A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

August 2, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 2, 2022 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, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting, and noted that Commissioner Parks would be participating virtually; therefore, he would be unable to vote. He mentioned that they were also broadcasting on the County website, and that Pastor Bobby Rowe, with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in North Lake County, would be giving the Invocation. He then explained that Ms. Casey Nichols had been with the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for 21 years and currently served as the Assistant Chief/Major for the Office of EMS. He elaborated that Ms. Nichols began her career as an emergency medical technician (EMT) in 2001, and that she was promoted to paramedic in 2002, Lieutenant/Field Training Officer in 2004, District Chief/Captain in 2006, and Assistant Chief/Major in 2011. He stated that when not at work, Ms. Nichols was spending time with her children ages nine and four, while working on her bachelor’s degree. He thanked her for her service.

Pastor Rowe gave the Invocation and Ms. Nichols led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Aaron Chaddick, with 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, County Manager, said that there was an update for the Supervisor of Elections facility, and she requested to move it immediately following the citizen question and comment period.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, said that he had sent emails to the Board regarding the County’s lack of a method to track whether trash can work orders were implemented or completed. He opined that there was a need for the County to have a professional dashboard management system to track metrics by different departments, and he displayed an example of this from the City of Scottsdale. He recalled that Lake County was once a member of the Florida Benchmarking Consortium, and he opined that it was time for Lake County and the Cities to compare metrics among different performance areas. He expressed concerns that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) had a budget of $81 million, but that there was only one page about this on the Sheriff’s website, and he opined that this needed to change. He opined that the County should begin applying for ICMA certificates in performance management, and he said that he agreed with information that the Board was given at the previous Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting regarding the Supervisor of Elections facility; additionally, he was unsure how an item for the Supervisor of Elections was added for an update onto the current agenda without notice or documentation.

supervisor of elections facility discussion

Ms. Barker said that this was a follow up to the discussion at the previous BCC meeting, recalling that the Board gave staff direction to reach out to the property owner of the former Sears building in Lake Square Mall to see if it would be possible to have a lease beyond the five years that the County believed that they could only get. She stated that the Board also directed staff to consider renovations to the current facility, and she showed a slide with information related to a potential 50,000 square foot building that they had discussed several meetings prior. She explained that the estimated total price of construction was $24 million, and at the July 12, 2022 BCC meeting, the Board had told staff to delay construction of a new facility and to look for a leased facility. She commented that information was provided at the July 26, 2022 BCC meeting, and that staff was directed to have further discussions with the landlord and explore the feasibility of expanding the current Supervisor of Elections facility. She mentioned that staff spoke to the owner for the Sears store at Lake Square Mall, and that they indicated that the County would be able to get an initial lease term of 10 years or more, and that the price was still $7.70 per square foot, noting that this was the gross lease including the common area maintenance, which equated to about $527,000 annually. She added that there was an annual rental increase based on the consumer price index (CPI) not to exceed three percent per year, that the County would be allowed to do renovations, that the owner may provide for build-out period with no lease payments to offset the renovation costs, and that they may provide for a one year advanced notice of termination with prorated reimbursement for any renovations that the County did in the facility. She said that option one was to proceed with negotiating a long term lease for the Sears building, noting that they would need to discuss architectural services; furthermore, they currently had a contract with Song & Associates for the needs assessment, and they would need to renegotiate the scope of that contract, or they could utilize one of their on-call architects. She added that also under consideration were the construction manager at risk (CMAR) options, and that the staff would recommend issuing a new solicitation for a CMAR based on the change of scope, noting that it was being recommended to issue a new request for proposal (RFP) for this. She indicated that another option was to contract with a selected CMAR under design-build solicitation, which was the CMAR selected by the selection committee, or they could utilize their in-house construction manager in the Office of Facilities Management. She stated that option two was to proceed with exploring expansion and renovation of the existing facility located in the City of Tavares on United States (U.S.) Highway 441, and staff could bring back additional information if the Board selected this option.

Commr. Parks asked about the price per square foot for option one, and Ms. Barker clarified that it was $7.70 per square foot. Commissioner Parks then inquired if the current facility was between $11.40 and $13.60 per square foot.

Ms. Barker believed that this was correct.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, clarified that it was about $21,000 or $23,000 per month currently, and it would drop to $18,000 per month in July 2023 if they did an additional five year renewal at that location.

Commr. Shields asked about the total square footage of the Sears facility.

Ms. Barker replied that it was approximately 68,000 square feet, and that the Supervisor of Elections currently had about 18,000 square feet.

Commr. Campione recalled that when the Supervisor of Elections was projecting 20 to 30 years out, he indicated that he needed 50,000 square feet; furthermore, this option would exceed this, and they would not need this in the next 10 years. She wondered that if it was built out according to the Supervisor of Elections’ specifications, then could they use the additional square footage as surplus for other uses that they needed in the County. She mentioned that there could possibly be community uses as well, and she expressed interest in exploring this or doing an analysis.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the current facility was 18,877 square feet, and that they were currently paying $21,400 per month which equated to $13.60 per square foot; additionally, this would be reduced to $18,000 per month, or $11.44 per square foot, beginning July 1, 2023. She said that staff previously estimated that if they expanded the current facility, which would give the Supervisor of Elections an additional 4,200 square feet, then the rough estimate of cost would likely be around $1 million; furthermore, they would have to work with the City of Tavares because the City code did not currently allow a metal building, and they would have to do some improvements including parking and landscaping. She mentioned that there was a LCSO location in Lake Square Mall, and the County could discuss if they would be interested in consolidating into the Sears facility.

Commr. Parks asked if they could consider other uses such as veteran’s services and meeting space, noting that it would be a lower cost at $7.70 per square foot.

Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, replied that his office was open to having this discussion, and that their only hint of caution was a security issue; however, he felt confident that they could design the facility to allow for other agencies and to maintain the necessary security. He added that he had no objection to this at the current time, depending on what agency it was. He thought that it was a good deal for square footage, and he expressed support for the Sears facility, noting that they would be receiving over 3.5 times the building space over what they currently had, though they would only be paying 2.5 times the monthly rent. He mentioned that timing was critical and that when they finished the current year’s election on November 8, 2022, they would have a brief respite before they had to start preparing for the August 2023 primaries for municipal elections, with overseas ballots being mailed in late June 2023. He elaborated that after this, presidential preference primary ballots would have to be sent in January 2024, and he expressed a preference for the County to work with Song & Associates. He also believed that the construction management firm was chosen on best merit only, and he did not think they had the time to wait for another procurement process. He added that he had a preliminary sketch of the floorplan, and he offered to show it to the BCC.

Commr. Campione asked that if the County Attorney’s position was that they needed to go out to solicitation, would Senator Hays favor using an in-house construction manager.

Senator Hays expressed concerns for the backlog and the experience, and if the County felt that the in-house construction manager had the necessary contacts, knowledge and experience, then he would be fine with this; however, they knew that Charles Perry Partners, Inc., which was the chosen company, had experience in converting a Sears facility in the City of Gainesville.

Commr. Smith inquired that if they expanded the current facility, would the rent going from about $21,000 per month to $18,000 per month include the expansion.

Ms. Marsh responded that when staff previously spoke with the landlord in 2019, he was going to increase the rent in addition to the cost of the expansion; therefore, there would be an increase in rent.

Commr. Smith asked if the $18,000 would likely increase, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this.

Commr. Blake recalled that he had asked if anyone had recently approached the current landlord about a cash offer, noting that it could possibly free up the Infrastructure Sales Tax as a funding source for the renovations, along with the County owning the asset.

Senator Hays said that he spoke with the landlord recently and that the property was not for sale.

Ms. Marsh noted that the previous discussion with the Board regarded not being able to have a 10 year lease with the Sears building, and staff was looking for direction for if the Board wanted them to bring back information on both options, or if they wanted staff to focus on Sears or the existing building.

Commr. Smith indicated that he would like to see what the Sears building could offer, noting that they could possibly utilize space for other departments.

Commr. Parks said that he would like to pursue the Sears option, and mentioned the possibility of a longer lease such as 15 years, with the understanding that they would try to co-locate as much as possible and give Ms. Marsh flexibility if she determined that the County needed to go out to bid for architectural services.

Commr. Shields agreed with the Sears option, and stated that he was interested to see who they could potentially place there.

Commr. Campione indicated interest in receiving details on the Sears site, and how the lease could be structured so that the County could have possibly two years of notification if the landlord would renew at that point.

Senator Hays expressed appreciation for County staff, and he agreed that this was the best way to go.

Commr. Blake mentioned that this was fine with him; however, his preference would be to pay cash out of the Infrastructure Sales Tax on a property that could be the long term home.

public hearings: REZONING

Commr. Smith asked to address Tabs 6 and 7 on the rezoning agenda at the current time.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 6. Ordinance No. 2022-35

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-42-4

Lake Cares

Amend Planned Commercial District (CP) Ordinances #44-82, #30-85, and #22-88, to establish a new CP ordinance to allow storage warehouse uses for a food pantry.

Tab 7. Ordinance No. 2022-36

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-04-4

7-Eleven at Pine Lakes

Rezone approximately 3.40 +/- acres from Agriculture (A) and Community Commercial (C2) and replace CP Ordinance #31-81 and Resolution 11-74 to establish a new CP Ordinance to facilitate the development of a gas station and convenience store use.

lake cares

Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, presented Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-42-4, Lake Cares. He explained that the property was approximately 3.03 acres and was located at 4500 North U.S. Highway 19A, in the unincorporated City of Mount Dora area; additionally, the property was zoned Planned Commercial (CP) and had a future land use (FLU) of Urban High Density. He displayed the zoning and FLU maps, and he said that the applicant was requesting to establish a new CP ordinance to allow a storage warehouse for a food pantry, noting that the existing CP ordinance allowed a motorcycle shop, Community Commercial (C-2) uses, retail sales store and antique auction. He commented that Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 3.01.02 and LDR Table 3.01.03 allowed warehouse uses in the CP zoning district, and that surrounding properties on U.S. Highway 19A were developed with commercial land uses, including furniture sales and an office warehouse use. He stated that according to the applicant, the property would be used for onsite warehousing and the storage of food and goods for the services being provided for the Lake Cares food pantry, and on July 6, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval on the regular agenda with a vote of 5-0, with one member abstaining; additionally, staff found the request consistent with the LDR and Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).

Commr. Smith mentioned that this was a quasi-judicial matter, and he asked if any Commissioners had conversations regarding this item.

Commr. Campione said that she had some conversations with property owners along U.S. Highway 19A, and she had spoken to several Board members with Lake Cares.

Commr. Parks and Commissioner Smith indicated that they did not have any communications.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify the current zoning’s allowed uses.

Mr. Howell replied that it included a motorcycle shop, C-2 uses, and a retail sales store and antique auction.

Commr. Campione mentioned that if one could have those uses currently and not have to go through the zoning process, then there would not be a public hearing, and there could be more intense uses than what was being requested.

Mr. Scott Gerken, the applicant, commented that this property had been designated as a commercial property for decades, and was in the Urban High Density FLU, which allowed for a more intense use. He mentioned that the food pantry had been operating from the location at Morningside Drive and Old Highway 441 for a number of years, and opined that this location was not ideally suited. He said that an overwhelming amount of individuals that Lake Cares served were disabled or senior citizens, and that the Morningside Drive and Old Highway 441 location was the food pantry distribution aspect; furthermore, Lake Cares currently had a warehouse and storage facility on U.S. Highway 19A across the street from the subject property. He said that they were looking to consolidate these two locations at the subject property, which was surrounded by other commercial locations. He clarified that it was a food pantry with the warehouse and distribution facilities, and was not just a storage facility. He expressed support for the staff report, and said that it was a rezoning from CP to CP; however, the currently allowed uses were more intense than what this food pantry/storage warehouse location would be. He opined that the property would work well for the location and was well suited to serve the community. He reiterated that the land use was Urban High Density, which supported this type of use, and he mentioned that they were only present for the rezoning; therefore, specifics of parking, etc. would be addressed during the site plan process. He said that staff found that the proposed use was consistent with the Comp Plan, and he supported that the zoning was appropriate and required. He recalled that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval, and he requested that the BCC do the same. He stated that some individuals had attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and he relayed his understanding that most of their concerns appeared to be traffic oriented; additionally, he opined that the traffic generated from the permitted use would be greater than what the food pantry was looking to do. He commented that the staff report designated the traffic impact of this case as de minimus, noting that Lake Cares only had five or six full time staff members. He added that there were three mornings per week when volunteers came to the site. He added that the distribution was scheduled, and that this facility would allow traffic to move off U.S. Highway 19A so that it could be addressed onsite.

Ms. Kelsey Gonzalez, Executive Director for Lake Cares, explained that they were a nonprofit organization providing essential food to Lake County residents experiencing food insecurity since 2009, and that food distribution was scheduled by appointment and was distributed from the main pantry in the City of Mount Dora, in addition to seven additional satellite sites throughout the county. She commented that they served five clients every 15 minutes at their main location, noting that their goal was to end hunger in Lake County while leading clients toward a path of self-sufficiency. She stated that over 1.16 million pounds of food were provided in the previous year, and they were on track to serve the same amount or more. She said that this would not be possible without the support of many business leaders, surrounding communities, and their donors. She explained that Lake Cares made it possible for struggling parents to feed their families, and that they also provided children with healthy snacks through programs where they worked with the schools. She remarked that currently, one in three Lake County children were affected by food insecurity, and that in 2021, they served 55,563 individuals and 14,575 families through all of their distribution locations. She reported that they had over 200 active volunteers who served 22,916 hours in the previous year, noting that this allowed them to keep their overhead costs as low as possible. She said that they had outgrown their space due to the high demand for their services, and that they had to turn away opportunities for free food due to the lack of storage space; additionally, this new building would position them to serve more clients by having more pantry, warehouse, freezer and refrigerator space available. She related that the building design allowed them to operate more economically, efficiently and precisely to serve more clients at a time, and she remarked that record inflation was forcing local families to choose between food and other items. She concluded that Lake Cares was committed to serve the Lake County community who were struggling with these issues.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. John Pease, a resident of Sorrento who served on the board of Lake Cares, read a letter from Mr. Mike Welter, the owner of Data Graphics, a company across the street from the current warehouse, which was in support of the requested action.

Mr. Gary Sandberg, a resident on Codding Place, believed that any new construction in this region should be built to the existing character and design of the Golden Triangle. He expressed concerns about the future of the stretch of road which was presently lined with small to medium-sized businesses, and for social club and gambling establishments. He indicated concerns for changing this area to urban high density, and for allowing warehouse developments and high density, low income housing. He expressed concerns that this could open the door for more warehouses and distribution centers to be built, and for approval of this request setting precedents and having long term negative consequences on the residential and business properties along this stretch of road. He relayed his understanding that Mr. Gerken had requested that a traffic study be waived, and he opined that this section of road was dangerous. He asked for a formal traffic study to be performed, and to perform road improvements to make this area safe prior to allowing Lake Cares to start construction. He indicated concerns for expansion of the proposed facility, for traffic in and out of the distribution center, and for how many distribution days and hours would be allowed.

Mr. John Purvis, the owner of Showcase Furniture, agreed with Mr. Sandberg about the traffic study. He indicated concerns for flooding issues on the road, and he opined that it needed to be addressed.

Mr. Cal Rolfson, a Mount Dora City Councilmember, said that he was appearing on behalf of over 200 volunteers at Lake Cares, and he expressed support for approving this request, opining that the current facility had run out of space.

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

Commr. Campione said that she traveled this stretch of U.S. Highway 19A frequently, and mentioned that there was a significant drainage issue there. She relayed that the County had asked the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) during a recent project to make some improvements, but the funding was strictly for resurfacing. She recalled that years prior, the County had done a project development and environment (PD&E) study of the area, noting that the hope was to have sidewalks and drainage swales; however, it was a multimillion dollar project. She asked for staff continue to consider this potentially with impact fees to add capacity and make improvements, noting that many people used that stretch of road. She said that the property already had a high intensity use, and that it would not come before the BCC if it was being used for a variety of uses. She mentioned that this item was coming to the Board as a hearing because of how the site was being designed, and she opined that it was a less intense use than what would otherwise be allowed.

Commr. Parks reiterated that he could not vote, but expressed support for this item.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-42-4, Lake Cares.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:00 a.m. for five minutes.

7-eleven at pine lakes

Commr. Campione left the meeting at 10:08 a.m.

Mr. Howell presented Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-04-4, 7-Eleven at Pine Lakes. He said that the property was approximately 3.4 acres in size and was located at the northeast corner of State Road (SR) 44 and Jay Street, in the Pine Lakes area. He stated that the existing zoning was Agriculture, C-2 and CP, and that it had an FLU designation of Wekiva River Protection Area Sending Area A-1-20, noting that it was located within the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor. He displayed this area on a map, and he relayed that the applicant was requesting to rezone the entire property to CP to allow for the development of a gas station and a convenience store. He mentioned that Comp Plan Policy I-3.3.7, Community Development within the Wekiva River Protection Area, stated that new commercial development shall be limited to a corridor along SR 44 located within the Pine Lakes plat. He said that LDR Section 7.00.04 required commercial development within the Wekiva River Protection Area only within a CP district or within a planned unit development (PUD); additionally, the properties that had commercial uses within the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor all had a CP zoning, including a Shell gas station and a Dollar General store. He related that the existing CP ordinance allowed for a gas station on the property, and that this ordinance went back to the 1970s, noting that it allowed automobile service station and convenience store uses on the property. He believed that in the early 1980s, it was expanded to allow for the sale of liquor on the property. He displayed an aerial photograph showing the relationship of the subject property to the Royal Trails development 2.5 to three miles to the south, and he showed the proposed site plan, noting that it had been updated with the only substantial change being an increase in the floor area ratio (FAR) of two-tenths of a percent. He recalled that on July 6, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval on the regular agenda with a vote of 6-0, and that staff found the request consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan.

Mr. McGregor Love, with Lowndes Law and the representing the applicant, listed the following issues in the LDR and Comp Plan for determining when they could allow a commercial use in a rural area and the Wekiva River Protection Area: location; type of use; intensity of use; and the impact on the rural character and natural resources. He mentioned that the overlays on the subject property were the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Wekiva Study Area, and he relayed the following information about the development history: in 1965, the existing building was constructed and operated as a convenience store; in 1974, a portion of the property was rezoned from Agriculture to CP; and in 1984, Ordinance 31-81 allowed for the expansion of the gas station with the addition of a liquor store. He commented that the underground fuel tanks remained, and that the developer would be required to remove them safely to complete their development. He said that the request was to amend Ordinance 31-81 to include the two adjacent parcels and to allow for the development of an expanded gas station, convenience store and accessory structures. He showed an image of the existing building, noting that cars parked close to the right of way and that there could be a safety concern with backing out. He displayed the concept plan and pointed out that the updated plan was for a 4,903 square foot building which represented a FAR of 3.3 percent. He mentioned that the property was located within the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor, and he quoted from the Comp Plan that “Rural Support Corridors shall be limited strictly to rural communities with an established pattern of commercial activity,” and that “Rural Support uses are intended to address the need for narrowly defined commercial and office uses that support the resident population of areas within the Rural Future Land Use Series.” He commented that rural support uses included convenience retail and gas stations, and that there was a limit of 10 percent FAR for rural uses within rural support corridors; therefore, around a 14,800 square building could be built, and the proposed approximate 4,900 square foot building was only 3.3 percent FAR. He showed a map of the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor, and he opined that the project complied with each criteria of the Wekiva River Protection Act. He relayed the following information pertaining to the underground fuel storage tanks: the developer was responsible for the safe removal of the existing fuel tanks; the new fuel tanks were leak-proof, double-walled, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) approved; the location of tanks was determined by 7-Eleven based on operational and environmental safety concerns; the location of tanks would be approved by FDEP and the County and would undergo in-place leak-proofing testing by FDEP; and it was 7-Eleven’s practice to have voluntary third-party inspection of their tanks. He said that for tree protection, the applicant was removing the minimum number of trees possible while meeting the County and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) requirements for stormwater retention, noting that there was not a stormwater management facility on the property currently; rather, stormwater currently flowed into the right of way. He opined that there was a benefit to processing stormwater onsite, though there was a requirement that some trees be removed. He reiterated that staff found that the rezoning was consistent with the LDR, and that the policy was consistent with Policy I-3.3.7, Commercial Development within the Wekiva River Protection Area, which stated that new commercial development within the WRPA shall be limited to rural support areas. He also relayed that staff found that the request met the Wekiva area goals based on the justification statement submitted by the applicant’s environmental expert, and that it preserved and enhanced the rural character and agricultural potential, provided a reduced level of investment for public facilities, and protected environmental qualities through limited density and intensity. He summarized the following information: the location of the subject property was within the Pine Lakes Rural Support Area; the site had been used as a convenience store since the 1960s; the gas station/convenience store was a rural support use; the existing CP ordinance already allowed a gas station/convenience store; the proposed building was only 33 percent of what could be built on the property; the request complied with the Wekiva River Protection Act; and it was a small corridor designated to allow limited commercial activity. He asked for the Board to approve the request.

Mr. Jeremy Anderson, with Common Oak Engineering and representing the applicant, indicated that the existing convenience store had parking off the state road, and that the applicant applied for a driveway access permit with FDOT, as well as a drainage permit. He added that they satisfied FDOT’s requirements, and that the drainage pattern would be changed. He commented that they would be paving Jay Street, and that they would be restriping the left turn on SR 44 for northbound drivers onto Jay Street.

Commr. Parks commented that it was not a raw piece of land and that it was not completely a green field. He thought that there could be an opportunity to reduce the internal rate of capture and possibly reduce trips for people in that area from having travel further; however, he expressed concerns for the details of the design. He said that 7-Eleven did this business nationwide, and he noted that the ordinance mentioned dark sky lighting principles; however, he wondered if they could go further in ensuring that there was not intrusive lighting. He asked what the applicant would do to make it look more compatible with the area and be less intrusive, and if this could be included in the ordinance for assurance that it would be consistent with the area.

Commr. Smith said that this was a quasi-judicial matter, and he asked if the Board had any conversations with the applicant before the current meeting; however, they had not.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that a notice of appearance had been filed by Mr. Brent Spain and that he would be treated like a party; therefore, they would need to give him an opportunity to present.

Mr. Spain, an attorney representing the Friends of the Wekiva River, said that since 1982, this organization had worked to protect, preserve and restore the natural functions and beauty of the Wekiva River system. He explained that the Friends of the Wekiva River were actively involved in education activities and public hearings, including the development of LDR and Comp Plan policies that impact the Wekiva River Protection Area, as well as reviewing and examining proposed developments. He submitted that the Friends of the Wekiva River and their members in Lake County were affected parties by this case. He displayed a list of the County’s rezoning standards of review, and he opined that the current proposal did not meet all of the criteria. He displayed an aerial picture of the subject property, noting that the middle parcel had the existing convenience store and commercial zoning; however, the subject property to the northeast was undeveloped and was heavily wooded with an oak hammock. He added that the subject property to the southwest was also undeveloped; therefore, two of the three parcels were undeveloped and did not have commercial zoning. He showed the existing FLU map, along with existing floodplain information, remarking that based on the County’s 2012 data, almost the entire proposed development site was a flood zone. He showed the proposed master development plan which was available to the public online, commenting that the proposed building had been increased by 300 square feet. He said that there would be a large stormwater pond on the part of the property which was heavily wooded with an oak hammock, and he expressed concerns for placing underground fuel storage tanks in close proximity to the floodplain or the stormwater system. He stated that the draft ordinance had no restrictions on where they could place the fuel tanks, and that there was also a septic drain field where the expanded stormwater pond would be located. He opined that the applicant could not make the assurance that the fuel tanks were leak-proof, and he added that there was not an existing gas station on the property. He read the definition of the Wekiva River Protection Area Sending Area A-1-20 as “The purpose of the district is to provide an area where low-density rural development can occur while preserving environmentally sensitive areas...,” and he opined that placing a gas station in this area was contrary to this intent provision. He related that LDR Section 7.00.04.B.10.g discussed commercial development within the Pine Lakes and Cassia areas, and he read that it was allowed “when densities increase, and a small area study conducted by the County Manager or designee determines the need for such development.” He opined that regardless of what the Comp Plan said, the LDR was always allowed to be more restrictive. He said that while the Comp Plan allowed the potential for commercial uses in certain areas, the LDR provision stated that limited commercial development would also be considered in the Pine Lakes area when densities increase, noting that there had not been any evidence of increased densities, and if a small area study was conducted that demonstrated the need; additionally, it also indicated that a land use plan amendment shall be processed to permit any commercial uses in the Pine Lakes area. He commented that there was no companion plan amendment, and he quoted the case Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Brevard Cty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993) as “the present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be more limited than the future use contemplated by the comprehensive plan.” He opined that the LDR imposed additional restrictions in addition to the rural corridor provision, and he quoted LDR Section 7.00.05.G as “Native vegetation within the Wekiva River Protection Areas and the One-Hundred-Year Floodplain within the Wekiva River Protection Area shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible…” He stated that the site where the applicant was impacting vegetation was where they would be placing their stormwater pond, and he opined that they had not limited the impact to the greatest extent possible. He displayed rezoning criteria in the Comp Plan, mentioning that one of the objectives was to preserve rural and agricultural areas. He said that Table FLUE 2 imposed a minimum of 50 percent open space in the A-1-20 Sending Area, noting that he did not see any exclusion for commercial development. He was unsure if the proposed plan met this threshold, and he said that the displayed objectives and policies reiterated a theme to maintain the rural character and limit commercial development in these specific FLU categories. He added that FLU Policy I-1.4.7.2 discussed the Rural Support Corridors, and made reference to “subject to further restrictions within the LDR.” He stated that FLU Policy I-1.4.7 discussed rural support uses and how they should be limited in scale and scope to serve the basic needs of the area, and that it limited factors that the Board should consider, such as hours of operation; furthermore, he relayed his understanding that a 7-Eleven was a 24-hour operation. He listed additional policies that he opined the case did not comply with, pointing out a policy reiterating that land within the Wekiva River Protection Area must comply with the open space requirements, and policies indicating that native vegetation within the 100 year floodplain shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. He commented that there were currently no design standards in the ordinance, and that a policy indicated that “new development within the Wekiva Study Area shall implement conservation design standards including at a minimum…,” noting that it listed items such as low impact development design; however, he opined that there was no evidence that the applicant had designed this project consistent with conservation design standards. He mentioned a standard for whether the proposed rezoning was consistent with the existing and proposed uses, and reiterated that the applicant was proposing to demolish an existing convenience store, increase it by almost 2,000 square feet to a roughly 4,900 square foot, 24-hour convenience store, along with doubling the acreage and adding gas pumps which had not been on the property in 40 years. He opined that the surrounding development was low density residential, and that there had not been any changed conditions identified other than the applicant wanting to do this development. He also opined that they were directly impacting the native vegetation on the side and not avoiding it to the greatest extent possible, nor had the applicant implemented any conservation design standards; additionally, he opined they placed the fuel tanks as close to the stormwater and floodplain as possible. He mentioned additional rezoning criteria and relayed that the staff report indicated that no evidence had been provided regarding property values; additionally, he opined that there was not a trend for higher intensity 24-hour commercial use in the area. He said that for whether it furthered the public interest, he thought one only had to consider the Wekiva River protection standards to know that this was not the case. He stated that the proposed ordinance asked for three uses to be provided for automotive service station with fuel pumps, a convenience store, and accessory uses directly associated with the above. He noted that in the LDR, there was a distinction between an automotive service station and retail convenience, noting that retail convenience or a convenience food store allowed accessory gas sales; additionally, this same section defined “automotive service station” to include the sale and servicing tires, batteries, automotive accessories, lubricating services, and the performance of minor repairs. He expressed concerns that if the Board approved the ordinance as it was written, an automotive service station company or tire shop could possibly come in, and he opined that this was not what the applicant needed and should not have been in the proposed ordinance.

Mr. Grey Wilson, with the Friends of the Wekiva River, asked the Board to consider protecting the river, noting that the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act of 2004 had a number of concerns that still existed, particularly the intensity of land uses; furthermore, he relayed his understanding that the Counties agreed that they would look for a way to reduce intensity in this areas. He opined that the current request did the opposite, and that it was a significant increase. He expressed concerns for underground fuel tanks in the area, and for the spillage of gas that could go on tires and be taken offsite in the Wekiva River Protection Area. He indicated opposition to the proposal, noting that this was primarily due to the gas station and the fuel pumps.

Mr. Spain opined that the applicant had not met the rezoning criteria, including not complying with the provisions of the LDR, Comp Plan, or the Wekiva River Protection Act, and he referenced Comp Plan Policy I.3.3.7, which stated that commercial development within the Wekiva River Protection Area, except within the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento planning area, shall be discouraged. He asked for the proposed gas station to be discouraged, and he opined that the project was not right to be heard when considering the LDR about a small area study.

Commr. Parks clarified that it was not a green site, and that the parcels on the south and west had an impact such as parking. He said that the parcel to the north had native vegetation, which he opined should be considered with the site plan. He also said that he still had questions about the ordinance and why some items were not included at this point.

Mr. Love relayed his understanding that the Friends of the Wekiva River’s underlying issue was the use and the intensity; however, the request was below the maximum intensity for the area. He opined that under the Comp Plan, this project at this intensity was allowed. He said that the applicant’s had staff’s opinion that they met the Comp Plan, and opined that unless there was competent substantial evidence to suggest that they do not meet the Comp Plan, then it was required that the approval be granted. He opined that speculation about the tanks possibly leaking and about meeting criteria did not count as competent substantial evidence. He relayed that the Comp Plan was amended in 2011 to include rural support corridors, and that this was how the County complied with the LDR that required an amendment to allow commercial uses. He commented that there was no stormwater retention on the site currently, and if it was required to meet current code, they would have to have stormwater retention; therefore, this was why they were having to impact some trees on the eastern side. He added that the applicant was moving it as far as they could next to the building to preserve the trees at the northeast corner. He stated that the applicant had provided their justification statement for why they met each of the Wekiva River Protection Area standards, and staff reviewed it and agreed that they complied. He said that it also provided that it had to be substantially in compliance with the concept plan, and anything changing this would have to come before the Board for approval. He also indicated his understanding that they exceeded the 50 percent open space requirement, noting that the ordinance provided provisions for ensuring environmental protection in accordance with the LDR; furthermore, the applicant had a pending SJRWMD permit that they expected approval on soon.

Commr. Parks indicated that he had some questions about design criteria and if the ordinance would answer his question about what the building would look like, along with hours of operation.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident on Lake Swatara, relayed her understanding that the fuel tanks were abandoned in 1984, but in 2005 a permit was pulled for the installation of a petroleum renovation system. She opined that the tanks should be monitored, and she showed a map indicating that the subject property was not currently designated as a brownfield and that it was in an area qualified for programs and available for technical assistance, assessment and grant funding for cleanup by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She indicated an understanding that if the existing tanks were an issue, then there was funding available for cleanup. She added that there was a Circle K about 400 feet away from the subject property, and that a Dollar General store was also nearby; therefore, she opined that this area was already being served with a convenience store and fuel.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a Friends of the Wekiva River Board member, expressed support for Mr. Wilson and Mr. Spain’s comments, and said that she supported the Friends of the Wekiva River’s position for this project.

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

Ms. Barker read the following statement from Commissioner Campione into the record: “Unlike Seminole County, we have very limited areas where commercial uses are even allowed to be considered in the Wekiva River Protection Area, and in this situation, any improvement to the cleanliness and quality of the locations that residents in this area have available to shop or buy gas is an upgrade that will benefit residents in my opinion. The current choices are primarily unacceptable, and it is unfair to disallow residents of this area the opportunity to have a new, clean and safer place to shop and buy gas. I support this upgrade, as I believe it will be a significant benefit to the residents of Pine Lakes.”

Commr. Blake made a motion to approve this item.

Mr. Howell indicated that he had a comment, and Commissioner Blake withdrew his motion.

Commr. Shields recalled that Commissioner Parks had opined that the applicant did not have enough in the ordinance for him to feel comfortable, and he thought that there were some protections they could have in place. He mentioned that the Board could possibly let the applicant include protections in the ordinance and then hear it a second time. He thought that there was a way to do this without fees, and that the County could possibly have something better if they paused this item.

Mr. Howell relayed that the applicant had agreed to change the land use to “retail convenience” instead of “automotive service station,” noting that it would be “retail convenience with fuel pumps.”

Commr. Blake noted that this removed the concern of it being used as a tire shop or an oil change shop. He also thought that dark sky lighting was included in the ordinance.

Mr. Love confirmed this, and he read the section as “exterior lighting must be in accordance with the LDR, as amended, and consistent with dark sky principles.”

Commr. Shields asked if they had ever done above ground tanks, and if they could look at the stormwater retention so that they could possibly save some of the existing growth.

Mr. Anderson replied that they did not do above ground tanks, and he did not think that this product was made. He also explained that the size of the stormwater management facility was driven by the compensating floodplain storage, and he opined that it had been minimized to protect as many of the oak hammocks as possible.

Commr. Shields thought that stormwater and addressing backing out on the highway was positive for the community, but he opined there were still concerns that had not been addressed.

Mr. Anderson mentioned that the benefit of the pond size for compensating floodplain storage was that they exceeded water quality and treatment criteria for the State and locally due to the size of the pond, noting that the groundwater was also low there. He opined that the stormwater area was an improvement to the facility.

Commr. Blake expressed agreement with Commissioner Campione’s position, opining that if the ability to upgrade was limited in an area, then the residents could end up being affected. He thought that the floodplain compensation plan was an upgrade, and said that the applicant had agreed to abide by dark sky principles.

Mr. Love clarified that the code required a concept plan, and that all that the ordinance required was that it be in substantial compliance; therefore, the final engineered site plan could be changed based on staff’s input for higher level questions.

Commr. Parks thought that it was an upgrade, but reiterated that he had some questions about what was included in the ordinance. He questioned how he could be assured of hours of operation and what it was going to look like, opining that it was not an overall economic hardship for design standards. He asked what design standards the applicant would be held to, opining that this was important in their rural communities. He expressed support for the item, though wondered if there could be more time to include some of these items in the ordinance. He also relayed his understanding that the new fuel tanks were of a higher standard, and that the engineers could possibly go beyond the requirements.

Commr. Smith said that a positive for him was that they would be removing 40 year old fuel tanks from the ground and replacing them with new tanks with current technology. He also believed that it was an upgrade for citizens of Lake County.

Commr. Smith passed the gavel to Commissioner Shields.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 2-1, the Board approved Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-04-4, 7-Eleven at Pine Lakes, with the modification to change the land use to “retail convenience with fuel pumps.”

Commr. Shields voted no.

Commr. Shields then passed the gavel back to Commissioner Smith.

rezoning consent agenda

Commr. Smith indicated that he had comment cards for Tabs 2, 3 and 4.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 and 5, pulling Tabs 2, 3 and 4 to the regular agenda, as follows:

Tab 1.

Rezoning Case # FLU-22-08-1

Wellness Way Area Plan Amendments (Transmittal)

Amend Policy I-8.5.2 Potable and Re-Use Water Facilities, and Policy I-8.5.3, Sanitary Sewer Facilities.

Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2022-34

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-02-2

Hampton Manor Assisted Living Facility

Amend Community Facility District (CFD) Ordinance #2002-5 to establish a new CFD ordinance to accommodate an Assisted Living Facility with a maximum of 92 beds.

rezoning regular agenda continued

Tab 2.

Rezoning Case # FLU-22-09

Rural Conservation Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Transmittal)

Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Rural Conservation design concepts and criteria into the Comprehensive Plan.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2022-32

Rezoning Case # FLU-22-06-5

Illinois-Crown Property

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 3.86 acres from Rural to Planned Unit Development FLUC and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program will include two (2) single-family dwelling units.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2022-33

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-16-5

Illinois-Crown Property

Rezone 3.86 +/- acres from Rural Residential (R-1) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to facilitate the development of two (2) single-family dwelling units and includes a utility waiver request to LDR Section 6.12.01(A) and Comprehensive Plan Policy IX-2.2.2, Mandatory Central Water Connection, and to LDR Section 6.12.01(B) and Comprehensive Plan Policy IX-3.1.2, Mandatory Sewer Connection.

rural conservation comp. plan amendment (transmittal)

Mr. Howell presented Tab 2, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-09, Rural Conservation Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Transmittal). He noted that this item had come before the Board several times for discussion beginning in May 2022, and that it also went before the Planning and Zoning Board in June 2022 where it was unanimously recommended for approval on the consent agenda. He said that the outline of the report discussed the changes being considered to make rural conservation guidelines within the Comp Plan consistent and compatible, noting that the Comp Plan called out the requirement for the rural conservation guidelines.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Shelley said that she was representing Citizens for the Preservation of Rural. She showed a map from the staff report which included protection overlay areas for rural conservation subdivisions. She did not think that the map was particularly accurate, and she also thought that it should also depict the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) boundaries as an overlay because then the map would more accurately depict the areas where the ordinance criteria would apply. She opined that the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area (RPA) was in jeopardy with existing properties that had been annexed, as well as proposed annexations into the City of Leesburg. She opined that they needed meaningful action that would save some of this RPA, relaying her understanding that there were over 5,000 homes approved or likely to be approved. She opined that a previous BCC did not consider the potential ramifications of the ISBA, or that they found a way to circumvent the Comp Plan policies regarding the RPA. She opined that if the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA was not included in any ISBA boundary, then they may have enough existing parcels owned by residents to block at least some potential future contiguous annexations and have developments go through the conservation subdivision process. She asked what the BCC was willing to do for the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA, and if they were willing to review the ISBAs. She did not think that an RPA should be included in any ISBA because it could not be protected under that circumstance. She inquired if the BCC was willing to review the ISBAs at the current time and add the review as a supplemental process to the rural subdivision design process. She also expressed interest in a master community plan for the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA.

Commr. Parks clarified that the ISBAs were to address the provision of services, and they were not tools to address planning. He said that if they wanted to address the concern of Cities annexing, there had to be changes to the statute; additionally, he opined that the way to move forward with planning issues was to develop joint planning agreements (JPAs) with the Cities so that they could share common standards. He opined that the Comp Plan enacted many years prior was well thought out regarding RPAs in many terms, but there was only so much that the County could do. He opined that there were flaws with ISBAs, noting that they could hopefully move forward with JPAs with all of the Cities to address some of these issues. He also expressed support for the subject case.

Ms. Newton asked to consider going from 35 percent to 50 percent open space in the RPAs, opining that this would help protect wildlife and the habitats. She also thought that increasing it to 50 percent in the Wekiva Study Area did the same thing and helped with the mandate of having the recharge of post-development be similar to pre-development. She mentioned a provision that in lieu of providing additional open space within a proposed development, additional property may be purchased in fee simple or less than fee land separate from the subdivision, which is comprised of buildable land. She opined that using this concept in some areas was a great idea, but for areas like the RPA, they could be losing more of the habitat or rural feel. She also said that in the Wekiva Study Area, obtaining that extra open space was good, but when losing it, they could be losing a significant amount of recharge area.

Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for the impact on citizens who had moved to Lake County expecting a certain lifestyle, and for the protection of natural resources. She mentioned that there was a definition for “conservation areas” in the Comp Plan, reading that “conservation lands are designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality, and including areas designated for such purpose as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitat.” She opined that this meant preserving “Real Florida, Real Close,” adding that this was a commodity in the county and was what made Lake County different. She relayed her understanding that the subject item was a way to have growth and manage it, and said that there were items she would like to suggest to make the ordinance more stringent and specific. She opined that there needed to be specific guidelines to reach the conservation goals in the subdivision ordinance, such as the following: no added nutrients to end up in the watershed; no scraping or compacting of soil to impact water percolation or runoff; wetlands and uplands are preserved to serve the particular functions; preserve native plants onsite; add native plants appropriate to the ecosystem onsite; no permanent irrigation; and no turn grass.

Ms. Lee Conger, a resident on County Road (CR) 44A, expressed concerns for people moving to Lake County for “Real Florida, Real Close,” and for there then being a significant number of homes being built nearby. She thought that there was more that could be added to the ordinance, and she mentioned the dark sky issue. She relayed that near the City of Eustis area, individuals near Lake Lincoln saw large lightbulbs which were not downcast, and she questioned what would happen if someone was nonconforming to the light codes. She then mentioned that Section 20 of the proposed ordinance, which regarded PUD requirements, did not address dark skies. She believed that there needed to be language added which was serious about this, and she indicated concerns from light from large communities affecting rural communities. She asked that the Board adopt some of this language, and she asked that if the ordinance was transmitted at the current time, could they indicate when it would be included.

Ms. Marsh explained that if the ordinance was transmitted at the current time, the County would likely receive it back in two or three months; furthermore, when it came back for adoption, staff would bring back the LDR ordinance so that the Board could address them both at the same time in fall 2022.

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

Commr. Shields noted that Commissioner Parks had supported this ordinance, and he asked how he wanted to proceed.

Commr. Parks indicated that he would like to proceed forward, noting that it was on the consent agenda because it was the first step to start the Comp Plan amendment. He mentioned that they could have discussion about the codes and language, and he expressed appreciation for everyone who had spoken. He addressed concerns about the density bonus for additional open space and said that it was a free market incentive which was put in place because the State of Florida was a property rights state. He opined that they would always be faced with this challenge, and that it was a tool which could be used voluntarily which would encourage further protection through the transfer of development rights (TDR). He added that this could possibly be the tool for the County to have permanent protection lands which were currently in RPAs.

Commr. Smith stated that the County had been working hard with the Cities to do what they could, and that this was an additional step; furthermore, it could be modified once it came back to the County.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved Tab 2, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-09, Rural Conservation Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Transmittal).

illinois-crown property

Commr. Smith noted that this item was a quasi-judicial matter. He indicated that he met with the applicants and that he received emails, but had not responded.

Commr. Blake said that he had met with the applicants and with Ms. Kim Chafin, a neighbor of the subject property; additionally, he had some email correspondence with some neighbors.

Commr. Parks mentioned that he had some communication with Ms. Chafin.

Mr. Howell presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-06-5, Illinois-Crown Property, and Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-16-5, Illinois-Crown Property. He explained that the case was located north of Bertsville Road and east of Illinois Street in the Town of Lady Lake area, and that the two properties totaled approximately 3.86 acres in size. He said that the applicants were requesting a small scale FLU amendment from Rural to PUD to construct two dwelling units on the properties. He displayed a map which showed Rural Residential (R-1) zoning, along with the FLU map; furthermore, there would be one unit constructed on each lot. He commented that the Rural FLU required a density of one dwelling unit per five acres, and that the applicant was proposing to construct two homes at a density of 1.93 dwelling units per acre. He added that surrounding properties had a density of 0.19 dwelling units per acre to 1.31 dwelling units per acre, and that in 2014, the original owner obtained a lot line deviation which combined the two lots as one lot for zoning and building purposes. He elaborated that the applicants purchased the properties in 2021 and that they were sold as two individual parcels identified as two separate alternate key numbers. He related that upon commencement of the building process, the new owners were informed that the two lots were not recognized by the Office of Planning and Zoning, and were not buildable, nor did they satisfy the minimum density requirements of one dwelling unit per five acres. He said that based on this, the applicant was requesting a FLU amendment to PUD to allow for a density of 1.93 dwelling units per acre, which was consistent with the surrounding properties. He pointed out smaller lot sizes to the southeast and up to the north on the displayed map, and he relayed that on July 6, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of this item on the consent agenda. He indicated that the recommended action was to approve the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Chafin said that she was in favor of people who wanted to develop their property under the current regulations; however, she expressed concerns for a Comp Plan amendment. She relayed her understanding that the applicants had purchased their property and were told by their realtor that they could develop, though the County had informed them that it was not developable. She commented that she was told by staff that since the applicant had a dilemma, staff felt that it was their duty to help. She indicated an understanding that the applicant had a personal financial quandary, but she did not think that it was the County’s purview to be involved in this; rather, she opined that it was the County’s duty to honor the Comp Plan. She asked the Board to consider that many individuals in the neighborhood invested their life savings, and she opined that the proposal would change the character of the neighborhood from rural to suburban; additionally, she expressed concerns for increased traffic, relaying her understanding that the average number of trips for a single family home was 10 to 20 per day. She asked the Board to uphold the Comp Plan by voting no on this item.

Ms. Angela Fahey, a resident on Crown Place speaking via Zoom Webinar, relayed her understanding that the previous owner of the subject property had irrigation pipes which tied into the well system for the three properties on Crown Place. She asked that either that the pipes be removed or capped off so that another house would not tap into her well. She also indicated concerns for a dumpster located at the corner of Crown Place and Bertsville Road, noting that this was the trash pickup location for the three homes on Crown Place. She stated that they were not able to have the garbage trucks travel on Crown Place because they damaged the concrete; therefore, a special path was installed for the dumpster on the lot. She was unsure where it could be moved, and she said that they still wanted to have access to trash collection. She also indicated her understanding that a new concrete pad would need to be placed so that the garbage truck could travel on it to pick up the dumpster.

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

Ms. Leslie Allen, one of the applicants, said that it was currently one dwelling per five acres; however, she relayed her understanding that all of the homes in the area ranged from 0.95 acres to three acres. She opined that they were being consistent with what was in the area, and that what they were building was not changing the landscape of the area. She mentioned that their home would have the farmhouse style, that they would not be building two story homes, and that they would not be obstructing any views. She also opined that it would increase the value of surrounding properties, and she indicated that they proposed to have their own well and septic. She commented that they had no intention of using the irrigation lines mentioned by Ms. Fahey, and said that she had met with Commissioner Blake, Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Shields, along with Ms. Marsh, prior to pursuing this item.

Commr. Blake relayed that he was familiar with the area, and he opined that the request was compatible. He added that he considered this a fix because in the 1980s, they could have built houses, noting that it was two separate parcels; however, the 2014 Comp Plan combined them into this parcel.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-06-5, Illinois-Crown Property, and Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-16-5, Illinois-Crown Property.

commissioners reports

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

elder affairs coordinating council

Commr. Smith related that he had a productive Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting, and he thought that they were starting to get on track.

national coloring book day

Commr. Smith said that it was National Coloring Book Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK