The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 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: Robert A. Pool, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender. Others present were: William A. Neron, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Stivender gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that there is an Addendum with two items on it, one under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, and one item for discussion under his reports.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, under his business, he has an item that may require a vote, but he will wait until he gets to that point. The item is in reference to the existing Florida Hospital building in Eustis.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests on the County Manager's Consent Agenda including the item from Addendum No. 1:
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Subdivisions
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $1,500,000.00 that was posted for Plantation at Leesburg Nottoway Village Subdivision.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Accounts Allowed/Economic Development & Tourism/Resolutions
Request from Economic Development & Tourism for approval of Resolution 2002-42 confirming the previously approved sale of Citrus Sun Club to Toledano Holdings, LLC, in the amount of $350,000.00 and approving the release of mineral rights for the property to the purchaser.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 978 - L. J. NORMAN - MOUNT DORA/SORRENTO AREA - DISTRICT 4
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Petition No. 978 by L. J. Norman to vacate road and cease maintenance on Dudeck Road in the Mount Dora/Sorrento area. Mr. Stivender stated that, at this time, both parties have come to staff to discuss a legal access issue, and staff is recommending approval of a 30 day postponement, until the regular scheduled meeting in April. He noted that Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicant, has indicated to him that she would appreciate a 30 day postponement. She was not present for the hearing, due to a prior commitment.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Potter, Clement, Lowery & Duncan, Mount Dora, stated that he is representing the opposition, and he hopes to meet with Ms. Campione in the next couple of weeks to try and settle the legal access issue, so that the applicant can move forward on the vacation.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment on the request for postponement. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30 day postponement, until April, for Petition No. 978 by L. J. Norman to vacate road and cease maintenance on Dudeck Road #4-4483 in S 27, T19S, R27E in the Mount Dora/Sorrento area - Commission District 4.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Don Carey as the State of Florida One Step Career Center representative on the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board.
ZONING
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, stated that there was one change to the zoning agenda. Ms. Farrell stated that Tab 9, Hang Ju Chon & Youn Su Chon, has been withdrawn, as requested by Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Gray, Harris & Robinson, PA.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the case has had a lot of interest over the last several years and, now that they have withdrawn the case and, if they want to come back again, they would have to start the whole process over again.
Ms. Farrell noted that the applicant would have to pay all of the fees again, if they filed another application. She noted that there is no time frame, unless the Board denied the application.
CASE PH#78-01-5 - BRUCE AND SUSAN KARP - BRUCE DUNCAN - R-1 TO A - TRACKING #153-01-Z
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture) district to allow for those uses permitted in the Agriculture zoning district. Ms. Farrell stated that this involves 19 acres in rural land use, and the property is surrounded by agricultural zoning. As shown in the staff report, there have been a lot of code enforcement issues that staff has been dealing with for several months on this particular request, but the request for agricultural zoning does not have an impact or bearing on the code enforcement issue, so staff can move forward with the rezoning and deal with the code enforcement issues in the future. Ms. Farrell stated that most of the code issues have been resolved but, for rezoning purposes, staff can recommend approval to go to agricultural zoning. There is no opposition in writing, but there is opposition here today. Ms. Farrell stated that Planning and Zoning approved it 7 to 3. There is a letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) in the backup, and it is one of the agencies that the applicant has been dealing with to resolve certain issues. She stated that the request is consistent and staff is recommending approval.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that they are requesting a down zoning from R-1 to A, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the protection of agricultural lands. It will be beneficial to the applicant and the County, because it takes 20 additional acres back into agricultural zoning. At this time, Mr. Duncan called Mr. Bruce Karp, applicant, to testify.
In response to questions from his attorney, Mr. Karp testified that he bought the property approximately two years ago, under the assumption that it was agricultural zoning. When he went to pull a tree removal permit, he was told that he did not need one to clear the land. Then Code Enforcement told him that he did need a permit, so he paid a fine and agreed to have a tree farm, so he would not have to replace the trees that were removed. When he went to get a permit for his trailer, he found out that the property was zoned R-1. Mr. Karp explained that the property is electrically irrigated and he is ready to start planting. He has a holding area for the plants, but he has no place to put his main stock, until he gets the agriculture zoning.
Mr. Karp addressed the issue of the dirt track and explained that it is a private track for his son and a couple of his friends to practice riding their four wheelers, because they are in competition. He stated that the dirt track is used about two times a month; other times during the year maybe four times a month; and it is basically used on Sundays between 12 and 4 p.m. He stated that right now he and his son are on the road most of the time racing. Mr. Karp testified that he is not charging anyone to use the track. He is an irrigation and landscaping contractor and is licensed and permitted through the State of Florida. Mr. Karp explained that he met with Mr. Robert J. Fewster, Regulatory Scientist, Department of Water Resources, SJRWMD, and he has three months to comply with his requirements but, because of health problems, he will not be able to start the process until April 11, 2002. He stated that he has come to an agreement with the SJRWMD as far as reclamation of the site, and Mr. Fewster will be checking on the progress of their agreement. Mr. Karp stated that the letter in the backup solidifies the agreement that he has with them. He also was not aware of a bluebird species on the property and, after meeting with a representative from the Federal Game and Fish Commission, he was convinced that Mr. Karp was not familiar with the species and will not be pursuing any violations. He has met with County staff and is aware of what he needs to do to come into compliance. Mr. Karp testified that there are no pending code enforcement violations against him at this time. He explained that the tree farm will take up about 13 acres and perhaps more as time progresses. He will keep the racetrack where it is today until his son is about 18 years of age, and then he will turn it into farm land. There is about an acre of wetlands on the site. Mr. Karp addressed the issue about the oil can and explained that this issue has been resolved.
Mr. Duncan stated that staff has met with Mr. Karp at the site, and Mr. Karp understands what needs to be done, under a specific time frame. No official code case was actually opened on Mr. Karp, and he has never appeared before the Code Enforcement Board, because they were able to resolve all of these issues prior to reaching that point.
Commr. Cadwell felt that, in looking at the map, this is a perfect location for a tree farm and low use for the property, but the racetrack seems to be the problem that people are having with the request. He questioned, if the track is not open to the public, and it is on private property, was there anything that would prevent them from having it.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that he would have to defer to whatever decision Code Enforcement would make in their initial investigation, but normally, if it was the owner only, and he was not inviting other folks in, he did not feel there would be an issue with it.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there may not be an issue legally but there may be an issue in regards to whether or not the applicant is a good neighbor.
Mr. Minkoff explained that, when other folks start getting invited in, then the picture gets cloudier, even when they do not charge, and then it may get to the point where Code Enforcement would file a complaint.
Mr. Duncan stated that there was discussion about setting up a meeting with some of the folks that were in opposition, and the Code Enforcement and Planning staff, to address that issue. There may be issues regarding the noise ordinance that result in some issues with Mr. Karp, but those will be handled on a complaint case by case basis, but right now everything is cleared.
Mr. Karp stated that it is still his intention to use the four or five acres for the racetrack, because he cannot plant anything on it.
It was clarified that changing the zoning to agricultural would not allow Mr. Karp more opportunities or freedoms with the four wheelers and, if someone is operating it as a commercial type endeavor, then a conditional use permit (CUP) would be required.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he understood why Mr. Duncan brought up this issue, because it was a big part of the Planning and Zoning minutes, but normally, when the Board is hearing a case like this, they would talk about the merits of the rezoning, and the rezoning is for agriculture for a tree farm.
Mr. Duncan requested that he be able to reserve some time at the end to rebut.
Mr. Juan Boneta, owner of parcel #87, addressed the Board and stated that he had a an outline of the lots surrounding the property in question, with a specific area marked "racetrack". The drawing was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-A for the opposition. He also had an exhibit, which were pictures of the site in question, in relation to his property. The pictures that he had marked as A - D and Tree Farm were submitted and marked as Exhibit O-B for the opposition. Mr. Boneta explained that there has been multiple trailers and bikes on the racetrack property. He and his family live 400 feet from the property, and they are disturbed by all of the noise especially on Sundays. He questioned why the applicant did not put the racetrack on the back of his property. Mr. Boneta stated that he was hoping the Board would place a CUP on the tree farm, because they want to be able to get along as neighbors.
Commr. Pool explained that, by the Board changing the zoning to allow the tree farm, it does not prohibit or permit the applicant to do his activities, and it may become a code enforcement case on its own.
Commr. Hanson stated that, for the applicant to maintain his agricultural exemption, or classification, he will have to have a plan for a tree farm.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he understands the concerns being expressed by Mr. Boneta, but the Board cannot legislate someone to be a good neighbor and, in this case, if there is no one using the racetrack except them, and they are not charging a fee, there is not a lot the Board can do at this point. The question is whether or not this property is a good place for a tree farm.
Mr. Boneta addressed the County's noise ordinance and questioned why it was not being enforced. He was afraid that the rezoning will make it easier for the applicant to keep the track on the property. Mr. Boneta was also concerned that his property value will decrease because of this situation, and he is afraid of investing any more in his property, because he will not be able to sell it.
Commr. Cadwell explained that a straight zoning for agriculture is suitable for a tree farm, and the County does not require a CUP for tree farms.
Mr. Boneta stated that, if the racetrack was not involved in the request, he would not be opposed to the tree farm, or the applicant putting the racetrack somewhere where it does not bother anybody, but right now it is right next to his home. Mr. Boneta stated for the record that at the last meeting, Mr. Karp stated that he was going to fix the road, because he was going to have trucks going through there to the tree farm, but the road has an erosion problem. He stated that he and Mr. Ray Hamilton own the road, and they are not going to allow him to do just anything to the road.
Ms. Farrell explained that Dogwood Road is a non-county maintained road, but it is a platted right-of-way.
Mr. Minkoff explained that Mr. Boneta may own the road, because staff does not know if there is a dedication on the plat.
Commr. Pool stated that there may be an opportunity here that staff is recognizing, and the Code Enforcement officers are recognizing his concerns and his complaints, and they will take a look at this situation, but the Board cannot put conditions upon the agricultural zone, because the applicant is not asking for a CUP, but a straight zoning for the tree farm. He stated that the tree farm will not be a bad neighbor to him.
Mr. Ray Hamilton addressed the Board and stated that he is property owner #82 on the map (Exhibit O-A), and he and the neighbors are mainly concerned about the racetrack activities, but he realizes that the issue today is strictly zoning. He stated that they would like to have a County Code Enforcement Officer come to the property and evaluate the property and make some recommendations. He has tried to converse with Ms. Boneta by phone about the situation but was unable to hear her because of the motorcycle noise.
Commr. Pool stated that he would like to direct staff to allow the Code Enforcement staff to go to the site during other hours, to find out what the noise level might be and see if there is a situation that needs to be addressed. He felt that there may be a way to let the applicant continue by muffling these things in a way so that he can be a good neighbor.
Mr. Neron stated that he and Mr. Greg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, have talked even before this issue came up about instances where they are going to need to try and ensure that they have Code Enforcement available on non-traditional hours such as weekends and evenings, because a lot of these types of activities do not happen during normal days and hours. Staff has recognized that need and are looking at ways to do some staffing on a limited basis.
Mr. Jerry Newton addressed the Board and stated that he does not have a problem with the applicant's tree farm, but the applicant has cleared his property and pushed his trash up onto his property. Mr. Newton stated that he asked him to remove it, and he responded negatively towards his request and threatened him on several occasions Mr. Newton stated that there have been 12 motor cross bikes and three huge trailers on the site at one time, and he cannot put his horses out back when they are engaged in this activity. The applicant said he removed the oil, but Mr. Newton stated that he buried it, and the County has pictures of this activity. Mr. Newton stated that he does not want a neighbor like Mr. Karp, even though he does not have a problem with him having a tree farm.
Mr. Duncan stated that it is abundantly clear that Mr. Karp intends to use the property as a tree farm, and he has spent about $19,000 on irrigation, with the entire site being irrigated including the dirt track. He noted that Commr. Hanson pointed out that there are restrictions in place through the Property Appraiser's Office and State Statutes to ensure that he is operating a legitimate agricultural venture. In regards to the road issue, Mr. Karp brought this up at the Planning and Zoning hearing, because one of the members suggested that he improve the road to County standards, but he, as his attorney, interjected because of the costs involved. He stated that Mr. Karp has made some improvements on the road from time to time in order to keep the road passable, and he is willing to continue to do so, unless the neighbors do not want him to.
Mr. Karp stated that he did not feel that the motorcycle track has any bearing on his tree farm, and the neighbors can go through Code Enforcement, if they feel there is a problem. In regards to the noise issue, if staff finds that there is excessive noise, then he will put mufflers on the bikes. He feels that no matter where he puts the racetrack, the neighbors will be unhappy.
Commr. Pool called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson disclosed that, prior to this issue coming to the Board, she had spoken to some of the neighbors about their concerns. She stated that this case is bringing forth the issue that is a problem in her district, which are the four wheeler vehicles. She receives many calls, because there is significant ridership in the northeast part of the County, and the noise does bother the neighbors. So to isolate this one and say that they cannot have their four wheelers on it would be selective enforcement, but she feels that Code Enforcement definitely has some issues that need to be addressed in working with the neighbors and the applicant. The request is not currently in her district but is now in District 5.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in reviewing this case and listening to testimony today, he has tried to find a way to vote against this request and, if giving the applicant the agriculture zoning would help his efforts with his track, he would vote against it, but he does not know that it does. He stated that through the discussion the Board has said that it wants Code Enforcement to be diligent in their job, and they can only hope that people will be good neighbors. He stated that the existing rules allow the applicant to do what he wants to do, and he would urge the applicant to try and be a better neighbor, but a tree farm on 19 acres is the issue that the Board is addressing today.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Case PH#78-01-5, Bruce and Susan Karp (Bruce Duncan, Attorney), a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture) district to allow for those uses permitted in the Agriculture zoning district, Tracking #153-01-Z, Ordinance 2002-20.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that, with the dirt and sand that had been moved on that property, there should be some significant issues with that modification of the land. She realizes that the SJRWMD has said it is okay according to the backup, but what she saw should raise some major issues with the County.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
CASE PH#12-02-1 - BASWELL AND CORNELIA SMITH - LEESBURG HUMANE SOCIETY - BARBARA ALLIO - R-6 TO CP - TRACKING #19-02-CP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial). The property is located on Haines Creek Road and staff has recommended approval for a retail thrift store for the Leesburg Humane Society.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Barbara Allio, member of the Leesburg Humane Society, addressed the Board and
explained that the thrift store is currently across CR 473 (Haines Creek Road) where it has been for approximately eight to ten years. They have had good relationships with the neighbors, their hours are from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the week, they are closed on Sundays, and there seems to be plenty of parking area.
Commr. Pool called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hill stated that she feels the request is very compatible for the area.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case PH#12-02-1, Baswell and Cornelia Smith, Leesburg Humane Society, Barbara Allio, representative, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) to allow the use of a retail thrift store and additional professional offices, Tracking #19-02-CP, Ordinance 2002-21.
CASE #83-01-3 - BANANA COVE MARINA/DENNIS WILSON/TED WICKS, WICKS CONSULTING SERVICES - A TO RV - TRACKING #156-01-Z
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to RV (Recreational Vehicle) to incorporate the existing resort to allow for a dry storage area for boats and RV trailers. Ms. Farrell explained that the applicant will go through development review.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, addressed the Board and stated that he is here to represent Mr. Wilson on the project. Mr. Wicks stated that Banana Cove Marina has been in place for a number of years and, with the addition of the two acres, he is looking at the feasibility of doing a small RV park with some trailer storage, etc. The zoning will allow them to do this and they will come back through the master park plan procedure with staff and do the development review and whatever is necessary to bring the project forward.
Commr. Pool called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to RV (Recreational Vehicle) to incorporate with the existing resort to allow for a dry storage area for boats and RV trailers, Tracking #156-01-Z, Ordinance 2002-22.
CASE PH#13-02-3 - TEX AND JULIA MERRITT - STEVEN J. RICHEY - R-6 TO CP TRACKING #16-02-CP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) for a professional office park. Ms. Farrell stated that, in the backup, there is an ordinance that includes all of the land uses basically agreed upon by staff and the applicant. At Planning and Zoning there was some discussion about whether this would meet school locational criteria but, because the applicant was not interested in having schools, this was taken out of the mix, but staff has recommended approval. The request meets commercial locational criteria with CR 33 and CR 48.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and noted that they will be required to go through site plan review and, if there is not sufficient right-of-way for the widening of the CR33 and CR 470, they will be giving it as part of their development plan, which will be reviewed to meet the criteria. Mr. Richey further explained that his clients voluntarily removed "school" from the proposed uses, as well as some adult entertainment uses.
Commr. Pool called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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 Case PH#13-02-3, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) for a professional office park, Tracking #16-02-CP, Ordinance 2002-23.
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC./LAKE SAND PLANT - GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNERS - AMENDMENT TO MSP ORD#2000-40 IN A - TRACKING #18-02-MSP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request to utilize 54.6 acres as part of a sand mine expansion, which is currently in their existing MSP. There were some major modifications and staff felt they needed to bring the request back to the Board. Ms. Farrell stated that they are also going to relocate Green Swamp Road, and everything appeared to be positive as staff reviewed the request. Mr. Allan Hewitt, Director of Water Resources, has been working with the applicant for a number of months prior to this public hearing and staff is in full support of the request. The applicant is present to walk the Board through the actual changes, if needed. Ms. Farrell stated that the request is to swap out 55 acres with the State of Florida, and to mine in an area that had not been previously approved for mining, but it is all in an approved MSP. She noted that there was no opposition to the request.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was sure that staff discussed whether the request needed to come back to the Board, and he was glad that staff made this decision.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he would like to call Ms. Cheryl Ellinor, LPG Environmental Permitting Services, Inc., to the stand to testify. She was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.
Ms. Ellinor, a biologist, testified that the modification to the existing MSP is very simple, as shown in the Amended Mine Plan. She noted that the areas highlighted in the dark yellow were the areas that are being added to the mining, for a total of 54 acres between the two areas. The northern section involves a minor relocation to Green Swamp Road, and the change adds approximately 118 feet, which is very minor as far as a traffic issue. Ms. Ellinor stated that they are putting back one to one uplands for the additional area that they are mining. They are also donating on a one to one ratio of wetlands to the State, which is also shown on the map in the north area. The wetlands are contiguous to the mitigation embankment, and it is also property owned by the State. Ms. Ellinor testified that she met in the fall of last year with representatives from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as noted by the letter in the Board's packet that reflects the fact that DCA approved the proposal that they have before them today. She explained that currently mitigation banks are charging $30,000 to $35,000 per credit per acre for land, so this is a big cost for the applicant to make this donation. She stated that typically there is no ratio for reestablishment in the Green Swamp, and the one to one establishment is to cover the fact that they are disturbing it on a temporary basis. Ms. Ellinor testified that the road has been moved before for the prior mining site plan, and the realigning of the road has been approved by Public Works. Staff has determined that there is nothing significant with these additional areas, so they were not required to do additional evaluations with regard to the hydrogeologic analysis. There are no increases or changes to mine operation, and they are simply adding area to be mined. Ms. Ellinor explained that the land is mostly pasture land, hayfields and old citrus groves, and there were no issues of concern. There are some gopher tortoises in a couple of areas that they will be relocating in accordance with State requirements, as the mining progresses to those areas, but there are no other listed species that need to be addressed. The Amended Mine Plan was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Egor Emery addressed the Board in opposition to the proposal and stated that Florida Rock was kind enough to come before the Conservation Council meeting to discuss this request. He stated that he is concerned that the Board can fall into a certain feeling of nonchalantness about this sort of thing just because is it approved and already there. He stated that they need to remember that they have to take every opportunity to raise the standard for every one of these projects that come before them. The one to one conversion of land is a great idea, but they need to consider for the future, so they may need to ask for a higher goal, because they need to get as much land as they can get whenever they can get it, and the applicant is donating this land that would have been useful in a mitigation bank. Mr. Emery stated that he wants to see that this County sets the highest possible standards and does everything possible to protect their resources. He stated that Florida Rock is doing the best job that they are forced to do, and sometimes they go beyond that and he applauds their efforts. He feels it is the Board's duty to set the highest possible standards. Mr. Emery stated that, when it comes to mitigation and reclamation, he would much prefer that they leave land undisturbed whenever possible, and that they take some of this 1,800 acre site and look at some of those areas that can be set aside undisturbed for the future, which is much better than trying to reclaim land that has been disturbed.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton addressed the Board stated that she is representing herself as a property owner in the Green Swamp, and as President of the Alliance to Protect Water Resources Inc. Ms. Fullerton noted that Alliance to Protect Water Resources, Inc. wrote a letter to the Board on March 19, 2002, which had a copy of the June 5, 2000 letter from Save Our Lakes Committee, Inc. attached to it. They opposed the requested variance, because it does go against the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), because it increases the 60 percent limit allowed in mining acreage by the 54+acres. She stated that their concerns have to do with the accumulative effects of sand mining in the Green Swamp. Ms. Fullerton stated that she knows that Polk County does a lot of sand mining, but she is agreeing with Mr. Emery when he says that it is pretty much their responsibility to do what they can for what is best for the resource in Lake County. She asked the Board to recollect that the Conservation Committee for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) recommended that mining in the swamp be prohibited when the EAR amendments were coming through three or four years ago. Also the EAR analysis for Objective 7-13: Conserve Mineral Resources states that the objective was achieved but, as quoted, "While the 'up front' requirements, technical reviews, and permitting process are relatively stringent, long term and cumulative effects of extraction activities have not been studied/documented to any degree in the County." Ms. Fullerton stated that they are asking that such a study be done, to better evaluate the status and mining upon the water resources in the Green Swamp, and the effect that these waters have to the north. She stated that, according to the report, Hydrologic Effects Of Sand Mining in Lake County, there are 32 sand mines in Florida; seven in Lake County; seven in Polk County. She stated that the 14 mines are clustered together in the Green Swamp area near CR 474, and they affect the watershed that flows in part into Big Creek and Little Creek Basin that provides the waters for the Clermont Chain of Lakes and contributes to the ground and surface waters of Lake County. These waters have been a vital concern to the County and its conflict with Polk County over the Lake Lowery diversion issue. Ms. Fullerton stated that they believe the County needs to go beyond the applicant's hydrology reports and address the cumulative effects issue independently. The County should require reasonable assurance that mining will clearly be in the public interest as required in Florida Statute 403.918(2), since these waters provide the water for the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) of the Clermont Chain. She stated that the report states that sand mining in swamp type mines may subtlely reduce adjacent surficial aquifer system water levels and that such subtle changes in water levels are more difficult to detect and to quantify. She stated that the report goes on to say that they believe there is no environmental significance, but at least it is an acknowledgment that there is such an effect. Ms. Fullerton stated that she would like to know how many of these 14 mines, or those in the State, have exceeded and have had to request a variance of the 60 percent allowed acreage to mine, as set by the State, and by the County LDRs. She stated that they feel there is a great inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, which they addressed in 2000, and stated that she would mention Policy 7-13.1, Prohibition of Mining in Specified Areas, and 7-13.2, Mining in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, from the Comprehensive Plan, with the main point being that mining is prohibited, as stated, unless the mine lands can be restored. She reviewed the definition of restoration and stated that it is the same old argument, but technically a sand mine cannot be restored to its previous condition. She wanted to know whether this change in hydrology lessens the direct runoff flow into the wetlands and does it lessen the water that is going to the flow north. She stated that she would like clarification from staff as to the inconsistencies of the issues noted on Page 3 of the staff report. Ms. Fullerton stated that Mr. Emery addressed the appeal, as far as the extent of mitigation or trading, and she agrees with that completely.
Ms. Fullerton stated that the Green Swamp serves important functions of recharge and pressurization of the floridan aquifer. The recharge has been a debate in the Green Swamp, and information from the 1000 Friends of Florida report says that the recharge varies from very high to low and, on an average, it is a moderate recharge area. She stated that they recognize the diligent monitoring program of Florida Rock, and their efforts show that there is very little effect to the vegetation, but the significance of the Green Swamp is recognized by its designation as an area of critical state concern. They believe that more protection is needed to preserve the water necessary to maintain the swamp especially in these times of drought and increased residential development in south Lake County. She stated that, until the cumulative effect of all of these factors are determined, they ask that the Board deny any requests that increase mining in the Green Swamp.
Commr. Pool called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Richey stated that his hydrologist is present today. He wanted the Board to know that, in regard to the comment made by Mr. Emery, and the fact that the County should tread gently in these areas and not do things quickly and without care, the mining evaluation for the 54 acres was substantive and it took almost a year to go through it, and to bring forth this plan today. Mr. Richey explained that sand is not a mineral under the definition of mineral, so the comments made about the Comprehensive Plan, with regard to mining minerals, do not apply to silica, which is why it is an exception to the Comprehensive Plan, and an exception to the Green Swamp rules. It was approved and allowed to be permitted as a use in the Green Swamp by the legislature, by the Comprehensive Plan, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and by this Board through its LDRs. For more than ten years, 35 different monitoring stations have been monitoring wetlands, and the effect of mining on the Green Swamp, and this has been done by both Florida Crushed Stone and its company Rinker, and by Florida Rock Industries. All of those accumulative effects are negative with regard to the mining activities that are going on in the Green Swamp, and they are exceeding the Green Swamp rules and regulations when they restore one to one. Mr. Richey stated that through this process, they are asking that they be allowed to temporarily disturb and temporarily mine in excess of the 60 percent, and then to restore it. It requires documentation and bonding and, in this particular case, it requires oversight of the DCA who has looked at what they are proposing and advised that it meets their criteria. Mr. Richey stated that he is not aware of any changes in Tallahassee where the DCA is any less stringent in its overview of enforcing areas of critical state concern. He stated that this will not increase any consumption of water, they have monitored this area for more than ten years, and there has been no adverse effect caused by these activities. He explained that only 600 acres of the 1,800 acres is being mined even under this proposal, and the rest of it is open space, and he clarified that this is not a variance. He further clarified that the County did have the strictest ordinance in the State and then Sumter County adopted an ordinance that was more strict, and then Sumter County has now relaxed its ordinance. He would suggest that Lake County is once again the most stringent on mining of sand in the State of Florida.
Ms. Farrell stated that it is time to do a review of the mining ordinance, and staff has started a list of changes and modifications that are needed in the current code. They are hoping to do that over the summer, and to have a workshop with Board.
Commr. Hanson suggested that staff review the Polk County ordinance during this process.
Ms. Farrell stated that there have been no variances granted for other mines, as far as history, and all issues have been worked out for this case. She noted that Planning and Zoning approved it 9 to 0.
Ms. Elliston pointed out that, with regard to Polk County, they have done significant hydrologic analysis to the point where they do not require applicants to submit the hydrologic information that Lake County does, therefore, the Lake County ordinance is more stringent.
Commr. Pool stated that the request is in his district, they are not distributing any additional lands or any new lands, and he supports what they are trying to do. He respectfully requested that someone make a motion in support of this with the swap, with the 54.6 acres going back to the State for conservation and everything that they have provided for on a one on one basis.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case MSP#02/3/1-2, a request for an amendment to MSP ORD#2000-40 in A (Agriculture) to add 54.6 acres to the existing sand mine for future expansion and relocation of Green Swamp Road, with conditions as outlined in the ordinance, Tracking #18-02-MSP/AMD, Ordinance 2002-24.
CASE CUP#87/8/5-5 - MIGUEL AND ADELIA DE VIVAS - REVOCATION OF CUP#87/8/-5-4 - TRACKING #21-02-CUP/REV
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a revocation of a 1987 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that has had code enforcement issues over the years. Ms. Farrell stated that Mr. Tommy Leathers, Director of Code Enforcement Services, is present to answer specific questions of the Board. The property is a little under 20 acres in the Eustis area, in the Wekiva River Protection Area. She stated that, in the backup, there is a chronology of code enforcement complaints from August, 2001, with most of them being related to the cages not being cleaned over the years. There were specific requirements in the CUP for the chicken farm, and there were a lot of complaints from the neighbors, and some health concerns. Ms. Farrell stated that staff does not have a lot of CUPs to bring forward for revocation, but this one met their test, and the Code Enforcement Board has a running fine on it. The zoning is agriculture, so they would still have permitted uses in agriculture zoning on the property. Ms. Farrell stated that it is her understanding that the property has been cleaned up, as of February 22, 2002, and there are no outstanding violations on the property, but staff is still moving forward with the revocation.
At this time, Ms. Janie Barron, Senior Customers Service Representative, approached the Board to serve as an interpreter for the applicant, Ms. Maria de Vivas.
Through the interpretation process, Ms. Barron informed the Board that Ms. Maria de Vivas is testifying that the applicants are her parents, and they have been the owners of the property for about three years. Ms. Maria de Vivas testified that she has been in charge of the property for three months. Since her arrival from Columbia, she was notified of several violations and problems with the chicken farm. Ms. de Vivas explained that they were fined $1,000 and it cost them a lot of money to haul off the manure from the property. When she came to the property, they tried to comply with the code and work with the neighbors. In December, they abandoned the property, and they cleared up every violation, and the chickens are gone from the property. Ms. de Vivas testified that they have put a lot of money into the chicken farm and, in order to get some of the money back that they have put into the chicken farm, they want to sell it as a chicken farm.
Staff explained that, if the CUP is revoked, they will not be able to sell it as a chicken farm.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, if the Board chooses not to revoke the CUP today, then the CUP would still be valid and they could operate a chicken farm assuming that they are in compliance with all other regulations.
Ms. Barron presented this explanation to the applicant, and Ms. de Vivas asked whether she could bring a go-cart racetrack to the property, if the CUP is revoked. Ms. de Vivas was informed that the property would have agriculture uses. Ms. de Vivas explained that they did not want to continue using the property for a chicken farm, but they would like to sell it to someone to use as a chicken farm because, if they sell it just as a piece of property and not as a chicken farm, they will not get as much money.
Discussion occurred regarding the $21,000 in fines, with staff noting that these have not been paid, and the applicant would have to go back to the Code Enforcement Board to have them waived, since they have cleaned up the property.
Ms. Barron discussed the fines with Ms. de Vivas who in turn testified that she was not aware of the $21,000 against her parents, the owners of the property. Ms. Barron, interpreter, explained to her why they were fined $250 a day (84 days) and that they had a certain amount of time to bring the property into compliance and that her parents failed to meet those restrictions, prior to the time Ms de Vivas arrived.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that, for clarification, there are no chickens on the farm now, and the property has been cleaned up. She asked staff how long a CUP would remain in existence for a chicken farm before it had to be reactivated, or before it would lose its CUP.
Ms. Farrell explained that some CUPs have time limits, but this particular CUP does not have a time limit. She stated that it would usually be a voluntary revocation, or staff revokes them on an annual basis. In this particular incident, if a CUP is not in operation, it would be in compliance because there would no violations. Staff brings forward the voluntary revocations when they are either annexed or they do not want to pay the annual inspection fee.
Commr. Hill stated that she understands that the applicants would like to keep the CUP because without it, it would diminish the value of the property, but Ms. de Vivas stated that she wanted to resell the property with the CUP. She asked if the new owner would have to come in and go through a CUP process.
Ms. Farrell clarified that the CUP in the backup actually runs with the property, and they could do whatever is allowed in agriculture, and they would not have to come before the Board, unless they were in violation. She explained that the property is fenced and locked and staff cannot get any updated photos.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the County could take over the property after paying the liens on it, or whether it would be more valuable to the County to sell it and pay the liens off.
Mr. Minkoff explained that either the Code Enforcement Board, or the Board, could relieve them of the fine and typically Code Enforcement takes the position that, if it is totally in compliance, they will try and recover the costs of the investigation and the hearings, but then they will recommend a waiver for the rest of the fines.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in the years that he has been here, there may have been one or two involuntary revocations, so that lets him know that staff is at a frustration level, and they have done everything they can do and this CUP probably should not be there. He explained that, when the Board has CUPs come before them, they, as a Board, use that to protect the neighbors and protect the concerns of the citizens. He stated that staff feels they are in violation of a CUP and, if you look at the pictures, the chickens were running wild. The applicants are strictly trying to keep the property and sell it as a chicken farm, but they will still have agriculture and all of the other uses, if the CUP is revoked. If someone wants to buy it for a chicken farm, they can come in and apply for a new CUP, and he feels it would be better to do that as opposed to trying to assume this one that has had a history of problems.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Case CUP#87/8/5-5, the revocation of CUP#87/8/5-4 for a chicken farm due to violations of the terms and conditions and that the permitted use for the site has been terminated, Tracking #21-02-CUP/REV, Ordinance 2002-25.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that there have been multiple owners over the years, and it has had some problems over the years. She agrees that the ordinance is outdated and a new one is needed and they can probably recognize the fact that it probably will not be a chicken farm on the property, once it is revoked. She stated that it is with some reluctance that she supports it, because they certainly want to support agriculture in every way that they can but there have been significant problems here.
Mr. Minkoff explained that both the Board and the Code Enforcement Board have the authority to take action on the fine.
Ms. Farrell explained that staff would like to get photographic evidence and analyze the situation before an amount is determined. It was noted that the applicant can then appeal to the Code Enforcement Board.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:55 a.m., Commr. Pool announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
CASE MSP#01/10/1-2 - CHARLES HAWTHORNE, HAWTHORNE PROPERTIES, INC. - STEVEN J. RICHEY AND TED WICKS - AMENDMENT TO MSP#96/2/2-2 - TRACKING #132-01-MSP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request that involves a little under 65 acres off of CR 474 in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. It is a borrow pit that has been in existence for a number of years. It originally came through as a proposed seven lot subdivision, and now they want to amend the mining site plan to remove the subdivision project and create a recreational lake. Staff has some concerns with this particular request and have been working with the applicant for a number of months, and there have been a couple of postponements at planning and zoning. Ms. Farrell stated that, if they can get the borrow pit reclaimed, staff will be pleased. Staff has recommended a conditional approval and the applicant agrees with the ordinance in the backup, with the exception of the following language on Page 3, "reclamation shall be completed within two years from the date of approval of the Operations Plan."
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether there was any logic in hearing this case with the next case, John Buttrey, Bishop & Buttrey Inc..
Ms. Farrell explained that the two cases have two different legal descriptions, and they are two different applications, but the issues are very similar. Staff is recommending approval of both cases, with conditions.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the evidence that he will present to the Board on the first case (Hawthorne) also applies to the second case (Buttrey). He stated that the mining site plan was approved in 1996 and today they are splitting that plan into two mining site plans, with two operators that will be able to operate independently of each other, and they are amending the reclamation plan to do away with the subdivision and provide for a recreational lake for private use. Mr. Richey stated that two concerns were raised by staff at Planning and Zoning, and they limited the operation and required them to complete reclamation in two years. He stated that they objected to the condition and Planning and Zoning took out that limitation, because excavation, whether it be borrow pits or sand mines, is based on the market, and there is no timetable to know when the market is going to require them to haul material. He further stated that Planning and Zoning unanimously passed and recommended to this Board this case, and the next case, with the mining site plan and no conditions. He noted that there are no other mines in Lake County with such a condition, nor does the mining ordinance require a timetable on it, therefore, Planning and Zoning did not feel it was appropriate at this point in time to require that condition.
Mr. Ted Wicks, engineer for the project, stated that, once they extract the material off of the majority of the site, they will excavate the recreational lake, and those elevations will be such that they will be able to provide a permanent pool that will be there all of the time, based on the seasonal high groundwater elevations that they have measured over the past three or four years. He explained that they will do everything that is required under the current mining ordinance, and they are prepared to do this from a final reclamation standpoint. The original grading plan for the project will remain the same except for creating a recreational lake. Mr. Wicks stated that essentially there will be no change in the Buttrey portion. Once they get the amendment to the MSP done, they will come back to staff with an operating plan for both operators, with each posting their own bonds.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Pool stated that the request is in his district, and he supports it.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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 Case MSP#01/10/1-2, Charles Hawthorne, Hawthorne Properties, Inc., Steven J. Richey and Ted Wicks, Amendment to MSP#96/2/2-2, Tracking #132-01-MSP/AMD, with no time limitation, and amending Ordinance 2002-26 to remove the time limit language.
CASE MSP#-02/3/3-2 - JOHN BUTTREY, BISHOP & BUTTREY INC. - AMENDMENT TO MSP#96/2/2-2 - TRACKING #24-02-MSP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request that involves a 17 acre parcel. The applicant is similar to the one in the case that the Board just heard, but they are not creating a lake. Staff has recommended approval to amend the mining site plan, with the same condition of a time frame.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, stated that she is representing Bishop & Buttrey and, as heard on the prior case, both the Buttrey property and Hawthorne property were originally under one mining site plan. Because Mr. Hawthorne wishes to modify his portion of the property and create a lake, they decided to divide these into two separate ordinances governing the operation. There could be two separate operators with each posting the appropriate bond. Mr. Buttrey will continue to do straight excavation on his portion of it, and he will not be creating a lake but, in both cases, they agree to the vacation of the plat for the seven lots. After Mr. Buttrey finishes excavation and reclamation, he will be allowed only one unit per ten acres in the Green Swamp. Ms. Bonifay explained that they are excavating material for use on primarily road projects and development in the area. She stated that they did object to the time frame because it is market driven, and she requested that the Board eliminate the staff recommendation on Page 3, S. "Mining shall be completed and reclamation started two years from the date of approval of the Operations Plan." She stated that Planning and Zoning recommended approval by a unanimous vote, and there are no other mines, or mining site plans, in the County that have any time limitations on them. Ms. Bonifay reviewed the Mining Site Plan Amendment, which was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant.
It was clarified that the previous motion made in the Hawthorne case did not include a time limit.
Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Pool stated that the request is in his district, and he recommends that the Board approve the case based on the information provided including striking the reclamation time, since it is market driven.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case MSP#02/3/3-2, John Buttrey, Bishop & Buttrey, Inc., Cecelia Bonifay, AS&E, PA, Tracking #24-02-MSP/AMD, with no time limitation, and amending Ordinance 2002-27 to remove the time limit language.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
ADDENDUM NO. 1
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, explained that, in mid-January, the Board hired Alcalde & Fay as the County's Washington lobbyist firm. Staff worked with them to develop a number of proposals for funding, and they later asked that a letter from the Chairman be drafted and sent to the members of their Legislative Delegation. Staff prepared that letter based on the format sent by the firm and had it signed by the Chairman. Mr. Neron stated that the letter should have been brought back to the Board, so the Board could review and consider the projects included in that letter. He stated that the letter has generated some discussion in the community and media, and staff is now bringing that letter and projects to the Board for their review and consideration and any action that the Board might want to take on any of the projects.
Commr. Pool explained that, even though staff followed the format requested of them, he appreciates them bringing the letter forward to the entire Board today, so that they can have the opportunity to decide if there is a need for a road and/or the need of a study for a road (Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway). He stated that this corridor is a wide corridor, not a narrow corridor, and it is an opportunity for the Board to look at the transportation needs in the next five to 20 years.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in an effort to return some of the federal dollars to the County, staff moved forward with this process, and he wanted to point out that this particular road project and corridor (Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway) has been on their books for a long time. He feels that, by policy, any of these projects will now come before the Board before they go forward. In regards to discussion of this packet, he stated that, without that road project on there, they would not even be having this discussion today. Commr. Cadwell stated that, in going back to the discussion of the other extension from Apopka, there is so much that the Board needs to do internally before they can be on the forefront of that project. They cannot turn their backs on the transportation needs, and they will have to answer those at some point. They, as a Board, need to engage the citizens in the process, so they are not constantly thinking that the Board is out there trying to build roads without their input, and Commr. Cadwell stressed the need to do it internally and, once they determine their responsibilities, then they can go out regionally. Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to see the Board take that funding request out of this proposal, and to start a process, hopefully over the summer, where they can engage the citizens before they move forward with a project of this magnitude, because right now, they do not have the confidence of their citizens to move with a project this large. Once again, he stated that this project has been on the books for a long time.
Commr. Hill stated that she appreciates Commr. Cadwell's remarks on the proposed toll road but, to her knowledge, there are a lot of projects in here that they, as a Board, have not discussed and in no way have they identified some of these projects that they wish to pursue. Based on today's decision, she did not see a significant reason why they should continue to pay a lobbying firm $5,000 a month for what they, as a Board, should be doing, and that is lobbying through their representatives on worthwhile projects that they can all agree on. Commr. Hill stated that she could not justify spending taxpayer dollars in this manner. She knows that the contract runs from January to September and there is a 30 day termination clause within the contract and, at $20,000, they could be out of the situation. She stated that she would prefer to entertain a motion to cancel the contract.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels there is a need for the other projects. She feels that Shockley Heights, which is now in Commr. Cadwell's district, has some major water problems. They are going to need some outside help to get water that is potable. She stated that the Wekiva Falls area has significant problems, as noted in the backup, and she, along with Mr. Allan Hewitt, Water Resources Director, and Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, have met with the folks in both of these areas. Commr. Hanson stated that they also have significant saltwater intrusion in that area. She stated that it is not an area that is opening up to more development, and it is in the Wekiva, but there are homes there, and the folks are going to need some help putting in a central system. Commr. Hanson addressed the One Stop Shop and stated that this is really a worthwhile goal for the County, if they can pull together all of the agencies that deal with the concerns of the family, and then they would serve the public much better than what they are currently doing. She stated that the County can be a model for other counties in the State, and in the nation, if they could have them all in one location. She stated that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and Commr. Hill have been involved with this issue, and, as Commr. Cadwell said, the County deserves more dollars than what they have been getting and they need more than just the lobbying efforts of this Board. She stated that the Board members lobby, but it is going to take much more than that if they are going to get their share of the dollars back to serve the citizens in Lake County.
Commr. Stivender stated that she agrees with comments made by Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Hill, and she is not altogether for lobbyists and consultants, because she feels that, if they pay staff well enough, or they work hard enough, they can do a lot of the things that need to be done, but the County has grown. She stated that it is getting larger and there are areas that they have missed, such as this item on this document. Commr. Stivender stated that she feels the issue of the lobbyists needs to be discussed during budget time, and the Board has seen and talked about the other items, as noted, and she agrees with Commr. Hanson about the water issues, because the wells in those areas have always been bad. She stated that the Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway is an issue that she does not want the public to think they are trying to force on them and have not studied themselves. She feels the Board needs more discussion on that issue before they ask for money.
Commr. Pool stated that he does feel that the Board can do their own lobbying, but he did not know how effective they can be but he knows that those counties that contract with firms, such as this one, generate millions of dollars back to their constituents that they are not getting right now. He stated that they miss out on many opportunities by not having a contact person who can build a consensus and help them generate some of these activities and dollars back in their area. Commr. Pool stated that he strongly supports and certainly encourages the Board to continue with what they have now. It is a total of $60,000 and, if they do not see a great enhancement to what they have now, he would be happy to agree not to go forward, but it is a good investment to see the potential for millions of dollars to come back to Lake County for the benefit of their citizens. He would ask the Board to reconsider that position.
Commr. Hill stated that, if she were a congressman, she would want to hear from the elected officials and constituents before she heard from a higher lobbyist. As far as the water issue, she has not seen any updates since 1995-96 on these particular water wells, but she feels that this would be an issue for the health department, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).
Commr. Hanson stated that Commr. Hill is right that the water issues have not been discussed with the Board as a whole, but they have talked to the SJRWMD, and they are not going to help with the funding, and the cost of the capital expenditures to get a facility in both of these areas is the problem. She explained that it can still be a private community well, but they are still going to need help with funding, because there are not enough citizens in that area to help fund a system. She stated that staff may need to give an update to the Board on these two issues.
Commr. Pool stated that, on the transportation infrastructure side, as far as this highway corridor is concerned, he made it very clear to the papers that there would be public hearings should they be so fortunate to be granted this $5 million, and all this does is request the funding. He stated that they can then go out for a non-binding referendum allowing all of the citizens of Lake County an opportunity to vote to decide whether this corridor is important.
Mr. Neron stated that, based on the information that staff received from Alcalde & Fay, they wanted their requests packaged to them some time in mid-February, because they had to package it and get it before the various appropriation committees. He noted that last week he received some material from them on some additional funding opportunities for a variety of other projects. He has distributed this to staff to see if there are any needs that could be packaged and brought back to the Board for consideration, since it is an ongoing funding cycle.
Commr. Hill stated that the Board should have decided on their projects before they hired a lobbyist and, if Commr. Cadwell wants to go ahead with the contract, she would prefer that the motion have the $5 million taken out for the four-lane highway.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Representative Cliff Stearns has done a great job for the Board, and the process in Washington does not lend itself to amateurs on that level, because it is a very complicated process, and this firm will help them get into the process earlier. He stated that this is one time that the Board is spending money that it is not going to be hard to gauge the effectiveness. He feels they can do this on a yearly basis, and they will be able to see whether or not they returned dollars to the County that would have otherwise gone somewhere else and whether it was worth the $60,000.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion to delete the Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway project out of their federal list of projects in Washington and that they continue to send the other projects forward and direct staff to come back with some type of format that would be an effective way to engage all of the citizens in regards to the transportation needs of Lake County.
Commr. Stivender seconded the motion for discussion. She stated that the projects that they are sending need to be on the website, for the benefit of the public.
Commr. Pool stated that he supports the lobbyist efforts, but he wished that they could extract the Lake-Sumter Greenway as a separate item, only because he could not support Commr. Cadwell's position.
Commr. Cadwell withdrew his motion, and Commr. Stivender withdrew her second to the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to delete the road project (Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway) out of their list of projects that they are sending to Washington, and directed staff to come back with a format for discussion, as noted.
Commr. Pool voted "no".
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to forward the rest of the projects, as follows, to Alcalde & Fay in Washington and to ask them to diligently work on these projects.
Community Service Health Centers (One Stop Shop)
Shockley Heights and Wekiva Falls Drinking Water Study
Maintain Funding for the E-Rate Program
Support the Reauthorization of the Library of the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA)
Commr. Hill voted "no".
Commr. Pool stated that he still feels that the non-binding referendum is an opportunity to get the feel of the public, and they have eliminated this opportunity on this road, but he would like to bring it back up with another road corridor and have the citizens at-large decide. He stated that it needs to happen, there needs to be citizen input, and he is going to recommend that they do this at a later date.
Commr. Hanson stated that she understood that they would be working with the consultant by piggybacking with other counties (Osceola) to keep the costs down, and she thought that this was one of the benefits. In regard to the road situation, she does feel that they have to develop that form, because the population in Lake County will be twice as much as it is now in the next 30 years. She stated that it will be 20 to 30 years before any major road will be completed in the County, and they need to recognize that the needs are going to be great. Commr. Hanson stated that the Board members may be aware of the survey that Representative Carey Baker mailed out to his constituents, which included some folks from Volusia and some from Seminole, but the majority were from Lake, and he asked about the extension of 429, and 98% responded favorably to it. She explained that, when the Board talked earlier about this possibility, they were not actually talking about that extension coming down 429, but the major concern at that point was just getting through Leesburg. She feels that the Board is almost mandated to do something, or otherwise people will look back and wonder why nothing was ever done.
Commr. Pool assured the Board that something will be done, and they will be bringing these things forward and he wants them brought to a vote. He feels that the citizens will have that opportunity providing that they will allow it to go on some ballot, and he is going to recommend this at some other time.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT #3
COMMITTEES
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that the Cultural Affairs Council had requested Diane Copeland who works for Lake News, and Robbie Cunningham who is a member of the Cultural Affairs Council, to come up with a newsletter, but instead, they came up with a newspaper, which is free, and it will be at all of the private and civic buildings throughout Lake County. She noted that it is being paid for by the advertisements that are within it.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT #5
OTHER MEETINGS/HOSPITALS
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like the County Manager and staff to meet with the Florida Hospital representatives in Eustis, and the representatives from the City of Eustis, in regards to the use of the existing hospital, and to direct staff to work in a positive way with them in regards to the County participating in the revitalization of that property. He feels that one of the ways that they may be able to participate would be in regards to the impact fees, which would be no cost to the County.
Mr. Neron stated that staff had some brief conversations with the City Manager, Mr. Mike Stearman, about six or eight weeks ago. He sent a potential user to see him who was trying to develop some proposals on the reuse of the building. He stated that, based on the Board's direction, staff will get in touch with the City and the hospital to see if they can be more of a participating player in that process.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that staff start by meeting with Mr. Ken Mattison, President, Florida Hospital, who can direct them to the appropriate parties.
COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
COMMITTEES
Commr. Hanson asked the Board to consider the formation of an Environmental Land and Acquisition Management Committee, which she has talked about for a couple of years. She would like to bring that forward and to study whether the County is ready to do something like this.
Commr. Stivender questioned whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be involved with this and Commr. Hanson noted that they have already recommended it.
After some discussion, it was noted that staff will schedule this item for the Board workshop on April 9, 2002.
Commr. Hanson stated that she will also be bringing forward samples of an ordinance that involves clustering and open space in development. She stated that this could also work in very well with the land acquisition program.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/OTHER MEETINGS
Commr. Pool informed the Board that he will be taking a trip with Mr. Greg Mihalic, Director of Economic Development/Tourism, to Seminole County on April 4, 2002, for a tour, and where they will try and determine how Seminole County has succeeded in bringing small, good entrepreneurs to their area.
COMMITTEES
Commr. Pool thanked the Conservation Council for a wonderful luncheon and program this past Saturday, with Mr. Kirby Green, Executive Director of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).
MISCELLANEOUS
Commr. Pool recognized Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, and Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy Property Appraiser, who were present in the audience.
OTHER MEETINGS
Commr. Hanson reminded the Board of the seminar that will be held on Thursday, March 28, 2002 at the Magnolia Room, Lake-Sumter Community College, called "It's Not Easy Being Green".
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Ms. Jeanne Etter, a resident of Mount Plymouth, addressed the Board and stated that the community as a whole was unhappy to read about that particular expenditure of money (for the Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway) with no plan. She stated that the County has a framework study going on in the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento area of which she is Vice-Chair of that committee, and they are being allowed to plan for the future in regards to roads, character and growth, and those ideas will be presented publicly next month. In respect to what was said by Commr. Cadwell, when they plan for these types of roads, even though this particular one has been on the books for a long time, she would recommend that they have a citizen based group that could work along side of County staff.
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. Keith Schue addressed the Board and stated that he appreciated the efforts that were made today to take the Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway off of the lobbyist funding list. Mr. Schue stated that he was speaking not as a member of the Sierra Club, but as a resident of Lake County, and he does share in the disappointment regarding how that project made its way onto this list that was being considered for lobbying activity. He referred to the events that occurred last year when the Board witnessed hundreds of people that spoke loud and clear that they did not welcome a toll road into Lake County and stated that he respectfully understands that there is a feeling by some of the Board members that a toll road may still be needed at some point in the future, but the key is to have public support. He stated that it is important to have public support even before they begin studying the issue and certainly before signing a lobbyist to the activity.
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/LIBRARIES
Ms. Pat Congdon addressed the Board to thank Commr. Cadwell for his comments about the Lake-Sumter Greenway Four Lane Highway, because she feels that the public and the Board need information before they can write to the Board, much less to their representatives in Washington and Tallahassee. She noted that the videos in the local libraries are desperately needed, so that people know what issues are being discussed by the Board, and she urged the Board to follow through on the request for those videos.
Ms. Congdon stated that there was a program at the library in Paisley and many people expressed concerns about issues such as solid waste and the environment. Ms. Congdon informed the Board that she got permission to use a copyrighted coloring book page, as part of an educational venture, to be published in their local newspaper, once she finds available funding.
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/COUNTY CODE
Mr. Egor Emery addressed the roadway issue and stated that the County has a Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan that is supposed to lay out the transportation needs into the future and that plan is supposed to be used to guide them towards the future. He stated that, if the County needs to update that plan, and he would submit that they do, he wished they would look at moving forward with the EAR recommendations that have been presented and look at the Transportation Element. Mr. Emery stated that they need to do what is necessary for the future, outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, or they are going to get into a situation like the people who are in hinter lands that cannot afford to do a water system, but need a water system, because they are in a place where they do not belong, and this is what they are trying to avoid with planning.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, stated that staff has three elements ready to bring forward to the Board, and Planning and Zoning is trying to find a date on the calendar to schedule a special workshop for these to be heard. Staff had Tindale-Oliver review the Transportation Element and make some changes and that is also ready to go.
Commr. Hanson felt that the recommendation for a broad committee would certainly be constructive, as suggested by Ms. Etter.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, just out of respect for the folks in Shockley Heights, when they moved there, a lot of the problems that they have now were not expected and they thought that it was a nice place to live as opposed to somewhere they did not belong, and he takes exception to that.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12 noon.
ROBERT A. POOL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR/BOARDMIN/3-26-02/4-4-02