A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 26, 2004
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 26, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Debbie Stivender, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; William “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, noted that there is an Addendum No. 1 with three items and requested that Tab 4 under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda be pulled. That item, regarding storm related debris pickups, was acted on by the Board at their October 19, 2004, meeting.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1-5, excluding Tab 4, as follows:
Community Services
Request for approval and signature on the contract between and the State Department of Health for operation of the Lake County Health Department during contract term 10/01/04 through 09/30/05.
Program Analysis & Contract Management
Request for approval of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) for the Section 5311 Transportation Grant
Public Works
Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Martin's Landing and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Martin's Landing plat; accept a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $3,200.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Jeffrey Martin, as owner of Martin Consultants; and execute Resolution 2004-180 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Priebe Road (County Road Number 0836B "Part").
Request for approval to execute Lease Agreement, for Suite Number 6 (2,500 square feet) with Moore Properties, Et Al Corporation to replace the current lease expiring October 17, 2004, contingent upon approval of the final lease contract by the County Attorney.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL AND ELECTRICITY
GENERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND COVANTA
Settlement Agreement
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the Settlement Agreement between Lake County, Florida, Covanta Lake II, Inc., a Florida corporation, as successor to Covanta Lake Inc., and Covanta Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation. (A copy of the draft Settlement Agreement is included in the backup material.) He stated that the Settlement Agreement will resolve all the outstanding litigation between the County and Covanta and others involved in the waste-to-energy facility. He remarked that Mr. Jeff Cooper, Support Services Director, Program Analysis & Contract Management, and Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, have spent many hours on the documents and putting this Agreement together has been a group effort, particularly during the last year and a half. He noted that other staff members, including Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager; Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; Ms. Cindy Hall, Assistant County Manager; and Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Program Analysis & Contract Management Director, were involved in the team.
Mr. Minkoff reviewed Paragraph 1 on Page 4 of the Settlement Agreement which deals with the Public Records case in that Lake County sought Public Records from Covanta in one of the litigation cases. Lake County was successful in the trial court and Covanta appealed. That appeal is still pending because of the Covanta bankruptcy case. He explained that the Settlement Agreement provides that Covanta will dismiss the appeal, Lake County will jointly move with Covanta, if necessary, and Covanta will petition the Circuit Court in an effort to overturn the judgment that was entered in the original Public Records action. The new Agreement gives Lake County the information it sought in the first place. Secondly, the original judgment was with the original Service Agreement which will no longer be in effect after the new Settlement Agreement is implemented. Both sides would bear their own costs and fees in that case.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the effective date of the Settlement Agreement is expected to be early December 2004 when it is approved by the bankruptcy court. In referring to Paragraphs 2 through 4, Mr. Minkoff explained that, within five days after the effective date, the parties will jointly move and dismiss all of the other litigation between them, including bankruptcy litigation and circuit court litigation. Nobody will pay fees or costs to each other. Paragraph 5 provides that, on the effective date, a new Waste Disposal Agreement will be entered into and Covanta Lake’s performance under the Waste Disposal Agreement shall be guaranteed pursuant to the Covanta Parent Guaranty. Paragraph 6 completely terminates the existing Service Agreement of November 8, 1988, plus the twelve amendments, on the effective date of the new Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Minkoff continued his review of the Settlement Agreement by referring to Paragraph 7. That paragraph provides that during the interim period, between now and December 2004, the parties will continue to operate under the terms of the old Service Agreement, except that Lake County will only pay the undisputed portions. He explained that, over the last three years as Lake County was billed monthly, the County felt that some of those bills were not valid and the entire bill was not paid. During this interim period, the County will continue to pay as it has, that is, withholding what the County feels is invalid. Paragraph 8 contains some payment requirements. On the effective date, Lake County will pay to Covanta Lake the amount of money that is due for taxes and Covanta will pay the taxes. The Agreement provides that the parties will work together to minimize the taxes as much as possible.
Mr. Minkoff acknowledged that Mr. Bob McKee, Lake County Tax Collector, and Mr. Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser, have worked very well with the County and have been very helpful. Mr. Minkoff stated that Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk of Court for Lake County, has also been helpful and participated in trying to deal with Wachovia on the issues that relate to them. He noted that a significant amount of money will come back around to the County in those December tax payments. Paragraph 8, Subparagraph b., provides that Lake County would pay to the indenture trustee, essentially Covanta Lake, $100,000 per month for each month beginning September 2003, less any amounts that were previously paid. This $100,000 has been paid for September and October 2004. Paragraph 8, Subparagraph c., indicates that Lake County will begin to pay any amounts due under the Waste Disposal Agreement.
Mr. Minkoff reviewed Paragraph 10 which provides that sixty days after the effective date a final financial allocation of all the amounts under the old Service Agreement will be made and, at that point, the County will pay the amount owed by the County, or Covanta will pay what it owes the County, and the old Agreement will really be over because it will have been implemented. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are the releases and, once this is done, the County will release Covanta and Covanta Lake and all of its officers for everything that started “from the beginning of the world to the Effective Date” (probably December 2004); and Covanta Lake and Covanta will release the County and the County employees for the same time period.
Paragraph 13, on Page 9, is the refinancing paragraph that basically says everyone will agree to work together to refinance, which is mainly for Lake County’s benefit. Mr. Minkoff noted that, in the refinance, the County will not be paying any of Covanta’s or Covanta Lake’s fees. On the bottom of Page 9, the Agreement says the County will bear all other expenses associated with the bonds and such refinancing other than up to $100,000 of the accrued and unpaid fees and expenses of the indenture trustee (Wachovia). Mr. Minkoff stated that the County is still continuing to work with Wachovia to try to reduce that obligation. He stated that Paragraph 14 is something that is not in the Waste Disposal Agreement but is something that is beneficial. This allows Lake County to review the insurance that Covanta purchases each year for our facility. The County pays those costs through the pass through, so this would allow either the County’s Risk Management staff or the County’s consultant to make sure Covanta had appropriate insurance and to make sure that it is fairly priced and, possibly, to make them get bids or do something else with the insurance.
Comparison of Old Service Agreement and New WDA (Waste Disposal Agreement)
Mr. Minkoff referred to the recap prepared by Mr. Jeff Cooper, Support Services Director, Program Analysis and Contract Management, entitled “Comparison of Old Service Agreement and New WDA” which was distributed to the Board. (A copy of the recap is included in the backup material.) On Page 3 of the recap, Mr. Cooper has set forth what would happen just from the settlement itself financially. The recap does not include anything on the new Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA). Mr. Cooper estimates an effective date of December 3, 2004, and shows the payment of $100,000 per month, the property taxes, the first payment that was due under the new WDA and refinance. Per the recap, as of December 3, the County will have withheld $11,750,000 from Covanta’s bills. Mr. Minkoff explained that the $100,000 per month will equal $1.5 million, the past due taxes and penalties will be approximately $3.6 million, the first capital improvement settlement under the WDA was $850,000, the trustee fees (Wachovia fees) are listed at the maximum amount of $250,000, and the next two years’ payments in the WDA are also listed. Deducting these payments from the $11,750,000 shows a withheld balance remaining of $3,850,000. The attorneys’ fees from five years ago (the date the Board started the litigation with Covanta) through today are estimated at $2,750,000. Deducting those legal fees shows that $1,100,000 has been saved through the litigation process itself, upon approval of the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Minkoff opined that Mr. Cooper’s numbers were very conservative so, if they change, they will change only to increase the amount saved through litigation.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that was an important issue with a lot of folks over the resolve of this Board to stay the fight. There were people who doubted the Board should pursue the litigation because they felt that it would cost the County in the long run because of the attorneys’ fees. He pointed out, however, that more than a million dollars was netted by continuing the battle.
Mr. Minkoff stated that this is actual cash savings because this is money that the County would have paid but did not because of the Board’s action. He informed the Board that, should they choose to approve it, the Settlement Agreement will be executed later this week by the Chairman.
Commr. Hanson pointed out that the savings, in excess of $1 million, are exclusive of future savings.
Waste Disposal and Electricity Generating Agreement
In referring to the Waste Disposal and Electricity Generating Agreement (Waste Disposal Agreement or WDA) between Covanta Lake II, Inc., a Florida corporation and Lake County, Florida, Mr. Minkoff stated that the old Agreement was 185 single-spaced pages and the new Agreement is 123 double-spaced pages, or 65,735 versus 28,550 words which is a 56.6% reduction in the number of words. He explained that a goal of his staff was to prepare an Agreement that County staff members could easily understand. (A copy of the draft Waste Disposal Agreement is included in the backup material.)
Mr. Minkoff stated that he probably would not recommend the new Agreement if the County were to be starting over today. If at arms length, he opined that the County could do better, however, the new Agreement is significantly better than the current Agreement.
In explaining the Waste Disposal Agreement, Mr. Minkoff stated that there were four main risks in the original contract.
1. The first risk was whether there would there be enough garbage to run the facility.
2. The second risk was what would happen if something changed, such as, what if the government required a new smoke stack or what if the ash were to be declared hazardous or what if some other unforeseen circumstance or change in law were to happen.
3. The third risk was who would dispose of the ash and what would happen to the ash.
4. The fourth risk was the cost of operation of the facility, the day-to-day costs. The original Agreement allocated these risks in a way that, in just about every opportunity, was unfavorable to Lake County and favorable to Covanta. In redoing the Agreement, there was an effort to change this risk allocation. The County was successful in some cases and, even when not successful, the effort was to minimize the risk.
Mr. Minkoff described the major changes in the Waste Disposal Agreement. Regarding the first risk, not having enough garbage, the old Agreement was basically written to protect the County because, while the facility had a 163,000-ton capacity, the County was only obligated to provide 130,000 tons. The County was told to not worry about that risk because it only had to provide 130,000 tons. That really was not true because, as the County learned through the ARMA (Annual Revenue Makeup Amount) calculation, by not being at full capacity, the County still paid for it. The County really had the risk of all the garbage even though it seemed, by reading the Agreement, it did not. Under the new Agreement, it is very clear that the County is responsible for all of the risk. Every ton of garbage that comes into that facility is County waste. Covanta has the right to still bring 8,000 tons but, if they do, they pay the $40 tipping fee which will be escalated up and gets counted as County waste. The County gets all the benefits and, if it can stuff it with a targeted amount of 171,000 tons, and if there are increased electrical revenues, the County will get those and operational costs. Mr. Minkoff continued by stating that the new Agreement is very clear that it is the County’s responsibility to bring the garbage in and, to the extent that there are benefits, the County shares in those or gets them solely. There really is not a lot of risk in that, because, the County is currently at almost 160,000 tons without participation by all the municipalities. He noted that the biggest problem may be that we will have too much waste in Lake County and will probably be more than 171,000 tons very soon.
Mr. Minkoff referred to the second risk, the unforeseen circumstance or change in law. He reminded the Board that originally all this risk was on the County. The old Agreement said if the law changes, Covanta makes the changes, and Lake County pays for them. Lake County had no input and no comment. The lime system and the re-use water system were two major things in the lawsuit. Covanta did those even though the County did not think they were appropriate. Unfortunately, and despite the best efforts, the County still has all the risk for change of law. That risk, in some ways, has been reduced. Mr. Minkoff referred to Article III, Section 3.02, on Page 19, which is the Capital Projects section. He opined this is very important as it really is the risk section because a Capital Project would only be necessary if the government changes the law to require it. The Waste Disposal Agreement requires that, if Covanta or Lake County receives anything in writing from any governmental agency, whether specifically about the plant or a possible change in law, notification has to be made to the other party immediately. Therefore, at the eleventh hour, the County would not find out for the first time that a new smoke stack is required. Further, in Section 3.02, Paragraph (a), the Agreement specifies that neither the County nor the Company (Covanta) will either propose or consent to any permit term which would affect the operation or maintenance of the facility or increase the capital costs without giving notice. He explained that Covanta would be prohibited, for example, from changing their St. Johns River Water Management District permit if it would cost money without having given notice to Lake County. Per the Agreement, both parties will cooperate with each other and try to eliminate or minimize the financial operational costs that are there, including possibly bidding them. In Section 3.02, Paragraph (d), unless it is an emergency, Covanta has agreed to solicit competitive bids for any capital project that is done and Lake County preserves the right to tell them to go ahead and do it without bidding.
Commr. Cadwell stated that was an area where the County was not getting a fair shake because Covanta could even contract with one of their own subsidiaries if they wanted to.
Mr. Minkoff confirmed that, in fact, Covanta often did the work themselves and then billed Lake County, including overhead. He reiterated that Section 3.02, Paragraph (d), would allow Lake County to make Covanta bid it or allow Lake County to negotiate with them without bidding if Lake County wants Covanta to do the work. He opined that this section gives Lake County the best of all worlds.
In referring to a contract termination comment by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Minkoff referred to Page 56 and explained that the Agreement is in effect until 2014. One of the concerns is that if, in 2013, the federal government were to require a new smoke stack that cost $20 million, under the old Agreement the County would have to pay the whole $20 million even though there was only one year left to use the facility. He stated that Lake County tried to get out of this term but could not and compromised. If, after October 1, 2011, there is a change that would require a cost of more than $5 million or one-third of the bonds, or which would increase the fee by more than 7%, the County can terminate the Agreement. All the County would have to do at that point is pay off the bonds. That also shortened the window of a change in law to really be from now until 2011 and lessened that risk.
Mr. Minkoff then addressed the third risk, the ash disposal, under the old Agreement. The concept of ash changed from 1988 to 2004. In the original Agreement, the risk was on the County to dispose of the ash, however, a bonus was given to Covanta if the ash could be reduced. Everybody thought, initially, that the ash would be nothing but a burden and that is why this bonus was put into the contract. As it turned out, the ash is somewhat beneficial to the County as the County uses it as cover at the landfill. Unfortunately, that bonus was just over $1 million a year and it was anticipated that the County would have to begin paying that $1 million bonus. The new Agreement still leaves the ash risk on the County, however, the ash disposal bonus has been eliminated. If the County approves and Covanta elects to find some other use for the ash, whether in road paving or making cement block, the County would not pay anything for that reduction. The County will be completely in control of the ash.
Mr. Minkoff discussed the fourth risk which is the operational cost, most of which are called pass through costs in the Agreement. In the old Agreement, the County paid all the pass through costs and that has not changed. However, the old Agreement gave the County no input at all over those pass through costs. For example, Covanta bought insurance and sent the County a bill and the County had no opportunity to argue that the insurance was too high or was not appropriate. With the property taxes, Covanta paid the property taxes and did not have to contest them, and the County had to pay them. He reiterated that whatever pass through cost was there, the County had to pay. In the new Agreement, Page 39, Article VI, Section 6.04 and in Schedule 5, basically the language reads that the County will pay pass through costs as part of the fee. The Company (Covanta) will provide information and documentation to the County to allow the County to determine the validity and propriety of amounts charged. The documents provided shall allow the County to make an independent verification of the individual pass through costs. Supporting documentation and information shall be provided for all invoices or bills. The Company shall make a good faith effort to obtain the best price available for all items listed in order to reduce the pass through costs payable by the County. Mr. Minkoff explained that those two changes were (1) Covanta is required to give the County the documentation and (2) Covanta has an affirmative obligation to get the best price. These stipulations were not in the old Agreement.
Mr. Minkoff remarked that these explanations cover the main differences between the two Agreements.
Comparison of Old Service Agreement and New WDA (Continued)
Mr. Minkoff stated that Mr. Cooper’s comparison listed some management changes that are different from the old Agreement. For example, Lake County specifically agrees to appoint a Service Coordinator to manage the contract (Page 24, Article IV, Section 4.03).
Waste Disposal and Electricity Generating Agreement (Continued)
Regarding the dispute resolution process, Mr. Minkoff stated that the Agreement tries to make the parties talk to each other before getting into a real disagreement. On Page 59, Article IX, Section 9.04, Paragraph (b), the Agreement says if a dispute arises about any amount owed, or performance, or interpretation, or anything, the parties are required to contact each other. Mr. Minkoff confirmed that the Agreement is (1) simpler and (2) the people who are here now are the people who actually hammered out the contract. He remarked that, however, it is still a complicated Agreement. The County Department Director and Covanta’s Vice President and Regional Business Manager will begin the dispute resolution process and then issues would go to the County Manager and Covanta’s Senior Vice President, Waste-to-Energy. Therefore, decision makers will be brought together where they have to talk to each other. If that does not work, there is a provision for mediation and, finally, there is an arbitration process. The parties worked very hard and spent a lot of hours on the dispute resolution section in an effort to avoid a fight should a dispute arise.
Lastly, Mr. Minkoff emphasized that the biggest change, as shown on Mr. Cooper’s comparison and in Article II, Section 2.02, Paragraphs (g) and (h) on Page 18, is that there is, basically, an assurance from the Company (Covanta) that they have not entered into, nor will they enter into, any agreement with any third person regarding this contract, either in the nature of a profit-sharing, joint venture, partnership or other legal or equitable ownership interest in the facility. Also, the Company (Covanta) is the sole owner of the facility and no other person or entity has any legal or equitable ownership other than the mortgage holder. Mr. Minkoff stated that the Agreement is very clear that there are no secret partners.
Comparison of Old Service Agreement and New WDA (Continued)
Mr. Minkoff referred to Page 2 of Mr. Cooper’s comparison on the financial changes that go forward. First, under the new Agreement, there is a monthly reduction in the operation and maintenance charge of $17,466. Under the old (current) Agreement, Covanta charged the County $15, 512 per month to obtain outside waste and the new Agreement does not give them the ability to charge that. The old (current) Agreement allowed a chemicals charge in the amount of $4,415 per month and this is not charged in the new Agreement. Covanta tried to collect from the County, in the old (current) Agreement, $14,768 per month for dolomitic lime and this is not charged in the new Agreement. Regarding waste in excess of 163,000 tons, a lower rate of about $56,000 per year was negotiated. Mr. Minkoff stated that, in hard cash going forward, $682,252 per year less is being paid by the County prior to the start of litigation. This hard cash number is strictly due to the contract changes. Additionally, the new contract provides an additional energy credit and full capacity revenues for the County which results in a revenue increase of $225,719 that was not seen under the old (current) Agreement. The net actual dollar changes are just over $907,000 per year going forward which would be over $9 million over the life of the contract. Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board agreed to pay for an outside accounting firm to work with Covanta and the Property Appraiser on the taxes. In meeting with the Property Appraiser’s Office, the result was a lower assessment for the facility and a savings of almost $238,000 in property taxes. Additionally, by going out for bid, with the cooperation of Covanta, and refinancing the debt service, the County will get a substantially lower interest rate which will result in about $125,000 per month less which is about $1.5 million less per year. Those cooperative changes equal an additional $1,700,000, or just over $17 million for the life of the contract. Mr. Minkoff explained that listed on the comparison, even though asserted but never paid before, is the impact of what the ash disposal fee would have been under the old (current) contract. That impact would have been almost $1,100,000 per year or just under $91,000 per month. Under the new contract, the ash disposal fee is not included but if that had been required, it would amount to almost $11 million.
Mr. Minkoff announced that the total savings going forward, both the contract changes and cooperative ones, without considering the ash disposal fee, are $26.5 million. Including the ash fee, the savings are just over $37 million over the remaining ten years of the contract. He stated that these are very significant savings.
Commr. Pool asked that had this Board not had the resolve and been determined to do this, would Covanta have come forward and offered this to us. He declared that no one on this Board of County Commissioners was involved in the old Agreement, nor did anyone here understand the ramifications of the old Agreement. He noted that all the cities said please do not do it, but the previous Board went forward many years ago. He expressed his pride in being part of the Board that saw the old Agreement as a bad Agreement and gave credit to this Commission group for having the resolve to take Covanta to court and resolve it once and for all.
Commr. Stivender thanked Commr. Hanson, Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Pool for fighting before she became a Board member and making sure it was resolved.
Commr. Hanson stated that they knew a lawsuit would not be easy when looking at it early in the 1990s. The timing was not right then but it did work at this point.
In response to Commr. Hanson’s questions about our current bond rating, Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance, stated that the rating on the incinerator bond issue is BBB, a low-investment grade. She confirmed that the County was on a credit watch because of the lawsuit but the other County bond issues are rated AAA.
Commr. Pool pointed out that no bond holder has been hurt and no payments have been missed.
Mr. Minkoff further explained that the County’s regular bond rating is AAA. This issue had the BBB rating but there were threats, by being put on the watch, that the main rating might be reduced. He stated that the resolution of this litigation, successfully, should eliminate that threat.
In response to a question by Commr. Stivender regarding total elimination of the solid waste ad valorem tax, County Manager Bill Neron responded that, while the Board levied .83 mills and reduced the tax to .73 mills this year, options may be presented to the Board next year to further reduce the millage or other cost reductions in the system. He opined that the millage support could not be reduced entirely.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the policy decision for the ad valorem tax was twofold. Additional revenue would be generated but also this makes sure everybody is paying. If there are still cities that do not participate in the system, the ad valorem tax is one way for those residents to pay.
Mr. Cooper confirmed that Mr. Neron is correct. One of the reasons to not be too specific is that the final details of the refinancing are not known. All the numbers shown on the comparison are best-guess estimates at this time because there are still two months under the old Service Agreement and attorneys’ fees remain to be paid as well as the negotiation of trustee fees and taxes. He stated that these are conservative, tentative estimates and the final number will be given to the County Manager later for presentation of options for next year.
Commr. Stivender stated that the Board, about two years ago, said if the ad valorem tax could be reduced back to nothing, that is the way the Board would go. She emphasized that is the goal if it can be done.
Mr. Minkoff explained that there is also an interrelationship with the tipping fee. The Board has already reduced the tipping fee to $40.00 per ton and the market conditions on the tipping fee will affect the ad valorem.
Commr. Hanson confirmed that there was an equity issue for all citizens to pay and the liability is on everyone.
Commr. Hanson asked if there is an urgency to approve the Settlement Agreement today since this is the first time the public has received the details. She asked if public comment could be received in the next week or so.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the actual Waste Disposal Agreement has been public for almost one year, after being discussed publicly by the Board. The Settlement Agreement mainly implements the new Waste Disposal Agreement with the additional terms. He stated that it does not have to be done today but he is looking forward to approval today. He emphasized that there is a very tight time frame in trying to make the December date through the bankruptcy process. He stated that it would be a setback if approval is delayed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between Lake County, Florida, Covanta Lake II, Inc., a Florida corporation, as successor to Covanta Lake, Inc., and Covanta Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and approved the Waste Disposal and Electricity Generating Agreement between Covanta Lake II, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lake County, Florida.
The Board again expressed appreciation to the staff for this major accomplishment.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 1028 - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that there has been a request for an additional 30-day postponement, until November 16, 2004, on Vacation Petition Number 1028, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, to vacate easement, located in Section 30 and 31, Township 17 South, Range 29 East, in the Lake Mack/Royal Trails area, Commission District 5.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing. No one was present in opposition to the request for a 30-day postponement. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the 30-day postponement (to November 16, 2004) on Vacation Petition Number 1028, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, to vacate easement, located in Section 30 and 31, Township 17 South, Range 29 East, in the Lake Mack/Royal Trails area, Commission District 5.
PETITION NO. 1030 - KEITH SHAMROCK
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, presented the request for approval and execution of a resolution for Vacation Petition Number 1030 by Keith Shamrock, Representative Bowen & Campione, P.A., to vacate a portion of an existing 50-foot right-of-way deed for a part of Lakeshore Drive, Number 5154, in exchange for a 50-foot wide deed that is consistent with the actual location of the paved roadway, located in Section 15 and 16, Township 19 South, Range 26 East, in the Tavares area, Commission Districts 3 and 4. He stated that Lakeshore Drive will not be closed. A 50-year-old survey contained discrepancies that came up during a title process. He stated that the intention of this request is to vacate the erroneous legal description that does not follow the alignment of the road and then to accept a deed to dedicate the same 50-foot right of way for the entire length where the road lies today.
Commr. Stivender confirmed with Mr. Stivender that the asphalt will not be changed, this request will clear up the title, and this will remain the scenic route it has always been.
Commr. Cadwell confirmed with Mr. Stivender that the road itself will not move anywhere.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Peacock, Shamrock Homes, stated that he has the executed right-of-way deed which will go back to Lake County. He confirmed that there is no difference in the road and that the petitioner is seeking to clear the title issues.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution 2004-176 for Vacation Petition Number 1030 by Keith Shamrock, Representative Bowen & Campione, P.A., to vacate a portion of an existing 50.00 foot right-of-way deed for a part of Lakeshore Drive, Number 5154, and accepted a 50.00-foot wide deed that is consistent with the actual location of the paved roadway, located in Section 15 and 16, Township 19 South, Range 26 East, in the Tavares area, Commission Districts 3 and 4.
PETITION NO. 1034 - VERDE RIDGE
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, presented the request for approval and execution of a resolution for Vacation Petition Number 1034 by Verde Ridge, Representative Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc., to vacate tracts and right of way in the Plat of Lake Highlands Company for the replat of Verde Ridge PUD, located in Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area, Commission District 2. In referring to the map, he stated that the Rutherfords own contiguous property from the Turnpike southward, however, there is no unity of title on it. Technically, Lots 64 and 63 have legal access, not practical access, across this property to State Road 50. It is not practical access because of the marsh area. Basically, if the southern half of Lots 63 or 64 were to be sold, the legal access would go across the request to vacate area.
Mr. Steve Richey, representing the petitioner, confirmed that there is no actual access from the property being vacated. The physical access is from Old Highway 50. He proposed to provide legal access, not physical access, to the Rutherfords when this property is platted, keeping them in the same status quo as today for Lots 63 and 64.
Commr. Cadwell confirmed with Mr. Richey that, if the request is approved, the Rutherfords will have no less than what they currently have regarding access.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted that the Rutherfords were not present. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution 2004-177 for Vacation Petition Number 1034 by Verde Ridge, Representative Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc., to vacate tracts and right of way in the Plat of Lake Highlands Company for the replat of Verde Ridge PUD, located in Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area, Commission District 2; with the understanding that the easement will be granted along that boundary.
PETITION NO. 1035 - WILLIAM P. AND FLORENCE A. LANGE
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, presented the request for approval and execution of a resolution for Vacation Petition Number 1035 by William P. and Florence A. Lange to vacate a right of way reservation for C-435 on lots, in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth, located in Section 28, Township 19 South, Range 28 East, in the Sorrento area, Commission District 4. He stated that the request is to clear title for the Langes. Their deeds represent right of way for County Road 435 on the lots. County Road 435 is nowhere near this property and there is no need for right of way. No roads will be vacated and staff recommends approval to vacate to clear the title of these lots.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution 2004-178 for Vacation Petition Number 1035 by William P. and Florence A. Lange to vacate a right of way reservation for C-435 on lots, in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth, located in Section 28, Township 19 South, Range 28 East, in the Sorrento area, Commission District 4.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING CASES
REZONING CASE PH#56-04-3 - LONG & SCOTT FARMS
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - TRACKING #60-04-CFD
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, advised the Board that a request for a continuance to the November 16, 2004, meeting has been made on Rezoning Case Ph#56-04-3, Long & Scott Farms; Cecelia Bonifay, Esq.; Tracking #60-04-CFD.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., on behalf of Mr. Bob Lumas and Orlando North Air Park, stated that there were several concerns that were raised after the last meeting and her client has asked for additional time to meet with residents as well as time to develop some additional information.
Commr. Cadwell asked if this case was withdrawn or voted down the last time the request was brought before the Board.
Ms. Bonifay stated that this request was denied the last time it was presented, however, this is a different applicant, a different owner, and there are changes to what is being recommended. She stated that the Lake County Zoning Board heard the case and she is not certain the Board’s provision with res judicata would apply.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that having a different owner is not enough reason to hear the case. Circumstances other than ownership, such as a difference in the application or the use would be necessary. He stated that the Commissioners were not asked to consider res judicata but that the Zoning Board heard testimony on the issue and made a recommendation that they felt it was sufficiently different. He supposes that issue will come to the Board once the case comes forward for the public hearing.
Mr. James Prescott stated that he and other residents appeared before the Board on this issue two or three years ago and their concerns are still the same as were voiced then. He stated that the changes presented to the Zoning Board are not significant in their eyes. He stated that their concerns are that the airfield will expand to be much more than it is today.
Commr. Stivender asked if it would be beneficial for the residents to meet with the new attorney and different owners within the next 30 days.
Mr. Prescott stated that the new owners have not contacted him or other neighbors to his knowledge. He stated that the opportunity to meet has been there and opined that this is running a dead horse into the ground. He stated that his neighbors, residents of Lake County, would like to see this issue resolved as soon as possible.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she will meet with the residents, within the next couple of weeks, to determine if there is any way to modify this particular proposal to work with the neighbors.
Ms. Wanda Spradlin, an affected neighbor, asked that a specific date be made to meet with the neighbors as a group. She stated that only one person in the whole community has received notice of any hearings. She stated that they should be notified of hearings.
Commr. Stivender stated that a date for a meeting will be decided, that the residents will be notified, and that she will attend the meeting.
Ms. Juanita Prescott, a long time resident of the area, stated that this rezoning would only benefit Orange County and that Lake County will only get a piece of concrete. She stated that the area floods and is very wet even now.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he will support the request for a postponement but requested that Ms. Bonifay address res judicata on November 16, 2004, as to whether or not the case should be heard by the Board.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she will be happy to address res judicata and will present that in the form of a brief if necessary. She stated that might have been somewhat ill conceived in that this is not a trial court and all of the case law says that you should treat res judicata much more liberally in an administrative proceeding. She stated that it is part of the code and she will address it but the only way she knows to do that is through testimony and briefing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to postpone until November 16, 2004, Rezoning Case Ph#56-04-3, Long & Scott Farms; Cecelia Bonifay, Esq.; Tracking #60-04-CFD; with the requirement that the applicant hold a meeting with the community members in the interim.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF LEESBURG
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Growth Management Director, stated that the old Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than the current Lake County Local Planning Agency (LPA), was the body that had looked at the Joint Planning Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg. He noted that the LPA is scheduled to hear the Sunnyside briefing at their November meeting and he stated that it would be wise for the LPA to review the Joint Planning Agreement in concert with that issue.
Commr. Stivender recognized Leesburg Mayor David Knowles who had no comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING CASES (CONTINUED)
REZONING CASE PH#50-04-4 - CQ ENTERPRISES
LESLIE CAMPIONE - TRACKING #53-04-CP
Ms. Jennifer Dubois, Planner, Planning & Development Services, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#50-04-4, CQ Enterprises, Leslie Campione, Tracking #53-04-CP, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District). She showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the applicant wishes to rezone the subject parcel, which is presently vacant, for self-service storage use. The subject property is approximately 8.53 acres in size and is generally located in the Bassville Park area, on County Road 44, approximately .20 mile northeast of the intersection of County Road 44 and Harbor Shores Drive, immediately adjacent to the Bassville Fire Station and fire training facility. Staff finds that, while the proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations, it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, staff finds that the site fails to meet commercial locational criteria as established in Comprehensive Plan Objective 1-3A. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the request. While there is existing self-storage use west of the subject parcel, it was approved in 1989 prior to the adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan and staff feels that this non conformity should not be the basis for justification of additional commercial development in an area that does not meet commercial locational criteria.
Commr. Stivender noted that there was no opposition at the Zoning Board meeting.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Esq., representing CQ Enterprises, agreed that there was no opposition at the Zoning Board meeting. She opined that a finding could be made that this is, in fact, consistent with the locational criteria because it does provide for the convenience of people living in the immediate area. She stated that there are several subdivisions within a one-mile radius that would benefit from this, which is what the Comprehensive Plan speaks to. If this property were to be developed as retail, such as a convenience store or gas station, the use would be much more intensive and have much more of an impact on the adjoining single-family development to the south. She stated that the square footage has been limited to 5,000 square feet which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that 2.7 acres of the 8.5 acre parcel is upland and it does have a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection for the roadway that was constructed. It has access and there would be no impact to wetlands.
Commr. Hanson asked if the applicant would be willing to put the wetland area in a conservation area.
Ms. Campione pointed out that the wetland is not part of the site plan. She stated that she would prefer to not put it into a conservation area and her client would have to be consulted. She stated that the wetland area is not going to be utilized and is not proposed to be utilized. Unless the code becomes a lot more open minded, this area could never be used.
Commr. Hanson expressed concern regarding expansion of the commercial use in that area.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding a current code violation, Ms. Campione stated that there is no code violation.
Commr. Stivender expressed concern that water runs into the housing development during storms.
Ms. Campione stated that this project will not compound the water problem.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the water problem is a severe problem in that subdivision and the other miniwarehouses that are there are not considered a compatible use by some of those folks. He stated that there are some other issues outside of staff saying that it does not meet the locational criteria. He stated that the locational criteria have been interpreted leniently over the years, ignoring it at times and using it as an example at other times. He reiterated that there is a severe drainage problem in that area that has been worked on for twelve years. He stated that he does not want to make it any worse.
Ms. Campione stated that her client will address their runoff as they have to according to regulations.
Commr. Hanson expressed concern in continuing to move forward in non conforming and expanding the commercial area. She stated that she would not have as much of a problem if she knew that it would go no farther although there is no requirement or mandate to put that land in conservation. She stated that, even though the property is Urban Expansion with R-6 zoning, it is very wet and she does not see that it would ever be developed, however, the future is unknown. She agreed that services are needed.
Ms. Campione confirmed that the other warehouses nearby are completely full. She stated that her client is requesting CP zoning and the conceptual plan that was submitted locks them into the square footage that is designated on the plan. If her client wanted, somehow, to expand into the wetlands, that would be subject to this Board agreeing to amend the zoning.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that the storage units will be close to the existing housing and some people do not consider stormwater retention ponds to be buffers.
Ms. Campione stated that the stormwater pond will be a buffer with landscaping and fencing. She stated that her client has met with neighbors who are in support of this use rather than a retail use.
Commr. Stivender stated that the homeowner’s association members are vocal and usually would come out en masse if there was opposition.
Regarding the provision for a conservation area, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that it would have to go through the Nollan/Dolan analysis before it could be required and it would be hard pressed to meet that requirement.
Commr. Hanson stated that, obviously, the wetlands area will be a natural buffer and will be very difficult to develop. She stated that she can see there is a need but does not see this project as opening up the whole area for a great deal of commercial development.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and to approve Ordinance 2004-69, Rezoning Case Ph#50-04-4, CQ Enterprises, Leslie Campione, Tracking #53-04-CP, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District).
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell confirmed that the 5,000 square foot miniwarehouses and retention pond would be on the 2.7 acre dry portion of the property.
Commr. Pool pointed out that, basically, there are 100,000 square feet of usable land and only 5,000 will be used for the building with the balance in stormwater use.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1.
Commr. Cadwell voted “No.”
REZONING CASE PH#62-04-5 - B2 CATTLE VENTURE, LLC
STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING #68-04-PUD/AMD
Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#62-04-5, B2 Cattle Venture, LLC, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking #68-04-PUD/AMD. She showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and explained that this is a request to amend Urico PUD, Ordinance #14-92, which called for eighty single-family units at a density of .47 dwelling units per acre. A golf course and accessory uses were also included as part of the original development plan. The amendment includes the following: to recognize the elimination of the golf course, to recognize the addition of 250 dwelling units, for a total of 330 dwelling units, a driving range, a pool, tennis courts and a clubhouse and to provide the overall residential project density, regardless of housing type. The Urban Residential Density analysis conducted by the applicant permits a maximum density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Suffron stated that the parcel is 168.67 +/- acres, is located east and west of Rolling Acres Road, has Urban Expansion future land use and is in the Lady Lake Joint Planning Area. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. The Lake County Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the School Board approved the gap funding.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, referred to information in the backup material. The School Board asked for the same language that has been incorporated into PUDs for the last couple of months which proposes a gap fee of $7,286 per single family dwelling unit.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted the presence of the applicant’s representative.
Mr. Steve Richey, attorney representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Bob Farner, Project Engineer, Farner Barley and Associates, Inc., is present. He stated that the School Board, at the Zoning Board meeting, advised that there was capacity at the elementary schools in the Lady Lake area and graciously accepted the gap fee funding and did not oppose the project based on that. He stated that the golf course, a contaminated site, went out of business several years ago. The golf course has been cleaned and has been certified free and clear and all the contaminants have been removed. He stated that the applicant will vacate a golf course path, with the elimination of the golf course, through the neighborhood. The new subdivision will be on central water and septic tanks and the applicant will meet the setback requirements which will allow the existing subdivision to remain on wells and septic tanks. The applicant will be providing fire flows which will be contiguous to the existing subdivision. The new subdivision will meet and exceed the 25% open space requirements. The new development will have a homeowner’s association separate from the existing subdivision. He stated that, based on the Board’s action today, he will be writing a letter to Mr. Hughes setting forth how the three issues he raised will be dealt with. Mr. Richey stated that this property could have 4.5 units per acre, under the point system, but the applicant is proposing less than two units to the acre with a clubhouse and amenity package. He stated that the 300 houses will consume less water than the old golf course did. He stated that the development of quarter acre lots has been internalized, leaving open space and buffering around the perimeter. Mr. Richey submitted a Preliminary Development Plan for Country-Club-Estates which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant. He stated that the heavily wooded area is being maintained as best as it can be.
Mr. Bob Farner, Farner Barley and Associates, Inc., stated that the clubhouse and parking area are presently existing and the trees that were developed over the last ten years will remain. He stated that the open space requirements around the perimeter will allow them to maintain the natural vegetation as much as they possibly can with the exception of some retention areas. He stated that the open space in the northwest area is heavily wooded and will be maintained.
Mr. Richey stated that 250 dwellings will be added to the old golf course area.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would much rather see a plan that utilizes the golf course, even if it is higher density, which would keep the oak trees with houses in and around the oak trees. She stated that her concern would be in the design, not in the numbers.
At this time, Commissioners Hill, Stivender and Pool disclosed for the record that they had spoken with Mr. Richey concerning this case.
No one was present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and to approve Ordinance 2004-70, Rezoning Case Ph#62-04-5, B2 Cattle Venture, LLC, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking #68-04-PUD/AMD, which amends the existing Urico PUD (Ordinance #14-92), actually including the language from the Lake County School System in regards to the gap funding, as follows: The developer pays the proposed School Impact Fees of $10,775 per single family dwelling unit. Should Developer pull any building permits prior to the approval and adoption of the proposed School Impact Fees of $10,775 per single family dwelling unit, the Developer shall pay a GAP FEE of $7,286 in addition to the current School Impact Fee of $3,489 per single family dwelling unit. Should prepayment of School Impact Fees at the current rate of $3,489 be allowed after approval of, and until the effective date of the proposed rate, and the Developer chooses to prepay the School Impact Fees, the GAP FEE of $7,286 per single family dwelling unit shall be paid at that time as well.
Commr. Hanson requested again, under design, if there is any way clustering can be done in any manner, including a varying size of lots, that the resource be protected to the greatest extent, particularly where the oak trees are.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion which carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:35 a.m., Commr. Stivender announced a ten minute break.
REZONING CASE PH#59-04-5 - KEVIN & NANCY ALLEN - TRACKING #63-04-Z
Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#59-04-5, Kevin and Nancy Allen, Tracking #63-04-Z, a request to rezone from CFD (Community Facility District) to A (Agriculture) for use as a tree farm. She showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the property is located off Royal Trails Boulevard, north of Crepe Myrtle and north of the tower. The parcel is 25 +/- acres and has a Future Land Use category of Rural. She stated that staff recommends approval of the request and noted that the Lake County Zoning Board approved the request on October 26, 2004.
In response to a comment by Commr. Cadwell regarding tree farms, Ms. Suffron stated that staff is comfortable that the applicants intend to use the property for a tree farm and stated that a site plan will be required.
Commr. Hanson pointed out that rezoning to Agriculture will eliminate the Community Facility District classification.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted that the applicant was not present. No one was present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson remarked that it looks like there is a significant amount of natural habitat that would have to be considered when the tree farm is put in place.
Commr. Stivender stated that it will go through site plan review with staff.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and to approve Ordinance 2004-71, Rezoning Case Ph#59-04-5, Kevin and Nancy Allen, Tracking #63-04-Z, a request to rezone from CFD (Community Facility District) to A (Agriculture) for use as a tree farm.
Commr. Hanson stated that there may be a scrub jay habitat on the site since it looks very similar to the property across the road where scrub jays are present.
Ms. Suffron stated that staff will certainly look into that during site plan review.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion which carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
COMMISSIONERS
Commr. Hanson announced that she will recuse herself from Rezoning Case PH#58-04-4, Dubsdread Contracting and Development Company, because her real estate company, Catherine Hanson Real Estate, Inc., is brokering the contract for sale on the property. (Form 8B Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers was submitted by Commr. Hanson and is included in the backup material.)
Commissioners Hill, Pool and Stivender disclosed for the record that they had spoken with Mr. Bruce Duncan concerning Rezoning Case PH#58-04-4, Dubsdread Contracting and Development Company. Commr. Hanson disclosed that she spoke with Mr. Duncan before he realized that she would recuse herself.
REZONING CASE PH#58-04-4 - DUBSDREAD CONTRACTING &
DEVELOPMENT - BRUCE G. DUNCAN, P.A. - TRACKING #62-04-MP
Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#58-04-4, Dubsdread Contracting & Development Company, Bruce G. Duncan, PA, Tracking #62-04-MP, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to MP (Planned Industrial District). She showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the owner wishes to rezone approximately eleven acres in the State Road 46 and Round Lake Road area for use as office/warehouse. Ms. Suffron stated that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations do not fully support the applicant’s request for a change in zoning from Agriculture to Planned Industrial as it is inconsistent with Policy 1-1.14 citing requirements of central water and sewer. Due to this inconsistency, staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a change in zoning. She noted that the Lake County Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval to MP with the requirement of a traffic study.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding proposed ordinance changes that were submitted by the applicant, Ms. Suffron stated that staff will leave the decision up to the Board.
Commr. Stivender pointed out that staff’s only opposition is that the project will not have central water and sewer but those utilities are not available in the area.
Ms. Suffron agreed that water and sewer are not available but staff had to go with the Comprehensive Plan policy.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Potter Clement Lowry and Duncan, stated that Mr. Al Roe, who is his client and who has the property under contract, is present. He opined that the goal of the policy for water and sewer was to keep industrial development from cropping up in the middle of nowhere. He stated that this project is on State Road 46, a collector road, in an Employment Center, and meets all the other criteria of the siting locations for Industrial with the exception of water and sewer. He stated that it is his understanding from the City of Mount Dora that water and sewer will be available in the near future and his client will agree, in the proposed ordinance, to hook up to it as soon as they become available. Mr. Duncan stated that this site will be office/warehouse uses, similar to some projects in downtown Mount Dora, and manufacturing will not be allowed on the site and a lot of waste will not be generated. He stated that his client is asking for 100,000 square feet, rather than 80,000, which would be approximately 2.5 acres of roof on an eleven-acre parcel. He stated that, if that entire 100,000 square feet were to be used for office, which it will not be, it would generate 15,000 gallons of water and septic use per day. He estimated that about 25% of the 100,000 square feet will be used for office space with the remaining in warehouse use which actually generates no water or septic use. Mr. Duncan stated that he believes the subject property actually is within Mount Dora’s Joint Planning Area. Regarding landscaping, his thoughts are that staff put some buffers in beyond what is required by the code. He stated that he has no problems with the Class A buffers that are required along the front, but the Class D buffers that are required along the back side and buffering industrial to industrial are a little extensive. He recapped the applicant’s differences with staff being the request for 100,000 square feet instead of 80,000 square feet and the landscape buffers.
Regarding an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell concerning language in the ordinance recognizing that this property is in the Mount Dora Joint Planning Area and their regulations will be followed, Mr. Duncan agreed to that language.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that the language probably would be that the applicant would use the best between the County’s and the City’s Land Development Regulations.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Wicks Consulting, stated that the wall between the subject parcel and the adjacent property to the east, as required by the proposed ordinance, is really not necessary because the property to the east, although zoned Agriculture, truly is used as quasi-warehouse. There was an opportunity to do a B buffer just around the project site and a reduced, but enhanced, buffer along the frontage of State Road 46, in keeping with Mount Dora’s code of a 25-foot minimum buffer along the front with the larger sized trees. She asked that the applicant be allowed to do a better buffer along State Road 46 but not be required to build the wall along the east side.
Commr. Stivender noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the language regarding the more stringent Land Development Regulations would take care of most of staff’s concerns with landscaping.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, stated that the buffer requirement language came straight from the Code. It probably would be acceptable if the property to the east actually has more of a quasi-industrial/quasi-commercial use and the Board elects to use a lesser buffer. With the potential future residential uses to the north, the northern boundary should probably maintain the D type buffer with the wall. As far as the eastern and western boundaries, they are abutting industrial uses and can be a lesser buffer.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Pool regarding walls on the north side of the existing industrial parks to the east and west, Mr. Richardson stated that the MP site directly to the west was built some years before the code changes required a wall. The park to the east has agriculture on its northern border so there would not have been a requirement for a wall.
There was further discussion regarding Mount Dora’s requirements and whether a wall should be required on the northern boundary.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Duncan as to whether staff would be willing to accept a berm that meets Code requirements, Mr. Richardson stated that a berm with plantings would suffice because that would meet the intent to provide the visual buffer from any potential residential development.
Mr. Duncan stated that his client will be happy to do that during site plan.
There being no further public comment, Commr. Stivender closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried, by a vote of 4-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-72, Rezoning Case Ph#58-04-4, Dubsdread Contracting & Development Company, Bruce G. Duncan, PA, Tracking #62-04-MP, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to MP (Planned Industrial District); adding language that the applicant will connect to water and sewer when they are available; that the applicant would agree to the most stringent language, either out of the Lake County or the Mount Dora LDRs (Land Development Regulations) in regards to development of the parcel; including the berm with vegetation on the back; including the applicant’s request for 100,000 square feet of building area rather than 80,000 square feet.
Commr. Hanson abstained from the vote.
REZONING CASE PH#57-04-4 - ROBERT & OLLIVENE SULLIVAN
THOMAS DALY, DALY DESIGN GROUP, INC. - TRACKING #61-04-PUD/AMD
Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case PH#57-04-4, Sullivan Assets, LLP, Robert & Ollivene Sullivan, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Thomas Daly c/o Daly Design Group, Inc., Tracking #61-04-PUD/AMD, a request to amend the initial Sullivan Ranch PUD (Planned Unit Development), Ordinance 1995-37, to recognize the elimination of the golf course and to recognize the addition of 100 dwelling units. She showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that this is a 298-acre parcel located north of the Orange County line, east of U.S. Highway 441, lying adjacent to and west of Round Lake Road, south of State Road 46, in the Mount Dora Joint Planning Area. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan as seen in Policy 1-1.6 that permits residential development in the Urban Expansion land use category to occur at a density from one (1) to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment is requesting a density of 2.5 units per acre. Staff recommends approval of the request and the Lake County Zoning Board, on October 26, 2004, unanimously recommended approval to amend the PUD with the changes discussed during that hearing and the impact fee language in “VII” regarding the school impact fee.
Commr. Hanson disclosed for the record that she met with Mr. Keith Schue and had telephone conversations with Ms. Andrea Burr and Ms. Cecelia Bonifay on this case.
Commr. Stivender disclosed for the record that she had conversations with Ms. Cecelia Bonifay on this case.
Commr. Hill disclosed for the record that she had conversations with Ms. Cecelia Bonifay on this case. Commr. Hill stated that the Mount Dora Friends of the Environment delivered a two-page letter and that she spoke briefly with Mount Dora Mayor James Yatsuk in reference to that letter.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing and noted the presence of the applicant’s representative.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Akerman Senterfitt, submitted a revised seven-page version of staff’s proposed ordinance. (A copy of Ms. Bonifay’s version of the ordinance was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant, and is referred to throughout Ms. Bonifay’s presentation.) She stated that Mr. Scott Vinson, Centex Homes, the developer of the project; Mr. Tom Daly, Daly Design Group; and Mr. Charlie Madden, Madden Engineering, are present today. Ms. Bonifay stated that her clients requested that the number of villas be increased from 100 to 220. One hundred of the additional 220 units would be age restricted. The development would be limited to 700 dwelling units with a different mix of villa and single-family units. The villas would be conveyed through fee simple and would be owner-occupied. Regarding Buffers and Setbacks, Ms. Bonifay requested that residential units, rather than structures, on Round Lake Road could not closer than 200 feet from the existing right-of-way, allowing existing horse barns to remain on the property (Exhibit A-1, Page 3, I, 5) She also requested that a building setback, rather than a buffer, of 50 feet be provided from adjacent properties zoned industrial. Ms. Bonifay stated that her client will use, as a minimum, the 96-hour storm event (Exhibit A-1, Page 4, II, 4)
Ms. Bonifay showed a site plan for the Sullivan property (a copy of which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant). She advised that her client, at the request of the Mount Dora Friends of the Environment, will move the retention pond, currently shown in the northeast section of the property, farther up the hill so that the tree canopy can be preserved. Also, her client has agreed not to berm the area because water could back up and make that area wetter and consequently damage the trees. Ms. Bonifay stated that The Friends also requested that the area be designated for public access but her client prefers not to do that because all of the 75 acres of open space will be put under the control of the homeowner’s association and will be for the benefit of the residents of the subdivision. She suggested that a new number 6 be added under the Storm Water section on Page 4 (Exhibit A-1) indicating that the applicant will move the retention pond, which is located in the northerly portion of the property, to the east to preserve the existing trees and that the applicant will meet or exceed the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant requests wording that the existing pavement shall be widened to 24 feet concurrent with the development of the project (Exhibit A-1, Page 4, III, A). As the project begins, the improvements to Robie Avenue will begin. Regarding the Land Development Regulations (Exhibit A-1, Page 4, III, E) the applicant may be able to go up to a maximum longitudinal slope of 12 percent, subject to the review of the Public Works Department. There are some elevations and a lot of big trees and more slopes are needed to eliminate cutting significantly into the grade and to preserve more trees.
Ms. Bonifay presented a letter from Mr. Mark Reggentin, Mount Dora Planning and Development Director, to Mr. Daly regarding the PUD. (A copy of the letter was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A-3, for the Applicant.) She opined that Mr. Reggentin’s letter indicates that this is viewed as a vested PUD by the City of Mount Dora and, should it be annexed prior to the time of the completion of the development, the City will honor the proposed PUD. She stated that she wished the letter had included, “and the County’s Land Development Regulations.” She stated that there are no less than half a dozen projects in Clermont where there is absolutely no agreement still between what is the more stringent. People are going all the way through the Lake County development review process and getting to a point of final engineering plans or final plat to be told by the City of Clermont that nothing they are proposing is consistent and they have to start all over again. She opined that is not what the Board intended.
Ms. Bonifay asked that the language be changed (Exhibit A-1, Page 5, VI, Future Development Orders) or be clear, on the record, that the City is happy with what the County has proposed and that some minor detail in a Land Development Regulation does not arise later that could cause the process to start over.
Commr. Cadwell stated that she could request that the language be taken out.
Ms. Bonifay asked that the language be: “The development is within the City of Mount Dora Joint Planning Area, however, Mount Dora has agreed that this is a vested PUD and, therefore, will be developed in accordance with the Lake County LDRs.” She stated that they would proceed with the existing PUD as a vested PUD and also to develop under the County’s regulations.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the Board will take action to approve this change to the PUD and noted that there is no indication that the City of Mount Dora took action to approve what Mr. Reggentin’s letter says.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant has a utility agreement with the City of Mount Dora and this has been the policy of the City since they started.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, opined that Ms. Bonifay’s request flies in the face of the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA). The problems found in Clermont are that Clermont is saying it is not going to give utilities. He stated that County staff can resolve the Land Development Regulation disputes during the development review stage. If the City takes a position that the County staff does not feel is warranted, the County can give approval for the development. But, if City utilities are needed, a County approval is not worth much. Mr. Minkoff concluded that probably the wording in the proposed ordinance that was used in other cases involving JPAs is probably the way it should be.
Ms. Bonifay reiterated that her clients have a binding utility agreement with the City of Mount.
Commr. Cadwell stated that we would be better served to leave that language in because the City of Mount Dora has already taken the position that apparently there will not be a problem. Also, Ms. Bonifay can remind the City of the letter from Mr. Reggentin if there is a problem.
Ms. Bonifay agreed, as long as the record reflects that is their intent and they will be calling on the County if, in fact, they do have a problem.
Ms. Bonifay continued by referring to the Impact Fee language on Page 5 of her version of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit A-1). She stated that her client, in looking at this as a vested PUD for 600 units, has difficulty with the payment of a school impact gap fee and had they just gone to preliminary plat and left in the golf course the impact fee language would not have been included.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill as to whether impact fees have been prepaid on the original, vested 600 homes, Ms. Bonifay stated that impact fees have not been prepaid and will be subject to whatever the fee is at the time building permits are pulled. She stated that puts her client at a disadvantage if, at the time of plat, they have to come up with an extra $7,286, plus whatever it is today, because other builders will not have to do that until the time of pulling building permits.
Mr. Minkoff stated that this applicant is likely a year from presenting a plat to the Board on this project. By then, based on the Impact Fee Committee’s work, certainly this issue will be resolved and should never come up. Mr. Minkoff explained that, in order to qualify under the federal and state fair housing act, it is likely the age-restricted villas will be a pod of units.
Ms. Bonifay then repeated her earlier discussion of the request which was made by the Mount Dora Friends of the Environment.
In response to questions by Commr. Hanson, Ms. Bonifay stated that the developer will be responsible for improvements to Robie Avenue, such as widening and paving, concurrent with the development of the project (Exhibit A-1, Page 4, III, A). At this time, the client has not determined whether this will be a public or private, gated development. Ms. Bonifay stated that Daley Design Group is doing the planning and landscape architecture.
Commr. Hanson expressed concern that there are significant areas of tree canopy that could be preserved. She opined that there is a tremendous opportunity here, with utilities, to have more clustering and to protect more of the tree resource and provide a higher percentage of open space.
Mr. Tom Daly of Daly Design Group, on behalf of Centex Homes, stated that Daly Design Group is the land planner and landscape architect for the project. Regarding open space, he stated that roughly 80 acres of golf course land was designated previously, and the current plan designates 75 acres that can be used by residents. He reiterated information on the 12% slopes and stated that the additional villas, which may be duplexes or four-plex type units, are requested due to clustering. The clustering concept is designed to save the existing slope and grades, to save the existing trees and keep the pasture grass as it is. Referring to the site plan (Exhibit A-2), Mr. Daly stated that there are, basically, two big valleys with a 65 to 75-foot drop. He stated that they have tried to cluster everything on the flattest parts. The grading and tree preservation are being evaluated as the open space is being fine tuned.
Ms. Andrea Burr, a founding member and secretary of the Mount Dora Friends of the Environment, addressed the Board. She stated that the mission of the ten-year-old organization is to lessen the burdens of government through public education concerning the environment and to help build a consensus with neighbors in development. She stated that, in speaking with Ms. Bonifay and Centex Homes, she expressed concern that there not be water directed toward the Wolf Branch Sink basin. She stated that she agrees, overall, with the concept which has been agreed to this morning and that the developer is showing a very good faith effort in actually protecting a parcel that will significantly enhance their land values. The water at Wolf Branch Sink comes from a five-mile basin and everything on the ground, including gas, oil and pesticides, is swept into the groundwater and into the future drinking water supply. She stated that her focus of concern about the environment is that it be sustainable and she opined that, through cooperation with developers, a win-win situation can be created.
Ms. Bonifay recapped her earlier statements, including the request that a new Number 6 be added on the top of Page 4 under Storm Water (Exhibit A-1), that the developer will not put a berm around that corner, and that the developer will affirm they will meet or exceed all of the St. Johns Water Management District criteria regarding how runoff will be treated and to assure that everything is retained on the site. She reiterated that the developer will do the minimum of the 96-hour/25-year frequency storm, and they may actually increase the storm frequency.
Commissioner Cadwell pointed out that the language should be strong regarding the regulations of the St. Johns River Water Management District.
Ms. Burr remarked that the matter of public green space probably would best be addressed between the Water Authority and the developer. If they are to have access from the development onto Wolf Branch Sink, the matter of whether or not it is a one-way or two-way access would have to be addressed. Most important, is that it be kept green space and that no stormwater features or housing be placed in that corner that would damage the tree canopy. She agreed that the addition of a new Number 6 would do that.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her clients will continue to work with the Water Authority as they try to do an overall management plan so Centex Homes will be participating with them and The Friends because it could be beneficial to the development’s residents to have access. They would also want to know what kind of impact that would have on the development. She stated that, if any notations need to be made as to these issues, they can be done on the face of the plat which will come to the Board for final approval.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson commented that, in continuing the build-out of homes in the east Lake County area, the bar certainly has been raised. She expressed her appreciation for that.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-73, Rezoning Case PH#57-04-4, Sullivan Assets, LLP, Robert & Ollivene Sullivan, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Thomas Daly c/o Daly Design Group, Inc., Tracking #61-04-PUD/AMD, a request to amend the initial Sullivan Ranch PUD (Planned Unit Development), Ordinance 1995-37, to recognize the elimination of the golf course and to recognize the addition of 100 dwelling units; including the revised language as agreed upon by Ms. Andrea Burr and Ms. Cecelia Bonifay; including the new language proposed by the School Board regarding the gap fee.
Commr. Hanson recognized Mr. Keith Schue for the role he played during the planning and zoning process in trying to help find a resolution that would be satisfactory to everybody.
REZONING CASE PH#53-04-3 - BAYWOOD FOREST, INC. - AL PLASTEREK
DONALD MAHEUX - TRACKING #57-04-Z
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#53-04-3, Baywood Forest, Inc., Al Plasterek, Donald Maheux, Tracking #57-04-Z, a request to rezone from CFD (Community Facility District) to R-7 (Mixed Residential) for an age-restricted development. He showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the subject parcel is located in the Eustis/Mount Dora area off the County Road 19A corridor and Bay Road. The 3.81 acre parcel is in the Urban land use category that permits up to seven dwelling units per acre. Central water and sewer will be provided to the proposed development utilizing the existing on-site (private) systems. Mr. Hartenstein continued the Summary of Analysis which is in the backup material. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Zoning Board recommended approval to R-7 and that staff recommends approval of the request, subject to development at the maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre based upon the Urban Area Residential Density Point total. There was one letter of opposition.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding the road, Mr. Hartenstein remarked that he understands the road will remain private and that it has been maintained by the Baywood Condominium Association for 24 years.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing, noted the presence of the applicant’s representative and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Wicks Consulting, stated that issues with the neighbors have been resolved. Basically, it is a private road in great shape. The water and sewer are owned by Mr. Plasterek and it is a franchised utility. The intensity is being reduced from an ACLF (Assisted Congregate Living Facility) to 16 or 17 single family homes.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-74, Rezoning Case Ph#53-04-3, Baywood Forest, Inc., Al Plasterek, Donald Maheux, Tracking #57-04-Z, a request to rezone from CFD (Community Facility District) to R-7 (Mixed Residential).
REZONING CASE PH#55-04-3 - R. DEWEY BURNSED
VALERIE FUCHS, ESQ. - TRACKING #59-04-Z
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#55-04-3, R. Dewey Burnsed, Valerie Fuchs, Esq., Tracking #59-04-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential). The subject parcel is located in the Yalaha area off Number Two Road, approximately three tenths of a mile south of County Road 48. He showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the subject parcel, 14.45 +/- acres with approximately 2.98 acres of water/wetlands, is located in the Urban Expansion land use category that permits up to four dwelling units per acre. The property, as indicated by the applicant, will be developed at a density of one dwelling unit to the acre with private wells and septics. Mr. Hartenstein continued the Summary of Analysis which is in the backup material. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Zoning Board recommended approval to R-1 and that staff recommends approval of the request subject to development at the maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per acre based upon the Urban Area Residential Density Point total and with school gap fee language included in the ordinance.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing, noted the presence of the applicant’s representative and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Esq., stated that the County currently recognizes two buildable lots because Number Two Road was put in by the County. Currently, two permits could be pulled, one above Number Two Road and one below the road. Her client requests the rezoning so he can split the upper parcel in two, leaving the existing house on one lot and putting one home on the other two lots, for a total of three homes on the property.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-75, Rezoning Case Ph#55-04-3, R. Dewey Burnsed, Valerie Fuchs, Esq., Tracking #59-04-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential).
REZONING CASE PH#61-04-1 - JAD DAYE & IMAD NASNAS
RUDOLPH RODE - TRACKING #70-04-Z
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case PH#61-04-1, Jad Daye & Imad Antoun Nasnas; Rudolph Rode, Tracking #70-04-Z, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) f/k/a R-1-6 + CUP #912-1 for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District). The PUD was for Emerald Green, an assisted living facility-type environment. Part of this property was rezoned in January 2004 and some title issues had to be cleared up on the additional property. He showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the subject parcel, 8.29 +/- acres, is located in the Urban Expansion land use category that permits up to four dwelling units per acre and has wetlands located on the property. This parcel will be combined with the adjacent property that was rezoned to R-4 in January for one single-family residential development. Mr. Hartenstein stated that his understanding is that the site has been reduced to a total of about 50 units. The applicant is working with the City of Leesburg to have city water and sewer. Mr. Hartenstein continued the Summary of Analysis which is in the backup material. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Zoning Board recommended approval to R-4 and to vacate the existing PUD and that staff recommends approval of the request to rezone and the revocation of the CUP.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing, noted the presence of the applicant and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the applicant is willing to accept the new proposed $7,286 impact gap fee language from the School System.
Mr. Rudolph Rode, the applicant, stated that he agreed to the $2,000 gap fee in January and he will stand by that on the 32 initial units and will agree to the new gap fee at the time of permitting on the additional units. He stated that the school impact fees should be resolved by the time construction starts in May or June 2005.
In clarifying the school impact fee gap funding, Mr. Rode stated that he has a letter of acceptance from the School Board for the $2,000 gap fee on the initial 32 units.
Mr. Hartenstein remarked that the School Board, in making comments regarding the request for rezoning, was not interested in what had previously been done and would look at the total development of approximately 57 units. He stated that he would like the Board to make the decision on the gap fee.
The Board agreed that the $2,000 gap fee will apply to the initial 32 units, and the new gap fee of $7,286 will apply to the additional 13 to 15 units.
Mr. Rode stated that there probably will be 45 total units which will be an increase of 13 to 15 additional units. He stated that the number of homes was decreased to provide larger lots and to provide space for a park.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill regarding vacating the existing PUD, Mr. Hartenstein explained that the CUP that called it a PUD would be abandoned and revoked. He stated that staff wanted to be sure, on the record, that the CUP would be revoked.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated the ordinance will be written to reflect the revocation as part of the rezoning request.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-76, Rezoning Case PH#61-04-1, Jad Daye & Imad Antoun Nasnas, Rudolph Rode, Tracking #70-04-Z, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) f/k/a R-1-6 + CUP #912-1 for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District).
REZONING CASE PH#64-04-2 - SOSA RELATED INVESTMENTS
GREG A. BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG - TRACKING #67-04-PUD/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#64-04-2, SOSA Related Investments, Greg A. Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Tracking #67-04-PUD/AMD, a request to amend PUD Ordinance 2004-47 to include the addition of 10 +/- acres, in addition to changing or clarifying language associated with the landscape buffer, wetland setbacks, access points, sidewalks and density of the project. He showed the conceptual plan (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the site is currently zoned Agriculture (A). Mr. Kruse continued the Summary of Analysis which is included in the backup material. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Zoning Board recommended approval and that staff recommends approval of the request to amend PUD Ordinance 2004-47 subject to the conditions contained in the revised ordinance.
In response to inquiries by Commr. Hill, Mr. Kruse explained that home sites will be included. A ten-acre block will be added to the twenty-acre block. There was vague landscape language in the PUD Ordinance that will be amended. Also, the developer is trying to avoid some of the wetland impacts by reducing the 50-foot wetland setback to 25 feet in certain areas.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing, noted the presence of the applicant’s representative and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., stated that her client was able to obtain an additional ten acres of upland which was helpful because it did lessen the impacts to the wetlands. Basically, that acreage is being added onto the existing PUD.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-77, Rezoning Case Ph#64-04-2, SOSA Related Investments, Greg A. Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Tracking #67-04-PUD/AMD, a request to amend PUD Ordinance 2004-47.
REZONING CASE PH#63-04-3 - GSH DEVELOPMENT
TIM GREEN, GREEN CONSULTING - TRACKING #69-04-PUD/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#63-04-3, GSH Development, Tim Green, Green Consulting, Tracking #69-04-PUD/AMD, a request to amend existing PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance 2003-54. The current PUD permits the property to be used for a variety of uses, including office uses, single and multifamily residential uses and commercial uses. As shown on the conceptual plan dated March 19, 2003, and in the current ordinance, site access is limited to the three office park entrances with internal access roads leading to each phase. (A copy of the conceptual plan was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit LC-1, for Lake County.) The applicant would like to utilize Orchard Drive to access the single-family phase. The applicant is proposing a future internal road that will connect this phase with the other phases of the project. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Zoning Board recommended approval and noted that there was one letter of opposition regarding wetland impacts. Staff recommends approval of the request to amend PUD Ordinance 2003-54 to include access from Orchard Drive.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Kruse stated that he has not had any negative comments from Public Works and there is an existing driveway cut.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing, noted the presence of the applicant’s representative and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. T. J. Fish, Green Consulting Group, Inc., concurred with staff and stated that this is a technical issue. The PUD has been sold into a couple of different tracts and a single-family developer wishes to utilize Orchard Drive as access and will be improving it. The developer has communicated with the affected property owners to let them know of the improved access.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding landscape design, Mr. Fish did not know if Green Consulting will be involved with the landscaping.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-78, Rezoning Case Ph#63-04-3, GSH Development, Tim Green, Green Consulting, Tracking #69-04-PUD/AMD, a request to amend existing PUD Ordinance 2003-54.
REZONING CASE PH#54-04-2 - OPEN DOOR BAPTIST CHURCH
BRIAN R. CAMP, REPRESENTATIVE - TRACKING #58-04-CFD/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#54-04-2, Open Door Baptist Church, Brian R. Camp, Representative, Tracking #58-04-CFD/AMD, a request to amend the current CFD (Community Facility District) Ordinance 106-89 to include the removal of the existing mobile home and replace it with a duplex for use by the caretaker and the pastor. He showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the subject 12 +/- acre parcel is in the Minneola area. The existing 1,848 square foot mobile home will be replaced with a 3,300 square foot duplex. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Zoning Board recommended approval and that staff recommends approval of the request for the amendment.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing, noted the presence of the applicant and noted that no one was present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-79, Rezoning Case Ph#54-04-2, Open Door Baptist Church, Brian R. Camp, Representative, Tracking #58-04-CFD/AMD, a request to amend the current CFD (Community Facility District) Ordinance 106-89.
REZONING CASE MSP#04/9/1-2 - E.R. JAHNA INDUSTRIES
CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS - TRACKING #65-04-MSP/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case MSP#04/9/1-2, E. R. Jahna Industries, Creative Environmental Solutions, Inc., Tracking #65-04-MSP/AMD, a request to amend current CUP (Conditional Use Permit) 863-2/3, which was approved in 1983, to add 2,455 acres to the existing sand mine operation, of which 399 acres is to be mined. He showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the project is the expansion of an existing sand mine operation in the south Lake County area, north and south of County Road 474. The expansion of the existing mine into the subject property would extend the life of the mine approximately thirty years in addition to the current permitted area. There are three phases and hours of operation will remain 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There would be no additional facilities constructed with the proposed amendment and the applicant indicates that there would be no changes to the existing truck traffic volumes or patterns. Mr. Kruse continued the Summary of Analysis which is included in the backup material. He stated that staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as outlined in the proposed ordinance. The Lake County Zoning Board voted 4-0 for approval. Mr. Kruse explained that there is a requirement of a 750-foot minimum setback concerning the bald eagle nest that was observed within the area to be mined. He stated that trees shown in one of the photographs in the backup material will not be mined while the upland pastures will be.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Kruse noted that the applicant and the applicant’s representatives were present earlier but had temporarily left the meeting.
Commr. Hill asked if this will continue under the existing 1983 mining ordinance or under the new mining ordinance and if the continuance of the project is bonded.
Mr. Kruse explained that there will be a letter of credit or guarantee that the site will be reclaimed. Per the proposed ordinance, approval for the operation on the additional acreage shall be through a new Operation Plan as required by the Lake County Land Development Regulations. He stated that, usually, if areas that were already mined will not be mined again, there is no requirement to come up to current standards. The previously mined areas are required to be reclaimed to the previous standards.
Commr. Stivender pointed out that the applicant has indicated that 900 acres will be preserved in perpetuity directly adjacent to the nearby natural areas.
Mr. Kruse stated that some areas are being set aside and conservation easements will be placed on some areas and only single-family residential homes can be built on some areas.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the proposed ordinance does not specify that only 399 acres of the addition will be mined.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, remarked that there may not be a requirement that only 399 acres will be mined. The applicant has identified that an estimated 399 acres of the site can be mined, but the exact number could vary.
Mr. Kruse stated that the entire area of 2,455 acres is included in the request to rezone so that the boundary on the parent tract is established in the event portions of the tract are rezoned at a later date. He stated that staff has been working with E.R. Jahna Industries, the owner of the site, for more than a year and staff feels comfortable with what they have submitted. He stated that no letters of support or opposition to the request have been received.
There being no public comment or opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-80, Rezoning Case MSP#04/9/1-2, E. R. Jahna Industries, Creative Environmental Solutions, Inc., Tracking #65-04-MSP/AMD, a request to amend current CUP (Conditional Use Permit) 863-2/3, which was approved in 1983, to add 2,455 acres to the existing sand mine operation, of which approximately 399 acres is to be mined.
REZONING CASE MSP#04/7/1-3 - BLANDFORD GROVES, INC - FLORIDA ROCK
INDUSTRIES - STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - CHRYL ELLINOR, LPG
ENVIRONMENTAL & PERMITTING SERVICES - TRACKING #50-05-MSP/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case MSP#04/7/1-3, Blandford Groves, Inc., Florida Rock Industries, Steven J. Richey, P.A.; Chryl Ellinor, LPG Environmental & Permitting Services, Tracking #50-04-MSP/AMD, a request to amend current MSP #03/3/2-3 to add 1,289 acres to the mining site boundary. He showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the existing sand mine operation is located in the Astatula area and is operated by Florida Rock Industries. He stated that new data indicates the duration of mining for the expansion area is approximately twenty-two years, not fifty-seven years as noted in the Summary of Analysis in the backup material. The sand slurry will be pumped via pipeline and processed at the current processing plant on County Road 561. The reclamation plan proposes to establish approximately 523 acres in created water bodies that will be scattered throughout the subject parcel. Mr. Kruse stated that there were two letters in opposition to the requested rezoning. The Lake County Zoning Board recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request to amend MSP #03/3/2-3 to add 1,289 acres and bring the entire mining site plan under current standards. Mr. Kruse stated that staff and the applicant have discussed language that will be included in the ordinance regarding bald eagles.
Commr. Stivender disclosed for the record that she had conversations with Attorney Steve Richey, and with Mr. Michael O’Berry and Mr. Raymond Raczkowski of Florida Rock. She stated that a town meeting was held to address concerns from residents in Commission District 3. As a result, additional buffering was added and wording was added that the plant cannot be moved from its current location to County Road 448. She stated that other citizen concerns were agreed to by Florida Rock and those issues were presented at the Zoning Board meeting.
Commissioners Hill and Pool disclosed for the record that they spoke with Attorney Steve Richey regarding this case.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and noted the presence of the applicant. No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Steve Richey stated that the mine goes back to 1963 and currently has 784 acres. He stated that all current mining and amendments meet current Lake County codes. He stated that approval of this request will expand the total mine area to 2,074 acres but this request will only add 431 acres of actual mining property because the rest will be set aside in wetlands, buffers, conservation easements, etc. He stated that staff’s language regarding the bald eagles has been reviewed and is acceptable to his client. He requested that the Board eliminate the last sentence of Paragraph Q on Page 3 which states, “The current aboveground tailing storage area shall be mined prior to mining in the expansion area.” Mr. Richey stated that Florida Rock is already mining on that side of the road and is working toward that tailings operation to remine that. He stated that Florida Rock is also mining on the other side of the road so there will be two dredges going and it is not practical to stop one dredge while mining on the other one.
Commr. Stivender concurred with Mr. Richey, stating that the tailings were discussed at the town meeting. She stated that, as also discussed at the town meeting, there will be no access point onto County Road 448, and that the setback is greater that the normal setbacks.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Cadwell regarding the 300-foot setback and details in the Operation Plan, Mr. Kruse explained that staff reviews the Operation Plan which will be a detailed schematic of height, plantings, irrigation schedules, etc. If staff is uncomfortable with the Operation Plan it will be sent back to the applicant for revision.
Commr. Stivender remarked that residents wanted the berm, more so than plantings because there is no irrigation along there, because they did not want to be able to see the dredge or the mine from County Road 448.
Mr. Richey stated that the mining site plan is a two-tier process. He stated that the mining site plan with conditions will be approved first, then the detailed engineering will be filed and come back through site plan review with staff. He stated that the berming is one of those issues that will be dealt with very specifically.
Commr. Stivender stated that the cattle will stay on the ranch part until the dredging of that site. She explained that some of the residents expressed the concern that they like seeing the pasture land.
Mr. Richey stated that the 300-foot setback will stay there forever.
No one was present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-81, Rezoning Case MSP#04/7/1-3, Blandford Groves, Inc., Florida Rock Industries, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Chryl Ellinor, LPG Environmental & Permitting Services, Tracking #50-04-MSP/AMD, a request to amend current MSP #03/3/2-3 to add 1,289 acres to the mining site boundary; excluding the last sentence in Paragraph Q, Page 3 (“The current aboveground tailing storage area shall be mined prior to mining in the expansion area.”)
REZONING CASE PH#42-04-2 - CHANCERY LANE, LTD - BAILES PROPERTIES
STEVEN J. RICHEY - TRACKING #45-04-Z
Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Division, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case Ph#42-04-2, Chancery Lane, Ltd., Bailes Properties, Steven J. Richey, Tracking #45-04-Z, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District) with C-2 (Community Commercial District) uses. She showed the aerial map (which is included in the backup material) and stated that the parcel is approximately 16.4 acres and is located in the Clermont area, east of U.S. Highway 27, on Hartwood Marsh Road. The applicant wishes to develop the property for the purpose of a self-storage facility. The property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The site meets commercial location criteria. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone from R-6 to CP with C-2 uses. The Lake County Zoning Board recommended approval by a vote of 3-2.
Ms. Suffron read into the record a list of the specific uses as presented to her today by the applicant. The uses the applicant would like the request limited to are: banking, consumer services and repair, medical services, personal care services, professional office, general retail, self-service storage and day care center. Ms. Suffron noted that the applicants were present earlier in the meeting.
Commr. Pool disclosed for the record that he had spoken with Attorney Steve Richey and Mr. Gerard Turner concerning this case.
Commissioners Stivender and Hill disclosed for the record that they had spoken with Attorney Steve Richey concerning this case.
Mr. Steve Richey, stated that he represents Mr. Charles Bailes and Chancery Lane, Ltd. Mr. Bailes has a contract to purchase the 16.4 acres. Mr. Richey stated that the subject parcel has commercial uses next door and across the street. He explained the requested uses and stated that self-storage units will be the primary use. Mr. Richey referred to the June 24, 2004, letter from Mr. Barry Brown of the City of Clermont (included in the backup material) that indicates opposition to the rezoning to commercial uses. He stated that Clermont’s staff report recommended to the City Commission that the entire parcel be rezoned commercial as being consistent with their comprehensive plan and consistent with that area. He stated that the City Commission voted to keep it R-6 zoning. He stated that his clients are complying with requests of the City with regards to the lighting and to limiting access to Hartwood Marsh Road. He stated that none of the storage facilities front Hartwood Marsh Road and only the office entrance will be on Hartwood Marsh Road. He stated that his clients have agreed to the architectural standards that are in place at the Publix shopping center across the street. Mr. Richey stated that this portion of Hartwood Marsh Road should be four-laned within twelve months and his clients are providing additional right-of-way as part of their application. He stated that his clients have also agreed to a frontage road. He stated that the requested rezoning will not have any impacts on schools but will provide a tax base and potential jobs. He opined that the development is compatible and clearly consistent with other C-2 uses contiguous to this parcel. He stated that this CP, with limited uses, will provide a buffer to the rest of the R-6 zoning. He stated that Clermont has approved more intensive uses down the road to include churches and other things. He suggested that the Board should look at the professionals that looked at it on their staff, not the politics of the situation, to see why this 16 acres should be limited commercial. He stated that there will be no commercial activities in the self-storage buildings. Mr. Richey stated that he had tried to contact all the homeowners’ associations at Kings Ridge who might have concerns and he had no response from them. He stated that his clients’ original request was CP with C-1 and C-2 uses and that his clients, by limiting the uses to the eight previously mentioned, have deleted forty to sixty uses that are available to the property next door.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hill regarding contiguous property, Mr. Richey explained that Kings Ridge on the north side is contiguous to the City of Clermont.
Commr. Pool pointed out the stormwater retention areas and fire stations on the map. He stated that the entire Publix shopping center backs into the Kings Ridge development. The subject property is across Hartwood Marsh Road and the storage facilities will not be seen from Hartwood Marsh Road.
Commr. Stivender opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Gerard Turner stated that he is in opposition to this request. He stated that his property is the rear property line in the common area that is part of Kings Ridge which abuts Hartwood Marsh Road on the north. Mr. Turner stated that he is an attorney and represents the feelings of six of his neighbors who are in opposition to the self-storage facility. He presented a resolution from the Wellington at Kings Ridge Neighborhood Association’s Board of Directors which requests that the rezoning be denied for the same reason as set forth in the letter from the City of Clermont, as well as a letter from the Sutherland Board of Directors. (A copy of the resolution and letter were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1, for the Opposition.) Mr. Turner stated that the Board also received a letter in July 2004 from the President’s Council which represents about 1,000 members in Kings Ridge. He read portions of the June 24, 2004, letter from the City of Clermont which is included in the backup material. Mr. Turner stated that the owner of the subject parcel applied for a rezoning, from R-6 to RP, from the County about four and one-half years ago. He stated that he was in opposition to that request as well because he expected that property to be developed as single-family units under R-6 zoning. He reiterated that many people oppose the current request to rezone the property. Mr. Turner then expressed his concerns regarding the Findings of the County staff. His concerns include the consistency of the uses for the area, traffic on Hartwood Marsh Road, school buses and buses for the Baptist Church and the potential adverse effects on property values. Mr. Turner asked that the Board support the adamant position of the City of Clermont, as expressed by their Director of Planning in his letter dated June 24, 2004, that they did not want this parcel to be zoned commercial. He requested that the Board deny this request and leave the parcel zoned as R-6 for residential development.
Mr. Turner explained that there are a small four-foot fence and some bushes between Kings Ridge and Hartwood Marsh Road. He stated that he has met with the County’s Public Works Department and, when the hearing is held, he will request that a noise reduction wall be installed.
Commr. Pool pointed out that Mr. Turner has attended public hearings on the four-laning of Hartwood Marsh Road. He opined that a noise reduction wall will be required on the south side of Kings Ridge which is on the north side of Hartwood Marsh Road. He stated that, during his many trips on Hartwood Marsh Road, he has never seen traffic backed up past Publix. He stated that a lot of those people are going to job opportunities in Orlando and, if more commercial endeavors can be brought here, more jobs can be created locally. Commr. Pool pointed out that the School Board has said they do not want any more houses right now in this particular location. He stated that, with the landscape and design of the proposed project, Mr. Turner will not know the self-storage facility is there.
Mr. Turner remarked that larger impact fees will take care of the school situation, at least partially. He stated that Clermont has jobs all along the State Road 50 corridor and that this project would add only a minimal number of jobs and should not be a significant factor in approving the request.
Commr. Hanson opined that residential or RP zoning would be appropriate at this location today as transitional zoning. Yet, the request, with limited uses, would be the same types of businesses that would be allowed in residential/professional zoning and would be of minimal impact.
Mr. Richey stated that, historically in Lake County, these kinds of uses have gone next to retirement communities and have not been adverse or caused any problems at all. He reiterated that there will be no view of this from Hartwood Marsh Road and there will be limited access. He stated that this seems to be a tremendous opportunity to provide a buffer to the R-6 and residential that surrounds it. He stated that the requested list of uses was based on what his clients thought were reasonable for this site and which would be appropriate and compatible with the development across the street and next door. He remarked that 80 houses could be put in the existing R-6 zoning without going back through anything but platting and they would not be subject to any school impact gap fees. He noted that his client, Mr. Charles Bailes, is present.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Richey stated that his client will be meeting the County’s higher commercial standards of landscaping, including tree standards, based on the joint LDRs (Land Development Regulations) and will have a designer working with them.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2004-82, Rezoning Case Ph#42-04-2, Chancery Lane, Ltd., Bailes Properties, Steven J. Richey, Tracking #45-04-Z, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District) with C-2 (Community Commercial District) uses.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board appointed Mr. Darren Eslinger to the vacant District 2 seat on the Board of Adjustment.
Commr. Pool stated that both applicants were very qualified and he would like to see Mr. David Holt appointed to another position.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that a request has been received from Shutts & Bowen to release an old Settlement Agreement that came out of a 1993 case that went to DCA (Department of Community Affairs). The property, previously owned by Paradise Lakes, has been annexed into the City of Groveland and the agreement is no longer applicable. The Settlement Agreement was recorded in the Public Records of Lake County and the request to cancel is being made so the owners can clear title to their property. He recommended approval and stated that DCA will also sign the cancellation.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request of the County Attorney for Cancellation and Release of Settlement Agreement and Joinder and Consent to Cancellation and Release of Settlement Agreement between Banyan Construction (previously owned by Paradise Lakes), Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and Lake County.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT #3
“POPS AT THE POINT”
Commr. Stivender stated that she attended “POPS at the Point” which was presented October 17, 2004, by PALS (Performing Arts of Lake and Sumter) and the Lake County Economic Development & Tourism Department, and which featured the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra. She stated that it was a great event and plans are being made to make it an annual event.
HURRICANE DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Commr. Stivender stated that she received a letter from the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners regarding a request that Florida’s counties lobby in support of full state funding for any federal cost-share requirements associated with the 2004 Presidential-declared disasters due to hurricanes.
By consensus of the Board, Commr. Stivender will send a letter to FAC (Florida Association of Counties) in support of 100% assistance for counties, such as Lake County and Charlotte County, which were devastated by the hurricanes.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
Commr. Stivender stated that the Environmental Services employees who actually work at the landfill have been diligent since the hurricane clean up started. She stated that their efforts have been greatly appreciated.
WEATHERIZATION DAY PROCLAMATION - ADDENDUM NO. 1
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2004-179 proclaiming October 30, 2004, as Weatherization Day in Lake County.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY - ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Commr. Stivender explained that the County Attorney was directed last week to redraft the County Manager’s contract for a one year term; additionally, she opined that she, as Chairman, is supposed to make a recommendation as to a salary increase.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that he assumed that the County Manager would stay at the same salary, with the difference being that Mr. Neron was to be given a one-year contract as opposed to a two-year contract.
Commr. Stivender concurred that was her understanding. She asked if the last sentence, Section 1: Employment, on Page 2 of the agreement, should be left in or taken out. The sentence reads: “In the event that this Agreement is not terminated prior to its expiration, this Agreement shall automatically renew itself for successive one-year periods on the same terms and conditions set forth herein.” Commr. Stivender explained that she assumed the Agreement would be for one year and would be readdressed by the Board at the end of that term.
Commr. Pool stated that he thought the Agreement would be a one-year extension of the existing contract.
Commr. Cadwell indicated that the Agreement needs to be clear regarding the severance portion. He stated he thought the Board had agreed on a six-month severance period.
In responding to Commr. Stivender’s question, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, if the last sentence is taken out of Section 1, the Agreement should clarify that, at the end of the term if a new contract is not executed, there would be severance. If the sentence is left in and if the agreement is not renewed, severance would be granted.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the key points are that the County Manager will stay at the same salary, that there is six-months’ severance involved in the contract, and that the contract is for one year.
Commr. Stivender agreed those are the key points.
Commr. Hanson stated that was her understanding also.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Pool for approval of the Employment Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and William A. Neron (County Manager), clarifying that the County Manager will stay at the same salary; the contract is for one year; there is six-months’ severance involved in the contract.
Under discussion, Commr. Stivender stated that she will be meeting with Mr. Neron because she has particular items that need to be addressed but that would not go under the Employment Agreement. She stated that she is looking for improvement in those items during the next year.
Commr. Stivender called for a vote on the motion which was passed by a vote of 4-1.
Commr. Stivender voted “No.”
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
OPEN SPACE FORUM - TELEVISION AIR DATES
Commr. Hanson announced the schedule of broadcast times for the Open Space Forum which was held at Lake Sumter Community College on October 18, 2004. The program will air on LSCC-TV, Channel 13 (Comcast Cable): Monday, November 1, at 7:00 p.m.; Wednesday, November 3, at 2:00 p.m.; Thursday, November 4, at 2:00 p.m.; Friday, November 5, at 4:00 p.m.; Saturday, November 6, at 7:00 p.m.; Wednesday, November 10, at 6:00 p.m.; and Thursday, November 11, at 6:00 p.m..
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT #5
COVANTA AGREEMENT
Commr. Cadwell expressed his appreciation again to Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney; Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney and Mr. Jeff Cooper, Support Services Director, Program Analysis & Contract Management, for all their hard work on the Covanta incinerator agreement process. He stated that today is a new day in solid waste.
OTHER - ELECTION DAY
Citizens are encouraged to vote on Tuesday or to vote early. Commr. Stivender noted that approximately 500 people per day have voted early at the Administration Building alone.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p..m.
__________________________________
DEBBIE STIVENDER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK