A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 23, 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; Mr. Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board has one Addendum to the regular agenda.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that he would like to reschedule the following items to the October 7, 2003 Board meeting: Tab 1, Item 2., the budget transfer relating to the Pollution Recovery Fund, Environmental Services Department, Water Management Division, in the amount of $17,150.00, which is under the Consent Agenda (Regular Agenda); and Item III. 1., County Manager’s Departmental Business (Addendum No. 1) relating to LifeStream Behavioral Center, Inc., in the amount of $150,000.00.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to pull for discussion Tab 24 on the regular agenda, under consent items, regarding the Cost-Share Agreement with the st. Johns River Water Management District.
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 26, pulling Tab 24 for discussion; and rescheduling Tab 1, Item 2. (Regular Agenda) and Item III. 1. (Addendum No. 1) to the October 7, 2003 Board meeting; and including the County Manager’s Consent Agenda on Addendum No. 1, as follows:
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Budget Transfer - Judicial Support - Guardian Ad Litem
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget transfer – General Fund, Judicial Support, Guardian Ad Litem, in the amount of $2,500.00 is requested. Transfer $2,500.00 from Reserve for Operations to Communications & Freight. Funds needed to cover new expenditures due to the Guardian Ad Litem office moving into a new building. Funds available in Reserve for Operations.
Budget Transfer - Jail Maintenance
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget transfer – General Fund, Public Works Department, Special Services Division, Jail Maintenance section, in the amount of $30,000.00 is requested. Transfer $30,000.00 from Buildings to Repair & Maintenance. Funds are needed in Repair & Maintenance to cover the rebudgeting of the Jail Central Storage door enlargement ($11,500.00) and Jail security console replacement ($18,500.00) projects. Funds were originally budgeted in Buildings. County Finance has requested that these items be funded from Repair & Maintenance as they were normal repair and not capital improvements. Funds available in Buildings.
Budget Transfer - CDBG Division/Montverde Community Building
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget transfer – Community Development Fund, Community Services Department, CDBG Division, in the amount of $2,650.00 is requested. Transfer $2,650.00 from Reserve for Operations to Aids to Government Agencies. Funds are needed to pay for an architectural services invoice for the Montverde Community Building. Funds available in Reserve for Operations.
Resolutions - Landfill Enterprise Fund
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Resolution 2003-154 to amend the Landfill Enterprise Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2002/2003 in the amount of $245,806.00 deposited into Operating Income - Landfill and provide appropriations for the disbursement for Contractual Services ($208,250.00) for haulers and Regular Salaries ($37,556.00) for changes in cost centers due to reorganization.
Procurement Policies and Procedures/Award Contracts
Request from Procurement Services - Approval and authorization for the Procurement Services Director, in accordance with Procurement Policies and Procedures, to award the contracts and issue the appropriate contract documents for all capital equipment approved in the FY 2003/2004 budget, provided the total award amount for each item is less than 10 percent above the approved estimated budgeted amount, and appropriately budgeted funds are available; and award and renew all annual term and supply contracts.
Award Contract/Information Access Systems, Inc./RFP
Request from Procurement Services - Approval to award the contract for Document Management System to Information Access Systems, Inc. in accordance with RFP #03-083.
Agreement/Flexible Spending/Employers Mutual, Inc.
Request from Risk Management - Approval to accept and sign the Agreement for Flexible Spending Account Administration from Employers Mutual, Inc. (EMI), the County’s Third Party Administrator for medical claims.
Workers’Compensation/Liability Insurance Programs/ Self-Insurance Programs
Request from Risk Management - Approval to continue Public Entity Package, Excess Workers’ Compensation, Excess Property, Boiler & Machinery, Public Official’s & Employment Practices Liability, Storage Tank Liability and Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Programs, adjust the Annual Loss Fund and renew the County’s Self-Insurance Programs with A. J. Gallagher & Company effective October 1, 2003.
State Aid/Libraries Grant Application and Agreement
Request from Community Services - Approval and signature on the FY 2003-2004 State Aid to Libraries Grant Application and Agreement.
Schools and Libraries/Reimbursements
Request from Community Services - Approval to apply for Schools and Libraries Universal Service program (E-Rate) reimbursements and approval for Library Services Director to sign applicable forms.
Transfer Agreement/City of Leesburg and Section 8 Housing
Request from Community Services - Approval of Transfer Agreement between the City of Leesburg and Lake County for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program and authorize the Chairman to sign the Transfer Agreement.
Water and Sewer Users Agreement/Astor County Library
Request from Community Services - Approval and signature of the Water and Sewer Users Agreement, Water and Sewer Easement and Sewer Installation Agreement for the Astor County Library.
Agreement/J. W. Brooks, Inc./Property on U.S. Highway 441
Request from Community Services - Approval to extend the current lease agreement between J. W. Brooks, Inc. and Lake County, Florida, for the property located at 16140 U.S. Highway 441, Eustis, Florida for a three-year period.
Annual Report/Affordable Housing/SHIP Program
Request from Community Services - Approval and signature on the Certification for the Annual Report for Affordable Housing (State Housing Initiative Partnership “SHIP”) Program for State Fiscal Years 2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003.
Request from Community Services - Approval of offer of employment for Juanita Popenoe, Ph.D., Extension Agent II who has successfully completed the County’s pre-employment screening process.
Agreement/Senniger Irrigation, Inc./Certificate of Occupancy
Request from Economic Development and Tourism - Approval and execution of an Agreement between Lake County and Senniger Irrigation, Inc. to defer transportation impact fees from time of permit to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Advertise Ordinance/School Impact Fees/Infirm
Request from Growth Management - Approval to advertise proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 22, Section 22-13, Exemptions to create an additional exemption from school impact fees for temporary housing of the infirm.
Road Vacations - Permission to Advertise
Petition No. 1008 - Brenda S. Bregg - Resolutions
Request from Public Works - Approval of Resolution 2003-155 to advertise Vacation Petition No. 1008 by Brenda S. Bregg, Representative is Potter Clement Lowry & Duncan, Attorney at Law, to vacate right of way on Donmar Road as shown on the Plat of Mardon Acres, located in Section 29, Township 17 South, Range 28 East in the Paisley area - Commission District 5.
Road Vacation - Permission to Advertise
Petition No. 1010 - Blackwater Creek Enterprises, Inc. - Resolutions
Request from Public Works - Approval of Resolution 2003-156 to advertise Vacation Petition No. 1010 by Blackwater Creek Enterprises, Inc. to vacate a portion of right of way for Eustis Sand Company Road, located in Section 36, Township 18 South, Range 27 East in the Eustis area in exchange for the dedication of right of way in the existing road location – Commission District 5.
Agreement/St. Johns River Water Management District
Request from Public Works - Approval and signature on the Interlocal Agreement between St. John’s River Water Management District and Lake County to provide right of way and services for the Sleepy Hollow Road Realignment as well as the Harris Bayou Project.
Final Plat/Arrowtree Reserve/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Arrowtree Reserve, Phase II Subdivision, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Arrowtree Reserve, Phase II plat; accept a Letter of Credit for Construction of Improvements in the amount of $11,220.00; accept a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Richard H. Langley. Subdivision consists of 77 lots – Commission District 3.
Final Plat/Bent Tree/Developer’s Agreement/Letter of Credit
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Bent Tree, Phase 1, all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Bent Tree, Phase 1 plat, a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and J & J Building & Development, LLC; and a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $52,198.30. Subdivision consists of 73 lots – Commission District 2.
Final Plat/Biscayne Heights/Developer’s Agreement/Letter of Credit
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Biscayne Heights, Phase 3, all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Biscayne Heights, Phase 3 plat; a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Shamrock Development; and a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $341,289.00. Subdivision consists of 56 lots – Commission District 5.
Final Plat/Park at Wolf Branch Oaks/Resolutions
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, Phase 4, all areas dedicated to the public as shown on Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, Phase 4, plat and execute Resolution 2003-157 accepting Oak Cluster Drive “Part” (County Road Number 4885A) into the County road maintenance system. Subdivision consists of 34 lots – Commission District 4.
Change Order/CR-452 (Lakeshore Drive)/Road Projects
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to execute change order #1 to the CR-452 (Lakeshore Drive) Widening & Resurfacing Phase II Project No. 2003-06 in the amount of $41,000.00 for additional storm drainage work related to the project.
Letter of Credit/Agreement/Lost Lake Reserve, L.C./Citrus Tower Boulevard
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to accept a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $3,168,074.00 posted pursuant to the Agreement Between Lake County and Lost Lake Reserve, L.C. regarding Citrus Tower Boulevard.
Change Order/Huffstetler Drive/Road Projects
Request from Public Works - Approval and authorization to execute change order #7 (and final) to the Huffstetler Drive Phase II Construction Project No. 2002-11 in the amount of $3,939.00 for additional revisions to the signalization at the intersection of Huffstetler Drive/Mayo Drive and US-441 and for the contractor’s remobilization cost as a result of FDOT permit delays.
Resolutions/Parks & Recreation Citizens Advisory Board
Request from Public Works - Approval for the Chairman to execute Resolution 2003-158 to add two ex officio members to the Lake County Parks & Recreation Citizens Advisory Board for the purpose of assisting the Board in reviewing the Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Budget Transfer/Voting Machines
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget transfer - Renewal Sales Tax Capital Projects Fund, Public Works Department, in the amount of $387.00 is requested. Transfer $387.00 from Special Reserve to Machinery & Equipment. On July 1, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners approved a budget transfer from Reserves for $80,000.00 to fund the purchase of voting machines. The freight cost caused the total amount to be $80,386.97. Funds available in Special Reserve.
Budget Transfer/Repair and Maintenance
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget transfer - Fleet Maintenance Fund, Public Works Department, in the amount of $35,000.00 is requested. Transfer $35,000.00 from Special Reserve to Contractual Services ($1,520.00), Repair & Maintenance ($31,748.00), and Other Current Charges ($1,732.00). Additional funds are needed for Repair & Maintenance as costs for the remainder of the fiscal year will exceed the amount budgeted. Funds also needed to correct an existing deficit in Contractual Services and Other Current Charges account lines. Funds available in Special Reserve.
Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Resolution 2003-165 to amend the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2002/2003 in the amount of $61,213.00 deposited into Ad Valorem Taxes - Delinquent and provide appropriations for the disbursement of Transfer - Tax Collector.
Local Arts Agency Grant/Marketing Program
Request from Economic Development and Tourism for approval to accept Local Arts Agency Grant Number 04-8014 in the amount of $2,111.00 for the Cultural Affairs Council’s Marketing Program for the 2003-2004 year program, calendar year July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
Resolution/Industrial revenue Bonds/Senniger Irrigation, Inc.
Request from Economic Development and Tourism for approval and execution of Resolution 2003-166 approving the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Senniger Irrigation, Inc. In an amount not to exceed $5,500,000.00 and approval and execution of the Notice of Intent to Issue Bonds and Request for Written Confirmation with the State of Florida.
AGREEMENT/ST. JOHN RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Commr. Hanson had requested that Tab 5 regarding the Cost-Share Agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) be pulled for more clarification from staff. She stated that this particular area, according to the Wekiva and information received from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), is actually within the new recommended study area for the Wekiva, but staff has it shown in the Upper Oklawaha River Basin (UORB).
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated that this request involves surface water, so it is a sub-surface versus surface water issue. He explained that this surface water flows into Trout Lake, Lake Eustis, and to the St. Johns River.
Commr. Hanson stated that all of these have now been included in the Study Area of the Wekiva.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and approved unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from Public Works for approval to enter into a Cost-Share Agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District, to provide an amount not to exceed $355,000.00 to aid the County in developing stormwater retrofit projects in the Upper Oklawaha River Basin (UORB).
PUBLIC HEARING -
ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 1009 - EDWARD AND PATRICIA WALTHER
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Petition No. 1009 by Edward and Patricia Walther, a request to vacate a drainage easement between two lots, with both lots being owned by the same individual. Mr. Stivender reviewed a survey of the area and stated that staff is recommending approval to vacate, because there is no purpose for it in the subdivision.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing. It was noted that the applicants were present and there was no opposition to the request.
Ms. Patricia Walther, applicant, stated that they also own Lot 7.
There being no further public comment, Commr. Cadwell closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. He noted that the request was in District 5, and he would appreciate a motion to approve.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition No. 1009 by Edward and Patricia Walther to vacate a lot line easement between Lot 8 and 9, as shown on the Plat of Royal Trails Unit 1, Block 121, located in Section 6, Township 18 South, Range 29 East in the Pine Lakes/Cassia area – Commission District 5 - Resolution 2003-159.
PUBLIC HEARING -
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 96 - QUAKER RIDGE AVENUE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 98, THORNHILL DR., MT. PLYMOUTH SUBDIVISION
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board and stated that Quaker Ridge was initially a mandatory assessment with 27 % of the property owners owning 26% of the property. The original estimate was $21.53 per foot, which was almost two and a half years ago. The actual construction cost came in at $30.37 per foot. Even though it was a mandatory assessment, staff wanted to know what the people wanted to do. They received a favorable response from 38% of the property owners who own 39% of the property, to continue with it.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing on SA-96, Quaker Ridge Avenue, and SA-98, Thornhill Drive, Mt. Plymouth Subdivision, and called for public comment.
Mr. Stivender stated that he would like to clarify the second part of this public hearing. In regards to Thornhill Drive, the original petition called for 63% of the property owners who owned 77% of the property, which would not be mandatory. After the price came in at $36.94 per foot, the interest went down to 29% of the property owners who own 37% of the property. Now both roads have to be mandatory assessments. He noted that the two roads were bid out together, and it would be up to the Board to decide whether they want to hear them separately, or together.
Mr. Robert Garrison stated that the property owned by his father-in-law, Mr. Gerald Rains, was included in the assessment, but it does not front Quaker Ridge Avenue; it is actually located on Alcrest. Mr. Garrison stated that he has a survey showing the property, and he feels that his property may have been assessed in error.
It was noted by staff that Mr. Rains’ property consists of Lots 1, 2, and 3; his total assessed cost is $4,555.50; he was assessed the short side for Lot 1, and a full assessment for Lots 2 and 3.
Mr. Gerald Rains addressed the Board and stated that the numbers reflect a full assessment on all lots. He explained that his driveway and his house face Alcrest, and he has never had a use for Quaker Ridge, since is it fenced all of the way down that side. He feels this is an unfair assessment, his house sits on all three lots, and it will not benefit him in any way to have Quaker Ridge paved. He requested that the assessment be removed from his three lots.
He stated that the paving of Quaker Ridge will not enhance the sale of his property, because his entrance and exit is on Alcrest, and he has been paying taxes on an access from Alcrest Avenue for 25 years. His address is Quaker Ridge, but his mailbox is on Alcrest, and there would be no benefit to him to have the road paved because it is a dead end road.
Commr. Hanson stated that anything that is not funded through the assessment is either picked up by the remaining residents, or the County.
Mr. Stivender clarified that, if there is a reduction in someone’s fee, the difference will be absorbed by the County.
Commr. Hanson stated that the paving of Quaker Ridge would probably have some indirect benefit to Mr. Rains, with the value of the homes in this total area. She questioned whether staff could figure half of the cost, even though there is not really any rationale, because she believes there is some very indirect benefit.
Mr. Rains stated that the people who live on the street and have driveways and need access are getting a benefit from it. The County paid for the paving of Alcrest. There is another street at the end of the block, and his property goes between three streets and, when Albia Avenue was paved several years ago, he had to pay the total assessment. He does not feel it is fair for him to have to pay for another road to be paved.
After some discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the County needs to give Mr. Rains some type of relief, because he did build his house facing the other street. As indicated by Commr. Hanson, it is difficult to quantify what the benefit will be to him but, by having a paved street as opposed to a dirt trail, it is a benefit in the general area. He felt that some type of reduction, perhaps one-third, would be fair for the community, with the County absorbing the balance .
Ms. Dorothy Drake, Quaker Ridge Avenue, stated that she lives about five houses from Mr. Rains. Ms. Drake explained that every time it rains, it channels into her and her neighbor’s driveways and becomes a pond, and the paving would be beneficial to her and others in this location. They are not looking for enhancements to their property, just a way to get the water under control.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that the request is in her district, and the folks in the neighborhood have worked very hard for a couple of years to get improvements on this road. The price is higher than originally anticipated by staff, however, petroleum prices have gone up and Quaker Ridge has some pretty severe drainage and stormwater issues that staff will now address, which also drives the price up.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to approve as a mandatory assessment, Special Assessment 96 – Quaker Ridge Avenue, and Special Assessment 98 – Thornhill Drive – Mt. Plymouth Subdivision, with the reduction in Assessment 698011 to one-third, or 50 feet on Quaker Ridge, with the additional cost to be absorbed by the County.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson wanted to know about the other folks that will benefit from this at the end of the road, and whether staff has considered any assessment to them.
Mr. Stivender noted that the area pointed out by Commr. Hanson was not part of this assessment and, even though those individuals benefit from the paving of Quaker Ridge, there was no interest.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING -
ORDINANCE REMOVING BOUNDARY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS
FOR PLOT PLAN SUBMITTAL
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, and noted that it would be Ordinance 2003-79, if approved by the Board:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 14.14.03(C), LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; REMOVING BOUNDARY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLOT PLAN SUBMITTAL; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Stivender extended her appreciation to Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, and staff for bringing this item to the Board in such a timely manner. She had brought this issue forward when there had been some major concerns relating to these requirements.
Mr. Gregg Welstead addressed the Board and stated that the ordinance should significantly enhance service to the customers.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, 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 Ordinance 2003-79, removing boundary survey requirements
for plot plan submittal, as read by title only.
PUBLIC HEARING -
ORDINANCE REGARDING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, and noted that it would be Ordinance 2003-80, if approved by the Board:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTION 22-22 IMPOSITION, CHANGING AND REDUCING THE RATE THAT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL PAY FOR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and noted that the Superintendent of Schools was present and would like to comment first.
Ms. Pam Saylor, Superintendent of the Lake County Schools, addressed the Board and stated that she was here to comment on the Board’s consideration of reduction in the school impact fees set earlier this year. Ms. Saylor stated that, since the Board needs to address this as a result of a mathematical error in the consultant’s study, there appears to be no appropriate recourse short of reducing the fees, however, she also implores the Board to continue to work collaboratively with the Lake County Schools in reviewing and updating these impact fees on a frequent and regular basis. She explained that the school system continues to face a crisis, in terms of school capacity, as a result of growth, and a lack of funds, to respond adequately to that need particularly in the south end of the County. The School Board has already begun discussions to begin making decisions for next year regarding redistricting, double sessions, year round portables, and the purchase of additional portables for the school system. The new class size reduction amendment has exacerbated the problem considerably because, in June, the Department of Education reduced the student stations in each one of the existing classrooms, so they now need an additional 5,000 student stations. Ms. Saylor requested the Board’s continued assistance in working collaboratively with them, as they face the challenges of meeting the needs of the school children in Lake County.
Commr. Hill stated that, in the current Ordinance (2003-47), it requires them (the County) to address the impact fees at least once every three years, with the stipulation that the School Board come back to them on a yearly basis with an oral and written report and, if the School Board would like the review sooner than that, then she would suggest they put the consultant on a yearly retainer, and the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee could come back and address those impact fees yearly.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the school system meet with the consultant to discuss doing this because, once the framework and general information would already be there, and the Board would be willing to assist the School Board in any way.
Ms. Saylor stated that a more frequent basis would be very helpful to them, so they will go ahead and do that and then they can report back to the Board, but they would much prefer one year reviews over having to wait the full three years.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director, Homebuilders Association of Lake County, stated that they came to the Board, after going through the reviews, with concerns over discrepancies in numbers. They still have a concern that the background data demonstrating the capacity versus non-capacity projects does not match the text of the written consultant’s report. Ms. Kaminski stated that this ordinance takes care of a huge error, and she would urge the Board to approve it.
Mr. Don Magruder, General Manager of Ro-Mac Lumber, stated that they do business with a lot of the working families and construction people in the County. They support the ordinance, but they believe that they need to lower the impact fees even more. He explained that the ordinance demonstrates that the numbers were incorrect, but they have been reviewing an auditor’s report that was released this summer, and it tells them that a lot of the numbers are incorrect, and they would encourage the Board to call for additional audits. Mr. Magruder stated tat most of the developers encourage the development of the schools but, to be fair to all, the numbers have to be correct.
Mr. Dennis Reid, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board to discuss the critical situation with the schools, the possibility of double sessions, and the future of Highway 50. Mr. Reid stated that Mr. Jim Drake, Lake County Schools, and Ms. Saylor have done a tremendous job working with this situation but, if they do not keep up with growth, then people who wanted to build houses in the County are going to look at the school system and change their minds. He appreciates the assistance that the County has given to them.
Mr. Carl Ludecke, Charlie Johnson Builder, addressed the Board and explained that he has been looking at the numbers and working with the Homebuilders Association, but there are many things that they cannot control with the School Board. Mr. Ludecke explained that, in Osceola County, there are ten private charter schools and, in Lake County, they do not want them, even though they do not cost the County a dime. They can be built and bonded and, with the income they get from the State, they can run the schools and support the debt service. In Oakland, Florida, it cost them $8.2 million for the private charter elementary school with 700 students. The Lake County School Board pays $12 million for the same size school. Mr. Ludecke stated that they are going to continue looking at these types of things and investigating the School Board and its spending of funds.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board supported these fees initially and, at the request of the Homebuilders Association, the numbers were reexamined and determined to be incorrect. The main concern is not to relive the discussion of whether or not these fees are needed but whether or not they are correct and defensible.
Commr. Hill clarified that it was not only the Homebuilders Association, but there were two other citizens’ committees that identified that there may be a problem within the numbers, and they indicated this in their vote. The two committees were the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Committee, and the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee.
Commr. Hanson stated that, when the Board approved the numbers, they indicated that, if there were any discrepancies, they would re-look at them. At that time, she supported a full audit, to be done annually, and she supports the same today, because those are public dollars, and they need to know exactly where they are going.
Discussion occurred regarding a yearly audit from the School Board, which the Board may want to request with their written report. It was noted that this was something they could address after the School Board meets with their consultant.
Commr. Hill pointed out for the record that the Board is not changing the methodology of the study, or report; they are correcting an administrative error in math. This ordinance will not being going back to the P & Z Commission, or any other community committee.
On a motion by commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance 2003-80 regarding educational system impact fees, which included the following:
Single-Family Detached House $3,489 per Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $2,121 per Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home $1,379 per Dwelling Unit
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that staff received recommendations from the Water Authority on speed zones. Mr. Ron Hart, Water Authority, will explain them, and there are maps with the resolutions in the backup, which have been reviewed.
Mr. Ron Hart, Water Authority, addressed the Board and presented a detailed explanation of the speed zones using the maps to recognize specific waterways.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the Code has a provision that allows the Board to set speed limits on waterways, by resolution.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the four Resolutions relating to Speed Zones, as follows: Resolution 2003-160 - Haines Creek; Resolution 2003-161 - Lake Dora; Resolution 2003-162 - Dead River; and Resolution 2003-163 - canal between Lake Beauclair and Lake Dora.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
At 9:45 a.m., Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board has a closed session scheduled for 11:30 a.m.
JPA BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND CITY OF CLERMONT
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that nine months ago, the Board met with the City Council of Clermont to discuss a Joint Planning Area (JPA) agreement. It has recently been adopted by he City of Clermont , and it is now before the Board for formal adoption. Mr. Welstead showed a map of the proposed Clermont JPA Boundary, as adopted by Clermont, which includes part of the Green Swamp on the western edge and proceeds all the way to the Orange County line.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this is the first of the JPAs to be adopted, and he is excited about it. There are other cities trying to work out issues, but there were a lot of issues that brought Clermont to the forefront and education was one of them. He hopes that the Board moves forward with it quickly.
Commr. Stivender asked if Montverde, Minneola and Groveland are in agreement with the boundary line, with Mr. Welstead noting that they are in agreement.
Mr. Minkoff noted that he has a signed agreement that was delivered to his office from the City of Clermont.
Commr. Hill had questioned whether language had been included in the agreement pertaining to education. The following language was pointed out in the agreement: Page 2, Line 17 - shall support planning for adequate services, school and recreation planning.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Barry Brown, City of Clermont, stated that this is a historic agreement, and they feel it is going to make development in south Lake County a lot less confusing and they will end up with a product that the City of Clermont, and the County can be proud of. He thanked the County for their efforts and stated that they look forward to the adoption of this agreement.
In response to Commr. Stivender’s question about the coordination between the County, the cities, and the developers, Mr. Brown explained that they are still working on the details but, if a property is adjacent to the City, they need to go ahead and annex it into the City and have it go through their review process. If they are within this area (as shown) and not adjacent to the City, they will go through the County’s review process, but the City will be included in that process.
Commr. Cadwell directed the Board’s attention to Page 9 of the agreement, which outlines the procedures for reviewing and commenting on development orders.
In response to Commr. Stivender’s questions about streamlining the process, Mr. Brown explained that, when a developer submits a set of construction plans to the County staff, there will also be a copy submitted to the City of Clermont, and then the City will send a representative to the County’s site review meetings (DRS), so there should not be any delay in the process. In response to Commr. Pool’s questions about the Chapter 180 District utility service boundary, Mr. Brown explained that the 180 District is the same as the boundary being shown on the map, with the exception of the tail (as described) that goes down Highway 27. They wanted to include it in the JPA because that is a strip of urban expansion, and it is directly across from Highway 27, and from Lake Louisa State Park.
Ms. Gail Ashe, City of Clermont, Council member, discussed the colored map of the JPA boundary, and the black and white map of the Chapter 180 Utility District area, with it being noted that the maps were the same, except for the scaling on each map. Ms. Ashe stated that the Council had a unanimous decision to approve the JPA agreement, and they are urging the Board to do the same. The point is to have a standard of development and growth that is going to be a plus for everybody, and for this to be the beginning of many planning agreements between other cities and the County.
Commr. Cadwell appreciated Ms. Ashe’s comments because there are people out there that think that they created this to strictly stop growth in that area, and he appreciated the City of Clermont’s willingness to work with them.
Ms. Ann Griffin presented the Board with a letter dated September 23, 2003, and stated that she is speaking as an individual who is in favor of this JPA agreement, but she would like them to include two things in it. The first would be the new laws that were passed by the 2002 Legislature, and to plan their comprehensive plans around the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) regional water supply plan.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the JPA agreement is a framework that they will use to create rules and regulations, and they will have public hearings on the joint rules in those areas.
Ms. Griffin stated that she would like the Board to keep in mind the spring flow area, which is in the Clermont area and begins around Lake Louisa and, when they make development decisions, she would like them to protect that area. She stated that the USGS predicts Gourdneck Springs will decrease by 28%, and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) predicts that, if all pending permits go through in the Clermont area, by 2006 there will be a 28% decrease. Being as she lives on the chain-of-lakes, she wants to protect the springs that feed it.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney with Gray, Harris & Robinson, addressed the Board to clarify two issues. Mr. Crawford stated that he is not against the JPA, and he believes they should adopt it and, in terms of how it is going to work, they have already been working with City staff, and County staff, and he has had a land use plan amendment that has gone through the City process and is now going to the City Council tonight so, judging on the early results, he believes they are off to a very good start. In regards to Commr. Stivender’s question about the cities all agreeing on the JPA, he wanted to clarify that the City of Groveland annexed about 60 acres of a 361 acre parcel located on the western portion of the JPA, but he does not want the legal descriptions amended at this point. He explained that, as they go through this process, they are going to find split properties that are going to be difficult to work with but, in this case, he decided to go ahead and annex it into the City of Groveland.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman & Senterfitt, addressed the Board and stated that they are moving forward in a positive direction, however, there is not a contract made that cannot be broken. Ms. Bonifay stated that it really depends on the good will and the good faith efforts of the people that are involved as to how successful this will be. She noted that the Board has before them today a very limited framework, but it is very laudable and, she is very much in favor of it, if it gives her clients more direction. She pointed out one thing that she did not see in the JPA agreement, which was stated on the record. If you were currently adjacent to the city, you would not go under the new JPA LDRs; you would have to immediately annex into the city. She does not see any distinctions between those properties that are in the JPA but not currently contiguous to the city, and those that are contiguous. Another issue is timing, with the JPA calling for a very quick turnaround, ten days, for comments on any development order. She feels that this would include those properties that are contiguous or not contiguous, including anything that may be classified as development orders, but the JPA indicates that either one of the parties, the County, or the City, can change those deadlines without any notice to the applicant. It also says that it can exceed either the City’s or the County’s development regulations, in terms of time frames, and this does not give her a level of comfort, in terms of where someone might already be in the process. Ms. Bonifay stated that the next issue is what they will do with projects that are already in the works, such as the ones today, that had been proceeding prior to the JPA. To now wait an indeterminate amount of time to get to the next step of reviewing the drafts of the LDRs would not be feasible and would affect the whole issue of due process. She stated that it has taken a long time to get to this point, but this is just the beginning, and she feels that there are going to be a number of other issues that are going to present themselves.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciates the Whereas clause on Page 3, Lines 5-11 referencing “clustering and mixed use developments” to ensure the preservation of open space, but she questioned whether they could add “incentive based” because that would be one way to help accomplish these things, as they protect the environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Welstead suggested that staff not actually make a text change but that the suggestion be reflected in the minutes, and they can incorporate it in the LDRs, and the Comprehensive Plan changes.
Commr. Stivender addressed the issue brought forth by Ms. Bonifay, the County having a lot of projects already in the works, including ones that will come before the Board today, and questioned how the Board was going to deal with those, if they approved this JPA agreement.
Mr. Welstead explained that it was up to the Board as to whether or not they want to hear the cases today. He stated that staff is going to bring forth a request from the City of Clermont to delay action on two Trycon cases, which the City is hearing tonight, and the Robert Skakar, Presco case.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it was his understanding that the Board was going to hear those cases, but they were also going to make sure that the City of Clermont had an opportunity to make comments on them, based on the rules in place today.
Commr. Hill stated that the County has given the City of Clermont plenty of time, well over 90 days, to make a comment on the issues coming before the Board today, and she believes that the minutes reflect that anything that was in the works, whether it be with the City of Clermont, or with the County, those projects would proceed and that the cases would be heard by the Board. She noted that the City of Clermont has already made a decision on a large project that was already in their works.
The Board discussed the language on Page 3, Lines 18 through 21, of the proposed JPA agreement, which clarifies that neither the City, nor the County, is giving up any of its authority to amend its LDRs, Comprehensive Plan, or otherwise, to make land use decisions for lands now or hereafter. Further clarification was made that the agreement was strictly providing the groundwork, and in no way was the Board tied to approving or denying cases, based on the approval of the agreement.
Mr. Welstead stated that there were three Comprehensive Plan Amendments that came to the Board, and two of them have been delayed until October. The Trycon case that has been referred to by Ms. Bonifay has not had a public hearing before the City of Clermont, and that hearing is tonight. The intent was that all three of those land plan amendments (LPAs) would go forward at the same time, in October.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, in regard to the Comprehensive Plan changes, since this agreement says that the City and County will jointly plan, even though they may not ultimately agree, staff did meet with the three property owners and suggested that they would like to get City comments, before the Board did the Comprehensive Plan changes, and they also talked to them about keeping them on the same schedule because, if one goes forward and the other two do not, then the other two get harmed, because you can only amend the Comprehensive Plan twice a year. They did not delay any LDR changes, site plans, subdivisions, or request for rezonings.
As she had commented to Mr. Brown earlier in the meeting, Commr. Stivender stated that she was concerned about the City, or the County, holding onto an item, if it is something that they do not want to move forward on and, no matter how much time is given to them, the issue may never come to them. She felt that the City of Clermont had time, from the first meeting that the Board had with them, to give them a recommendation on any of the cases before the Board today. She was also very concerned about citizens spending substantial amounts of money to file applications and then, in the middle of the process, the Board decides to go along with some other city’s agreement.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board can approve the JPA agreement, and then they can try and take care of the concerns in regards to timetables, as expressed by Commr. Stivender. He explained that the argument just made by Commr. Stivender can be made in the public hearing on the three cases coming to the Board today; he just hoped that she would respect the spirit of the agreement.
Commr. Hill stated that there was a question about an urban transition area. In looking at the city limits, as shown on the map, she wondered how much of this is the City’s 180 District and whether these urban transition areas are going to continue to be a certain radius to their city limits and how they are going to be addressed. She stated that she does not see this in the document, but perhaps this will be in the next step. Commr. Hill stated that the only other thing that she has a problem with in this JPA agreement today is that she thinks it is a mistake to include the Green Swamp, only because it sets a precedent for other JPAs in sensitive areas. She stated that there are some cities that are committed to protecting those boundaries, and some cities have not so much as even looked at protecting them. To be consistent, if she is going to exclude Groveland, or Mount Dora, or some other city out of a JPA to a sensitive area, then she thinks they should not be included in it.
Commr. Pool explained that there was much discussion about this particular JPA crossing CR 561 and, in all fairness, there are probably 15 or 20 approved projects that are already on the books around Lake Minnehaha. If they cannot provide water and sewer to what is already out there, then what is the chance of them ever providing it over that road. He stated that, to put it into the JPA area may or may not be something that is consistent with their plan, because they will not be providing services to any of that JPA across CR 561.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if there is some reason why a city may want a particular area in their JPA agreement, not to urbanize it, but to be a part of what they consider their city, then he feels the Board should consider that on a case by case basis. He explained that there will be times when they will not agree on areas and what should happen in them, and they will not be able to plan it together, but County is going to continue to plan that area, even if it means nothing ever happening there.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the agreement references the local government dispute resolution process, which involves mediation, but the County would be doing the Comprehensive Plan for the areas within the County; the city will be doing the Comprehensive Plan for the areas within the city, with the goal being that, in making those decisions, the city would consider the County’s comments, and the County would consider the city’s comments, and they would aspire to agree and, as the goal, there will not be any disagreements after they meet together.
Ms. Ashe stated that, after much discussion by the Council members and, after she saw the small part of the Green Swamp that becomes part of their JPA, she became very concerned that this part of Clermont, even though it is not within the City’s boundaries, needs to be protected. She was not going to leave this area open to annexation by another city that might not feel the same way. She stated that the inclusion of this area does not mean that they want to see development there; what they want to see is protection. The Council members felt that they could have the greatest protection by including it in their JPA. Ms. Ashe directed the Board’s attention to the JPA agreement, Page 2, Line 21, and the following language: represents areas of logical urban expansion, with the exception of the designated Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, contiguous to the current corporation limits and is not in conflict with urban service provision areas adopted by adjacent municipalities.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the mediation provisions of the agreement would only come into place if someone violated the agreement but, if it was not an absolute violation of the agreement, there would probably never be that opportunity. For instance the agreement provides that, when the city has both sides of a road, and it is not a County collector road, the City takes jurisdiction. If the city refused, then he could see that going to mediation under the process, but it would have to be somebody clearly violating the terms of the agreement.
Commr. Pool stated that he does not know if the Board members support the JPA crossing CR 561, which is the issue he has been going back and forth with himself. He stated that there are certain ways to protect the Green Swamp on both sides of the issue, and the State, the County, and the City want to see that protection. At this point, he will go along with the City’s recommendation and include that in his motion. As they go forward in this process, they need to understand that it gives the County some responsibilities, and the City some responsibilities, and opportunities to communicate.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the JPA boundaries, as seen on the map, and the JPA agreement.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that, while each individual city has a staff working on their interlocal agreements, the County has one staff working on all 14. He hopes that the other cities will understand that they are going to get to them as soon as possible. He encouraged staff to completely finish this JPA, as they continue to work with the other cities in trying to help them move forward.
Commr. Hanson stated that the JPA before them is just a general framework that would probably work very easily as a model for all of the cities, but the real problem is going to be in the LDRs and working out the specifics for each city.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commr. Stivender and Commr. Hill voted “no”.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.
REZONING CASE PH#51-03-3 - HANG JU CHON & YOUN SUP CHON
JIMMY CRAWFORD, ESQ. - TRACKING #80-03-CFD
Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board is going to hear all of the zoning cases that they can between now and 11:30 a.m., when the Board will conduct a closed session, which will last about an hour. The Board will then take a lunch and come back at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of growth Management, informed the Board there are some minor changes to the agenda, basically some postponements and continuances. Staff has also received a letter from Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray, Harris, on the Chon rezoning application, and they are withdrawing the application.
In response to the question regarding whether the applicant, Mr. Chon, can come back to the Board again, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission was that they did not have the ability to come back this time. He explained that they cannot keep someone from filing an application but, if the Board has already heard it, and the application is not substantially different, the Board should deny the case.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing, which is usually not done for withdrawals, to allow Mr. Crawford an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Crawford addressed the Board and stated that he represents Mr. Chon, and he is not going to file another rezoning on this issue, even though he cannot prejudice his client from going somewhere else.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter, Clement, Lowery & Duncan, Mount Dora, addressed the Board and stated that he represents several folks who are in opposition to this request and, after consulting with Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, he did not believe he had legal grounds to stand upon today to object to the withdrawal, but he wanted the Board to know that they are concerned by the fact that this issue could come back again. They appreciate Mr. Crawford’s assurance that he will not do it, but there are other lawyers that would take the case. He feels that a statement from the Board today discouraging this project from coming back would give his clients some assurance that they will not have to hire another lawyer in the next six months, or 12 months, to oppose this request again. He noted that they have gone through this at least four times, and they object to the withdrawal.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt that the P & Z Commission was correct in their assessment, that this zoning has not changed and should not be heard at all.
Commr. Hanson stated that the water workshop is being held a week from this Friday, and they may want to take some direction countywide regarding this issue.
REZONING CASE LPA#03/8/2-2 - TRYCON INC./BYRON H. KING, TRUSTEE
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #74-03-LPA
REZONING CASE PH#49-03-2 - TRYCON INC./BYRON H. KING, TRUSTEE
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #77-03-CP
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, stated that, in regards to Cases 8 and 9, Trycon, staff had a discussion with their attorney, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, and they would like to continue the cases to October 7, 2003, which would allow the City of Clermont to hear the zoning case tonight, and then they will come back to the Board.
Commr. Hanson noted that she will not be at the October 7, 2003 Board meeting.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing on Rezoning Case LPA#03/8/2-2, Trycon Inc./Byron H. King, Trustee; and Rezoning Case PH#49-03-2, Trycon Inc./Byron H. King, Trustee; and the request for postponement, until October 7, 2003, to give the City of Clermont time to respond to them.
It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the postponements.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay addressed the Board and stated that she concurs with her client, and they have talked to Mr. Welstead and Mr. Minkoff. The reason for the postponement is to try and ensure that this can stay in the first cycle and, even though they do not have authority over the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), they are committed to trying to get this done in a very timely manner. She hoped that the Board would have some flexibility in December, because of the scheduled holidays, to get these done because, if not, they will have to go into the next Comprehensive Plan cycle.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone the following cases to October 7, 2003: Case LPA#03/8/2-2, Trycon Inc./Byron H. King, Trustee, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Amendment to Future Land Use Designation, Transmittal Hearing, Tracking #74-03-LPA; and Case PH#49-03-2, Trycon Inc./Byron H. King, Trustee, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., MP to CP, Tracking #77-03-CP.
REZONING CASE PH#16-03-2 - ROBERT SHAKAR, PRESCO
GREG BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNERS
R-6 TO A - TRACKING #33-03-PUD
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, informed the Board that staff received an e-mail request from the City of Clermont asking that the Board postpone Rezoning Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar/Presco, Agenda Item #6.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he received an e-mail from the City of Clermont requesting the postponement. He stated that, even though the case has been on the books for quite some time, and everyone is a little frustrated with it, he is bringing the request forward to the Board and hopes that they will postpone it, to give them a little more time.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing on the request for postponement.
Ms. Peggy Cox addressed the Board and stated that she is a resident of the Green Swamp, and she would like the Board to postpone this case, for a different reason. She stated that this issue came before the P & Z Commission on September 3, 2003. The P & Z Commission made a motion to apply res judicata on the recommendation, based on the fact that they had heard it before. Staff said it was a substantial change; it was noticed to be heard; but it was not heard at the P & Z meeting on September 3, 2003. Ms. Cox stated that the only bodies who can apply res judicata are the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of Adjustment. She realizes that this case started over a year ago, and it was tied to a Comprehensive Plan amendment on density transfers, which was withdrawn; then there was new plan; then another new revised version of the plan was submitted last week. She stated that it is more similar to the first version than the second version, which was to be heard by the P & Z Commission on September 3, 2003; however, she has been listening to a lot of comments about how they do not want to cause anymore delays to the development community, but the public and the residents of this area are the ones who are not able to hear what is being proposed. She feels the Board is not going to follow their administrative procedures in this case.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the P & Z Commission actually felt that they had already heard the case and made a recommendation to the Board, and there were no additional recommendations to make at this time.
Mr. Alan Griffin addressed the Board and stated that he lives directly opposite of the property in question. Mr. Griffin asked that the sign be placed back on the property showing that it will be rezoned, because it is no longer there, and there may be individuals passing by the property that may learn of the rezoning. He understood that, when the school was put in, there was supposed to be a meeting of the residents in the area to discuss this issue, and no meeting was every convened; the residents of the area were never allowed to express their concerns. Mr. Griffin thought a postponement would be good but he asked the Board to convene a meeting, for those residents in the area, even though letters have been sent to them, because he, as well as others, have to take time off of work to attend the public meeting. Mr. Griffin stated that he has a real concern with the issue and feels the request should be rejected.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton stated that she is speaking as Land Use and Water Issues Chairman of the Alliance to Protect Water Resources, and as a resident of Clermont. Ms. Fullerton stated that she wanted to reinforce what has been said in requesting a postponement and refer the Board to the fax that she sent to them. She stated that they had other reasons to ask the Board to consider a postponement, because they feel that they have asked the Board to review the application, and the procedures in LDRs. She will be asking whether there have been changes in this application since Friday, because she understands that the Board has now received what is known as Plan 3, and she does not know if there has been adequate time for everybody to review the new application. Staff has done an excellent job in presenting their staff review, but she was concerned about the amount of time that staff is allowed to review changes. She was asking that the Board to at least mention this today, even if they do not use it for postponement. Another reason is that Clermont is asking for the postponement, and the third issue is the res judicata, and the results of the P & Z Commission meeting. Ms. Fullerton stated that they believe procedure should be followed by government, and the public has the responsibility to insist that they do. She stated that they would like the Board to consider these factors, when thinking about postponement.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that this case was supposed to be heard last month, but there was some confusion about notices, and they consented to it being continued to this month. They went back to the P & Z Commission, so they could discuss whether they should hear the case and, after taking testimony, and after due consideration, the P & Z Commission determined that they did not want to hear the case again. They had already had a lengthy hearing on it, and they did not want to hear it again. It now comes to the Board with a positive recommendation from the P & Z Commission, based on prior hearings, and that is where they stand today. Mr. Richey explained that this case has been in the works for almost two years, and they have revised the plan, based on staff comments, which they have been doing through the entire process. They attended a workshop a few days ago in Clermont, upon late notification and, from that meeting came the notification to the Board that advises the Board to continue the case for 30 days. Mr. Richey stated that there is no reason for this case to be postponed today. He stated that they were advised, based on the Board’s workshop in Clermont that, if they were in process, they would not be held up by this JPA agreement that was adopted earlier this morning. He stated that ample opportunity has been there for Clermont to gather the information and have a public hearing in Clermont on this case, and it would be extremely detrimental to his client to have to continue the case for another 30 days, because he has already spent a lot of money to continue the case over the last six months, while they worked on their JPA. Mr. Richey respectfully asked the Board to not continue the case, but to allow them to present the case today, because they have relied on the fact that they have been in the process for almost two years. He stated that they did meet with residents to go through the plans, after the residents put that meeting together.
Mr. Barry Brown, City of Clermont, stated that the City of Clermont was not aware that they had an application to review. Mr. Brown stated that Ms. Nancy Fullerton brought it to their attention, after their first Council meeting in September (September 16, 2003), and they immediately scheduled a workshop, so that the Council could start having some discussion, but they did not have the opportunity to place this on a Council agenda, so that they could not actually make a recommendation.
Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Shakar met with Mr. Wayne Saunders, and Mr. Greg Beliveau met with Mr. Saunders six months ago to discuss this project, and to get information and an evaluation. If Mr. Brown is correct in saying that they got the notice after September 1st, then contacting him and his client at such a late hour last week is not exactly an effort to get them involved in the process. He stated that his client should not be punished for their failures, and he feels that this is what the Board would be doing today, if they do not hear the case.
Mr. Brown clarified that the meeting in Clermont, on Thursday night, was merely a workshop and not a public hearing, and that is why their Council was unable to actually make a recommendation and, since they were able to get this on a workshop agenda at the last minute, he felt that they did good in getting notification to the applicant, Mr. Shakar, and other parties involved. He stated that the Council will be meeting on October 14, 2003.
Commr. Pool stated that the request is in his district, and he attended the meeting where the members went back and forth in their discussion about whether or not to include the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, and they have decided to include that area. Their staff has known about this project, because it has been around for a couple of years and, from his perspective, he is ready and willing to hear the case and make a decision, based on the facts today. He clarified that this case has been postponed, delayed, advertised, readvertised, incorrectly advertised, and now it is back again and, to delay it again would not make any sense.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to hear Rezoning Case PH#16-03-2 - Robert Shakar, Presco Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, R-6 to a - Tracking #33-03-PUD, in its entirety, and to make a decision.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board approved the boundaries today, and they did not know either that the applicant would be in the established area.
Commr. Pool noted that the City of Clermont is here today, and they may not have been here if they had not had this item on the agenda today, so they are here to give the Board input and ideas on what they hear of this plan today.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, to hear the case, as noted, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted “no”.
REZONING CASE PH#57-03-4 - DEBRA J. RAGAN - R-6 AND 4-8 TO A
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Case PH#57-03-4, Debra J. Ragan, R-6 and R-8 to A, Tracking #86-03-Z. The property is approximately six acres and is located within urban expansion. The proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as seen in Section 3.00.04 that permits agriculture zoning within Urban Expansion Land Use; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as seen in Policy 1-1.6 that allows up to four dwelling units per acre in Urban Expansion and lists one of the functions of the Urban Expansion Land Use as, “providing for the retention of adequate levels of open space and native habitats consistent with the character of Lake County”; and it is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use and development patterns in the area. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Ms. Kapner noted that she had one additional letter of opposition.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that both applicants were present.
Ms. Debra Ragan addressed the Board and explained that their children are active in the Lake County 4-H Program, and they have some chickens, rabbits, and horses. When they initially bought the property, they were told that it was zoned for horses and, after they closed on the property, they were informed that they did not have the appropriate zoning for horses, and to contact the County. Their horses were brought to the property in May, 2003, and then they were cited by Code Enforcement who told them to file for the correct zoning. Ms. Ragan stated that the surrounding residents in the area are glad to have them as neighbors.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did look at the property, and he doubted that the neighbors would have said anything about the chickens or rabbits, but the horses in the front of the property gave him some concern, because of the development pattern of the neighborhood. He stated that the Board will listen to comments from the neighbors, and then he will give the applicants an opportunity to address the Board again.
Mr. William Butler addressed the Board and stated that he and Ms. Ragan bought another acre behind them, so they actually have about seven acres.
Ms. Marsha Colburn addressed the Board and stated that she and her husband are in opposition to the request and that their property abuts the property in question. Their concern is that there is no buffer between their lands, and they hear the sounds and see the sites, and sometimes they smell the horses. Ms. Colburn stated that they were also concerned that, once the property in question is zoned agricultural, if the property is sold, the new owners will be able to bring in whatever animals they choose to under the agricultural zoning. She stated that they are concerned about the future, and the impact that this could have on the value of their property. When they bought their property, they thought they were protected with the residential on both sides of them. Ms. Colburn stated that they did not know how this was going to improve the neighborhood. She felt that the applicants deserve to have their animals, and the children deserve to have their pets, and everybody needs to be fair, but she wished that they had known it was not zoned for horses.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board did receive the letter from Dale and Marsha Colburn, which was included in the backup material.
Ms. Marletta Miller stated that she lives across the road from the six acres of property in question, and she stated that they do not know what the future is going to be on either side of them, but she is in opposition to the request for agriculture and would like to see the property remain in its current zoning.
Mr. Butler, applicant, addressed the Board and reminded the residents that they have been living downwind to Powers Dairy for the last 30 or 40 years, and his horses do not smell like Powers Dairy.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Powers Dairy is out of business now, but they were their for many years, and they were also located on a four-lane State Highway, not like the property in question, which is located on a little community road. What he saw did not look very appealing to him, when riding through a residential neighborhood. He questioned whether there was some way to confine the horses to the back of the property, where there are no residents. He explained that, when you look at the development of the surrounding area, you get the feel of a residential community and, if the Board gave them the blanket agriculture zoning on the property, they could do things that would not be fitting for that community. Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel that the agriculture zoning fit the community.
During the discussion, it was noted that the applicants have two horses, and the Board cannot condition straight zoning, but the applicants could reapply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and go through the whole process again.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there are lesser zoning restrictions like R-1 or AR, which allow some very limited agricultural uses, which the property could be rezoned to, but they could not condition it either way. The agricultural uses that are limited in those zoning districts are much more limited than in general agriculture.
Mr. Butler explained that there is a lot of swamp land around their property, and they even have an acre of swamp land.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there are a lot of variables in their neighborhood that could create odor, but the area has changed over the years, and his only concern is that it is a residential area, they have the horses right out front, it is not very appealing, and it does not lend to the consistency of the community.
Mr. Butler explained the location of their home, the fence, the horses; the surrounding home, and their plans to live on this property until they retire.
Commr. Pool stated that he shares the neighbors’ concerns because, if the applicants rezone the property, it does give the future owner more opportunities, and more options.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board cannot do a CUP in this zoning district but, if it were AR, it would still allow limited uses, but it would not restrict where on the property he could keep the horse. He explained that a CUP is a grant of additional rights; it is not a taking away of what the Code provides.
Mr. Butler stated that they lease property on CR 44A where they have other horses.
There were other questions regarding the chickens and rabbits and what would actually be considered a household pet. It was noted that the code complaints came from the horses. There was further discussion about the setbacks for agriculture.
Commr. Hill noted that the Comprehensive Plan encourages agriculture pursuits, but she pointed out the city limits in relation to the urban expansion, and questioned how this area became R-6 and R-8.
It was clarified that the property in question used to be agriculture, and there is a lot of swamp land, and the people in the area prefer to keep the property in agriculture instead of housing developments.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in the past, the Board has been able to grant a less intense zoning than what had been advertised and she questioned whether they could approve AR zoning today, based on the advertising.
Mr. Minkoff explained that, in the past, if someone asked for R-6, they have approved R-4, which would be less restrictive, to keep them from having to come back to the Board. Here they have asked for A, which would be one to five acres and, to come back to something like AR, which would be two and a quarter acres, would probably not fit that definition. His recommendation would be to re-advertise the request.
Commr. Hanson stated she agrees that, to rezone this property to agriculture, it would be spot zoning.
Commr. Hanson made a motion to deny Case PH#57-03-4, Debra J. Ragan, R-6 (Urban Residential) and R-8 (Mixed Residential) to A (Agriculture), Tracking #86-03-Z.
If the applicants can come back and apply for AR, Commr. Hanson wanted to know if they could do so without having to pay an additional fee, if approved by the Board.
Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff clarified that AR would eliminate commercial agriculture. In AR, they could only have their own horses where, in agriculture, they could actually board horses, as an example; they could raise horses for profit in agriculture, whereas, in AR, typically it would only be their own household horses. The intensity is really the difference between A and AR. He clarified that AR does not have a limitation of numbers specifically but, because it says you can only have normal accessory uses, it does limit them.
Commr. Cadwell, Chairman, passed the gavel to Commr. Stivender, Vice Chairman, to second the motion.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to ask the Board, if the applicant chooses to come back for a rezoning that might work to their benefit, that they work with them on the fees.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to deny Case PH#57-03-4, Debra J. Ragan, R-6 (Urban Residential) and R-8 (Mixed Residential) to A (Agriculture), Tracking #86-03-Z, without prejudice.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell clarified that, if the applicants can find a zoning that will pacify the neighbors and still let them keep their horses, then they can come back through the hearing process, and the Board will probably waive the fees.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that, in terms of the code enforcement issue, if the applicants actively pursue changing the zoning, the code enforcement matter will be held up.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:40 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board will take a five minute recess, and then he will reconvene the meeting, and the Board will go into a closed session. He will then reconvene the regular meeting and close the closed session, and then the Board will recess for lunch, until 1:30 p.m.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:45 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board will reconvene its regular meeting and now go into a closed session.
CLOSED SESSION - COVANTA
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Florida Statute 286.011 allows the Board to have a closed meeting, once the County Attorney makes this request, which he did at the last meeting. Once they go into closed session, the subject matter will be limited to settlement negotiations, or strategy sessions, relating to litigation expenditures. A court reporter is present and will record the time that they start and the time that they close, as well as names of all persons present, all of the Commissioners, Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, and himself, as well as Mr. Bruce Harris and Mr. Prineet Sharma, from Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. They can have nothing off the record, and the court reporter will transcribe the notes, which will be released at the time that litigation ends. They will begin the meeting at a open session, at approximately 11:45 a.m., and they anticipate that they will be here for an hour.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:35 p.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board will close the closed session and reconvene its regular meeting. The Board will now recess for lunch and reconvene the regular meeting at 1:30 p.m.
REZONING CASE PH#56-03-2 - WENDART II, LLC - A TO C-2
SCOTT SUMNER - TRACKING #82-03-Z
Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#56-03-2, Wendart II, LLC, a request from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial), to provide full-scale retail and professional services to serve several small communities. Mr. O’Brien explained that this proposal was initially submitted in July. It is a small parcel along the north side of Highway 50 east of Clermont. Because of non-specified future land uses and, in the applicant’s absence at the meeting, it is staff’s recommendation against the rezoning, due to traffic and urban sprawl concerns, and the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission recommended denial. The City of Clermont staff had echoed County staff recommendations against the rezoning stating that no changes to zoning designations within the Joint Planning Area (JPA) should be approved until the Future Land Use Map is amended to reflect deficient growth patterns for retail and office uses. Prior to the meeting, staff met with the applicants and, as a result of that meeting, the applicants submitted a notice revising their request to CP, and prior to the P & Z meeting earlier this month; staff did not receive the notice until the day after that meeting. Staff understands that, once the C-2 zoning had been advertised, it is customary to allow the applicant the discretion of whether to withdraw the initial petition and re-process the application requesting the CP (Planned Commercial) zoning rather than the C-2 zoning. The applicant/owner is here, and he would like him to make that decision.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Chris Smith addressed the Board and stated that they own the parcel to the west of the property in question, and they are building a Chrysler-Plymouth dealership on that property. They bought the land to put their sand on and they are about half way through constructing their new building. They have decided that they may need to use part of the land for their dealership. The property is a little over seven acres, and their goal is to zone the property, for their future needs. Once they determine the actual use of the property, they will go through the process to determine their design needs. Mr. Smith stated that C-2 zoning was advertised; the other parcel is CP and sits directly west of the property in question.
Mr. O’Brien clarified that, if it were to be zoned CP, it would afford the County more flexibility in specifying conditions within the ordinance, which may require dedication of land for turn lanes, access management improvements, or other things that would not be allowed in the straight C-2 zoning.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the request would have to come back to the Board, because CP requires a site plan, at the Board level, that they do not have today. The only way they can avoid coming back to the Board for a public hearing would be to get straight C-2 zoning.
Mr. Scott Sumner stated that they did not know exactly how they would be using the property. They knew that, with C-2 zoning, they would be coming back to staff for approval of site plan concurrency, and all other issues, but they did not think they would have to come before the Board again, if they got CP zoning, with C-2 uses. They were trying to come to the Board with an approval from staff, and that is the reason they met with staff before the P & Z Commission meeting. They did not realize that they were still on the P & Z Commission agenda, which was their mistake, but most of their comments were so minor that the issues would have been addressed in a typical site plan review.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the Board could approve this request today to CP, with C-2 uses, and with the same regulations that were put on the parcel next to it, so it would be consistent with what was done on the other piece of property.
Mr. Minkoff stated that Chapter 14 requires that there be a site plan approved as part of the CP ordinance, so normally the Board would have some semblance of a site plan with a CP.
In that case, the best thing to do would be to postpone it for a month, so they can submit a site plan, and then bring it back to the Board and do it the appropriate way, and then the P & Z Commission would get another look at it, as well.
Commr. Stivender stated that, with a CP, with C-2 uses, the applicants will not have to give staff a conceptual plan, because they will not know what uses will be there. Staff will indicate the C-2 uses under the CP but, as they build, they will come in with the site plans, so they will not need a defined use in CP, with C-2 uses.
Discussion continued regarding time lines, with the applicant indicating that a 30 day postponement would not hinder their plans. The applicant indicated that, if they were to leave today knowing that they could expand their parking, by showing this Board, and the City of Clermont, an application of a site plan, with landscaping and buffers, then they would be happy but, if they have a high traffic user coming in to use the property, then they should have to come back before the Board. It was noted that, if they extended their parking onto the site in question at this point in time, they would not be in compliance with the code.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the Board could approve CP, to be added to the existing CP, to be used only for parking, because this would be less than what C-2 allows and, if it was only for that purpose, and they meet all setbacks and all other requirements in C-2, then that could be done today. If the new ordinance was written so that it was tied with the existing CP of the dealership; it was only going to be used for parking; they would meet all of the requirements of C-2 as to setbacks and landscaping; there would be no additional accesses on the highway from this property; then there would be no reason not to approve it, because it would be less restrictive than C-2.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, on August 27th, staff discussed with the applicant the idea of amending the CP, to expand the dealership, and then coming back when they had specific uses.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to rezone the property to CP (Planned Commercial); it will be treated as an amendment of the CP that is already there for the dealership; that this property only be used for parking in connection with that dealership; it will meet all requirements of landscaping, and buffering of C-2; and there will be no additional accesses given onto SR 50.
Under discussion, staff explained that the CP on the property next to it limits it to a certain amount of square footage, which the applicants have decided to break into two dealerships. The number of cars, as far as each of those dealerships that carry its own inventory, was not addressed in the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE PH#55-03-3 - SES GROUP LAKE CO. ASSOCIATION
TERESA GREENHAM, LPG - RM TO CP - TRACKING #83-03-CP
Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#55-03-3, SES Group Lake Co. Association, Ltd., Teresa Greenham, LPG, a request from RM (Mobile Home Residential) with a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) to CP (Planned Commercial). Mr. O’Brien explained that the property is situated on the southwest side of Highway 27 and east of the Industrial Park at O’Brien Road. The applicant has presented staff with a list of specified uses to include, and others he wishes to exclude. As indicated in the Summary of Staff, there is some redeeming value in the ability to direct overall improvements to the transportation and access management aspects of the development in advance of the individual development as it may subsequently occur and staff recommends conditional approval (1) providing that the collective development be designed as an integrated unit, not constituting nor contributing to strip commercial development, and (2) subject to traffic analysis findings, conclusions and improvements recommended by Public Works. It was noted that Public Works had reviewed this when they reviewed Heritage Lakes; they would need an update of their traffic study for their specific uses, as they come for a site plan review; and there appeared to be adequate capacity for the project at this time. In the ordinance, staff covered the specific uses including the design of the property, environmental issues, and some lighting conditions. The P & Z Commission recommended approval 6-0 to CP zoning.
Commr. Hill, Commr. Stivender, Commr. Hanson, and Commr. Pool disclosed that they talked to Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group (LPG) on this case.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he would like to have Mr. Greg Beliveau go through the project and clarify the ordinance.
Mr. Greg Beliveau addressed the Board and pointed out on Page 6 that the ordinance refers to this as a PUD, but it is a CP. Mr. Beliveau pointed out that the ordinance today requires that they do a full plat for the whole site, and they would like to reserve the right to fare meets and bounds, based on the conceptual plan and, as discussed earlier, it may have some movement to it. They would also like to have the ability to have some access to Highway 27; staff is requiring that they only have access off of the interior road, whether it be by joint driveways, or something else. For a point of clarification, staff did indicate that Public Works signed off of the traffic analysis, and they did provide a direct response to their issues. The applicant also supplied an environmental assessment on June 20th with the application, which outlined the environmental conditions of the site.
Through discussion and, for clarification, the applicant was proposing the following: Page 2, Section 1., A. 2. Design - that language be added that would allow them to have access to Highway 27 either through joint driveways or frontage road; and for the first sentence under Development Review to be stricken.
Mr. Richey addressed the issue of meets and bounds, which they discussed with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and stated that the DCA advised them, if it was put under a master plan, as proposed in this situation and platting, it may very well trigger a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) but, because of the mixed use thresholds with various kinds of uses, selling it off as individual parcels is exempted from that DRI process. It was noted that they do not have a problem with the language that addresses the DRI issue, which has been placed in the ordinance by staff. It was further clarified that they were asking that the Board delete the prohibition to have any access to Highway 27, and to allow them to meet the access management requirements, either through frontage roads, or duel driveways. It was noted that they had letters from the utility providers. Mr. Richey stated that, because the language states “preliminary plats”, he understands that to mean that they will be platting it; if they are not platting it, and they are only required to plat if they choose to plat, then he did not have a problem with the language.
After some discussion, the following language was presented for consideration: Page 4, F. 1. - required to submit site plans and preliminary and final plats, if applicable. In regards to the earlier discussion about the 20% open space requirement, it was pointed out that it would be the requirement for a PUD, not a CP. It was noted that the open space requirement would be considered on every parcel, not on the whole property, so it would be in excess of 20%.
Commr. Cadwell noted that there was no one present in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson requested clarification of the open space requirement, with Mr. Beliveau noting that it would be 20% per parcel, and the language needed to be changed in the ordinance.
Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve Rezoning Case PH#55-03-3, SES Group Lake Co. Association, Teresa Greenham, LPG, RM (Mobile Home Residential) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to CP (Planned Commercial),Tracking #83-03-CP, Ordinance 2003-82, with the following changes: Page 2 - A.2., access to lots fronting along Highway 27 shall be limited to joint driveways or frontage roads to Highway 27 (or appropriate verbiage); Page 3 - B. 1., the required open space for the project is 20% , such open space shall be calculated on a per parcel basis (for clarification); Page 4 - Development Review, F. 1., prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall be required to submit site plans and final plat documents for review and approval by the Lake County Development Review Staff, whichever is applicable; Page 5 - Section 2. D. , change “PUD” to “CP”.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that there has been a lot of interest in this particular parcel over the years, because it is right near the County’s Industrial Park, and he thinks that this zoning is very appropriate because it will allow other things that are needed there and will support the work force. He felt that any type of commercial at this location will be good for the work force that is there.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in going through the review process, she hopes that there is a pretty attractive design that is created for it, and that the access management requirements will be addressed through site plan review.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE PH#53-03-5 - JUDITH K. & ROBERT J. BYRNE
RMRP TO A - TRACKING #85-03-Z
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#53-03-5, Judith K. And Robert J. Byrne, a request from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to A (Agriculture), which is a down zoning request; the mobile home rental park was never developed. Mr. Hartenstein explained that this is a 155 acre parcel that is in the rural land use category, and it is basically surrounded by existing agriculture. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which promotes agriculture in rural areas; it is consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); and staff is recommending approval of the request. Mr. Hartenstein noted that the number of units were never addressed in the RMRP zoning.
Commr. Hanson pointed out that the earlier zoning would have allowed at least seven or eight dwelling units to the acre, and they are taking that many off of the inventory of buildable lots.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the applicant was present and there was no one present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the request was in his district and he would appreciate a motion to approve.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Rezoning Case PH#53-03-5, Judith & Robert Byrne, RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to A (Agriculture), Tracking #85-03-Z, Ordinance 2003-83.
REZONING CASE PH#16-03-2 - ROBERT SHAKAR (CONTRACTED OWNER)
JOHN P. ADAMS PROPERTIES, INC. (OWNER) - GREG BELIVEAU, PRESIDENT
LPG URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. - R-6 AND A TO PUD
Commr. Hill, Commr. Stivender, Commr. Hanson, and Commr. Pool disclosed that they had spoken with all parties involved in this case.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar/John P. Adam Properties, Inc., and noted that Mr. Greg Beliveau and Mr. Steve Richey are the representatives for the case. Mr. Richardson stated that this is a request from R-6 (Urban Residential) and A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development (PUD). He addressed the history of the case by explaining that it has gone through several revisions, all coming from the original plan, which was a blending of densities that were based on an overall unit calculation and underlying land uses. They now have another revised plan, as shown in the backup, that has 148.6 acres, to be included in the PUD. In the staff report, the issue was raised about the amount of acreage that will be used for the calculation of timeliness. In looking at everything that was to be included in the development on the last proposal, there were 144.5 acres within the transition, but the applicant was requesting to use only 99 acres to base their timeliness calculations, which is under the 100 acres. There still remains the issue that both the transitional parcel, and the suburban parcel, to be included in the PUD, do not meet timeliness at this time. Both parcels are short by almost 20% and, because of this inconsistency, staff is still recommending denial of the request, because it does not currently meet the Comprehensive Plan. Another issue raised by staff was the allocation of open space. The applicant has addressed this in the revised plan, by providing additional open space within the urban expansion areas, which will be carried forward to the southern suburban parcel, as it meets timeliness. The transitional area will still have to meet 60%, so they are allocating their open space, based on land use. It was noted that the total number of units will be 251.
Commr. Stivender stated that the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission recommended approval 5-3 back in May, 2003. She would like to see that plan, as shown at the P & Z Commission meeting, and for someone to point out the difference between that plan and the one being presented today.
Mr. Richardson explained that the plan submitted in May had a total of 208 lots, with 77 of those being in the transitional area, and there was a planned utility area. Staff did not recommend approval at that time, because the plan was based on the blending of densities, which was done by taking the overall unit calculation and moving them however they would best fit on the property. He noted that the utility plant would have been in the transitional area but, in the proposal today, they are not indicating the location of the plant. In the new plan, there will be 99 lots in the transitional area, which will be the maximum for the acreage they are using.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and, after questioning Mr. Richardson, it was determined that the area in transition that the Board would be approving today would be based on one dwelling unit per five acres and, in their proposal, they were asking the Board to zone the transitional and suburban areas to PUD, based on not meeting timeliness on the 99 acres. At some future date, if they submit an application to staff, and they meet timeliness on either the suburban, or the transitional, then they can go above that number, as being proposed in the PUD.
Mr. Richardson clarified that the plan allows for 20 units within the transitional, and two units in the suburban, without meeting timeliness, and this could be done as part of the PUD and would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if this was the request.
Mr. Richey called Mr. Beliveau to the podium to present a detailed history of the request. He stated that he has supplied the Deputy Clerk with all of the exhibits that Mr. Beliveau is going to refer to in his testimony, which duplicate some of what the Board has just seen from staff. The documentation was marked as Exhibit A (Applicant) - Composite - (13) documents that included a list of time line/County issues, staff reports, charts, and maps. He asked if the Board would accept Mr. Beliveau as an expert in the areas of Lake County LDRs and Comprehensive Plan, with the Board making this acknowledgment.
Mr. Beliveau presented an overview of the project, from January 1, 2003. The original plan encompassed a little over 314 acres, with central utilities on site for a sewer plant, and they originally received positive comments from the Development Review Staff. They were also anticipating a joint venture with the School Board to tie in their facility. They received a negative staff report, which indicated that the plan was not properly taking into consideration the environmental constraints, and they needed to move most of the units closer to CR 561, which had 96 units in the Green Swamp and was reduced from 129. Those 96 units were moved into the urban expansion suburban areas, and the park was moved to the transitional area and partly into suburban. They met with the P & Z Commission and, during the hearing, there was a request to reduce the number of units in the Green Swamp again, from 96 to 72, with more open space disappearing. In the packet was a chart that went through the different gestations and showed the unit changes. During the P & Z Commission hearing, staff was asked repeatedly about the densities that were allowed on the project, if no PUD was approved. At that time, they were not evoking timeliness; they were evoking the blending; they took a total count of the different land use categories, as noted, which allowed them to have 208 units without timeliness. Staff provided a report, which indicated that this design met their environmental requirements and provided a plan that addressed their issues, and they were complimented on that design. Unfortunately, staff was not happy with this design because of the blending of the units, and they were applying two policies, one, the timeliness policy, and two, Policy 1.11.11 that addressed the crossing of densities. After that meeting, they met with the DCA, and the opposition, to try and develop a compromise where they could do the blending and meet all tests. During that period, it was determined that they would have to buy development rights from someone in the Green Swamp, which was not financially feasible for Mr. Shakar. They met with staff and withdrew the blending text amendment and said that they would take whatever was allowed in transitional, and in urban expansion and suburban. They went back to a design that they felt met the tests, and they took central sewer off the table, because of negative input from the opposition. They submitted another plan to County staff, with a septic tank design, and they met with them on the issue of timeliness on the 99 acres. They were of the understanding that, as long as they had a section that was 99 acres within the transition, they could use that for the 20% and one mile, versus 60% two miles. They received a new staff report that said there were deficiencies with this and, in order for them to meet the requirements, they had to have central sewer. It was noted that this plan complied with the Clermont Joint Planning Area (JPA) agreement that was passed by the Board this morning, with regard to all of the criteria being proposed. They basically took this plan and copied it to those requirements including the deletion of the southwest corner.
It was clarified by Mr. Richey that, in the proposal today, they are wanting the full acreage rezoned PUD, and for the density to be what is currently allowed in the R-6.
Mr. Beliveau stated that originally they just wanted the area that was contained in the R-6 urban expansion to be rezoned PUD, and for the urban tract and transition tract to remain vacant. They asked staff to go through the criteria for timeliness, and to do an assessment of compliance except for rooftops, because they knew they did not meet that requirement, so it would show that it would show that they met four out of five of the tests. At their meeting last week, staff was not comfortable recommending this to the Board. Mr. Beliveau stated that the applicant is willing to condition the PUD, to leave the two areas vacant, until such time they meet timeliness but, by leaving those areas vacant, the applicant wanted to at least know the development potential for the site, when he does meet timeliness. He also felt that the area described as “two fingers” should be removed and a more compact plan should be developed, so they submitted a new plan taking out those areas, as noted, and compacted the area, which would now include central sewer, and they would get the maximum potential, once timeliness is met on those two tracts. Staff felt that there were still some inconsistencies, as noted earlier by Mr. Richardson, that they had an area that was greater than the 99 and, even though they meet the open space requirement on the whole PUD, they did not meet the open space requirement in the noted area. Mr. Beliveau stated that the comments from staff were received late Friday. They addressed the concerns and now have a plan that has 118 units in the urban expansion area, and they are only asking to develop the 40 acres. They would like to have the park as part of this phase, to use in the transition area and, in talking to staff about the location of the sewer plant, they are now looking at only a package plant to serve this project, which could possibly be placed in the transition area near the park or, in another location depending on elevations and topography. The plan recognizes the environmental constraints, which he quoted from the staff report, as follows: “Staff finds that the clustering proposed by this application is sufficient to protect the natural resources of the Green Swamp and is thus consistent with this policy.” The last two staff reports allude to the fact that they are going to have too many units in the Green Swamp and violates the policy of how many permits are issued in the Green Swamp per year. Mr. Beliveau stated that they still are below the maximum allowed under that policy, which reads that, in a transition area, you cannot plat more than 120 lots a year and you cannot permit greater than 100 building permits a year. There are 99 in the transition area; they do not propose to plat over 120; and they are not asking for any variance, or special conditions, to that policy. The April 22nd and June 24th staff reports (included in Exhibit A) showed them to be consistent with less than 100 units in the transition area.
Mr. Beliveau reviewed an aerial (included in Exhibit A) showing a two mile radius with 1998 residential structures, and stated that there are 2,304 residential structures within that two mile radius, on septic tanks. He noted that this was a two year old aerial, and there are a lot more houses now, because of the surrounding subdivisions that have developed over the last two years.
Mr. Beliveau explained that, if Mr. Shakar did not want to develop a PUD, he could come in today and ask for a subdivision, which would mirror more closely to the previous plan, which showed the septic tank design, because they would not have the open space requirements that they do under a PUD. They have gone through this process to try and get a better product, and they have been convinced that this was probably not the route they should have gone, but they are now before the Board with a project that complies with all current requirements within the Comprehensive Plan, and the LDRs. They are asking that the PUD have the two conditions that allows them to submit at future dates the justification and documentation for compliance with the timeliness check. The ordinance does allow for an appeal to the County Commission, if there is a disagreement on that review, and they are willing to accept those requirements.
Mr. Richey summarized the request, as follows: the PUD before the Board today (Exhibit A) has 39 1/2 acres that is in Phase I and, in that acreage, which is zoned R-6, they are asking for units to be approved. The rest of the property, Phase II, which is suburban and zoned R-6 and not in the Green Swamp, would not have any units on it, and nothing would happen on this property, until a future submittal by subsequent application to show they meet timeliness. In regard to Phase III, which is transition in the Green Swamp and zoned Agriculture, it would be left vacant with the exception of a park, and it would be utilized for nothing until such time as a future application is provided to staff, and it meets the requirements of timeliness. Until that time, it will remain vacant with a working orange grove, and a park, and perhaps an accessory use for a sewer plant. He further noted that, if staff cannot determine whether it meets timeliness, there is a provision that they can come back to the Board.
Other issues of discussion were addressed including the surrounding activity in the area, with it being noted that the area to the west has less rooftops, because it is land use transition and zoned agriculture. It was explained that, if this request fails today, the property will most likely be developed pursuant to the current LDRs, which would basically allow the density that the applicant is proposing today. During the discussion, all parties basically agreed that this may not be the best plan, but it meets all requirements of the code. It was pointed out that the applicant will have 50 foot buffers around the project, as shown on the site plan, which is their open space, and which would not be required if they developed it in straight zoning. It was explained that the applicant has exceeded the straight zoning by doing it through the PUD, which allows such luxuries not required in the LDRs. It was clarified that the PUD takes density that is in the urban expansion and R-6 and provides for density that could be done without a PUD.
Mr. Beliveau addressed the school issue and referred to information that had been included in Exhibit A, which indicates that, on the 150 acre site, they would be allowed 182 dwelling units without timeliness and, based on the latest formula received from the School Board, it would calculate to a total of 91 students, under the existing zoning, and the existing land. The project that they are asking for today will have 118 dwelling units, and a total of 59 students, but they are 32 students below the maximum potential development under the existing Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. With timeliness, the site can accommodate 289 dwelling units, which equals 145 students; their plan calls for 247 dwelling units, which would calculate to 124 students; so they would be 21 students less than what is allowed. Mr. Beliveau clarified that the part in the urban expansion is in Utilities Inc. water service area, and the area in transition is in the 180 District for Clermont for water and sewer.
Mr. Richey clarified that there was testimony from County staff that indicated that this is an urbanizing area, which justified the staff recommendation for the school on that site.
Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Shakar is present and, after hearing concerns of those in the area, he would like to be allowed to address the Board and respond to those concerns.
Ms. Peggy Cox stated that she lives in Clermont, in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, and she has some very serious concerns about this, as well as some of her neighbors who could not be here. Ms. Cox explained that Pine Ridge Elementary already has three portables, and there is definitely a traffic issue coming in and out of that school. She is concerned about safety at Pine Island Road and CR 561, and there are no sidewalks, so children do not walk to the school. She has a copy of the proposed ordinance for the development order, and she has a problem with the request for a phased PUD development, with Phase II and Phase III only being activated when timeliness is met, which means that the applicant is asking for something that he cannot legally do right now. It puts a PUD zoning on this piece of property which, under current regulations, could go at one house for five acres, therefore, in the future, Mr. Shakar, or whoever owns it, could come in with a different plan, which she finds very troublesome. She stated that, if they are including the transition area of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern in a development order, she assumes that the DCA must approve it, or review it. Ms. Cox stated that she and others do not want to see a sewer treatment plant, because of the cumulative effects that will come with more people, and there will be more nutrient laden runoff into the stormwater. She explained that this is an EBD area, and four times more people from the transition area will mean more impervious structures, more roads, and more demand on health and safety services. They need to understand that sewer lines and sewer treatment plants are not exempt from causing environmental problems. She believes that this whole area that has densities of over one house an acre should have been on sewer, and the Board approved for all of this area to be on septic tanks, before 1993. She noted that Policy 1-1.6A says that central water and sewer is required if the site is located inside an improved service area, and all of that area in inside of an improved service area. Their biggest concern is that the Board is opening a door and approving a PUD development for densities, based on future timeliness criteria being met, and they are rezoning property that can be used as a precedent for greater densities in an area where they do not want to see greater densities.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton stated that she is speaking as Land Use and Water Issues Chairman for Alliance to Protect Water Resources, as a resident of Clermont, South Lake County, and as a property owner in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Ms. Fullerton addressed the issue of timeliness and stated that, until you meet timeliness, you would not be building anything, so she does not see why this is such a “great deal”. She stated that the Board has read her letter, as well as other comments, about concerns. If the Board followed today’s rules, the applicants could develop a wonderful ecological design, as discussed at the P & Z Commission meeting, and they could have about 55 clustered homes, with no big increase in density, but their intent is to somehow use this Green Swamp Area as a way to justify the crammed development along CR 561. Ms. Fullerton stated that the plan that has been presented today would not have been heard at the P & Z Commission meeting, because it had not been invented and this is reactionary planning. The Board is voting today on a total PUD, and they believe that this PUD does not even fit the requirements of being an integrated unit, whether there is anything built on it or not, and it is her understanding that the School Board did come before the P & Z Commission in April, or May, and there was an impact on schools. She referred to Ms. Saylor’s comments this morning about double sessions and redistricting children and stated that it was her understanding that about 153 units could be built today, and that would allow about 28 in the Green Swamp, and this could be a wonderful ecological design, but it still comes down to the Board approving a PUD that depends on future happenings; that commits development in the Green Swamp, and which may prove totally wrong for future times. They have seen the effects of vesting problems in decisions on the past, and there has been tremendous consequences, such as the reality of water shortage; gridlock roads; overcrowded roads; the incinerators; and developments such as Sugarloaf. If and when timeliness is met, the Board is still approving a total package PUD. She questioned whether the Board was willing to ignore the clearly stated Comprehensive policies regarding timeliness and stated that timeliness was not met; it is all premature; and it should not be approved. Ms. Fullerton showed the Board three photographs, which were submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 (composite - 3 photos) for the Opposition. The pictures were of the property in question, Saw Mill Lake, the school, and the west side of the Green Swamp. Ms. Fullerton strongly recommended that the Board not approve the request. The revised plan was not received until Friday and, even though the plan it getting worse, it does not mean that the first plan was good. She explained that the Council voted to have the Green Swamp in the JPA today, because they realized that the fight is today, and she would really doubt that the City of Clermont would approve this plan. She asked that Commr. Hill vote today to protect the Green Swamp.
Ms. Pamela Fisher, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that, in 2001, the Board denied the housing development on CR 561 that was only one half mile from this proposed development, because the land was in the suburban designation, the timeliness was not met, and the development was premature. Ms. Fisher believes that they have the same conditions with this proposed development. In 1998, she, along with another neighbor compiled 40 acres, in order to comply with the regulations and policies of Lake County for having and raising horses and maintaining a rural lifestyle. If she had known about this 251 dwelling unit development, to the east of her property, she would not have gone through the effort and expense of buying this property, in order to down zone, so she would be in compliance with the policies of this County. As an adjacent property owner, she is adamantly opposed to this development and is asking the Board to deny the development, so that she and her neighbors on CR 561 can live in their currently chosen lifestyle.
Mr. Tim Titus, Clermont, stated that he owns ten acres west of the Adams grove, and he is in opposition to this rezoning. Mr. Titus addressed the water issue and explained that the number of homes being proposed will use far more water than what is being used now by the grove owners. He stated that the Board needs to take control of all of this sprawl that is taking place over the County. He spoke of areas where the traffic has become unbearable including on Hancock Road and Lakeshore Drive, and he questioned how the County was going to pay for the impact on schools, which are already at capacity, fire departments, and other services, when they continue to approve more housing. Mr. Titus stated that the Board passed a new impact fee, but they need to slow down, because five years down the road will be too late. There are supposed to be no sewer plants in the Green Swamp, and it is supposed to be one house per five acres, and he received no notice of this last hearing.
Mr. Richey clarified the numbers in ordinance, which were as follows: Page 2, A. 1. Phase I - 118 units; Phase II - 30 units; Phase III - 99 units; Page 3, E. Open Space - 71 acres of open space, and 59 rather than 89.
Mr. Richey stated that he met with the School Board about this piece of property, and he was advised that this particular school was approaching capacity. They are asking the Board to approve a density that is in keeping with the R-6. All of this property can be rezoned to PUD, and the Board has the right to put conditions on it. The Board is approving 30 acres in Phase I with a park; Phase II will be left to meet timeliness; and Phase III will be left to meet timeliness. The transition that is zoned agriculture is located in Clermont’s 180 District for central water and sewer. Mr. Richey explained that all of the projects that have been developed in this area in R-6 are not on central sewer, because it was in Clermont’s 180 District, and they would not extend lines to provide service. He stated that Utilities, Inc. (Lake Utilities) has provided central water in that area and has been the provider. The school is there and, with the testimony that was provided for the school, the positive staff recommendation said that this was an urbanizing area and, therefore, this justified the school. It is urbanizing along CR 561, because it is zoned R-6, and it is an urban expansion area. The Board is approving the density on the urban expansion, approving a PUD for the entire tract so that a master system can be put in place and, as it reaches timeliness, the Board is allowing it to develop as the rules exist today. There is no prohibition in the rules for the Green Swamp, with regard to sewer systems. He noted that Clermont has a sprayfield in the Green Swamp; Groveland has a sewer plant and a sprayfield in the system that has been approved by the DCA; but there is nothing in the rules, as they exist today, that prohibits a package plant, or central system, from going into this area to serve the R-6 development, or any future development within this PUD. In fact, if Clermont will provide them with sewer, they will be happy to take utilities from Clermont, and they will happy to take central water from them, under their 180 District. Mr. Richey stated that they have worked with the project for two years trying to make it different than what they are seeing today, but they could not overcome the fears and concerns that people had with regard to any kind of blending in the Green Swamp, or any kind of clustering, as discussed. He stated that there is no compelling reason why this PUD should not be granted on these terms and conditions that they have proposed.
Commr. Hanson stated that the information provided to them shows ten acres for open space, which is not in the ordinance, and it needs to be in the ordinance because, if they cannot transfer density from one future land use category to the other, they probably cannot transfer open space. It was noted that the applicant had no problem adding this to the ordinance.
Commr. Pool stated that everything being shown today meets all code requirements, and he asked the County Attorney whether he could see anything that was inconsistent in any way with the proposal being presented to them today.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the densities are limited in the areas where timeliness applies to the maximum density, as required, then it would not be inconsistent.
Mr. Richey clarified that the most they could ever have on the 99 acres is one to five and, until they meet timeliness, there will be zero density in Phase II and Phase III, so they have exceeded what has just been stated by Mr. Minkoff.
There being no further public comment, Commr. Cadwell closed the public hearing and reserved comment to the Board.
Commr. Pool stated that he is concerned with the numerous plans and ideas to come forward to the Board. The applicant has tried to develop an idea that would be a benefit, or unique opportunity, in this area, and people have come forward to voice their opinions, and now here they are with this design. If he had his preference, he appreciated the blending concept, which was a unique idea, but it is not in their rules and regulations. The applicant has tried to develop a project that meets all of the criteria, and he has heard all of the concerns, but the applicant can come back and do things without the PUD. Commr. Pool stated that it is difficult for him to deny someone the opportunity who has worked within the rules, worked with staff, and consistently tried to bring back a plan that works for this location, with this zone. Staff mandated central sewer and, when you look at the outlined area that is on well and septic, you can see that the applicant was trying to do something different. He hopes that staff can come up with some ideas, because some of these ideas were good ideas, and he thinks that some of the rules need to be reviewed and potentially changed in the future. Commr. Pool stated that he will abstain from a motion at this time, to hear comments from his fellow Commissioners.
Commr. Hanson stated that this plan does leave much of that land in citrus, until it meets timeliness, which is a positive and, without water and sewer, the property they are looking at today would only be about two units to the acre, as opposed to four with the central utilities. She has made it well known that she certainly believes in clustering, but she felt that the neighbors would not like many of the clustering concepts either. She would also be very supportive of having complexes like the ones in Magnolia Point that would allow more open space on this same property, rather than having one lot so close to the next. It does have its 25% of open space but, if they are truly wanting to protect the environment and provide more open space, they need to look at how they have a smaller footprint for each individual residence on the property, and you can significantly increase the open space in that development, but it is going to take a different mind-set, and people who are more receptive to more creative concepts, as they look at clustering. She stated that it is very important that they look at the impervious surface that they create in a development. She does not have a problem waiting until the rest of the project meets timeliness; it is appropriate with the Comprehensive Plan; but she is disappointed with what they are left with today.
Commr. Stivender clarified that what they are left with today are the rules and regulations that are in place that they have to follow. She thinks that staff understands that they are trying to look for other things and will be working on those to make better projects. She stated that they asked the School Board specifically if they were going to have capacity for any development around there, and they said the schools were built for capacity and, even though she understands about the children and the redistricting, this is what the Board has to rely on today, because they do not have their documentation. The analysis presented by Mr. Beliveau is very clear on what they can do there right now, and this is better than what they could do there, because there is open space, and they are required to put in sidewalks, and all of the other items that they would not have to do, if it was not a PUD.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he is concerned that, with the 251 homes, or any new homes they approve from here on out, until they find something to do other than impact fees, it is just compounding the school problem, and it is going to continue to get worse and, to include that transition in the PUD is a mistake, unless there were some things that were going to be done, that had been discussed originally, with the blending, because that comes closer to making more sense than what they are doing today and, even though Mr. Richey said they will develop it under the straight zoning, if that is what they have to do, he does not believe the market is there, and he does not believe they will and he believes it will take that project a lot longer to develop. He believes it will come back one day with the original property and be more timely in its development than it is today, and he would hope that the Board would take that into consideration. He believes that a negative vote today would postpone that development because, if it would develop under straight zoning, they would have done it two years ago and not spent all of this money. He stated that they can make it wait until it is more timely, and it may never become more timely under their own policies.
Commr. Hill stated that she understands the concerns about the schools, but the fight was a year ago when the school came in because that was the catalyst for development in this area and, when they approved that school knowing this would bring development, they knew this was in the works. She sat with Ms. Fullerton and talked to her about this in great detail, and no one showed up to say otherwise that the school should not be there and, for that, she thinks they made a commitment to that area. The School Board said they had capacity and assured the Board that they could handle any and all future growth, and the school abuts right to that development. The developer tried to work with the School Board, to do that collaboratively with them, but it never materialized and, even though they need to make some adjustments, she does not know if that is the Board’s responsibility at this point and, if the School Board does not choose to make the commitment to go ahead and do something pro-active within their own board and finances, she does not know how they can hold up other peoples’ vested rights.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if the central services were not there, it would be two units to the acre, because that is what the rules allow today but, with those utilities, they have said all along that they want the utilities to go beyond two units to the acre, and that is what they are providing. All they had to do was look at the Land Use Map, and the zoning map, that was approved before any of them were on this Board. There is R-6 in this whole area, which is six units to the acre, and they said this is where they were going to need a school, because it would not be long before all of this area would be in the Clermont 180 District, an then there would be the potential to have up to four units to the acre throughout this area. She agrees with Commr. Cadwell, but this is a smaller piece, and the other may never be developed other than one to five, and that could be the reality. She stated that they may want to put a time limit on it, because she is concerned about it being out there forever and never being brought to a closure.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve Rezoning Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar, Presco, Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, R-6 & A to PUD, Tracking #33-03-PUD, Ordinance 2003-84, for 118 units on this phase of this project, to include the following changes in the ordinance, which were agreed to by the Board: Page 2 - 1. A. Residential, 1. Phase 1 - 118 units; Phase II - 30 units; Phase III - 99 units; Page 3 - E. Open Space - 71 acres of open space and rather than 89, it is 59 in the same sentence.
Commr. Cadwell, Chairman, passed the gavel to Commr. Stivender, Vice Chairman, and made a motion to eliminate the 99 acres in the PUD, which is classified as Phase III in the Green Swamp.
Commr. Hill seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool stated that, by removing Phase III, he sees 99 lots, and he questioned whether it was lots, or acres.
Mr. Richey clarified that, if it meets timeliness, it can go to one to one. He stated that, by deleting Phase III, it destroys the PUD, because they cannot buy the property, as proposed, and that means they will end up going back to a straight zoning. They will not have the ability to do what they talked about doing today. The property owner, Mr. Adams, has certain requirements and, if they cannot do what they talked about doing in this PUD and wait on timeliness, then they will not have the PUD potential that is there today, with the additional benefits that the County gets with it.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that, because she seconded the motion, she wanted to make sure that Commr. Cadwell understood that the Board has no restrictions, because it would be a straight zoning, and not a PUD, and that they could condition the 99 acres.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he understands this completely but he believes that, because of the market, it would slow that development down.
Mr. Richey stated that the Board needs to look at what is being platted around the property that is in straight zoning and know that it is happening every day, so he does not think that is the case. He stated that his client has property that is all tied together, and they have one owner that has owned the property since the 1980s, and he is trying to save part of the grove, and it will not work if they split it up, as Commr. Cadwell has proposed.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion, to take Phase III out of the PUD, as noted.
The motion died by a 1-4 vote, with Commrs. Hill, Pool, Stivender, and Hanson voting “no”.
Commr. Stivender, Vice Chairman, passed the gavel back to Commr. Cadwell, Chairman.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the original motion, to approve the PUD, as noted, with the motion being carried by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted “no”.
REZONING CASE LPA#03-8-1 - COUNTY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT
TRACKING #89-03-LPTA - TRANSMITTAL HEARING
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss the request for a County Initiated Text Amendment, LPA#03-8-1, which is an amendment to Policy 1-1.13 land use Density and Intensity Standards, to add Paragraph (e); amending Policy 1-1.13(3) to add Paragraph (d); and Policy 1-3A.1 to add Paragraph (6) Commercial Development in the Land Use Classifications to Allow for Commercial Development or Redevelopment of Property in the Employment Center Along the Old US Hwy 441/Alfred Street Corridor.
Commr. Hill referred to Page 1 of the proposed Ordinance and asked that the word “staff” be removed from the language after the sixth “Whereas”. She also asked whether staff had talked to Mount Dora, or Tavares, to see if they are in agreement to this text amendment.
Mr. Richardson stated that staff has been talking both with Mark Reggentin, Director, Planning and Development, City of Mount Dora, and T. J. Fish, Manager, Planing and Zoning, City of Tavares, and they had some discussions about possibly creating a Community Development District (CDD) across that area.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that this was a transmittal, so the Board will not adopt it, until they get it back from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Violet Gibson addressed the Board and stated that she has waited 25 years for this issue to be addressed. Ms. Gibson stated that she does not understand why it is happening just at this time, but she wants the Board to know that she is interested in it, and they can contact her and her husband, because they want to participate, if possible. Also, they have lived on Old Highway 441 for almost 26 years, and they waited for the County to put in a drainage system, and now their property is in worse condition, because it does not work.
Commr. Stivender noted that Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, is familiar with the issue brought forth by Ms. Gibson, and they do have legal action going on to take care of that problem. In regard to the issue at hand, she explained that there were a couple of businesses farther down on Old Highway 441 who had a problem getting an occupational license, and this was brought to her attention. She then brought it to the Board’s attention, and staff reworked it for them. They have been working on this issue for about a year, and Ms. Gibson can get further information from Mr. Richardson.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 to transmit LPA#03-8-1 to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), County Initiated Text Amendment, Tracking #89-03-LPTA.
Commr. Stivender wanted to thank Mr. Gregg Welstead, Director of Growth Management, and staff, for addressing this issue, which was very trying at times, and she asked staff to let Mr. John Ingles know that this issue was passed by the Board.
CITY OF LEESBURG - MAIN STREET - SALES TAX
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss the request to approve the agreement between the City of Leesburg and Lake County for Main Street. He explained that the Citrus Ridge Library is in the old sales tax, and it would be shifted to the new sales tax, and then they will reduce the amount that they have funded for the Judicial Center AIQ, which gives them $400,000.00.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the City of Leesburg will take this road over as a City street, the portions paid for by the County but, under the agreement from 1987, the City maintains it from the west of Highway 27, which is a two mile stretch.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from Public Works for approval of Agreement between the City of Leesburg and Lake County for Main Street, in the amount of $400,000.00, and everything that applies to it, as noted.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 - CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
APPOINTMENT - SALES SURTAX OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On a motion by commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval of Barbara F. Lehman as the Clerk of Court designee to the Sales Surtax Oversight Advisory Committee.
OTHER BUSINESS -
APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of the following individuals to vacant positions on the Citizens’ Commission for Children: District 2 - Kelly L. Orozco; At-Large - Debbie C. Thomas; At-Large - Lalenya J. Robertson.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of the following individual to the vacant District 4 position on the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council: Nancy W. Smith.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of the following individuals to vacant positions on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Peter Carrozza, Kathy Hillard, and Judy Smathers.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
SATISFACTION OF FINE - ADKINS
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval of Satisfaction of Fine for Melvin and Carla Adkins (Case Number CEB #51-85) for Code Enforcement Lien on Property in 1986.
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that this request authorizes The Villages to provide emergency medical service in the enclave; it does not include transportation. Staff is recommending approval.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity relating to the Village Center Community Development District.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 - OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS - CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of the following individuals to vacant positions on the Cultural Affairs Council: Reappointments - Nancy Klutts (District 3); Brandon Wald (District 4); Gail Yemington (District 2); and New Appointments - Jacquelin Dee Arndt (District 4); Christina Smith (District 4); Katherine Cook (District 1); Leslie Gaffney (District 2); and Gloria Pasteur (District 2).
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
DRAFT - LEGISLATIVE PACKET
Commr. Cadwell noted that the only other item that the Board added to the 2004 Legislative Packet is a legislative position in regards to the Bert-Harris Act and how it might affects the County in the Wekiva.
Ms. Cindy Hall, Assistant County Manager, stated that the Board has a list of 14 Legislative Issues for 2004. She noted that Number 14 is the item brought forth by Commr. Cadwell, to support legislation that requires the State to hold financial responsibility for regulations imposed by the State which lead either to a takings claim or a Bert Harris Act claim in Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the first policy meeting for the Florida Association of Counties starts tomorrow, and he will keep the Board updated. The Delegation meeting is October 10, 2003.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the draft issues for the 2004 Legislative Packet for presentation to the Lake County Legislative Delegation.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HILL - DISTRICT #1
Commrs. Hill reported on the success of the Ibini Tera event noting that Herlong Park won quite a few awards. Commr. Hill thanked the Leesburg High School World Awareness Club who did a great job, with 45 members being there.
Commr. Pool thanked the sponsors and Commr. Stivender noted that Tavares High School had the most students turn out for the event.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
MOUNT DORA YACHT CLUB
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to execute a congratulatory letter to the Mount Dora Yacht Club on its 90th Anniversary Celebration.
ADDENDUM NO 1 - REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER - WEKIVA RIVER BASIN AREA
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that several of the cities have had requests go to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and they are not moving forward in a timely fashion, for either annexation, or approvals, of their various projects that they are working on, but she would like to direct the Board’s attention to the backup containing the Governor’s Executive Order No. 03-112, Directing Protection of the Wekiva River Basin Area, and Page 2, the following language: “Whereas, recognizing that local governments should act on pending comprehensive plan amendments and land development orders in a timely and appropriate fashion, it is not the intent of this order that any such actions should be accelerated or delayed.” She stated that it appears that this is happening and the Board may want to send a letter to the DCA, to let them know that they are aware that some of these projects are being delayed, but they should be moving forward in a timely fashion.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to direct staff to prepare a letter, for the Chairman’s signature, to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) letting them know that some of these projects are being delayed and that they should be moving forward in a timely fashion.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the letter will include both points of the discussion, that they are not to delay anybody, or accelerate anybody.
ADDENDUM NO 1 - REPORTS -
COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #5
EVALUATIONS - COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY MANAGER
Commr. Cadwell noted that the discussion and approval of the County Manager and County Attorney evaluations will be postponed until next week.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #5
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Local Sources First Policy Resolution 2003-164.
WOMEN’S HALL OF FAME
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the ratification of Priscilla Getchell as the 2003 Women’s Hall of Fame inductee as selected by the Women’s Hall of Fame Committee.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 4:15 p.m., Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board will recess and reconvene at 5:05 p.m. for the public hearing on the final budget.
SECOND PUBLIC HEARING - 5:05 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER -
FINAL BUDGET ADOPTION
Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting at 5:05 p.m. and stated that this is the final budget hearing.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that this is the second and final budget hearing for the proposed 2003-2004 County Budget. The County Budget is in balance and the total is $286,709,510; this represents a $283,872 increase over the proposed budget approved September 8, 2003.
Mr. Neron stated that changes include additional re-budgets for Sheriff’s equipment ordered but not yet received, and a $70,000 reduction in the General Fund administration fees revenue to account for the potential decrease in the School Impact Fees. The Property and Casualty Fund was adjusted for the actual amount of the renewal costs received by a reduction in the expenditures of ($43,128) with an offset increase to the reserves in Fund 520. He stated that a detail of these changes is listed in the material that has been presented to the Board.
Mr. Neron stated that the millage rates tentatively approved are as follows: General Fund - 5.917; Lake County Ambulance and Emergency Services MSTU - .5289; Stormwater Management MSTU - .500; and Aggregate - 6.732. At the Final Public Hearing tonight, after public input, the Board may either adopt these changes, or propose further changes, prior to adopting the final millage rate, and the final budget.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Roy Hunter stated that he is representing the Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce, and he has presented the Board with information regarding the fire fees, and a map showing the County Commission Districts, which he received from the Property Appraiser’s Office. Mr. Hunter stated that the information attached to his notes on fire fees came from the County Budget and Administrative Services that verify his statements. In looking at that information, it shows that they pay more fire fees in District 6, and they want value and service for their money. They chose to live in a rural area to get away from congestion, but not to be treated unfairly. He stated that, not only fire fees, but pick up service on solid waste is also unfair. In northeast Lake County, rural service is once a week, even on blacktop roads. Almost everywhere else in the County has twice a week service. Mr. Hunter stated that, in 1992, the Board passed an indigent clause on solid waste and fire fees but, for approximately eight years, they have never told poor people about this until 2001-2002, when the County put the information on the solid waste notice but, this year, there was no notice to those individuals about indigent relief on solid waste and fire fees. He stated that the Board can rectify this by insisting a notice on the indigent exemption be put on the final tax bill, in large letters, so people will at least have a chance to apply. He stated that they can rectify all of the previous years that they did not notify citizens of this exemption by taking an estimate of monies that should not have been charged to them and apply it immediately to either refurbishing the old station, or replacing it with a new modular station, which is planned a few years down the road, and Paisley with its paid around the clock staff. He is not asking the Board to change the fire fee, but just to rectify some things that are really needed. He would like the Board to ask Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, to put on the final tax bill in bold letters, a notice about the exemption for indigents; and for the County to get the fire station in Paisley operating, because they are down to one volunteer. He noted that the station in Lake Mack, and the one in Shockley Heights, have been closed for years, and the one in Paisley is more centralized.
Mr. John Cherry, President of LifeStream Behavioral Center, Leesburg, stated that he would like to thank the Board for their previous support of LifeStream, especially for their resolution to Governor Jeb Bush, that he continue the funding of their 12 bed adolescent substance abuse group home. While they were not completely successful, they did receive $133,000 of the $400,000 requested and they will be able to help six kids for about eight months with residential care, with those dollars. These were State legislative dollars, which would have gone to another area of Florida, if the Board had not helped them, and he appreciates their efforts on their behalf on that issue.
Mr. Cherry stated that LifeStream did not request an increase in their County allocation last year, in an effort to do their part in helping the County to balance its budget, however, over the past two years, Lake County has seen a surge in population averaging seven percent growth per year, and the cost of several large expense categories have skyrocketed, health insurance, vehicle insurance, worker’s compensation; and medical malpractice premiums, to name a few. Mr. Cherry stated that, when you factor in growth and inflation into the cost of providing services, they would need an additional $118,000 in County allocation to provide the same level of services that they provided two years ago. They have made significant progress over the past several years; they have increased their inpatient bed availability from 24 to 62 beds, which helps to assure that the Sheriff gets a positive response when he needs their help for Baker Act patients. They have increased their residential capacity; created a Florida Assertive Community Treatment Team; and partnered with National Pharmaceutical Companies, to make over $1 million worth of medications available to our less fortunate fellow residents. He stated that LifeStream provided over 125,000 different service events to approximately 10,000 residents of Lake County last year. At the current funding level, the County is paying $3.70 for each patient event; total cost for patient event is $112; for every 3.3 cents provided by the County, Lifestream brings an additional 96.7 cents from other sources to provide essential behavioral health service to the community. Mr. Cherry stated that this is a very cost effective way for the County to meet its need in this area without incurring any potential liability that would be inherent in having to provide these services directly.
Mr. Cherry stated that he is requesting, on behalf of LifeStream, that the County increase its allocation by $100,000 to $562,500. This increase allocation would allow LifeStream to assure continuation of services at their current levels. He thanked the Board for their support over the years and stated that, without the County, the seed money that assures behavioral health services will be provided in the community would not be available. He stated that they look forward to working with them in the future in their partnership, to assure these essential health services are available to all residents of the communities that make up Lake County.
Ms. Lee Nasehi, CITE Lighthouse for the Visually Impaired, stated that $5,000 is the most that they have an opportunity to request from the County. Ms. Nasehi explained the program and stated that just this week Duke University published a study that indicated that half of persons over the age of 65 have one of three major eye diseases. She stated that there are about 29,000 people living with severe vision loss and may be in need of their services, and they are the only agency in Lake County that can help them. She understands that the Human Services budget is relatively small but she pointed out that they receive $25,000 from Osceola County, and $15,000 from the City of Kissimmee, to serve one-tenth of the number of people that they serve in Lake County. If they cannot get assistance from the County budget, they are asking that the County help them try and figure out a way that they can maintain services here, because they will need local support in order to continue. They did not apply officially with the cities for the last two years, but they did have discussions with them; none of the cities are participating at this time.
Commr. Hanson stated that the need is great, and she has been here for the whole ten years that CITE has been here, and they have come a long ways in their outreach program and letting people know about their services, to help keep people independent as they begin to lose their eyesight.
Ms. Nasehi stated that they will save the County money, because they are preventing premature institutionalizing of individuals; unnecessary trips to the emergency room; people mis-medicating themselves, because they cannot read the labels; and there are a host of problems that their services will address. She welcomed ideas on how they can get a stronger foothold in Lake County.
It was noted that CITE did apply for funding, and the Board made an allocation toward the end of the fiscal year.
Commr. Cadwell publicly announced that the County’s aggregate rolled-back rate is 6.323 mills, and the aggregate tentative rate is 6.732 mills, which results in an increase over the aggregate rolled-back rate of 6.468%.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-167 Adopting a Final Countywide Millage Rate of 5.917 mills.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-168 Adopting Final Millage Rate of 0.5289 mills for the MSTU for Ambulance and EMS.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to approve Resolution 2003-169 Adopting Final Millage Rate of 0.500 mills for the Stormwater Management MSTU.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that this is the fifth year of a commitment that the Board had made to fund stormwater management.
Commr. Stivender stated that staff is looking at working with other local agencies who also charge an ad valorem, including the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Water Authority.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Pool and Hill voted “no”.
Commr. Hanson stated that the request from LifeStream for $100,000 is probably a minimal amount for the needs and preventive services that LifeStream provides to the County. It is her understanding that this amount of dollars will help keep the beds available for the public and, while she realizes that this is not necessarily all of their responsibility, again the County takes on more and more of their share of responsibilities of the State, and other agencies in government. They also recognize that the dollars spent here keep many folks out of the jails where they will not receive the same treatment that they may need for mental disorders.
Commr. Hanson made a motion to approve to increase the allocation to LifeStream, in the amount of $100,000 with the funds coming from reserves.
Commr. Stivender seconded the motion for discussion and stated that she serves on the Citizens’ Commission for Children, and they have a number of requests that come through that they have not funded, which are in the same position as LifeStream. They are preventative type organizations that keep at risk children out of trouble, so they do not end up in jail. She wanted to make sure that they fund it percentage wise the same way they do for others, and for the Board to keep this in mind, if she comes back and says they need more money.
Commr. Hanson stated that she does not have a problem doing that but, even though they say this is preventive, it is preventive from putting them in jail, because these individuals are generally already at a crisis point where they have to go to LifeStream, so they are not at the same level of prevention, but her support is there for the Childrens’ Commission.
Commr. Cadwell explained that a lot of the counties provide all of these services themselves, and the others certainly contribute more than they do overall. As in some areas, there are other funding sources for the mental health agencies to utilize but here that funding source is limited because the County already has a hospital taxing district, which goes to something else, so their ability to find money is somewhat limited. He explained that it is money spent on the front end, as opposed to giving it to the Sheriff to house these folks, which is a lot more expensive.
Commr. Pool stated that Mr. Cherry has done an admirable job, but obviously it takes dollars, and he appreciates Commr. Hanson taking the lead in trying to help them find those dollars. He also feels that the Sheriff does a wonderful job running the jail, but the fewer people they have in there, the better off they are if they can intervene at this point.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, to amend the budget by increasing the allocation to $100,000 for Lifestream, with the funds coming from reserves, with the motion being carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2003-170 Adopting Final Budget in the amount of $286,709,510 for the Fiscal Year 2004.
Mr. Neron extended his thanks to Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Director of Budget and Administrative Services, and the Budget Office team, and all of the department directors for the hard work they have done. They started this process last February, at the direction of the Board, at the Financial Retreat this summer, and he feels that the process went a lot smoother this year than last year.
Commr. Cadwell recognized Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. who was in the audience and stated that all of the Constitutional Officers really helped them out this year, and he appreciated Sheriff Knupp coming through and helping them in some tight times.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE RELATING TO MOBILE HOMES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, noting that this is the first reading of the ordinance and, it will require two readings:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER III, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; DELETING REFERENCES TO MOBILE HOMES; PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS; INCLUDING MINIMUM WIDTH, ROOF PITCH, FOUNDATION AND SKIRTING; AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES TO CLARIFY WHERE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE PERMITTED; DELETING THE PROXIMITY TEST FOR LOCATING MOBILE HOMES IN ZONING DISTRICTS A AND RA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there are two pages of changes that were presented to and approved by the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission, and staff would like those changes approved, as well and, by the second reading, staff will have them incorporated into the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public meeting and called for public comment. There being none, 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 approved the first reading of the proposed ordinance relating to mobile homes, as read by title only.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE RELATING TO OPEN AIR VENDORS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, noting that this is the first reading of the ordinance and, it will require two readings:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 10.03.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED OPEN AIR VENDORS; REPLACING SECTION 10.03.00 WITH PROVISIONS GOVERNING TEMPORARY USES AND SPECIAL EVENTS; PROVIDING FOR A PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY USES AND SPECIAL EVENTS; RESTRICTING TEMPORARY USE AND SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS TO FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE; PROHIBITING TEMPORARY USES AND SPECIAL EVENTS FROM OCCURRING ON THE SAME PROPERTY MORE THAN TWICE IN A TWELVE (12) MONTH PERIOD; AMENDING CHAPTER II, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; REMOVING THE DEFINITION OF OPEN AIR VENDOR; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the major impact of the ordinance will be the elimination of temporary retail sales, such as tent sales, and automobile sales on a vacant lot, and those will no longer be permitted uses in the County. In regards to boiled peanut people who can now get a temporary permit, they will not be able to get one under this ordinance. Normally, if they are an allowed use, they can come in and get a site plan approved by the County, and many of them operate only on weekends so, as long as there is not a complaint, they are not in violation.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public meeting and called for public comment. There being none, 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 approved the first reading of the proposed ordinance relating to open air vendors, as read by title only.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK