A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

October 5, 2021

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and remarked that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Ms. Melanie Caputo, who was a central Florida native and Lake County resident. He commented that Ms. Caputo was actively involved with the American Legion Post 35, where she served as the Post Adjutant, and that she was also a member of the American Legion Riders. He stated that Ms. Caputo enlisted in the United States (U.S.) Navy following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and that she spent five years on active duty as a Medical Corpsman serving as a medic with the Naval Healthcare in New England. He mentioned that Ms. Caputo was awarded the Enduring Freedom medal, the Good Conduct medal, and a volunteerism award for assisting displaced Katrina victims, and he thanked Ms. Caputo for her service.

Pastor Josh Gussler, with the First Baptist Church of Umatilla, in the City of Umatilla then gave the invocation and Ms. Caputo led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that the current meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. David Serdar, a resident of the City of Fruitland Park, made comments related to local government issues.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. He then displayed the consent agenda items, which were unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted that there was a memo distributed on the current morning to be included with Tab 4, Wildwoods Campground, clarifying a condition requested by the applicant, and he requested that the Board would accept the consent agenda as presented.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Commr. Parks related that he had a speaker card for Tab 6, and that it would be pulled from the Rezoning Consent Agenda and presented on the Rezoning Regular Agenda.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 7, pulling Tab 6 to the regular agenda, and including the memo for Tab 4, as follows:

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2021-37

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-02-4

Holiday Travel Park FLUM

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 277.93 acres from Urban Low and Urban Medium to Planned Unit Development Future Land Use Category (FLUC) and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Holiday Travel RV Park which will include 995 temporary RV spaces, 112 mobile home sites, and associated facilities.

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2021-38

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-02-1

Holiday Travel Park Rezoning

Rezone 277.93 acres from Mobile Home Rental Park (RMRP) with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 1996-51 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate the existing Holiday Travel Park and allow the park to be expanded.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2021-39

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-03-5

Wildwoods Campground FLUM

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 9.33 acres from Rural to Planned Unit Development Future Land Use Category (FLUC) and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Wildwoods Campground which will include 84 RV spaces and associated facilities.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2021-40

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-06-5

Wildwoods Campground Rezoning

Rezone approximately 9.33 acres from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate the existing Wildwoods travel trailer campground.

Tab 5.

Rezoning Case # CP-21-07

Property Rights Element (Transmittal)

Amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to establish Goal I-9 to be entitled ‘Property Rights’ and associated objective and policies to ensure property rights are considered in the decision-making processes.

Tab 7.

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2

Wellness Way Remedial Amendment (Transmittal)

Amend “GOAL I-8 WELLNESS WAY AREA PLAN” and subsequent objectives and policies.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 6.

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-06-4

CSD Groves Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal)

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 78 +/- acres from Regional Office to Urban Low Density to facilitate the development of a single-family residential subdivision.

Tab 8. Ordinance No. 2021-41

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-24-2

Southeastern Conference Association of Seventh-Day Adventists Rezoning

Amend Community Facility District (CFD) Ordinance #2006-33 to accommodate a 2-phased development for a 9,000-square foot fellowship hall/multi-purpose building and 9,000-square foot sanctuary building.

Tab 9.

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-13-5

Brucelas-Burch Property Rezoning

Rezone approximately 5.0 +/- acres from Rural Residential District (R-1) to Agriculture (A).

Tab 10.

Rezoning Case # CUP-21-04-5

Brucelas-Burch Kennel/The 1 Dog Trainer Academy Conditional Use Permit

Conditional use permit on approximately 5 +/- acres to allow a dog training facility and kennel operation within the Agriculture (A) zoning district.

CSD Groves Future Land Use Map Amendment

Mr. McClendon explained that Tab 6, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-06-4, owned by CSD Groves, was located on the east side of Round Lake Road, east of Sullivan Ranch Road, was within Commission District 4, and was approximately 78 acres; furthermore, he said that the request was to change the future land use (FLU) category from Regional Office to Urban Low Density which would allow up to four dwelling units per acre. He displayed maps showing the property as it was currently on the FLU map and the proposed change, noting that the current zoning was Agriculture. He noted that there had been an application for rezoning, but that this request was in the transmittal phase to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO). He showed a map of the conceptual plan, and said that the applicant was requesting an amendment from Regional Office to Urban Low Density to accommodate development of a 264 lot single-family residential subdivision, with a density of about 3.38 dwelling units per acre. He mentioned that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), and that this property was located within the Wolf Branch Innovation District (WBID) implementation plan, which called for this property to be identified as Urban Low Density. He commented that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this Comp Plan amendment, and he requested that the Board would transmit this amendment to the State.

Commr. Campione inquired if the City of Mount Dora had been included in this project.

Mr. McClendon commented that the City of Mount Dora had been included, and that they could be providing water and sewer services.

Commr. Campione asked if the City of Mount Dora would review the rezoning application when it came in.

Mr. McClendon commented that the County had already received comments from the City on the draft PUD, and that, if this application was approved, it could come back in January 2022 or February 2022, adding that the County would move forward with the PUD at the same time.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney representing the applicant, mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved the application, and that there was a community meeting held with the Sullivan Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), which drew good discussion. She commented that she did not know of any outstanding issues to be dealt with, and that the City of Mount Dora had submitted comments, which were included in the application. She stated that they had ongoing communication with the City, and that there had been no questions about the density. She said that this was part of the Regional Office land use that was put into effect many years prior, and that the County had considered redoing the land use in this area. She mentioned that this property was designated to stay residential because it was across the street from Sullivan Ranch and located on Round Lake Road, adding that they had a utility agreement with the City of Mount Dora for water and sewer services.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the comments from the City of Mount Dora indicated that the buffer off of Round Lake Road would be consistent with the Sullivan Ranch buffer and with the City’s land development regulations (LDR). She commented that the City also wanted to stay consistent with the split rail fences and stone columns to create continuity, noting that this was the gateway into the City of Mount Dora. She relayed her understanding that this property was located immediately adjacent to Round Lake Road, and that if it was not going to be Regional Office, then Residential would be sensible as long it was consistent and complimentary to Sullivan Ranch. She mentioned that she was glad to hear about the community meeting and that input had been receive from the community. She hoped that the quality and price would be in the same range as Sullivan Ranch, and opined that this would be beneficial to the County and to the City when it was annexed.

Ms. Bonifay relayed her understanding that the Sullivan Ranch residents wanted to keep the look similar and have the buffering, opining that it would look very nice. She mentioned that she had been involved with Sullivan Ranch for many years, and opined that this project would enhance it.

Commr. Campione opined that the roundabout would be important for residents on both sides, and that it was the best mechanism to keep traffic moving while allowing people access in and out of their neighborhoods.

Ms. Bonifay mentioned that they would be working with the public works staff on that.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Michael Jones said that after hearing the previous information, he did not wish to comment.

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

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 6, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-06-4, CSD Groves Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal).

South Lake Seventh-Day Adventist Church CFD Amendment

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 8, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-24-2, South Lake Seventh-Day Adventist Church, for a Community Facility District (CFD) amendment. He stated that it was located in Commission District 2, and that the tract size was about five acres. He said that the request was to amend an existing CFD ordinance that was done in 2006 by modifying the development program and reducing the three phase development program down to a two phase development program and to allow for a 9,000 square foot fellowship hall and a 9,000 square foot sanctuary building. He mentioned that the current FLU designation was Urban Low, and that it was zoned CFD. He then displayed an aerial map and the proposed concept plan, noting that the access was in the middle of the property currently. He commented that the 2006 Ordinance allowed up to 21,000 square feet of building, and that the new proposed amendment would decrease the footprint of the structure and would not include a cell tower. He stated that it was consistent with the Comp Plan as well as the LDR, and that the Planning and Zoning Board and staff recommended approval of this request.

Commr. Parks noted that this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and he said that the Board could disclose any ex parte communications at this time.

Commr. Smith stated that he had met with a neighbor, and that he had gone to look at the site.

Commr. Parks stated that he had met with the neighbor, Mr. McDonnell.

Commr. Campione said that she had spoken with Mr. McDonnell, and that she had also visited the site. She asked if the three phases included the cell tower.

Mr. McClendon replied that it did not, and that the three phase development was being modified to a two phase development program, adding that they wanted to remove the use of the cell tower.

Commr. Campione inquired if the square footage was different between the first ordinance and the amendment.

Mr. McClendon said that it was, and that the amendment would cap the square footage at 18,000 square feet, which would result in a drop in intensity.

Commr. Smith asked if they were removing the cell tower option, and Mr. McClendon indicated that they were.

Commr. Parks said that he had concerns about the buffer along the side of the property, and that most of the site looked cleared. He mentioned that what was being proposed was less intense, but that he had concerns about the site plan, adding that he wanted to see if there was something that could be done to mitigate a lack of buffering.

Commr. Smith commented that the west parcel had about a 35 foot buffer with planted pine trees, and that the eastern parcel had about 68 feet of planted pine buffers, and he asked if it needed 50 feet.

Mr. McClendon said that the proposed action included carrying the buffer forward from the 2006 ordinance which was a type B buffer, and that it would range from 15 to 20 feet with different plantings.

Commr. Campione asked Commissioner Smith if the large pine trees were still there, and he indicated that they were. Commissioner Campione then stated that in the original ordinance, it used a type B buffer, and that it included the existing pine forest to be utilized as a buffer. She inquired if that language would have only applied to the width of a type B buffer.

Mr. McClendon replied that staff would have interpreted it that way if the applicant had moved the site plan forward at that time.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the County would take into account the existing trees and the 20 foot buffer requirement, noting that those trees would be used for that purpose.

Commr. Parks asked if there was a way to show an aerial map of what trees were left on the property, and Mr. McClendon indicated that he did not have that.

Commr. Campione commented that the property had been cleared of pine trees except for the 35 foot buffer west and 68 feet on the east.

Mr. McClendon showed a current aerial map of the property, and he pointed out the buffers. He commented that the County would not know for sure what the buffers were until they had a site plan with a landscape plan attached to it, but that there were approximately 33 feet on the west and 68 feet on the east.

Commr. Smith commented that there were survey markers on the site, and that he had used them for measuring.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, mentioned that the ordinance included in the packet was not the most current version, and she inquired if it the copy of the ordinance with changes had been distributed.

Mr. McClendon replied that it had been distributed, and that it had been attached to the agenda packet online. He commented that the Commissioners should have received a hard copy of it during the latter part of the previous week.

Ms. Marsh stated that she would print it out during the public comment period, and that they could see what the changes were from when it was published to the prior week.

Mr. McClendon commented that it would include the carryover buffer language for type B as well as the noise amplification prohibition.

Commr. Parks asked where the proposed building was going to be constructed.

Mr. McClendon showed the concept plan, and said that it was oriented towards the west side of the property. He pointed out the driveway access, the parking area to the east, and the overflow parking, noting that it was conceptual in nature.

Commr. Parks inquired if the applicant could move the building more towards the northeast corner.

Mr. Audie Robinson, an architect representing the applicant, replied that the plan was conceptual and that it could be moved, adding that they were willing to increase the buffers and do more landscaping. He commented that the three phases mentioned in the previous ordinance were for a fellowship hall, church, school, and a daycare as well as a cell phone tower, and that without the usages of a school and daycare, it would reduce the amount of traffic and usage during the week. He mentioned that this property would be used primarily on Wednesday nights and on the weekends, adding that it was very low density, low usage, and low impact on the environment.

Commr. Campione asked for confirmation that the daycare and school uses were eliminated, and Mr. Robinson confirmed that.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the less intense usage.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Roger McDonnell, a Lake County resident, asked if this project was going to be approved on the current day.

Commr. Parks replied that there would be a decision made for this zoning application. He explained that after the case had been presented to the Board, and the applicant had been given a chance to speak, there would be public comments, adding that the Board would then deliberate and make a decision to move forward or not.

Mr. McDonnell expressed concerns about the clearing of the pine trees and the proposed size and location of the building. He commented that if the applicant could put the building in the back of the property, it would no longer be in the line of vision with his house, and he presented a rough draft of the properties. He opined that the best place to build would be at the back of the property, and he asked that the building site be pushed back out of his line of sight.

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

Mr. Robinson mentioned that the original ordinance stated that there was going to be grass parking, and that the concept map was showing it incorrectly. He commented that the 9,000 foot buildings in two phases would allow for 300 to 350 people to use the sanctuary and the fellowship hall, noting that it would be a smaller footprint. He reiterated that they were willing to move the facility around on the site according to code, and that they would do all of the buffers and take care of the environment, opining that it would look good and be compliant with all of codes and zoning.

Commr. Parks commented that it addressed his concerns, and he proposed that they moved the building as far to the north or northeast as possible, noting that there was a site planning process to go through. He opined that the best way to word the ordinance was to say that it would be more central or towards the rear or northeast of the property with enhanced buffering along the western boundary line.

Mr. Robinson noted that it would come into compliance with zoning.

Commr. Parks mentioned that this was more specific, and that along with the trees, there would be some enhanced buffering with shrubs and foliage that would grow larger.

Commr. Campione asked if the enhanced buffering would be within the 20 feet, and if the trees that were there should stay.

Commr. Parks replied that the shrubs would create a complete opaque hedge, which would be required, along with the existing trees.

Mr. Robinson mentioned that some existing trees could be dead or dying, and that they would need to be removed.

Commr. Parks said that they could remove those trees, adding that they would still have to meet the buffering requirement.

Commr. Campione commented that someone would have to certify that the tree was diseased, dying, or dead, and that they could not make that determination independently. She opined that a hedgerow would be a nice way to create a visual buffer, adding that it was important for the trees to remain. She asked how far north the building could be constructed according to setbacks.

Commr. Parks replied that the setbacks were 25 feet, and that it should be worded in the ordinance to show that it needed to be moved.

Commr. Campione opined that the Board should be specific on expectations, and reiterated that the building should be moved to the north.

Commr. Smith remarked that what the applicant was proposing was the best case scenario, and that the applicant could build the 21,000 square feet with a preschool, a cell tower, and a fellowship hall without coming before the Board. He commented that the applicant had reduced the buildings to 18,000 square feet, had taken out the daycare which would slow traffic, and had removed the cell tower.

Commr. Parks commented that he appreciated the applicant being willing to address concerns, opining that they could be addressed by moving the building to the north.

Mr. Robinson said that he would work with the owner, and that they would move the buildings as far north and as far center as possible, adding that the owner had proposed removing the existing buildings.

Ms. Marsh suggested that in order to address the concerns of Mr. McDonnell, the Board could establish a setback from his property line, noting that the owner would have flexibility to move it anywhere on the property except on the setback. She mentioned that the Board would have to determine how far from the property line the applicant could build, adding that it would give the staff clarity for when the site plan came in to make sure there was no encroachment.

Commr. Campione opined that pushing it towards the north was important, and she agreed that the Board should establish a minimum setback to Mr. McDonnell’s property.

Commr. Parks referred to the concept plan, and he proposed establishing a setback.

Commr. Smith suggested that since the setback was currently 25 feet, the Board could make it 50 feet.

Commr. Campione remarked that the buffer setback was separate from the building setback, and that it would have to be clarified if the building buffer was measured from the buffer setback or from the adjacent property.

Commr. Parks suggested a 50 foot buffer and a 25 foot setback.

Mr. McClendon mentioned that on the current site plan, there was 34 feet between the property line and the building on the west, and 106 feet from the existing building to the property line on the north.

Commr. Smith commented that the setback should not push the building so far over that they could not build their parking lot.

Commr. Campione opined that a structure was more intrusive than a parking lot.

Ms. Marsh stated that the original 2006 ordinance said that parking should be grass parking in lieu of asphalt, and that it was carried over to this project, noting that if the applicant wanted to have paved parking, the language would need to be adjusted.

Mr. Robinson stated that they would need to pave some areas to provide for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations, but that the owner wanted to keep the grass parking.

Ms. Marsh said that the language should be clarified to exclude ADA requirements.

Commr. Campione opined that there was room to move the structure 100 feet to the north.

Commr. Shields inquired if the structure could be built to face the west instead of the east.

Commr. Campione remarked that it would not address the frontage off the road or the view of the building from the two residences on each side, opining that moving it to the north would help.

Commr. Smith stated that he did not want to make an ordinance that made it impossible for the applicant to build, and that he should have some freedom to have what he wanted on his property, noting that he was already making concessions. He opined that the Board should only restrict how the property looked.

Commr. Campione said that she appreciated that the impact on the surrounding area and the road would be reduced, noting that there would have been many transportation improvements that would have been required with a school and a daycare. She said that a structure this size should have more site planning, and that there should be more specificity. She commented that she did not want to lock them into something that could not be done, but she opined that if the ordinance was open-ended, it could result in a neighborhood conflict.

Commr. Parks mentioned that these issues were coming up more often, and that this was the purpose of these hearings. He opined that the details should be discussed, but that the Board should not be too restrictive. He suggested a 50 foot buffer and a 25 foot setback off the buffer, which would be a total of 75 feet along the western boundary where the building would be located, and that language could be added to move it as far to the north as possible. He opined that it would address everything they had discussed, and that it would give the owner enough room to build the parking lot. He commented that the grass parking would be good for water quality, adding that there would also be some landscaping requirements on the east side.

Mr. Robinson commented that the structure could face the other direction if the civil engineering and landscaping looked better, and that they could still comply with the 50 foot buffer and 25 foot setback.

Commr. Parks asked if Ms. Marsh could provide the language for those recommendations.

Ms. Marsh stated that if the Board accepted the changes to the 2006 ordinance, which had been handed out, the additional changes would include language that the building setback would be placed to the rear, center, or east property line to the greatest extent possible but no closer than 75 feet to the western property line. She commented that it would also include the language that the mature trees on the east and west were to remain in place, and that shrubs would be planted to create a complete opaque hedge around the entire boundary of the property.

Commr. Parks specified that the 75 feet would consist of a 50 foot buffer and a 25 foot setback off the buffer on the west end.

Commr. Smith mentioned that the buffer in the north, south, and east could remain as it currently was.

Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer, inquired about the change to the parking.

Ms. Marsh added that the change to the parking would be grass except for ADA requirements.

Commr. Smith said that he would add that the existing trees be viable, noting that if a tree had pine beetles in it the owner would need to remove it.

Commr. Parks commented that Lake County code already allowed the removal of a dead tree, and that if the minimum tree requirement was not met, another species of tree would have to be planted.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Southeastern Conference Association of Seventh-Day Adventists Rezoning with the following modifications: both buildings would be placed in the rear, center, or east of the property no closer than 75 feet to the western property line; there would be a 50 foot landscape buffer plus a 25 foot building setback; grass parking except for ADA requirements; an opaque hedge within the landscape buffer; and providing that mature trees would remain unless they were diseased or dead, in which case, they would be replaced.

Brucelas-Burch Property Rezoning and dog kennel

Mr. McClendon mentioned that the next two tabs were for the same property, and that he would open both at the same time. He said that Tab 9, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-13-5, known as the Brucelas-Burch property, was located off of Wiygul Road in the City of Umatilla area, was located in Commission District 5, was approximately 5 acres, and that the rezoning request was to rezone from Rural Residential (R-1) to Agriculture. He mentioned that the existing land use designation of the property was identified as Rural Transition, and he showed an aerial map of the property. He stated that the applicant was seeking rezoning to facilitate a future CUP, which was Tab 10, for a dog training and kennel operation. He commented that the request was consistent with the Comp Plan Policy I-1.2.8, agricultural and equestrian uses, which recognized agricultural uses as a suitable use in every single property within all FLU categories. He said that the request was consistent with the LDR, and that the proposed request was submitted with a CUP, which was Tab 10, Rezoning Case # CUP-21-04-5, for the dog kennel facility and operation. He showed a map of the proposed concept plan, and he stated that it was consistent with the Comp Plan Policy I-1.4.5, which allowed animal specialty services as a conditional use. He commented that the request was consistent with the LDR, adding that on August 12, 2021, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance request, VAR-21-38-5, to allow the kennel 198 feet from the eastern and western property lines, in lieu of 200-feet. He mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Board had noted the opposition during the public hearing and had added many conditions to help mitigate any potential impacts, which included a six foot privacy fence along the southern property line, a continuous vegetative hedge with minimum planting requirements, noise attenuation materials, and a condition that restricted the play and dog run areas to be located north of the kennel. He said that the requested action was to approve the rezoning from R-1 to Agriculture and to approve the requested dog kennel.

Commr. Parks noted that this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and he said that the Board could disclose any ex parte communications at this time.

Commr. Shields commented that he had spoken with the applicant and the neighbors.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had spoken with the applicant and the neighbors, and that he had visited the site.

Commr. Parks said that he had spoken with staff concerning the matter, and that he had not had any other discussions.

Commr. Campione commented that she had not spoken with anyone, but that she had visited the site.

Commr. Blake remarked that he had met with the applicant, and that he had met with some of the neighbors through Zoom Webinar.

Mr. McClendon mentioned that there were two notices to appear from Mr. Brent Spain and Mr. Steve West.

Commr. Blake asked how many dogs could be on the property under the current zoning, and Mr. McClendon indicated that there could be up to 10 dogs.

Commr. Campione inquired if there were limitations on the number of dogs allowed.

Mr. McClendon stated that it was in the proposed ordinance, and that page two indicated that up to 10 dogs maximum were allowed for the training facility and up to 10 dogs were allowed for the kennel, which was a total of 20 dogs.

Commr. Campione expressed her concern about downzoning to Agriculture, noting that if a medical marijuana facility received a permit to produce and manufacture on that site, the County had no authority to limit or restrict their operations from a local zoning standpoint. She commented that she was not against the use of medical marijuana, but that she had an issue with how the production affected surrounding property owners.

Ms. Sharon Brucelas-Burch, the applicant, explained that when they moved to the City of Umatilla, they were impressed by the small community, and that they had received encouragement and support from their business neighbors. She commented that some of the neighbors were welcoming, and that she respected Mr. Rob Sullivan, president of the Lake Dalhousie Estates HOA, for what he did for the subdivision. She asked that the Board would approve the rezoning and allow them to run a small kennel business, and that they were willing to meet the requirements and stay within the County guidelines. She said that they were willing to construct extra fencing and plant surrounding buffers, adding that there would be no influx of traffic on Wiygul Road or on their easement as all persons coming onto the property would come one at a time by appointment only. She mentioned that they did not operate 365 days a year, and that dogs on the facility were only there for two weeks at a time, adding that they would take a week off to train the client after the dog went home. She said that any dogs that boarded with them would have to be approved, noting that any nuisance dogs would not be accepted for boarding services. She commented that they did not take dogs that were aggressive, and that the dogs were always supervised and monitored while outside, adding that a dog being trained would be with a person 100 percent of the time. She mentioned that they did not train on weekends, and that they closed for major holidays. She remarked that they would never have more than 20 dogs, adding that the average number of dogs being trained was typically six to eight, and that the average number of dogs boarding was typically six to eight. She commented that they were open to suggestions from their neighbors and the Board in order to move this project forward.

Mr. Brent Spain, an attorney representing Ms. Pamela Newton and Mr. Mark Newton of Lake Dalhousie Estates, commented that the Newtons’ property was adjacent to the proposed site of the rezoning and dog kennel, and that they would be adversely impacted if the rezoning and CUP were approved. He opined that the proposed rezoning did not meet rezoning standards, and that if the rezoning was denied, the CUP request would become moot because a kennel was not allowed on R-1 property. He mentioned that the applicant had started the business without the proper zoning approvals, and that a code enforcement action was brought against them in April 2021 after complaints were filed. He commented that the applicant had to request a variance because the building did not meet the 200 foot setback requirement, adding that the building was put there without proper approvals, and that the applicant needed the variance, the rezoning, and the CUP in order to operate. He opined that the applicant did not have an automatic entitlement or vested right to a CUP, and that they were supposed to be limited. He commented that the burden was on the applicant to meet all of the requirements, and that the burden did not shift to those opposing the request to demonstrate that the request did not meet the published criteria. He showed a map of the subject property, and emphasized that all of the surrounding property was zoned R-1. He opined that this would constitute as impermissible spot zoning, and he quoted case law to define what that meant. He mentioned that this was a downzoning specifically to allow the applicant to operate a business, and that there were no businesses in the surrounding area, adding that there was no Agriculture zoning on the abutting, adjacent, or nearby properties. He opined that the rezoning was in conflict with the County’s land development code, and that the staff report only mentioned the Agriculture code provision, noting that R-1 was to serve as a transition from conservation and agriculture areas to a more dense urban area. He opined that interjecting a commercial business in the middle of that zoning was inconsistent with that provision and the intent. He mentioned that the underlying purpose of the Comp Plan was to ensure compatibility and protection of established neighborhoods, and that Lake Dalhousie Estates was immediately to the south of the proposed rezoning site, adding that there were surrounding single-family homes to the east and north. He opined that allowing a business venture in the area would be inconsistent with the existing development pattern, and that the staff report acknowledged that there was no evidence of development trends of property rezoning in the area over the past five years. He remarked that the applicant did not identify any change of conditions, adding that the only change was that the applicants were cited for opening a kennel operation on property they had purchased that they had to bring into compliance. He mentioned that there was nothing in the submittal or the staff report regarding the adverse impact on property value, and that it did not support an orderly development pattern. He opined that the public interest would be furthered by protecting established neighborhoods, and that the County should avoid approvals with a strong likelihood of creating nuisances. He commented that commercial uses were to be limited in the rural future land use series, which included Rural Transition, and that the proposed CUP would have an adverse effect on nearby properties. He pointed out that the Board had denied a CUP in January 2020 based on concerns regarding noise impacts, the size of the parcel, the introduction of a commercial use in a mostly residential area, and the disproportionate impact on nearby residential homes. He mentioned that the residents of Lake Dalhousie Estates had done their due diligence before buying their retirement homes in a beautiful part of Lake County, and that this was not a scenario where the residents had moved into an area where these activities were permissible.

Mr. Newton commented that the Agriculture zoning was being used for a commercial business, and that the code included dog boarding, training, breeding, buying, selling, grooming, and rearing. He mentioned that the applicant wanted to board, train, and breed dogs, and he inquired if the 20 dog maximum included puppies. He opined that even with five acres of property, the 200 foot setbacks were not adequate for the noise of dogs barking, noting that the applicant’s property was adjacent to a residential area. He opined that the dog training business was not conducive for a harmonious coexistence with a residential neighborhood, and that he had observed its effects during its four months of operation. He expressed concern about the noise, and said that there was no indication of when the dogs would be outside. He opined that commercial businesses were not expected to be put next to residential homes because of noise, traffic volume, and traffic types, such as delivery trucks or waste removal trucks. He commented that there had been some steps taken to minimize the adverse effects using buffers, but he opined that the six foot privacy fence the owner put up in January 2021 had no effect on the noise. He mentioned that the dogs were supposed to be fully supervised, and that he had seen a dog trainer out with them; however, he observed that when the dogs were in the play area, they were running loose with little supervision. He remarked that it was a difficult decision to make, but he requested that the Board would reject this application.

Mr. Spain showed his last slide and respectfully requested that the Board deny the rezoning, opining that the rezoning did not meet the standards and the code, and that it constituted impermissible spot zoning. He commented that if the rezoning was denied, the CUP would be rendered moot, but that if the rezoning was approved, the CUP should be denied because it did not meet the CUP standards. He opined that it was inconsistent with the established character of the area, and that the neighborhood had been there for about 30 years. He concluded that because of the size of the lot, the noise issue, the intrusion of a commercial type use, and the adverse impact on the quiet enjoyment of property, the application should be denied. He mentioned that the applicants were doing good work, but that the site was zoned R-1 in a transitional area.

Mr. Steve West, a resident of Lake Dalhousie Estates, stated that he had five concerns with the rezoning request and listed the following: it was a commercial business in an existing R-1 residential area; it was hard to mitigate barking dogs outside the kennel; the owners wanted to expand the business to include breeding and selling dogs; it would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood’s property values; and the neighborhood consisted of mostly older or retired residents who wanted a peaceful and quiet existence. He asked that the Board would deny the rezoning request.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:39 a.m. for 5 minutes.

Brucelas-Burch Property Rezoning and dog kennel continued

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. McClendon showed a zoning map indicating that there were other properties zoned Agriculture in the area of the proposed rezoning application.

Ms. Suzanne Rogers, a resident of Marion County, stated that she owned the property north of the applicant’s site, and that she had bought the property in 2017 for her son to build his future home on. She mentioned that there was a right of way that went through her property along the boundary line to the rear property, which was owned by the applicant, and that the right of way was for the purpose of residential access. She stated that she had recently become aware of the rezoning application, and that she opposed it. She opined that the area should be a residential area, and that was what she had purchased the property for. She said that she had a survey showing the right of way that ran through her property, noting that Florida Law stated that the undue burden of the actual intent of the right of way should not exceed what the initial intent was through the parties. She commented that the initial intent was for residential use, opining that it should not be used for employees, clients, and various types of service vehicles. She expressed concern about environmental impacts from the waste that would be generated, and she opined that the storing of the waste product in containers on the site would not be good in the Florida heat. She mentioned that she had horses on her property in Marion County, and that there were restrictions on where she could put waste from her animals, noting that it had to be disposed of properly.

Mr. Phillippe Pai, a resident of Lake Dalhousie Estates, commented that he had done his due diligence in making sure the surrounding property was residential when buying his property, and he opined that the applicant knew what the zoning was for their property because it was listed on the original listing, which he then displayed. He opined that having a kennel nearby would affect his property value, noting that a seller’s disclosure informing any potential buyers of the kennel would be required in order to sell his property. He asked to Board to protect the residents from the noise and to deny the application.

Mr. Rob Sullivan, president of the Lake Dalhousie Estates HOA, mentioned that the residents of Lake Dalhousie Estates were diligent to choose a neighborhood with a perimeter of R-1 zoned neighbors. He expressed concern about the noise that would come with the kennel, and stated that he was opposed to downzoning to Agriculture and granting a CUP adjacent to a well-established, residential neighborhood. He commented that commercial and agricultural businesses included equipment, trucks, customers, and staff, and that whoever bought the property in the future would have the ability to use the property for agricultural uses, including the long list of permitted uses for agricultural property given by the County Attorney. He opined that this area was trending towards higher density and residential use, and that noise enforcement was nearly impossible once the property was zoned Agriculture. He commented that commercial kennel operations would need to be disclosed to prospective buyers of the residential properties, opining that buyers would not want to purchase property near a kennel. He opined that the applicant was nice, and that they had discussed the issue; however, he said that he could find no way to mitigate the noise issues. He concluded that a commercially viable kennel for dog training operations was not compatible with well-established, residential use, and he asked the Board to deny the request.

Ms. Jennifer Valderrama, a resident of Volusia County, said that she had known and worked with the applicant for over 15 years, and that the applicant had come to Lake County to create her own business training dogs. She opined that the business had a low impact on the environment, and stated that they had agreed to install more fencing and plants without removing any existing plants. She mentioned that the kennel was like a shed or a barn with a minimal impact, and that the owners were willing do anything possible to mitigate any negative factors. She commented that there were only two employees, and that there could only be a maximum of 20 dogs, which would not be often. She remarked that the dogs were never unsupervised, and that there were cameras showing the dogs outside that could be viewed inside. She mentioned that the applicant provided service dog training, which provided independent living for many individuals. She commented that the dogs were on a schedule and would not be outside barking all of the time, noting that homeowners could have as many dogs as they wanted on their properties.

Mr. Mike Fleming, a resident of Lake Dalhousie Estates, stated that his wife had been a dog trainer at Orlando Dog Training Club for over 10 years, and that the properties used for this business were zoned Commercial and appropriate for dog training activities. He opined that the applicants had selected an inappropriate location for their business, and that they should relocate their business. He opined that fences and hedges would not be adequate to reduce the noise to an acceptable level, noting that the back of the applicant’s property directly abutted Lake Dalhousie Estates. He mentioned that, having been a small business owner, he sympathized with the applicant, but he opined that allowing a dog kennel to operate adjacent to the development would penalize the other homeowners.

Mr. Daryl Woodhouse, a resident of the City of Clermont, showed a zoning map of the surrounding area, and opined that Lake Dalhousie Estates was an island in an area zoned mostly Agriculture. He opined that there would have been complaints when Lake Dalhousie Estates was developed, and that Lake County should promote businesses. He mentioned that the applicants were willing to address whatever they could to be good neighbors, and that if this was not a business, they could have 10 dogs roaming their property with no supervision. He commented that there was no guarantee for a quiet neighborhood, and that the applicant had been very cooperative.

Ms. Caroline Hardin, a resident of Seminole County, stated that she was a client of the applicant, opining that they cared about safety, security, and raising good animals. She opined that they would not have commercial trucks coming onto the property, and that the dog waste could go out in the normal garbage. She noted they were willing to work with the neighbors, and she requested that the Board would approve the rezoning and CUP.

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

Ms. Brucelas-Burch commented that they had hired a realtor, and that they had been misled into buying property that was not zoned Agriculture. She acknowledged that dogs were barking on her property, but that she could also hear dogs barking from other properties as well. She expressed her willingness to be amicable and work with the neighbors. She stated that the dogs were on a rigid schedule and would not be outside for long periods of time, and that there were Agriculture zoned properties around their property, noting that there was a nursery and other businesses. She mentioned that if the business went into breeding, the dogs would not be living on the property, and that they would be contracted for breeding purposes, adding that they would not be selling dogs on their property. She relayed her understanding that the easement that led to their property was part of their property, and that it was theirs to use as they pleased, adding that they could build a fence up to Wiygul Road if it would help. She said that dog waste could be deposited in regular waste receptacles in the park and at private homes, and that they would dispose of the waste however the County deemed necessary. She opined that there would be no excessive smell coming from their property, and said that they cleaned on a regular basis with chemicals that were environmentally friendly and animal safe. She noted that they had made mistakes in the past, but that they were trying to resolve those issues, work with their neighbors, and work with the County.

Mr. Spain opined that zoning this property Agriculture would be spot zoning, and that the other Agriculture zoned properties were not adjacent to the applicant’s property. He commented that this property was zoned R-1 for a reason, opining that the other businesses in the area had been there for many years, and had already been zoned Agriculture. He referred to the video taken by his client and mentioned that even though the dogs were being supervised, they were still barking, noting that they could not keep the dogs from barking. He remarked that this was not an issue about the integrity of the applicant but on whether or not it met the requirements of code compliance for rezoning and a CUP, opining that it did not. He mentioned that this was an area with an established residential neighborhood, adding that the neighbor to the north who had the easement going across her property also had concerns and objections. He requested that the Board would deny the rezoning and keep the property zoned R-1.

Ms. Brucelas-Burch thanked the Board for listening to the comments, and she acknowledged that this would be a decision that would impact them all. She mentioned that they did not want to travel to a commercial site to operate, and that they wanted to care for the dogs 24/7 with supervision. She commented that dogs barked even when they were supervised, and that they would not yell at the dogs for having fun.

Commr. Parks asked if the easement was a public right of way and what the width was.

Mr. McClendon stated that it was a 50 foot wide ingress/egress.

Ms. Marsh said that it was a private easement, and that it was not for the consideration of the Board. She stated that if the application was approved and there was a dispute over the easement, it would need to be resolved in civil court, and that the Board was limited to what the standards were in the code.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification of what it meant to be a private matter.

Ms. Marsh stated that if the underlying property owner believed that the other party had exceeded the extent of what the easement had been granted for, they would have to go to court, and that it was a factual issue that the court would have to decide.

Commr. Campione commented that the Board could take into consideration that the property owner was opposed to the use adjacent to their residence.

Commr. Parks expressed concern about that as well.

Commr. Blake commented that the noise should be dealt with, and suggested that the times the dogs could be outside as a group be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., adding that dogs could be taken out individually as needed. He suggested that the applicant could limit the number of dogs that were outside to five at a time, opining that it would help with noise mitigation.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she wanted to facilitate the business, but that the property was zoned R-1, opining that changing the zoning would negatively impact the surrounding property owners. She commented that the conditions mentioned by Commissioner Blake could help, but that she did not want the higher intensity that could come with an Agriculture zoning. She opined that a kennel would be too impactful on the adjacent R-1 properties and on Lake Dalhousie Estates, and that she could not support the application.

Commr. Smith opined that the applicant was willing to address whatever was necessary to help mitigate the issues mentioned by the residents of Lake Dalhousie Estates; however, the property was surrounded by residential neighbors who would be negatively impacted. He commented that even though the applicant was misled into buying property that would not suit their needs, it was not the fault of the Lake Dalhousie Estates residents or the other neighbors who were already there. He opined that if a homeowner had 10 dogs, they would be easier to control than dogs that were new every two weeks. He mentioned that he had struggled with this decision, but that he could not approve the application.

Commr. Shields concurred.

Ms. Marsh stated that there were two issues before the Board, and that the first was the downzoning. She suggested that the motion be done on that first, noting that if it did not pass, the CUP would not have to be considered.

Commr. Parks opined that there were some mitigating measures that could address many of the concerns; however, he commented that the easement was issued with a residential land use intent, and that was why he would not support the rezoning. He stated that if someone wanted to know what the zoning was for a piece of property and what that entitled one to, a zoning conformance letter could be obtained by calling the County, and one could also inquire about what would be required to change that use.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board denied Tab 9, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-13-5, Brucelas-Burch Property Rezoning.

Commr. Blake voted no.

regular agenda

approval to post Change to Commission District Boundaries

Ms. Marsh presented the tentative redistricting map, and stated that every 10 years when there was a census, the Commission District boundaries had to be reviewed and balanced based on the population. She commented that based on the census information, the total population per district should be around 76,791, and that any deviation should be less than three percent. She mentioned that based on the boundaries set on the proposed map, each Commission District population was between 76,000 and 77,000, and that the percentages were well within the required parameters. She said that the County would publish a map, giving the public an opportunity to view it, and that there would be two public hearings, which were tentatively set for November 2, 2021 and November 16, 2021. She mentioned that changes could still be made to the map at either of those public hearings, and that it would be presented to the Board on December 7, 2021 for adoption via resolution, noting that the date of the adoption would be the date that the new Commission District boundaries would go into effect. She stated that Florida State law required that the redistricting map be adopted in an odd numbered year, adding that it had to be done before the end of the current year. She requested permission to publish the proposed map with the following organizations: local libraries; municipality public offices; the Lake County Property Appraiser; the Lake County Tax Collector; and civic groups, such as the Lake 100.

Commr. Parks commended the staff on the process, and he opined that having nine versions was better than it was 10 years prior. He asked if the current day’s action was for the Board to approve to advertise, and if the County would then publish it.

Ms. Marsh said that was correct, and added that it was for the approval to post a notice to change Commission District boundaries.

Commr. Shields inquired if the boundary could be changed in one area, opining that it would make more sense.

Commr. Parks mentioned that it would change the numbers.

Ms. Marsh commented that the boundary did go along the boundaries of Lake Minneola, and that there were residents that would make that connection.

Commr. Shields opined that it was good work.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to post a Notice to Change Commission District Boundaries in public buildings and other accessible locations to comply with the requirements of Section 1(e), Article VIII, Florida Constitution, and Chapter 124, Florida Statutes.

Presentation of legislative priorities

Ms. Barker mentioned that there had been conversations with Mr. Chris Carmody, with GrayRobinson, and Representative Keith Truenow regarding the 2022 legislative priorities that were approved by the Board at the September 14, 2021 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting. She commented that Representative Truenow had some questions about the multiuse facility on the new fairgrounds the County had requested in the previous year, and he recommended that the County ask for that legislative appropriation again in the current fiscal year (FY). She stated that the County had brought back the presentation, and that the Board could review the proposed addition to the legislative priorities. She said that the County would republish the books, and that it would be submitted to the delegation pending the Board’s approval.

Ms. Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager for the County Manager’s Office, presented a review of the approved 2022 legislative priorities, the additional priority request, and the requested action. She stated that the Board had previously approved the following items: the Lincoln Park Community Center for their vocational center; the Lake Idamere Park recreational and accessibility improvements; Ferndale Preserve/Lake Apopka waterfront improvement; the County Road (CR) 439, Blackwater Swamp, and Blackwater Creek crossing flood study and design; the CR 42 flood zone crossing improvements in the Deerhaven area; and the Fire Station 109 expansion in south Lake County in the City of Clermont area. She said that the Board approved the State Aid to Libraries and the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), and that the additional requested 2022 legislative priority was for the Agricultural Education and Expo Center. She commented that the construction of an Agricultural Education and Expo Center on the new fairgrounds property would provide space for numerous events, including the Lake County Fair, the Lake County Farmers Market which featured an average of 300 vendors per week, gun shows, conventions, festivals, agricultural exhibitions, and other state and regional level events. She stated that in addition to its agricultural and event uses, this facility would be hurricane-proof, and that it included administrative offices with classroom space for emergency responders’ training led by Lake Technical College, the Florida Department of Health, the American Red Cross, and others. She mentioned that the building would also serve as a point of distribution (POD) for necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical supplies during disease outbreaks while functioning as a forward command center for the region in the event of a significant crisis, adding that it also would provide cold weather sheltering and emergency sheltering for those who had registered with Florida’s Special Needs Registry. She commented that the funding request for this would be $2 million for design, and she requested that the Board would approve the additional 2022 legislative priority.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the additional 2022 legislative priority.

reports

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

Coffee and Conversations event

Commr. Smith noted that there would be a Coffee and Conversations event on the following Thursday at Jonesy’s Café by Coffee Shop of Horrors located at 508 South Duncan Drive, in the City of Tavares, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Commr. Campione asked how it had been advertised.

Commr. Smith stated that it was advertised by Lake County, social media, and a local newspaper.

Ms. Barker added that the County had done several social media posts on the County’s page.

Commr. Campione inquired how large the establishment was, and opined that there could be a large crowd there.

Commr. Smith commented that he hoped there was.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK