A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

APRIL 22, 2003

            The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 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; Debbie Stivender, Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: William A. “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.

            INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

            Commr. Stivender gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

            AGENDA UPDATE

            Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that there is an Addendum No. 1, Items I and II.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            Commr. Hill requested that the Board pull Tab 4, regarding the revised Lake County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, for discussion.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 6, pulling Tab 4 for discussion, as follows:

            Community Services

            Request for approval for the Board of County Commissioners to serve as the coordinator for local governments in Lake County in The Byrne Drug grant application process, signature on the “Certification of Participation” document (contingent on County Attorney approval), and designation of Robbie Hollenbeck to coordinate the preparation of the application.

            Community Services

            Request for approval and authorization of Resolution 2003-62 approving the Lake County Affordable Housing Assistance Plan for the State Fiscal Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.

            Growth Management

            Request for approval and execution of a Release of Fine for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

            Public Works

            Request for approval of the Maintenance Agreements and Construction Assurances for Tracy Canal and Green Swamp Culvert replacement projects.

            Public Works

            Request for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with Jamal Nesheiwat and Michael Nesheiwat for right of way in conjunction with the Citrus Tower Boulevard and Hook Street, Phase II projects in the Clermont area.

            INTRODUCTION

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, introduced Ms. Blanche Girardin as the new Lake County Environmental Services Director.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, requested approval of a resolution and application to the State of Florida for funding for Tav-Lee Trail, Phases 2 and 3, a trail on the west side of Lake Apopka running along County Road 455 through Montverde toward Sugarloaf Mountain.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-63 endorsing the Lake County Transportation Enhancement Project Applications for submission to the State of Florida Department of Transportation.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONTINUED)

PUBLIC SAFETY - LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY

            MANAGEMENT PLAN

            Commr. Hill stated that she requested that this agenda item be pulled because of its length, more than 200 pages, to allow for more time for the Board to review the revisions to the Lake County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.

            Mr. Neron announced that this agenda item will be rescheduled for the Board’s May 6, 2003, meeting.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

            RISK MANAGEMENT - RFP FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

            Mr. Neron stated that a workshop was held a few weeks ago with the County’s insurance consultant and this request is for Board approval to go out for the Request for Proposal (RFP) on the potential updates for the County’s health insurance program, with different alternatives that will be brought back to the Board for consideration.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the execution of a Request for Proposal for a fully insured health plan, recommendations for which will be brought back to the Board at a later date.

            PRESENTATION

            COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DAY PROCLAMATION

            Commr. Stivender presented Proclamation 2003-27, proclaiming the week of April 21-27, 2003, as Community Development Week in Lake County to Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, Ms. Liz Eginton, Community Development Block Grant Director in the Community Services Department and Mr. Strait Hollis, a Community Development Specialist in the Community Services Department. Commr. Stivender praised these three employees for the tremendous amount of work they do for the County.

            Ms. Eginton presented each Commissioner and Mr. Neron with a poster commemorating Community Development Week 2003. She thanked the Board for its support of the program.

            PUBLIC HEARING

            ORDINANCE - FIRE SPRINKLERS - AMENDING SECTION 9.08

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed ordinance on the floor, reading by title only, and noted that it would be Ordinance No. 2003-32, if approved by the Board:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 9.08.01, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND APPLIANCES; PROVIDING FOR DRY HYDRANTS IN ALL SUBDIVISIONS WHERE NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE WATER SYSTEM IS AVAILABLE; PROVIDING THAT IN SUBDIVISIONS WITH ONE (1) ACRE OR LARGER LOTS, NO WATER SHALL BE REQUIRED; PROVIDING THAT IN SUBDIVISIONS WITH SMALLER THAN ONE (1) ACRE LOTS AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED; AMENDING SECTION 9.08.03, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED SYSTEM CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

            For the record, Commr. Pool declared a conflict of interest, stating that he is employed by a fire sprinkler company, even though he is not involved in residential sprinkler systems, and stated that he would abstain from voting on this issue.

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, explained that the Board directed staff to revisit the Land Development Regulation (LDR) provision that requires sprinklers in some subdivisions.

            Commr. Cadwell confirmed that the language in the proposed ordinance was compiled with input by the Home Builders Association.

            Mr. Steve Nash, Public Safety Director, stated that it is not the County’s intention to try to mandate sprinklers for any residential concern. Instead, the water source issue is being looked at in the proposed ordinance and is the only way of separation for larger home developments that involve rural communities of large acreage homes. Therefore, some homes on one-half acre, one-acre and up to five acre lots or larger are without any type of water source. In fighting fires on these lots, there is only one way the fire department can meet the needs, and that is by creating the water source by using multiple trucks for a tanker shuttle. This process is very labor intensive and compromises safety in other zones and Lake County does not have a large enough force to adequately cover all zones when these fires occur. Much of the County is rural and there are very few firefighters in those stations to meet all those safety needs.

            Mr. Welstead commented that he and Mr. Nash met with the Home Builders Association and Mr. Carl Ludecke to discuss additional water sources and committed to meet in the future to further amend the LDR to provide for additional safety concerns. 

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association (HBA), stated that the HBA understands there was never an intention to mandate fire sprinklers for everybody, however, in the real world, that is what happened. She stated that homeowners want the choice of making that decision. She noted that the proposed ordinance has the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Committee and asked the Board to pass the proposed ordinance.

            Mr. Carl Ludecke of Charlie Johnson Builders stated that he has been working on this project with staff and the HBA for about a year and that he recommends approval of the proposed ordinance as is. He pointed out that new developments with lots of less than one-half acre are mandated by the Florida Department of Health to have central water for drinking purposes and a well and septic system cannot be put on a new plotted subdivision with lots that are less than one-half acre in size. He expressed dislike of the criteria regarding the requirement of a 30-foot side yard setback on any lot less than one acre in size in order to have 60 feet between homes. He stated that Orange County only requires a 10-foot side yard setback on one-half acre tracts and a 25-foot side yard setback on one acre tracts. He requested a change from the 30-foot side yard setbacks to a 25-foot side yard setback on lots less than one acre in size.

            Mr. Tim Hoban, a land use attorney, stated that he does a high volume of residential closings in Lake County and 90% of those closings involve financing by a bank or mortgage company. All those financial institutions require property insurance and all the large insurance companies are joining together in a giant database and are now tracking claims by property. Some insurance companies have denied coverage on particular homes that have had claims in the past. He stated that there is no requirement to maintain sprinklers in houses and a substantial sprinkler water damage to the property could result in a problem for a new buyer if that property is resold and has had water damage or mold claims.

            Mr. Welstead stated that there are a number of permits in the process and those permittees are awaiting approval of this proposed ordinance. He requested that those permits be made retroactive.

            No one else present wished to address the Board and the Chairman closed the public hearing.

            Commr. Hanson expressed a concern on the mandate on lots of five acres. She stated that she would prefer to not address the setback issue at today’s meeting. She acknowledged the need for an ordinance to deal with properties which do not have hydrants. She remarked that she is looking forward to further work on this issue by staff and the HBA.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Welstead confirmed that the proposed ordinance will apply only to homes in subdivisions, not homes described in metes and bounds.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that any permit that is issued after the ordinance becomes effective, possibly within one week, can follow this new rule. Existing permits and plans could be amended on houses that have not been issued a Certificate of Occupancy, rather than having the rule be retroactive.

            Mr. Welstead stated that Lake County is reasonably consistent with other counties, but feels that more work on fire services issues will be done.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance 2003-32, an ordinance relating to fire protection water supply systems, amending Chapter 9.08 of the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, as read by title only, and directed staff to continue to work on and refine and look at the setbacks on the smaller lots, and included three small language change recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff (text is included in the backup material), in Section 9.08.02(A)(2)(a), Section 9.08.02(B) and Section 9.08.03(B)(4).

            Commr. Pool abstained from the discussion and the vote.

            PUBLIC HEARING/REZONINGS

            REZONING CASE PH # 16-03-2 - ROBERT SHAKAR; JOHN P. ADAMS

            PROPERTIES, INC. - GREG BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL

            PLANNERS, INC. - TRACKING # 33-03-PUD

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that staff requests a 30-day continuance, to the May 27, 2003, Board meeting on Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar (Contracted Owner), John P. Adams Properties, Inc. (Owner), Greg Beliveau, President, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., Tracking#33-03-PUD. He stated that he will speak directly to the Department of Community Affairs to ascertain their opinions on this case.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment in regard to a 30-day postponement on this case. It was noted that the applicant’s agent was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a postponement, of at least 30 days, on Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar (Contracted Owner) and John P. Adams Properties, Inc. (Owner), Greg Beliveau, President, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc. Tracking #33-03-PUD.

            REZONING CASE PH # 12-03-1 - LAWRENCE AND SANDRA KILPATRICK

            STEVEN RICHEY, PA - A TO R-1 - TRACKING # 16-03-Z

            Mr. Ron Thomasson, Principal Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#12-03-1, Lawrence and Sandra Kilpatrick, Steven Richey, PA, Tracking#16-03-Z, which involves 17 acres in the northwest Fruitland Park area off Spring Lake Road. The request by the applicant is to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential) which allows for a density of one dwelling unit per acre. He noted that the subject property has central water and sewer, supplied by the City of Fruitland Park. He stated that Policy 1-1.10, Allowable Densities within Urban and Urban Expansion Areas Adjacent to Municipalities, will appear in several cases today. Consistently, the interpretation by staff was to determine the densities within a two-mile radius of the project sites. This case was consistent with that policy based upon the interpretation, however, staff has revisited that interpretation and it is staff’s understanding, based upon going back to the time the Comprehensive Plan was originally approved, that the interpretation, in effect, was to allow for densities 80% of the maximum allowed in the jurisdiction. In the case of Fruitland Park, staff is indicating that the density within a two-mile radius is two units per acre, and in actuality is much higher than that. That will be consistent in cases today and Mr. Thomasson stated that he is using this case to make that point to the Board. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) voted 9-0 for approval of this case and staff recommends approval because of consistency with the Land Development Regulations (LDR), the Comprehensive Plan and existing land patterns.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, PA, representing the applicant, stated that the applicants are present, that they reside on the subject property and their goal is to create a couple, but no more than four or five, of one-acre lots to sell. He stated that, based on the configuration of the property, the density will probably be increased by only two units.

            GENERAL COMMENTS ON IMPACTS TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing the Lake County School District, stated that there are several cases on today’s agenda that will not be reflecting any significant impact on the school system. Because Ms. Pam Saylor, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, could not be present due to an emergency matter, Mr. Lindgren read her brief remarks, a copy of which was presented to the Deputy Clerk, for the record.

            In response to an inquiry by Mr. Richey, Mr. Lindgren confirmed that these comments regarding the impact on the school system are general comments for cases to be heard at today’s Public Hearing, but Case PH#12-03-1 will not have a significant impact on Lake County Schools.

            Mr. David Tucker, Principal of East Ridge High School (East Ridge) and former Principal of South Lake High School, stated that he and other administrators in Lake County live every day in overcrowded schools and asked the Board to make some considerations while hearing today’s cases. He stated that South Lake High School was built for 1,450 students and during the last six years, while he was principal, the student population grew from 1,100 to 1,700 to 2,600 on two different campuses, in two facilities that were both overcrowded, until the opening of East Ridge, which has a capacity of 1,960 students. Current student enrollment at East Ridge is 1,500 in three grades with the potential of 2,400 students for next year, which would make that facility 400 students over capacity. He asked the Board to give grave consideration to the issue of using portables as an alternative to overcrowded schools. He opined that portables do provide a stopgap measure for a suitable learning environment but, when design capacities are arrived at for facilities, both by architects and the State of Florida, they are making a recommendation for a certain number of students to be placed in that facility in a safe learning environment. He stated that portables will not provide a safe learning environment on Lake County’s campuses. He has had experience as a principal where portables have been added into a campus and the additional student population in portables puts tremendous stress and overcrowding on a lot of campus facilities, including media centers, cafeterias, bus loading areas, science labs, parking lots and, probably most important, hallways. Students cannot be moved through overcrowded facilities in a safe, functional manner. He asked the Board to take into consideration the fact that portables will not necessarily be the easier answer to make. While they may provide a functional learning environment for children, a safe, operational school cannot be provided. He opined that all principals who have portables on their campuses would agree.

            Mr. Lindgren thanked the Board for the opportunity to review the cases on today’s agenda. He stated that the School Board respectfully requests that their written comments and testimony today be included as part of the official record. Reading from his March 28, 2003, letter/report to the Lake County Growth Management Department, which is included in the backup material, he stated that the capital analysis which was provided does not include any capital costs associated with the implementation of the “Pre-K” or “Class-Size Limitation” constitutional amendments, which may add as much as twenty percent (20%) to the costs that are identified. He mentioned that the analysis does not include any school impact fees collected, nor does it include any revenues generated by the two mill ad valorem or the State construction funds because those funds are difficult to determine at this point in time. In addition, so that the Board knows with respect to today’s cases, the School Board’s analysis will be addressing only those projects which generate at least 50 dwelling units, or 25 students which could be generated over a minimum five year build out. When those students are spread between elementary, middle and high school, the incremental impact in any given year is very insignificant for 25 students or less. He added that there must be some kind of cut off number. He reminded the Board that, regarding today’s cases, the total fiscal impact to the School District of these major projects is estimated at $7 million, before any revenue offsets are mentioned. Even with the Shaker project (Case PH#16-03-2) being continued to next month, almost 400 students would be generated by the projects remaining on today’s agenda. He reiterated that the current request under consideration, Case PH#12-03-1, will not have a significant impact on Lake County Schools.

            Commr. Cadwell clarified that in the School Board’s March 28, 2003, letter/report on specific schools that will be affected on particular cases on today’s agenda, the percent of capacity shown reflects that facility’s capacity, not the capacity with the addition of listed portables.

            Mr. Lindgren stated that the School Board will be commenting today on agenda items in the March 28, 2003, letter/report that have a specific analysis and, for the record, on all others that do not have a specific analysis, the response from the School District is that there is no significant impact.

            REZONING CASE PH # 12-03-1 - LAWRENCE AND SANDRA KILPATRICK

            STEVEN RICHEY, PA - A TO R-1 - TRACKING # 16-03-Z (CONTINUED)

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Hill requested that the record reflect that testimony was given today that this case does not adversely impact District #1 schools in the Leesburg area.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#12-03-01, Lawrence and Sandra Kilpatrick, Steven Richey, PA, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential), Tracking #16-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-33.

            REZONING CASE PH #8-03-4 - ANITA SIMPSON/H. JAMES SIMPSON ESTATE

            JAMES J. BIBLE, SHOWCASE HOMES, INC. - R-2 TO R-3 - TRACKING # 8-03-Z

            Mr. Ron Thomasson, Principal Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#8-03-4, Anita Simpson/H. James Simpson Estate, James J. Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., Tracking #8-03-Z, which involves a 77-acre orange grove in the Lake Yale area, just outside the City of Eustis city limits. It is an urban expansion land use category and the request is to rezone from R-2 (Estate Residential) to R-3 (Medium Estate Residential). He explained that this rezoning would be an increase in density in this area, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area and is also consistent with and meets and exceeds all Land Development Regulation requirements. The developing pattern in the area is for suburban. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to approve this rezoning request. Staff recommends approval for this project.

            In response to inquiries from Commr. Stivender and Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Thomasson explained that the density change is two dwelling units per acre in R-2 to three dwelling units per acre in R-3, calling for a total on this particular site of as many as 240 units. He stated that the developer is expecting to build fewer than 240 units but the project would exceed the density for R-2. He stated that approximately 50 additional units would be added if the rezoning request is approved.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. James Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., the applicant for this project, stated that the request is for single-family homes, probably about 200 houses, with central water provided by the City of Eustis and on septic, with no sewer service being available from the City. He stated that the project is expected to be built out in seven to ten years, and he expects the project to begin in about a year. He stated that LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc. performed an analysis of school impacts, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. This project is served by Treadway Elementary, Eustis Middle School and Eustis High School and his understanding is that all of those schools are below capacity. He stated that, over the seven to ten year lives of this project, 32 elementary, 13 middle and 15 high school children will be added to the schools. He remarked that even with those additional students, the serving schools would still be under available capacity and the schools would not be overburdened. He stated that he is requesting an approximate 40 unit increase over what is allowed with the existing zoning.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Bible clarified that, regarding paying new school impact fees if adopted, it will be a year before home construction can begin, after the engineering, permitting, and review processes.

            Commr. Hanson pointed out that the Board cannot put a condition on a rezoning approval that new impact fees must be paid, but an applicant can voluntarily agree to new impact fees.

            Mr. Bible stated that he agrees to pay the new school impact fees for this project.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding the County’s policy for prepaying impact fees, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, currently, for new single family residential developments, prepayment is not permitted until the final plat is recorded. It would be very difficult for someone getting approval today, except on a smaller plat, to get through final approval before new fees are approved.

            Commr. Hanson asked whether cluster development could be worked out on this piece of property and inquired about the open space requirements.

            Mr. Bible stated that there is no way to cluster the housing without a sewer plant. He added that this project will probably duplicate the Westgate project in the City of Eustis which has a typical lot size of 90x125 feet and houses with about 2,000 square feet. He stated that he believes some of the homes will be sold to residents whose children currently use the same schools, thereby not adding as many students as shown in the analysis. He stated that, regarding open space, an impervious number is approximately 30% to 35%. He added that the project’s planning process was stopped in January when the Board enacted a 90-day postponement on zoning cases that impact the school system. He remarked that this project will not impact any wetland areas.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she is looking for conservation designs on new developments and noted that the Board cannot demand those designs on requests that are not for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing the Lake County School District, stated that the school system determined that, with three dwelling units per acre, approximately 116 students will be added to the schools by this project, 58 elementary, 29 middle and 29 high school students. He pointed out that because the property is not currently developed, the entire 231 dwelling units will fiscally impact the school district with a capital facilities’ impact of over $2 million, before any offsets. Regarding the serving schools, Treadway Elementary currently has 519 permanent student stations and last October’s enrollment was 783, almost 150% of capacity, utilizing 18 portables. Eustis Elementary, currently at 68% capacity, may absorb most or all of the projected students. Eustis Middle School is almost at 100% capacity and Eustis High School is at 75% capacity. Mr. Lindgren stated that there definitely is a significant impact to the school district on this particular project.

            Mr. Bible clarified that, apparently, the School Board is using the upper number for zoning, three units per acre. He stated that, physically, the units will be in the low twos, just a small increment. He stated that his understanding is that, with the portables in use at Treadway Elementary, the number of student stations is beyond the School Board’s analysis. He asked the Board for approval on the project.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that the School Board lists the number of portables on a campus but does not include those portables in the capacity numbers. He opined that the School Board’s policy is to eliminate the portables some day. In talking about the true capacity of schools, those numbers should not include portables.

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell expressed concern that, if approved, this project would put 200 or more units on septic tanks very close to Lake Yale. He stated that there is some capacity in the schools in this particular case but reiterated that he is not comfortable with this project, mainly because of septic tanks on Lake Yale.

            Commr. Hill concurred with Commr. Cadwell’s concerns regarding the lack of sewer service and does see a problem with school capacity in this case. She noted that there are two other cases today in this general area and even a few additional students from each project could cause over capacity in the schools. She stated that she is not comfortable with the possibility of overcrowded schools.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she is also concerned with Lake Yale, even though utilities are not that far out, physically, from the City. She reiterated her interest in conservation designs which cannot be done without utilities and expressed a concern with moving forward with the same typical design as past developments which do not incorporate cluster designs and open space.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied Rezoning Case PH#8-03-4, Anita Simpson/H. James Simpson Estate, James J. Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., a request for rezoning from R-2 (Estate Residential) to R-3 (Medium Estate Residential), Tracking #8-03-Z.

            REZONING CASE PH #9-03-4 - ROBERT VASON, JR.

            JAMES J. BIBLE, SHOWCASE HOMES, INC. - A TO R-4 - TRACKING # 9-03-Z

            Mr. Ron Thomasson, Principal Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#9-03-4, Robert Vason, Jr., James J. Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., Tracking #9-03-Z, a rezoning request from A (Agriculture) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) which involves 33 acres located on the north side of Wolf Branch Road in the east Mount Dora area. He commented that staff is adamant that the legal description of the subject property, which was provided by the applicant, shows the property abuts the City of Mount Dora along the northern border, as indicated with yellow lines on the map provided in the backup material. Based upon the policy in the Growth Management Department, the City was contacted for discussions. He stated that the applicant indicated to staff that the subject property does not extend to the City limits. He commented that the boundary discrepancy is unresolved since no other legal description has been submitted. The City of Mount Dora will provide central water and sewer services for this rezoning and, in that event, the City would request voluntary annexation. He stated that the area around the vacant site is largely subdivisions and is in an Urban Expansion Land Use category, which allows four units per acre. The original staff recommendation, made in January 2003, calls for a denial of A to R-4, as relates primarily to Policy 1-1.10, Allowable Densities, within Urban and Urban Expansion areas that are adjacent to municipalities. That 80% adjacency rule was rounded to allow no more than three units per acre and staff recommended approval from A to R-3. However, with the area developing as it is, by the City’s assurance that if this was a part of the City it would meet the requirements of four units per acre, being fully on water and sewer and with that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Land Development Regulations, staff recommends approval for this project from A to R-4.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. James Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., the applicant for this project, stated that the drawing (included in the backup material) probably represents 40-50 acres and the request is for a 33-acre parcel. The applicant plans to put houses on the southern 20 acres and leave the northern, treed thirteen acres open. He stated that at some future date the property will be annexed by the City of Mount Dora as part of the utilities agreement, but he remarked that the northern part of the subject property is not contiguous with the Country Club of Mount Dora. He stated that LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc. (LPG) performed an analysis of school impacts, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He stated that the 60 anticipated lots would add ten elementary, four middle and five high school students. He commented that the project probably will begin in about a year and may be built out in three years. He opined that the project will have a very minimal impact on the student population. In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Bible stated that the subject property is approximately one-half mile from the intersection of U.S. Highway 441 on Wolf Branch Road, that it abuts R-6 and R-4 zoning and the northeast portion, as shown on the map in the backup material, is not part of the rezoning request.

            In response to Commr. Cadwell’s question regarding the School Board’s school impact numbers, Mr. Bible stated that LPG’s analysis shows that Round Lake Elementary School is over capacity by about six children, the middle school is under capacity by 197 children and the high school is over capacity by about 94 children. He confirmed that the LPG analysis included student stations in the portables.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the School Board’s calculations, using permanent student stations but not including portables, show Round Lake Elementary at 107% of capacity, Mount Dora Middle School at 102% of capacity and Mount Dora High School at 101%.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding cluster design and if the lots will be smaller than one-quarter acre, Mr. Bible stated that the lots will be smaller than one-quarter acre and the goal is to have 60 lots on the 20 acres. He confirmed that the tree stand feeds through the Wolf Branch Sink.

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing the Lake County School District, stated that, regarding PH#9-03-4, the maximum impact of four dwelling units per acre on the 33 acres would translate to 61 students. He advised that, if Mr. Bible stipulates to 60 units, overall impact would be reduced by 50%, but would not change current capacities at the serving schools.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that, as the school impact process grows, hopefully the School Board will have communications regarding future projects where only a portion of a zoned property is developable and will be able to calculate an analysis on that basis.

            Mr. Lindgren concurred that hopefully, with communication and information, a lot of these kinds of issues can be resolved, even before the Planning and Zoning Commission’s hearings.

            Mr. Milt Fox, a Lake County resident, stated that he recently toured Wolf Branch Sink and, according to the Lake County Water Authority, the Sink is one of the most direct suppliers to the Floridan Aquifer, given a rating of twelve, with a rating of three being the average. Even though this project will have City water and sewage, there will be pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer runoff from the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Bible how this runoff will impact the water quality.

            Mr. Bible clarified that the project will meet all requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District and the stormwater will be taken care of through ponds and treatment facilities. In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Bible stated that he has talked with the City of Mount Dora regarding the project, but that he has not discussed a traditional neighborhood design. Thus far, engineers have surveyed and looked at the soils and the environmental line.

            Commr. Hanson opined that Mount Dora would support the traditional neighborhood design. She stated that it is important to leave open space in and around clusters.

            Mr. Bible confirmed that there will be a conservation easement, initially working with the County.

            Mr. Allen Hewitt, Lake County Water Resources Director, stated that since there are no specific rules in the Land Development Regulations of the Comprehensive Plan, with respect to the Wolf Branch Sink, staff would like to see the Outstanding Florida Waters stormwater requirements be put in place within the sink hole region, thereby allowing more water to be retained on site.

            Commr. Cadwell interjected that those procedures would be on a voluntary basis, since such a requirement cannot be part of a zoning approval.

            Mr. Steve Richey, PA, representing Mr. Bible, stated that St. Johns River Water Management District permitting requires that the Outstanding Florida Waters regulations be applied in the Wolf Branch Sink area.

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the subject property clearly is within the springshed area for the Wekiva River, but would not be, in the latest draft of Bill No. SB 1956, in the Wekiva Sector Plan Area. Fortunately, the regulations for Best Management Practice have not been written. The proposed bill charges the administration commission to develop those over the next year, so it would be difficult to apply them now. County staff’s review shows that most of the State’s Best Management Practices already exist in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that there probably is not a better builder in the County than Jim Bible, but he thinks the Board needs to show the importance of the school crisis and hopes that formulas will be begun to slow school overcrowding. He announced that he would not support this particular project.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she assumes the applicant’s agreement on the previous case to pay new impact fees, when they are enacted, will apply to this case.

            Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, for approval in view of the fact that the conservation design can be put in place on this project, and considering the property that will be set aside for conservation for the Wolf Branch Sink and the fact that the applicant intends to build 60 homes as opposed to 132, which would be allowed, and asking that the applicant work with Mount Dora with the traditional neighborhood design, noting that regulations are in place for stormwater management and springshed issues.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill inquired if the motion was for staff’s original recommendation of A to R-3 or with the recommendation of A to R-4.

            Commr. Hanson clarified that the motion is for approval of A to R-4 with the applicant’s agreement to limit the project to 60 units.

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director stated that the legal description provided with the application referred to the entire Vason parcel, but the intent is only for part of the parcel. He requested a corrected legal description.

            Mr. Bible stated that the requested rezoning is for a 33-acre rectangular parcel even though the drawing in the backup material indicates approximately 50 acres. He will communicate with staff to ensure the legal description is correct.

            Commr. Cadwell reiterated that, because all three schools are already over capacity, excluding portables, he will not support this request.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried 3-2 and the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of rezoning, however, the Board approved rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) in Rezoning Case PH#9-03-4, Robert F. Vason, Jr., James J. Bible, Showcase Homes, Inc., Tracking No. #9-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-34.

            Commissioners Cadwell and Hill voted “No.”

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:30 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

            REZONING CASE PH #22-03-5 - KENNETH PATE

            WILLIAM CASEY - R-1TO A - TRACKING # 36-03-Z

            Ms. Tiffany Ballay, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning & Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#22-03-5, Kenneth Pate, William L. Casey, Tracking #36-03-Z, a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture) on a 20 +/- acre parcel located within a rural area of the Future Land Use Map in north Lake County off State Road 44. The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with Lake County Land Development Regulations, according to Section 3.00.04, that permit agriculture zoning within the Rural Land Use. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Elements of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports a recommendation of approval from R-1 to A.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell stated, for the record, that there is no impact on the school system on this rezoning which is actually a downzoning.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#22-03-5, Kenneth Pate, William L. Casey, Tracking #36-03-Z, a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture), Ordinance 2003-35.

            REZONING CASE PH#15-03-5 - EUGENE AND DENISE CALABRESE

            GREGORY GERJEL, STEVEN RICHEY - R-1 TO A - TRACKING #29-03-Z

            Ms. Tiffany Ballay, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning & Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#15-03-5, Eugene & Denise Calabrese, Gregory P. Gerjel, Esq., Steven Richey, PA, Tracking #29-03-Z, a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture) on a 40 +/- acre parcel within the Wekiva River Sending Area #1, A-1-40. The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with Lake County Land Development Regulations, according to Section 7.00.04.B that permits agriculture uses within the Wekiva River Protection Area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the existing zoning districts in the area as well as all the Elements of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan as seen in Policy 1-20.A that recognizes agriculture as a legitimate and productive use of lands within the Wekiva River Protection Area. Staff supports a recommendation of approval of rezoning from R-1 to A. There are, however, some structures on the property that staff recommends the owners obtain permits for in order to make this property in conformance with the Code.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that in June 2001 the Board heard an application from this property owner for the same property for the same rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture). There was an additional case for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for exotic animals that was scheduled that day, contingent upon the Agriculture rezoning being granted. The Board denied the rezoning to Agriculture and did not hear the CUP, which was moot at that point. The property owner filed a petition in the circuit court for a Writ of Certiorari trying to overturn the Board’s denial of the Agriculture rezoning and that petition was denied by Judge Don F. Briggs, Fifth Judicial Circuit, in April 2002. The property owner then appealed Judge Brigg’s order to the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona and that was denied, the County won, in August 2002. He reiterated that the CUP was never heard and the issue in the litigation and in front of the Board that day in June 2001 was the rezoning from R-1 to A.

            Mr. Steve Richey, PA, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant asked him to deal with a code enforcement case which involved barns that had been built in R-1 zoning and cannot be an accessory use to the principal structure on the rest of the ranch because this 40-acre tract is separated from the rest of the ranch by some lands that were swapped with the State of Florida. The owner only has an easement going over to the rest of the property. He explained that a unity of title to bring the R-1 property into the overall 500 acres was not possible because of the land swap. Legalizing those barns, by rezoning to Agriculture, would stop Lake County’s Code Enforcement actions and fines, which he believes to be $150 per day. If the Agriculture rezoning is approved, the owner will pull permits and legalize the barns which will then be utilized strictly for agricultural purposes which is what the rest of the ranch is used for. It has cattle on it and has a hay operation. He stated that he is not talking about circus activity or exotic animals, simply downzoning from R-1 to A, reducing the ability to transfer development rights, in order to legalize the barns which are currently being used to store farm equipment. He stated that the owners have met with a lot of the neighbors and have dealt with their concerns, although there may be some continuing concerns.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Richey stated that there were some investigations by the St. Johns River Water Management District regarding clearing of the property, but he stated that he is not aware of any other code violations.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Ms. Ballay stated that exotic animals and circus storage are not permitted with an Agriculture zoning without additional zoning or a conditional use permit.

            Commr. Cadwell opined that the neighbors, because of the long process it took with the circus animals, might be concerned that there would be activities, other than a true agriculture operation, on the property.

            Mr. Minkoff pointed out, and wanted to make the Board aware, that the applicant’s previous attorney argued that a conditional use permit was not necessary for exotic animals for this property if a permit is issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

            Mr. Richey stated that he is not involved in exotic animals at all and that he is only trying to make the barns legal.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Richey reiterated that the applicant has 500+ acres that are zoned Agriculture and that today’s request is for rezoning of a 40-acre contiguous parcel. He stated that property to the north of the subject property is actually zoned R-1 but is being used for Agriculture activities. The applicant has no need at this time to downzone that parcel to Agriculture because it is open land without any structures. In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Richey reiterated that he is not aware of any code violations on any of the larger parcels.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that there were some other minor violations that have been cleared by the property owner and only the buildings on the subject property have existing code violations.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. Bill Petrey, an adjoining property owner who also represents several petitioners, submitted a package of material gathered over the last three years, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition. He mentioned that the subject property is in the middle of the Wekiva River Protection Area. He stated that the property owner presented a slide presentation at a Royal Trails Homeowners Meeting on April 21, 2003, and made it very clear their intentions are to get the Agricultural zoning and move the lions, which are currently on the other property, back into the cages and facilities on the 40-acre subject property. Mr. Petrey showed and submitted a composite of photos and a map which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-2 for the opposition. He remarked that the St. Johns River Water Management District still has legal action, which is under appeal, against the property owner of the 40-acre subject property and the larger 130-acre property known as Westwind Ranch for building a perimeter berm and excavation on State of Florida property. He stated that, at the Homeowners Meeting, the property owner showed photos of lions, camels, zebras and buffaloes. He remarked that Class I carnivores are for commercial use only as noted in the wildlife application which is included in Exhibit O-1, and noted that the property owner does not have a conditional use permit for the Westwind Ranch property either. He stated that numerous noise complaints were made last year and he contended that the County will have no recourse if the animals are brought back to the subject property if it is rezoned Agriculture. He stated that the lions roar throughout the night, causing loss of sleep, and that he hears them through the woods from the ranch property. He contended that if the animals are moved back to the subject property, they will be only a few hundred feet from his house and the Royal Trails Subdivision. He stressed the importance of this issue to him and his neighbors, referring to a summary of events beginning November 2000 which is included in Exhibit O-1. He requested that the Board review the “Response To Amended Petition For Writ Of Certiorari” which was filed October 31, 2001, by County Attorney Sanford Minkoff, also included in Exhibit O-1. Mr. Petrey stated that the Board denied a zoning change for a second time in November 2001 and ordered fines for constant disregard for County enforcement. He pointed out that nothing has changed since that time. He referred to actions by the St. Johns River Water Management District and subsequent ongoing settlement negotiations, recent petitions by homeowners, letters from the Sierra Club, Defenders of the Wildlife and Save Our Lakes Committee, all of which are included in Exhibit O-1.

            Mr. Petrey implored the Board to uphold last year’s decision and not allow the change in the zoning from R-1 to A, and not reward this kind of disregard for County and State laws by granting “after the fact” permitting or zoning changes. He asked the Board to show they are serious about protecting the most sensitive wetlands in Central Florida.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender, Mr. Petrey stated that the problem with approving an Agriculture zoning is that he feels the County would have no recourse if the exotic animals are moved back to the subject property.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that the County’s recourse would be that moving the animals back would be a violation of the Code.

            Mr. Petrey opined that there is nothing enforceable on the County’s books.

            Mr. Richey stated that there are no current citations from the St. Johns River Water Management District or any outstanding violations other than those already represented to the Board, that being the continuing fine against the structures by Code Enforcement. He stated that photos shown by Mr. Petrey are not accurate and do not reflect the property as it is today. He stated that the change in circumstance since last year is, obviously, the goal was to use the property in a more intensive way through the conditional use permit process. When that process failed and the appeals were turned down, the necessity arose to make these buildings, that were being used for agricultural purposes, legal and there is no ulterior motive in the sense of trying to reintroduce anything back in that is not allowed by County Code.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding exotic animals on the other portion of the property owned by the applicant, Mr. Richey stated that there are different kinds of animals.

            Commr. Cadwell inquired if it is the applicant’s opinion that those types of animals would be allowed back on the subject property if it is rezoned Agricultural and why a conditional use permit would not be required where the animals are now.

            Mr. Richey responded that County staff has advised that a conditional use permit would be required to put exotic animals on the agriculturally zoned property and there may be a matter of “grandfathering” and how long they have been there. He stated that, to his knowledge, the applicant has not been cited for those activities. He reiterated that the two barns would be used for agricultural purposes, horses, cows and even chickens.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding cages and if the applicant owns any horses, cows or chickens, Mr. Richey stated that, historically, pasture has been rented out for cows and there have been hay operations on the applicant’s property.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender regarding Code violations by placing exotic animals on the subject property or on property with an R-1 zoning, Mr. Minkoff stated that the applicant has maintained the argument that the County Code does not prohibit exotic animals in Agriculture zoning, and should the applicant return those animals to the subject property, the County would face litigation. He clarified that R-1 zoning does not allow exotic animals.

            Mr. Bob Kemp, appearing as a private homeowner in Royal Trails, stated that the applicant, Mr. Calabrese, has always been a good, considerate and cooperative neighbor of the Royal Trails property owners association, by providing an easement and allowing access to his well. He stated that he toured Westwind Ranch and invited the applicant to make a presentation to Royal Trails’ homeowners at their meeting April 21, 2003. He disagreed with Mr. Petrey’s assertions and expressed his support of the request to downzone the subject property from R-1 to A, because that would take about 40 lots off the market, reduce the impact on the Wekiva River Basin and improve the value of the surrounding R-1 lots. He stated, for the record, that the previous Royal Palm Beach Colony sales office, as well as Debbie Little Park, is zoned commercial. He stated that Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Kerns, the general manager of Westwind Ranch, have assured Royal Trails homeowners that, should they move forward with and have approved a conditional use permit, the cages on the subject property are upgrades from existing cages. He opined that three issues, noise, safety and security, will be investigated by the applicant.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding the applicant’s possible intent to move exotic animals back to the subject property, Mr. Kemp stated that, although he has not asked a direct question of the applicant, he has the distinct impression that the applicant would not do anything the County says they cannot do. He confirmed that there are nine lions on a portion of the applicant’s property. He stated that he finds Mr. Calabrese to be a law-abiding citizen.

            Mr. Milt Fox, a resident of Royal Trails subdivision, stated that he has toured the applicant’s property five times, has photographed the property for the applicant and that there are farm animals, horses and cattle, on the property. He stated that he was given total access to the property and that there are natural sound buffers as well as open areas.

            Mr. Bert Gnann, who lives across the road from the subject property, stated that he has no problems with the rezoning request and asked the Board to approve the request.

            Mr. Richey submitted “Letters of Retraction” in support of the project which were written by homeowners and were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He reiterated the applicant’s request to rezone the property in order to make the barns legal and use them for Agricultural purposes and if, in fact, any future utilization other than what is permitted in Agricultural zoning is proposed, then, obviously, the applicant would go back through the conditional use permit process.

            Commr. Cadwell restated his previous inquiry of whether it is the applicant’s opinion that he does not need a conditional use permit in Agricultural zoning to have exotic animals, and pointed out that the applicant currently has such animals on another property which is zoned Agricultural.

            Mr. Richey responded that some of the animals have been there forever and their presence may or may not require a conditional use permit. He stated that the lions and tigers are there based on State permits and nobody has cited the applicant indicating that he is in violation of anything.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell as to whether the applicant intends to put exotic animals on the subject site, Mr. Richey stated that the applicant has indicated that, if the County’s position is that it requires a conditional use permit before anything is put over there, he would apply for whatever the County requires.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that he had hoped today’s hearing would resolve the issue if the Agricultural zoning was approved and the barns were legalized, but stressed the need for an answer as to whether or not the applicant will seek a conditional use permit or put exotic animals on the subject property.

            Mr. Richey maintained that in the future someone could buy the property and propose a conditional use permit, but he cannot judge what history will tell for the next fifty years. If, in fact, County rules require application for a conditional use permit to put exotic animals on this piece of property, then the applicant will intend to comply with whatever the County’s rules are.

            Referring to Page 2 of the staff report in the backup material, Commr. Hill asked if there are more restrictions in Agricultural zoning on properties which are located in the Wekiva River Protection Area and whether a conditional use permit would be required.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell as to an opinion on whether the County requires a conditional use permit for exotic animals, Mr. Minkoff stated that it has certainly been the County’s position that is a requirement that was recognized when the argument was made. It is perhaps a debatable point and has not been litigated and cannot be said that a court has agreed, but certainly the County’s position would be that a conditional use permit is required. He stated that staff is looking at clarifying the ordinance language, once the current litigation is over, and it is now fairly clear that local governments can turn down exotic animals through the normal zoning process, even when permits are issued by Florida Fish and Wildlife.

            Commr. Hanson mentioned that she thought the County approved an ordinance that applies to kangaroos and, if it is still in effect, it might apply to this case.

            Mr. Minkoff and Commr. Cadwell did not recall an ordinance regarding kangaroos.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Minkoff stated that it usually takes up to six months to enact a new Land Development Regulation ordinance.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the County basically is requiring a conditional use permit for exotic animals by practice, not by policy, and inquired what would happen if the rezoning request is approved and exotic animals are moved back to the subject property, and if the County changes its rules at that point.

            Mr. Minkoff suggested that the issue could be avoided if Mr. Richey and his client will agree that they will not place exotic animals on this property without a conditional use permit, as opposed to following their previously held argument that Agricultural zoning allows exotic animals. That would give the County an opportunity to make an ordinance change.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 11:50 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would take a 10 minute recess.

            REZONING CASE PH#15-03-5, EUGENE AND DENISE CALABRESE

            GREGORY GERJEL, ESQ., STEVEN RICHEY, PA

            R-1 TO A - TRACKING #29-03-Z(CONTINUED)

            Mr. Richey announced that he will commit, on behalf of his client, Mr. Eugene Calabrese, the applicant, not to put exotic animals on this piece of property without going back through the conditional use permit process in Agricultural zoning, if that is what the Board, in fact, puts in the ordinance. In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson to rezone some of the property to the north that is being used for agriculture from R-1 to A, he stated that, if the applicant chooses to go through the conditional use permit process at some time in the future, rezoning would be considered at that time.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, at this point, the Board has Mr. Richey’s word and the property owner’s word, on tape, that they will not raise the argument that exotic animals are allowed in Agricultural zoning.

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the County Attorney is comfortable that the Minutes can show the intent of the property owner, the actual effect on the Wekiva would be a plus to rezone this property from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture).

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#15-03-5, Eugene and Denise Calabrese, Gregory Gerjel, Esq., Steven Richey, PA, Tracking #29-03-Z, a rezoning request from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture), Ordinance 2003-36, with the stipulation that the applicants/owners, Eugene and Denise Calabrese, will not put exotic animals on this piece of property without going back through the conditional use permit process in Agricultural zoning; recognizing that this rezoning is consistent with the surrounding Agricultural zoning and will be a plus to the Wekiva Basin.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 12:05 p.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would recess until 1:00 p.m.

            REZONING CASE PH#19-03-5 - JACK & MARIAN TETER

            WALTER ISHMAEL - RM TO R-7 - TRACKING # 35-03-Z

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#19-03-5, Jack and Marian Teter, Walter Ishmael, Tracking #35-03-Z, a request to rezone from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential District), for the construction of a single family residence in a subdivision comprised of modular-type homes, doublewide mobile homes and conventional homes. The requested zoning change is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations. The construction of a single family residence will not detract from the integrity or character of the subdivision, and would be compatible with the rest of the development pattern for the subdivision, generally located in the King’s Peninsula/Lake Yale area. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of the rezoning from RM to R-7.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#19-03-5, Jack & Marian Teter, Walter Ishmael, a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential District), Tracking #35-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-37.

            Commr. Stivender noted that there was no impact to the School System on this rezoning approval.

            REZONING CASE PH#13-03-3 - CALVIN LEE - JIMMY CRAWFORD, ESQ.

            A TO PUD - TRACKING #42-03-PUD

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#13-03-3, Calvin Lee, Jimmy Crawford, Esq., Tracking # 42-03-PUD, a request for rezoning a 104 +/- acre parcel from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District). The property is located in an area north of Mascotte, southeasterly of the intersection of State Road 33 and Indigo Road. The owner wishes to sell the property to an individual for development of a planned airpark community in four phases. The PUD request consists of 18 single family residential lots including an airplane hanger for each lot, 11.54 acres for the private airpark and clubhouse, and 5.14 acres for a grass runway. The density requested is one dwelling unit per five acres with the average lot size at approximately 1.8 acres. Phase 1 will consist of 18 residential lots with the associated infrastructure and a 2800 foot by 80 foot wide grass runway/landing strip. Phase 2 will consist of the airpark clubhouse, two 4-bay open hangers, and two 4-bay closed hangers. Phase 3 will consist of four 4-bay closed hangers and a caretaker’s residence, but the owner would like to have the option of building the caretaker’s residence in Phase 3 or Phase 4. Phase 4 will consist of three 4-bay closed hangers, three 3500 square foot oversized hangers and one 4800 square foot hanger for the owner of the park and/or the caretaker’s residence. Staff determined that this rezoning request is inconsistent with Land Development Regulation Chapter 3.00.03, the Land Use Zoning District Matrix, due to the fact that it exceeds the maximum allowed density of one dwelling unit per five acres for the rural land use category. He referred to the calculations in the backup material and staff’s recommendation of 17 units for the entire development. He also noted the deficiency with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1-1.2, Allowance for Open Space, that requires an 80% designated open space while the finished product, based on staff’s calculations, would be deficient, providing only 67% open space.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender, Mr. Hartenstein clarified that staff’s calculations presented today were made after the calculations which were presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 2, 2003.

            Mr. Hartenstein continued by stating that Policy 1-1.6, for the proposed PUD, exceeds the maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit to five acres, but it does meet the commercial element as far as servicing the immediate neighborhood within the PUD. The existing land uses in the area are predominately Agriculture and Single-Family Residential. The proposed rezoning would have a minimal effect on such public facilities as roads, solid waste, parks and recreation, schools and emergency medical services. There is the potential for impacts on sewage, water supply and drainage. The proposed development will utilize individual well and septic tanks. This has the potential risk for ground water and surface water contamination, given the close proximity of several water bodies. It most likely will be necessary to alter some of the 100-year flood plain to accommodate the development of the runway and streets. It will be necessary to mitigate this during the development review process. The proposed airpark has the potential for a negative impact on the development patterns for the area. This phase of the proposed PUD is not consistent with the surrounding development patterns, but is more consistent in this rural, sparsely populated area of the County than in a more urbanized, densely populated area. The proposed rezoning would not be in conflict with the public interest, but would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of these regulations. The project is larger than the land area is able to accommodate.

            Mr. Hartenstein concluded his report, which is included in the backup material, by stating that by using the analysis of the data supplied as it relates to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations, staff has made the determination that this rezoning request is inconsistent with these policies and regulations and recommends denial of this request as submitted. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the plans submitted which allow the cottage/caretaker’s residence to remain closer to the lake; approval of the open area to include the grass runway as well as the three or four acres that are between the hangers in front of the clubhouse; and approval of the final draft presentation made by Mr. Jimmy Crawford and with which staff concurred with future amendments and language as discussed.

            In response to inquiries by Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Hanson, Mr. Hartenstein stated that staff would support the project if the 80% open space is achieved. The project is for a fly-in community and a fly-in club with rental hanger space for members. Staff is looking at the grass runway versus the definition of open space which designates passive recreation space.

            Commr. Hill stated that two separate issues are being presented, the airport which, if approved, will be the first airport of its kind in Lake County and the homes. She stated that the Aviation Element of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been sent to the State of Florida for review. She inquired whether this proposed airport meets and complies with the Aviation Element of the EAR.

            Mr. Hartenstein replied that this private project will not be recognized as an airport and is only for the use of the fly-in community’s residents or members of the fly-in club or by personal invitation. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will not review this airpark for their regulations, as far as State permitting of it, until they get zoning approval from the County. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has gone through their preliminary process and view it as a totally private air facility.

            Commr. Hill inquired about the regulations of this project, such as access roads for emergency, fire, police and EMS, noise and light abatement, the runway zone and the hazard zone.

            Mr. Hartenstein stated that the hazard zone and the runway zone would have to meet FDOT standards and lighting and such would be reviewed by the County during the development review process. He commented that there will not be any night flights or lighting for night flights. The County will be responsible for, and will require, access roads and emergency services and the applicant is proposing to dedicate roads to the public within the subdivision and to dedicate additional right-of-way for Indigo Road, which would be paved to County standards. The access road for the drive back to the fly-in park would be a private road but it would still be proper right-of-way width for emergency access.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill regarding what process would be necessary should this airpark be opened to the public, Mr. Hartenstein stated that the PUD and the ordinance would have to been amended at a hearing by the Board.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Hartenstein stated that the airport runway and the entire acreage of the intensity part of the airpark were included in staff’s calculations of the 80% open space. He explained that staff’s calculations of the open space indicate 12.66 acres are lacking, resulting in only 67% open space after development, and the balance of developable acreage would not be sufficient for a runway and 17 units. He commented that the plans submitted by the applicant would meet the open space requirements but that kind of calculation is not the way staff has routinely looked at developments.

            Mr. Jimmy Crawford, attorney with Gray, Harris & Robinson, stated that his clients, Mr. David Gay, who would be the owner/operation and developer of the airpark, and Mr. Calvin Lee, the current owner of the property, are present. He stated that Mr. Gay, an architect, specializes in neo-traditional development which is an important component to this project. He elaborated that Mr. Gay has searched for years for the proper spot to build a fly-in community which must have good access and a remote location, minimal environmental impact and a rural setting because of the design standards. He submitted a photo and compilation of drawings and site plans which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He remarked that the plan, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, had 19 lots but the applicant worked with staff to shrink the airpark facility in order to try to gain staff approval. He stated that this is a quasi-recreational, commercial, institutional project that, by its very nature, has to be in a very rural area and that there are no standards in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations for locating those kinds of things. Consequently, he opined that staff, as well as the applicant, is “shooting in the dark” as to what standards to apply. He acknowledged that the applicant and staff still disagree on the density calculation of the open space. He referred to Exhibit A-1 and the applicant’s calculations, for 18 lots, which show 80.30% open space. He stated that the density calculation is a different argument. He maintained that comparing a runway to horse pastures or golf courses is not much different as relates to recreational components. He stated that the applicant believes the project, with 18 lots, meets the requirements as is and they have submitted a very detailed plan at this stage. He added that reducing the project to 17 lots would cost his client between $75,000 and $100,000 and many compromises have been made to accommodate County staff.

            Commr. Stivender mentioned that when she worked for the City of Leesburg, the green space between airport hangers was considered green space.

            Mr. Crawford remarked that, as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A-1), Rachel Road is a private, 20-foot wide paved road so that the resident on Lot 1 can taxi across the road. He stated that the applicant is happy to dedicate it or provide an easement to the County and it will be built to County standards.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender, Mr. Crawford confirmed that the subject property is approximately five miles from the City of Mascotte and that the applicant has had no objections to the project by the City.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Crawford explained that there will be a conservation easement over the wetlands and a 50-foot buffer from the wetlands, and all of the common areas will be dedicated to the homeowners’ association in perpetuity.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. Egor Emery, a Lake County resident, stated that the 80% open space rule should be supported and maintained on rural lands, rather than deviating from that 80% rule.

            Mr. Cadwell pointed out that the School Board’s report indicates that, regarding this proposed rezoning, the projected impact on the Lake County School System will be minimal.

            Mr. Crawford agreed with Mr. Emery that the 80% open space rule should be met, but stated that the Lake County Land Development Regulations do not have a methodology for that calculation. He maintained that he believes the project meets the regulations.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender regarding the City of Leesburg’s and The Plantation’s Chapter 180, Florida Statutes, Utility Districts (180 District), and the possibility of those utility districts coming within a mile or two of the proposed project, Mr. Crawford stated that he has not had any conversations with either one. It is his understanding that when the project was filed it was not within any 180 District. He added that there is no sewer availability at this time.

            In response to another inquiry by Commr. Stivender regarding flight paths and the possibility of planes flying over The Plantation, Mr. Crawford replied that he has not had any comments. FAA will not give final approval until local zoning is approved. 

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding the average age group of the market for this airpark, Mr. David Gay, developer of the airpark, stated that the age group may be across the board, but the most interest has been by persons in their late 40's and older, and generally a non school-aged group. He stated that, as an architect, the scale of the project is very important. He has chosen to not build hangers efficiently, but has chosen smaller scale buildings with more open area. He stated that he anticipates approximately ten or twelve takeoffs and landings on weekends and probably fewer during the week. There will be approximately 65-66 small airplanes on the site.

            Mr. Crawford reiterated that, from a school perspective, the project will be downzoned by one or two lots, depending on Board’s approval, over what is currently allowed.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Hartenstein stated that, with only 17 units and if the runway and any green space that is not a building lot or road right of way are included, the project would meet the 80% open space rule.

            Under comments, Commr. Hanson opined that if this airstrip was of greater intensity or greater use, commercial or more open to the public, there might be more question about allowing the airstrip as open space. She compared this project to Cross Tie Ranch, a horse paddock of open area and can be used for very intense horse riding, trials and training. The impact must be considered. When compared to the horses at Cross Tie, this project is probably less intense. She stated that she has no problem with considering the airstrip as open space and pointed out that Lake County has had no experience with this type of project.

            Commr. Stivender clarified that only 32 acres of this 104-acre property will be developed which is a good environmental ratio. She added that the airpark would be an economic boost and a quality product, and this site, even though it does not meet all the criteria, is the best place for this type of project according to staff.

            Commr. Hanson commented that the project is a niche market such as the County has been encouraging.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that the surrounding properties are all zoned agricultural and the surrounding land uses are single-family homes with orange grove, marshland and woods. He questioned whether there will actually be a low intensity aspect if there will be 18 homes, 48 airplane hangers and 66 airplanes.

            Mr. Crawford pointed out that there has been no opposition to the private airport. He related that there has been a lot of give and take between the applicant and staff.

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved, as is, Rezoning Case PH#13-03-3, Calvin Lee, Jimmy Crawford, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District), Tracking #42-03-PUD, Ordinance 2003-38.

            Commissioners Cadwell and Hill voted “no.”

            REZONING CASE PH # 25-03-5 - KENT S. & SHIRLEY R. BOWRON

            LESLIE CAMPIONE, ESQ. - A TO R-3 - TRACKING # 38-03-Z

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#25-03-5, Kent S. & Shirley R. Bowron, Leslie Campione, Esq., Tracking # 38-03-Z, a request for rezoning an 8.25+/- acre parcel from A (Agriculture District) to R-3(Medium Residential District). Staff has determined that this request, as presented, meets or exceeds the applicable requirements of the Lake County Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan policies, if central water is provided. Mr. Hartenstein read, into the record, a letter from the City of Eustis to Ms. Leslie Campione stating that the City does have existing water supply available for service to the vicinity. The letter was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and was marked as Exhibit LC-1 for Lake County. He referred to a letter from Ms. Campione which stated that the potential developer, Mr. Keith Shamrock, has agreed to extend the water lines and make central water available to this property. He stated that the Lake County School Board has determined that the projected impact to the School System will be minimal on this proposed project, and one letter of opposition, which is included in the backup material, has been received. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended 7-0 to approve the rezoning to R-3 subject to the central water being provided by the City of Eustis. Staff recommends rezoning from A to R-3 subject to central water being provided by the City of Eustis.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant’s representative, Ms. Leslie Campione, Esq., was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 Rezoning Case PH#25-03-5, Kent S. & Shirley R. Bowron, Leslie Campione, Esq., a request for rezoning 8.25 +/- acres from A (Agriculture District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District), subject to central water being provided by the City of Eustis, Tracking #38-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-39.

            REZONING CASE PH # 26-03-4 - ROBERT & MARION BLAIR

            LESLIE CAMPIONE, ESQ. - A TO R-3 - TRACKING # 39-03-Z

            Commissioners Stivender and Hill disclosed, for the record, that they have had brief conversations with Ms. Leslie Campione regarding this rezoning case and the previous rezoning case PH#25-03-5.

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#26-03-4, Robert & Marion Blair, Leslie Campione, Esq., Tracking #39-03-Z, a request to rezone 14+/- acres from A (Agriculture District) to R-3(Medium Residential District). Staff has determined that this request, as presented, meets or exceeds the applicable requirements of the Lake County Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan policies. He stated that the Lake County School Board has determined that the projected impact to the School System will be minimal on this proposed project and one letter of opposition, which is included in the backup material, has been received. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended 7-0 to approve to rezone to R-3. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning from A to R-3 and this project does already have central water available.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender whether this is in the overcrowded Treadway Elementary school district, Mr. Richard Lindgren, responded “yes.”

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding the availability of City of Eustis sewer service, Mr. Hartenstein stated that the City has drawn back some of their utility district boundaries and that sewer service is not on the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program.

            Commr. Cadwell expressed his concern regarding the distance of this parcel from Lake Yale and the use of septic tanks.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, attorney for the applicant, stated that the proposed developer, Mr. Keith Shamrock, also developed Biscayne Heights and wants to develop this small infill parcel. She stated that the original request was to rezone to R-2 (Rural Residential) and, if the Board would be more comfortable with that zoning change with the proximity of this site in relation to Lake Yale, she would downzone the request to R-2, thereby decreasing the number of units and lowering the density.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the public hearing was advertised for R-3 rezoning, therefore rezoning to R-2 is acceptable.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the subject property is contiguous to two parcels that are zoned R-2.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. No one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of rezoning, however, the Board approved the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Rural Residential), an urban expansion, in Rezoning Case PH#26-03-4, Robert & Marion Blair, Leslie Campione, Esq., with central water being provided and allowing the use of septic tanks for the units, Tracking No. #39-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-40.

            At this time, Commr. Cadwell temporarily left the meeting.

            REZONING CASE PH # 20-03-3 - RAYMOND G. WILLIAMS, TTG PROPERTIES

            A TO PUD - TRACKING#41-03-PUD

            Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#20-03-3, Raymond G. Williams, TTG Properties, Tracking # 41-03-PUD, a request to rezone 440 acres from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District). The property is located along the west side of the Apopka-Beauclair Canal, situated between Astatula and Lake Jem, and stretching from County Road 448 on the north to County Road 48 on the south. He showed the illustration, which is included in the backup material, on the overhead monitor. He complimented the developer for proposing this project as a PUD rather than a conventional subdivision. The proposal consists of 88 lots ranging from one to five acres over approximately 293 acres of the 440-acre parcel, thereby leaving approximately 147 acres in conservation and recreational use. The initial recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission was for conditional approval, encouraging a redesign of the development to make the natural resources more contiguous. Staff suggested smaller lots and encouraged the developer to identify the more environmentally sensitive areas of the site, instead of first identifying the most sellable areas of the site, and design the development on the balance. He stated that staff makes the same recommendation to the Board.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that, under current agricultural zoning, the applicant could do a plat with five acre tracts which could be located anywhere on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission commended the applicant for requesting a PUD because buffers and other conditions would be required. She clarified that the density will not change and approving a PUD would not change the effect on the school system.

            Mr. O’Brien agreed and stated that the property, under current zoning, could be subdivided as a conventional subdivision without going through the process of public hearings.

            Commr. Stivender remarked that this process adds more burden than what the applicant would have had to do under current zoning.

            At this time, Commr. Cadwell returned to the meeting.

            Mr. Richard Langley, Esq., for the proposed developer, stated that Mr. Mark Taylor represents the owner and Mr. Don Lacey is a planner with Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc. and has been involved in many negotiations with staff. He confirmed that, as stated by Commr. Stivender, the developer could make 88 five-acre tracts with as little as one acre of uplands in each tract and build on them. He stated this is a beautiful tract of land with more than 8,000 feet on Apopka-Beauclair Canal. He commented that many, many compromises have been made with staff, including natural vegetation buffers along the entire length of the canal and all the wetland areas. The developer has set aside the most sensitive areas, more than 25% of the project, as totally restricted conservation areas and then developed the lots around them. He stated that Astatula Elementary School is under capacity and Tavares High School is scheduled for a complete renovation to handle additional students within the next couple of years. The traffic study shows no decrease in service level on County Road 448, and only two lots will exit onto County Road 48.

            Commr. Hanson stated that this proposal is far preferable to a strictly five-acre tract project. However, she expressed the desire for even smaller lots, more contiguous open space, and a more clustered design. While expressing her appreciation for the developer’s efforts to protect the resources, she urged going even farther.

            Mr. Mark Taylor stated that he looks for unique properties that are within an hour of a major downtown metropolitan area and gives people an opportunity to live in a rural lifestyle on a larger than subdivision style lot. Addressing Commr. Hanson’s remarks, he stated that several meetings have been held with staff regarding clustering. He stated that he thinks this is a very good plan that provides a large conservation and recreation area and a lot of protection to the canal. He remarked that he feels he has compromised. He stated that staff had suggested putting 88 lots on 40 acres and preserve, through conservation easements, the remaining 400 acres. He added that he had not even contemplated developing only 40 acres.

            Mr. Langley and Mr. Taylor stressed that smaller lots would not be a salable product in a rural area and that buyers want some acreage and space. The average size of the lots in this proposed project is approximately three acres.

            Commr. Hanson opined that lots smaller than three acres, maybe not below an acre, would be salable with the open space. She stated that The Park in Sorrento is an example of a development where people are buying homes on smaller lots that have open space around them.

            Mr. Taylor commented that coming to zoning is a reasonably new experience. He stated that staff introduced the PUD concept to him and he agreed to try it, and he feels it is a step in the right direction.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding stipulations in the PUD, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Langley agreed to pay new school impact fees when they are approved.

            Commr. Cadwell then inquired whether the applicant would include in the ordinance language that the development would not proceed until written assurance is received from the School Board indicating there is adequate capacity or that provisions for adequate capacity have been reached with the School Board.

            Mr. Taylor responded that he would have an issue with that request because he could build the subdivision without going through the PUD. He opined that the adequate capacity issue may be a long struggle and he would not want his development to be in the middle of that struggle.

            Mr. Langley pointed out that the applicant is not requesting an increase in density.

            Commr. Hill stated that, in asking for a different time line for the applicant to commence construction, there is a caveat in this particular ordinance which indicates that development shall be initiated no later than two years of the effective date of the ordinance. She suggested that, if restrictions are put on the developer, this caveat should be omitted from the ordinance.

            Mr. Langley stated that the applicant might submit a preliminary plat during that two-year period which would satisfy the requirement in the ordinance. He noted that an extension could be requested at any time. He maintained that the applicant cannot be subjected to a restriction over which they have no control. He stated that rather than building on 88 five-acre tracts without these conditions, the applicant is trying to do the right thing and has already agreed to pay the school impact fee.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding connectivity of green space with green space between two lots on the southern tip of the site plan, Mr. Langley agreed that would be possible.

            Mr. Taylor clarified that some of the conservation areas are part of the lots and some are separate.

            Mr. Don Lacey, Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc., showed a color site plan of Misty Meadows, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He remarked that two conservation areas are not actual conservation tracts so that the owners of the lots actually would have the ability, with some type of boardwalk, to get from their housing area on the lot back to the canal. Those areas will be set up in conservation easements and protected in that way. There is a 52-acre passive recreation area (as shown on Exhibit A-1) which will not have a boat dock on the canal. He acknowledged that there will be approximately 120 acres, over one quarter of the property, in conservation tracts and conservation easements, some in wetlands and some in uplands, as well as a 50-foot wide buffer strip along the entire canal.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding whether a percentage of each five-acre tract, were the project to be split into 88 five-acre tracts, would be required to be set aside as conservation area, Mr. O’Brien replied that 80% would have to be open space. He suggested that the developer would probably realize a cost savings, in fact, if the developable areas were more compact because it would mean fewer roadways and less infrastructure.

            Mr. Taylor remarked that they are projecting to sell one or two lots per month resulting in probably a four-year build out.

            Mr. O’Brien clarified that front yard setback areas are allowed to be counted as open space and adding that to the conservation areas equates to approximately 147 acres in conservation.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing Lake County Schools, stated that the proposed project will generate approximately 44 students, consisting of 22 elementary, 11 middle and 11 high school students. The capital facilities impact to the School District is almost $800,000, before any revenue offsets. The area is served by Astatula Elementary (currently at about 75%, projected to near capacity within two years), Tavares Middle (at capacity) and Tavares High School (at capacity). Mr. Lindgren stated, for the record, that there is a major renovation under way at Tavares High School but the net increase of student stations will probably be no more than 100 to 120.

            Commr. Hanson reiterated that the proposed project is not an increase in density over its current zoning.

            Mr. Jim Harvey, the major landowner on the western side and a portion of the northern side of the subject property, made reference to his letter dated March 27, 2003, which is included in the backup material. He stated that he has concerns with roads, potable water and garbage and landfill. He pointed out that traffic may be an issue on County Road 448 and that County Road 48 is deteriorating badly.

            In response to an inquiry by Mr. Harvey regarding a plan to refurbish County Road 448, Commr. Cadwell stated that, during site plan review, there is a Concurrency Element in the Comprehensive Plan that transportation trips will trigger and will result in which improvements would be required of the developer.

            Mr. Harvey inquired whether septic tanks on the interior lots might result in any inflow into some of the conservation areas and/or the canal, and whether there has been a water usage study done by St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

            Commr. Pool stated again that this is not an increase in density and, if not rezoned, the applicant could plat the property into five-acre tracts with wells and septic tanks.

            In response to Mr. Harvey’s concerns regarding landfill areas, Commr. Cadwell stated that the solid waste department is considering the County’s future as relates to the incinerator. He stated that there is a big business in the State of Florida with other counties who have commercial landfills and he does not foresee another landfill being built in Lake County.

            Mr. Harvey pointed out that there is some wildlife in the area and expressed a concern regarding connectivity, open areas and corridors for wildlife. He expressed a concern regarding drainage, especially on the southern end of the project, and wetlands and the possibility of unwanted water flowing onto his property.

            Commr. Cadwell remarked that permits are required by the SJRWMD as well as the County.

            Commr. Pool stated that the applicant cannot impact neighboring property and the applicant cannot cause Mr. Harvey’s property to be wetter or drier.

            Mr. Harvey mentioned other areas of concern such as perimeter buffeting, perimeter setbacks, perimeter security, and right of way requirements. He remarked that his family has been living on and operating a cattle business on his property for sixty years.

            Mr. Langley clarified that there is a 25-foot minimum setback all along the area.

            Mr. Murphy Cameron, a nearby property owner, expressed his opposition to the proposed project. He remarked that this area is unique, with vistas, not rooftops. He referenced his letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is included in the backup material. He submitted and read from a five-page letter which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit OP-1 for the opposition. He opined that this project will bring air, traffic, light and water pollution. He pointed out that, although the application for rezoning was submitted by Raymond G. Williams and TTG Properties, FTL Properties, a limited liability corporation, is actually listed as the owner of record by Lake County. Mr. Cameron also presented a record search from the Hernando County Property Appraiser’s website, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit OP-2. The record search printout is a property record for Mark Taylor, who, according to Mr. Cameron, is listed as president and registered agent of both TTG Properties and FTL Properties. He cautioned that the County will be responsible for infrastructure improvements if the development is not successful. Mr. Cameron concluded his presentation by imploring the Board to deny the rezoning from A to PUD.

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell, the Chairman, passed the gavel to Commr. Stivender, the Vice Chairman, and made a motion that the development could not proceed until written assurance is received from the School Board indicating adequate school capacity exists, or that there have been adequate provisions made for that capacity.

            The motion died for lack of a second.

            The Vice Chairman passed the gavel back to the Chairman.

            Commr. Hanson asked if the developer can move forward with five-acre tracts if the PUD is denied.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, confirmed that the developer could go forward with the development of five-acre tracts.

            Commr. Cadwell reopened the public hearing portion of the meeting in order to allow rebuttal by the applicant to audience comments.

            Mr. Langley commented on Commr. Cadwell’s motion, stating that, if the motion prevailed, the applicant would have to withdraw the request to rezone the property.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that there was no second to the motion.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson commented that the PUD project is better than five-acre tracts and that natural resources would be better protected under the PUD. However, she expressed that the PUD does not go far enough toward conservation design.

            Commr. Pool concurred that this PUD is a far superior design and better, even for neighbors, than five-acre tracts.

            A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of the rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District) in Rezoning Case PH#20-03-3, Raymond G. Williams, TTG Properties, Tracking No. #41-03-PUD, Ordinance 2003-41, including the applicant’s agreement to pay the increased school impact fees and with the understanding that the applicant will work with Mr. James Harvey for adequate buffering.

            Under discussion, Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, pointed out that the site plan presented today is not the December 30, 2002, site plan which is referred to in the proposed ordinance.

            Commr. Stivender amended her motion to include the current site plan and Commr. Pool seconded the amendment.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which was carried by a 4-1 vote.

            Commr. Cadwell voted “no.”

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 3:05 p.m. Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

            REZONING CASE PH#24-03-5, MMI VENTURE, GEORGE MACKAY,

            RAYMOND IRANI AND ANTHONY MORREALLE - E.J. BOUDREAUX, III

            AND DOLLY D. BOUDREAUX - RMRP AND AR TO A - TRACKING#37-03-Z

            Mr. Ron Thomasson, Principal Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#24-03-5, MMI Venture, George Mackay, Raymond Irani and Anthony Morrealle, E.J. Boudreaux, III and Dolly D. Boudreaux, Tracking #37-03-Z, a rezoning request from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) and AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agriculture) which involves 146 acres located on the west side of Lake Griffin in a suburban land use category. The site utilities for any residential development on this project would require an individual well and septic tank. The site overlooks Lake Griffin and has some wetlands on the property. There were no letters of opposition or approval and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request by a 7-0 vote. Seen as a downzoning and a deintensification, staff recommends approval of the request.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Under discussion, Commr. Stivender noted that there is no impact to the School System with this rezoning request.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of Rezoning Case PH#24-03-5, MMI Venture, George Mackay, Raymond Irani and Anthony Morrealle, E.J. Boudreaux, III and Dolly D. Boudreaux, Tracking #37-03-Z, a rezoning request from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) and AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agriculture), Ordinance 2003-42.

            SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT SLPA#03/1/1-4

            JOHN F.NELSON, SAN TRUST, INC. - TIM HOBAN

            SUBURBAN TO URBAN EXPANSION LAND USE - TRACKING #10-03-SPLA

            REZONING CASE PH#10-03-4, GENE AND BARBARA BATSON, LOIS ALLEN

            CHAPMAN, AND JOHN F. NELSON, SAN TRUST, INC.

            TIM HOBAN - A TO PUD - TRACKING #11-03-PUD

            Mr. Ron Thomasson, Principal Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed the request to seek a change in the existing land use designation from Suburban to Urban Expansion Land Use, Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Case SLPA#03/1/1-4, John F. Nelson, San Trust, Inc., Tim Hoban, Tracking #10-03-SLPA; and Rezoning Case PH#10-03-4, Gene & Barbara Batson, Lois Allen Chapman and John F. Nelson, San Trust, Inc., Tim Hoban, Tracking #11-03-PUD, a rezoning request from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Thomasson explained that the SLPA request is to rezone ten acres, from Suburban to Urban Expansion, of a 20-acre tract on the east side of Niles Road, south of Wolf Branch Road. Because this lies across a right-of-way, the blending policy of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be utilized. Therefore, a land use amendment is necessary. Staff recommends approval of this request. Mr. Thomasson stated that it is staff’s understanding that the position of the applicant is that this amendment is necessary only if Rezoning Case PH#10-03-4 is approved. Rezoning Case PH#10-03-4 is a request to rezone from A to PUD a 98.3+/- acre parcel on both the east and west of Niles Road, and if approved, all the area for development for residential would be in the Urban Expansion land use category.

            Commissioners Cadwell, Stivender, Pool, Hanson and Hill disclosed, for the record, that they have discussed this request with the applicant’s representative, Mr. Tim Hoban.

            Mr. Thomasson continued by stating that the proposed rezoning is consistent with all applicable Land Development Regulations. Staff’s concerns with the original application primarily involved Policy 1-1.10, the tapering of densities adjacent to municipalities. However, with the density of twelve units per acre within two miles in the City of Mount Dora, the four units per acre would be considered, by staff, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff sees this as an in-fill development. Mr. Thomasson stated that staff now sees only one issue on this case and that is to meet the minimal requirement for open space. There is a proposal for developing ten to twelve acres, on the east side of Niles Road, as a Lake County public park and the homeowner’s association would be required to maintain that park in perpetuity. During the DRS (Development Review Staff) process, the Lake County School System offered the option of utilizing this site for a school and staff determined, in order to meet the open space requirement, the size of the school would have to be limited, or some arrangement with the developer would be needed. The proposed ordinance would allow the County Manager to determine whether the ten to twelve-acre parcel would be developed as a County park, thereby using the entire acreage for open space, or developed as a school. Mr. Thomasson stated that the applicant has recently requested that, if used as a school, it be a charter school. He pointed out that the developer has shown staff a site plan that would provide for retention capacity along the entire western area of the property, which would help provide protection for the nearby creek which is runoff of the Wolf Branch Sink. The applicant has provided, not counting the school, for more open space than the minimal requirements. Pending approval of the school issue so that the open space requirement is met, staff recommends approval for the rezoning request and the SLPA.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that, in regard to the ten to twelve-acre parcel, language be added to convey that site to the public, first utilizing it as a bargaining tool with the School System, and at some point, if that does not work, then be conveyed to the County as a park. He stated that he would prefer that as opposed to being conveyed to the County which would have to decide if the site should go to the School System.

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that, in meetings with the applicant’s representative, staff’s preferences, if the property were to be dedicated to the County as a public park, would be with the condition that the park be developed at the developer’s expense, and the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of the park would be either through a neighborhood association or through a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU). Therefore, general taxpayers would not be paying for the maintenance of a neighborhood park that primarily benefits the residents of the neighborhood.

            Commr. Cadwell remarked that there could be ambiguous language indicating that the property would be donated for public purpose as decided by the School System or the County.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the language in the proposed ordinance should be changed because this is not a County requirement, but is a developer offer. He stated that, if the offer was there, rather than a dedication, it should be a fee simple transfer. If given to the School Board as a fee simple transfer and they elected not to use it, the property could be resold by the School Board or the County as opposed to tying it to a dedication, which would require dealing with all the lot owners before a use change or disposal could take place.

            Mr. Thomasson reiterated that, under the open space requirement, at least seven of these acres must remain defined as open space regardless of the eventual use of the property.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. Tim Hoban, P.A., representing San Trust, stated, for the record, that he is proposing no apartments, no public housing and no subsidized housing. He displayed a color aerial photo of the Batson Property which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He stated that his client is proposing to dedicate a ten-acre park, either by deed or dedication as agreed upon, and equip the public park to meet the requirements of the Lake County Parks Department. The applicant proposed that a MSBU be placed on the 345 lots to pay for the long-term maintenance of the public park so that costs would not come from the current budget of the Parks Department. They are not asking for any credit or reduction in impact fees for the park. He stated that the School Board representative attended the preliminary PUD staff meeting and suggested a twelve-acre school site instead of a ten-acre park. A school would relieve overcrowding at Round Lake Elementary School. He stated that his client made the following public offer to the School Board, whichever the County would prefer, to deed or dedicate the twelve-acre site to the School Board, at no cost. Every square inch is high and dry, no wetlands, no fill is required. The applicant would make all the improvements to Niles Road and the intersection of Wolf Branch Road and Niles Road for school traffic, at no cost to the School Board. It would bring Mount Dora water and sewer in sufficient quantities to the site. The applicant would ask that a portion of the school property, when developed, be a public park, such as using the playground areas, after school hours and in the summer time. The applicant is requesting no reduction or credit for school impact fees and would love to have language that says they will pay the new, higher amount of school impact fees on the project. The applicant has no time limit to start construction. According to Mr. Hoban, the only thing his client did ask is that the subdivision and the school share a portion of the school site for stormwater. He stated that he has Mr. Jimmy Conner’s permission to say that he has written to the Superintendent that the School System should carefully consider his client’s offer. He added that Mr. Conner pointed out that it is very difficult for the School Board to make an evaluation, yes or no, in a very short time period and it would be very hard for the School Board to make a decision, or even an evaluation, by today’s hearing. He displayed an April 18, 2003, letter from Lake County Schools, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-2 for the applicant, requesting a presentation of the proposal at a workshop on April 28, 2003. Mr. Hoban stated that his client has done charter schools in Osceola County and the Town of Oakland is sponsoring a 700-student station charter school on ten acres of land. He displayed a page of the Oakland Avenue Charter School website, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-3 for the applicant. The Oakland school site has approximately eight acres as grass and ballfields. He commented that no property taxes or school impact fees from the Town of Oakland or Orange County are being used in the construction of the Oakland school. He stated that Osceola County has built ten similar schools.

            Mr. Hoban stated that his client needs to know whether to plan for and budget for a ten-acre park, built at their expense, or plan and budget a twelve-acre public or charter school site. He stated that his client’s first preference is a school site. He stated that he has talked with Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, who, according to Mr. Hoban, volunteered to meet with the School staff, in order to increase cooperation between the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners, to help in obtaining a decision by the School Board. Mr. Hoban stated that he and his client would like a decision by the County Manager, within 90 days, on building either a park, a public school or a charter school.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that any such decision would be made by the School Board.

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, interjected, for the record, that he had not agreed to meet with the School Board to make any decision of that type.

            Commr. Cadwell reiterated that the School Board will make that decision and the Board of County Commissioners will not, in any way, tell the School Board what decision to make. The County is only concerned that the property be preserved as a school, if the School Board thinks it is valuable, otherwise, the County would accept the property as a park.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, opined that the case could be postponed until the applicant’s presentation at the School Board workshop on April 28 in order to provide clarity in the ordinance because the County cannot require the applicant to dedicate the property.

            Mr. Hoban indicated that he would not want to postpone the case and stated that his client could voluntarily convey the property upon receipt of a letter from the County Manager.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that the applicant could voluntarily accept the language he had offered in the previous case, thereby moving quickly on the rezoning request.

            Mr. Hoban declined to accept that language but stated he wants to cooperate in arriving at appropriate language.

            In describing the proposed subdivision, Mr. Hoban displayed two photos of houses, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-4 for the applicant, a 2,000 square foot house and a 3,000 square foot house. He discussed the setback amounts, smart growth that encourages clustering, open space, front porches and neo-traditional, sustainable neighborhoods. He stated that the proposed project includes 29% open space but, if the front yards are included, the open space calculation would be 37%.

            Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant has requested a variance to Section 9.09.02, the fire code section of the Land Development Regulations, and instead requests to meet the City of Mount Dora fire requirements. The water and sewer agreement with the City requires annexation the moment the project becomes contiguous to the city limits, currently only one property away. He stated that his client has changed its subdivision design to meet the City’s request because of the impending annexation. He displayed a fire flow chart, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-5 for the applicant, and stated that Lake County requires essentially 1,500 gallons per minute. According to Mr. Hoban, he and the fire staff have agreed that if the applicant can provide a written agreement with the City of Mount Dora regarding annexation, once contiguous, the fire staff would consent to have the applicant meet the City’s fire department requirements. Mr. Hoban displayed section F. Fire Standards of the proposed ordinance, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-6 for the applicant. He stated that the applicant cannot agree to a date certain annexation date and requested that, if the proposed ordinance is approved, the “date certain” language be struck out, and if a written annexation agreement with the City, contingent upon becoming contiguous, can be provided, that the applicant be allowed to meet Mount Dora fire flow requirements.

            Commr. Cadwell opined that, if the utility agreement with the City of Mount Dora includes that language, a copy of the utility agreement would be assumed to be sufficient.

            Mr. Hoban inquired whether the “date certain” language can be crossed out.

            Commr. Cadwell indicated consent.

            In conclusion, Mr. Hoban requested language that essentially gives the School Board more time to make a decision and, in the event the School Board does not make a decision, the applicant is allowed to build a park or deed or dedicate the land to a charter school operator. He requested that the applicant adhere to the Mount Dora Fire Department regulations without staff’s “date certain” language. He requested that the Board approve the PUD.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that he appreciated Mr. Hoban’s being proactive in cooperating with the School Board.

            Commr. Hanson commented that she appreciates the traditional neighborhood design.

            Mr. Hoban stated that his client has requested that requirements to make that design work be included in the ordinance.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Potter Clement Lowry and Duncan, representing Mr. Jack Nelson, who is present in the audience and who is the owner of the 20-acre parcel off Niles Road and the subject property in the petition for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Case Number SLPA#03/1/1-4, stated, for the record, that the dedication to the public of the ten-acre parcel will only occur if the developer actually purchases and closes on the contract which is contingent on the rezoning case. Mr. Duncan stated that there is no intention, at this time on the part of Mr. Nelson, to dedicate that property unless the developer closes on the contract. He commented that Paragraphs D and G, Transportation, of the proposed ordinance essentially say the same thing except that Paragraph D dedicates the roads to Lake County while Paragraph G states that the roads shall be retained as private residential streets. He stated that this conflict must be clarified.

            Mr. Hoban commented that, in an agreement with staff, the roads would be public roads and that Paragraph G would be deleted.

            Commr. Stivender clarified that Paragraph G should be deleted.

            Mr. Thomasson indicated that it is acceptable to staff to delete Paragraph G.

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing the Lake County School District, commented regarding both SLPA#03/1/1-4 and Rezoning Case PH#10-03-4. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a minimum of 168 students, 84 elementary, 42 middle and 42 high school students, with a possibility, given the nature of the high growth area, that there could be as many as 250 students generated by this project. The capital facilities’ impact is based on a calculation using 168 students. That would result in a total fiscal impact of almost $3 million, before any revenue offsets for existing impact fees, the 2.0 mill and the State of Florida revenue. The schools that serve the project are Round Lake Elementary, currently at 107% capacity, Mount Dora Middle School, currently at 102% capacity, and Mount Dora High School, currently at 101% of capacity. He commented that this particular project is unique in that this will be precedent setting in that an agreement, perhaps as a result of the School Board workshop, that shows real cooperation between the public sector and the private sector can be reached. He stated that a twelve-acre parcel would be needed for serious consideration as an elementary school site. He remarked that the developer has shown a very good faith effort to try to work with the School District.

            Ms. Ann Wettstein Griffin, speaking as an individual, presented a nineteen-page document which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit OP-1 for the opposition. She referenced the portion of the document which relates to a book by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) which was prepared in cooperation with the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. She stated that there is a missing link in this planning, which is the linking of land use with water. According to the USGS book, the Floridan Aquifer will drop in two areas, in the south Lake County area and in the Mount Dora area, and predicted impacts of significant drawdowns in the Surficial Aquifer and Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifer in Lake County by the year 2020. Surficial Aquifer water level drops between two to five feet are predicted by 2020 in Mount Dora. She stated that, according to the USGS book, closed basin lakes are most likely to experience the greatest decreases in lake levels in southern Lake County and east-central Lake County, generally in the vicinity of Mount Dora. Closed basin lakes would include Lake Joanna, Lake Loch Leven, and Crooked Lake. Also according to the USGS book is the fact that Mount Dora is a high recharge area.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Ms. Griffin stated that a 192% increase in pumping is predicted around the central well field located in Mount Dora. Such pumping could impact wetlands, lakes and trees, especially live oak and cypress trees, much like the effect in Pasco County where cypress trees died and tumbled over. She added that discussion of the USGS book, “Hydrogeology and Simulated Effects of Ground-Water Withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer System in Lake County and in the Ocala National Forest and Vicinity, North-Central Florida,” is on the Lake County Water Authority’s agenda on April 23, 2003.

            Ms. Griffin opined that a drawdown in the subject property area would have an effect on Lake Dora, and other lakes in the Harris Chain, if the potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer drops. She referenced Florida Statute 373.0395 which states that it is the intent of the Legislature that growth be based on the availability of water in the area. She reiterated that the availability of water is the missing link and should be considered before planning for development. Ms. Griffin suggested that property owners, where development is already designated on the Future Land Use Map, should be compensated to not go forward with development. She mentioned the State Cumulative Impacts Law (Exhibit OP-1) and the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan which calls for an Environmental Management Plan.

            In response to an inquiry from Commr. Cadwell, Ms. Griffin, a member of the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), stated that the LCWA did not take a position on this rezoning request but will be discussing the USGS book April 23.

            Commr. Hanson stated that Mr. Leel Knowles, a hydrologist with the USGS and coauthor of the USGS book (Exhibit OP-1), recently gave a report about Lake County’s groundwater issues to the Lake County Conservation Council at Lake Sumter Community College. At that time, she requested that Mr. Knowles give the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. Because she has not heard from Mr. Knowles, Commr. Hanson requested that Ms. Griffin contact Mr. Knowles to schedule a presentation to the Board.

            Ms. Griffin advised the Board to withhold approval of big PUDs in South Lake County and around Mount Dora until the information in the USGS book is considered.

            Commr. Pool stated that, in his frequent discussions with USGS in Orlando, the fluctuations in the Surficial Aquifer in Clermont at the Lake Avenue well are a minimum of ten feet, and inquired whether the half foot (0.5) drawdown ( No. 5 in Ms. Griffin’s letter included in Exhibit OP-1) would make a “significant” impact. He stated that today’s level is 81 feet, but a year ago the level was 77 feet, and prior to that the level was 74 feet and 73 feet. He commented that these continued ups and downs are cyclical in Florida. He remarked, however, that this is a concern. Regarding stormwater runoff and a high recharge area, he questioned what problem there is with stormwater when it is captured in a stormwater retention area and percolated into the Aquifer.

            Ms. Griffin responded that she feels there are too many retention ponds and putting a retention pond too close to a lake takes away some of that hydrogeologic cycle. She opined that all the water agencies agree that the high recharge areas need to be protected from development. She mentioned that, according to a study, as little as .34 feet in the Surficial Aquifer could cause very significant impacts to trees.

            Commr. Pool reiterated that he has a report that shows the Surficial Aquifer does go up and down as much as ten feet per year, and, at this point, he does not see a dramatic effect of those fluctuations. He suggested that Ms. Griffin call the Orlando office of the USGS to get a copy of the report.

            Mr. Thomasson explained that the Environmental Resource Management Plan is part of Objective One of the Conservation Element. It is a plan that, in 1992, was expected to be developed by 1997 but has never been put into place. Its purpose is to create the data inventory on which to base decisions regarding Future Land Use Maps.

            Mr. Egor Emery, an Estes Road resident, stated that he owns property on the west side of Wolf Branch Road and it is his experience that all the rainfall that falls within the drainage basin of Wolf Branch flows through the Surficial Aquifer, ends up in the Wolf Branch and goes into the sinkhole. He encouraged the applicant to go to the absolute highest Best Management Practices they can for their stormwater because it is critical and someone will be drinking that water at some point. He remarked that the water goes into the Wolf Branch and straight into the Floridan Aquifer, virtually untreated, and should be protected. He stated that it appears that the water ends up in the Wekiva River. He urged the Board to compel developers to build developments in concert with the standards of adjacent cities. He commended the applicant for the standard of planning for this PUD. He did express concern that, at some point, wells will be affected by all the cumulative pumping in the Mount Dora and Eustis areas.

            Mr. Dave Glenn, senior professional engineer with Madden Engineering, stated that basically this project falls under the Outstanding Florida Waters guidelines of the SJRWMD and the applicant will comply with all their standards and rigorous permitting process. He stated that, according to preliminary engineering and preliminary soil investigations, this site is conducive to good percolation for recovery of water management and retention.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding improvement of Niles Road from the intersection of Wolf Branch Road to and including the intersection of the southernmost access drive, Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant is required to have two entrances.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, responded that he would suggest, in lieu of Section 1. D. Transportation 1. of the proposed ordinance, that language be approved such as “During preliminary plat approval the developer will provide a traffic study and will be required to make those road improvements that are required by Lake County Land Development Regulations so at that time the Transportation Department will prepare an analysis as to the impact of the development and require those improvements.”

            Mr. Hoban stated that the language is acceptable and his client fully expects to do that.

            There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Hill stated that, if this project is approved and with the approval of the previous project on today’s agenda, 229 students would be added to schools in a very overburdened area. She inquired as to what the School Board, through its new construction plant survey, has planned to alleviate some of the over capacity problems.

            Mr. Lindgren stated that there is nothing on the plant survey for this particular area.

            Commr. Hill inquired whether the County could hold the property in trust for 90 days until a decision is made for a public school, a charter school or a park.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, conceptually, under Section 1. C. Public Facilities of the proposed ordinance, central water and wastewater must be included and the County is authorizing the development of the land and the authorization will be given to build a school site or a park site on the property, but is not a requirement that a school site or park site be given. If an agreement is reached with the School Board, the County will have given the authorization and the site plan shows the proposed location. If the applicant elects to give the County a park or build a private park under the homeowner’s association, it would be on that part of the site plan. The language in the ordinance could be very short.

            Mr. Hoban stated that he had submitted language that indicated that, in the event no letter had been received from the County Manager within 91 days, the applicant, at that point, would build a park.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that direction would come from the Board rather than the County Manager.

            Mr. Minkoff clarified that Section 1. C. would be rewritten with the following language for Section 1. C. Public Facilities 1. “Central water and wastewater would be provided.” 2. “The area shown in the site plan for a park, at the option or the election of the developer, can be a park or school.”

            Mr. Hoban confirmed that the suggested language is acceptable.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Duncan confirmed that he is comfortable with the previous statement he made for the record in regards to the property owner.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that Section 1. C. Public Facilities 4. b. of the proposed ordinances references an MSBU. Staff has not been creating new MSBUs. Normally that would be maintained by a homeowners’ association which would be created at the time of plat.

            Mr. Hoban confirmed that is acceptable.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, with rewriting Paragraph C., the reference to the MSBU was deleted.

            Mr. Hoban stated that all the language the County Attorney has proposed for the ordinance is acceptable.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding including language in the ordinance that the applicant will pay the new school impact fees, Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant will volunteer to pay the new school impact fee when it is approved and would like to have that in writing also.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of the existing land use designation change from Suburban to Urban Expansion Land Use, Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Case SLPA #03/1/1-4, John F. Nelson, San Trust, Inc., Tim Hoban, Tracking #10-03-SLPA, Ordinance 2003-43.

            Commr. Cadwell voted “no.”

            A motion was made by Commr. Hanson for Board approval to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of Rezoning Case PH#10-03-4, Gene & Barbara Batson, Lois Allen Chapman and John F. Nelson, San Trust, Inc., Tim Hoban, Tracking #11-03-PUD, a rezoning request from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), Ordinance 2003-44, with changes as recommended by the County Attorney ( Section 1. D. Transportation 1. change language, such as, “During preliminary plat approval the developer will provide a traffic study and will be required to make those road improvements that are required by Lake County Land Development Regulations so at that time the Transportation Department will prepare an analysis as to the impact of the development and require those improvements.” Rewrite Section 1. C. Public Facilities 1. as follows, “Central water and wastewater would be provided.” and 2. “The area shown in the site plan for a park, at the option or the election of the developer, can be a park or school.”) with the consideration and requirement of the Outstanding Florida Waters, appreciative of the traditional neighborhood design, preferring more open space around the resource which would have been the low area to the west, with more cluster development and more open space which deals with the concerns with the recharge and springshed and also with the passage, hopefully in May 2003, of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods policy which will also help with some of the residential areas.

            Commr. Stivender, in seconding the motion, stated that the County Attorney added language under Section 1. D. Transportation for the traffic study and noted that in Section 1. F. Fire Standards, the words “date certain” should be taken out so that they can go into Mount Dora, using the City’s fire standards.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion and second which carried 4-1.

            Commr. Cadwell voted “no.”

            VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

            CUP#541-3 & CUP#541(A)-3 - HAROLD JOVAAG - TRACKING #48-03-CUP/REV

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that this request for Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permit of the uses permitted for a CUP in Agriculture for peat and muck farming, CUP#541-3 & CUP#541(A)-3, Harold Jovaag, Tracking #48-03-CUP/REV, is being presented at the owner’s request.

             Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

            GENERAL COMMENTS ON IMPACTS TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing the Lake County School District, expressed his appreciation to Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, and the kind of example he has set in terms of cooperation with the School District and in terms of his passing that air of cooperation to

Mr. Gregg Welstead and the entire Growth Management Department. He stated that this cooperation has been absolutely incredible. He expressed the hope that the example of cooperation will pass over to all the other municipalities.

            VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONTINUED)

            CUP#541-3 & CUP#541(A)-3 - HAROLD JOVAAG - TRACKING #48-03-CUP/REV

            It was noted that no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permit of the uses permitted for a CUP in Agriculture for peat and muck farming, CUP#541-3 & CUP#541(A)-3, Harold Jovaag, Tracking #48-03-CUP/REV, Ordinance 2003-45.

            OTHER BUSINESS

            APPOINTMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD

            Commr. Hanson requested that appointments to the Environmental Protection Advisory Board be rescheduled for the May 6, 2003, Board of County Commissioners meeting.

            APPOINTMENTS - ELDER AFFAIRS COORDINATING COUNCIL

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Rick Bishop, representing Commission District 2, and Mr. J. D. Wells, representing Commission District 3, as members of the Lake County Elder Affairs Coordinating Council, a.k.a., Elder Council.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT #3

            COUNTY EMPLOYEE LUNCHEON

            Commissioner Stivender stated that the County Employee Luncheon is to be held on Thursday, May 1, 2003, and she had previously accepted an invitation to attend the Bar Luncheon on the same day.

            Commissioner Hill stated that she will convey regrets to Judge Hill that Commissioner Stivender and all the other Commissioners will be attending the Employee Luncheon.

            BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE

            Commissioner Stivender noted that the Blue Ribbon Committee is scheduled to present a report to the Board on Friday, May 2, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. at Lake Sumter Community College’s Magnolia Room. Three Commissioners are scheduled to attend a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting in Kissimmee at 11:30 a.m. on the same day. She stated that she would like the presentation to be made in the Board’s chambers so that the public can be present, or, if held at the College, be videotaped in order to be televised.

            Mr. Bill Neron stated that the Blue Ribbon Committee suggested the Magnolia Room because they wanted the Board, the Constitutional Officers and the Blue Ribbon Committee all to be seated around a large table, in an informal setting.

            After discussion, the Board agreed that it will be a Board of County Commissioners’ meeting, the meeting will be advertised, minutes will be taken and the meeting will be videotaped in order to be televised. The meeting will be held at 8:30 a.m., Friday, May 2, 2003, in the Magnolia Room of Lake Sumter Community College.

            FIFTH FLOOR REORGANIZATION

            Commissioner Stivender stated that last month she requested a chart of the 5th floor reorganization and details about how the money is moved around. She stated that she has had public inquiries about creating new positions while not giving raises to employees.

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that new positions are not being created and he will provide the chart to Commissioner Stivender this week.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4

            REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE RESOLUTION

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-64 reaffirming the Lake County Board of County Commissioners’ commitment to the proactive procurement of reusable, recyclable and recycled products, and encouraging the County’s businesses, suppliers and contractors to adopt and implement similar practices.

            FLORIDA STATE PARKS MONTH RESOLUTION

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-65 proclaiming May 2003 as Florida State Parks Month.

            NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER RESOLUTION

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-66 proclaiming May 1, 2003, as a National Day of Prayer in Lake County.

            NATIONAL DAY TO PREVENT TEEN PREGNANCY RESOLUTION

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-67 proclaiming May 7, 2003, as National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in Lake County.

            ADJOURNMENT

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.

____________________________________

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

______________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK