The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Robert A. Pool; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
It was noted that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda..
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he would be bringing up, under his business, the issue of the Citrus Sun Club.
MINUTE APPROVAL
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 23, 2000 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of June 6, 2000, the Board requested clarification regarding the statement, "It was noted that the harvesting of timber in the South Lake County area did not pertain to silviculture activities.", contained on Page 11, Line 12.
Clarification was made regarding the matter and the sentence was deleted from the Minutes.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 6, 2000 (Regular Meeting), as corrected, contingent upon clarification being made regarding said statement .
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Libraries
Request from Community Services for approval to purchase furniture on state contract through Library Interiors of Florida, Inc., for the East Lake County Library, in the amount of $64,784.26.
Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Fiscal and Administrative Services/Libraries
Request from Fiscal and Administrative Services - Budget, for budget transfer from Contingency - Library Services - various, in the amount of $25,000.00; Citrus Ridge/Four Corners - various, in the amount of $30,600.00; Marion Baysinger/Groveland - various, in the amount of $48,900.00; and East Lake/Sorrento - various, in the amount of $10,300.00, for a total of $114,800.00 to Branch Administration - various. Funds need to be transferred to the appropriate object codes needed for the interior remodeling on the lease space for the Citrus Ridge County Library and the East Lake County Library. Funds will come from using unexpended funds in the Library Services operating accounts, which are available because of cost savings, due to later opening dates and lower costs associated with the Books by Mail Program.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION
PUBLIC WORKS/RESOLUTIONS/SUBDIVISIONS
PETITION NO. 928 - JOYCE E. PRAKKE - CLERMONT AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate streets recorded in the Plat of Amberhill Subdivision, located in Section 31, Township 22S, Range 26E, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2. He stated that it involves rights-of-way associated with Opal Lane and Garnet Drive, in Amberhill Subdivision, at which time he displayed an aerial of the property in question, indicating said rights-of-way and noting that the properties to the east and south of said rights-of-way are unimproved. He stated that the subdivision was platted in the mid-1980s. He stated that a petition to vacate said streets was filed previously; however, it was denied, because the platted access has been in place for approximately fifteen years and is the most viable, practical access to the property. He stated that, in the future, if the development pattern changes and the rights-of-way are not needed, staff will recommend approval to vacate; however, since said properties are not developed at this time, staff was recommending denial.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, representing the Amberhill Homeowners Association, in support of this request, addressed the Board stating that he planned to show them why the vacation of the streets was consistent with the County's Land Development Regulations, its Comprehensive Plan, and its practice over the last ten years. He stated that, if the Board did not approve to close the streets in question, it would be risking the integrity and public safety of the very neighborhood that the streets were designed to protect. He stated that the petition to vacate said streets was precipitated by a Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal that had been scheduled to come before the Board several months ago, however, ended up being withdrawn, after having gone before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the residents are asking for the closing of two access points, located at Garnet Drive and Opal Lane, with the following exceptions, being (1) that a utility easement be available at both access points, and (2) that Lake Utilities be allowed to access their water plant.
Mr. Crawford stated that Lakeshore Drive was the entrance to Amberhill Subdivision, which he noted turns onto Opal Lane, which then turns onto Garnet Drive. He stated that, according to the last count that was taken, a little over 10,000 cars per day travel Lakeshore Drive, which he noted was originally constructed to be a local road, then reclassified, without improvements, to be a collector road and now functions at capacity as a collector road. He stated that the 10,000 cars per day that travel Lakeshore Drive can now potentially cut through Amberhill Subdivision, as well as traffic from new subdivisions that are being developed to the south of Amberhill Subdivision, traffic going either direction from the Spring Valley PUD and/or the Bornstein PUD, a day care that has been approved in Spring Valley, and 160,000 square feet of commercial property that has been approved, as part of the Spring Valley PUD, which he noted is equivalent to two normal size Publix strip centers, or a Target store, a Home Depot, or a Wal-Mart Super Center. He stated that this was not the first time this issue has been before the Board.
Mr. Crawford referred to a public hearing that was held at South Lake High School, in Groveland, in June of 1995, which he noted went until 4:30 in the morning, at which the same issues, being that of road vacation petitions involving the Bornstein PUD and Amberhill Subdivision (located adjacent to the Bornstein PUD), were considered and given good deliberation. He read into the Minutes excerpts from said meeting, noting that the road vacation petitions being considered at that time were denied, by a 3-2 vote. He stated that the real issue was how to best distribute the traffic and that there was much more to it than just level of service. He stated that Commr. Swartz had stated, at that meeting, that if the developer was going to try to find a way to connect to Hwy. 27, through Spring Valley, he would not support the interconnects and would vote to close the streets, because he did not believe the traffic intermingling would be safe. He stated that Commr. Swartz had also stated that he would vote against the rezoning request that was before the Board at that time, as well, and would hope that a better solution could be found. He stated that, since that meeting, the Board has approved the Spring Valley PUD, which he noted has a required boulevard interconnect to the Bornstein PUD, which is now owned by Mr. Dale Ladd.
Mr. Crawford stated that Commr. Hanson had also voted to close the streets, because of her feeling about the integrity of the neighborhood. He stated that Commr. Cadwell had stated at said meeting that, while he was not convinced that densities substantially change the character of a neighborhood, he felt the transportation concerns were real and that the increase in trips would change the character of the community. He further stated that Commr. Cadwell had stated that he would not vote to close the streets, because he felt it would cut off options for everybody and that he felt something might be able to be worked out that the community could live with, however, noted that that matter would be addressed at a later date. He stated that Commr. Gerber had stated that it would make her uncomfortable to not close said streets, knowing the condition they were in and what could happen, therefore, would vote to close them and would also vote against the request for straight zoning. He stated that former Commr. William "Bill" Good (County Commissioner on the Board at that time) voted not to close the roads, indicating that having been to the site in question and listening to traffic reports, he realized that interconnects were the way that things were done. He further stated that Commr. Good had stated that he did not feel straight zoning would solve the problem being addressed and that he would like to see the request come back before the Board as a PUD and that he felt a traffic study needed to be done, to look at what traffic would actually be traveling on Lakeshore Drive. He stated that a motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Swartz to deny the rezoning request, which was approved by the Board, by a 5-0 vote; and to deny, without prejudice, the road vacation petitions being considered at that time, which was approved by the Board, by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Gerber and Hanson voting "No".
Mr. Crawford stated that the concerns noted at that 1995 Board Meeting were valid and now that there is an approved subdivision, with an interconnect to Hwy. 27, straight across the collector that is going to be the by-pass around Clermont from the south, with 160,000 square feet of commercial, he feels those concerns are not only validated, but magnified. He stated that staff recommended denial of the road vacation petitions in 1995, they recommended denial of the Lakeshore petition that was granted the year before, and are recommending denial of the petition before the Board this date, so they have been consistent on their position over the years; however, he felt it was important for the Board to look at the area in question and see what has been done, as far as subdivision approval and road interconnects. He reviewed a handout (Applicant's Exhibit A), containing a map and related listing of subdivision interconnections and/or single entrance subdivisions in the vicinity of Amberhill Subdivision, which he submitted, for the record. He stated that Public Works encourages interconnections, but, in reality, it almost never happens. He stated that the burden has been put on Amberhill Subdivision to carry the traffic from every other subdivision in its vicinity that was either approved without an interconnect, or the interconnections were closed. He asked the Board to not put that burden on the Amberhill Subdivision. He reviewed seven (7) photographs (Applicant's Exhibit B) of various streets within the subdivision showing the interconnect, how narrow the streets in the subdivision are, and the fact that there are no sidewalks in the subdivision, which he submitted, for the record.
Mr. Andrew Peters, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board and played a short video (Applicant's Exhibit C), which he submitted, for the record, showing the narrowness of the streets in the subdivision and the fact that some of the children in the subdivision run into the streets, from time to time, causing a safety concern. He stated that additional traffic going through the subdivision would cause a safety hazard for its residents and requested the Board to approve the request before them.
Mr. David Kelsey, President, Amberhill Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that it was very obvious, if the Board did not approve the vacation petition before them this date, that Amber Avenue was going to become the badly needed south Lake County connector. He stated that the Board could tell, from the video that was shown and submitted by Mr. Peters, that the roads in Amberhill Subdivision are narrow and windy and have blind spots. He asked the Board to approve the request and close off Opal and Garnet, noting that running traffic through the neighborhood will not be to anyone's benefit and could be very detrimental to the health and safety of its residents and children.
Mr. Doug Gibson, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that the residents were back to square one, the same place they were when they left the meeting at South Lake High School on June 8, 1995, at 4:30 in the morning. He stated that, as a community, they are tired of it and need some relief. He stated that the residents are not fighting to have the roads in question closed because they are greedy, they are doing it because they are fighting for their lives. He stated that they needed the Board's support in this matter. He stated that the residents of Amberhill want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood that has been established, however, noted that the developers of future projects have not wanted to maintain that integrity. He referred to Road Vacation Petition No. 746, dated January of 1994, noting that it was a request for a road vacation in the Spring Valley development. He stated that, at that time, six and one half years ago, the Board knew that this issue was a problem, because the residents of Amberhill Subdivision addressed it as a problem. He submitted, for the record, a 19 page handout (Applicant's Exhibit D), containing portions of Resolution No. 1994-110, pertaining to Rezoning Case No. 5-94-2/Spring Valley Subdivision; a plat of Amberhill Subdivision; a diagram and Location Map for the Amberhill and Lake Ridge water treatment plants; a portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, dated March 30, 1994, regarding Rezoning Case No. 5-94-2, J. Bornstein, et al; and portions of the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, dated October 25, 1994, pertaining to Road Vacation Petition No. 758, Rogers Investment Company, Clermont, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that, according to said Minutes, the Board says one thing, but does another. He then submitted, for the record, a Memorandum (Applicant's Exhibit E), dated March 23, 2000, from Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, to Mr. John Cento, Planner III, Growth Management, regarding Pine Ridge PUD Rezoning Case No. PH61-99-2, which indicates that the Pine Ridge PUD is required and should connect through Spring Valley PUD to U.S. 27 at the location of the new road connection of Johns Lake Road and the fact that it is possible that the interconnected subdivision roadways will attract cut-through traffic. Mr. Schneider further indicated that he would be concerned about adding additional traffic from Pine Ridge PUD west to directly access Lakeshore Drive, instead of taking it east through Spring Valley to U.S. 27, because it could drop the road below the adopted LOS (Level of Service) and should be discouraged.
Mr. Joe Godfrey, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that the residents of Amberhill are not against growth and development in South Lake County. He stated that the issue before the Board this date is the safety and integrity of their subdivision. He displayed and submitted, for the record, seven (7) photographs (Applicant's Exhibit F) of streets in the subdivision, noting that it shows how critical the situation is with the roads in the subdivision. He stated that there are certain points in the subdivision where there are blind spots and it is very dangerous for the residents, which he proved by said photographs. He asked the Board to consider the safety of the children in the neighborhood and approve the vacation of the road.
Mr. Joseph Flannery, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision and Vice-President of the Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that this was the third time that he has addressed the Board, regarding the road vacation situation. He displayed and submitted, for the record, six (6) photographs (Applicant's Exhibit G) of various streets in the subdivision showing the narrowness of the streets and some of the children in the subdivision riding their bicycles in the street. He stated that it did not make sense to open the streets to additional traffic and requested the Board to approve the road vacation.
Ms. Pat Smith, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that she was concerned about the residents of Amberhill being able to back out of their driveways safely (only two residents have circular driveways), noting that there could be accidents now, if the residents are not careful, with the minimal amount of traffic that currently comes and goes through the neighborhood, and, if that is compounded by 10,000 possible vehicles per day, there is no way that they will be able to back out of their driveways safely. She requested the Board to consider that fact in their decision regarding this matter.
Mr. Bob Wahl, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, a subdivision adjacent to Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that the concerns of the residents about the safety of their children and the additional traffic is valid, noting that the traffic on Lakeshore Drive has increased dramatically, making it more dangerous, and in driving through Amberhill Subdivision, he could validate the problems that have been addressed this date.
Mr. Munzer Jallad, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that he was the first resident of the subdivision. He stated that any interconnection to the subdivision was going to create havoc for the people living there, therefore, urged the Board to stop havoc, before it occurs. He stated that it was in their hands.
Mr. Dale Ladd, Trustee of South Lake Land Trust, addressed the Board stating that he has no plans, at this time, to develop property that he owns that is slated to become the third phase of Amberhill Subdivision, which will consist of approximately 137 lots. He stated that the streets that are being requested to be vacated are in place for that third phase and are his legal access to same. He stated that everyone that purchased a lot in the subdivision was aware that there would be three phases to it. He stated that, if, in the future, he decided to develop the property he would have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, and tackle the issue of the traffic and the interconnects. He stated that, with regard to people present at this meeting wearing badges that say "Stop Uncontrolled Growth", it is difficult to have uncontrolled growth in Lake County, because there are a lot of processes one has to go through, in order to get a subdivision approved by the County.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Ladd had any other legal access to his property and was told that he did have one other access that goes through Sunshine Hills, off Anderson Hill Road, to Sunshine Drive.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Ladd had met with the residents of Amberhill, to try to come to some sort of compromise and was told that he had met with them about the issue of the water treatment plant, however, had not met with them about the roads in question.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Lake Utilities, addressed the Board stating that his client had filed a letter with the County advising that they have a six inch distribution line on Opal Lane and that Garnet Drive was their only access, through the Ladd property, to their water treatment plant. He stated that he had met with Mr. Crawford, prior to this meeting, about reserving the right for his client to have access to their water plant and also to accommodate future distribution in that area, through the interconnects.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments made by Mr. Ladd, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, a photograph (Applicant's Exhibit H) that was taken from the north side of Mr. Ladd's trust property, up Sunshine Drive, to Anderson Hill Road. He stated that Sunshine Drive provides Mr. Ladd with legal access to all his contiguous lots of record; therefore, it provides access to the whole property, from a legal point of view. He stated that the County's Public Works Department is currently reviewing construction plans for Spring Valley, to construct the road that will provide legal access; however, he did not know exactly when said road was going to be built. He stated that the third phase of Amberhill Subdivision encompasses 80 acres and allows the residents of same to join the homeowners association and be subject to their restrictions, should they choose to do so, however, noted that none of the proposals that have been brought forward in any of the zoning requests remotely come close to complying with those restrictions. He stated that the residents of Amberhill Subdivision are getting extremely frustrated with having to come before the Board over and over and over again and arguing the same points.
Mr. Crawford stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Mr. Ladd's proposed PUD, which he noted has since been withdrawn and no longer exists, provided Garnet was closed and the connection to Opal was closed, as soon as the Spring Lake road was constructed, giving Mr. Ladd access to Hwy. 27. He stated that approval of the recommendation was based on those two things and that is all the residents of Amberhill were asking for this date. He referred to Section 9.04.0102 (c) of the Land Development Regulations, noting that it states, "In order to provide continued continuity and improve traffic circulation within the vicinity, main roadways within a development should be interconnected. Roads with expected internally generated traffic volumes in excess of 2,000 trips per day shall have roadways and rights-of-way extended to the boundary lines of the property when extension is necessary to provide for normal circulation of traffic."
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Pool stated that he shared the concern of the residents of Amberhill, with regard to an interconnection to Hwy. 27; however, he was concerned about the private property rights of Mr. Ladd, as well. He questioned whether there was a way the Board could identify their intent not to allow an interconnection to Hwy. 27 for any future phases of Amberhill Subdivision.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could express its intent this date, however, noted that, if a developer came through with a Development Order, the Board would have to make a decision, based on the request at that time. He stated that, whether there are any plats, PUDs, or rezonings on the adjacent property will be done through any future development orders.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, informed the Board that the request before them this date was that of legal access to an adjacent piece of property, zoned R-1 at the present time, and has nothing to do with anything else that has or has not been before the Board. He stated that a lot of things have been proposed for said property, but there is nothing concrete on the ground, except for three paved accesses through Amberhill Subdivision. He stated that his concern about this request is that the property in question is not owned by the original owner, noting that when the development was platted, it was owned by Mr. J. Bornstein. He stated that someone else has since purchased the property, based on the three legal accesses being in place, and he was concerned about cutting that access off. He stated that, with regard to the issue of through traffic, the County was not promoting it. He stated that an access through Spring Valley to Hwy. 27 was discussed, however, no agreement was worked out with Mr. Bornstein, so there is no plan for that access, unless the current owner works it out. He stated that a lot of assumptions have been made regarding access, but he is not even sure it will occur.
Mr. Ladd readdressed the Board stating that it was his proposal at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that, after he reached or exceeded the 137 lots that the third phase
will encompass, he would cut the roads off. He stated that he was in complete agreement with the residents of Amberhill that there should not be a cut-through to Hwy. 27. He stated, however, that he was trying to preserve an access to his property, as described in the deed restrictions for said property. He stated that, if the Board approved to close said roads, he would not have legal access to his property and he bought it based on the fact that he would have legal access to it. He stated that, if and when he develops his property, he does not want to go through Amberhill Subdivision, he wants to access it by way of Hwy. 27. He stated that he would love to cut Amberhill Subdivision off from the third phase of the project, but it is his only access to his property, at the present time.
Commr. Swartz stated that Mr. Ladd could not have the third phase of Amberhill be different than the way that Amberhill was originally planned, because that is the way it was designed. He questioned whether the Board could craft a series of conditions to where, if the property in question is developed differently than how Phase III of Amberhill was designed, Opal, Garnet, and Sunshine Drive would be closed, or if development on the Ladd property occurs and interconnects to Hwy. 27, said roads would be closed. He stated that the Board might want to fashion some other conditions, but he felt those two would be the primary ones that they would want to approve.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could place conditions on the property, however, noted that it would depend on how they were worded.
Commr. Hanson interjected that another possibility would be to make all the roads in Amberhill Subdivision private roads, which would vacate them to the public, giving the control back to the residents. She stated that her suggestion would include all phases of Amberhill. She stated that the residents would be responsible for the maintenance, but they would also be in control of the roads.
Commr. Swartz reiterated the fact that the two conditions he suggested were: (1) that the roads in question remain open, as long as the balance of the original 80 acres develops as it was originally intended; however, if it develops at a higher density than originally planned, those roads would be closed; and (2) if an interconnect becomes possible through either of the roads to Hwy. 27, making them some type of arterial or collector road, then they would be closed and questioned whether anything other than those two conditions would appease the residents.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that he did not see a problem with the second condition, however, noted that there would be a problem with the first condition. He stated that, if the first 40 acres developed and the second 40 acres ended up in bankruptcy and a larger plan was brought in, under Commr. Swartz's suggestion, the first 40 acres would be left with no access. He stated that the County's resolution would automatically go into effect, closing the road, so the homeowners would get caught in the middle. He stated that, if Mr. Ladd made a commitment this date that no more than 130 lots would ever connect to the streets in question, or that as soon as access was available to Hwy. 27 that the streets would be closed, and it was put in a written document, as part of the Resolution, that is what it would take.
Mr. Crawford stated that, with regard to the issue of making all the roads in Amberhill Subdivision private roads, as suggested by Commr. Hanson, it was discussed by the Amberhill Homeowners Association a couple of years ago, but Public Works was not thrilled about it, at that time. He stated that it would require a vote, however, noted that there is support for it among the Amberhill Homeowners Association.
Commr. Hanson suggested postponing this case until a later date, to try to get the issues worked out.
Commr. Pool suggested having the County Attorney's Office draft an ordinance that would allow what the Board was trying to accomplish this date and ensure the residents of Amberhill Subdivision that there will not be a cut-through road through their subdivision, but that will still allow Mr. Ladd to have access to his property.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if Mr. Ladd would agree to it, his office could draft such an ordinance.
Mr. Ladd readdressed the Board, stating that he felt it was unfair to him for them to suggest that he limit the use of his property, based on a number, when he may want to develop the property a totally different way. He stated that he has stated from the beginning that he does not feel there should be an access road through Amberhill Subdivision to Hwy. 27, because it would not be a responsible thing to do.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Ladd would agree to language stating that the subdivision must be developed as it was originally planned, or at a less intense use.
Mr. Ladd stated that he did not have a problem with it, as long as it did not restrict him from having another use, other than a subdivision, with less intensity.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson to deny the vacation petition, subject to the density or design of a future development as being what was already approved and that, if it changes, Mr. Ladd will have to create access to his property by way of Hwy. 27.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about keeping the integrity of Amberhill Subdivision.
Commr. Swartz clarified the intent of the motion, noting that he wanted to make sure that it allowed Lake Utilities to have access to their water treatment plant, regardless of what happens. He suggested that the motion be to approve the closure of the roads, subject to the conditions alluded to earlier, when and if they happen.
Commr. Pool stated that he did not have a problem with that.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board could adopt a resolution that would be effective only if, (a) the adjacent property were to connect to Hwy. 27, or (b) if it was developed differently than Amberhill, Phase I and II. He stated that he felt there could be difficulties with the second portion of the motion, noting that it is not likely that the 80 acres will be developed at one time, then people will either not be able to get mortgages, or the property will not be developed, because nobody will lend money with that kind of provision, where one could lose legal access, based on somebody else's actions. He stated that the Board should offer a written document to Mr. Ladd to sign that would embody those conditions and, if he refuses to sign it, then the Board could vote the closing up or down.
After further discussion regarding the matter, Commr. Pool withdrew his motion.
Commr. Hanson withdrew her second to the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board postponed action regarding a request from Public Works for approval of Vacation Petition No. 928, by Joyce E. Prakke, to vacate streets recorded in the plat of Amberhill, located in Section 31, Township 22S, Range 26E, Clermont area - Commission District 2, until the Board Meeting of July 25, 2000;directed staff to meet with Mr. Dale Ladd/Trustee, South Lake Land Trust and Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the residents of Amberhill Subdivision, to try to come to some type of agreement that will be accepted by Mr. Ladd and said residents; and directed the County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, to draft said agreement, to be brought back to the Board on July 25, 2000, for action.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:30 a.m.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES/ORDINANCES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed emergency ordinance on the floor, for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING A COUNTY-WIDE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR THE PROVISION OF AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 125.01(1)(q) & (r), CHAPTER 125, FLORIDA STATUES, AND CHAPTER 200, FLORIDA STATUTES; MAKING FINDINGS; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; PROVIDING FOR A TITLE, THE "LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES"; PROVIDING THAT THE "LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES" APPLIES TO ALL THE UNINCORPORATED AND INCORPORATED AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; PROVIDING THE LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE "LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 125.01(2), FLORIDA STATUTES; AUTHORIZING THE LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO LEVY AND COLLECT UP TO 1 MILL OF AD VALOREM TAX TO PROVIDE AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE "LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES" PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 125, 197 AND 200,FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that the basis of the emergency is that the Ordinance has to be adopted by July 1, 2000, noting that it will be the funding source for the ambulance service, with the withdrawal of the private provider and the Board's approval of the interlocal agreement with Sumter County. He stated that the Ordinance would have to be approved by each of the fourteen municipalities in the County, during the month of July, 2000. He stated that, if it is not done by the end of July, the Board will be forced to use the general millage to provide the funds. He stated that the County put a limit of $1 million on it, because it effects the millage cap, which should be more than enough money, based on the budgets that have been presented. He noted that at least four of the Commissioners would have to approve it, in order for it to be adopted.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Emergency Ordinance No. 2000-35, establishing a countywide Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for ambulance and emergency medical services for the County, as read on its first and final reading, by title only.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that Rezoning Case No. PH21-00-2, Highland Lake Real Estate/Dale Ladd, Tracking No. 41-00-Z, was withdrawn.
PETITION NO. PH24-00-2 - R-1 TO CFD - SHEPHERD OF THE HILL LUTHERAN CHURCH - TRACKING NO. 44-00-CFD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved 11.25 acres in the Clermont area, in an Urban Expansion land use category. She stated that it was a request from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a church. She stated that, with regard to the County's Standards for Review, the request would have no adverse impacts on the community, therefore, staff was recommending approval. She stated that the County's policies support the request, as well. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, as well, by an 8-0 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-36 - Shepherd of the Hill Lutheran Church, Rezoning Case No. PH24-00-2, Tracking No. 44-00-CFD, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a church; education building, including a school; and a ball field.
PETITION NO. PH25-00-1 - RP TO R-7 - BAIRD MOBILE HOMES OF LEESBURG, INC./JONATHAN HUMPHREY - TRACKING NO. 47-00-Z
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a small lot from RP (Residential Professional) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), to allow the construction of a mobile or conventional home in the Leesburg/Montclair area. She stated that a similar case came before the Board approximately one year ago, which the Board approved, and staff was recommending approval of this case, for the same reasons. She stated that the request meets the County's criteria for approval in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 7-0 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-37- Baird Mobile Homes of Leesburg, Inc./Jonathan Humphrey, Rezoning Case No. PH25-00-1, Tracking No. 47-00-Z, a request for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), to allow the construction of a mobile or conventional home.
PETITION NO. CUP00/6/1-4 - CUP IN A - DONALD AND BONNIE OLIVER
SANDY HILL NURSERY - TRACKING NO. 45-00-CUP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home on the site for agricultural housing for employees of the nursery. She stated that the site, located in the Wekiva River Protection Area, is only five acres in size and is located on a non-county maintained road. She stated that staff was recommending denial, based on the fact that, at the time of the site visit, there was only one greenhouse on the five acres and the business did not seem to be intense or active enough for the employees to need to be on the site full-time. She stated that the owners informed the Planning and Zoning Commission that they plan to borrow money to build some additional greenhouses. She stated that there was a lot of discussion, with regard to an agricultural exemption; however, staff was recommending denial, based on the current status of the property. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 5-2 vote, with an amendment, adding a condition that the applicant must make application for an agricultural exemption.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Donald Oliver, Applicant, addressed the Board and submitted a four page handout (Applicant's Exhibit A), for the record, containing a copy of an Application and Return for Agricultural or High-Water Recharge Classification of Lands, indicating that he had been approved for an agricultural exemption by the Lake County Property Appraiser's Office; a Certificate of Nursery Registration from the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which expires December 31, 2000; and a 2000 Annual Resale Certificate, from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, which also expires on December 31, 2000.
It was noted that the property in question currently has two mobile homes located on it, one that the applicant resides in and one that his son resides in.
Mr. Oliver informed the Board that he does not want any additional mobile homes on the property, he just wants to make the mobile home that his son resides in (who helps him with the nursery) legal.
There being no further individuals who wised to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2000-38 - Donald Smith/Bonnie Oliver, Sandy Hill Nursery, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/6/1-4, Tracking No. 45-00-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home on the site for agricultural housing for workers assisting in the operation of a nursery.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool stated that he wanted to make sure the property remained as an agricultural use and that, should the nursery ever shut down, the mobile homes would be removed.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that said stipulation is currently in the Ordinance and noted that it calls for an annual inspection of the nursery, as well.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. PH20-00-5 - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CFD ORDINANCE NO. 1997-74 - FLETCHER AND SHIRLEY POWERS/AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS/CHERYL PENCE/TRACKING NO. 36-00-CFD/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend an existing CFD ordinance, to increase a monopole tower from 164 feet to 199 feet. She stated that it is currently located in an active citrus grove, on five acres, in an Urban Expansion land use category. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however, noted that they would like to see the language in the Ordinance, contained in the Board's backup material, reflect that the landscaping be deferred, not waived, in the event of any future change with the grove. She stated that the request meets the requirements of Section 13 of the Lake County Code and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 5-2 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cheryl Pence, Attorney, representing Nextel, addressed the Board stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimously in support of the tower itself, however, noted that two of its members had a problem with the issue of landscaping. She stated that the reason Nextel asked to waive the requirement for landscaping was because the proposed tower will be hundreds of feet, if not more than 1,000 feet, off the roadway, on a dairy farm, in a citrus grove. She stated that it is so far away from any road that no one will ever see it, except the people in the immediate area.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz , seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-39 - Fletcher and Shirley Powers/Aerial Communications/Nextel Communications/Cheryl J. Pence, Rezoning Case No. PH20-00-5, Tracking No. 36-00-CFD/AMD, a request for an amendment to existing CFD Ordinance No. 1997-74, to increase the existing monopole tower from 164 feet to 199 feet, for multiple co-locations, and to defer applicable landscaping requirements until such time as the grove no longer continues to operate as a grove, as the tower site is in the midst of an active citrus grove.
PETITION NO. PH23-00-4 - REZONING TO CFD - MARK V. RYAN, JR.
AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION/SPRINT - TRACKING NO. 23-00-4
Commr. Cadwell informed those present that he owns property in close proximity to the site in question, therefore, on the side of caution, would be declaring a Conflict of Interest and would not be participating in the discussion or vote. He turned the gavel over to Commr. Hanson, Vice Chairman, who would be acting as Chairman in this case.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to place a 199 foot monopole tower on a 40 acre site in the Wekiva area. She stated that the existing use on the site is greenhouses. She stated that, in review of the County's Standards for Review, its Comprehensive Plan, and its criteria for towers, staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, as well, by a 7-0 vote. She stated that the Board's backup material contained some letters of opposition; however, she had since received some additional letters of opposition and a petition with several signatures (County Exhibit A), which she submitted, for the record.
A brief discussion occurred regarding whether or not the proposed site was located in the Wekiva River Protection Area, at which time Ms. Farrell stated that it was.
Commr. Hanson stated that, after viewing the aerial contained in the Board's backup material, she did not feel it was and had a real concern with staff using that designation loosely. She stated that, in the future, they needed to be more careful about using it, noting that it creates special interest beyond what is intended, in the minds of the public and the Board.
Commr. Swartz questioned how far the tower would be located from the nearest residence.
Ms. Farrell stated that it would be over 3,500 feet, noting that the tower would be located in the middle of a 40 acre tract.
Mr. Bill Bailey, Zoning Representative for American Tower Corporation, the applicant, addressed the Board, on behalf of Sprint, stating that Sprint was proposing a 199 foot monopole telecommunications facility. He stated that he felt staff had written an excellent report, noting that it was one of the best he had seen. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the site and noted that Sprint has met all the County's requirements. He stated that the request complies with the County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with surrounding land uses, which is a very rural area with very large tracts of land, as indicated by staff. He stated that there is a very strong need for a tower in this area. He stated that the tower would not adversely affect property values or development patterns in the area.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter, Clement, Lowry & Duncan, representing several residents in the area of the proposed tower, addressed the Board stating that there were a number of people who were opposed to the request. He submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition's Exhibit A) containing petitions and letters in opposition to the request. He then displayed and submitted, for the record, an aerial (Opposition's Exhibit B) indicating the number of residents that currently reside in the area of the proposed tower, noting that it appears that the tower site is in the middle of nowhere; however, there are more residents in the area than one would anticipate (indicated on the aerial by red dots). He stated that he would like for the residents opposing this request to address the Board, at this time, to show there is strong opposition to the proposed tower.
Mr. Greg Williams, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that he was opposed to the tower, because he feels it will reduce property values in the area. He stated that he had called several real estate agents and was told there would be a negative impact on property values near the tower. He stated that the tower is not consistent with what is in the area.
Ms. Karen Schroeder, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she and her husband own 20 acres near the proposed tower. She stated that, in 1998, they researched the area and based their decision to purchase their land on what they saw occurring there. She stated that they are concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood and want to protect it. She stated that they do not feel the tower is appropriate for the area.
Ms. Rhonda Wiggins, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that one of her biggest concerns and the reason she opposes the tower is the unknown health risk involved with it. She stated that she currently has two children and is expecting a third. She stated that she can clearly see a red balloon that is being flown at the proposed location of the tower from her front door. She stated that there is a lot of literature on negative effects of different types of towers, as well as literature indicating that towers do not effect health; however, she is concerned about the fact that she and her children will be near the tower 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She stated that there is a lot of agriculture in the area and they do not want to see a tower installed in the middle of it. She noted that she and her husband own 10 acres in the area of the proposed tower.
Ms. Julie Benham, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she, too, is expecting a baby and currently has one other child. She stated that she has discussed the effect of cell phone towers with her midwife and was told that case studies have been done in third world countries, where they do not have the kind of technology that the United States has, and it has been found that the cancer rate for them is very slim, whereas, in the United States, where we do have the technology, the cancer rate is very high. She stated that she plans to live on her property until she dies and does not want the tower to be located near her home, therefore, is opposed to the request.
Ms. Phoebe Muller, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she objected to the proposed tower for a number of reasons, being (1) that it would not be in harmony with the surrounding area, which is agricultural; (2) health issues; (3) it will affect surrounding property values; and (4) she is concerned about all the hazards and problems associated with such towers. She stated that she wanted assurances for her family and for her livestock. She stated that the tower will affect her view, as well. She stated that she and her husband sunk everything they had into purchasing their property, looking for their dreams.
Ms. Elaine Robertson, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she and her husband and their three children just moved onto their 20 acre tract of land, in the area of the proposed tower, basically for the same reasons as stated earlier - that it was quiet, safe, and open. She stated that she was opposed to the proposed tower.
Ms. Patricia Covert, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board and displayed a picture (Opposition's Exhibit C), which she submitted, for the record, showing that the red balloon (indicating location and height of proposed tower) alluded to earlier would clearly be seen from a site on her property where she is currently constructing a home - in fact, would be seen from her front door, which she was not happy about. She stated that she was concerned about the wildlife in the area, as well. She also stated that she had just had major cancer surgery and was concerned about being around anything that might give her additional concern about the cancer.
Mr. Nick Valjkovic, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that he owns 20 acres approximately 2,000 feet south of the proposed tower. He stated that he was concerned about Sprint disrupting the neighborhood, for gain and profit. He stated that he felt it was unfair to all the people who live in the area, who are opposed to the tower and do not want to be disturbed by something like a tower, for one company's gain.
Mr. Duncan, Attorney, representing several residents in the area of the proposed tower who are opposed to the request, readdressed the Board stating that he disagreed with several comments that were made in the Staff Report, regarding this request. He stated that he disagreed with what was stated about the request meeting the required criteria, under Chapter 14, Section C, of the Lake County Code, regarding the issue of zoning, which he read into the Minutes. He stated that staff stated in the Staff Report that they determined the request was consistent with surrounding property and proposed land uses, which he disagreed with, noting that the proposed site is surrounded by agricultural property and by five and ten acre Ranchette homesites. He stated that the area in question is designated as Rural on the Future Land Use Map and he did not think the tower was compatible with said designation. He stated that the second area where he disagreed with comments in the Staff Report is where they state, in Section F. of said report, that the rezoning will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, noting that he thinks the tower will negatively impact the natural aesthetics of the rural area. He stated that staff also stated the tower will not impact property values in the area, which he also disagrees with, noting that he had competent substantial evidence from some local realtors that establish the fact that locating the proposed tower in the area in question will negatively impact the value of the homes in the area, as well as the ability to resell those homes.
Mr. Duncan stated that the purpose and intent of the Lake County Tower Ordinance is promulgated in Section 3-13.01 of the Lake County Code, which states that it is designed, in part, to protect existing land uses from potential adverse visual impacts, through sound planning, careful review of applications, proper permitting, and adherence to appropriate regulations. He submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition's Exhibit D), containing four (4) letters and one (1) Affidavit from various realtors in Lake County that establish the fact that the location of the tower will have a negative impact on the value, as well as resale ability, of the homes. He stated that Sprint and American Tower had been very cooperative, in providing him with information he had requested. He stated that said information indicated they were unable to find any real estate agents, or property appraisers, that would say towers have a negative impact on property values, however, noted that he was able to get five realtors in the area to state just the opposite - that towers do, in fact, have a negative impact on both property values and resale ability of homes. He read into the record a letter from Mr. Greg Harvison, a realtor with Tyre & Taylor Realty, Inc., which states that he has been a realtor in Lake County for 22 years and has found that people avoid properties located near large power poles, towers, or other "eyesores". He further stated that buyers are weary to believe company claims about the safety of cell towers, microwave towers, power towers, etc., and that they have more knowledge about property values than they did years ago, therefore, know that visible and invisible defects about a property have a negative impact on the value, which means that a buyer is not willing to pay as much for an identical piece of property that does not have a defect, in this case a cell tower. He stated that the buyer must also take into consideration the future value of the property, noting that cell towers, power lines, microwave towers, etc. do lower the value of properties adjacent or within site of them.
Mr. Duncan stated that Mr. and Mrs. Richard Edgerton, owners of the Eustis Sand Mine, were in Pennsylvania and could not be present at this meeting, however, noted that they had filed letters of opposition to the cell tower, which he noted had already been submitted by County staff, for the record. He stated that they own a substantial amount of property in the area in question and were concerned about the negative impact that the tower will have on their ability to develop their property in the future, as five and ten acre ranchette homesites. He clarified, for the record, that the tower site is not in the Wekiva River Protection Area. He reiterated the fact that the tower is going to affect the aesthetics of the area and there is a possibility that the tower will have a negative health impact on the residents in the area, from the microwave frequencies that are emitted from the tower, at which time he submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition's Exhibit E) containing excerpts from a study that was conducted by Dr. Wolfgang W. Scherer, a Canadian scientist, titled "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation", in which he indicates that he has concerns about the negative impacts of radiofrequencies from cell towers and high power lines. He stated that Dr. Scherer has scientific evidence supporting his conclusions about same.
Mr. Duncan stated that there was a recent Supreme Court decision regarding Florida Power & Light vs Dannia, which he feels is similar to this case, in which Florida Power & Light was trying to obtain approval from the City of Dannia to install a transfer station in an area that was very rural, but across the street from the proposed site was some homesites. He stated that a number of the residents appeared before the City Council to object to the location of the transfer station and testified that they did not want the Council to approve the request., because they were concerned about their property values and the aesthetics of the transfer station. He stated that they presented expert evidence that showed that it would have a negative impact on their property values and the ability to resale their homes; therefore, the City of Dannia unanimously voted to deny the request from Florida Power & Light. He stated that the Circuit Court overturned the decision of the City Council, stating that they did not have competent substantial evidence upon which to base their decision. He stated that the City Council appealed it to the District Court of Appeal, which agreed with them, stating that they did have competent substantial evidence. He stated that he found it interesting that the Supreme Court upheld the District Court of Appeals' decision, noting that they did not feel the request met two of the criteria set out for determining whether it complied with the City's rules, being (1) that the use not cause injury to the value of the other properties in the neighborhood where the transfer station was to be located, and (2) that the use be compatible with adjoining development and with the intended purpose of the district in which it was to be located, which he noted is the identical criteria that Lake County has for establishing rezonings. He stated that he felt he had established the fact that the request before the Board this date did not meet those two criteria. He stated that he wanted to give the Board confidence that, if they were to deny this request, there is case law on the books that would support it. He asked the Board to deny the request, noting that he and the residents in the area of the proposed tower had given them sufficient evidence upon which to base that decision.
Mr. Bailey, Zoning Representative for American Tower Corporation, the applicant, readdressed the Board, on behalf of Sprint, and submitted, for the record, a handout (Applicant's Exhibit A), containing maps (2) indicating a graphic representation of the coverage boundaries of the current system; a Compound Grading Plan sketch for the tower; various pictures showing the red balloon alluded to earlier in the meeting, depicting the location and height of the proposed tower; pictures showing a simulated monopole tower at said location; and several letters from Mr. Bailey to residents in the area in question stating that American Tower was proposing to construct the communications tower in their area, the fact that a balloon test would be conducted, the dates of the public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, and the fact that he would be available at any time to answer any questions they had about the proposed tower. He stated that American Tower was present this date seeking approval for a 193 foot monopole tower, with an additional 6 feet, to act as a lightning rod, or perhaps as an additional antenna for E-911, should they choose to utilize it. He stated that Sprint is a telecommunications service provider operating under a license issued by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and is in the process of expanding their digital wireless network in Florida and, in particular, Lake County. He stated that they offer technologically advanced wireless communication services, including digital, wireless telephone, paging, and data transmission services, which he noted are offered to the public at large, not to any one particular person.
Mr. Bailey stated that American Tower has worked very hard in the Lake County area to find a property that meets both the coverage needs of Sprint and minimizes the aesthetic impacts on surrounding properties. He stated that the site in question was carefully selected to provide the necessary coverage to the Lake County area, in conjunction with other existing wireless facilities. He stated that they must be located relative to the other sites, in order to create a seamless communication system. He stated that the system must reflect the topography of the area and the call traffic of each facility, as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable transmission area. He stated that the two most important factors in siting a wireless facility is geographic location and the type of tower that will be used. He stated that, once constructed, this facility will become part of a larger network and must, therefore, meet certain coverage requirements. He stated that the boundaries of these requirements determine the potential location for towers within the system.
Mr. Bailey referred to one of the two maps contained within his handout, stating that the one showing a black area was a graphic representation of the coverage boundaries of the current system, noting that the black area represents the marginal coverage, where there is a high percentage of dropped calls and one can only use a phone outside, with no trees or buildings interfering. He stated that the white area on the map indicates those areas of the County with no coverage at all. He then referred to the second map, stating that it shows the coverage with the proposed tower, noting that one could see that the black areas and the white areas indicated on the first map are gone, showing that the proposed tower is necessary to cover a gap between the existing towers, as well as around said towers. He stated that the site in question would add service to portions of CR 439 and to SR 44 and would also address the need for increased capacity demand in that area, due to the rapid increase of homes in the area. He stated that the subject property is a 40 acre tract of land, which is zoned agricultural and is located in a rural area of the County, at which time he displayed a photograph of said property, showing a nursery and greenhouses. He stated that the lease parcel is a 100 foot by 100 foot site located in the center of a 40 acre tract.
Mr. Bailey stated that American Tower originally came to the County, regarding the site in question, and proposed a 250 foot lattice tower, noting that, at that time, they met all the County's requirements, except the separation from residential structures, so they applied for a variance from setbacks. He stated that, in the process of going before the Board of Adjustment, for the first public hearing regarding this case, they discovered there was an error in notifying adjacent land owners, so that hearing was continued. He stated that, immediately following that hearing, they met with some adjacent land owners who expressed concerns about the tower height, lighting, and aesthetics; therefore, they convinced Sprint to lower the height of the tower to 193 feet, plus the 6 feet he alluded to earlier, with an overall height of 199 feet. He stated that, with Sprint lowering the height of the tower, it eliminated the lighting (flashing) requirement and they were able to change the tower from a lattice structure to a sleek monopole design, which he noted has a lot less impact on the surrounding properties. He displayed a couple of photographs (contained in his handout), showing the type of tower they are proposing. He stated that they have tried to maintain contact with the property owners, since that first meeting, noting that they placed several telephone calls; sent courtesy mailings, to let them know the status of the project, as it progressed; and performed a balloon test, allowing the property owners to get a visual of the height and location of the proposed tower. He referred to several samples of letters, contained in his handout, that were sent to the property owners, letting them know what was going on. He stated that, during the balloon test, they took several photographs (contained in his handout), which he referred to, noting that one could see the red balloon depicting the location and height of the tower was barely visible. He then displayed several photographs (contained in his handout) where the proposed tower was superimposed over the balloon, indicating how it would look from various angles and distances, noting that one could see that the visual impact of the tower would be minimal. He stated that he has made himself available to all the adjacent property owners, giving them cell phone numbers, access to voice mail, and office telephone numbers. He stated that several of them took advantage of it and contacted him, by telephone and by mail, requesting additional information, which he noted he furnished to them
Mr. Bailey stated that the request before the Board this date meets all the County's requirements, including the setbacks from residential structures. He stated that the monopole tower design will reduce the visual impacts to the area; it will be designed to carry additional carriers, which will reduce the need for other towers in the area; and it is located in the center of a 40 acre tract of land that is currently used as a landscape nursery. He stated that the surrounding character of the area is rural and the tower site is buffered from surrounding uses by greenhouses and dense woods to the west, the south and the east, as well as some limited woods to the north. He stated that, in addition to that, the facility will be landscaped, to aid in buffering the surrounding properties. He stated that the tower is 650 feet from all the property lines on the parent parcel. He stated that American Tower has gone to great lengths to develop a facility that will meet Sprint's needs now and the needs of the community in the future. He stated that the facility can be used for E-911 and emergency services and is capable of supporting equipment for high speed wireless Internet access, which he noted is right around the corner.
Ms. Karen Seggerman, Senior Zoning Representative for American Tower Corporation, for the State of Florida, addressed the Board, on behalf of Sprint, stating that the homes in the area of the proposed tower are increasing at a rapid rate, indicating the urgency of the need for a cell phone tower. She discussed the things that American Tower had to take into account, in searching for a suitable location for the proposed tower.
Mr. Bailey readdressed the Board stating that, with regard to the property value opinions that were given this date and statements from adjacent property owners, American Tower did a market analysis study, conducted by Mr. Karl Owens, Jr. (Applicant's Exhibit B), which he submitted, for the record, where towers in Lake County were compared, with regard to present property values and previous property values.
Mr. Doug Wilcock, Attorney, representing American Tower Corporation, addressed the Board, on behalf of Sprint, stating that Mr. Duncan had offered as evidence letters and petitions, in opposition to this request, however, noted that it was not clear whether they were from actual homeowners, or what the concerns or objections of said letters were, since his team was not afforded copies of same. He stated that he assumed most of them centered around the two issues that have been discussed the most, being property values and health and safety concerns. He stated that the Board heard from some of the homeowners, indicating their concerns, and noted that American Tower shares some of those concerns, however, noted that the Board has heard mostly anecdotal evidence. He stated that county staff's recommendation advised that property values would not be affected. He stated that some web site information was offered, as well as some letters from various real estate agents, giving their opinions about property values being effected by the proposed tower, however, noted that he would argue that said information was not substantial and competent evidence, but rather hearsay and anecdotal. He stated that he had not had the chance to question said real estate agents. He stated that, as far as he could tell, no studies were offered on the specific properties in question, so there was no competent evidence offered to show a lessening of property values.
Mr. Wilcock stated that the second area of concern concerns everyone, being the health and safety of communications towers. He stated that, to a large degree, they feel it is a question of familiarity and of comfort with the technology of wireless facilities and radio frequency emissions. He stated that, to some degree, a lot of household items, such as televisions, radios, and flourescent lighting, emit radio frequency emissions. He stated that everybody is concerned about that and noted that, if they did not believe said facilities were safe, they would not build them, because many of them live near such facilities, or have families that live near them. He stated that they are concerned about the safety of the facilities. He brought to the attention of the Board the section of the Federal Telecom Act of 1996 that offers three provisions that apply to state and local government, being (1) that state and local government cannot prohibit personal wireless facilities; (2) that they cannot discriminate between functionally equivalent services; and (3) that they cannot regulate on basis of radio frequency emissions, if the company is within FCC guidelines.
Mr. Bailey readdressed the Board stating that, with regard to the Florida Power & Light case that was brought to the attention of the Board by Mr. Duncan, in which he alluded that there was a similarity between that case and the monopole tower, there was no similarity whatsoever. He stated that a transfer station is a very high energy, high output facility and has a lot more radiation than a very low powered cellular communications station.
Mr. Karl Owens, a licensed real estate broker and certified real estate appraiser, who conducted the study alluded to earlier by Mr. Bailey to determine if the installation of towers in other areas have positively or negatively effected property values in the vicinity of those towers, addressed the Board stating that the conclusion of Tower Site No.1, located in the Mt. Plymouth area, does not appear to have a negative effect on the number of sales in the subject area or adjacent area. He stated that, with regard to Tower Site No. 2, which is located in Lady Lake, east of US 441, west of SR 25, north of Griffin Avenue, and south of the Marion County line, it does not appear to have negatively effected the land values of properties surrounding the tower site. He answered several questions presented by the Board, regarding his study.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board the Vice-Chairman, acting as Chairman, closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was struggling with this request, because it meets all the County's requirements. She stated that even though it is not camouflaged, it is a monopole, which she feels is less objectionable. She stated that she feels the fact that the tower will not have lighting is critical for the part of the County where it will be located, however, feels that the real question is whether the tower will be consistent and compatible with the nature of the community. She stated that she lives in a very rural area of the County and would not mind having a monopole tower close to her home, because she does not find it any more objectionable than a telephone pole.
Commr. Gerber questioned whether the tower could be camouflaged.
Ms. Seggerman stated that it could not, due to its height.
Commr. Pool questioned whether lowering the height of the tower would make any difference in the type of service that it would provide, noting that some of the shorter towers cannot be seen from certain distances.
Ms. Seggerman reminded the Board that Sprint originally wanted a 250 foot tower and has already agreed to lower the tower to 199 feet. She stated that they agreed to eliminate the lighting, as well.
Commr. Swartz stated that, to his knowledge, the Board has only denied one tower request that has come before them, which occurred while the County was working on its Tower Ordinance. He stated that he felt the Board should have postponed that particular case, until the County finished its ordinance. He stated that he felt the study conducted by Mr. Owens was lacking. He stated that the study conducted on Tower Site No. 2, in Lady Lake, was not helpful to the Board, because it did not provide what he would call competent substantial evidence to base a decision on and, with regard to the study conducted on Tower Site No. 1, in Mt. Plymouth, Mr. Owens provided the Board with nothing but the number of sales, which he found to be of no help at all. He questioned whether a tower would not have some impact on the ability of people owning property in rural areas of the County to sell their properties and what values their properties would have without the tower. He stated that, until the applicant can provide him with specific appraisal data that shows what the impact would be closer to a tower and convince him that there is no difference in sales before and after the construction of a tower, he would not support the request.
Commr. Gerber stated that she agreed with Commr. Swartz's comments. She stated that she feels this request pertains mainly to the traveling public who utilize cell phones and that she feels the technology is going to change, enabling the public to have better coverage, with less obtrusive structures. She stated that she feels there will be an adverse impact on property values and that she did not feel Mr. Owen's documentation was sufficient enough to change her mind about it. She stated that she would be voting against the request, as well.
Commr. Pool stated that he was struggling with this request, as well, noting that he recognized what American Tower was trying to accomplish and that he recognized staff's position, based on the criteria set forth; however, he does not feel they have taken into account the rural nature of the neighborhood, which is the key to this issue. He stated that five very competent and capable real estate people have said that the tower would lower the property values of the residents in the area; however, noted that the applicant has a realtor that says it would not lower the property values. He stated that the residents of the area in question did not request the tower to be constructed in their neighborhood and that the aerial submitted by Mr. Duncan depicts a lot of people living in that area; therefore, for that reason, he could not support the request.
Commr. Hanson stated that it is easy for one to say that the tower will reduce property values, although she feels it probably will not. She stated that, because of the push toward technology, she feels property values may very well decrease, by not having the service, but that probably will happen when there is a whole area that has poor coverage, such as Astor, the area east of Mt. Plymouth, etc. She stated that she would not be supporting the request, at this time.
A motion was made by Commr. Gerber and seconded by Commr. Pool to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny Rezoning Case No. PH23-00-4, American Tower Corporation/Sprint, Mark Ryan and Bill Bailey, Tracking No. 43-00-CFD, a request to rezone to CFD (Community Facility District), for a 199 foot monopole communications tower.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was not relying on the opinions given in letters from various realtors in Lake County that Mr. Duncan provided to the Board as evidence, but rather on the study conducted by Mr. Owens that the applicant presented as evidence, noting that he felt it was incomplete and that he did not feel it showed clear and substantial evidence that property values in close proximity to a communications tower would not be affected. He referred to sections in the County's Comprehensive Plan and its Tower Ordinance regarding the issues of protecting existing land use from potential adverse visual impacts; re-enforcing positive rural lifestyles; and the fact that the County shall institute policies and programs to preserve and re-enforce those positive qualities of rural lifestyles presently enjoyed by some of its residents. He stated that the County also has a policy that deals with location of institutional facility development, which indicates that it should be limited to urban areas in the County and should only be allowed in rural areas when it shows that it will preserve the character of those areas. He also discussed those policies in the Comprehensive Plan that deal with non-compatible land uses, noting that he feels this request is a non-compatible land use for residential.
The Vice-Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell had declared a Conflict of Interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:30 p.m., the Vice-Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
PETITION NO. MSP00/6/1-2 - MINING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT IN A - FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. - TRACKING NO. 46-00-MSP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone 180 acres from (A) Agricultural to MSP, to expand an existing sand mine that is located in the south Lake County area. She stated that it is in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and consists mainly of pasture and wetlands. She stated that, pursuant to the County's Comprehensive Plan, mining in the Green Swamp is an acceptable use. She stated that the request went through an extensive review by the County's Water Resource Management staff and they recommended approval of the request. She stated that the request was also approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 6-2, including some modifications that have been made to the Ordinance, contained in the Board's backup material. She stated that there was a letter from the Save-Our-Lakes Committee in the Board's backup material, as well, pertaining to some Comprehensive Plan issues and some technical questions that she noted her staff was prepared to answer for the Board, should they wish for them to do so. She stated that there was one letter of opposition on file.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, Florida Rock Industries, addressed the Board stating that he had presented, for the record, a binder (Applicant's Exhibit A) containing various documents, aerials, maps, and charts pertaining to this case and that he would like to call some witnesses for questioning and to give the Board a quick overview of the proposed modification to the MSP and how the applicant proposes to handle it.
Mr. Steve Adams, LPG Environmental & Permitting Services, the environmental consultant on this project, addressed the Board stating that the applicant was adding a 180 acre parcel to the existing Lake Sand Plant, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, an aerial (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the property in question. He stated that there were three (3) items specific to this amendment that the applicant was requesting, being (1) the addition of the 180 acres he alluded to, which will add 28 additional acres of mining; (2) to mine an area that was previously approved as an above grade storage area, which will add another 57 acres of mining; and (3) to realign Green Swamp Road, which will provide the applicant with an additional 33 acres of mining, for a total of 118 acres of additional mining. He displayed and submitted, for the record, a map (Applicant's Exhibit C) indicating the Revised Mine Progression Plan. He noted that the total project area would consist of 1,894 acres.
Mr. Adams discussed the issue of wetlands and what impacts, if any, there would be, in response to a letter of opposition submitted by Ms. Nancy Fullerton, Save-Our-Lakes Committee. He stated that there will be no wetland impacts with this proposal, because all the mining will be in uplands, and noted that, with regard to the issue of groundwater monitoring, it is already in effect. He stated that the applicant's Environmental Resource Permit and Consumptive Use Permit will have to be modified, to address the expansion. He then answered questions from the Board, with regard to tailings; how much open water body there will be on the site; and whether there are better or worse places in the County to mine for sand. He stated that the mine has been in existence for approximately 20 years, with no adverse impacts to the area.
Ms. Elaine Renick, representing Ms. Nancy Fullerton, President of the Save-Our-Lakes Committee, addressed the Board and read into the Minutes a letter from Ms. Fullerton, expressing her concerns about this request and the fact that the Save-Our-Lakes Committee is opposed to mining in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. She stated that Ms. Fullerton feels the County should reconsider its policy on mining in the Green Swamp and should amend those policies of the Comprehensive Plan, referred to in a letter dated June 5, 2000 (contained in the Board's backup material), which excludes sand mining from the prohibited land use. She further stated that Ms. Fullerton indicates in her letter that Florida Rock Industries plans to run 200 loads per day, five days per week, for 26 or more years, and that, if one multiplies those numbers by how many mines are operating in the Green Swamp, one can see the Green Swamp eco-system being hauled away, one load at a time. She thanked the Board for their consideration in this matter.
Commr. Hanson stated that the original intent of designating the Green Swamp as an area of critical state concern was that, once a plan was in place to deal with the environmental concerns, that designation would be lifted, however, noted that it has never occurred.
Ms. Ruth Gray, President of the Lake County Conservation Council, addressed the Board stating that she had been authorized to inform them that the Lake County Conservation Council believes they should vote against any further expansion of sand mining in the Green Swamp, at which time she indicated the reasons for said belief. She referred to various sections of the County's Comprehensive Plan, noting that some of its objectives are protecting the amount of water available for aquifer recharge; protecting land that is determined to be of ecological or environmental value; minimizing adverse effects to the Floridan Aquifer; and maintaining the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. She referred to various other sections of the Comprehensive Plan that address prohibition of mining in specified areas of the Green Swamp that cannot be restored and the fact that mining in environmentally sensitive areas shall be prohibited. She read portions of the Ordinance pertaining to this case into the Minutes, noting that it states the applicant shall maintain a minimum 100 foot setback along the perimeter of adjacent properties and roads and that a minimum 50 foot setback shall be provided around wetlands that are adjacent to the mining activity. She stated that, in the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of June 7, 2000, the applicant stated they would maintain a 50 foot setback from isolate wetlands and a 100 foot setback from contiguous wetlands, which she noted is different from the 100 foot setback along the perimeter of adjacent properties and roads and a minimum 50 foot setback around wetlands that she alluded to earlier and that she would like to have an answer to it. She stated that the Ordinance also states the 100 year flood plain of any depression area shall be clearly defined on future development plans and that she would like to have an explanation of that as well.
Ms. Marilyn Avery, a member of the Lake County Conservation Council, addressed the Board stating that she was not present as a member of the Conservation Council, but as someone who has had an opportunity to visit the sand mines, talk with the people involved, and read some of the plans. She stated that sand is very important to this area in the construction of roads and, given the fact that Lake County is growing and is going to need the sand, she feels it is best to get it from the County, rather than having it hauled in from other areas, which will be more costly to the County. She suggested that the Board watch Florida Rock Industries like a hawk, to make sure they comply with everything.
Mr. Adams readdressed the Board, in response to concerns that were raised about the potential adverse impact that this request will have to the wetlands from off-site discharge of surface water runoff, noting that staff had already addressed those concerns and found them to be unsubstantiated. He submitted, for the record, a letter (Applicant's Exhibit D) from Mr. John Kruse, Environmental Specialist II, Water Resource Management Division, dated June 21, 2000, in which he addresses the fact that, in viewing the site, he found no off-site discharge of surface water runoff into the wetlands. He stated that all the sand mines are being required to do some type of hydrological monitoring as part of their environmental resource permit, or their consumptive use permit, and noted that none of the reports show an adverse impact from any of the mining operations. He stated that the mining operations are having no adverse impact to the wildlife habitat in the area, as well, in fact, noted that the wildlife has been enhanced. He then answered questions from the Board regarding this request.
Mr. Robert Kirkner, President, Water and Earth Sciences, addressed the Board stating that he was the project hydrogeologist. He answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding recharge, as it pertains to this request, and the expansion of the sand mine. He stated that the applicant was not doing anything in its mining plan to breach any of the confining layers, in fact, noted that the applicant mines above those confining layers, because confining layers do not have good sand. He stated that all the wetlands at the site are being monitored and that no impacts to the water levels, or the flow of water through said areas, have been found.
Mr. Allen Hewitt, Director, Lake County Water Resource Management Department, addressed the Board, in response to a concern that Ms. Gray alluded to, with regard to the Ordinance and a possible discrepancy in the setback requirements. He referred to Item 2. B.- Setbacks, on Page 1 of the Ordinance, stating that it requires that a 50 foot setback be provided around wetlands that are adjacent to mining activity and a minimum 100 foot setback along the perimeter of adjacent properties and roads. He then referred to Section F.- Environmental Requirements, Paragraph k, on Page 4 of the Ordinance, which states that a minimum buffer of 50 feet shall be maintained from all wetlands. He stated that it is basically the same thing.
Ms. Gray readdressed the Board and reiterated the fact that the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission of June 7, 2000 states that the applicant will maintain 50 foot setbacks from isolate wetlands and 100 foot setbacks from contiguous wetlands, pursuant to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which she noted is different from what the Ordinance states regarding said matter.
Mr. Richey stated that the applicant's plan shows 100 feet from contiguous wetlands and 50 feet from isolate wetlands, which is consistent with what Ms. Gray stated, therefore, noted that the language contained in the Ordinance needs to be changed.
Commr. Swartz questioned what the language contained in Paragraph l, under Section F. - Environmental Requirements, on Page 4 of the Ordinance, meant, which states that the 100 year flood plain of any depression area shall be clearly defined on future development plans.
Mr. Hewitt stated that it would indicate a possible sinkhole site and noted that the 100 year flood plain area would just be defined, if one was going to construct something on it.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Adams had obtained periodic reports of wildlife monitoring for the site in question.
Mr. Adams stated that the Brooksville plant for Florida Rock Industries has a Wildlife Habitat Council Program and noted that reports are provided to the Wildlife Habitat Council to maintain that designation. He stated that it would be done for the site in question, as well. He noted that he participates in the program, as needed.
Mr. Michael O'Berry, Florida Rock Industries, addressed the Board stating that the Wildlife Habitat Council encourages corporate land owners to maintain their sites in such a way as to make them conducive to wildlife utilization and noted that Florida Rock Industries is currently in the process of having the Lake Sand Plant site certified, by implementing certain things that were identified in a report they received from the Wildlife Habitat Council.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Florida Rock Industries could provide the Board with a copy of said report and was informed that they would.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board stating that the allegation that was made that the applicant violated its current permits, by discharging, has been found to be invalid by county staff, as well as by Mr. Adams and his staff, looking at the site independently. He stated that he felt there was an honest mistake, as to what somebody was seeing, with regard to a discharge in the wetlands, because it did not happen. He stated that sand mining is allowed in the Green Swamp and noted that the nature and extent of the way that the applicant is doing things is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and has been for a number of years. He stated that competent substantial evidence was offered this date and noted that the applicant has a history of ten years with no adversity, which has been documented by the St. Johns River Water Management District and all the agencies that have been charged with monitoring the site, ever since the mines have been in existence, under monitoring, therefore, feels the applicant should be entitled to continue its business operation.
Mr. Walter Wood, Lake County Water Resource Management Department, the County's hydrogeologist, addressed the Board in response to a question from Commr. Swartz as to whether the County has made any amendments to its Mining Ordinance that provides specifically for restoration criteria in areas that are considered to be environmentally sensitive. He stated that, to his knowledge, it has not.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of restoration criteria and the fact that the Mining Ordinance has been slated to be revisited, making suggested changes.
Mr. Hewitt readdressed the Board and referred to Chapter 8.00, Page 3994, of the LDRs, noting that it states that site alteration shall be limited, in accordance with natural drainage capabilities and major soil associations. He stated that said language only pertains to mines located in the Green Swamp, noting that the County does not require it for all applications for restoration or reclamation.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that that same section of the LDRs states that any soils exposed during alteration of a site shall be stabilized and retention ponds or performance of equivalent structures maintained and that restoration of vegetation of site alteration areas shall be substantially completed within 180 days following completion of any phase of development; therefore, there are provisions for restoration in the Green Swamp, according to the LDRs.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2000-40 - Florida Rock Industries/Lake Sand Plant, Rezoning Case No. MSP00/6/1-2, Tracking No. 46-00-MSP/AMD, a request for a Mining Site Plan Amendment in A (Agriculture), to allow expansion of an existing sand mine (MSP 96/5/3-2).
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would like clarification on the setbacks, with the change noted by Ms. Ruth Gray, and that she would like for the Board to receive a copy of the report she alluded to earlier. She stated that she felt Florida Rock Industries has demonstrated the fact that it is a good neighbor and that it is sensitive to the concerns of the environment in an area of critical state concern.
Commr. Swartz stated that there are a number of places in the Comprehensive Plan where the County has not followed through with what was put in the Plan and that he felt the section alluded to by Ms. Gray was one of them.
Commr. Gerber stated that there are many places in the Comprehensive Plan, especially in the Conservation Element, where the County is supposed to have done something that it has not, because of lack of staff, money, etc. She stated that she does not feel hanging their hat on one section is going to relieve the County from the burden of having a citation that will stand up in court.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
COMMISSIONERS
At this time, Commr. Pool left the meeting, due to another commitment.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that, on March 21, 2000, the Board was given a presentation on Community Design Standards and there was some discussion as to the timeframe involved for having a Community Design Standards Ordinance drafted and whether or not the County would use a consultant to do so. She stated that, in the interim, the County went through the RFP process and hired what will be the County's On-Call Planning Consultants (Miller Sellen Conner & Walsh) for the Growth Management Department, so staff felt it made sense to use them, since they have a history in drafting design ordinances. She stated that staff plans to have the consultants handle the draft ordinance, to be completed in approximately 120 days. She stated that it should be adopted in late October or early November of 2000.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval of the timeframe to adopt community design standards utilizing Lake County's On-Call Planning Consultants.
Commr. Pool was not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
BUDGETS/SHERIFF
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the meeting to discuss the Sheriff's tentative budget was scheduled for July 6, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., however, noted that the Sheriff indicated he has to be in Federal Court that week and will not be available. She stated that the Board would need to reschedule the budget meeting for the Sheriff.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time the Board rescheduled the meeting to discuss the Sheriff's tentative budget for Monday, July 24, 2000, at 10:00 a.m.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
MISCELLANEOUS/ORDINANCES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that it involved the hiring of a mediator in a special master case.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval for Robert Williams to serve as Special Master, as provided for in the County Ordinance relating to Special Master Proceedings, Sections 14.20.08 and 14.20.08(c).
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
COUNTY PROPERTY/TAX COLLECTOR
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that Grizzard Realty has found a buyer for the Citrus Sun Club, located at the intersection of Hwys. 19 and 27, in Groveland, which he noted owes the County back taxes amounting to approximately $400,000.00. He stated that the contract price will be $15,000.00 short, which is needed to pay all the expenses related to said purchase, however, noted that the alternative would be a tax deed, which would cost the County more than the $15,000.00 shortage. He recommended approval of the request.
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that Mr. Bob McKee, Lake County Tax Collector, has been working very diligently to collect back taxes that are owed to the County by various properties, so the County is now up-to-date on its ad-valorem taxes. He stated that Mr. McKee is also working very diligently to collect tangible taxes that are owed to the County, which he noted had not been done before Mr. McKee became the County's Tax Collector.
It was noted that the Board felt Mr. McKee should receive special recognition for his efforts.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
EMERGENCY SERVICES/RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Mr. Tad Stone, Senior Director, Emergency Management Services, had informed him that the ban on fireworks should be lifted, noting that other counties have done so and the County's drought index has dropped a little, because of the recent rains that the County has had. He noted that the Resolution banning fireworks would expire this date.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2
MEETINGS
Commr. Pool informed the Board that the South Lake/West Orange Transportation Task Force will be having lunch with Senator Danny Webster, to discuss transportation issues, on Wednesday, June 28, 2000.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Commr. Pool informed the Board that, on July 6, 2000, he and a representative from the State of Florida, Representative Randy Johnson, Senator Anna Cowin, and Mr. Bob Stevens will be taking a look at Lake Louisa State Park, to try to encourage the State to allow the County to utilize a piece of that park as an active recreational area.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT 5
RESOLUTIONS
The Board postponed action regarding a request for approval of a Resolution of support for Leon County Commissioner Rudy Malloy, in his bid for NACo 2nd Vice President, until a later date.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
______________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/6-27-2000/7-17-2000/boardmin