A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
October 26, 2021
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 26, 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; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and said that the meeting was also being streamed online. He said that the invocation would be given by Pastor Chase Allen, with First Baptist Church of Umatilla, and that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by a veteran who was part of County staff. He introduced Mr. Brad Kaplan, Fixed Assets/Surplus Specialist for the Office of Procurement Services, noting that he had been with the County since November 2020. He explained that Mr. Kaplan served in the United States (U.S.) Army from September 15, 1998 through November 14, 2003, and that after completing his Basic and Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, he was assigned to Ft. Lewis, Washington and then Wiesbaden Army Airfield, Germany. He indicated that Mr. Kaplan served as a Personnel Sergeant in the S-1 with the 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division at Ft. Lewis, WA and the Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Corps Support Command in Germany. He added that while stationed in Germany, Mr. Kaplan was part of NATO training in Poland and Kosovo, and was later sent to Kuwait and Iraq with his unit as one of the first ground units to help establish operations for all other incoming units during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He thanked Mr. Kaplan for his service.
Pastor Allen gave the Invocation and Mr. Kaplan 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.
Agenda update
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager, said that there would not be an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) update and that the County did not have anything new to report at the current time. She added that additional documents were added to Tabs 6 and 13, that one applicant was removed from consideration for the boards and committees for Tabs 24 and 25, that Tab 26 was updated with the name selected by the committee, and that Tab 29 was added as an addendum to the consent agenda since it was first published.
EMPLOYEE Special recognition
Chief Jim Dickerson, Director for the Office of Fire Rescue, stated that on June 24, 2021, at 1:25 a.m., the south tower of the Surfside Condominium near the City of Miami collapsed with about 100 people inside of it. He indicated that Miami-Dade County Fire Rescue was quickly on scene and started requesting additional resources; furthermore, the State of Florida’s two search and rescue teams were requested. He added that they had also reached out to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to request additional federal and international teams, as well as the State of Florida fire chiefs to request the remaining state task force teams. He said that their Central Florida team, Task Force 4, received a mission for deployment to South Florida, and that they left the City of Orlando at 4:00 p.m., arrived in the City of Miami at 10:00 p.m., and were at the site at midnight. He showed an image of their first day at the site, noting that a building collapse was unprecedented for a state response, and commented that they assisted for seven days from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. each day, though they had to be on site at 10:00 p.m. each night to receive the briefing; additionally, at the end of the shift, it would take four to six hours to rehabilitate the equipment and prepare everything for the next operational period. He said that the conditions they endured were incredible, specifically the smell, the heat, and Tropical Storm Elsa impacting the area. He described the debris removal process and mentioned that Chief Robert Fickett, with Lake County Fire Rescue, was on that task force team and was their rigging expert. He detailed the rigging process, and he showed an image of Chief Fickett rigging a large piece of concrete, noting that it was done repeatedly and that Chief Fickett signaled the cranes for seven days. He mentioned that Task Force 4 left on July 3, 2021, and that the last Miami-Dade unit was on scene until the morning of July 23, 2021, noting that this concluded the recovery effort. He stated that on August 10, 2021, Senator Rick Scott recognized urban search and rescue (USAR) teams and the first responders on the Florida Senate floor. He then read the Congressional record from this recognition.
Commr. Parks thanked Chief Fickett for representing Lake County, and for the impact he had on the lives of their fellow Floridians.
sales surtax oversight committee report
Mr. Mike Rankin, with the Sales Surtax Oversight Committee, said that he had a copy of the committee report that should be included in the Board’s packets. He added that they conducted their public meeting on September 20, 2021, and the packet would include the findings of how the taxing jurisdictions and Cities were utilizing that funding.
Commr. Parks mentioned that this committee was thorough and asked many questions, noting that there was a significant amount of analysis and vetting.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of June 24, 2021 (Special Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Commr. Parks recognized Mr. David Serdar, a resident who had frequently spoken at Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meetings, who was recently killed in a car accident, noting that Mr. Serdar had participated at different levels of local government.
Ms. Mary Kay Rosinski, a former North Lake County Hospital District (NLCHD) Board member, expressed concerns for healthcare in north Lake County, noting that on September 9, 2021, the NLCHD Board voted to set the millage rate for the district at zero mills. She commented that this eliminated more than $10 million in annual funding for healthcare for uninsured, low-income residents, and she expressed concerns that this would also eliminate community clinics and their employees. She recalled that in 2016, the voters had voted to renew the NLCHD for 10 years, and she opined that reducing this millage rate to zero went against the will of the county voters. She indicated concerns that when individuals became sick, they would have to visit hospital emergency rooms (ERs) for help, which could postpone treatment. She also opined that without this funding to offset the cost of indigent care, hospitals would be forced to raise the cost of healthcare for everyone. She asked the BCC to develop an alternate plan to provide healthcare for those in the county who were less fortunate, and to consider how other counties provided this for their indigent population.
Ms. Patricia Bennett, a resident of the Town of Astatula, displayed slides from the NLCHD’s website and their certified public account’s (CPA) request for proposal (RFP) job description, which included the State of Florida legislation that founded the taxing district and currently governed them. She elaborated that it referenced the Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) for each county to pay for indigent emergency care and basic healthcare, as well as House Bill 258, Senate Bill 2016, and the voter referendum that extended the district to 2027. She recalled that on September 9, 2021, the NLCHD voted for zero millage, which included using surplus funds to finish the current year and part of the following year; however, she opined that this violated the laws on the NLCHD webpage. She questioned where they would go from there, noting that the low-income pool AHCA required healthcare to be provided by each county. She proposed a transition period and workshops to be initiated, similar to what other counties had done. She stated that she had worked in healthcare, and she offered to assist with this.
Commr. Parks said that the Board had briefly discussed this on the previous day at their Commission District 3 meeting in the City of Leesburg. He indicated that they would be having a workshop or an agenda item to discuss the effects on the BCC and the next steps and solutions.
Mr. Rick Ault, a resident of Lake County, displayed a Lake County Public Works Department proposal which proposed improvements on Lakeshore Drive. He commented that there was an overcapacity section of Lakeshore Drive which crossed a 10 year old bridge, noting that it was proposed as a four lane section. He opined that there was not funding to build a bridge, nor was there right of way to make this four lanes. He added that the proposal also showed three roundabouts further down Lakeshore Drive with a cost of $1 million each, relaying his understanding that there was not funding to construct roundabouts or address roadways. He also questioned why a roundabout was needed in front of open land where the current Land Development Regulations (LDR) only allowed about 25 homes to be built. He expressed concerns for road safety on Lakeshore Drive, noting that there were no shoulders or sidewalks, nor was there a safe way to get to the bike lane. He opined that this proposal did not have funding and was not workable.
Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, said that she was encouraged by the County’s new initiative with conservation design and smart growth. She showed a July 2021 map from the City of Leesburg, noting that there were 51 projects totaling 25,000 units, and that some of them were proposed for the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area (RPA). She opined that there were two processes for annexation, including the regular process of being contiguous to the city and compact, along with not creating enclaves. She added that the second process was with the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA), which did not require it to be contiguous or compact, and enclaves could be created. She relayed that the fourth rule in the Florida Statutes for annexations under the ISBA was that the area must be urban in character, and she questioned if the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA was urban in character. She showed a picture of the RPA and said that she was unable to find a map that overlaid the RPA on an aerial photograph of the ISBA. She presented a drawing showing this, and she asked the County to produce a map with this information. She thought that the regular annexation process was smarter than the ISBA process, which she opined seemed to be creating urban sprawl.
Commr. Parks said that maps could be provided, and that urban character could possibly be considered if the County was going to object to the annexation.
Ms. Shelley opined that for the upcoming community meeting, it would be nice to consider community planning for the RPAs. She also mentioned that the Hodges Reserve development had been postponed on the previous day by the City of Leesburg.
Commr. Parks announced that at the November 2, 2021 BCC meeting, there would be a presentation by Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner.
Commr. Campione suggested that they use the ISBA review process to notify any of the Cities that had an RPA in the ISBA agreement, and for the County to take a position that the RPA rendered those lands as not urban and therefore not able to be annexed under the noncontiguous provisions; additionally, they could ask the Cities to voluntarily remove the RPAs, and if not, the County could potentially pursue dispute resolution under the ISBA agreements. She added that if they could not reach resolution, then they could seek to terminate the agreements. She commented that in the process of doing this, they could potentially convince the Cities to negotiate a criteria or overlay for the RPA areas. She noted that if a development proposal came to the County, then they would have to honor the RPA; however, when a City annexed with an ISBA, the City’s position was that they were able to ignore the RPA. She opined that the County had to notify the Cities immediately and start this process.
Commr. Parks thought that the primary goal of the letter was that the County viewed the RPAs as rural, noting that annexations from a City were typically urban in nature and that this went against what the County had planned for the RPAs. He also mentioned an upcoming meeting with the city mayors.
Commr. Campione noted that some Cities did not have ISBAs, or they had an ISBA without an RPA. She thought that it could be addressed separately while also recognizing that it could be worked on simultaneously as part of the the overall planning session with the Cities.
Ms. Barker indicated that the County had not heard from several Cities yet, and staff would reach out to them again. She asked if the Board would like a separate letter to address this issue, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this.
Mr. Paul Curtis, a resident of the Preston Cove subdivision in the Lakeshore Drive corridor, addressed the projected construction of a subdivision near the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and County Road (CR) 561. He said that he had attended a meeting at the Clermont Arts and Recreation Center regarding this item, noting that it was mentioned that horses were available on this property for use by disabled individuals and veterans; however, he had never seen a sign for horses there. He expressed concerns for more septic tanks, overcrowding of schools, road damage, pollution of the aquifer, traffic congestion, length of time for construction, and potential damage to the Green Swamp.
Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a concerned citizen speaking via Zoom Webinar, expressed concerns for road safety, traffic accidents and rapid overcrowding in the county. She opined that they needed a moratorium on growth, and that they should look for creative solutions for funding.
Commr. Parks noted that there had been concerns about traffic and road safety. He indicated that the County was working hard to make those engineering solutions, but that they could only engineer a road to a certain level of safety. He opined that many crashes were due to people who were speeding or not paying attention, and he commented that addressing this cost a lot of money.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 6, as follows:
List of Warrants
Notice is hereby provided of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Southwest Florida Water Management District FY 2022 Items
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Fiscal Year 2022 Schedule of Meetings and a map depicting the District’s boundaries as required by Section 189.417, Florida Statutes.
FY 2022 Meeting Schedules for Community Development Districts
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Fiscal Year 2022 annual meeting schedules for the Lake Emma, Deer Island, Central Lake, Bella Collina, and Arlington Ridge Community Development Districts, in accordance with Chapter 189.015, Florida Statutes.
City of Minneola Ordinance 2021-10
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 2021-10 from the City of Minneola.
City of Groveland Items
Notice is hereby provided of having received the FY 22 Annual Budget for the City of Groveland’s Community Redevelopment Agency, Ordinance 2021-42 for adoption of the City Budget for fiscal year October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, and Resolution 2021-52 adopting the budget for fiscal year October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022.
City of Groveland Ordinance 2021-44
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Ordinance 2021-44 adopting the City of Groveland’s CRA Budget Amendment for FY 2021 per Florida Statute 163.387(6).
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 17, with the addition of Tab 29, as follows:
PROCLAMATIONS
Recommend approval of Proclamation 2021-153 designating the week of October 29, 2021 - November 5, 2021 as Mobility Week in Lake County.
Recommend approval of Proclamation 2021-152 honoring John Jackson's induction into the Citrus Hall of Fame, per Chairman Parks.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Recommend approval and execution of the Region 12 Central Florida Area Workforce Development Consortium Agreement. There is no fiscal impact.
Recommend approval to conduct a Closed Session of the Board of County Commissioners on November 16, 2021, to discuss Richard Pitts and Patricia Pitts, et. al. vs. Lake County, Florida. There is no fiscal impact.
Approval to conduct a Closed Session of the Board of County Commissioners to be held on November 2, 2021, to discuss Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC, et al. vs. Lake County, Florida, which is pending in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, Case number 2020-CA-001656.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Procurement Services
Recommend approval to advertise an ordinance to amend Section 2-222, Lake County Code, entitled Local Vendor Preference, to ensure the local vendor preference program does not apply to projects funded by the State of Florida.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Emergency Medical Services
Recommend approval to:
1. Purchase ambulances and related equipment from ETR (Sanford, FL), Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI), Henry Schein (Melville, NY), and Ten-8 Fire and Safety (Sanford, FL) for the Offices of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Fire Rescue.
2. Authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact for EMS is $2,886,654 (expenditure) and for Fire Rescue is $316,527 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.
Fire Rescue
Recommend approval to use State of Florida Contract 25100000-19-1 pricing to purchase a replacement brush truck from Mullinax Ford of Central Florida, Inc. (Apopka, FL) for the Office of Fire Rescue, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $111,350.02 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 budget. Commission District 4.
Planning and Zoning
Recommend approval of a voluntary revocation of a Conditional Use Permit identified as CUP-18-05-9 in the name of Ricky's Tree Service. There is no fiscal impact.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Housing and Human Services
Recommend approval to amend Contract # PPZ60-LBOCC 20-21 with Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, Inc.
The fiscal impact is $182,837 (revenue / expense - 100 percent grant funded) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.
Recommend approval for the County Manager to execute the grant application, amendments, and other documents related to the final application for CDBG-CV funds (Resolution 2021-154). The fiscal impact is estimated at $653,511 (revenue).
Recommend:
1. Approval for the Chairman to execute the CDBG HOME-ARP Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. Adoption of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-155 adding $2,060,197 to the CDBG HOME-ARP Grant Fund.
The fiscal impact is $2,060,197 (revenue / expense – 100 percent grant funded).
Parks and Trails
Recommend approval and execution of the Interlocal Agreement with the Lake County School Board regarding overflow parking for the Minneola Athletic Complex at Grassy Lake Elementary School. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Public Works
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 21-0538 for traffic signal maintenance and repair to Traffic Control Devices, LLC (Altamonte Springs, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $200,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the fiscal year budget.
Recommend approval to accept the final plat for Sanctuary Phase 1A and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Sanctuary Phase 1A final plat, located south of Clermont. The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 1.
presentation by florida department of transportation
Mr. Anil Sharma, Project Manager for HNTB Corporation and representing Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, presented information related to Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise’s current and future projects in Lake County. He showed a map with the following turnpike projects in Lake County: six miles of widening off the turnpike mainline from four lanes to eight lanes between State Road (SR) 50 through the City of Minneola interchange, noting that there would be a “Welcome to Lake County” sign for northbound travelers; widening for seven miles beginning in March 2022; three miles of widening between Obrien Road to U.S. 27 north beginning construction in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026; and resurfacing for eight miles of southbound lanes to the north limits of Lake County. He indicated that the four projects had a total program cost of $570 million, and he displayed the cost for each project. He indicated that Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise had a great relationship with Lake County and that this helped them deliver the project more quickly. He said that all 24 miles in Lake County would have new pavement, and that Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, made sure that each bridge that they were constructing had accommodation for pedestrian facilities. He stated that two roundabouts had also been added for safety and reduced speed, opining that these were the two most important features of the projects.
Ms. Stephanie Eisenberg, Community Outreach Specialist for WSP and representing Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, provided an update on the Florida’s Turnpike widening project from SR 50 in the City of Clermont, mile post 273, to Hancock Road in the City of Minneola, mile post 279. She explained that the project was widening the roadway from two to four lanes in each direction for a total of eight lanes, noting the following as part of this project: replacing CR 438 and CR 455 bridges, as well as the turnpike bridges over Jones Road, Old Highway 50 and Blackstill Lake Road; replacing the West Orange Trail bridge over the turnpike; constructing a new bridge at Fosgate Road, which would eventually connect to the Citrus Park Grove extension project; install new electronic tolling gantries and buildings; remove the existing cash toll booths at SR 50 in the City of Clermont; and the project was estimated to be completed in mid-2026. She then reviewed the following activities currently happening on the project for the CR 438 bridge closure: on September 26, 2021, the contractor began the first bridge closure; the bridge would be closed for approximately 12 months as it was demolished and reconstructed; during the bridge closure, traffic was being detoured to SR 50; and full closures of the turnpike and lane closures also began at the end of September 2021, commenting that these closures were primarily held overnight and were announced in advanced in their weekly traffic advisory. She provided the following information about the upcoming CR 455 bridge closure: was anticipated to begin in Spring 2022; was anticipated to be closed for approximately 12 months as it was demolished, then reconstructed; full turnpike closures and lane closures, as well as nighttime work, would be part of this closure; two roundabouts would also be built on each side of the CR 455 bridge; landscaping and lighting would be included as part of the roundabout’s construction; and a standalone landscaping project for the rest of the project area would begin design one year after roadway construction had been completed, contingent on funding availability. She discussed the communication regarding these closures, noting that they would continue a number of community outreach strategies including items such as the following: distributing construction alerts on their website and social media; door to door notifications or mailing lists; reaching out to businesses and stakeholders; community meetings; and partnering with partner agencies and public information officers to ensure that information could be provided to stakeholders. She added that they were using social media to provide construction and project updates, and she displayed links to access their social media platforms, additionally, individuals could access their website at FloridasTurnpike.com.
Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for what they did and noted that this project would affect all of Lake County as it moved up to Interstate 75. He added that it was currently the largest road project in Lake County, and he thought that it would make that section of the turnpike safer.
Commr. Campione said that this was exciting and that it was a good project.
public hearing: RESOLUTION 2021-156 FOR VACATION PETITION
Mr. Schneider presented vacation petition #1261, noting that the applicant was Mr. Joseph Clayton, with Shoreline Ranch, represented by Ms. Meredith Nagel, an attorney. He indicated that the proposed location was northeast of Lake Dalhousie in the City of Umatilla area, within Commission District 5. He displayed a map of the area and specified that it was north of Bill Collins Road and south of Wiygul Road, and he showed a close aerial view. He explained that the area in red and below it was previously vacated in 2007, and that there was language indicating that the title company for the owner felt it was not included; therefore, this was why they wanted to repeat the vacation and ensure they had clear title. He indicated that it would vacate any interest in ingress, egress, utilities and drainage; additionally, staff recommended approval.
Ms. Tina Smith, with Meredith Nagel P.A. and representing the applicant, confirmed that this was a title issue because a portion on their property was not vacated according to their underwriter. She opined that it was of no benefit to anyone, including the public, and said that they did not see any harm in having it vacated.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2021-156 to vacate a public ingress, egress and utility easement located south of Wiygul Road and north of Bill Collins Road. The closest municipality is the City of Umatilla.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:06 a.m. for five minutes.
public hearing: SPECIAL MASTER AGREEMENt
Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, presented Tab 20. He said that this item was a quasi-public hearing and was advertised pursuant to the LDR, as well as State statutes. He recalled that this item was related to a public hearing heard earlier in the current summer which was identified as Rezoning Case #RZ-20-39-2, Lake Nellie Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD), noting that the case was located on the east side of Lakeshore Drive within Commission District 2. He added that the entire tract size was 117 acres, with 102 acres being high and dry, commenting that the request at that time was to rezone the 117 acres to PUD to accommodate a residential subdivision. He displayed a map of the subject property, noting that the zoning was identified as Urban Residential (R-6), and the future land use (FLU) was identified as Rural Transition, which allowed up to one dwelling unit per net acre, with open space requirements. He said that the BCC had recommended denial of this project and that the final denial order was developed on July 6, 2021; furthermore, after July 15, 2021, Lake Nellie LLC filed a petition for relief under the Florida Statutes and the LDR. He said that since that time, the parties of the County and the applicant had negotiated a settlement agreement, and some changes were made to the original concept plan. He summarized that all 102 units were proposed to be moved to the west side of the property, and that the third parcel on the eastern side would be used for open space or conservation areas. He added that the internal roadways had been redesigned and that the subdivision entrance would be landscaped to accommodate and provide a more rural feel, and that there was the requirement of a distributed wastewater system incorporated into the plan. He stated that here were also improvements along Lakeshore Drive, and that the applicant would negotiate the contract of purchase of an additional parcel to the south, which would help for an overall plan for the area on that end of Lakeshore Drive. He showed the original concept plan and the proposed new development plan, and he relayed the following requested actions: the special master agreement; the adoption of the rezoning ordinance; and to split the fees of the special master.
Commr. Parks explained that this item was being presented by the applicant as a settlement through Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, which was a process that they were entitled to in order to present a solution, settlement or compromise because they were denied at the previous hearing. He clarified that this was not something that the Board had brought forward, and he noted that staff had recommended approval for this settlement because they had also recommended approval of the application when it was first heard.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney representing the applicant, said that the applicant had considered Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, as opposed to going to circuit court. She summarized that this option allowed the Board to do a mediation hearing with the goal of trying to resolve the dispute, and that litigation was held in advance until the Board went through this process. She said that the applicant started making changes to the design and was listening to what individuals had said at the hearings. She added that they also committed to doing the things that they had agreed to such as the Onsyte wastewater system, and that they had negotiated with County staff on the settlement agreement. She indicated that this was the normal process and that it was not behind the scenes, and she opined that some residents had said that if the Board approved the settlement agreement, then they would have given carte blanche to any other development on this corridor; however, she opined that this was untrue. She indicated that each individual who participated in the public hearing was sent a copy of the settlement agreement, noting that it indicated that another piece of property would come back through the entire development review process and be reviewed as any other zoning petition would be. She added that the applicant had included a proposed design for this which did not show any development in the Green Swamp piece. She stated that the County had sent out 75 notices to everyone who appeared at the hearings regarding the Lake Nellie project, apprising them of the Chapter 70.51, Florida Statutes proceeding and giving them a certain amount of time to determine if they wanted to be a participate. She elaborated that out of the 75 individuals, only approximately seven people indicated that they wanted to participate; however, on the day of the hearing, several other people had joined. She opined that legally they did not have standing and should not have been a participant, and she also stated that there were a number of letters received by the Board from local residents and members of the business community who knew the family that owned the subject property, knew the product they produced, or had Pillar Homes design their current homes.
Mr. Alex Stringfellow, a planner representing the applicant, showed a map of the area, noting that there were preexisting platted single family neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the subject property. He indicated that the Rural Transition, Urban Low and Rural FLUs in the areas were set up to provide the transition heading south toward the Green Swamp, and he relayed that one of the major transitions in the Rural Transition FLU which came after the preexisting single family neighborhoods was the negotiated open space type, noting that as one provided more open space, the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) indicated that they could build more units. He stated that the most amount of open space that one was asked to give was 50 percent of their upland land, and then they could build one unit per acre. He opined that Lakeshore Drive was relatively rural/suburban in nature, noting that it was drivable to work or grocery stores; therefore, they would consider it a suburban or ex-rural type context regardless of the FLU, based on looking at the site. He commented that there would be a significant amount of area that would either be untouched as open space, or provided to the community as an amenity, noting that there would be native landscaping with a passive and rural feel. He mentioned preserved land and said that about 32 acres on the east side of the property would be untouched, which would provide habitat and a view for adjacent properties. He said that because not everyone could be on the lake and because there were some existing accesses and boat ramps to the south that they wanted to maintain, they wanted to be good neighbors and were trying to find ways to share the lake view by utilizing the topography, and ensuring that there were view sheds between houses that were not on the lakefront to have a view of Lake Nellie. He then reviewed the following development highlights: mix of lot sizes, noting that they were proposing 85 foot wide lots and a few 75 foot wide lots; utilizing natural topography in the design; sinuous roads; 50 percent open space; significant existing vegetation would be preserved; and the large lot design fit the character of the area including garden, lakefront and executive homes. He displayed an overview of the plan, noting that off Lakeshore Drive, they tried to align the access way with an existing road across the street. He reviewed the plan, noting that they included a centralized green space with 75 foot wide rear loaded houses. He commented that in the back, they connected to Vista Grande which was an existing neighborhood, noting that they wanted to connect there for safety, access and fire. He added that to the east past Vista Grande were 32 acres of untouched land which included some wetlands, some wetland buffers and some scrub trees. He summarized that they had a decent mix of lots, a sinuous road design, and a good level of connectivity; additionally, they anticipated the wastewater treatment area to be at the top left area of the plan.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Andrew Bailey, a neighbor of the subject property, said that he had 15 acres with cows on the east end of the subject property. He questioned if there would be no development east of Royal Vista Road, and he relayed concerns for flooding. He indicated a concern for there being 102 home sites, opining that the roads could not tolerate it and that the schools had many children. He opined that there was a significant amount of wildlife east of Vista Grande, and he expressed concerns for wildlife displacement if it was developed. He then asked about the difference between R-6 and PUD zoning.
Commr. Parks explained that R-6 would entail being up to six units per acre as a zoning entitlement, and that a PUD was not straight zoning and allowed them to do different things than R-6 would allow.
Mr. Bailey inquired if this included commercial development or multifamily dwellings.
Commr. Parks clarified that it could, but in this case the applicant had not proposed this; furthermore, it would be prohibited.
Mr. Bailey questioned why the property was not being left as R-6.
Commr. Campione said that they would have an actual plan with conditions versus just a straight zoning, noting that with a straight zoning there was no plan until someone brought a plat forward, and that it would be an administrative approval rather than a public hearing.
Mr. McClendon indicated that the Comp Plan designation of the property was Rural Transition, and that when one developed at the alternative of one dwelling unit per acre, they were required by the Comp Plan to rezone to PUD.
Mr. Bailey opined that the sensitive Green Swamp area seemed to be less sensitive currently, and opined that residents did not want to see this change.
Mr. McClendon reiterated that the rezoning ordinance only specified single family dwelling units, and that there was no proposed commercial or multifamily development.
Commr. Parks opined that many orange groves were in the area and that since people lost everything to the great freezes, the County had previously given a higher entitlement for economic value on their land.
Mr. Alan Griffin, a resident on CR 561, relayed his understanding that most projects in the area had been on large lots, and he opined that it should be happening in this case as well. He opined that the project would involve enlarging Lakeshore Drive, and he expressed concerns for more traffic using that route. He asked the Board to keep country as country.
Mr. Jeff Blazek, a resident on Poinciana Drive near Sawmill Lake, opined that water from the project would drain into their lake. He also expressed concerns for traffic and safety on Lakeshore Drive.
Mr. Ault quoted the Comp Plan amendment in the settlement agreement as “The County shall process the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning in an expedited manner.” He said that he had discussed with the applicant about doing something different, having a lower density on Lake Nellie, and having a corridor proposal to finish development on Lakeshore Drive at a lower density. He relayed his understanding that many people had attended the hearing without standing because they received a notification from Commissioner Parks the night before the hearing which indicated that they needed to attend. He said that Commissioner Parks did not attend, opining that Commissioner Parks had taken the meeting away from the Commissioner that had scheduled the meeting. He opined that the meeting was only a presentation of what was being shown at the current meeting, and he indicated concerns for the development being carte blanche because Section 5.B of the settlement agreement said “at an unspecified density.” He also expressed concerns for changing the Comp Plan and for an agreement to give an expedited Comp Plan amendment up to Rural Transition so that the applicant could request 50 percent open space and 50 percent density, opining that there were two other lower densities for PUDs in the Comp Plan.
Ms. Betsy Shepherd, a resident of the Vista Grande community, indicated concern and opposition to more density and development because she felt that it was a risk against the County’s goals for safety, quality of life and protecting natural resources. She encouraged the Board to protect and conserve the county’s natural resources and to provide for an environment where they had resistance of high density.
Mr. Scott Shepherd, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns for urban sprawl, and he opined that residents along the Lakeshore Drive corridor would say that they did not want increased traffic. He also opined that if this project was approved, they would have to catch up on their utilities, roadways and schools for the next few years. He opined that because most of the land was not purchased for expansion of the road and the bridge, this would be a bottleneck and a long term issue. He expressed concerns for construction and for degrading the road further, and he encouraged the BCC to consider the residents along the corridor.
Ms. Stephanie Dukes, a resident of Lake County, questioned the impact to schools in the area, and she opined that there had been drainage and flooding issues. She asked about the agreement for the parcel to the east of the subject property, and if there would not be any development there. She opined that they saw little wildlife there currently, and she expressed concern for noise on the road, relaying her understanding that the County would not provide a sound barrier. She commented that there were no sidewalks, and opined that the land was built for a rural area. She opined that it was dangerous, and she asked the Board to consider these items.
Mr. Neil Fedorovich, a resident speaking via Zoom Webinar, relayed an understanding that the applicant had presented a traffic study, and he believed that the study was done during the COVID-19 pandemic, opining that COVID-19 made many changes to life. He thought that numbers showed that Lake County residents were returning back to several activities and going back on the roads, specifically Lakeshore Drive. He asked that they review the validity and integrity of the traffic study for current day traffic, and for the Board to review a traffic study that was not tied to the builders. He also noted that the homes showed lake access but not a lake view, and he asked what was to prevent the homeowners or their guests from traveling into the lake, opining that this could bring liability to the County.
Mr. Keith Cartwright, Acting President of the Vista Grande Homeowners Association (HOA) who spoke via Zoom Webinar, asked the Board to not move forward with this item. He expressed concerns that it felt like residents did not have an opportunity to speak on a Zoom Webinar meeting with the applicant, and he recalled that the initial plan was on the three plots of land. He stated that he appreciated the thought on conservation and having no access to Vista Grande, but he said that they were still placing 102 homes on the existing two plots of the property, which he opined was dense. He felt that residents did not have much say at the mediations, and he believed that the road congestion would continue to increase and that the roadways would continue to deteriorate on Lakeshore Drive. He opined that they needed the County to invest in the improvement of the Lakeshore Drive corridor before considering development beyond what had been presented on the current day, and asked the Board not to let this happen.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Bonifay commented that there had not been another traffic study filed by any opponent to this project. She recalled that there had been two public hearings and that residents had been given notice about them taking the administrative appeal. She mentioned that they had a concurrency review by the Lake County School Board which was included in the original application, and that the Comp Plan did not define this as density. She clarified that there was not a Comp Plan amendment being requested with this case, and she opined that it fit in the Rural Transition FLU. She noted that the Comp Plan required that the zoning be a PUD because of the Rural Transition FLU, opining that the current zoning would give the applicant much more density; however, it would not be compatible with the Comp Plan. She indicated that the only project that was improving the road was the burdens and conditions on the applicant to resurface, expand, add shoulders, and install sidewalks. She opined that the application was consistent, compatible and met concurrency.
Mr. Stringfellow commented that there was an existing access way to the subject property which was a clay road and rural in character, and they planned to retain this, noting that it would eliminate access to the lake. He said that for drainage, they would calculate the volume of rainwater and stormwater that left their site currently and the impact of development on the site, ensuring that they would capture that volume so that no additional water would leave the site. He also indicated that stormwater regulations required the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to grant a permit. He mentioned that the Rural Transition FLU was one unit per acre, with the caveat of 50 percent open space, noting that most homes in the area had 65 to 75 foot lots; however, most of the proposed homes were 75 to 85 foot lots at one unit per acre. He reiterated that 50 percent of the space would not be in the private lots and would be set aside in perpetuity. He commented that they were centralizing the septic system which would be an improvement to the existing septic tanks there, noting that it would let them treat the water at a higher quality.
Mr. Mohammad Abdallah, with Traffic and Mobility Consultants and representing the applicant, said that they had done traffic studies for this project and had submitted an initial traffic study which was reviewed by staff, consistent with Lake County’s requirements for these applications. He indicated that they had received comments and that they had updated and revised the traffic study to address those comments, and then had resubmitted the study, noting that staff reviewed and approved it. He said that some issues were raised and that they had conducted additional traffic studies, along with submitting supplemental information which was beyond what was typically required. He indicated that the traffic studies were done according to the County’s code, and he reiterated that the project was committing to make some significant improvements to Lakeshore Drive including shoulders, turn lanes at the entrance to the subject property, and sidewalks. He remarked that State statutes did not necessarily give the purview to make zoning decisions based on if there is capacity on a road; however, an applicant may have to make improvements equivalent to their impact, which the applicant was doing. He added that if the project was approved, then there would be another traffic study associated with the engineering of the site.
Ms. Bonifay asked the Board to approve the settlement agreement, noting that it was a proposal and did not mean that it was done. She also indicated that the agreement said that other properties were not presumed to be approved; furthermore, she indicated that this was not contract zoning. She clarified that the agreement was saying that if another project came forward on that corridor, it would go through the same process as everything else; however, there would not be a delay by the applicant coming in and making a proposal and the Board hearing it. She indicated that these would be advertised and open, reiterating that there was no presumption, nor was there a contract.
Commr. Campione asked about the land use designation for the property further south that Ms. Bonifay had just referred to. She also asked if the subject property was already designated as Rural Transition.
Mr. McClendon believed that the property to the south was split between Rural and being in the Green Swamp; therefore, the plan would need to be reworked.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that this was the old plan and that there was not anything in the Green Swamp.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that the Lake Nellie property on the staff report had an FLU of Rural Transition.
Commr. Campione inquired that if a PUD was not granted, how many lots could be developed on that property.
Mr. McClendon replied that the base density was one unit per five acres and that it would possibly be between 20 and 22 units.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that they could still have a PUD and have one unit per two acres, or half of the number, noting that they were not bound by one unit per acre.
Mr. McClendon confirmed this.
Commr. Campione opined that the plan was a significant improvement over the initial layout, indicating that she appreciated the setback off the road, the proposed improvements on Lakeshore Drive, the sidewalks, and the dedication of additional open space on the east side. She thought that this was the type of development that they should be looking for throughout the County for better planning purposes; however, she expressed concerns that Lakeshore Drive had many safety issues, noting that improving one part of it did not address issues along the corridor. She indicated that she also appreciated the comments about keeping the area relatively rural.
Commr. Blake said that when looking at the map of the area, the neighborhood above the subject property had a free view from the subject property owners for many years. He did not see where the neighborhood was providing any buffer to the property line, opining that the consideration that the subject plan was giving to the neighbors had not been given to the subject property owners. He expressed concerns for individuals moving to a dense neighborhood and then indicating issues when the property adjacent to them wanted to do the same thing, and he asked for them to be sensitive to the property rights of a family that was there before them.
Commr. Blake made a motion to approve Tab 20, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Commr. Smith indicated his understanding that the Board was here to approve the settlement agreement.
Ms. Marsh clarified that it would be the settlement agreement and the rezoning ordinance.
Commr. Smith said that he liked the one unit per acre designation, but that he did not like the settlement agreement.
Commr. Shields expressed that he had to look out for the safety of residents on Lakeshore Drive, opining that it was an issue and would only worsen.
Commr. Parks opined that the site plan was significantly better than what it was previously and that it was what they needed to be striving for in the county. He said that he had hoped that the process would have moved along further with addressing his concern with the other parcel, noting that they had to be careful with contract zoning. He mentioned that if there was a way to work this out where there could be assurance that it would be developed at its current entitlement, it would have made this more palatable for him. He clarified that this item was a proposal that the applicant had made to the County to settle so that they would not sue the County in circuit court, and he clarified that he did not keep Commissioner Shields out of any meeting, noting that any Commissioner had the ability to participate in meetings and work through this with the applicant. He said that he was not currently able to recommend approval for the settlement agreement, and opined that there could possibly be some continuation of this before it went to circuit court.
Commr. Campione noted that the property to the south was not the zoning case before the Board currently, and she was unsure how to link the two properties together legally. She indicated that she understood the idea of creating certainty for the area.
Ms. Bonifay relayed her understanding that the other piece of property was included at the suggestion of Mr. Ault who had represented that it had support from two Commissioners based on his communication with them, and she relayed her understanding that Mr. Ault was said to be the architect of the new proposal to the point where it was indicated to her client who they should have as a lawyer and planner. She expressed concerns for this, noting that this was why she went forward with the Chapter 70.51, Florida Statutes proceeding and appeal, commenting that this property was something to include. She stated that the applicant would be amicable with removing that portion so that the only item before the Board would be Lake Nellie. She added that they would need to redo the ordinance so that it would be consistent with the proposed settlement agreement, and if the Board moved to continue this item and her client came back with another piece of property, it would go through a process and stand on its own merit.
Ms. Marsh reiterated that this was a Chapter 70.51, Florida Statutes special master settlement agreement proposal, and that the Board had the option to approve it, deny it or modify it. She stated that they could remove paragraph 5.B, which addressed the secondary property, and that the remainder of the agreement would remain in place for the 102 lots and all of the items discussed for the Lake Nellie property; additionally, the ordinance would not have to change because it was specific to Lake Nellie. She added that if the Board denied this item, it would go to the next stage of the special master process which would be a formal hearing in front of the administrative law judge, at which point the applicant and the County would present their evidence and testimony, and the judge would make a recommended order. She elaborated that the order would come back to the Board and they would be in the same position to accept, reject or modify the order. She stated that if the Board still denied it, then the applicant had the option of going to circuit court, in which case a circuit judge would make the decision as to whether all the parameters of the zoning case had been met. She clarified that the Board could modify the agreement and not have to postpone it.
Commr. Campione asked if the applicant could submit an application for the southern piece of property on its own.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this and explained that the point of paragraph B in this agreement was to try to address the concerns about other developers coming in and the residents continually having to go through this process; therefore, the applicant had agreed to put it under contract and bring it through to get some final resolution to the remaining properties. She clarified that the property stood on its own and that the agreement did not set a specific density because the County could not do this; however, the Board could remove this paragraph and the applicant could choose to exercise their contract rights and purchase rights to buy or not buy it.
Commr. Campione inquired if the property could be brought through the process while the subject property was pending or going through the appeal process, and Ms. Marsh said this was correct. Commissioner Campione then commented that the properties could not be linked because it would be contract zoning, but it could come through the process. She reiterated her concerns for Lakeshore Drive and opined that if there was a settlement reached, it needed to be a lower number of lots to take the impact off the road. She thought that it would be nice if the neighbors could come up with a compromise that everyone could be amicable with.
Commr. Parks stated his agreement with these comments.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board denied the following items: a Special Master Agreement under Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, with Lake Nellie Crossing, LLC to resolve a land use dispute; adoption of the Rezoning Ordinance attached to the special master agreement; and payment for 50 percent of the total Special Master fees.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: ordinance 2021-44 REPEALING
HAUL PERMIT
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REPEALING SECTION 18-2, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED HAUL PERMIT; PROVIDING THAT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED PERMITS SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; 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 address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2021-44 repealing Section 18-2, Lake County Code, entitled Haul Permit.
regular agenda
ordinance for distribution of free
publications
Mr. Glen Guzman, Director of the Office of Code Enforcement, presented an ordinance which would create Section 14-2, Lake County Code to be entitled Distribution of Free Publication, explaining that it revised the method of the notification by the publisher, and he requested approval to advertise the ordinance. He mentioned that on September 28, 2021, the Board requested additional review of the ordinance and had provided direction at that time. He commented that staff had made modifications that would require the publisher, through its circulation department and manager, to acknowledge the no distribution request, noting that this would allow the publisher to facilitate the appropriate method of notification, adding that the revision also removed a prior burden and expense of the mailings.
Commr. Blake mentioned that he had spoken with staff at the North Lake Outpost newspaper, noting that they were happy with the changes.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to advertise an Ordinance creating Section 14-2, Lake County Code, to be entitled Distribution of Free Publications, to provide a process where private property owners and tenants may opt out of such distribution.
discussion regarding comprehensive plan
amendments
Mr. McClendon mentioned that in August 2021, the Board directed staff to research other jurisdictions and municipalities in the State of Florida that required a supermajority vote for land use decisions, such as Comp Plan amendments and rezoning requests, specifically in environmentally sensitive areas. He commented that staff had identified seven other Counties and Cities that required supermajority votes for all land use decisions, which included Collier County, Sarasota County, the Village of Wellington, the City of Lauderhill, the Town of Loxahatchee Groves, the Town of Ponce Inlet, and the City of Sarasota, adding that the City of Winter Park was also considering this; however, he observed that none of them regarded environmentally sensitive areas only. He proposed a new policy requiring a supermajority vote for Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning designation changes for properties within environmentally sensitive areas for the Board’s consideration, discussion and direction.
Commr. Shields asked what Seminole County required a supermajority for.
Mr. McClendon replied that it included an internal policy discussion, opining that it was not effective yet, but that they were considering it.
Commr. Shields expressed concerns about the land uses easily changing, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. He opined that requiring a supermajority could persuade the Board to come to an agreement, and that it could help preserve the Green Swamp area currently and in the future.
Commr. Campione commented that changes had rarely been approved to the Comp Plan in the Green Swamp area, and opined that this was an issue that did not need to be addressed. She recalled only one time that she had experienced this type of change, and she opined that the Board was conscientious about those decisions. She acknowledged that there was pressure on the municipalities, but she opined that there was not a need for the County to add a supermajority vote requirement.
Commr. Blake agreed with Commissioner Campione, and mentioned that he appreciated the discussion. He commented that the County already had a high threshold of regulations, opining that it would be redundant to add a supermajority vote requirement when there were many processes already in place.
Commr. Smith opined that it was a moot point, also opining that if it took a simple majority to approve a supermajority, then it would take a simple majority to disapprove a supermajority.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, a concerned citizen, commented that he had counted the number of pages of new criteria within each designated area, and that the Wekiva River Basin area had an additional 25 pages of criteria in order to comply. He mentioned that there had not been one new development in the Wekiva River Basin in the past several years, adding that there were some vested projects; furthermore, he said that there were many residents who lost their land rights because of the new rules. He remarked that there were 10 extra pages of rules and regulations for the Green Swamp area, and that property owners there had to pay for experts to help them make changes to their property. He commented that the vast majority of properties in that area were in rural designations, and that the residents’ ability to do anything with it was restricted, opining that there was not a need for a supermajority vote requirement.
Commr. Parks explained that a new policy had been drafted, and that the Board would determine if it would be advertised and if the change would be made. He expressed his support of more protection in the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Green Swamp, noting that they were of critical concern. He mentioned that he was not sure about the language in the new policy, opining that it should be more specific with land use categories.
Commr. Campione asked if certain designations in the Green Swamp would be higher protection areas, noting that there were higher levels in the Wekiva River Basin.
Commr. Parks indicated that he also wanted to look at some areas that could be threatened by high growth in those areas. He pointed out that this was a starting point, and commented that if it could not be worked out, then he would not vote for it.
Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a concerned citizen, opined that changes to the Comp Plan should be difficult to make, and that they should require a supermajority vote. She mentioned that there were concessions made to allow Counties to benefit from their wetlands, and that they did not take a complete loss from changes from the Comp Plan in the Green Swamp area. She opined that the other Counties and municipalities who had supermajority requirements were known for trying to preserve their natural areas. She said that there were already provisions in the Comp Plan for changes that would benefit land owners, and that a supermajority should be required for something that has a large impact on Lake County. She opined that it would show that the Commissioners cared about the citizens’ concerns by providing a supermajority vote for a large impact item.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Shields commented that he would add any sizeable parcel bordering a lake to the policy, opining that it would show that the Board was concerned about water quality in the lakes.
Commr. Campione expressed interest in reaching out to the Cities, trying to do comprehensive planning, creating wildlife corridors, and other meaningful items that would have a large impact and would send the right signal. She opined that there did not need to be a supermajority vote, and that it was only symbolic. She opined that decisions should be based on a majority vote, and that the Board made good, conscientious decisions.
Commr. Parks commented that reaching out the Cities showed that the County cared, and he hoped that a countywide conservation plan would be the result.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there were cycles of people being elected, but she opined that it would be inappropriate to require a supermajority vote.
Commr. Parks concluded that there was not enough support to move forward with the policy.
appointment to the elder affairs coordinating council
Commr. Shields relayed that Mr. George Rada served on some other committees and that he attended, noting that the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council had some quorum issues.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. George Rada as an At-Large Member to the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council to complete an unexpired term ending January 31, 2022 and to serve an additional two-year term ending January 31, 2024.
appointments to the affordable housing advisory committee
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following appointments to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee for members to serve two-year terms ending November 30, 2023, and adoption and execution of associated Resolution 2021-157: Mr. George Rada as a resident who is a representative of those areas of labor engaged in home building in connection with affordable housing; Mr. Stephen T. Smith as a resident who is actively engaged as a not-for-profit provider of affordable housing, and corresponding ethics waiver; Mr. Michael A. Stephens as a resident that is a concerned citizen for affordable housing; and Mr. Mike Taylor as a resident who represents employers within the jurisdiction.
2021 women’s hall of fame inductee ratification
Commr. Parks said that this item was a request to ratify Ms. Irene O'Malley as the 2021 Women's Hall of Fame inductee as selected by the Women's Hall of Fame Committee. He indicated that he had received some emails about Ms. Micki Blackburn potentially being a nominee, and he opined that Ms. Irene O’Malley was great and should be nominated as well. He asked if there was any interest from the BCC to examine the policies so that there could possibly be some flexibility where on occasion, two nominees could potentially be selected.
Commr. Campione commented that it could possibly be nominees from different regions, or there could possibly not be any inductees in some years. She said that the Board could potentially modify the policy so that there would be more flexibility.
Commr. Blake stated that unless the Board wanted to have it be something that the BCC did, he thought that it was best to respect the decision of the committee.
Commr. Smith inquired if multiple candidates were reviewed by the committee and if they selected one.
Ms. Barker explained that 20 candidates were nominated and that the selection committee reviewed all of the applications and had selected a top three; furthermore, they voted, and Ms. O’Malley received the most votes. She said that the policy currently stated that only one inductee could be inducted per year, and if the Board chose to do something differently in the current year, they would need to postpone this item and bring it back with a policy change.
Commr. Smith agreed with Commissioner Blake that they needed to respect the committee, noting that it was a high honor to be selected. He expressed concerns for diluting this honor, and he remarked that Ms. Blackburn could be nominated in the following year.
Commr. Parks said that he would like to examine the policy to possibly give some flexibility on occasion.
Commr. Campione reiterated that she would be in support of reexamining the policy from the standpoint of giving that committee flexibility, such as if it was a close vote and if there were more than one nominees from different regions of the county. She added that there could also be other circumstances which could justify why they might want to have someone who was nominated in a year not have to wait too long to be selected. She added that telling the committee that they did not have to make a nomination was an option that should be in the policy.
Commr. Smith indicated that he was amicable with reexamining the policy.
Ms. Barker summarized that the Board wanted to bring the policy back in November 2021 to consider.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to ratify Ms. Irene O'Malley as the 2021 Women's Hall of Fame inductee as selected by the Women's Hall of Fame Committee.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – district 1
WATERSKI TOURNAMENT
Commr. Shields said that he was asked to speak at a recent waterski tournament.
WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY EVENT
Commr. Shields stated that he had attended a White Cane Safety Day event and had read the proclamation that the County had approved.
SOUTH LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST
Commr. Shields commented that he had attended a South Lake Chamber of Commerce breakfast with the Chair of the International Waterski and Wakeboard Federation (IWWF).
VISITING VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 5277
Commr. Shields relayed that he had visited the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 5277 in the City of Clermont, noting that it was their 75th anniversary and that they rededicated the building.
FOUR CORNERS CONSTITUENT MEETING
Commr. Shields remarked that he had a Four Corners constituent meeting on the previous Saturday at Cagan Crossings Community Library, noting that 60 individuals had attended.
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
visit to city of tallahassee
Commr. Smith commented that he visited the City of Tallahassee and met with the new SJRWMD Executive Director. He added that he had also met with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) liaison and had handed him a letter for the City of Tavares.
broadband committee
Commr. Smith mentioned that while he was in the City of Tallahassee, he had talked to some people about broadband, and now that he was no longer with Lumen, he had been asked to be on the broadband committee for the Florida Association of Counties (FAC). He elaborated that they would have a meeting in Walton County in November 2021.
appearance on hawthorne television
Commr. Smith said that he had the opportunity to be on Hawthorne Television (TV) to talk to that community and provide an update on Lake County.
visit to black bear community
Commr. Smith stated that he had visited the Black Bear community, which was considering adding a phase three. He relayed that he toured the property and that it was nice.
commission district 3 bcc meeting
Commr. Smith mentioned that the Commission District 3 BCC meeting was held on the previous day. He thought that it was well attended and that there was good commentary; furthermore, he was glad that people took the time to attend.
waterski competition
Commr. Smith commented that he had also attended the waterski competition and that it was an interesting event.
library advisory board meeting
Commr. Smith said that he had attended a Library Advisory Board meeting, and that he would provide an update at the following BCC meeting.
comments on david serdar
Commr. Smith gave his thoughts and prayers to the family of Mr. David Serdar, a Lake County resident who had recently passed away, commenting that he was passionate and visited many cities.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the service for Mr. Serdar would be on November 14, 2021 in the City of Fruitland Park. She said that he was passionate, had a great heart, and wanted to make a difference.
commissioner campione – district 4
visiting country club of mount dora
Commr. Campione stated that she had visited the Country Club of Mount Dora and met with individuals there, noting that it was a good meeting that covered many topics. She added that Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, also attended to discuss election issues and answer questions.
proposal regarding homelessness and affordable housing
Commr. Campione hoped that in November 2021, the County would be bringing back a proposal for consideration regarding a concept that she had previously discussed for homelessness mitigation and affordable housing.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
ordinance regarding donation bins
Commr. Parks said that this item was to ask if there was any interest to allow for nonprofit entities to place donation bins on County-owned property, noting that there was a proposal that had been presented to the County by a for-profit company which would donate to a nonprofit company if the County allowed them to place these donation bins on County-owned property, specifically for the libraries and possibly a few other buildings. He opined that it was a good proposal but commented that sometimes it did not work out the way that the County intended or wanted it to. He asked to gauge whether there was support to move forward with this.
Commr. Shields was not sure if this was an additional item that the County wanted to take on, noting that they had to enforce it. He added that it could involve County time, and he expressed concerns for the execution.
Commr. Smith mentioned that if it was opened for one company, then it would need to be opened for all companies.
Ms. Marsh explained that if the Board were to make this change, it would have to be put out to bid; therefore, there was no guarantee that this particular company would get the bid.
Commr. Parks said that he would consider this item further and that if they could address some of the concerns, then he would bring a new item back to the Board.
Ms. Marsh recommended that since the item was on the agenda requesting approval to advertise, a motion would make it clear on the record that the Board did not want to move forward with it at this time.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board denied advertising an ordinance amending Section 10.03.01, Land Development Regulations, to allow for-profit entities to place donation bins on county-owned property.
Commr. Parks voted no.
letter of support for trout lake nature center
Commr. Parks explained that for this item, Trout Lake Nature Center was just requesting support and there was no fiscal obligation for the County.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a letter of support for the Trout Lake Nature Center legislative requests.
presentation from randall arendt
Commr. Parks reminded everyone that Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner, would be making a presentation at the November 2, 2021 BCC meeting.
Commr. Campione asked if the Cities were being invited.
Ms. Barker said that she had sent an invitation to the Eustis City Manager and City Commissioners. She mentioned that the Board would be addressing rezoning and their regular BCC meeting on November 2, 2021; furthermore, Mr. Arendt’s presentation would follow the rezoning agenda.
Ms. Marsh commented that there would also be a closed session on November 2, 2021.
Commr. Campione inquired about having Mr. Arendt’s presentation be time certain, and Ms. Barker said that this could be set up. Commissioner Campione then asked if they could invite the other Cities and their land planners.
Ms. Barker stated that she could send invitations to all of the city managers and mayors, and she mentioned that there would be an option for Zoom Webinar if they could not attend in person.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had invited the South Lake Chamber of Commerce as well.
Commr. Campione proposed to include with the invitation that the county was experiencing growth pressure and that these were concepts that could help address some of the issues with regards to conservation design, wildlife protection and rural character.
Commr. Parks indicated that on the previous Monday, he, the Mayor of Eustis, and some other people had heard the presentation, noting that a similar version would be presented in the following week.
upcoming bike ride and other events
Commr. Parks said that there would be a bike ride on the following Saturday and that the County would be assisting.
Ms. Barker explained that it would be originating in Orange County and would come around Lake Apopka to the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook, which would be the turnaround point. She added that it was in support of Mobility Week and that the County was sponsoring it.
Commr. Parks relayed that he would be participating. He encouraged everyone to ride and mentioned that many organizations would be participating. He also mentioned that there would be a Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB) event in the following week, and also that Montverde Days would be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. He then remarked that there would also be a large softball tournament which would occur with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, the City of Clermont Police Department, and Lake County and City of Clermont fire rescue at the Minneola Athletic Complex, noting that the Commissioners were invited to participate. He said that they were going to raise money on that day for three officers from Lake County who had passed away from COVID-19 and that the funding would support their families.
Commr. Campione stated that it would be fitting if any Commissioners could attend the KLB event in honor of Mr. Serdar, noting that he had participated with KLB.
Ms. Barker clarified that the Sorrento community cleanup would be on November 6, 2021, and Commissioner Campione invited the Commissioners to this event.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:33 p.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK