A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

august 1, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; 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 it was being streamed on the County website; furthermore, they were also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom.

Pastor David Averill, with First United Methodist Church of Mount Dora, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, 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 through 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 were no updates to the agenda.

citizen question and comment period

No one wished to address the Board at this time.

public hearings: REZONING

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose any ex parte communications, but there were none.

Ms. Janie Barrón, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, introduced Mr. Mike Fitzgerald, the new Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning.

Mr. Fitzgerald said that he was excited to be part of Lake County and that he was looking to do good work.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2023-49

Rezoning Case # RZ-23-07-2

Stenzel Farm

Rezone 5.76 +/- acres from Rural Residential (R-1) District to Agriculture (A) District to allow General Agricultural uses.

stenzel farm

Ms. Barrón displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning case on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. She recalled that Tab 1, Rezoning Case # RZ-23-07-2, Stenzel Farm, was unanimously approved on July 5, 2023 by the Planning and Zoning Board on the regular agenda with a vote of 6-0. She then said that the case was located in the City of Minneola area of unincorporated Lake County, and that the applicant had submitted an application to rezone the parcel from Rural Residential (R-1) to Agriculture to allow for general agricultural uses. She displayed images of the area, and noted that the subject parcel was located within the Rural future land use (FLU). She showed an aerial photograph which depicted the parcel and the surrounding area, and she concluded that staff found the application consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDR) and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).

Commr. Smith asked to confirm that this was a downzoning, and Ms. Barrón said this was correct.

Commr. Campione related that whenever she saw a downzoning to Agriculture, she questioned the proposed use for the agricultural land, and expressed concerns for medical marijuana production being allowed in Agriculture.

Ms. Barrón commented that the project narrative did not include this information, and that the applicant could provide this feedback for whether they were proposing this type of use.

Commr. Campione clarified that she was not against medical marijuana or its production; however, in past cases it had created a large conflict between the surrounding land uses when there were not sufficient buffers from residential uses, noting that there were not any State requirements for buffers.

Commr. Shields asked if the issue was mostly the smell.

Commr. Campione stated that it was a combination of items including noise and lights, noting that it was an array of issues that the County was not allowed to regulate because it was preempted by State law.

Commr. Smith pointed out that everything around the subject property was Rural.

Commr. Campione recalled that in the places where there had been issues, everything around it was also Rural and included five acre home sites immediately adjacent to medical marijuana production, opining that it affected their quality of life and property values.

Ms. Barrón commented that she was unsure if the County could exclude this use because it was a straight zoning ordinance.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, recalled that for previous downzonings, the County had the property owner do a restrictive covenant to the adjacent property owners basically ensuring that they would not use it for that use. She added that the County could not regulate this because they were preempted by State law; additionally, there had been opposition in other cases. She said that she was unsure who the current applicant would give the restrictive covenant to if the adjacent property owners had not expressed any opposition to this request.

Commr. Campione opined that most people did not realize that Agriculture zoning opened the door for this use.

Ms. Marsh indicated that it appeared from the aerial image that there was an adjacent residence.

Ms. Amanda Boggus, an attorney representing the applicant, recalled that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the neighbors had attended to ask if it would be a pig farm; furthermore, the applicant had assured them that it would not be. She clarified that the applicant’s intention was to grow a large volume of pineapples that they could distribute to local markets.

Commr. Campione asked if she had any opposition to doing a restrictive covenant for the immediately adjacent property owners.

Ms. Boggus thought that this was something that the property owners would have to discuss with her client; noting that at the current point, the property owners had not indicated that they desired this, and that they just wanted assurances that it would not be a pig farm.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was any reason why the applicant could not grow pineapples on R-1 zoning.

Ms. Marsh replied that she did not think that one could do this type of agriculture in R-1.

Ms. Barrón confirmed this and said that general agricultural uses allowed one to grow what they sold from the property; furthermore, when the parcel was zoned R-1, the intent was for the family living on the land to be able to farm their own crops. She added that if they wanted to sell it from the property, then it had to be zoned Agriculture to allow for general agricultural uses, noting that R-1 only allowed non-intensive agricultural uses.

Commr. Campione asked if there were already pineapple plants growing.

Ms. Boggus denied this and indicated that the applicant wanted to start it, noting that they had just purchased the property and wanted to develop it.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she was in favor of this agricultural use in this location; however, she mentioned how close the adjacent house was. She opined that this owner may decide that the pineapple business was not what they thought it was going to be, and then they could possibly sell the property.

Ms. Boggus relayed that they also had rural neighbors zoned Agriculture, and that it may be mutually beneficial for both of them to covenant this way; however, she reiterated that at the current time, her clients had not sought this covenant from other Agricultural zonings, nor had anyone sought that assurance from the applicant.

Commr. Parks asked for the adjacent property zonings to be displayed.

Ms. Marsh recalled that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, she had made it clear to the neighbors that regardless of what the applicant said they were going to do, it would not prohibit pig farming in the future if the applicant sold the property. She opined that the neighbors were on notice that once it was zoned general Agriculture, anything allowed under that category could be put on this property at any point in the future.

Ms. Barrón pointed out that the parcels to the east were zoned Agriculture; however, the parcels to the north, south and immediate west were zoned R-1.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the applicant had stated on the record that they wanted to grow pineapples.

Ms. Boggus confirmed this and added that they would also be living on the property, opining that they had an interest in making it livable for neighbors as well.

Commr. Parks commented that one of the whereas clauses of the proposed ordinance could possibly state that the intent was to grow pineapples or similar row crops.

Ms. Marsh clarified that this would not be binding and that it was not a conditional zoning. She opined that doing this would give a false sense of security to the neighbors because then they would think that it would always be pineapples. She said that she did not recommend doing this.

Commr. Blake noted that all five of the horizontal properties already touched Agriculture zoning and were already at all the risks that Commissioner Campione was trying to prohibit. He added that there was nothing that would currently protect them from the smell of a pig farm.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the nearby house was in R-1.

Commr. Smith agreed with Commissioner Blake that the four or five parcels to the west of the subject property were already zoned Agriculture and could do what they wanted. He indicated concerns for telling people what they could and could not do with their land if it was within the rights of the people and they were doing it legally. He noted that the applicant was asking for a rezoning to Agriculture and that the property was touching Agriculture zoning.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for a previous case involving marijuana, noting that State law allowed it to happen. She indicated concerns that in the current case, the County was making a change that opened this door. She said that she liked the restrictive covenant for the parcels that were R-1 and immediately adjacent, and she relayed her understanding that the County did not have a planned agriculture zoning.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, but mentioned that the County had a planned unit development (PUD) zoning. She added that the Board could recommend or vote that the case be re-advertised and brought back as a PUD, noting that they would be able to restrict those uses.

Commr. Blake thought that there might be some unintended consequences because the County did not want to discourage downzoning. He opined that there was a small percentage of people who might use downzoning as a smokescreen for an industrial marijuana operation, but that most of the people who wanted to downzone to Agriculture were the kind of people that the County wanted to downzone and keep agriculture alive in Lake County. He expressed concerns for discouraging people from seeking Agriculture zoning, opining that the County wanted this and that it preserved the old Lake County feel.

Commr. Campione agreed, and she thought that a PUD with agriculture uses, excluding certain uses, was the way to do this. She noted that it would eliminate the potential for a downzoning that was ultimately used for marijuana and industrial production.

Commr. Parks asked what happened if the applicant received Agriculture zoning and they were interested in marijuana production.

Ms. Marsh replied that they would still have to receive State approvals to do this, and that if the Board was looking long term, the applicant would likely downzone it and then sell it to an entity that already had State approvals. She also mentioned that the property that Commissioner Campione had mentioned in her district, Commission District 4, was a five acre property.

Commr. Campione added that it was adjacent to a house, similar to the current case; additionally, they had no setbacks because the County could not impose them.

Ms. Boggus reiterated that the applicant was going to reside on the property, opining that they had a vested interest in making it a livable place that they enjoyed, as well as for resale of their home.

Commr. Parks noted that they could also sell the property.

Commr. Blake mentioned that any of the people to the east could already do that, and he opined that the Board was not stopping that by addressing the subject property.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the properties to the east were at least five acres, and he asked if marijuana production was indoors.

Commr. Campione confirmed this, and she expressed concerns for a facility on Britt Road.

Commr. Parks asked if each of the properties to the east were individually owned, and he mentioned that they were narrow. He questioned that with setbacks, if they could even place a growing facility there.

Ms. Marsh explained that if it was zoned Agriculture and if there was a nonresidential building, then they did not need permits. She added that they were supposed to adhere to setbacks, but they did not receive permits and the County did not check setbacks.

Commr. Parks thought that the Board needed to consider whether the parcels were usable for that purpose.

Commr. Shields inquired if legal marijuana would possibly be on the 2024 ballot for recreational use, opining that this could potentially put more pressure on land for growing it.

Commr. Campione said that it was different for growing versus production.

Commr. Blake stated that a large company could possibly purchase all four of the parcels to the east and make it a large operation, noting that there was nothing to stop this from happening.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for being a party to it and for being responsible, opining that the County could administratively handle the PUD agriculture uses with just an exclusion of the marijuana production and possibly the pig farming.

Commr. Blake thought that if a large operation was trying to put a footprint in the State of Florida, there were better transportation networks to purchase existing Agriculture zoning on.

Commr. Parks asked that instead of the PUD route, could the applicant voluntarily agree not to grow marijuana on the site.

Ms. Boggus did not think that it was enforceable; additionally, it was preempted by State statutes.

Ms. Marsh said that unless the applicant gave a restrictive covenant to neighbors who could enforce it, the County could not enforce it.

Commr. Shields proposed possibly working on a process for the future, noting that the Board lost some influence when they did downzonings. He expressed concerns for affecting the applicant because the County’s process was not where it could have been,

Commr. Blake thought that this needed to come from the State Legislature.

Commr. Campione recalled that the County previously had a legislative priority and had attempted to get State law changes.

Commr. Shields mentioned the possibility that if someone came in for a downzoning, they would need to go through the PUD process because of this issue.

Commr. Campione said that if one downzoned to Agriculture, then the County’s policy could possibly be that it would be a PUD with the excluded uses. She then said that if someone wanted to have medical marijuana production and downzone for that purpose, then she thought that the Board could use a PUD to impose setbacks.

Commr. Parks commented that part of the process was already in place and that the applicant could do restrictive covenants. He was unsure if this was being discussed when these kinds of items came forward.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that it had not come up at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting.

Ms. Barrón confirmed this and said that there was not a discussion with staff because the County was preempted by the State for medical marijuana; however, the applicant provided a project narrative to tell staff of the intended uses. She also mentioned that Comp Plan Policy I-1.2.8 indicated that the County encouraged agricultural uses within all FLUs, which was part of the backup for this item. She commented that this particular use had not been mentioned at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, or with the applicant’s request for rezoning; furthermore, the applicant’s intent was to use it for agricultural farm use for pineapples.

Commr. Parks opined that it was consistent with the Comp Plan.

Commr. Blake asked when the applicant planned on building the residence, and Ms. Boggus replied that they were in the process of working on this. Commissioner Blake then opined that the largest protection was that if the applicant was going to build a primary residence there, then they would want it to be a rural lifestyle. He also opined that if the legal marijuana that Commissioner Shields had mentioned was to pass on the ballot, it would possibly reduce the demand for industrial facilities because people could grow their own.

Commr. Campione opined that medical marijuana was not really an agricultural use even though the State had decided to call it as such, noting that the processing was what created the industrial-type conditions that impacted surrounding property owners.

Commr. Parks inquired if the ballot was to grow marijuana or if it was for recreational use.

Ms. Boggus believed that it was to decriminalize it and that it would be legal to grow.

Commr. Shields proposed possibly approving this item and then having Mr. Fitzgerald come up with a new policy the Board could approve to ensure that they were protecting neighbors each time they had a new one of these items.

Ms. Marsh explained that it would have to be a code change, and that they could do what they had just done with the requirement of a PUD if one had 50 lots or more. She elaborated that they would have to add a new section in this provision which indicated that if one was going to downzone to Agriculture, then they would be required to have a PUD.

Commr. Campione asked if there were more requirements other than just applying for a PUD, relaying that the Board did not want to make it cumbersome.

Ms. Marsh believed that it was the same zoning fee.

Ms. Barrón clarified that the Agriculture fee was $200, and the PUD was $1,250 plus capacity encumbrance fees which were required for each PUD. She added that there was an additional fee of $1,055 if an applicant submitted a traffic study, and that it was $590 if they did not submit a traffic study.

Ms. Marsh commented that the Board could create a new category in their fee resolution for a PUD to downzone to Agriculture, noting that it could be the $200 fee.

Commr. Campione said that they could possibly even make it less cumbersome to encourage those uses and downzonings. She indicated that she would not vote in favor of this item because of the concerns that she had raised, and that she was in favor of downzoning to Agriculture for real agricultural purposes. She thought that it could be rectified by the County administratively changing this item and rehearing it in 30 days as a PUD with agricultural uses, excluding medical marijuana production. She opined that this would address it, and that 30 days would not stop the applicant from moving ahead.

Ms. Boggus commented that this would also include attorney’s fees.

Commr. Shields opined that if the County’s process was not set up correctly the first time, then the applicant should not have more attorney’s fees. He agreed that a month would be fine, but that it should not cost the applicant more to do this.

Commr. Campione indicated interest in administratively handling the modification and not making the applicant fill anything out.

Commr. Blake said that he was willing to take the applicant and their counsel at their word that they would build a residence there; additionally, he was amicable with coming up with a system to prevent the scenario which had occurred in Commission District 4.

Commr. Shields expressed concerns for the resale of the property.

Commr. Blake opined that Lake County had many Agriculture properties that were more attractive to that type of operation.

Commr. Campione asked where the applicant was moving from.

Ms. Boggus replied that they were moving from out of state and that their intent was to retire there. She added that the applicant’s son would also have a property nearby, and that they would grow their pineapple business.

Commr. Parks asked if 30 days was necessary, or if a PUD or restrictive covenant could be done by the next Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting.

Ms. Marsh explained that it did not have to be postponed for restrictive covenants; however, Ms. Boggus would have to draft it or at least review what the County had done for other items. She also said that if the Board wanted to postpone it to come back as a PUD, the earliest it could come back was August 29, 2023 because of advertising times and meeting dates.

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.

Commr. Smith reiterated that the subject property already had agricultural uses around them, and that they wanted to go from R-1 to Agriculture. He said that he understood the concerns, and he indicated interest in trusting people and not having too much government overreach; therefore, he was amicable with letting the subject property be zoned Agriculture.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Tab 1, Rezoning Case # RZ-23-07-2, Stenzel Farm.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Campione voted no.

commissioners reports

commissioner parks – district 2

SISTER COUNTY in ukraine

Commr. Parks recalled that in March 2022, the County had a rally for Ukraine with various speakers. He commented that Mission 823, one of the speakers, had let him know that there was an interest in Ukraine, noting that Ukraine had oblasts which were essentially counties. He added that there was an interest in doing a sister county relationship, and that he wanted to see if the Board had any comments or issues with this. He clarified that there was not currently a decision on this, and that it was just regarding whether he should pursue this. He also indicated that there would be no fiscal commitment or requirements on the County’s part to honor or say something, noting that it would strictly be a sister county relationship. He said that before the Board did anything, they would see a resolution or proclamation first.

Commr. Smith said that the County would have to vet them.

Commr. Blake stated that he would be hesitant because of the timing, and he expressed concerns for having the appearance of weighing in on a foreign war.

Commr. Campione asked where it was located.

Commr. Parks responded that it would be on the western side of Ukraine and was not near the front. He indicated that he would bring back more information.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

trout lake boardwalk ribbon cutting

Commr. Smith related that he had attended the Trout Lake Boardwalk ribbon cutting with Ms. Barker and Mr. Butch Hendrick, a Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) Board member, opining that it was well represented; additionally, he commented that it was a nice boardwalk.

national raspberry cream pie day

Commr. Smith said that it was National Raspberry Cream Pie Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:38 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK