The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 28, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Bailey gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
ORDINANCES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the ordinance appointing the Sheriff of Lake County as the Chief Correctional Officer of the Lake County Correctional Facility.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that this is being heard as an emergency ordinance, with the Board voting to waive the notice requirements as required by State Statute.
Discussion occurred regarding the effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager stated that the ordinance should reflect 12:01 a.m., October 2, 1993, to coincide with the pay period.
It was noted that on Page 2, under effective date, a change would be made to reflect October 2, 1993.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being no public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve the adoption of Ordinance 1993-15, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTING THE SHERIFF OF LAKE COUNTY AS THE CHIEF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OF THE LAKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 951, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR ASSUMPTION OF ALL ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he talked with Sheriff George Knupp, who knows that he is voting against the ordinance, because he feels that this will close the doors to other options that the Board had.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no".
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 726 - Katherine McCormick - Mount Dora Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board.
It was noted that the applicant was not present in the audience.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation No. 726, by Katherine McCormick, to vacate Roosevelt Drive, Highland Park Estates, Sec. 28, Twp. 19, Rge. 27, Mount Dora Area - Commissioner District 4, as advertised.
PETITION NO. 729 - Neil Britt, Gourd Neck Springs, Inc. -
Montverde
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender stated that the applicant requested a 30 day postponement, so that the plat could be recorded.
It was noted that the applicant was not present in the audience.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Road Vacation
Petition No. 729, by Neil Britt, President, Gourd Neck Springs, Inc., to vacate rights-of-way and easements, Sec. 23 and 24, Twp 22, Rge 26, nearest town - Montverde, Commissioner District 2, until October 26, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
PETITION NO. 730 - Robert Sindler - Mt. Plymouth Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender stated that he met with all of the property owners to discuss the closing of the entire length and width of the alley, which is the request before the Board today. He further stated that there were no letters in opposition to the request.
Commr. Hanson stated that she is concerned with the fact that the applicant paid all of the fees involved for the road vacation.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 730, by Robert Sindler, to vacate alley, Mt. Plymouth Subdivision, Sec 29, Twp. 19, Rge. 28, Mt. Plymouth Area - Commissioner District 4, as advertised.
PETITION NO. 732 - Sunbank - Leesburg Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender stated that he had no objections to the request.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Mr. Charles Sellar, Attorney representing Sunbank, appeared before the Board and stated that he supported the road vacation.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 732, by Sunbank, to vacate road, Lake Griffin Park, Sec. 19, Twp. 19, Rge 25, Leesburg Area - Commissioner District 1, as advertised.
PETITION NO. 733 - Kelly H. Owen - Lady Lake Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender stated that one letter of objection was received from the property owner of Lot 330.
Mrs. Debbie Stivender, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that verification has been presented to Public Services that the utilities themselves are not within the part that is being vacated.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 733 by Kelly H. Owen to vacate easement, Orange Blossom Gardens Unit No. 3.1B, Sec. 6, Twp. 18, Rge. 24, Lady lake Area, Commissioner District 5, as advertised.
ZONING
The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following County employees: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting; Mr. John Brock, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development; Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division; and Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, informed the Board that he had received a request for withdrawal of Petition #56-93-5, George Rossell. Mr. Stubbs asked the Board to postpone the request, rather than approve the request for withdrawal, due to the records reflecting that the property is also owned by Mr. Rossell's brother, Wallace, who does not want the property rezoned. Mr. Stubbs requested a 30 day postponement to allow him time to try and resolve the communication problems between the brothers.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to R-8 (Mixed Residential), for construction of a single-family dwelling, for 30 days, until October 26, 1993, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that staff will be making a request for postponement of Petition No. 135B-84-2, Leisure Communities, Ltd., but that there will be some argument to this request. It was noted that the petition is number 12 on the agenda.
PETITION #50-93-2 A to CFD Brooke P. Bosserman
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board and stated that a postponement of the request was approved last month. Mr. Stubbs stated that a new legal description has been received, which does not include the entire ten acre tract, but does encompass 5 1/2 acres of the property. The additional 4 1/2 acres will not be rezoned and will remain as a vegetative cover for a buffer between the PUD and the church. Mr. Stubbs stated that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, has sent him a Letter of Appearance, as well as a request for this to occur. He further stated that the entire acreage has been advertised, but less acreage can be approved, with a legal description being attached to the ordinance.
Ms. Edwina Virginia Roane appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Roane stated that she had a plat showing where the church would be placed, and she will be working with staff regarding the requirements for the building.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that he had filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of several of his clients, who are owners of contiguous property to the ten (10) acres. Mr. Richey extended his appreciation to the Board for continuing this case for 30 days, which allowed his clients to meet with the representatives of the church and Ms. Roane. He stated that the southern property (5 1/2 acres) was approved based on a site plan that was already filed. He further stated that the church has agreed to place an appropriate
vegetative buffer between the 5 1/2 acres being zoned CFD and the 4 1/2 acres that is remaining in agriculture. Mr. Richey stated that the conditions discussed have been mutually agreed to between the church and the adjacent property owners.
It was noted that the new legal description that was submitted to staff indicate 5 3/4 acres and 4 1/4 acres.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), as conditioned, for the construction of a church, and with the corrected legal, which indicates 5 3/4 acres and 4 1/4 acres. The motion also included the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Green Valley Boulevard, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Mr. Stubbs clarified that the Land Development Regulations were amended in February to allow for a parking study to be conducted with staff to determine the amount of parking that will actually need to be paved.
PETITION #55-93-4 RA to A Alex Qimzu
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that, for this use, the applicant would be required to submit an agricultural plan to the staff before they can obtain a permit for the construction of the nursery.
After some discussion, it was noted that the property was not located in the Wekiva protection area.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RA (Ranchette) to A (Agricultural), for an agricultural plant nursery, with the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 40 feet from the centerline of County Road 437, as recommended by staff.
PETITION SSLUPA#93-1 Change Land Use from Rural to Rural Village - Lake County Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. He stated that this case, and Tab 5, #53-93-3, Ocklawaha Trust (Dorothy Shipes et al), are related. He further stated that the County Attorney has drafted an ordinance, which was before the Board today. This is a request to change the land use designation for approximately six (6) acres from rural to rural village land use designation in the Lake Jem area. Mr. Gregg explained that, with the change in the Land Use Map before adoption, it reduced the size of the Rural Village land use designation where it does not quite cover the entire portion of Lake Jem.
Discussion occurred regarding the location of the two parcels, one parcel being adjacent to Lake Jem, and one parcel being at the corner where the road intersection cuts through and splits the parcels. Commr. Swartz stated that he had wanted this to touch the existing rural village.
Ms. Dorothy Shipes appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Shipes clarified that she is not the owner of Parcel 26. She stated that she was of the understanding that the Small Comprehensive Plan changes allow for ten (10) acres. She explained that there are five acres in one parcel and two acres in the smaller one, for a total of seven acres. Ms. Shipes stated that she is the owner of Parcel 27, and Lot 5.
Commr. Swartz stated that he will support the request before the Board, but he was of the understanding that it would be easier to present to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), if it touched the rural village. He clarified that, if the request is approved, and the Board has heard public comment, staff will send
additional data inventory analysis that deals with what happened between the 1991 and 1992 Comprehensive Plan, and the contractual arrangements to road improvements, as the basis for approving this.
Discussion occurred regarding the ten acre requirement, which was established to correspond to land that the County contractually was obligated to try to rezone, and to do road improvements, with the understanding that, when the Board proceeds to the next amendment process, it will come back and shift the rural village.
Mr. Rodney Adams appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Adams commented on the notices that were sent to the surrounding property owners, which advised him to appear at 6 p.m. tonight.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, and staff reviewed the information Mr. Adams presented, and clarified that new notices were sent out to the list of property owners. Ms. Lustgarten stated that the County is not required by law to notice any property owners, in relation to Land Use Plan Amendments, and it is done as a courtesy. The County is required by law to put the advertisement in the newspaper, and the County has met its legal obligation.
Mr. Adams stated that his property is located in Tract 21 in Lake Jem. He questioned whether the Board, or staff, had a photo of what was being proposed in this area.
Commr. Swartz explained that, in the July, 1991 Comprehensive Plan, all of the area being proposed today, plus an additional amount, was included in a designation called rural village. However, between the 1991 Plan, and when the final Plan was adopted and DCA requested that the rural villages be reduced in size, this one was reduced in size rather than concentrated around the Lake Jem area where most of the platted lots and homes actually exist, and it was cut in half, which meant it went down the center of the lake. This has created a hardship to those who own land in the platted lots. In addition to this, the Board, in an attempt to
resolve some bad road conditions on CR 448, entered into an agreement with some of the landowners to make adjustments where they would deed additional land to the County, and the County would deed some to them, and to change some of the road network as a part of the agreement, because the road was changing from where it was, and it was subdividing lots differently, and the Board agreed to initiate rezoning. The rezoning would have been consistent with the rural village as it was originally designed, but because it had been cut in half, it was no longer consistent. The Board is trying to recreate as much of the rural village as it can where it needs to be, so that the County can comply with the contract that it entered into, in order to acquire right-of-way, and to straighten out the road.
Mr. Adams presented the Board with a plat to review. Mr. Stubbs noted that the same plat was in the file. The Deputy Clerk marked the plat, for the record, as the County's Exhibit A. Mr. Adams requested that the Board leave the area in question just as it presently exists, because the County has spent enough money in Tallahassee and on lawyers fees.
Commr. Swartz stated that it was not the intent of the Board to subdivide the rural village at Lake Jem in half. The Board is now trying to correct a mistake that has caused a hardship on property owners.
Commr. Hanson stated that DCA intended for Lake County to make changes to its Comprehensive Plan, and that is why they allowed for the amendatory process. She stated that the Plan is not a stagnant
plan, but a continuously changing plan to accommodate growth.
The Chairman called for further comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
It was noted that the acreage would be left at six (6) plus or minus acres, with staff verifying the legal description.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and approve SSLUPA#93-1, Lake County Board of County Commissioners, to change the land use designation on approximately six (6) acres, from the Rural land use designation to the Rural Village land use designation, in the Lake Jem area.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz requested that the Planning staff, and the One Stop Permitting staff, work to provide the necessary data inventory analysis, the background of what has happened, and why the Board is doing this, with the Board's intention being to come back and address the rural village more comprehensively, but because of the hardships that were being created, and the County's contractual obligations, the Board is addressing only a portion of it now.
Commr. Swartz stated, once again, for the record that the LUPA was proposed by the County for two reasons, one, that the rural village was inadvertently downsized in the wrong place, and secondly, the County, in an effort to improve its transportation system and road project, which is in the current year's budget for approval, impacted the Board's desire to do the LUPA at this time.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that, because this is a small scale amendment, it is permitted to be enacted in this one public hearing, with the Board adopting the ordinance. It will then go to DCA, and the Statute provides that they have 90 days to review this to determine whether it is, or is not, consistent, at which time they will provide the County with a response. Until there is a response from DCA, it is a pending land use plan amendment. It was noted that the following rezoning request, Case #53-93-3, Ocklawaha Trust (Dorothy Shipes et al) would need to be postponed until the response is received. It was clarified that the motion that was approved included the ordinance which adopts the amendment itself.
PETITION #53-93-3 A to R-1 & AR Ocklawaha Trust
Dorothy Shipes et al
Ms. Lustgarten explained this case would be postponed indefinitely until the County hears from DCA, and then the request would have to be readvertised.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in order to avoid having to spend additional advertising dollars, he would recommend postponing the request until a date certain. It was noted that the meeting date would be December 28, 1993.
Discussion occurred regarding the scheduled meetings in the month of December. It was the consensus of the Board to cancel the meeting of December 28, 1993, with the necessary adjustments being made for the scheduled public hearings.
Ms. Dorothy Shipes, applicant, addressed the Board and questioned the 90 day requirement in the Florida Statutes, and stated that she was of the understanding that the County could get a response from DCA in 45 days.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Rural Residential) & AR (Agricultural Residential), for the development of single-family residences, until November 23, 1993, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
PETITION #58-93-3 A to R-2 Wendell & Paula Gaertner
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board.
Ms. Katherine Jones, Attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that the property surrounding the property in question has recently been rezoned from agricultural to R-2 (Estate Residential). The property across the street is presently residential in character, and single-family dwellings. Therefore, the zoning would be consistent with the present character of the neighborhood, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the development and construction of a single-family residence, with the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Bloomfield Avenue (#3-3026), as recommended by staff.
PETITION #60-93-2 A to CP with C-1 & C-2 uses
Lake County Board of County Commissioners, c/o Forrest Martens
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that the CP (Planned Commercial) zoning would allow for restaurant uses, and similar uses to restaurants, and nothing any more intensive than a restaurant at this location. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the CP zoning with C-1 and C-2 uses, and with the right-of-way condition being further reviewed.
Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Griffey discussed the issue of right-of-way that would be obtainable in this area.
Commr. Swartz stated that the request was initiated on behalf of the applicant, because of the future ability to use the property as a result of the Green Swamp Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Stubbs discussed the location of the property in relation to Redwing Road, and stated that staff has concerns with creating any more nonconformities for setbacks in the future.
Commr. Hanson stated that the business has been in operation for years, and the County has put new regulations on it, and it is
unfair for the County to extract the right-of-way. She stated that it would be a different situation, if it was a new business.
Commr. Bailey encouraged the Board not to extract anything else from the applicant, and to allow him to continue in the manner in which the business was established.
Commr. Swartz stated that he met with the applicant and his representatives, to answer questions about what the Comprehensive Plan meant to the existing establishment and zoning. He suggested that, if there is right-of-way available, that does not take from the necessary parking that they may already have, the Board would be setting a precedent, if the Board did not require the additional right-of-way. Commr. Swartz stated that the County is getting ready to comprehensively rezone a lot of property in Lake County, as a result of the Plan, and he does not feel that the Board wants to say that in no incidence is the County going to still require the right-of-way that is necessary for the road improvements that the County might need in the future. He explained that the Board does not have to hear these types of requests, and it is just a question as to whether or not there is additional right-of-way that is available that does not harm the existing use.
Commr. Hanson stated that the additional request for right-of-way would be harmful to the business, and that this is a case, through no fault of the individual, where, because the applicant is in the Green Swamp, the County has placed regulations on him after the fact. She stated that the Board should allow for flexibility in all cases where it could create a hardship.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the case is unique, and the need for additional right-of-way there may never occur. He clarified that the Board does not want to undermine the right-of-way program, but this particular case does not need to be addressed.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
It was determined by the Board that no additional right-of-way would be required of the applicant.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses.
Commr. Swartz clarified that the zoning will be consistent with the intensity of a restaurant.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a short recess.
ZONING (Continued)
PETITION CUP#93/8/1-3 CUP in A Dana & Linda Fitch
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board, and stated that the applicant secured the necessary letter from a medical doctor, as required by County ordinance.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in A (Agricultural) for the placement of a temporary dwelling (mobile home) on site for the care of an infirm relative, including the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of East Dewey Robbins Road (#2/3-2729), as recommended by staff.
PETITION #54-93-3 R-1-7 to CP Shamrock Development Corp.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that one letter against the request was received from Ms. Mary Pelfrey. He stated that there is no frontage requirement on C-473, but restrictions are being made for curb cuts.
Ms. Leslie Campione, who was representing Shamrock Development Corporation, appeared before the Board and stated that the applicant has contracted to construct a corporate headquarters for a local company that designs and manufactures trusses for development. She discussed the number of employees that will be employed by the business, and explained the type of traffic that will be generated at the site. Ms. Campione stated that the staff report indicates that the applicant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). At this time, Ms. Campione reviewed the policies that were listed as the most pertinent to the request. She submitted a copy of the site plan, which was marked as the Applicant's Exhibit A.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience, as well as the president of the truss company.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), for the construction of an office building for a "Corporate Headquarters", as conditioned.
PETITION #22-93-5 A & AR to AR Raymond & Betty Richardson
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. He explained that this request has been before the Board in the past, and is before the Board again, in order to take care of an error in the legal description. The entire ten (10) acres have been advertised.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that staff has worked diligently with him to straighten out the error in the advertising, and the request is before the Board for the ten (10) acres.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) & AR (Agricultural Residential) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for the construction of a single-family residence.
PETITION MSP#119C-3 Amend CUP#119-3 Tarmac Florida Inc.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that the request was taken to the Technical Review Committee (TRC), with the conditions in the backup material from the Pollution Control Division. He stated that the Public Services Department has also placed conditions on the project. Mr. Stubbs stated that there are some disagreements between the applicant and the Public Services Department on the provisions of some additional right-of-way to provide bike paths around the mine's edge along Hartwood Marsh Road.
Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, appeared before the Board and presented an overview of the Technical Staff Report from the Pollution Control Division. Mr. Barker stated that this is an expansion of the existing Center Lake Sand Mine. He explained that the applicant has submitted the mining site plan, and the operation plans, which have been approved, with the conditions indicated in the staff report. Mr. Barker noted that the concern indicated by Ms. Zelda Gercken at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting has been addressed. Mr. Barker stated that the applicant requested one variance to allow them to connect to the mine to the north, in order to have one continuous water body, with staff recommending approval of this request.
Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board to address the staff report and the recommendation being made for additional right-of-way to provide for 40 feet from the
centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road. He explained that staff looked at this again at the TRC meeting, and did a more indepth review of the plan that was submitted, and came up with a recommendation for the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for a larger radius around the sharp right angle turn on the southwest portion of the property in question. The additional requirements of the recommendation were to provide paved shoulders, and to sign up for bicycle traffic along Hartwood Marsh Road. Mr. Griffey explained the reason for this recommendation, and stated that staff may be a little premature making the request for these improvements, because a completed bicycle plan has not been presented to the Board for adoption, but staff did want to identify that there is a need on this road.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing Tarmac and Center Lake Properties, appeared before the Board and stated that the request is an amendment to an existing CUP. Ms. Bonifay stated that staff has worked with the consultant, and the applicant, extensively, as well as the property owners, to insure that all of the requirements of the mining ordinance have been met, and to work on specific conditions, so that they reflect the existence of the existing mine, and the handling of the buffer between this mine and the Florida Crushed Stone mine. An agreement has been entered into with Florida Crushed Stone to reflect those changes. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant has no problems with the conditions in the staff report, with the exception of the items brought up by Mr. Griffey. She discussed the original CUP, and the research that has been done through the right-of-way maps, and stated that the County extracted 25 feet of right-of-way from them to allow them to operate the mine. She stated that the new regulations have expanded the amount of right-of-way that would be required to 80 feet. She stated that, because they have already given 25 feet, legally they would only be required to give the additional 15 feet, in order to be in compliance with the new regulations.
Mr. Griffey clarified that staff was requesting 40 feet from the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the issue of the extended shoulders that will be used for bicycles and stated that this raises a problem and that it is a concern to her client to keep people off of the site and keep it secured. She stated that this will be creating a greater liability for the applicant, and will be making this an attractive nuisance by enticing people onto the site. Ms. Bonifay agreed with Mr. Griffey that this is rather a premature issue, and suggested that, when the mining is finished, the lakes are created, and the reclamation is done, Center Lake Properties and Lake Pine Management come to the County with a development plan for the site, for either residential or commercial development, which will be the appropriate time to look at the issue of extended shoulders, or bicycle paths. She stated that she feels this is an inconsistent and incompatible use given to the truck traffic on the road at this time. She addressed the realignment of Hartwood Marsh Road and stated that there has been no documentation for the safety problem on this site. She stated that there will be no more truck traffic on the site today as there has been previously, and if the County wants to straighten the road out sometime in the future, she suggested that the County use the impact funds to do so. She further stated that there has been no documentation by staff that anything about this project requires the improvement of that road. Ms. Bonifay clarified that she agrees with what is required by the LDRs for the additional right-of-way, 40 feet, minus what has already been given, and would ask the Board not to impose the other two requirements (bike path and expanded radii), because they are not necessitated, or make for a safety problem, and should be deferred to future development of the site.
Ms. Bonifay stated that representatives from Tarmac and their consultants were present and available to answer questions.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Stivender discussed the issue of Hartwood Marsh Road.
Mr. Griffey explained what staff will be doing to Hartwood Marsh Road, in relation to making a sweeping curve, in order to make it safer, and stated that staff has not looked at the actual truck traffic, but only looked at a percentage of truck traffic.
Mr. Stivender discussed staff looking at this area of road many years ago, as a long-term project, because of the high density of truck traffic, but the project was dropped.
Mr. Doug Miller appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Miller stated that he is a consulting engineer, and he represents the owner of the proposed Clermont Hills project, which will be coming to the Board in the near future as a rezoning request. He stated that he has coordinated closely with the representatives of Tarmac, and he has received total cooperation from them about the concern regarding noise. Mr. Miller stated that they have provided substantial buffers and allowed him to work directly with their engineers and biologists, to the extent that he is satisfied that the hypergeological aspect of the operation will not be in conflict with the proposal that he will be bringing to the Board. Mr. Miller stated that he wanted to go record to say that he believes this is a compatible use, and he supports the project.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board on the issue of the applicant giving additional property, and the physical improvement for the bike path, and stated that the request for the bike path is an inconsistent use when it comes to being a safety hazard. She discussed the radius issue and stated that this is an area of land that has not been mined on the original site, but may need to be. She further stated that there has been no consideration of what that additional right-of-way cutting through the property does to the usability of her client's property. She requested that the County defer these two items, until such time Center Lake Properties, or Lake Pines, come back with development plans.
It was noted that there was no further public comment.
Commr. Swartz stated that he feels that the Board would be making a mistake, if it did not require the road improvements that staff is suggesting, because of the truck traffic on the property. With the exception of insuring that the County has the 40 feet maximum, if the Board requires the road improvements that staff is recommending, and the radius, because of the truck traffic, he would support the project.
Commr. Bailey stated that he is going to support the project, because is does meet all of the conditions of the mining ordinance, but he has a problem with the additional three feet of extended shoulders on either side of the road. He stated that, if this comes back for some other type of development, this issue could be addressed, but he cannot see adding this condition. He further stated that there is no problem with the 40 feet of right-of-way, and he would support the additional right-of-way to meet the 80 foot requirement. Commr. Bailey stated that he has a problem with the radius and asking someone to make those kinds of improvements, and having that expense, for this type of operation, and he would oppose both of these.
Discussion occurred regarding the three foot extended shoulder requirement, with Mr. Griffey clarifying that this specific requirement was not placed on the Clermont Hills project. Commr. Gerber stated that she feels the same thing should be required along the entire stretch of road.
Discussion occurred regarding the County being in the process of developing a countywide bicycle plan to identify particular roads and targeting them for improvements for different types of uses other than cars or trucks. Discussion continued regarding the anticipated traffic on Hartwood Marsh Road, with it being noted
that there would be no major increase in traffic, and the fencing requirements in the County Code.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board will be making a mistake by not requiring the additional pavement, just as the County is doing in high truck traffic areas, such as CR 561A. He stated that it would be an inconvenience and would be costly to the applicant, but it is a rightful cost that they bear as a result of the mining operation for which they are extracting the resources and selling them.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request to amend CUP#119-3, to add land for the expansion of the existing sandmine and a waiver of setback excavation limitations and excavation permits, including the dedication of additional right-of-way (15 feet, as discussed) to provide for 40 feet from the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road (#2-0854), as recommended by staff. He clarified that he would not concur with the recommendation for the three feet extended curve on either side of the road, and the additional right-of-way for the radius, which were recommendations from the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Commr. Swartz stated that the applicant has met the conditions that the County requires in the new mining ordinance, but that the Board is making a mistake not to provide the transportation needs that the TRC and staff have recommended, and therefore, he will vote against the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "no".
PETITION #135B-84-2 Amendment to PUD Ord. #115-88
Leisure Communities LTD
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs presented the Board members with the Master Development Plan for review. He stated that staff had
recommended that this case be postponed, because the Master Development Plan was not available. He stated that the applicant was asked to change mobile homes to conditional housing in the DRI and the PUD Development Order, and to provide for recreational and commercial uses. Mr. Stubbs explained that staff was not able to write a staff report without the plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the presentation made by the applicant's attorney, recommended to deny staff's request to postpone the case, and to send it to the County Commissioners. Mr. Stubbs stated that he was still requesting a postponement, due to not having sufficient information to recommend approval, or denial, of the request. He stated that staff is sending this to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) today to be placed on the agenda, and have it come back before the Board in 30 days. It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation for approval of the request.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that this involves an existing DRI that was approved originally as Countryside, which is both a PUD and a DRI. She stated that Leisure Communities LTD has taken over Pennebrooke and wants to make modifications. She discussed the master plan, which was presented to the Board, and referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, which indicated that the Commission voted to approve the request, and to send it to the Board for approval without a master plan, because there is no requirement in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that the master plan has to go with the request. She explained that meetings and presentations have been made to the County staff, and to the TRC, to discuss changes that the applicant envisioned looking at in a conceptual master plan. Ms. Bonifay stated that, until the applicant knows what the final Development Order is going to require, he does not know what the final master plan is going to be. She explained that the County has approved four (4) amendments
to the Development Order in the past, and at no time did the County require a master plan with any of the changes. Each amendment was a separate change, and now the applicant wants to take all of the changes, plus what the applicant is proposing to do, and put it into one document. Ms. Bonifay stated that the information has already been sent to the appropriate agencies, and no comment has been received. The request decreases the density and intensity, and does not change the amount of open space, and it increases the recreational area, but not the commercial. She requested that the Board move this request forward, and if there is a need for further technical modifications to the site plan, this can be done at a TRC meeting. She further stated that there are no changes to the environmental impact.
Discussion occurred regarding the amount of time it will take for staff to review the information, and to present it to the TRC. It was noted that staff could present it to the TRC in two weeks, and have it back before the Board in three weeks.
Commr. Swartz stated that he is not comfortable with staff recommending additional time to prepare the information needed to make a formal recommendation to the Board, and therefore, suggested that the Board schedule this item for the earliest time, after staff and TRC have reviewed the information.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance #115-88, to add conventional housing with recreational and commercial uses to the existing development consisting of manufactured housing, until October 19, 1993, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
PETITION #61-93-2 R-1-7 & A to PUD Clermont Groves Inc.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the request to the Board. He presented the Board members with a preliminary development plan for review. Mr. Stubbs referred to Page 9 of the staff report, V. Municipal Services Benefit Unit
(MSBU), where the wording requires the County and the developer to enter into a MSBU for the project. He stated that the County may want to leave an option open that will allow staff to negotiate with the applicant, rather than requiring the MSBU, as recommended by the County Attorney.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the language before the Board mandates that the MSBU be created. She suggested that the following language be inserted: "may at the County's discretion create a MSBU based on the applicant's request".
Mr. Stubbs explained the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for approval of the PUD with waivers to the LDRs, and stated that the motion did not include the paving of Hancock Road any further than that shown on the site plan. Mr. Stubbs stated that he never received an official letter from the City of Clermont, even though the issues were discussed with representatives of the City. At this time, he discussed the proposed plans for the different amounts of acreage of property.
Mr. Lanny Harper, Director of Planning, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Harper referred to the letter sent to Mr. Stubbs from the City of Clermont, Section 1. Reuse Water (Non-Potable) Application and stated that the City asked that the reuse lines be placed in the ground at the initial onset. At this time, he explained the reasons indicated in the letter to Mr. Stubbs from the City. He then referred to Section 2. Potable Water Service and stated that the City requested that clarification be made as to the location of the wellfield. The third item, Wastewater Service, was addressed by Mr. Harper who stated that this is to clarify the ownership and operation. Mr. Harper referred to Section 4. Roadway Design and stated that the City requested that the dedication of the right-of-way south on Hancock Road be extended to the wastewater treatment facility. He then referred to Section
5. Recreation/Open Space and stated that the City requested that some type of multi-sports playfield be placed there. With this being a residential community, there is a potential for a school site there, and the City would like some coordination to be made for some recreational facility. Mr. Harper extended his appreciation to the developers and engineers who worked closely with the City.
Mr. Stubbs explained that the conditions presented by the City were not placed in the backup, but were discussed at the Planning and Zoning meeting. He stated that the only two items that the applicant had objections to, with the applicant agreeing with the majority of the points from the City, was the inclusion of a ballfield program, and the drylines, and the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred that the applicant will be providing recreational facilities for their development, but they did not think they needed to supply any for the outside development. Also they did not want to put in drylines now to reuse, but wanted to wait, because of problems with may arise in future construction. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant did have an objection to putting Hancock Road in the extension through the property, but they will dedicate right-of-way to the wastewater facility.
Discussion occurred regarding the issues presented to the Board by Mr. Stubbs, including clarification of the recreation aspect of the proposed project.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, attorney representing the owner and the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that a number of consultants were present in the audience along with the owner.
The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following individuals: Mr. John Walsh; Mr. Jim Modica; Mr. Steve Ruoff; and Mr. Mark Hardgrove.
COMMISSIONERS
At 11:55 a.m., Commr. Swartz informed the Board, and those present, that he would be leaving for a conference call related to bonds, and therefore, he would be turning the Chairmanship over to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Hanson.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
Commr. Hanson, Vice Chairman, announced that the Board would recess for five minutes, until legal counsel could be present.
REZONING (Continued)
PETITION #61-93-2 R-1-7 & A to PUD Clermont Groves Inc.
(Continued)
It was noted that Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, was present for the meeting. It was also noted that Commr. Swartz, Chairman, was present, and the Chairmanship had been returned to him.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board and stated that this is a PUD for 795 single-family units on approximately 330 acres. She stated that changes were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as reflected in the minutes attached to the backup material, regarding setbacks, etc. She further stated that based on her review of the staff report, the changes reflect the agreement made between the staff, the applicant, and includes those approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Bonifay stated that the primary issue with the project is transportation, and the needs for this project. She stated that a required preliminary traffic analysis has been done, which indicates that this project does not create the demand for an extension of Hancock Road, and although this may be a part of the County's long term program, the Board needs to remember that the requirement from a legal standpoint is to address the impact of the project. She stated that those areas that are designated rural on the Comprehensive Plan are shown as agricultural and open space, and no development has been planned for those areas. In terms of the recommendations presented by the City of Clermont, Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant does not wish to put in drylines, and as this time, explained the reasons for not doing so. As to the recreation/open
space, Ms. Bonifay stated that a school site has been dedicated on the plan, but the applicant is not interested in taking over part of the City's recreation program onto the applicant's property. The applicant is planning on providing for the impacts that are occasioned by the residents, and by this specific development. Ms. Bonifay referred to Page 4 of the staff's report, #5. under transportation, which indicates that secondary access should be provided from Hartwood Marsh Road to the Temporary Clubhouse, and stated that this is inconsistent with #8., and #5. should have been eliminated. She then referred to Page 5, #14. which refers to the construction of Hancock Road, which is an expensive project that is not required by any demands placed on the project, and there is no rational, or legal, basis for requiring this.
Mr. Mark Hardgrove, Transportation Consultant, appeared before the Board and stated that the County guideline was followed and an existing analysis was prepared for the project. Mr. Hardgrove reviewed the major access off of U.S. Highway 27, and stated that no new median cuts are being made on U.S. Highway 27, in order to satisfy both Lake County staff and the Department of Transportation (DOT). All other access will be off of Hancock Road, and the applicant is agreeing to dedicate the right-of-way for the future extension of Hancock Road through the property, even though there is no traffic projected for the road.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 4, #6., with regards to the additional median cut for the out parcel on the southern end of the project.
Mr. Hardgrove explained that there will be no additional median cuts, and all existing cuts will be utilized.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her concerns involved #5. and #14. of the transportation comments, and that the applicant has agreed to dedicate the right-of-way from Hancock to Hardwood Marsh, but has not agreed to the paving, which was a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission that this not be a requirement of this development.
Commr. Cadwell discussed the recreation issue with Ms. Bonifay and stated, because the applicant does not wish to participate in the City's proposal for the dedication of additional land, and the County does not have impact fees for recreation in Lake County, the cities bear the costs for organized recreation in the County. Commr. Cadwell questioned whether, out of the 15 acres set aside for the elementary school site, some wording could be added to include some type of recreational facility that could be utilized for the school and community recreation.
Ms. Bonifay explained that the School Board would be the entity that would have control over the site referred to by Commr. Cadwell, and it would have to address this issue.
Mr. Miller addressed the Board on the fifteen acres set aside for the school, and stated that he worked closely with Mr. Gene Molner, Lake County School Board, and the site does not include any significant recreational facility. Mr. Miller clarified that the applicant is not against locating a public recreational facility at the site, and he clarified that significant private facilities will be added here and will be owned by the homeowners association. He stated that the applicant would not be interested in dedicating land for this use, unless there was some impact fee credit to compensate the landowner for the land.
Commr. Swartz discussed Paragraph 2. Wastewater Service, with Mr. Harper and questioned, if the developer puts in certain facilities, then that would be a credit against the impact fee that the developer might otherwise pay, but to the extent that Clermont's fees for wastewater, or water, were higher, some of the costs would be escrowed. Mr. Harper stated that the City would collect the impact fees and the applicant would get so many units, and this would be incorporated into the private agreement between the developer and the City of Clermont.
Ms. Bonifay explained that there is a provision in the PUD that this PUD be served by central water and sewer, which the applicant plans to do with the City of Clermont through a separate agreement, which is not subject to anything in the PUD. She stated that it is between the applicant and the City to work out an agreement, in order for the applicant to meet all of the City's requirements.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board is going to try and encourage the cities to provide for, or work with, the development community for infrastructure, the Board is going to have to try and meet some of the requirements that the cities have, so there needs to be language that insures that the necessary basics are there. Commr. Swartz stressed that this is a model of having a development that can work with a municipality to meet some of the requirements that the municipality has, and the Board needs to understand that this is about 79% of a DRI. Commr. Swartz addressed the comment made about the MSBU and stated that this has been, at least on the last few occasions, the Board's practice to include this, because there will be pressure to pay for those services. Unless the Board wants to include such costs in taxes, it needs to include MSBUs for common costs. He suggested that the Board take into account these issues, in order for the cities to have a level of confidence that they can count on the County to work with them to bring development here.
COMMISSIONERS
At 12:30 p.m., Commr. Swartz turned the Chairmanship over to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Hanson.
PETITION #61-93-2 R-1-7 & A to PUD Clermont Groves Inc.
Commr. Cadwell discussed the request from the City of Clermont for a drawing from the County records that identify City recreation demands, an area that could provide multi-use team sport activities, and questioned whether the applicant would be willing to dedicate additional land adjacent to the elementary school site
to help alleviate this problem, and if at some point in time, the County enacts impact fees, the impact fee money could be utilized for the facility on the site.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant is addressing the open space requirement, and the concurrency requirement, with one of the elements being for parks and recreation. She stated that there is no requirement that a school site be dedicated, but it was determined that it would be beneficial to the applicant. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant would be willing to utilize some of the existing land in the 25% open space, and if the County wants to go forward with impact fees, and if, in fact, the applicant is willing to give additional land over and beyond the 25% concurrency, then at that point the applicant would get credit for the impact fee. Ms. Bonifay stated that approximately one-quarter of the entire 300 acres of land is already recreation/open space, not counting the concurrency requirement.
Commr. Cadwell discussed the applicant having the willingness to dedicate an additional five acres adjacent to the school site, which would show an effort on the County's part to cooperate with the City and to answer some of the questions brought forth during the discussion.
Mr. Miller stated that, on behalf of the owner, if the County decides not to require the paving of Hancock Road, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, he would provide and dedicate an additional five acres of land.
Discussion occurred regarding the recreational facilities that will be contained within the community recreation center.
Mr. Stubbs discussed the paving of Hancock Road and stated that Public Services is requesting the paving of the road after a 70% build out.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the paving is clearly not required by this development, with this being provided in the testimony of the transportation consultant.
Discussion occurred regarding the paving of Hancock Road, with it being noted that the paving would be completed up to the school.
Mr. Stubbs discussed the language revision presented by Ms. Lustgarten regarding the MSBU, and stated that it would be agreeable to staff, and therefore, he requested that the Board revise the language. Mr. Stubbs requested that, as evidence (which was marked as County's Exhibit A) the development plan will be attached to the PUD, and stated that the plan has the notes which refer to the school site, the right-of-way, and the extension of Road "B", and all of the notes will be placed in all of the other PUD documents, as well as the development plan being attached. Therefore, the applicant will be held to the plan, and any minor amendments to these will go before the TRC, and the major amendments will come before this Board.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the only comment that she would have would be, except as amended by any motion that this Board might make.
It was noted that the MSBU would be at the Board's discretion.
Mr. Stubbs reviewed the Waivers/Variances for Development in the proposed PUD beginning with Page 6 (A) regarding the request for a variance to state that a subdivision cannot be platted until a stormwater management plan has been implemented. He stated that Public Services found that the posting of a performance bond and platting prior to construction is not an allowable procedures and therefore, a variance is not required, and no action is needed by the Board.
Mr. Stubbs discussed the next waiver/variance, (B), regarding increasing the long block lengths to 1,800 feet, and stated that an agreement has been reached determing that 1,500 feet would not require a variance, therefore, no variance was needed.
Discussion continued regarding (C) in the waiver/variances, with Mr. Stubbs explaining that this was a request to delete the requirement for a full Traffic Impact Analysis provided that the
Preliminary Traffic Analysis fulfilled the needs of Public Services. He stated that Public Services has found that the analysis is acceptable and there is no need for the variance.
Mr. Stubbs stated that in (D), waiver/variances, the request was to increase the variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,320 feet to 1,800 feet, with the parties agreeing to 1,500 feet just as the block lengths, and therefore, no variance was needed.
Discussion occurred regarding waiver/variance (E) pertaining to the request for a variance from the maximum grade of eight (8%) percent to maximum grade of ten (10%) percent for local roads other than the main collector roads (A & B). Mr. Stubbs stated that the Transportation Standards allows for a maximum grade of ten (10%) percent for cases involving severe topography, and therefore, no waiver was necessary, and this could be eliminated.
Mr. Stubbs addressed waiver/variance (F) regarding a request for a variance from ten (10) feet wide bicycle paths to seven (7) feet wide, and stated that Public Services recommended the bike paths be constructed at an eight (8) foot width, with the developer agreeing to eight (8) feet.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved waiver/variance (F), for the bike paths to be constructed at eight (8) foot width instead of the requested seven (7) foot width, as recommended by staff.
Commr. Swartz was not present for the discussion or vote.
COMMISSIONERS
At 12:45 p.m., Vice Chairman, Commr. Hanson, returned the Chairmanship to Commr. Swartz.
ZONING (Continued)
PETITION #61-93-2 R-1-7 & A to PUD Clermont Groves Inc.
(Continued)
Mr. Stubbs continued the discussion of the waivers/variances with item (G) regarding a request for a variance to use allowable pipe velocity of twenty (20) fps in lieu of ten (10) fps for
reinforce concrete pipe only (not metal pipe). He stated that Public Services recommended approval of this request, provided that the applicant submits data demonstrating that damaging scour conditions will not result within the pipes.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved item (G) for a variance to use allowable pipe velocity of twenty (20) fps in lieu of ten (10) fps, subject to the applicant submitting data demonstrating that damaging scour conditions will not result within the pipes.
Mr. Stubbs discussed waiver/variance (H) regarding a request for a variance to allow for separate tracts of the PUD to be sold, subject to the PUD conditions, and stated that this is allowable under the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and no variance is necessary, and therefore, this request was being eliminated.
Mr. Stubbs discussed waiver/variance (I) regarding a request that the owner be allowed to have temporary septic tanks to serve a model center and the temporary clubhouse, until central facilities are in place and the golf course rest rooms (on the course) be serviced by septic tanks. He stated that Public Services indicated that they had no objection to this, but the septic tanks could not be within 1,000 feet of the potable water well fields.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved waiver/variance (I), regarding the temporary septic tanks, subject to the tanks not being within 1,000 feet of the potable water well fields.
Mr. Stubbs brought up for the discussion waiver/variance (D) pertaining to the maximum cul-de-sac length, and questioned whether Board action was needed to approve the negotiated 1,500 feet.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved waiver/variance (D), as recommended by staff, for a variance to increase the cul-de-sac length to 1,500 feet.
Mr. Stubbs brought up for the discussion waiver/variance (C) pertaining to the Full Traffic Analysis, and stated that staff is recommending approval of negating this additional step.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the variance to delete the requirement for a Full Traffic Analysis in waiver/variance (C), as recommended by staff.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved waiver/variance (B), for a variance to increase the residential block length to 1,500 feet, as recommended by staff.
Ms. Lustgarten clarified that the language regarding the MSBU would include "the County and developer may provide the creation of a MSBU at the County's discretion".
Commr. Swartz discussed the proposed additional language regarding the MSBU and stated that the purpose for having MSBUs was to recognize that, with the current tax bases that exist, the County is not able to provide for all of the municipal services that the developments are requiring, and therefore, by having a MSBU, the County can recover those costs. He stated that the proposed language before the Board is adequate.
After further discussion of the MSBU, it was determined that no additional language would be added to Section V. Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU).
Discussion occurred regarding item 14 on Page 5, with Commr. Swartz stating that there should be a requirement to extend Hancock Road beyond Road "A". However, he stated that prudent language would be that, if some time in the future, this development does something with Tract "F", the road improvements to Hancock Road extension would be made.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant would come back before the Board and staff and see what utilization would be made, and at that future point, if in fact a change were to be made, the applicant would look at this. The applicant has agreed to dedicate all right-of-way that is necessary, but not to do paving, unless there is future expansion.
After further discussion, it was noted that the paving would be to the school, and five additional acres would be dedicated out of the agricultural land for recreation.
Mr. Miller stated that he is concerned that, at the beginning of the project, there will not be reuse available. The intent is, when the plant has 500,000 gallons, the City will convert it to reuse. At that time, the City will accept the water from the golf course. Mr. Miller stated that the concern is knowing the capacity that the golf course is going to take, which would be substantial, and knowing that it will be a long time before the effluent will be available for the homes. He further stated that the applicant is very supportive of reuse, but there is a concern.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there was language that indicates that, at such time there is sufficient reuse water available, the necessary infrastructure will be put into the ground for the golf course to utilize that reuse.
Mr. Miller stated that this issue is being addressed in the utilities agreement with the City, and this has already been agreed upon.
Mr. Barker stated that staff has asked that, in the PUD, the agreement between the City and developer be approved by the County, which asks for max possession of reuse.
Discussion occurred regarding impact fees, with Mr. Stubbs directing the Board's attention to Page 9, 3. which refers to the $127.00 per lot fire impact fee. Commr. Swartz suggested that, in light of what the request that the City has made, this was put in at a time when the Board was cognizant of the concerns about fire, and he would like to suggest that the Board install the impact fee amount for the City of Clermont, or until such time as the County adopts its own recreation impact fee, to help provide for those facilities.
Discussion occurred regarding the suggestion made by Commr. Swartz, with the Board determining that this would not be necessary at this time, due to the additional five acres being dedicated.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) & A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) with waivers to the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as amended.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he will vote in favor of this request, because the Board has gone further in meeting the needs of the cities. He stated that he would like to see, with other projects like this where the County is working with the cities, the Board go further and indicate the necessary impact fees, in order to get some of the impact fees back.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with it being carried unanimously.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY EMPLOYEES
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to expend funds to purchase refreshments for "New Employee Orientation" and other similar types of employee meetings.
COMMITTEES/RESOLUTIONS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to designate, by resolution, the Lake County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as the Community Development Block Grant Task Force for the purpose of reviewing and providing recommendation on CDBG applications, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Committees/Resolutions
Approval of Resolution extending appreciation to the Lake Community Action Agency, Inc. for their services to the citizens of Lake County, Florida.
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers/Resolutions/E-911
A. Budget Transfers:
1. Fund: General
Department: Sheriff
Division: In-House Support
From: Contingency $51,740.00
To: Personal Services $51,740.00
Transfer #: 93-0362
2. Fund: General
Department: Judicial
Division: Court System
From: Contingency $ 6,761.00
To: Operating Expenses $ 6,761.00
Transfer #: 93-0363
3. Fund: Self-Insurance-Comprehensive
Department: Office of Human Resources
Division: Risk Management
From: Operating Expenses $30,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $30,000.00
Transfer #: 93-0360
B. Approval of a Resolution requesting that the E-911 Fund for Fiscal Year 1992/93 be amended to increase the total budget to include unanticipated revenue received for addressing services rendered.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Planning and Development
Contracts, Leases & Agreements
1. Approval of Final Plat of Pennbrooke, Phase 1E, and Acceptance of a Performance Bond in the amount of $144,599.00 (41 lots in Commission District 1), subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
2. Authorization to execute Fiscal Year 1993/94 DEP Agreement for Pollutant Storage System Compliance Verification Inspection Program.
Grants/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies
Public Services/Ordinances
1. Acceptance and authorization for Chairman to execute the sixth year Waste Tire Solid Waste Grant Agreement from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
2. Approval of Temporary Renewals of Limited Service Permits and authorize Chairman to execute Agreement until formulation of procedures are adopted, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
3. Approval to issue Franchise #101 to Comfort House, Inc. for septage collection and disposal with requested exemption from Waste Flow Ordinance 1988-13. Authorize Chairman to execute a Temporary Agreement for the Franchise until permit procedures are adopted. Approval to cancel Franchise #97 to National Sanitation, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
4. Approval of Temporary Renewal of Septic Franchises as listed until permit procedure is approved. Authorize Chairman to execute agreements for all renewals, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Accounts Allowed/Purchasing
Request approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM Repairs, sole source and proprietor source; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
(E) Authorization to waive Bid Requirements and Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities that are Not Bid or Quoted, or if they are OEM Repairs.
DIVISION AMOUNT
1) Solid Waste $51,000.00
Ogden Martin Systems/Authorization to issue a Change Order for $51,000.00, total Purchase Order will be $4,769,511.00 for service fee pursuant to Section 8.06 of the amended and restated service agreement between NRG/Recovery Group, Inc. and the County. The Board approved the original Purchase Order on September 15, 1992.
ADDENDUM NO. 2
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers
Budget Transfers:
1. Fund: General
Department: Judiciary
Division: Court Cost
From: Contingency $23,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $23,000.00
Transfer #: 93-0369
2. Department: Judiciary
Division: Court Cost
Authorization to pay the August Criminal Court billing
in the amount of $15,437.00.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that he received a request from Mr. Carl Ludecke regarding setbacks that are currently in the existing ordinance, for the Chairman to execute a Developer's Agreement that would allow the developer to move forward in constructing a house that is within what the proposed setbacks are under the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), even though the setbacks have not been changed.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that this type of request has been approved for plats prior to plat approval, and this would be a similar agreement where the person could pull a building permit based on the proposed new zoning setbacks; however, if, in the event should the Board not adopt those, they would have to remove the facility just as they have to do in the platting prior to plat approval. It was noted that the facility would be removed and established under the appropriate setbacks.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would support the approval of the request, because it would speed up the process for development, and from an administrative level, the removal of the facility could be addressed.
Mr. Wahl stated that the setback issue has been a particularly significant problem for the Building Department and Development Division, and if this problem can be resolved with a Developer's Agreement, recognizing that this can change, it will be the developer who will be at risk for having to remove the impediment.
Discussion occurred regarding the schedule for the workshop for the changes to made to the LDRs, with Commr. Swartz suggesting that the Board may be able to approve this issue about as quickly as getting the Developer's Agreement back, if the dates can be scheduled within the week period determined by Mr. Wahl for the workshop.
Ms. Bonnie Roof appeared before the Board and stated that she has a contractor who has a footer that is waiting for an inspection, and there is a loan on the house, and the people are losing money every day. She stated that the inspection needs to be made, so that they can go forward and build the house. The contractor realizes there is a risk involved, but he also has the opportunity, by October 15, 1993, to apply for a variance, if necessary.
Mr. Wahl stated that this request involves a standard Developer's Agreement, and he is requesting the Board to execute it, after it has been reviewed by the County Attorney.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to instruct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement that deals with the relieving of the setbacks that are related to the new setbacks for the old development in the LDRs, and that it be prepared by the County Attorney and staff for the Chairman's signature.
OTHER BUSINESS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY/JAILS
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten informed the Board that a number of inmates at the Lake County Jail have filed suit and made a variety of allegations against the County. Those documents have been served on the County and have been referred to outside counsel, Mr. Steve Langouher, who has just filed a motion to dismiss. The litigation is pending, and Ms. Lustgarten indicated that she feels the County will be successful with the dismissal, because the pleadings were defective, as well as the service.
Ms. Lustgarten informed the Board that, yesterday the County was served with another personal injury suit regarding an automobile accident, which involved a County employee. This will be referred to outside counsel.
BONDS
Commr. Swartz updated the Board on the information he received from the conference call regarding the bonds sales, which pertain to the Resource Recovery Facility. He stated that another conference call will be held later this afternoon.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 1:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch, and reconvene at 5 p.m. for the public hearing on the Lake county Fire/Rescue Organizational Plan.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
FIRE PROTECTION
It was noted for the record that approximately 50 individuals were in attendance of the meeting.
Commr. Swartz called to order the public hearing that was set by the Board, as a result of recommendations that initially came from a citizen's review panel on the fire rescue system for the County, and from the County fire staff. After a number of public hearings, the issue is back before the Board in order to address some of the outstanding issues.
Mr. Craig Haun, Senior Director, addressed the Board and presented a synopsis of events that has led to the revisions being presented to the Board at this time. Chief Haun informed the Board of the number of public meetings that were held to discuss issues of concern with the citizens, and the attendance at each meeting. In summary, Chief Haun stated that there was very little participation at those meetings, other than the consistent participation at the meetings in Wekiva River.
Chief Haun addressed the May 18, 1993 Organizational Summary, and stated that there was one revision made in July, 1993, which was the conversion of the Mt. Plymouth station to a 24 hour station from the original proposal of all volunteers. Chief Haun stated that, at this time, staff is recommending two additional revisions to the Organizational Summary. The first is the latitude to move
a division officer from the station on Old 441 to the station in Dona Vista, space permitting. The second revision is based on the recommendation of the Fire and Emergency Services Advisory Board, for the County to keep some level of service for fire protection in the Wekiva area for a one year period, on a trial basis, in order to determine whether the people in Wekiva can support the station through volunteering and providing a volunteer support, which was indicated at a number of the meetings. Chief Haun stated that three options have been discussed at various times, particularly with Mr. Roger Webb, who has been representing the Wekiva area. He stated that Option III, which is a minimal operating cost to keep fire protection in the Wekiva area, will allow the County to keep one fire engine there; allow the County operating costs to operate the piece of equipment; and to equip it with the necessary fire and medical supplies for them to respond with the fire engine. He further stated that the figure ($2,950.00) does not include the costs that will be associated with the reimbursement of the volunteers. It also does not include any costs for paying the lease, which the County is currently paying, on the facility at the Wekival River Station. With this option, the County would have to secure property where space is available to park a fire engine in the Wekiva River area other than where it is located today.
Mr. T. J. Townsend, Chairman, Fire Advisory Board, appeared before the Board and introduced the following members of the Advisory Board who were present in the audience: Mr. Bud Ward, Vice Chairman; Mr. Ray Gilley; Mr. Richard Seuffert; and Mr. Wayne Gorgas.
Mr. Townsend informed the Board that the report from the Advisory Board was made at a meeting held earlier in the month, and was without the benefit of the last proposal modification just presented to the Board by Chief Haun. Mr. Townsend referred to his letter he presented to the Board dated September 22, 1993, which addressed the course the Advisory Board took to establish criteria
for the reorganizational plan. At this time, Mr. Townsend reviewed the recommendations that were presented in the letter, including the Advisory Board's recommendation to Chief Haun that Wekiva Station 32 remain open for up to one year, with a review in June of 1994 to decide whether or not station costs had been minimized and volunteer response increased enough to warrant consideration of further extending the life of this station.
Discussion occurred regarding the unique factors which seem to warrant special consideration for Station 32, Wekiva River, which were indicated in Mr. Townsend's letter. One of those factors involved most of the homes being located at the outer limit of the twelve minutes response time from the Mount Plymouth station.
Commr. Swartz called for further public comment from other Advisory Committee members. There being none, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Roger Webb, President of the Wekiva River Acres Property Owners' Association, appeared before the Board to represent the homeowners as well as himself. Mr. Webb stated that he was appearing to protest the closing of Station 32. At this time, Mr. Webb reviewed a map of the area and explained where most traffic accidents occur. He stated that there are 189 permanent addresses, and 789 RV and campsites. He also discussed the water park and the number of people it attracts, especially during the summer, to enjoy the activities offered at the site. Mr. Webb reviewed the reasons that Chief Haun gave to close Station 32, which included not enough volunteers; not enough calls from the area; unsuitable facilities; too costly to operate; and this area could be better served by Station 31; and presented comments on each of those reasons.
Commr. Swartz explained that, until the previous October, the Lake County fire system had never been consolidated. He assured those present, on behalf of Chief Haun and staff, that the motives
they used in establishing the criteria needed for the Organizational Plan were optimistic, and not as it appeared to many of those present tonight. Commr. Swartz stated that three alternatives have been offered to be considered, as opposed to closing Station 32.
Mr. Webb stated that there should be a program in the County to encourage people to be volunteers, and that this suggestion was recommended to Chief Haun. He stated that Chief Haun has determined that the site for Station 32 has unsuitable facilities. At this time, Mr. Webb described the facilities and stated that the mobile home was purchased with private money, and the shelter was built by local volunteers. Mr. Webb stated that, since the County took over and began collecting $23,000.00 a year from this community, none of it has been used to improve the facilities. He explained that it only costs approximately $10,000.00 to operate Station 32. Mr. Webb discussed the issue of this community being better served by Station 31, which is 8 1/2 miles further down the road from Station 32. He discussed response times to 911 calls in this area, and how Chief Haun determines the timing of the calls.
Mr. Webb commended Station 31, and all volunteers involved with the fire system in the County. He stated that Station 32 needs to be located right where it is, and therefore, proposed the following: to give the community a 12 month trial period by keeping the station open; during those 12 months, volunteers will be recruited to try and locate another location in the area for the fire station; put together a support group for the station and volunteers who are from the community; and apply for a State grant to better the station by making water more available on each street. Mr. Webb stated that this will be hard work, and the community will need assistance from Chief Haun's office and the Board. He stated that, if the station is closed, the homeowners' insurance premiums will rise; the property values will decrease; and some individuals might be canceled by their insurers.
Ms. Carolyn Sherman appeared before the Board and presented photographs of Station 32. Ms. Sherman discussed the volunteer program and questioned how to become a volunteer firefighter. Chief Haun explained the steps that an individual would have to take, in order to become a volunteer for the County.
Ms. Sherman explained that she had filed an application with the County, after she went through the orientation program on August 1, 1993, and on numerous occasions, she attempted to contact staff to get the status of it. She has yet to get a determination on her application.
Commr. Swartz explained that the question is not going to be the lack of volunteers that may have been in existence up to this point in time, or the number that happens to be there now, or the status of those who may be applying.
Ms. Teenie Callen appeared before the Board and explained how the fire engine arrived at its current location, which is on her sister's property. Through the effort of others at that time, a mobile home was purchased and placed at the same location, but it was not used as a living quarters, but was used strictly to house the gear. Ms. Callen discussed the question of costs, and stated that the Wekiva residents have decided that there will be a support group for the volunteers in this area, and that they need the chance to prove that they can do this. It was noted that the County pays $1,200.00 per year, pursuant to the lease agreement.
Mr. Robert K. Ronchetto appeared before the Board and discussed the number of individuals who appeared at a meeting held in Sorrento to request some change in fire protection. Mr. Ronchetto stated that no one wants to see a disaster, and questioned what will be necessary for individual fire protection. He discussed the prerequisite that the volunteer firefighters not have mustaches and beards, and the level of service necessary for the Wekiva area. Chief Haun responded to those issues presented by Mr. Ronchetto.
Mr. Chris McGilvray appeared before the Board and stated that he is in the construction business. He stated that he would like to see an impact study done on what is being proposed tonight, in order to determine the cause and effect it will have on those individuals in the Wekiva area. He discussed the problems that long distance fire service will cause, including the canceling of insurances, if there is not a fire station in this location. Mr. McGilvray stated that someone from the Wekiva area had attended all of the meetings held by Chief Haun, and his presence tonight was to be assured that this area ends up with a viable fire station.
Mr. Billy Carter, volunteer at Station 32, appeared before the Board and stated that he has been a volunteer for 22 years, and that there has always been approximately six (6) volunteers at this station. He discussed the labor that was performed on the equipment; the number of elderly people that live in the Wekiva area that need medical attention; and if the station remains open, the need for the backing of this by the Board and Chief Haun, and the need to have the proper equipment and proper training for the individuals that would take part in the program. Mr. Carter stated that he feels the homeowners association is well aware of the situation and will be behind the volunteer fire department.
Commr. Swartz stated that several priorities that came from the original Fire Study Committee's recommendations became a part of the recommendations that came to the Board from Chief Haun. Those dealt with the old equipment and the maintenance costs. He stated that one of the things that the Board has tried to do with the station consolidation was to try and take out of service some of the equipment, and replace it with better equipment, but take it out of service to get the maintenance costs down. Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Carter as to what is actually needed at Station 32, as far as equipment is concerned, to meet the most immediate needs, assuming it is a liable piece of equipment.
Mr. Carter discussed the equipment that is presently at the Station 32 site, and its capabilities, and stated that the station is in need for something that will give a quicker response.
Chief Haun explained that Station 31 will have two engines, a tanker, a woodstruck, and a squad truck. It was noted that the station will also have a paid person and a volunteer.
Mr. Carter stated that Station 32 needs to have a well equipped and fairly well maintained piece of equipment that is capable of a quick response, to maintain even a small structure fire, until backup arrives from Station 31.
Chief Haun stated that, based on Option III., of the recommendations made to the Board, an engine would be placed at Station 32, and no squad truck, because the engine will serve more of a multi-function than a squad truck.
Mr. Carter stated that, because of the area that has to be covered by fire protection, an engine and a squad truck are needed.
Mr. Jeff Hassberger appeared before the Board and stated that he has been living in the Wekiva area since 1983. He discussed the volunteer program, and his attempt to become a volunteer in this area back in the early 1980s.
Mr. Raymond Batchelor appeared before the Board and discussed the equipment Mr. Carter was referring to that is needed at Station 32, and requested that the Board consider placing a squad at this location, because it is needed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciates the persistency of the people from the Wekiva area. She agrees there is a major problem in this area, and that it is isolated and there is no potential for growth. She discussed there being a need to establish a public-private partnership to enhance whatever service the County is able to provide, and this may be something that the Advisory Committee wants to consider. Commr. Hanson stated that she believes that the Board needs to give the Wekiva area the station for a year, and within that time, they will have time to
recruit the volunteers. This will also give them time to look for another location, including the possibility of State grants, and the ability to have adequate water supply there. She stated that she would agree to whatever piece of equipment that would be able to handle the majority of the requirements in the area. Commr. Hanson stated that she believes Station 32 should be left open for one year at its current location, because the people in the area need to have the confidence to know that Station 31 will be able to respond to their needs. She extended her appreciation to those individuals who have assisted in resolving the problem.
Discussion occurred regarding the equipment at Station 32, with Mr. Wahl stating that this issue should be referred back to staff to review the calls, and determine what would be the more appropriate piece of equipment for the station.
Commr. Hanson requested that Mr. Carter work with the staff on determing the necessary equipment.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when Chief Haun originally presented the proposal to the Board, he thought an agreement could be worked out with Seminole County whereby Lake County could get response out of Seminole County. He stated that the Board now knows that this is not going to exist, and without this, the County was at the very extreme with the conditions indicated. Commr. Swartz stated that another consideration needs to be given to the unique situations, which would probably not be found at most of the other stations that are being closed. He stated that, in regards to the issue of insurance, the rating agency could come in any time, even if the County meets the requested needs, and not find the insurance rating justified. Commr. Swartz discussed the lease that the County has regarding Station 32, and suggested that, in keeping with the proposal Mr. Webb made, the County stay in the lease on a month to month basis, and ask the community to try an help the County either to find a location where the County would not have the costs, or to find a way to help share the costs for at
least the lease, based on a fiscal year beginning October 1, 1993, in order to give the community time to get its volunteers trained and certified, and provided that calls are made. Commr. Swartz requested that Chief Haun work with his staff to try and identify a piece of equipment that works best at Station 32, and realizing the very rural nature and the need to get off road. He encouraged Mrs. Sherman that the community try and help in every way possible to reduce the actual costs that will be put in by the County.
Discussion occurred regarding the options presented to the Board for Station 32, with clarification being made as follows: in the present existing structure, on a month to month basis, until something can be done by the residents of the community to help reduce the costs.
Mr. Lesley (Pete) Cox, Wekiva Falls, appeared before the Board and discussed the closing of the station and saving the County $93,000.00 in the budget. It was clarified, at this point in time, that this cost was associated to the closing of a number of stations. Mr. Cox questioned actions taken by Chief Haun to place volunteers and other individuals on the County payroll, and then them from station to station.
Commr. Swartz discussed the intentions of the proposal made by Chief Haun, which included having paid firefighters, and trying to combine volunteer stations with stations where there is a paid person, so that the paid person can be on the road with the apparatus.
Commr. Hanson discussed the manner in which the fire funds could be spent, and suggested that, when Mr. Webb is working through the CDBG money, the area may want to consider a water system by getting a low interest Farmer's Home loan.
Commr. Swartz suggested that someone from the Planning Department get in touch with Mr. Webb regarding researching the options presented by Commr. Hanson.
Mr. Bachelor appeared before the Board and discussed the amount of money paid to the volunteers at the time he joined the program, in comparison to what they are being paid today. Commr. Swartz presented an explanation regarding the establishment of the funds to reimburse for expenses.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve to adopt the modified #2 (option) where the County has equipment, one fire apparatus at the station and maintained at the station month to month, with a cost of no more than $9,900.00 for one year, as the community also works to help find some funds to help pay at least for the lease, or finds another suitable location.
Commr. Swartz stated that, because of the timeliness of what needs to be done, he would like for Chief Haun to have his training officer, or whoever would be appropriate, to be assigned as the liaison, to begin this project.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with it being carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 6:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a short recess.
FIRE PROTECTION (Continued)
Mr. Roy Hunter, Paisley, appeared before the Board to discuss the fire protection issue in Paisley. Mr. Hunter stated that he is a full-time fireman that is available 24 hours a day, and there are a lot of people in Paisley that cannot volunteer, because they are elderly, or because they have jobs. He discussed the need for volunteers and stated that he feels there needs to be more training for volunteers, and more volunteers with experience to be in charge of stations and to train other volunteers. Mr. Hunter stated that there would be more volunteers, if they had more training. He stated that the Board needs to consider more than density, because there are those who choose to live in low density areas. Mr.
Hunter discussed the new school in Paisley and stated that it does not have fire protection, and when he inquired about this issue with Chief Haun, he was told that the school did not contribute funds.
Through discussion, it was noted that the school is exempted from the special assessment for fire protection.
Mr. Hunter stated that, even though the Sheriff's Department is claiming to need more deputies, it has found a way to place a full time deputy at the school.
Discussion occurred regarding the deputy at the school, with it being noted that the deputy is through the D.A.R.E grant program, and travels from school to school.
Chief Haun explained that the Eustis Airport Station and the Pine Lakes Station are paid 24 hour stations. The volunteer stations are in Paisley, Altoona, and Lake Mack.
Commr. Swartz explained that there is not enough funding to provide paid people in all of the stations, therefore, they were placed at the stations where there are the most calls, and which allows them to respond and have volunteer stations that work in cooperation with the paid stations.
Mr. Hunter stated that the Paisley School needs fire protection, even though it does not contribute funds. Mr. Hunter discussed the oil company that has been supplying fuel and gasoline for the fire stations in Lake County, and stated that he understands this company is in the process of removing its tanks. He stated that one tank has already been removed from Lake Mack, and he was concerned about the amount of time it was going to take to drive from Paisley to Pine Lakes for fuel, and Altoona to Eustis for fuel.
Chief Haun explained that the award for the fuel purchase did change vendors, and with the change, the County also changed the locations and the size of the fuel tanks to conserve costs.
Mr. Wahl stated that it also allows the County to get a cost break, because it is now buying in larger quantities.
Mr. Hunter discussed a large tank truck that was paid for by the people in Paisley, and equipment, including beepers, which the County took over, and stated that the people have become disheartened.
Commr. Swartz discussed the revenues that have been collected for the fire structure fund, and stated that by economizing, the County has been able to take those funds and add 2 1/2 paid firefighters, in order to have more paid firefighters spread around the County than ever before.
Commr. Hanson discussed the issue of the equipment, and stated that, when the County took over the fire protection program, the equipment was all brought into the County system and shifted out to the wherever the need was in the County. She discussed the possibility of future community agreements where, if a community raises money to enhance its services, and agreements need to be made, so that some of the equipment is stationed in that area.
Mr. Hunter stated that he has requested a fact sheet to review that shows the money that has been collected for fire service in the County. Commr. Swartz stated that the fire budget that the County is operating under, along with the revenues, can be provided to Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter stated that the Board needs to look at all of the little communities, not only Paisley, and realize that they all need help, and to realize that density and wealth have nothing to do with safety, health and welfare.
Commr. Swartz explained that paid firefighters that were in much heavier populated areas have been taken and repositioned into small density areas, in order to accomplish the issues brought forth by Mr. Hunter, and suggested that Mr. Hunter meet with Chief Haun.
Mr. Hunter questioned whether the school could get assistance from another governmental agency to get the school more fire protection. Ms. Karen Bowerman, Assistant Fire Coordinator, responded by stating that the school does have a sprinkle system in the auditorium, and three or four fire hydrants.
Mr. Bill Bass appeared before the Board and stated that the community donated to the County the ground and the building for the fire department, and a pump truck, which was taken by the County and is being used somewhere else. Mr. Bass discussed the moral of the people in Paisley, after the County took over, and stated that, those in the community feel that, under the new procedures, the response time is going to be closer to 20 minutes. He requested that the County give Paisley back the pump truck, or something better, so that they can get their volunteers back. Mr. Bass stated that the County has not provided any funds to Paisley, and has only resurfaced a few roads.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the recommendation of Chief Haun authorizing the latitude to move a division officer from the station on Old 441 to the station in Dona Vista, space permitting.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if the County is going to generate the volunteers, it needs to go back to some kind of a public-private partnership for the communities, so that the equipment that the community buys stays in that area.
Mr. Wahl informed the Board that the number of volunteers is up. Chief Haun stated that the County has increased the number of volunteers since the May report by 9.4%, from 267 volunteers to 292 volunteers.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in conjunction with the recruiting of volunteers, the County needs to continue to develop the community support for the volunteers.
Commr. Swartz discussed the MSBUs that are being created and stated that the resources are there to provide the protection. He
stated that, if there are area communities that feel strongly enough about wanting a paid person, MSBUs can be created that will provide additional levels of support, whether it be for equipment or manpower.
Chief Haun stated that, with the recruitment program, staff will not only be concentrating on getting the number of volunteers up, but also getting quality people that are available to answer calls.
Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve the final alignment and organization that has been amended by the Board tonight from the original report.
The Board members commended Chief Haun and staff, and the Advisory Committee for their efforts made in establishing the fire program to the level that it exists today.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Chief Haun requested direction on the agreements with Woodlands Campground and the Orange Blossom Gardens (OGB) station.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board has authorized the termination of the lease and notice through the previous action.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT/ORDINANCES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, discussed the ordinance that was approved this morning appointing Sheriff George E. Knupp as the Chief Correctional Officer, on 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 1993. Mr. Wahl stated that the date should be October 3, 1993, with the pay period ending at midnight on Saturday night instead of Friday night. He stated that the ordinance needed to be amended.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, clarified that the Board needed to make a motion to reconsider the ordinance.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey, and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reconsider the ordinance appointing Sheriff George E. Knupp as the Chief Correction Officer.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to adopt the ordinance
appointing Sheriff George E. Knupp as the Chief Correctional Officer, effective 12:01 a.m., October 3, 1993.
It was noted that Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion, or the vote.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COMMITTEES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that he was contacted in the summer by the Childhood Development Services, Inc., to begin performing some services for that organization. This has taken place, and he requested that the Board execute the contract, in the amount of $3,000.00, in order to bring this money into this year's budget prior to the end of the fiscal year.
No one present wished to comment on this issue.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the agreement between Lake County and Childhood Development Services, Inc., and authorized the Chairman to sign the necessary documents.
It was noted that Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion, or the vote.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR/BOARDMIN/9-28-93/12-8-93