoning districts the same.
Commr. Campione asked whether the ordinance could state that the deed restrictions of a subdivision could override these regulations.
Commr. Cadwell added that the homeowners’ association (HOA) would have to agree, and someone would need a letter from their HOA as part of the permitting process.
Mr. Minkoff answered that the County typically does not get involved in enforcing the homeowners’ restrictions, and he pointed out that giving the HOA that veto power would make it a Sunshine Law committee and part of the governmental process. He added that there are thousands of subdivisions with numerous rules, and finding out what those rules are would be difficult if not impossible for the Planning and Zoning Department staff to keep up with.
Commr. Conner added that the County does not have jurisdiction over deed restrictions.
Commr. Parks explained that he brought this issue forward because of the interest of a new grow local-buy local movement, and he believed this was a way to recognize Lake County’s great agricultural roots. He commented that Americans pride themselves on trying to be self- sufficient. He clarified that he did not believe this would be for every residential use, but for larger lots where there is enough room for a setback. He added that setback restrictions would rule out some areas altogether, and there should be a limit of three or four hens and no roosters.
Commr. Cadwell brought up a concern about this attracting bears and other wildlife. He also recommended that they do not regulate it so much that it would be too expensive or not feasible for the average person.
Commr. Conner commented that a 100-foot setback from adjacent areas would eliminate a lot of homes, and he would rather they allow chickens in places where people have more property and not in confined communities. He also cautioned that dogs in the neighborhood might be a factor to consider and that the chickens might cause dogs to bark more frequently.
Commr. Sullivan expressed concern that this would make things more difficult for Code Enforcement and would add more rules and regulations, and he opined that it could be impractical to do this, unless they restrict it to lots of one acre or more.
Commr. Parks stated that he believes they should get some kind of fiscal analysis of what this might cost if they do go forward with this.
Mr. Seth Mallock, a resident of Mount Dora, pointed out that no one in his neighborhood ever complained when he or his neighbor had chickens in their yards and that there were more complaints about dogs. He related that chickens sleep at night, are quiet, and are easy-to-maintain. He noted that four or five hens produce about the same amount of waste as one dog, and hens eat leftover food, which results in less solid waste. He commented that there are residents with small lots that would like to keep chickens, but a 50-foot setback requirement would prohibit many people from doing this. He stated that many people liked the idea of the self-sufficiency, and this would grant residents freedom that they would like to exercise.
Ms. Carolyn Maimone, a resident of Tavares, related that as a realtor in the area, she has been surprised to see chickens at some residences, since they were quiet and did not generate a detectable smell, and she commented that the cages she has seen were kept clean and odor-free.
Commr. Campione added that it was a good way for children to get exposure to it without living on an actual farm. She recommended the 100-foot setback requirement used in St. Petersburg unless they have a letter from their adjoining neighbors giving their approval.
Commr. Conner indicated that although he is not opposed to looking at the issue, it will be a hard sell for him to approve the ordinance.
Commr. Campione stated that she wanted to hear from constituents what they thought of this idea, and she was under the impression that many people were in favor of this.
Commr. Parks gave direction to staff to bring back an ordinance permitting backyard chickens giving several options on the performance criteria for discussion before advertising the ordinance, such as setbacks, budget ramifications, and a fiscal analysis.
other business
appointment to elder affairs coordinating council
Commr. Parks recapped that this appointment is to replace Paul Richardson, who was asked to resign, for Commission District Seat 1. He also pointed out that they have changed the districts around that some of the other members are representing on the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council, which was to move Ms. Howell to District 1 and Ms. McFadden from District 3 to the At-Large position.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of the following members to the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council: George Wanberg, to serve the remainder of a two-year term ending January 31, 2014; Barbara Howell to serve the remainder of a two-year term ending January 31, 2015 as District 1 member (formerly served as an At-Large member); and Linda McFadden to serve the remainder of a two-year term ending January 31, 2014 as the At-Large member (formerly served as District 1 member).
appointment to parks, recreation and trails advisory board
Commr. Cadwell related that he was not ready to appoint the District 5 representative yet.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the reappointment of Rick Roberts as a member to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board, representing District 2, to serve a two-year term ending May 20, 2015.
reports – county attorney
request for closed session
Mr. Minkoff related that he was requesting to have a Closed Session on July 9 at 10:00 a.m. and noted that it should not take more than 15 minutes.
Commr. Conner suggested that they make it for 8:30 a.m. instead.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved having a Closed Session of the Board to discuss pending litigation regarding Watson v. Lake County on July 9 at 8:30 a.m.
reports – county manager
financial disclosure forms due
Mr. Heath reminded the Board that everyone’s financial disclosure forms are due July 1.
open enrollment for insurance
Mr. Heath also reminded the Board that open enrollment for insurance starts July 1, and he asked for any Board member to let him know if they need any assistance with their forms.
update regarding historic society
Mr. Heath related that he had a meeting last week with Mr. Reed of the Historical Society, who has been out of state for the past month and has only been able to meet with the full group one time. He added that Mr. Reed relayed to him that they have been successful in unfreezing their bank accounts and have given access to all three of their officers to the building, although it currently remains closed; however the Historical Society is not yet ready to present their business plan to the Board until about September or October. He mentioned that Mr. Reed agreed that until they come up with a business plan and discuss it with the board, the facility should stay closed to the public, but there is some interest in opening the Historic Museum on Friday, Saturday, and Sundays with volunteers, which would require coordination issues since the Sheriff is not in the building on those days. He assured the Board that his office was monitoring that situation and have found that only a small number of people inquired about that.
reports – commissioner parks – district 2
follow up report regarding food drive
Commr. Parks gave a follow-up report regarding the food drive, noting that they have collected over 5,000 pounds of food for children that were in situations that were of no fault of their own, which was more food than last year. He also thanked staff, the constitutional officers, and all of their teams that participated, giving a special thanks to Andrea Kennard; and he mentioned that the organizations that handled the donation of the food actually changed the lives of some of the parents as well. He related that the trophy for the most food donated was won by the Economic Development and Tourism Team, with the Supervisor of Elections coming in second.
reports – commissioner cadwell – district 5
babe ruth tournament at north lake park
Commr. Cadwell related that the Umatilla Chamber had a welcome tent which gave out bags for all of the players with discount coupons, a directory, and other things about Umatilla and North Lake at the Babe Ruth Tournament in North Lake Park last weekend. He noted that there were an estimated 1430 participants for the 40 games that were played there from Altamonte Springs, Leesburg, Longwood, Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla. He mentioned that TDC staff will make sure they have a presence at events like this with outdoor themes in the future.
REPORTS – COMMISsIONER campione – CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT 4
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board gave approval to complete and submit the NACo 2013 Credentials (Voting) Form naming Lake County’s Designated County Delegate, Commr. Cadwell, and County alternate, Commr. Conner, authorized to pick up and cast the County’s votes.
presentation by orlando city soccer to the tdc
Commr. Campione related that she got a call asking about the possibility of Orlando City Soccer doing a presentation to the TDC, and she asked if the Board could go to that TDC meeting to hear that presentation. She commented that Orlando City Soccer was working hard to attract a professional franchise to Orlando, and she opined that the TDC would be a good venue for a presentation for possible opportunities in the future that the County could be involved in.
attorney general opinion regarding south lake impact fees
Commr. Campione related that she had sent an email out asking whether the Board could support the School Board’s request for an AG (Attorney General) opinion on the possibility of having more than one impact fee district to address the disparate growth in South Lake.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he wanted everyone to understand that they were making that request on behalf of the School Board, since the Board is the one that has to make that request.
Commr. Campione responded that they were just supporting the request for that opinion, and she pointed out that another whole process would be involved if the opinion comes back in the affirmative regarding what the School Board wanted to do at that point and whether the Board would support that decision to the extent of addressing the liability and indemnity.
Commr. Sullivan opined that it was only fair to try to support the School Board, and it would seem a matter of common sense to at least get an AG opinion.
Commr. Conner stated that although he will not oppose getting the AG opinion, he was concerned about some possible unintended consequences if the County Attorney does not agree with the AG opinion. He also stated that he did not want there to be a perception that the Board will act upon a possible affirmative answer, although they want to be cooperative with the School Board and are doing this as a courtesy. He wanted it to be clear in their correspondence that they reserve all of the rights and protections of the County and were free to act as they wish.
Commr. Campione opined that there is no harm in asking, and the Board will still have to decide what direction it wants to go regarding this issue.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place this item on the agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board supported the School Board’s request for an AG (Attorney General) opinion on the possibility of having more than one impact fee district.
request for waiver or reduced water and sewer impact fees
Commr. Campione related that she has heard from a lot of people who were concerned over empty buildings along the Hwy 27 corridor that are provided water and sewer by the City of Leesburg and who felt that the problem was caused by a requirement from the City of Leesburg that water and sewer impact fees would have to paid in order for those buildings to be occupied. She suggested that the County have their staff look into this issue and discuss a possibility of an impact fee waiver, reduction, or other incentive with the City’s staff.
Commr. Conner commented that they have previously looked into this issue about a year ago, but the City of Leesburg stated that it will not retroactively waive the hookup charge because of the widespread ramifications to others who have already paid those impact fees.
Commr. Campione pointed out that Leesburg was doing a waiver in the downtown area, and she recommended that they reach out to the City Commission and approach it from an economic development standpoint in order to get those buildings occupied.
Commr. Sullivan offered to informally discuss this with the City Commissioners, since times are different now than they were before, and he would report back to the Board. He mentioned that the City of Leesburg was very receptive to his church occupying the building that housed the Boys and Girls Club and helped them through the process.
discussion regarding possible fiscal review committee
Commr. Campione asked whether the Board would be supportive of asking a group of individuals to serve as a fiscal review board or committee as the Board embarks on the process of looking at the options in regard to the millage increase, and she suggested that they make those appointments on July 9 for five members so that they could have either a recommendation or something else back from that committee before July 30.
Commr. Cadwell opined that it was the Board’s job to make those kinds of decisions without passing it off to a committee, which was why they have had these workshops.
Commr. Campione responded that several of the Board members would like to get some input from people who work with numbers and who might have a different perspective.
Commr. Conner pointed out that they have discussed a plan to take $750,000 out of the sales tax revenue to put towards the Courthouse, which would help them make it another year without a millage increase, which he was now happy to go along with, even though he previously had concerns that that plan would interfere with the upcoming sales tax vote and that he had believed it was better to use the money for parks or to purchase ambulances.
Commr. Campione pointed out that they would not be able to fill that void the following year with the infrastructure sales tax, since the budget will be $5 million short at that time, which is part of what she would ask this group to look at.
Commr. Conner noted that the timeframe is very short, and he asked what the scope of the committee’s work would be.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the County’s original plan of six percent cuts was not feasible because of several factors, and she wanted the group to look at the options for a two-year period.
Commr. Conner commented that it could be hard to get committee members who had executive-type experience whose job is not so demanding that they have the time to do this, and he asked if the committee would look at everything for possible reductions.
Commr. Campione responded that she thought so, but they would go in understanding certain premises, and she envisioned a process where the committee would spend about five or six hours with staff, have access to any department heads or information they needed, and keep in mind all of the parameters of FRS and any other limitations.
Mr. Heath pointed out that if this committee is created on July 9, it would be a week after he gives the Board his recommended budget, since they had to set the tentative millage on July 30. He stated that he needed some direction about what the Board wanted him to base the budget on, noting that there were four options, including using sales tax to balance the budget or cut ten percent off of the departments. He emphasized, however, that they were running out of time.
Commr. Campione suggested that the Board leave their options open on July 30 by going with a recommended millage at that time and then set the final millage two months later.
Commr. Conner opined that the recommendations would have to be presented to the Board before July 30 in order to give the committee’s report the consideration it deserves, especially for something that important.
Commr. Cadwell noted the tentative millage rate would be going on the TRIM notice.
Commr. Parks commented that he agreed with Commr. Cadwell’s comment about all of the workshops that the Board has been doing, pointing out that the Board has started considering the budget very early this year, which presented a lot of opportunity for this kind of input. He stated that he has kept the business community apprised on the process from early on, and he has been open to input from the business community. He commented that that approach has worked very well for him this year in his area of South Lake.
Commr. Conner opined that it would be a meaningless exercise if the committee does not look at the budgets of the constitutional officers, since it was the majority of the overall budget, but he was concerned about how that would be received by the constitutional officers.
Commr. Cadwell opined that it was too short a time period.
Commr. Sullivan commented that although he likes the idea of bringing in a third party, the timing is just not right, and he does not believe that the Board is utilizing their MSTU capabilities to the maximum, which are user fees. He opined that the Board will have to make some very difficult decisions, and appointment of this committee might just be postponing that.
Commr. Parks made a motion to add this issue to the agenda, which died for lack of a second.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
_________________________________
leslie campione, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK