A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MAY 27, 2003

            The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 27, 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; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.

            INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

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

            AGENDA UPDATE

            Commr. Cadwell noted that there were no agenda updates.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            Commr. Pool requested that the Board pull Tab 2, regarding advertising for public hearing an amendment to the Lake County Adult Entertainment Code, for discussion.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 7, pulling Tab 2 for discussion, as follows:

            Community Services

            Request for approval of distribution of Byrne Grant funds among seven local jurisdictions; signature on seven original letters of support; approval of applications for the Sheriff for Juvenile Jail 1, and School Resource Officer IV, including cash match as indicated; and signature on grant documents including application, certificate of acceptance, EEO certifications, and subsequent grant related documents (contingent on County Attorney review and approval).

            Public Safety

            Request for approval to advertise for public hearing a change to the Lake County Cable Communications Ordinance (Chapter 6.5 of the Lake County Code).

            Public Works

            Request for approval and execution of a County Deed and Resolution 2003-84 to the Florida Department of Transportation for public right of way within and at the intersections with SR 500/441, in conjunction with SR 500/441 Widening Project between Mills Street #7264 and College Road #4830, FPNo. 238315, in the Leesburg area.

            Request for approval and execution of a Subordination Agreement and Resolution 2003-85 to the Florida Department of Transportation within a cross access easement area, in conjunction with the SR 500/441 Widening Project.

            Request for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement, County Deed and Resolution 2003-86 between Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Lake County for a County owned parcel in conjunction with the SR 500 Widening Project in the Leesburg area.

            Request for approval and signature on Amendment 4 amending the State Funds and Amendment 2 amending the Local Funds amount of the Tentative Certified Budget for Arthropod Control FY 2002-2003.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PUBLIC WORKS - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND

            THE ORLANDO-ORANGE COUNTY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, requested approval of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) for the purpose of creating a partnership to allow OOCEA to expand and operate an extension of State Road 429 Western Beltway.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that this is a two-part agreement and that anything else, outside of the planning stages, would require Board approval.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, read from Paragraph 5, Final Decision at End of Studies, of the Interlocal Agreement, which includes “ . . . Should either party determine that expansion of the System into Lake County is not feasible or in the best interest of such entity, or should one or both parties give a conditional approval with conditions that are not acceptable to the other, this Agreement shall terminate and both parties shall be relieved of any further obligation pursuant to this Agreement.”

            Commr. Cadwell stated that one of the many reasons the Board brought this Agreement back was at the request of the City of Mount Dora, representatives of which were in the audience.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) for the purpose of creating a partnership to allow OOCEA to expand and operate an extension of State Road 429 Western Beltway.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS

            VACATION PETITION NO. 998 - LADD DEVELOPMENT/BLOOD - CLERMONT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, stated that this request is to vacate a right of way in Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 25 East in the Clermont Farms Plat, Clermont area, Commission District 2. He showed the map, which is included in the backup material, and pointed out Oswalt Road, just off County Road 561. He stated that there are letters of opposition on file regarding the rear access. Staff recommends approval of the request. He explained that the petitioner does not own property to the south and east, therefore, this is only a half easement and approval of the request will clear the title because the dimensions on the original plat are not clear. The dimensions are interpreted as 30 foot easements and because property is not owned on either side, there is a 15-foot easement. If approved, the easement would revert to Lot 20.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing.

            The applicant, Mr. Dale Ladd, Ladd Development, stated that he previously owned the property to the south of the subject property. He explained that, with the vacation of the easement, this overgrown grass strip will mostly be a drainage easement and existing back yards to the south will abut back yards in the new development.

            Mr. Robert Fronczak, President of Hidden Hills of Clermont, Inc., Homeowners Association, made a statement on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Hidden Hills of Clermont Homeowners Association. There are 103 members of the Association. He stated that the Board of Directors voted on May 8, 2003, to oppose Petition 998. The decision to oppose was made because of a lack of information as to how the land will be replatted, what will be built on the land and where the roads will be located. He expressed concern that the 30-foot buffer zone, which has been in existence since Hidden Hills was developed, will be eliminated. He expressed strong opposition to any roads that might be cut into Regal Drive because children, six years old to teenagers, walk to the school bus stop at the corner of Oswalt Road and Regal Drive. He called upon the Board to support the members of the Hidden Hills Homeowners Association in opposing Petition 998. He alleged that the petition to vacate is at the behest of the developer.

            Ms. Barbara Squirrell, owner of Lot 31 which abuts the easement, stated that she opposes the petition to vacate because the easement is a good buffer zone. She stated that when she bought her home she thought the easement would be sacrosanct. She expressed concern that a road might be built on the easement. She stated that she strongly objects to the petition, and would like the easement left as it is. She stated that, in the past, she has seen gopher tortoises on the property.

            Mr. Tony Danell stated that he has lived on Lot 15 on Regal Drive since 1995. He stated that Mr. Ladd did not put the main entrance into the existing neighborhood as he had originally indicated. He expressed concern that a road will be built on the right of way which will end at his driveway because Regal Drive has an existing problem with speeding vehicles. He stated that he is skeptical and he is opposed to the petition to vacate.

            More discussion occurred regarding whether or not the easement, or right of way, is wide enough to become a road.

            Mr. Ladd clarified that the property he owns has a preliminary plat which shows the right of way, that this vacation request seemed prudent, that the easement is not wide enough to become a road and that the easement will simply be back yards for the new development. He asserted that this is a profit making venture and the neighborhood that will be developed is exactly the same as Hidden Hills. He alleged that, with the vacation, there will be no chance of using the corner as an intersection because it will be turned into a back yard and maintained by the homeowner. He stated that it is not practical or feasible to build a road on the easement.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding the developer filing a utility easement on the property for stormwater, Mr. Ladd stated that the easement will be platted on the plat and, typically, almost every subdivision that he develops has a stormwater easement across the back property lines. He expressed uncertainty regarding the ability to place a stormwater easement across the right of way without vacating the right of way.

            Mr. Ladd commented that no rezoning will take place and that the development will be single-family housing with 2.5 units per acre, exactly like Hidden Hills.

            Commr. Hanson pointed out that 2.5 units per acre is a reduction in density for what is allowed with the old zoning.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that County rules would not allow commercial development on the property.

            There being no further 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 Resolution No. 2003-87 - Vacation Petition No. 998, by Ladd Development/Blood, to vacate right of way located in Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 25 East in the Clermont Farms Plat, Clermont area, Commission District 2.

            VACATION PETITION NO. 999 - STEVEN RICHEY P.A./MICHAEL LINZEY

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, stated that this request is to vacate an easement located in Section 27, Township 18 South, Range 27 East in the Eustis area, Commission District 5. He showed the map, which is included in the backup material, and stated that this easement relates to Lot 29 and that there is some opposition. He commented that there is an issue with Comcast Cable, which will be cleared up before the vacation is finalized, regarding their use of the property. He stated that staff recommends approval to vacate this easement.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, P.A., representing Michael Linzey, stated that the 150 foot by 50 foot section was included in the original parcel. The easement runs from Calhoun, a county road, back through Lot 29. He stated that, under loan agreements with Farmers Home Loan, the Linzey’s maintain the entire 150-foot length of the easement to Calhoun Road, even though others use the easement. He stated that in 1999 there was a problem with dumping on the Linzey’s lot and in 2000 he asked permission to install a gate to diminish the dumping. He displayed and submitted two photos, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant, which showed the easement and the gate. He stated that since January 2000, the 150 foot by 50 foot easement has been gated and has been exclusive to the Linzey’s use. He remarked that there is a 15-foot easement, recorded in the public record but not dedicated to the public, which runs along the north property line, parallel with the 50-foot easement. He stated that the 15-foot easement has some gates and the power pole is on the 15-foot easement. He stated that he has spoken with Comcast Cable regarding their concerns. He stated that today’s request will allow the Linzey’s to continue to have the property gated and secured. He remarked that earlier this year, after a complaint was filed with the County, he filed the petition to vacate the easement. He stated that it was determined that there is no County road network proposed for this area. He commented that there has been an ongoing dispute with some neighbors regarding the abuse of ATVs and other vehicles on this road.

            Commr. Pool disclosed, for the record, that he has spoken with Mr. Richey regarding this request.

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that, based on comments by Mr. Richey, it appears that this would be a non-conforming lot if the 150-foot section was created in order to give the Linzey’s adequate frontage.

            Mr. Richey stated that the current code does not require the frontage that was required then so it would meet the requirements of the current code and it is his understanding that the Linzey’s lot will be legal after vacating the easement.

            Mr. Eddie Norman, who owns property to the north of the easement, stated that his intention is to keep and build on the back 2.5 acres of his property and sell the remainder of the 37.5 acre property. He stated that the 50-foot easement will be necessary for ingress and egress to his future homesite, which will have limited access once the majority of his property is sold, and that the 15-foot easement is not big enough for access. He stated that the 15-foot easement has not been mowed in more than fifteen years because he cannot get a tractor on and off it. He stated that he opposes the vacation.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that Mr. Norman could establish his own right of way from Calhoun Road to the back portion he intends to retain, adding to the 15-foot existing easement.

            Ms. Terry Murtie stated that her family owns and pays property taxes on the 50-foot wide easement from Calhoun Road to the end of her property, Lot 4. She stated that there is a 12-foot wide road which is maintained by the Linzey’s. She stated that the Linzey’s leave the road and drive across her lawn, which is not part of the 12-wide road but is part of the 50-foot easement. She stated that the Linzey’s have asserted their right, publicly, to utilize the entire easement. She stated that, upon purchasing her property two years ago, the surveyor alleged that the fence, which has been in place four years, was not legal and, according to Ms. Murtie, the County’s right of way office confirmed to her that the fence cannot be in place without the vacation. She recounted events, including her son’s use of an ATV on her property and Sheriff’s Deputies being called to her property, that lead up to the Linzey’s vacation petition being filed. She expressed concern that Ms. Linzey is an employee of the Lake County Code Enforcement Department and knew, or should have known, that the fence cannot be in place without the vacation. She confirmed that, in her opinion, there is not enough space for the Norman’s to take a trailer onto their property because of the illegal fence on the easement.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the easement gives the Linzey’s the right to travel across the 50-foot easement, just as the easement currently would give the Murties and the Normans the right to travel across the 50-foot portion of the easement on the Linzey’s property. Today, the Linzey’s are trying to extinguish that right with the vacation petition.

            Ms. Murtie asserted that the Linzey’s put the fence up, with no fear that they would be forced to take it down, because of Ms. Linzey’s employment status.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that he was not aware that Ms. Linzey is a County employee.

            Ms. Murtie explained that it would be simple for her son to get to the Norman’s property, which he has permission to use, on his ATV if the gate leading to the Linzey’s property was taken down, because the 15-foot easement is overgrown.

            Mr. Stivender displayed and submitted three photos, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit LC-1 for the County, which showed the easement, the road, the fence and the gate going onto the Linzey’s property.

            Ms. Stormi Norman confirmed that there are several gates with which to access their 37.5 acre property but it is not practical or convenient to use any of those gates to reach the back 2.5 acres of their property because the property is fenced and cross-fenced for horses and cows. She stated that it was her understanding, when they bought their property, that the gate onto the easement on the Linzey’s property was not legal and would not stay, thereby giving the Norman’s convenient access to their future homesite.

            Mr. Richey clarified that Ms. Linzey did not meet with County staff. He stated that Mr. Linzey hired him because of a concern with dumping of trash and with teenagers coming onto their property. Mr. Richey clarified that he had met with and written a letter to Mr. Stivender in 2000 and advised that a gate would be put across the easement for protection and asked to be advised if any complaints were filed with the County. He stated that this procedure to temporarily block and gate rights of way is not uncommon. He stated that he filed the petition to vacate when he was advised of the complaint. He suggested to the Board that the open nature of the 15-foot easement is not being affected in any adverse way by today’s request. He stated that today’s request is to vacate the public access, that the vacation will do no harm to anybody and there is no public purpose for keeping the 150 foot by 50 foot section open to the public.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding access for Lot 5-2, Bank of America/Langley Trust, Mr. Richey responded that access to that property is by the 15-foot easement and he alleged that the 15-foot easement is open and obviously, as shown in the photo in Exhibit A-1, is serviced by the power company, despite indications by the Normans that it is not utilized.

            Commr. Pool remarked that anyone can travel that existing right of way without any problems and, upon reaching the gate at the Linzey’s property, the 15-foot easement is accessible.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender, Mr. Richey stated that the six-acre tracts were created based on the 50-foot easement and how those other people get into the back was not dealt with in creating the 50-foot easement.

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

            A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Pool for approval, there being no public purpose, to vacate the petition.

            Under discussion, Commr. Pool inquired about the total length of the easement in front of the Linzey property.

            Mr. Richey responded that the length is 150 feet into the parcel.

            Commr. Pool inquired whether a five-acre tract, 150 feet wide by the length of the property, could be created.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson pointed out that there had not been a confirmation of whether the lot would become a non-conforming lot.

            Mr. Welstead stated that because this is a private easement there would be no non-conforming lot issue.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which was carried 4-1 for approval of Vacation Petition 999/Steven J. Richey, P.A./Michael Linzey to vacate an easement located in Section 27, Township 18 South, Range 27 East in the Eustis area, Commission District 5.

            Commr. Stivender voted “no.”

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:05 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONTINUED)

            ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CODE

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County has had a request from someone wishing to establish an adult entertainment business in Lake County who indicated that they were not able to find a location anywhere in the County to meet the criteria. In reaction to that request, Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, met with Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager of the Growth Management Department, and the Geographic Information Services Division (GIS) and determined that there is one area, perhaps two, within the entire County that meets the code requirements for the location of an adult entertainment type business. Mr. Minkoff stated that Ms. Marsh gave the opinion, and he concurs, that the code probably is too strict and, if challenged, it might be difficult to uphold the ordinance in court. Ms. Marsh and Mr. Richardson went back to GIS and looked at the requirements to see what would happen if they changed the footage and found that changes in the footage would open up some additional locations where these businesses could be located within the County.

            Commr. Pool stated that the ordinance is restrictive for a reason and he opined that citizens appreciate the restrictive ordinance and he would not want to make the ordinance more convenient or easy. He stated that he does not think the Board should lessen those restrictive codes that are in place and the County will defend the ordinance should a lawsuit be forthcoming

            Commr. Hanson concurred that the intent in approving the original ordinance was to make it restrictive and she is not in favor of advertising a public hearing for the purpose of amending the ordinance.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to not advertise for public hearing an amendment to the Lake County Adult Entertainment Code. 

            PUBLIC HEARINGS/REZONING

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, discussed amendments to the Rezoning Agenda, based on concerns by the City of Clermont. He stated that although Agenda No. 3, the Manlow Properties, is within the Clermont Joint Planning Agreement area, it can be heard. The applicant on Agenda No. 6, Randy Hillman, Trustee, has requested a 30-day postponement. All parties involved on Agenda Nos. 9, Robert Shakar, and 10, Robert Shakar, have agreed to request a 30-day continuance. He stated that he has received a letter requesting a one-year postponement on Agenda No. 11, Eleanor Barrineau, and the applicant on Agenda No. 12, Hartle Groves, has requested a 30-day postponement.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he will open each hearing, one at a time, and discuss the postponement of each case, not the merits of the case.

            REZONING CASE PH # 18-03-2 - RANDY HILLMAN, TRUSTEE

            GALLEON BAY - RANDY JUNE, JUNE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.

            A TO R-2 - TRACKING # 34-03-Z

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment on the 30-day postponement of Case PH#18-03-2, Randy Hillman, Trustee, Galleon Bay, Randy June, June Engineering Consultants, Inc., a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to R-2 (Estate Residential District), Tracking #34-03-Z.

            No one wished to speak in opposition to the 30-day postponement. 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 to postpone for 30 days Case PH#18-03-2, Randy Hillman, Trustee, Galleon Bay, Randy June, June Engineering Consultants, Inc., a request to rezone from A to R-2, Tracking #34-03-Z.

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

            GREG BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNERS

            R-6 AND A TO PUD - TRACKING #33-03-PUD

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment on the 30-day postponement of Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar (Contracted Owner), John P. Adams Properties, Inc. (Owner), Greg Beliveau, President, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) and A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District), Tracking #33-03-PUD.

            No one wished to speak in opposition to the 30-day postponement. 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 to postpone for 30 days Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar (Contracted Owner), John P. Adams Properties, Inc. (Owner), Greg Beliveau, President, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) and A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District), Tracking #33-03-PUD.

            COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT CASE LPA#03-4-1

            ROBERT SHAKAR, PRESCO ASSOC. - GREG BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN &

            REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. - TRACKING #46-03-LPTA

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment on the 30-day postponement of Case LPA#03-4-1, Robert Shakar, Presco Assoc., Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., a request seeking an amendment to the text of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Tracking #46-03-LPTA.

            No one wished to speak in opposition to the 30-day postponement. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone for 30 days Case LPA#03-4-1, Robert Shakar, Presco Assoc., Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., a request seeking an amendment to the text of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Tracking #46-03-LPTA.

            COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CASE LPA#03/4/1-5

            ELEANOR D. BARRINEAU, ET AL. - CECELIA BONIFAY, AKERMAN &

            SENTERFITT, P.A. - TRACKING #44-03-LPA

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment on the postponement of Case LPA#03/4/1-5.

            Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, P.A., requested that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case LPA#03/4/1-5, Eleanor D. Barrineau, et al., Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, P.A., a request to amend the current Future Land Use Designation of Suburban and Rural to Urban Expansion for approximately 155 acres, Tracking #44-03-LPA, be continued to the transmittal hearings for the second cycle of 2003 and, if problems have not been worked out at that time, another continuance will be requested.

            No one wished to speak in opposition to the postponement. 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 approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case LPA#03/4/1-5, Eleanor D. Barrineau, et al., Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman & Senterfitt, P.A., a request to amend the current Future Land Use Designation of Suburban and Rural to Urban Expansion for approximately 155 acres, Tracking #44-03-LPA, be continued to the transmittal hearings for the second cycle of 2003.

            COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CASE LPA#03/4/2-2

            FRANCES B. HARTLE, TRUSTEE, HARTLE GROVES, INC.

            STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING #45-03-LPA

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment on the 30-day postponement of Case LPA#03/4/2-2, Frances B. Hartle, Trustee, Hartle Groves, Inc., Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking #45-03-LPA.

            Ms. Gail Ash, Clermont City Councilwoman, requested clarification on the length of the requested postponement, stating that she had been informed of a request for 30 days and a request for 90 days.

            Mr. Steve Richey, representing the applicant, stated that he requested a 30-day continuance in order to determine the City of Clermont’s intentions in continuing annexation and zoning cases in their Joint Planning Agreement area.

            No one wished to speak in opposition to the postponement. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to approve a 30-day postponement for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case LPA#03/4/2-2, Frances B. Hartle, Trustee, Hartle Groves, Inc., Steven J. Richey, P.A., a request to amend the current Future Land Use Designation of Urban Expansion to Urban for approximately 69 acres, Tracking #45-03-LPA.

            Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that this postponement is purely for clarification with the City of Clermont regarding their Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried 5-0.

            REZONING CASE PH#29-03-5 - RALPH REEDER - REEDER CONSTRUCTION

            RP TO RM - TRACKING #50-03-Z

            Ms. Tiffany Ballay, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning & Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#29-03-5, Ralph Reeder, Reeder Construction, Tracking #50-03-Z, a request to rezone from RP (Residential Professional) to RM (Mobile Home Residential) on a .5 acre parcel located within Rural Village. She stated that the rezoning request is inconsistent with Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 3.00.04 that does not permit RM zoning in the Land Use Category Rural Village. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.13.1.e that allows two dwelling units per acre in Rural Village. Staff supports a recommendation of approval for the rezoning from RP to RM because the LDR is not currently consistent with Florida law that recognizes mobile homes as the equivalent of single-family homes. The LDR is in the process of being rewritten to reflect the Florida law.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant, Mr. Ralph Reeder, 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#29-03-5, Ralph Reeder, Reeder Construction, a request to rezone from RP (Residential Professional) to RM (Mobile Home Residential), Tracking

#50-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-49.

            REZONING CASE PH#30-03-4 - BRYAN & JULIETTE ANDERSON

            LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A. - R-1 TO A - TRACKING #51-03-Z

            Ms. Tiffany Ballay, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning & Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#30-03-4, Bryan & Juliette Anderson, Leslie Campione, P.A., a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture District), Tracking #51-03-Z, on a 55+/- acre parcel located adjacent to both State Road 46 and County Road 46A in the Wekiva River Protection Area in Sending Area #2 A-1-20. The proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDR) and is consistent with LDR Section 3.00.04 that permits Agriculture zoning within the Wekiva River Protection Area. The rezoning request is consistent with Policy 1-20.15 that allows Agriculture within the Wekiva River Protection Area. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone 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. Hanson noted that this is a downzoning and a deintensification of uses. She disclosed, for the record, that she did meet with owner and representative on this case.

            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#30-03-4, Bryan & Juliette Anderson, Leslie Campione, P.A., a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture District), Tracking #51-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-50.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that there is no fiscal impact to the Lake County School System on this case or the previous case.

            REZONING CASE PH#28-03-2 - MANLOW PROPERTIES, LLC

            GREGORY LEE, P.A. / STEVE RICHEY P.A.

            AMEND EXISTING MP, ORDINANCE #82-86 - TRACKING #49-03-MP/AMD

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Lake County Planning & Development Services, discussed Case PH#28-03-2, Manlow Properties, LLC, Steve Richey, P.A., Gregory Lee, P.A., Tracking #49-03-MP/AMD, a request to amend existing MP(Planned Industrial) Ordinance

#82-86 to clarify permitted uses and amend setbacks, as listed in the backup material. When the existing MP Ordinance was approved, it covered the entire piece of property which included a laundry facility. The applicant requests a clarification of the permitted uses and removal of the 200-foot setback. Staff recommends approval to amend MP Ordinance #82-86 to clarify permitted uses and amend setbacks.

            Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant and the applicant’s representatives were present.

            Commissioners Pool, Hanson, Stivender and Hill disclosed, for the record, that they have met with the applicant’s representative on this case.

            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 upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#28-03-2, Manlow Properties, LLC, Steve Richey, P.A., Gregory Lee, P.A., a request to amend the existing MP Ordinance #82-86 to clarify permitted uses and amend setbacks, Tracking #49-03-MP/AMD, Ordinance 2003-51.

            REZONING CASE PH#32-03-5 - WEDGEWOOD HOMEOWNER’S ASSOC.

            DON JAKUBOWSKI, PRESIDENT - AMEND EXISTING PUD CONDITIONS

            TRACKING #53-03-PUD/AMD

            Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#32-03-5, Wedgewood Homeowner’s Association, Don Jakubowski, President, Tracking #53-03-PUD/AMD, an amendment to existing Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Ordinance 2001-70. The applicant wishes to gain a recognition of use to the Administrative Office Facility at the complex for additional uses including assembly type uses by residents and guests of residents within the development. Staff finds the proposed amendment to be consistent with the provisions, spirit and intent of the County’s Land Development Regulations and concludes a recommendation for approval of the proposed amendment.

            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. Stivender, 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#32-03-5, Wedgewood Homeowner’s Association, Don Jakubowski, President, an amendment to existing Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Ordinance 2001-70 to recognize use of the Administrative Office Facility for additional uses including assembly type uses by residents and guests of residents within the development, Tracking #53-03-PUD/AMD, Ordinance 2003-52.

            REZONING CASE PH#21-03-5 - JERRY W. AND LOVELLA M. MCCONNELL

            JERUSALEM WORSHIP CENTER - C-2 AND R-6 TO CFD

            TRACKING #35-03-CFD

            Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#21-03-5, Jerry W. and Lovella M. McConnell, Jerusalem Worship Center, a request to rezone from C-2 (Community Commercial District) and R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CFD (Community Facilities District), Tracking #35-03-CFD. This request is to accommodate a proposed church facility on approximately 4.6 acres, along the east side of Highway 19 between Eustis and Umatilla. The church is planned for an estimated congregation of 240 members with future phases which would constitute an additional 18,750 square feet. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. The proposed request would appear appropriate to the location of areas within the County where special or substantial community interest and activities are essential and desirable. Staff finds that the establishment of the proposed CFD district under the site plan requirements and conditions necessary to the vicinity community will further the promotion of the general welfare, the neighborhood economy and the coordination of future land uses along Highway 19. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning.

            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. 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#21-03-5, Jerry W. and Lovella M. McConnell, Jerusalem Worship Center, a request to rezone from C-2 (Community Commercial District) and R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CFD (Community Facilities District), Tracking #35-03-CFD, Ordinance 2003-53.

            REZONING CASE PH#27-03-2 - DALE LADD, HIGHLAND REALTY

            R-4 TO C-2 - TRACKING #59-03-Z

            Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, discussed Rezoning Case PH#27-03-2, Dale Ladd, Highland Realty, a request for rezoning from R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District) to C-2 (Community Commercial District) on approximately 4.3 acres to accommodate a proposed speculative strip center in the south Clermont area, along the east side of U.S. Highway 27, south of Lake Louisa. Staff finds this request to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. The proposed rezoning does not meet the commercial location criteria specified in the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the proposed rezoning would constitute “spot zoning” at the location. There is no C-2 zoning within the vicinity. Staff feels the intent of the commercial location criteria is intended to stem “urban sprawl” along that section of the U.S. Highway 27 corridor. Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning as presented.

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

            Mr. Dale Ladd, Highland Real Estate, referred to the area marked Urban Expansion on the map in the backup material. He stated that construction will begin within the next two weeks on 326 houses in this area. He commented that, even without the new subdivision, there will be 2,196 houses within three miles of the subject property, and 3,300 houses within five miles. He stated that the subject project is surrounded by two small lakes and U.S. Highway 27 and is not feasible for houses under its present R-4 zoning. He stated that this is a unique situation. He stated that staff recommended denial based in part on environmental concerns. He stated that the wetlands and the lake have been put in a conservation easement dedicated to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) which will provide a 300 or 400-foot buffer between the residential property and any future commercial development. In addition to that, a 100-foot buffer has been dedicated to open space between the lakes and the subject property. He pointed out that the nearby fruit stand is more of a commercial operation than a fruit stand.

            Commr. Cadwell opined that this rezoning would be premature in looking at trying to get a grip on the pace of growth in the southern part of the County.

            Mr. Ladd stated that, while he has no particular plans for the property at this time, it is not useful for anything other than commercial. He stated that he prefers rezoning to commercial prior to the 326-house development being built to avoid opposition to a future commercial rezoning request.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill regarding incorporating the subject property into a residential area as part of the new residential development or a nice entrance into the residential development rather than a 7-11 type business, Mr. Ladd stated that it is so close to the highway that the property is not salable as residential. He stated that he has a huge investment on the back side of this area and anything he puts on the subject parcel would not be detrimental to the residential development. He clarified that the subject property is totally isolated and is not connected to the other section because there is a wetland area between the two. He stated that the entrance to the new residential subdivision must be located to the south of the subject parcel. If connected, he remarked that he would, in fact, build houses on it right up to the highway.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Ladd stated that the density on the balance of the property is less than three units per acre, with about 60 acres, or 20%, of open space as required by the PUD (Planned Unit Development). He pointed out that the map, in the backup material, does not indicate the PUD designation. He stated that permits for the residential subdivision are already in place.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool, Mr. Ladd stated that the subject parcel is approximately two or three miles from the nearest shopping center. Mr. Ladd stated that staff gave him a list of less intensive uses which could be permitted for the subject property, but those uses are not practical.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. O’Brien stated that the parcel is approximately three miles from an intersection which would qualify under the locational criteria. Regarding the size of the parcel, Mr. O’Brien replied that a fairly substantial strip development could be placed on the subject parcel, with possibly up to eight to twelve retail spaces.

            Mr. O’Brien confirmed that the Planning and Zoning Commission did approve the rezoning request, contrary to staff’s recommendations. He added that there is no actual commercial zoning along the expanse of the highway near the subject property. 

            Commr. Pool stated that his preference is not a strip shopping center and perhaps a professional opportunity might best serve the citizens.

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

            Commr. Cadwell reiterated his concerns with the locational criteria, the distance of the property to any qualifying intersection and the size of the parcel. He opined that rezoning is premature without knowing what type of facility would put on the property.

            Commr. Pool stated that this is a difficult decision and he cannot foresee what would benefit the area, but approving a strip center without meeting the criteria would put a burden on the Board.

            Commr. Hanson expressed her opinion that approval of this rezoning request would be premature and agreed that it might be difficult to work with this piece of property.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, 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#27-03-2, Dale Ladd, Highland Realty, a request for rezoning from R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District) to C-2 (Community Commercial District).

            REZONING CASE PH#23-03-3 - GOLDEN FLEECE GROVES

            LYDEN PROPERTIES, LTD - CHARLES HWANG - BERYL STOKES

            TIM GREEN, GREEN CONSULTING GROUP - STEVE RICHEY, P.A.

            A TO PUD - TRACKING #40-03-PUD

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Lake County Planning & Development Services, discussed Case PH#23-03-3, Golden Fleece Groves, Lyden Properties, Ltd, Charles Hwang, Beryl Stokes, Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, Inc., and Steve Richey, P.A., Tracking #40-03-PUD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District), fulfilling development plans on a Land Use Map Amendment to create an Office Employment Center District. Mr. Richardson showed the aerial photo and the PUD Master Plan by Irvin B. Green & Associates, which are included in the backup material. He stated that the request is for a mixed-use development of office uses, residential and a small component of retail. The applicant has put forward a development plan that reflects a large majority of the property being dedicated to a professional office type development of both single tenant and multi tenant office uses. The applicant has also incorporated a single family and a multi-family component into the development plan, as well as approximately 14 acres of commercial development which is a very small portion of the overall 282.62 acre property on the west side of U.S. Highway 27 at Bridges Road and Florida’s Turnpike.

            Mr. Richardson explained that the Office Employment Center text amendment was written so that the commercial aspect should be essentially internally accessed and meant to serve the development itself. Staff and the applicant agreed to amend language presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the commercial phasing that would indicate that, with the first 35,000 square feet of office space, 5,000 square feet of commercial space at Bridges Road, and 5,000 square feet of commercial space at the southern end of the property would be allowed, phasing in from that with each additional 35,000 square feet of office space an additional 5,000 square feet of retail service would also be allowed.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender, Mr. Richardson responded that up to 5,000 square feet can be built to begin with at Bridges Road and at the southern end and areas can be filled out as the applicant starts acquiring more office and accruing the 5,000 square feet of additional retail. He stated that probably the applicant envisions the southern portion as retail service type, such as a convenience store, which should not be bermed off. There are several uses possible for the southern portion, including use as a hotel-motel. The goal is to eliminate, utilizing berming, direct “in-your-face” commercial on U.S. Highway 27, making it a little more internalized.

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

            Mr. Steve Richey, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Tim Green is present and is the consultant who put together the original comprehensive plan amendment and who is now putting together the PUD. He stated that the applicant had plans for a 35,000 square foot office building in May 2001. The residential component was added as a requirement of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to avoid freestanding office buildings and commercial space. Estate sized lots, basically one-half acre lots, will be added on the northern end of the property in order to be compatible with The Plantation’s southern boundary and multi-family homes will be built near the Turnpike later when the need is present to serve the office complex. He stated that neither residential area will be built until the 35,000 square feet of office development is under construction.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding school impact fees, Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, representing Irvin B. Green, stated that, under current Agriculture zoning, 56 homes could be built which would produce twenty students. He stated that new zoning would allow 108 single family and 69 multi family homes which would produce 54.5 students, being an increase of 34.5 new students on the site. He stated that the site will be served by City of Leesburg central water and sewer and there are three access points on U.S. Highway 27, all at median breaks. He stated that the indigenous swamp behind the development will not be touched, there will be no adverse wetland impacts and buffers have been established on all the wetland systems, as shown on the PUD Master Plan which is included in the backup material.

            Commissioners Stivender and Pool disclosed, for the record, that they have met with Mr. Richey on this rezoning issue.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding the cluster development design for the single family residential section, Mr. Green stated that the cluster design is still viable and the subdivision has not been designed and the developer’s plan calls for two units per acre. Mr. Richey added that the cluster design may very well be the most cost effective way to establish central water and sewer.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that the open space is 30% of the overall site.

            GENERAL OPENING COMMENTS ON IMPACTS TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM

            Mr. Richard Lindgren, representing the Lake County School District, thanked the Board for the opportunity to respond to the cases on today’s agenda and requested that the written comments and testimony today be included as part of the official record. He stated that the analysis which was provided in his April 30, 2003, letter (which is included in the backup material) does not include any capital costs associated with the implementation of the “Pre-K” or “Class-Size Limitation” constitutional amendments, which could add as much as twenty percent (20%) to twenty-five (25%) to the costs that are identified. The capital cost fiscal impact that is presented is a gross cost and does not reflect any costs for revenue offsets, whether impact fees or capital outlay or the 2.0 millage levy, due to the budgetary fluctuations.       The costs do not include any expenses associated with teacher and support service personnel, wages and benefits. He stated that, in order to have a cutoff in comments as far as the analysis, the School Board will address only those projects that have at least 50 or more dwelling units, which probably will generate 25 students.

            REZONING CASE PH#23-03-3 - GOLDEN FLEECE GROVES (CONTINUED)

            LYDEN PROPERTIES, LTD - CHARLES HWANG - BERYL STOKES

            TIM GREEN, GREEN CONSULTING GROUP - STEVE RICHEY, P.A.

            A TO PUD - TRACKING #40-03-PUD

            Mr. Lindgren stated that this proposed project makes reference to a total of 108 single family and 69 multi family units, for a total of 177 units, which would generate an estimated 84 students, 42 elementary, 21 middle and 21 high school. That impact would be mitigated depending on the timing of the project. He pointed out that whatever occurs with this project, whether or not a net increase, is a new and significant impact to the schools in that raw land is being dealt with at this point. He stated that this area is served by Skeen Elementary, which is in excess of capacity, Oak Park Middle, which is at 89% of capacity, and Leesburg High School, which is at 96% of capacity. The overall fiscal impact to the schools would represent just under $1.5 million.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the School Board member on the Planning and Zoning Commission voted for approval of this development.

            Ms. Ann W. Griffin, speaking as an individual, stated that she has concerns with this project, more than outright opposition, due to cumulative impacts to, and the deteriorating water quality of, the Palatlakaha River which flows into Lake Harris and the Harris Chain of Lakes. She submitted a compilation of documents, a letter, literature and maps, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit 0-1 for the opposition. She stated that she did not hear any discussion of hydrological information and she suggested that all local governments should have the groundwater basin resource availability inventory, 373.0395 F.S., available before a big PUD is approved on the Palatlakaha. She noted that there are already several large developments on or near the Palatlakaha, such as Royal Highlands, The Plantation, Spanish Village, Legacy, Highland Lakes, Hawthorne, Lake Harris Landing, Ridgecrest Mobile Home Park, the USDA research center, past or present sand mining, and posed the question of what effect these developments will have on the Palatlakaha River. She discussed impaired water bodies in Lake County and the Total Maximum Daily Loads. She read facts about the Palatlakaha River from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, which are included in Exhibit O-1, which concluded that the River “is an unusual water resource of outstanding quality and diversity.” She asked the Board to research the cumulative regional impacts of the proposed PUD on the Palatlakaha River before approving the PUD.

            Mr. Richey, in rebuttal, stated that the applicant exceeds the code requirement with regard to setbacks and open space, protecting and buffering the marsh. He stated that development will be on the uplands and will not impact in any way, shape or form, the wetlands or any of the marshes that serve the Palatlakaha and, if studies are correct, this development will, in fact, effectuate greater recharge and better protection than having it sit there as it is today in its natural state. He commented that, with the unique nature of this project, the applicant would be moving from truck terminals and those kinds of things to office parks and a high end kind of development. He stated that all the concerns have been dealt with, not only with local staff, but as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which meant that every agency associated with the Department of Community Affairs signed off on the project before it came back to the Board for adoption. He stated that this project is consistent with, and begged for in, the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the net increase to the school system is negligible because the Leesburg schools are losing fifteen hundred or more student stations.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding adding language that the multi family residential homes will not be built until the office building is built, Mr. Richey stated that he would think the multi family units would not be built until, at least, the second office building is built and adding that language is acceptable.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding payment of new school impact fees, Mr. Richey stated that, obviously, any impact fees or assessments that Lake County has on any commercial, residential or office complex development will be paid.

            Regarding prepayment of impact fees on a residential development in a PUD, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that a plat must first be recorded and it would be very unlikely that could happen before the new impact fees become effective.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding language that would include the conservation design, or clustering, Mr. Richey stated that he does not have a problem with wording that would indicate that could be considered as an option on the northern residential area. He pointed out that the northern residential area is contiguous to the intensive density of The Plantation and the applicant is limited to two units per acre.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that an advantage of a PUD is that such wording can be included in the approval.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would request language that would comply with the conservation design that includes clustering and a large amount of open space in the single family residential area on the northern part of the property.

            Mr. Green interjected that they have clustered down from an 80-acre parcel to a 54-acre parcel, designating 26 acres as open space.

            Mr. Richey opined that executives who will live in this office area will want one-half of an acre to keep themselves away from their neighbors. He stated that he wants to ensure that some large estate lots will be part of that clustering. He added that he represented to The Plantation that those large lots will, in fact, be on The Plantation’s southern border line.

            Commr. Hanson stated that it might be difficult to mandate language because work is currently being done on the policies for conservation design but she would prefer language that encourages the conservation or environmental design.

            Mr. Richey reiterated that he would not be comfortable agreeing to building small, clustered houses in the northern area after representing to The Plantation that large estate houses would be built in that area. He agreed that the applicant would accommodate a concept that takes conservation clustering into account.

            Commr. Hill stated that the School Board’s report, which was submitted in March 2003, showed a capital facilities fiscal impact of $1.8 million but the April 2003 report shows an impact of $1.4 million, giving her a more comfortable feeling.

            Commr. Cadwell remarked that the Board has fought long and hard to get this type of office building development to improve the quality of life in Lake County and, if there is a tradeoff with the School System, this might be the project to do it on.

            Mr. Richey stated that the City of Leesburg is concerned with losing student stations and the City is trying to encourage economic development types of jobs with a residential component. He stated that there are ample student stations to accommodate this growth.

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

            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#23-03-3, Golden Fleece Groves, Lyden Properties, Ltd, Charles Hwang, Beryl Stokes, Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, Inc., and Steve Richey, P.A., Tracking #40-03-PUD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District), Ordinance 2003-54, including the Planning and Zoning Commission’s May 7, 2003, Conditions 1, 2 and 3, changing Condition 4 to “5,000 square feet of commercial at Bridges Road and 5,000 at the southern entrance with the fill-in per the PUD requirements,” adding Condition 5 “Multi-family will not be constructed until the second office complex is built out” and adding Condition 6 “During planning and development, take into account the conservation clustering design on the northern single-family residential area and take into account the hydrologic impacts.”

            WEKIVA RIVER PROTECTION AREA UPDATE

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, informed the Board that a letter was sent to the Legislature last week on behalf of the Board, under Vice Chairman Stivender’s signature, with comments regarding the Draft Executive Order Directing Protection of the Wekiva River Basin Area. No response has been received from the State. The item will be placed on the Board’s June 3, 2003, agenda.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 11:55 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would recess until 1:00 p.m.

            WORKSESSION

            FIRE ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED FIRE/RESCUE BUDGET

            Ms. Camille Tharpe, Government Services Group, Inc. (GSG), stated that GSG has worked together with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson and Lake County to revise the fire/rescue apportionment methodology to continue to meet the case law requirements and statutory requirements that keep coming up year after year. She gave a 15-page PowerPoint presentation, which is included in the backup material, entitled “Fire Rescue Special Assessment Program.” The presentation covered the following topics:

•          Data Components of the Apportionment Methodology - Comprised of about 62,000 parcels.

•          Call/Incident Data: Historical Demand for Fire Rescue Services - Began with 13,594 calls, took out ALS calls, took out nonspecific property/roadway calls, took out agriculture and vacant property calls - ending up with 7,774 calls, of which about 84% are residential, 10.66% are commercial, the remainder are hotel/motel/RV Parks, industrial/warehouse, and institutional.

•          Fiscal Year 2003-04 Fire Rescue Budget - Total Assessment Funding Requirement is $12,800,750

•          Summary of Budget Changes

•          Cost Apportionment: Based on Historical Demand for Fire Rescue Services

•          Parcel Apportionment

•          Preliminary Rates All Categories for Fiscal Year 2003-04, 65.00% of Assessable Costs = $8,320,488 - Based on $99 all residential, $24 nonresidential hotel/motel/RV spaces, and commercial, industrial/warehouse, institutional at variable rates.

•          Preliminary Rates All Categories for Fiscal Year 2003-04, 69.00% of Assessable Costs = $8,832,518 - Based on $105 all residential, $25 nonresidential hotel/motel/RV spaces, and commercial, industrial/warehouse, institutional at variable rates.

•          Preliminary Rates All Categories for Fiscal Year 2003-04, 100% of Assessable Costs = $12,800,750 - Based on $153 all residential, $37 nonresidential hotel/motel/RV spaces, and commercial, industrial/warehouse, institutional at variable rates.

•          Implementation          

            Ms. Tharpe stated that a change in the methodology is that single family and multi family properties will have one residential rate. It is assumed that exemptions will remain the same, at 50% of institutional tax exempt and 100% for government property. The hotel/motel/RV spaces are now based on the rooms available.

            Ms. Heather Encinosa, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., continued the presentation by covering the following topics:

•          Remaining Issues - The existing ordinance can most likely remain unchanged. Most methodology changes would be by a resolution. A Board decision should be made if exemptions are to be changed. Regarding combining multi-family with other residential properties, there are some minor discrepancies between the County’s special assessment role and the property appraiser’s database that will require verification. More unit counts will lower rates.

•          Policy Direction - Rate scenario, whether $99, $105, or $153 or another rate. Exemptions.

•          What’s Next?

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that the Public Safety Director will make a presentation which recommends an increase in the fire assessment to $137.00, a rate which would not include some of the enhancements that are included in the $153.00 rate as presented by GSG.

            Mr. Steve Nash, Public Safety Director, presented the “Fire Rescue Budget Presentation,” which is included in the backup material. He asked that the May 15, 2003, letter to the Board, which is included in the presentation, be made a part of the public record. That letter outlines history, background, conclusions and recommendations. He explained that the Fire/Rescue Division started a five-year plan in 1998 that proposed to hire a certain number of firefighters and open a certain number of stations and the Board voted, at that time, to give a 5% increase in wages per year. Unfortunately, the County’s growth rate demanded more services. Reserve and contingency money was used last year to meet those service needs and to hire even more firefighters, 31 over the 34 that were approved, and open six additional stations. He stated that there are 13 stations operating on a 24-hour basis as opposed to the ten stations that were called for in the 1998 plan. He pointed out that last year a 25% increase in the fee assessment process was being considered to make up the shortfall in the contingency and reserve funds and also to fund 12 new firefighter positions. Close to the end of the budget year last year, a Supreme Court ruling prevented using fee assessments for medical-type operations. The Board, at that time, chose to cut the assessment fee increase to 5% and the County decided, because the need was there for the 12 new positions, to go with the planned amount of budget. He explained that, as a result of last year’s budget, Fire/Rescue was facing a shortfall going into this year and health insurance and retirement cost increases present additional challenges.

            Mr. Nash discussed the following:

•          Enclosures 2, 3 and 4 of the presentation - 24-hour staffed stations and partially staffed stations for 1993, 1998 and 2003, indicating the trend to a paid fire system from a volunteer fire system.

•          Enclosure 5 - indicates paid staff, volunteer, proposed stations, EMS stations, annexations and future development areas.

•          Enclosure 6 - 2002 calls and average response times. Challenge at some stations to get the response time lowered, especially in Shirley Shores. Response time at Station 91 (11:00 minutes) will be reduced significantly with the opening in three weeks of Station 94 at the intersection of 27/474.

•          Enclosure 7 - Legislative unfunded mandates. Two-in, two-out rule. Currently have minimum staffing at each station. Annual fire safety inspection of every fixed facility within the County. Volunteer certification issue - County has fewer than one-half dozen people who meet the commitment of 160 hours or more to be qualified firefighters.

•          Enclosure 8 - County Budget Comparison - assessments, number of calls, budget, work force, population served.

            Mr. Nash stated that the department has delayed hiring the twelve employee positions which were approved last year for several reasons. At the beginning of this fiscal year, there were 23 vacancies. Until union contract negotiations could be completed and the rate of pay increased, the Department was struggling to hire and retain new people. Although some vacancies have been filled, those twelve positions are still vacant and may not be filled based on the current budget restraints. He encouraged the Board to support the fee assessment increase to $137.00.

             In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding budgetary requirements for the next five years, Mr. Nash stated that impact fees will affect capital but does not affect operating costs. Under the five-year plan, stations will be needed in other places. He commented that, if the budget does not allow that, the Department will be in dire straits in trying to meet those demands in the County as it grows.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding when another increase would be anticipated if the $137.00 rate is approved, Mr. Nash stated that he would anticipate the need for another increase next year because the $137.00 rate would just meet the baseline service levels and not provide any money for growth. He added that enhancements for 2004 would be in the $148.00 to $153.00 range.

            Mr. Neron stated that, for the first time in cooperation with the Property Appraiser’s office, the assessment will be put on the TRIM (Truth in Millage) notice in the tax bill, saving additional mailings and costs. He expressed, publically, his appreciation to Mr. Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser, and his staff for their cooperation. He explained that adopting a rate of $137.00 today will set the maximum rate for TRIM notice purposes which can be reduced during the budget, but not increased without re-advertising and sending notices.

            Mr. Nash pointed out that, in approving language today, the Board should consider the rates for commercial and industrial in addition to residential because that data affects the proportional rating.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender regarding conclusions on Page 3 of the presentation, Mr. Nash confirmed that if a rate of $148.00 is approved this year, current baseline levels could be met for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, and baseline rates for future years will depend on the impact fee study.

            Mr. Neron pointed out that there will be significant impacts to the revenue base due to annexations and other changes in the system.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding contacts with, and assistance from, cities in Lake County, Mr. Neron stated that the League of Cities has appointed a committee to research the issue.

            Commr. Cadwell reminded the Board that out of the $12.8 million fire budget almost $11 million are wages and administrative costs and, in considering the fire assessment, not many areas could be cut other than not hiring new personnel or lowering the level of service. He stated that there are areas where the County could contract with a city. With future annexations by cities, some County stations may need to be moved and the level of service might change.

            Mr. Nash commented that the County does contract with the cities of Groveland and Mascotte for services in those areas. Because those contracts have increased to almost $150,000 total, putting County people in those stations and reducing the County’s costs, might be a possibility.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding reducing the current ISO rural rating of 9 and a possible reduction in insurance premiums for Lake County citizens, Mr. Nash stated that insurance companies do use parts of the ISO ratings to determine premiums. ISO will be in Lake County, maybe within two or three months, evaluating data that has been provided and, hopefully, the rating will be lowered. The current rating is based on 18-year-old data from a mostly volunteer system.

            Commr. Pool made the point that a fire assessment rate increase would increase staffing and enhance and improve service which could lower the ISO rating and lower insurance premiums. He opined that would result in a great tradeoff.

            Commr. Stivender concurred that, if residents get a break on insurance premiums, they would be willing to pay for assessments.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that a residential fire assessment rate of $137.00 equates to $11.42 per month.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, in the time she has been on the Board, the level of service that is provided to the community is like night and day. She added that she gets very few calls today, opposed to many calls in the past with the mostly volunteer staff.

            Commr. Stivender opined that setting the fee higher this year, possibly to $148.00, might be wiser and might eliminate the need for an increase next year.

            Commr. Pool agreed with what Commr. Stivender is trying to say, but stated that the larger increase might create a hardship and he wondered if citizens would embrace the philosophy of a higher increase every other year.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he is more comfortable with the maximum being the baseline request for this year. He stated that he understands the logic to increase the rate every other year but, in the current economic times, he opined that even the baseline increase might be difficult. He commented that he hopes staff will continue to work to bring the rate down lower than $137.00 without lowering the current level of service. He remarked that he would support advertising a rate of $137.00.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the County will face these same types of issues, whether with public safety, the Sheriff’s Department, or other types of services the County provides that are very much needed in the community. She stated that the County does not know what revenues will be coming in and what services might have to be cut if taxes are not raised.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender, and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved advertising a fire rescue assessment fee of $137.00 for residential categories and staff will continue to work through the process.

            Commr. Hill voted “no.”

            WORKSESSION

            SOLID WASTE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that the solid waste non-ad valorem assessment is currently at $173.00 and staff is recommending for advertising purposes a rate of $180.50, a $7.00 increase. He commented that, while there has been some real belt tightening done in the proposed budget for next fiscal year, there will be ongoing incremental increases in that budget because of the CPI (Consumer Price Index) adjustment factor in the (incinerator) contract with Covanta (Covanta Energy Corporation). He praised the Board for their courage last year in making some major adjustments in these rates. Rather than depleting the reserves, staff recommends a small incremental increase this year to remain in line and whole.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding personnel and the lawsuit with Covanta, Mr. Neron confirmed that a staff reduction of eleven positions, six of which are currently vacant, is being considered. By cutting back landfill hours, as well as reducing from three days to two days of operation at the drop-off centers, the budget can be gotten in line. He stated that, by taking action early, the five employees whose positions will be eliminated can probably be placed in other County positions. He confirmed that, regarding the Covanta lawsuit, even though the County is withholding some funds, those funds are being kept in reserve.

            A motion was made by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool, for Board approval of advertising a solid waste assessment fee increase of $7.00, to $180.50, for Fiscal Year 2004.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she understands that the increase really is necessary if the dollars that are held for escrow are not there. She remarked that the increase is a tough, but necessary, decision.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the reserves, even with the increased fee, will not be as high as they should be.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried by a vote of 3-2.

            Commissioners Hill and Stivender voted “no.”

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            PUBLIC WORKS - PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND

            SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL FOR THE SOUTH LAKE ANNEX PROJECT

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, presented a map, which is included in the backup material, of the proposed 20-acre site for the South Lake County Annex. It is located at the South Lake Hospital training center with a traffic light at U.S. Highway 50 and Citrus Tower Boulevard and at U.S. Highway 50 and Hancock Road, and the property does access onto Oakley Seaver Drive, a paved road. Appraisals have been done and staff is ready to move forward with the purchase agreement.

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender regarding delaying a decision on this contract until after the Capital Improvement Project workshop on June 16, 2003, Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that it could be postponed but contract negotiations have been going on eight or nine months. He added that the property owner stated that property values are increasing on a daily basis in South Lake County. He explained that the County’s idea for purchasing such a large tract is to be able to meet the County’s needs in the South Lake area for the next 15 to 20 years. He acknowledged that the purchase price is a significant amount but he suggested that there will be considerable savings to be realized once the need for the costly leased facilities is eliminated.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the contract would have to be rewritten unless it is accepted by the Board by June 1, 2003. He added that the contract does not specify a closing date because there are a lot of preceding conditions. The contract allows 90 days for permitting and zoning and other contingencies.

            Commr. Stivender expressed concern for being able to fund a number of other issues under consideration, with the expected shortfalls, if the Board approves this contract today.

            Mr. Stivender clarified that this project was on the list which was presented to the Board in January 2003. At the upcoming June 16 workshop, the remaining funds that are in the old sales tax and the future 15 years of the renewed sales tax will be discussed. This particular project will be on the list of projects for the June 16 workshop because a contract will not have been closed by the workshop date.

            Commr. Pool interjected that the County is currently leasing a lot of property in South Lake County in order to provide services to citizens in that rapidly growing area. He opined that in ten years the Board will recognize this as perhaps the best location in that area for an annex. He asked the Board for support for the South Lake County Annex.

            Commr. Stivender maintained the desire to see all of the projects, which will be funded by the old penny sales tax as well as the new penny sales tax, at one time at the June 16 workshop.

            Commr. Hill inquired whether the Constitutional Officers have expressed an interest in locating in this proposed facility, along with County offices.

            Mr. Neron stated that the concept that has been discussed with the Constitutional Officers is a one-stop government center which would include the Clerk’s Office, the Property Appraiser, the Health Department, Permitting and a host of other agencies.

            Discussion continued regarding approving the contract today or postponing a decision until the workshop on June 16.

            Mr. Minkoff clarified that contingency conditions are to be fulfilled within 90 days from the date of the contract and he noted that staff has probably already completed some of those contingencies. He stated that, if the Board approves the contract today, the County must make a good faith effort to satisfy the conditions of the contract or the earnest money, $10,000, would be forfeited. He further clarified that the Purchase and Sales Agreement will become null and void if not executed on or before June 1, 2003, and, if the Board does not approve the contract by June 1, the seller would have to agree to an extension.

            Discussion continued regarding rising property values, the potential to lose the contract and alternate sites.

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson for Board approval and execution of a Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement between South Lake Hospital, Inc. and Lake County for the South Lake County Annex and approval of a budget change request for transfer of funds, $2,175,257.46, needed to purchase the 20.8+/- acre parcel off Oakley Seaver Boulevard in Clermont, Florida.

            Under discussion, Commr. Pool reiterated that the County’s risk exposure would be limited to losing $10,000 in earnest money if the contract is approved but not fulfilled.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, other than the fairgrounds issue, this project has probably been on the County’s Capital Improvement list longer than any other project. He agreed that the need is there, it will be more expensive to wait and he recommended moving forward with the contract.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0.

            OTHER BUSINESS

            APPOINTMENT - BOARD OF BUILDING EXAMINERS

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Jody Bryant Newman as a Consumer Member of the Lake County Board of Building Examiners. 

            REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

            FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF LADY

            LAKE, THE VILLAGE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

            AND LAKE COUNTY

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, discussed an Agreement between the Town of Lady Lake (Town), the Village Center Community Development District (District) and Lake County, Florida (County) for fire protection services. Essentially, the Agreement provides two things: (1) it confirms the arrangement the County has with the Town, that the County will be the provider in those portions of the Town where the District is not providing fire protection services, and (2) with respect to the District, it provides that the District will provide fire protection services to those parts of the unincorporated County that lie within what is traditionally known as “The Villages” development, providing that the County will pay the District $56.00 per year per single family residence for the first two years. The Agreement is a ten-year agreement but there are mechanisms that the Agreement can be cancelled after two years if there is a disagreement on rates. He explained that the levels of service in this Agreement are the same that the Town has requested that the District give them within the Town so that there should be essentially one department covering both the Town and the County portions of “The Villages.”

            In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender, Mr. Minkoff stated that, basically, the County portions involve between 750 and 800 lots in an area formerly known as Orange Blossom Gardens on the east side of U.S. Highway 27.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved an Agreement between The Town of Lady Lake, Florida, The Village Center Community Development District and Lake County, Florida, for provisions for fire protection services.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HILL - DISTRICT #1

            NO REDUCTION IN U.S. TARIFF ON IMPORTED CITRUS PRODUCTS

            Commr. Hill followed up on the March 25, 2003, Resolution 2003-36 whereby Lake County supported “no reduction in the United States tariff on imported citrus products.” She stated that the Florida Citrus Industry has endorsed and thanked the Board for that resolution and noted that there have been favorable comments from other counties. She expressed appreciation to Commr. Cadwell for speaking on behalf of the resolution in Tallahassee and appreciation to the Board on behalf of the Agricultural Advisory Committee.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT #3

            MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONIES

            Commr. Stivender announced that she attended Memorial Day ceremonies at The Plantation and at the Tavares Cemetery where Danny Ginther, a 10th grader at East Ridge High School, played taps.

            EUSTIS HIGH SCHOOL - STATE BASEBALL CHAMPIONS

            Commr. Stivender requested that the Board present a resolution to the Eustis High School Panthers in recognition of winning the Class 3A State Baseball Championship.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that a small resolution be prepared for each player.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4

            MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY

            Commr. Hanson announced that she attended a Memorial Day ceremony in Sorrento.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT #5

            JUNE 17, 2003, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING

            Commr. Cadwell requested that the Board cancel the Board of County Commissioners’ regular meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, because he will be attending the Florida Association of Counties Annual Conference on June 18-20, 2003. It was noted that a Board retreat, which will be advertised as a regular meeting, is scheduled for Monday, June 16, 2003.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board cancelled the June 17, 2003, regular meeting of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.

            ADJOURNMENT

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

_____________________________________

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK