A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DECEMBER 20, 2005

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; Debbie Stivender; and Robert A. Pool.  Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

            AGENDA UPDATE

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that staff is going to pull Tab 31, the request from Public Works for approval and authorization to draw against an $11,220.00 Letter of Credit posted for performance to complete roadway repairs within Arrowtree Reserve Phase II subdivision (Arrowtree Reserve Phase II consists of 77 lots – Commission District 3); this item has been resolved and does not need to be on the agenda.  She has two items that she is going to bring up under County Manager’s Reports, one is a memo from Carol Strickland, AICP, Growth Management Director, relating to the contract with Planning Works, LLC for their school concurrency assistance; the second item is a page of legislative priorities.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that Greg Collier from Collier Financial Solutions is doing his internship for Leadership Lake County, and he is here with the Board today.

            MINUTES

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 25, 2005, Regular Meeting, as presented.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of December 5, 2005, Special Joint Meeting with School Board and Municipalities, as presented.

            CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 8, as follows:

            Checks/Warrants

            Request to acknowledge receipt of list of checks or warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk’s Office.

 

            Contractor Bonds

            Request to approve the following Contractor Bonds:

 

            New

 

            6440-06           Lewis Walker d.b.a. Lewis Walker Roofing

            6441-06           Darrell Brantley d.b.a. Brantley’s Service & Maintenance, Inc.

 

            Rider

 

            1336-06           Coven Construction, Inc.

Change name of principal from Coven Construction, Inc. to Coven Construction, Inc.

 

            6361-06           Larry Hardee d.b.a. Machine Control Repair, LLC

Amended effective November 8, 2005 –

Principal is changed to Donald Hardee d.b.a. Machine Control Repair, LLC

 

            Cancellation

 

             246-05            Robert D. Walker d.b.a. Chucks Electric

 

            Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees/Meeting Schedule

 

      Request to acknowledge receipt of the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees’ meeting scheduled for 2006.

 

      St. Johns River Water Management District/Governing Board Meeting Schedule

 

      Request to acknowledge receipt of the 2006 Governing Board Meeting Schedule for the St. Johns River Water Management District.

 

      Department of Community Affairs/Pine Island Community Development District

 

      Request to acknowledge receipt of a notice from the Department of Community Affairs that Ms. Stacie Vanderbilt recently registered the Pine Island Community Development District established by Rule Chapter 4200-1, Florida Administrative Code with the Special District Information Program and identified Ms. Jan A. Carpenter as the District’s registered agent.

 

      Lake Community Action Agency, Inc./Annual Report

 

      Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Lake Community Action Agency, Inc. (LCAA) 2004-2005 Annual Report.

 

            St. Johns River Water Management District/Cherry Lake Tree Farm, Inc.

 

      Request to acknowledge receipt of a notice from the St. Johns River Water Management District that they have received applications described as follows:  Cherry Lake Tree Farm, Inc., application #2594, where the applicant proposes to withdraw 2.15 million gallons per day of ground water and 1.44 million gallons per day of surface water to irrigate 792 acres of container nursery and 57 acres of citrus.  All interested parties should contact the St. Johns River Water Management District, as outlined in the notice.

 

      Ordinances/City of Minneola

 

      Request to acknowledge receipt of the following annexation ordinances from the City of Minneola:

 

Ordinance 2005-21 – Steven J. Richey, P.A., on behalf of the owner, Route 27 Properties, LLC – Approximately 9.16 +/- Acres of Property Generally Located on the West Side of U.S. Highway 27 and North of Highland Oaks Boulevard

 

Ordinance 2005-37 – George F. Lyon – approximately 5.066 +/- Acres of Property Generally Located on the West Side of U.S. Highway 27 and North of Highland Oaks Boulevard

 

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            Commr. Hanson referred to Tab 5 and stated that she would like to introduce Martha Thomas, Extension Agent I, noting that her specialty will be horses and working with youth and adults.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 30, pulling Tab 31, as noted; and including Addendum No. 1, as follows:

            Budget Transfer/Supervisor of Elections

 

            Request from Budget for a budget transfer – General Fund, Constitutional Offices/Supervisor of Elections. Transfer $100,000.00 from Reserve for Contingency to Office Supplies ($90,777.00) and Machinery and Equipment ($9,223.00). The Supervisor of Elections has requested a budget amendment to fund additional election hardware and software necessary to upgrade the voting system. Funds available in Reserve for Contingency.

 

            Check Request/HCRA Program

           

            Request from Budget for approval of Check Request (Direct Pay) for payment of HCRA Program costs. The request exceeds the County Manager's approval limit of $25,000.00. Total payment is for $25,196.66.

 

            Community Enhancement Area Partnership Program/Yalaha Community Center

 

            Request from Community Services for approval for the Community Enhancement Area Partnership Program fund one major project, that being the renovation of the Yalaha Community Center, for a total not to exceed $80,000.00 for Fiscal Year 2005-2006; and direct the Housing and Community Development Division to purchase goods or materials, for a total not to exceed $1,500.00 for each project to be completed by volunteers in Ferndale, Forest Hills/Lake Mack and Okahumpka.

 

            Conditional Offer of Employment/Extension Agent

 

            Request from Community Services for approval of a Conditional Offer of Employment for Martha Thomas, Extension Agent I, contingent upon the candidate's successful completion of the County's pre-employment screening.  Fiscal impact:  $15,020.00

 

            Disease Manager/Nutritionist Position

 

            Request from Community Services for approval of request for $4,710.00 in additional funding for the Disease Manager/Nutritionist position, to assure that the salary meets the competitive requirements for this position.

 

            Satisfaction and Release of Fine/Code Enforcement

 

            Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Willie and Michelle Slater, Code Enforcement Case Number 2002120176.  Fiscal impact:  $700.00

 

            Satisfaction and Release of Fine/Code Enforcement

 

            Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Craig Jensen, Code Enforcement Case Number 2002120176.  Fiscal impact:  $250.00

 

            Special Master Settlement Agreement/Shaw

 

            Request from Growth Management for approval of Special Master Settlement Agreement for Frederick W. and Laurie Shaw vs. Lake County.  Fiscal impact:  $360.00

 

            Trust for Public Lands/Greenprint

 

            Request from Growth Management for approval to engage the services of the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) to develop a "greenprint" of the County based on submitted scope and cost as a sole source contract.  Fiscal impact:  $32,000.00

 

            Revised Policy for Fixed Asset Management

 

            Request from Procurement Services for approval of the revised Policy for Fixed Asset Management.

 

            Contract/General Elevator Sales and Service, Inc./Administration Building

 

            Request from Procurement Services for approval to award and execute the Contract with General Elevator Sales and Service, Inc. for the upgrade of two traction passenger elevators servicing five floors of the Lake County Administration Building.  Fiscal impact:  $146,765.00

 

            Contract/County Buildings/Pressure Cleaning Professionals, Inc.

 

            Request from Procurement Services for approval to award the contract for the prep and sealing of the exterior walls of six county buildings to Pressure Cleaning Professionals, Inc. The buildings are as follows: Sheriff's Administration Building, County Administration Building, Historic Courthouse, Public Works Building, Mail Receiving Center, and Facilities Management Building. The cost for this project is $77,295.00 in accordance with Bid Number 05-143.

 

            Contract/Architectural Design/Umatilla Health Clinic/Harvard Jolly, Inc.

 

            Request from Procurement Services for approval to award the contract for Architectural Design for the Umatilla Health Clinic to Harvard Jolly, Inc. in accordance with RSQ Number 05-087 for $37,260.00 plus $2,000.00 for (not to exceed) reimbursables for Phase I.

 

            Second Amendment Agreement/General Physics Corporation/Emergency Management

 

            Request from Public Safety for approval and execution of the Second Amendment to Agreement between Lake County, Florida and General Physics Corporation for Emergency Management Consulting Services.

 

            Resolution/Vacation Petition Number 1070 – Henrich-Luke & Swaggerty, LLC

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2005-210 to advertise Vacation Petition Number 1070, by Henrich-Luke & Swaggerty, LLC, Representative Mark I. Luke, to vacate a portion of two drainage and utility easements, in the Plat of Spring Valley Phase VIII, located in Section 05, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2.

 

            Resolution/Vacation Petition Number 1072 – Quenell Bonds

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2005-211 to advertise Vacation Petition Number 1072, by Quenell Bonds, Jim Stivender, Jr., Representative Patti Harker, to vacate a portion of right of way known as 10th Avenue, in the Plat of Umatilla Turpentine Company Subdivision and Merrell Vaughn Subdivision, located in Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5.

 

            Resolution/Advertise Vacation Petition Number 1073 – William Brockett

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2005-212 to advertise Vacation Petition Number 1073, by William Brockett, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate an easement, in the Plat of Twilight Cove, located in Section 14, Township 20 South, Range 26 East, in the Lake Jem area – Commission District 3.

 

            Right-of-Way Deeds/Roadway and/or Stormwater Projects

 

            Request from Public Works for approval to accept public right of way deeds that have been secured in conjunction with roadway and/or stormwater projects: one (Corrective) Statutory Warranty Deed; five Statutory Warranty Deeds; one Non-Exclusive Easement Deed; and one Temporary Non-Exclusive Construction Easement Deed, as follows:

 

(Corrective) Statutory Warranty Deed

 

Floyd, Jr. William P., Dewey Robbins Rd., RD# 2824, OR 3021/PG 0363

 

Statutory Warranty Deed

 

ABC Liquors, inc., CR466A A/K/A Picciola Rd. & Michigan Avenue, RD#5710, OR3009/PG0223, Donate, Purpose – Development Review, Est. Value - $1,056.00

 

Fox Hill Builders, Inc., Hook Street, RD#1346, OR2989/PG2253, Donate, Purpose – Road Project, Est. Value - $1,056.00

 

Home Depot USA, Inc., Rolling Acres Rd., RD#6903, OR2995/PG0117, Donate, Purpose – Development Review, Est. Value - $15,711.11

 

Lake Point Senior Apts., Dora Ave./CR 19A, RD#4554, OR3016/PG2007, Donate, Purpose – Development Review, Est. Value - $18,382.50

 

John P. Adams & Ann D. Adams, Family Limited Partnership, Grand Highway/Citrus Tower Blvd. Intersection Signal Project, OR3021/PG0352, Donate, Purpose – Road Project, Est. Value - $1,629.73

 

Non-Exclusive Easement Deed

 

John P. Adams & Ann D. Adams, Family Limited Partnership, Grand Highway/Citrus Tower Blvd. Intersection Signal Project, OR3021/PG0355, Donate, Purpose – Road Project, Est. Value $733.00

 

Temporary Non-Exclusive Construction Easement Deed

 

Fox Hill Builders, Inc., Hook Street Project, RD#1346, OR2989/PG2249, Donate, Purpose – Road Project, Est. Value - $1,512.00

 

            Letter of Credit for Maintenance/Lake Louisa Highlands Phase III

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $18,800.00 posted for Lake Louisa Highlands Phase III. Lake Louisa Highlands Phase III consists of 29 lots – Commission District 2.

 

Letter of Credit for Performance/Lake Louisa Phase I/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s Agreement/Resolution/Roads

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $298,465.00 for Overlook at Lake Louisa Phase I; accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $160,263.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Greater Homes, Inc.; and execute a Resolution 2005-213 accepting the following roads into the County Road Maintenance System: Gleason Way (County Road Number 0944), Lemay Drive (County Road Number 0944A), Owasso Lane (County Road Number 0944B), Cloverdale Lane (County Road Number 0944C), and Coldwater Loop (County Road Number 0944D). Overlook at Lake Louisa Phase I consists of 95 lots – Commission District 2.

 

            Final Plat/Orange Tree Phase 6/Developer’s Agreement

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Orange Tree Phase 6 and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Orange Tree Phase 6 final plat; accept a check in the amount of $69,651.73; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Greater Homes, Inc. Orange Tree Phase 6 consists of 44 lots – Commission District 2.

 

Final Plat/Avalon Hills/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s Agreement/Karst, Inc./Resolutions/Roads

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Avalon Hills and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Avalon Hills plat; accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $22,698.40; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Karst, Inc.; and execute Resolution 2005-214 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Colt Lane (County Road Number 0769A). Avalon Hills consists of 16 lots – Commission District 2.

 

            Road Project/Lakeshore Drive

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to execute Change Order Number 2 to the CR-452 (Lakeshore Drive) Widening & Resurfacing Phases III and IV Project Number 2004-12 in the amount of $64,002.69 for additional work relating to the project – Commission District 3.

 

            Letter of Credit/Highland Groves Phase I

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $28,830.00 posted for Highland Groves Phase I. Highland Groves Phase I consists of 66 lots – Commission District 2.

 

            Maintenance Bond/Glenbrook Phase I

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $63,121.22 posted for Glenbrook Phase I. Glenbrook Phase I consists of 266 lots – Commission District 2.

 

            Maintenance Bond/Fox Meadows

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $15,200.00 posted for Fox Meadows. Fox Meadows consists of 15 lots – Commission District 2.

 

            Letter of Credit/Ranch Club

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $15,598.00 posted for Ranch Club. Ranch Club consists of 113 lots – Commission District 3.

 

            Maintenance Bond/Greater Groves Commercial Park

 

            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $22,141.00 posted for Greater Groves Commercial Park. Greater Groves Commercial Park consists of 5 lots – Commission District 2.

 

            Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission/South Clermont Connector Project

 

            Request from Public Works for approval of payment to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for Permit Number LAK-164 for the incidental taking of gopher tortoises for the South Clermont Connector Project.  Fiscal impact:  $68,913.00

 

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

 

            Economic Development and Tourism/Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc.

 

            A request from Economic Development and Tourism for approval of an Agreement between Lake County and Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc. in which Lake County will assist in funding two bass tournaments on the Harris Chain of Lakes from January 8, 2006 through January 29, 2006, in the amount of $35,000.00.

 

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/CITY OF GROVELAND/CRITTENDEN STREET PROJECT

 

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board to discuss the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Groveland regarding the Crittenden Street Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E).  He explained that the City is concerned about the alignment of SR 19 in relation to the downtown area, and the offsets of SR 33, and there are significant issues with the turning movement of trucks and other vehicles through that grid system.  The study will allow them to look at some alternatives, as far as realignments of some of the roads.  The Board will reimburse them for the study using the Road Impact Fee Fund.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Groveland regarding the Crittenden Street Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E).

            PRESENTATION:

ANNUAL EDUCATION IMPACT FEE REPORT BY TOMMY CROSBY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, LAKE COUNTY SCHOOLS

 

            Ms. Anna Cowin, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, addressed the Board and stated that, being this is the first report of her administration to the Board, she wanted to take the opportunity to introduce their Finance Director, Tommy Crosby, who has been with them a number of months.  She explained that they are going to be spending about $139 million over the next two years for school construction.  She thought the report was very good and, in addition to sharing it with the Board, and the School Board, she has shared it with their Legislative Delegation.  She wanted to thank the Board for their support in helping them with impact fees.

            Mr. Tommy Crosby, Finance Director, Lake County Schools, stated that Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, has provided the Impact Fee Report that went to the Impact Fee Committee a couple of months ago.  As shown in the backup, they collected about $24 million in revenue; their Fiscal Year is 7/1/2004 to 6/30/2005.  He stated that a lot of that was due to the pre-pays after the impact fee went up in December.  The backup shows a list of projects that they spent money on last year; approximately $13 million.  For this Fiscal Year, 2005-2006, they brought forward $37 million in Fund Balance.  They originally budgeted $28 million in their plan but, since they have presented this to the Impact Fee Committee, they have lowered that projection to about $25 million.  They have budgeted about $64 million in projects, which will be last year’s carry over and the projects for this year.

            Commr. Stivender requested information as to the location of the planned expenditures,   Mr. Crosby explained that he really could not give the location of the facilities, but they have been trying to look at some creative finance structure so they can accelerate the timetable.  They went through the process of hiring an architect and getting a construction manager on board, so that they can begin the process at the end of this year.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the School Board really needs to be aware that the Statewide Impact Fee Task Force who will be meeting again in January.  The Task Force is looking at severely restricting their ability to impose impact fees.  The School Board’s Association is represented well there but locally they need to let folks know that impact fees are a good way for growth to pay for itself; the legislature is seriously looking at restricting their ability to do that and they need help from the School Board in getting this information out to the public.

            Ms. Cowin stated that they put this issue in their legislative packet, as a local control issue, and it is one of their top priorities.

            Mr. Crosby stated that, as a member of the Statewide Finance Council for School Finance Officers, they have taken a position paper on impact fees, as well as for local control.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, beyond elected officials, it is also good to have citizens contact their legislators.

            Commr. Hill stated that, when Mr. Crosby came to the Impact Fee Committee in September and gave this report, she was under the impression that they named the locations for those schools, and she wanted to know if this has changed.

            Ms. Cowin explained the location of the planned schools noting that “letters” are being used to identify them just to give the School Board the sequence of what is next on the agenda.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed Commr. Hill’s questions about impact fees and explained that, if the School Board used impact fees to purchase land and later sold the land, then that money would go back into the Impact Fee Fund to be used to create additional capacity; the money would stay in the fund; the School Board would not really have to pay it back; the money would need to be used to create additional capacity.

            Commr. Hill stated that this is a different revenue stream, and it runs with the land and not necessarily with the system; that money would have to go back into that fund to be redistributed somewhere else.

            The Board extended their appreciation for the updated report.

            PRESENTATION:

UPDATE ON THE FUND RAISING EFFORTS BY THE FRIENDS OF THE HORTICULTURAL LEARNING CENTER (HLC)         

 

            Ms. Violet Irminger addressed the Board and stated that she is President of the Friends of the Lake County Horticultural Learning Center also known as the HLC.  Last year, the Board gave the Friends $60,000 as seed money to construct and build an Environmental Education building, and she is here today to update the Board on their progress for fund raising.  They formally started their fund raising a little over a year ago with a kickoff event, the Blooming Barbeque, and they raised over $7,000 noting that this was done during the time that Central Florida was recovering from three hurricanes.  They gained the support of many Lake County garden clubs; several of them sponsor school buses so that children can participate in programs conducted by trained master gardeners.  Since the Board voted to give the Friends $60,000 they have doubled it, in spite of all of the natural disasters that have occurred all around the world.  Their goal is to begin Phase I of the Environmental Education building by April 1, 2006; they are short about $250,000 and construction costs are on the rise, as she explained, therefore, they feel that phasing the work would be the best way to do it.  To complete Phase I, they need to raise an additional $80,000.  Once Phase I is completed, they plan to complete each section of the interior in stages and will rely on help from volunteers, grants, and small fundraisers, to target specific components of the interior.  They have paid for a complete set of working drawings, and they are in the process of finalizing plans with the engineer.  They hope to meet with the City of Tavares after the first of the year to apply for building permits.

            The Board extended their thanks to Ms. Irminger for all of her hard work.

PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PEFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REVIEW FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS

 

            Ms. Liz Eginton, Community Development Block Grant Director, addressed the Board and stated that the CDBG Division has finished the FY 2004-05 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER), which has been presented to the Board.  The CAPER outlines how CDBG funds were used during the last fiscal year and, as required by federal regulations, it has been made available for public inspection for 15 days and citizens are being given an additional chance to comment at today’s public hearing.  Staff is asking the Board to approve the document so that it can be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Jacksonville Field Office.  Between September 30, 2004 and November 30, 2005, they drew down $815,500.17 from the County’s line of credit, with the federal government covering 18 activities.  Staff gave the Board a progress report on the activities that they carried out during last fiscal year, as noted on Pages 3 and 4 in the CAPER; they have spent 19.1% of this year’s CDBG’s funds for program administration; the remaining funds have been reprogrammed to Phase V for paving in Lake Kathryn.

            Ms. Eginton stated that the CDBG Division is particularly proud of several accomplishments.  They participated once again in hurricane response and recovery; they played an active leadership role in preparation of successful homeless continuum of care funding applications for Lake, Sumter, Citrus and Hernando counties.  The Community Enhancement Working Group developed the Community Enhancement Area Program Application for Neighborhoods, with Yalaha being selected as the first community enhancement area.  Ms. Eginton stated that they want to thank everyone who partnered with them to make last fiscal year such a success noting that they are very proud of the program.

            Commr. Stivender thanked Ms. Eginton and Mr. Bill Gearing, Community Enhancement Coordinator, for doing an excellent job along with their staff.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.   There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report for Community Development Block Grants and directed that it be transmitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Jacksonville Field Office.

PUBLIC HEARING: MAINTENANCE MAP FOR COLONY BARN ROAD (NUMBER 0639)

 

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board to discuss the maintenance map for Colony Barn Road (Number 0639).  Mr. Schneider explained that this is a road in the south of Clermont area, and it has some significant drainage issues and has received many community complaints.  The Public Works Department has resurfaced the roadway, and this will finalize the project.  All property owners have been notified of today’s meeting, and staff is not aware of any opposition.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the Statute provides that, if the County builds a road and maintains it for four years, even if it does not have the right-of-way where it was built, it becomes the owner of the right-of-way.  If the County maintains a road for seven years, they become the owner of the right-of-way where they maintained; this takes the land from the private sector and makes it public land.  The process of recording the map is evidence of their maintenance and construction of the road, and they do give notice to the owners to make sure that they do not object to the fact that the County has been maintaining it for four or seven years.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to accept a Maintenance Map for Colony Barn Road (Number 0639).

PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS

 

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the request for approval to Authorize and Execute the Notice of Intent to Use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments.  He explained that this Resolution originated in the County Attorney’s Office and will allow them to go forward and use the special assessment program for things that they have not used it for in the past; it is not an imposition of a special assessment; but it is the required first step in order to do that.  The Board has staff working on a water assessment for a small subdivision in South Lake County where they have had water problems, and the County is working with Lake Utilities.  They may also use this for educational impact fees so this is an enabling Resolution to be able to do those next year should the Board choose to do it.

            Commr. Stivender questioned whether this also applies to the lighting issue she and other Board members have been talking about in the past.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, in the past, they have done street lighting; it is again named in the document so it would allow that, but they would do that later next year during the formulation of their budget.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to authorize and execute the Notice of Intent to Use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments, Resolution 2005- 215.

PUBLIC HEARING: ROAD VACATION PETITION NUMBER 1056 – HENRY C. & JANET M. SHUPE – PLAT OF SPRINGS BATH & YACHT CLUB - YALAHA AREA – COMMISSION DISTRICT 3

 

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained Petition Number 1056, Henry C. and Janet M. Shupe, a request to vacate a portion of right-of-way in the Plat of Springs Bath & Yacht Club, in the Yalaha Area, Commission District 3, noting that there were some drainage issues, and most of the concerns have been addressed.  The area is directly in front of the resident’s house; the County is vacating part of it; it allows them to keep the drainage system in place and put swales to the end of the right-of-way; and staff is recommending approval of the request.  There was one letter in opposition.

            Commr. Stivender stated that there was a concern that someone was getting free land because, when you vacate it, it goes back to the property owners.  The Board has had a problem with this in the past with other residents in other areas.

            Mr. Schneider explained that it is not necessarily free land; it is land that is no longer needed for public use and typically, when you vacate the right-of-way, the adjacent property owners get whatever was no longer needed for public use.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that, in part of this area that is being vacated, the County is going to be making the improvement for the drainage.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that she is here representing the Shupes, the owners of the property adjacent to this right-of-way.  As indicated by Mr. Schneider, this is a cul-de-sac that was never actually constructed as such and basically the road just ends.  She explained that the situation, from a drainage standpoint, has actually been improved and will continue to be improved, as a result of some additional things scheduled by the County for this area, and the vacation is an attempt to improve the drainage situation and bring some certainty as far his use of his lot.

            Commr. Stivender explained that she has visited the site, and it is currently all grass and hedges, so you would not know there is a cul-de-sac had it not been shown on the plat.

            Ms. Campione pointed out that it is all essentially in the Shupes’ front yard.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1056 by Henry C. & Janet M. Shupe, Representative Leslie Campione, P.E., to vacate a portion of the right of way, in the Plat of Springs Bath & Yacht Club, located in Section 17, Township 20 South, Range 25 East, in the Yalaha area – Commission District 3, Resolution 2005-216.

PUBLIC HEARING: ROAD VACATION PETTION NUMBER 1066 – MIKE DESLAURIERS – PLAT OF EAGLERIDGE – SOUTH CLERMONT AREA – COMMISSION DISTRICT 2

 

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained Petition Number 1066, by Mike Deslauriers, a request to vacate a portion of a landscape buffer/easement in the Plat of Eagleridge, Phase III, in the Clermont area, Commission District 2, noting that originally the proposal was to vacate the entire 25 feet and Growth Management objected to that, so they have reduced it to ten feet.  He stated that Public Works and Growth Management have recommended approval of the elimination of the ten feet, and they will meet the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) as far as setbacks for buffers.  The purpose of this is to allow them to build a pool.

            Commr. Pool pointed out that only one individual was making this request today but, at one time, staff was talking about vacating the entire corridor.  Commr. Stivender pointed out that they have had this problem in other subdivisions, and Commr. Pool stated that it would make more sense to vacate the entire ten foot corridor instead of doing it individually.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could not vacate the entire ten foot corridor today because of the advertising.  In the past, when there appears to be more than one property owner, the departments have tried to work with the folks and bring it back as a group.  He assumes that staff has not heard from other property owners but, if someone else should come in to do the same thing, then staff can look at doing the whole corridor.

            Commr. Hanson stated that they would be eliminating most of that conservation easement, the 15 feet, but it was probably a condition of the development when it was first approved; that is probably why the Growth Management Department was opposed to it.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  It was noted that the applicant was present.  There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1066 by Mike Deslauriers to vacate a portion of a landscape buffer/easement, in the Plat of Eagleridge, Phase III, located in Section 23, Township 24, Range 26, in the South Clermont area – Commission District 2, Resolution 2005-217.

PUBLIC HEARING: ROAD VACATION PETITION NUMBER 1068 – HOWARD MARSHALL – PLAT OF DORA PINES UNIT TWO – COMMISSION DISTRICT 4

 

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained Petition Number 1068, by Howard Marshall, Plat of Dora Pines Unit Two, in the Mount Dora area, Commission District 4,  noting that this is a vacation of the entire section of this plat in order to replat.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that they probably have construction plan approval and are working, but this would be a condition before the final plat could be recorded.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Ted Wicks addressed the Board and stated that he is with Wicks Consulting Services; the applicant, Mr. Marshall, is also here today.  They have already completed construction for improvements to support the replatting of this project into a single family conventional built subdivision.  After they got into the title report, they found some recreational pathways shown on the old plat that had no supporting documentation as to who they were dedicated to, or what was happening with them.  In discussion with legal staff, they recommended that they bring this back through and vacate the underlying portion, and then replat over the top of it.  Because of past problems with Dora Pines, they have worked hard on this to bring something of a great asset to that part of the area.  He stated that this will be a conventional subdivision; the roads will be built to County standards; they have water and sewer; and it is a very good project.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she visited this site on a number of occasions with Code Enforcement on other issues, and she wanted to know if the drainage was going to be addressed because it has always been a problem.

            Mr. Wicks stated that this project stood on its own from a drainage standpoint; they have permitted through the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and through the County Public Works Department.   They are providing dedicated retention areas for stormwater management with some outfall into the Sunrise Boulevard area where they have good positive outfall down to the creek and on out, and they are meeting their onsite retention requirements for the project.

            Mr. Dale Haden addressed the Board and stated that his property abuts the property in question.  It was his understanding that there is a ten foot recreational easement between his property and this subdivision and it is going to be vacated; he also wanted to know about the buffering.

            Mr. Wicks explained that the original plat had provisions for a ten foot recreational pathway but, when you look at the dedication section, there was no mention of it; its intent was to provide something for Dora Pines Unit 2; it was not intended as a buffer.  Mr. Wicks stated that there will be a ten foot drainage and utility easement where that ten foot recreational pathway exists today; but they do not plan any improvements there at all.

            Mr. Haden stated that it was his understanding that there is supposed to be a six foot fence on that easement.

            Mr. Marshall Howard addressed the Board and stated that, when he started this project, the Homeowners Association asked him if he would put up a buffer or some kind of fence.  When he bought it, he had it cleared it of grown up trees and vines.  He explained that, if the Homeowners Association agreed to vacate the alleyways or easements, he agreed to put up a fence.  They all agreed and everyone signed an agreement.  He also agreed to put up the best type of fence, and he even took pictures to them so they could pick out the design.  They are waiting to get all of the construction done, before they put up the fence, so it will not get damaged.  He explained the location of the fence and noted that they also agreed, as stated in the document, that the property owners of each individual lot will be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the fence; not the Homeowners Association.

            Mr. Chris Domerault stated that he is an adjacent homeowner, and he had a question about a long row of trees that was taken down.  He stated that they had served as a natural buffer to the construction, and he wanted to know if those trees are going to be replaced or if some sort of foliage is going to replace those trees.  He felt it was a mistake to take them down.

            Mr. Wicks stated that, based on the County’s subdivision regulations, they will be planting up to six trees per lot as part of their landscape planning requirements.  He suggested having his client get with this gentleman to discuss replanting along that area.  Because there were old utilities already in the ground, they had to do a more substantial clearing there than they would have normally done, so there may have been some trees lost due to that activity.  They will be glad to consult with him and talk about his buffering requirements, and it will help them determine where they need to place those trees. 

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the request is in District 4, and she has no opposition to it, and it is certainly an improvement over what could have been there.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1068 by Howard Marshall, Representative Wicks Consulting, to vacate a portion of the Plat of Dora Pines Unit Two, located in Section 21, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, in the Mount Dora area – Commission District 4, Resolution 2005-218.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONINGS

REZONING CASE PH#99-05-3 – DARRYL WROBEL/GREEN ACRES FERNERY & CITRUS, INC., OWNER – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – A TO R-2 - TRACKING #116-05-Z

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed the Board that staff has a couple of last minute requests for changes to the agenda.  In regards to Agenda No. 8, PH#99-05-3, Darryl Wrobel/Green Acres Fernery & Citrus, Inc., Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #116-05-Z; staff has a letter requesting an additional 30 days continuance, from December 20, 2005 to January 24, 2006, in order for them to provide additional information to staff.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for a 30 day continuance only.

            Commr. Stivender explained that the Board did postpone it from last month, to give the applicant time to get with the residents.  She has spoken to the residents and there were a couple of other issues on the site that needed to be addressed, and they have not had that meeting; it would be appropriate to postpone.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day continuance, until January 24, 2006, Rezoning Case PH#99-05-3, Darryl Wrobel/Green Acres Fernery & Citrus, Inc., Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #116-05-Z; a request to rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential).

REZONING CASE PH#104-05-2 – MAGNOLIA PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, OWNER – JIMMY D. CRAWFORD, GRAY ROBINSON, P.A., APPLICANT – PUD TO AMEND PUD ORDINANCE #2000-9 – TRACKING #124-05-PUD/AMD

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed the Board that staff has received an e-mail this morning from Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, asking for a 30 day continuance for Rezoning Case PH#104-05-2, Magnolia Property Associates, LLC, Owner; Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #124-05-PUD/AMD.  Mr. Hartenstein read the following into the record:  “The reason is we have not yet received the elevation of the Pinnacle Financial building (Lot E) as requested by the HOA, and we are still working on the language that we can agree in the PUD ordinance, regarding uses, buffering, and the wall.”

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for a 30 day continuance only.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day continuance, until January 24, 2006, Rezoning Case PH#104-05-2, Magnolia Property Associates, LLC, Owner; Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #124-05-PUD/AMD; a request from PUD (Planning Unit Development) to Amend PUD Ordinance #2000-9 to allow changes.

            DISCLOSURES

            Commr. Stivender disclosed that she had conversations with parties on Agenda Items 1, 3, 5, 6, and 11;  Commr. Hill disclosed the same and included 8 and 9; Commr. Stivender also disclosed 8 and 9; Commr. Hanson disclosed Agenda Item 3; Commr. Pool disclosed 1, 3, 5, 6, and 11 with parties in favor and opposition; Commr. Cadwell disclosed Agenda Items 3 and 7.

REZONING CASE PH#102-05-2 – VERNON A. SCHNEIDER AND MARK OSWALT, OWNERS; STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT - R-1, R-4, & R-6 TO PUD – TRACKING #120-05-PUD

 

            Ms. Jennifer Dubois, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#102-05-2, Vernon A. Schneider and Mark Oswalt, Owners; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #120-05-PUD; a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential), R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), and R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); for the creation of a 120 unit single-family residential subdivision.  As indicated in the Summary of Analysis, this is a 54.74 acre parcel located in the Clermont area east of the intersection of Lake Louisa Road and Lakeland Drive; potable water will be supplied by Lake Utilities, Inc.; sanitary sewer service will be furnished by the City of Clermont; and even though a maximum allowable density is 4.5 dwelling units per acre, Policy 1-1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan restricts residential development within the Urban Expansion land use category to a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. Staff notes that the applicant has requested a maximum density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre, and staff is aware that the public schools that will serve the project are critically over capacity; however, a density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre will result in the creation of 120 units, which is comparable to the number of units that could be constructed if the five parcels were developed in accordance with their present zoning designation.  Staff is recommending approval of the request.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that Larry Metz, a School Board member, sits on the Zoning Board, and he voted for the request because, under the existing zoning categories, more units could be developed.

            Commr. Hill noted that the Board has a letter form the Lake County Water Authority, but it does not indicate they are in opposition to the request.

            Ms. Dubois explained that she contacted Michael Perry, Executive Director of the Lake County Water Authority, to find out if he had any additional issues with this project, and he indicated that it was simply a matter of notifying staff of the location of the parcel.

            Commr. Hanson wanted to know if this was going to be a cluster-type development.

            Ms. Dubois noted that the applicant has not yet submitted an actual conceptual plan showing the layout of the lots.  She explained that the engineering firm, during the site plan review phase, submitted a preliminary development plan, but it did not show the layout of the lots; however, any wetlands in the project area will need to be set aside for conservation purposes, and a minimum of 25% of the project area will have to be retained as open space.

            Commr. Pool wanted to know if staff utilizes any information on a charter school, as far as its capacity, because he is curious about the Hartwood Marsh Charter School.

            As shown in the Summary, Ms. Dubois stated that the only schools that were used in the analysis were Lost Lake Elementary, Windy Hill Middle School, and East Ridge High School.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he represents the applicant.  Mr. Richey explained that the property is currently zoned R-1, R-4, and R-6 and, even though they could get more density, they are rezoning the property to give them more flexibility in the layout of the property, protecting the environment, and being more sensitive to the lake.  He did not want to misrepresent and say that this is going to be a clustered development but obviously the PUD allows them to move the property around and be more sensitive to the environment; and it affords 25% open space which is more than they would be required to do if they went with straight zoning.  They will also work on central water and sewer.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            As stated, Commr. Pool pointed out it is a reduction in density and this will be a better project with better opportunities for green space and more sensitivity to the land.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#102-05-2, Vernon A. Schneider and Mark Oswalt, Owners; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential), R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), and R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); Tracking #120-05-PUD; and Ordinance 2005-105.

REZONING CASE CUP#05/10/3-3 – RHONDA V. VEGA, OWNER – JIM HUFF OF CRAIG & ASSOCIATES FOR NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, APPLICANT – CUP IN A – TRACKING #105-05-CUP

 

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case CUP#05/10/3-3, Rhonda V. Vega, Owner; Jim Huff of Craig & Associates for Nextel Communications, Applicant; Tracking #105-05-CUP; a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agriculture (A) zoning district.  As noted in the Summary of Staff Determination, the owner is requesting approval for the placement of a 200 foot monopole communication tower on a 60 square foot lease parcel of an overall 32 acre tract.  The owner is presently utilizing the 32 acre parent tract zoned A and CUP 01/5/1-3 (Ordinance #2001-81) for a single-family residence, and a 32 stall commercial boarding dog kennel.  The applicant wishes to lease the parcel, as noted, to Nextel Communications for the construction and operation of a tower and associated accessory uses, as described.  Staff is recommending approval of the request.  Ms. Allen stated that, at the December 7, 2005 meeting, the Zoning Board members recommended approval 4-1, with the amendment that the tower utilize a dual light system at the top of the tower with a red steady light at night rather than a flashing strobe light.  Staff has received no written comments in opposition or support of this request.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  It was noted that the applicant, Mr. Huff, was present.  There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Stivender stated that there were a couple of residents who contacted her, not necessarily in relationship to the tower, but to the dog kennel, so the owner of the property may want to talk to some of the neighbors about the dog kennel.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case CUP#05/10/3-3, Rhonda V. Vega, Owner; Jim Huff of Craig & Associates for Nextel Communications, Applicant; a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agriculture (A) zoning district for placement of a 200 foot monopole communication tower on a 60’ x 60’ lease parcel of an overall 32 acre tract; Tracking #105-05-CUP; and Ordinance 2005-106; with the amendment that the tower utilizes a dual light system at the top of the tower with a red steady light at night rather than a flashing strobe light.

REZONING CASE PH#100-05-3 – ROBERT BEUCHER, SONOMA CONSTRUCTORS, LTD, OWNER – ROBERT BEUCHER, GENERAL PARTNER, SONOMA CONSTRUCTORS, LTD – APPLICANT – A TO PUD – TRACKING #119-05-PUD/AMD

 

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#100-05-3, Robert Beucher, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Owner; Robert Beucher, General Partner, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Applicant; Tracking #119-05-PUD/AMD; a request to rezone A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to add acreage to the existing Mission Inn PUD; and to amend existing PUD Ordinance #2004-61.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, Ms. Allen explained that an amendment to the initial Las Colinas (Mission Inn) PUD Ordinance #44-93 was approved in August 2004 with Ordinance #2004-61, to recognize the addition of approximately 21 acres to the project site; to recognize multifamily residential town home condominium units as an acceptable housing type; and to provide that the overall residential project density, regardless of housing type, not exceed the initial project density previously approved (1.04 dwelling units per acre).  An amendment to Ordinance #2004-61 is proposed to recognize the addition of approximately 205 acres to the project site (for a total of 803 acres); to recognize the land use with regard to changes in density, setbacks, recreation facilities, commercial space, building height and open space; and specifically the following:

·         The addition of 984 dwelling units (an increase from 622 units to 1,606 units)

·         An increase in density from 1.04 dwelling units per acre to 2.00 dwelling units per acre.  The Urban Area Residential Density Analysis resulted in 71 points allowing 6.00 dwelling units per acre

·         Up to 260 acres for golf course(s)

·         Up to 30 acres for golf/tennis clubhouses, restaurants, pools, recreational sites and parking

·         Up to 20 acres for any mixed commercial and residential uses

·         A maximum building height of 65 feet.

 

            Ms. Allen explained that the School Board commented “this rezoning will have an adverse impact on Lake County Public Schools.”  The proposal has the potential to add 342 new students to the school system.  The schools that will be directly affected are Astatula Elementary that is currently 36% over capacity; Tavares Middle that is currently 45% over capacity; and Tavares High School is currently 19% under capacity.

            Ms. Allen stated that staff finds the request to be consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) but is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.9 that states residential densities shall be compatible with available public facilities and their capacity to serve development.  In considering the comments from the School Board that the noted schools are over capacity, there are not adequate public facilities to serve this development, so staff is recommending denial of the request.          Ms. Allen stated that there was a tie vote at the November 2, 2005 Zoning Board meeting; no recommendation was brought forth to this Board.  Staff has received no written comments in opposition or support of the request.  There are several representatives here today from Mission Inn, and Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, is present.

            Commr. Cadwell clarified that the staff recommendation of denial was based on the facilities directly relating to the schools.

            Commr. Hanson wanted to know, at some point, with the number of total houses that will be there, if there would be an opportunity for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), when they add to an existing PUD; she thinks this is something they should consider; and she noted that the over capacity shown for schools was without the consideration of portables.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out, in the Zoning Board minutes, that Larry Metz, School Board member, voted for the motion to recommend denial of the request based on the discussion about schools.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, stated that he is an Attorney with Potter, Clement, Lowry & Duncan, Mount Dora and, as stated by staff, the only objection by the Zoning Board was related to school capacity.  He stated that this issue will be addressed today, and Anna Cowin, Superintendent of Schools, is here and wishes to address the Board this morning.  Mr. Duncan introduced Bud Beucher who will be giving a brief overview and history of the project, and then they will go into detail on the School Board issue.  A power point presentation was presented to each of the Board members, which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.

            Mr. Bud Beucher stated that he is representing Mission Inn Golf & Tennis Resort and will be speaking on behalf of their project.  Mr. Beucher presented brief comments relating to the topics outlined in Exhibit A-1 noting that this is a family owned and operated business that has been here for 41 years; it is one of the top 20 employers in Lake County; it is nationally and locally renowned; and they have a strong relationship with the Economic Development Council (EDC) and Tourist Development Council (TDC).  In terms of economic impact, they have been a significant contributor to the health and welfare of Lake County through their tax participation.  He pointed out that there are only 11 school aged children in the Las Colinas Community; two attend public school and they are re-locators from within the County; the net impact on the school system is zero.  Mr. Beucher continued to review the power point items, which were summarized in the Conclusion, as follows:

·         41 Years of Support to Lake County

·         Positive Economic Impact to the County

·         Broad-Based Private Sector Employer

·         Responsible Master Planned Community

·         Environmentally Sensitive

·         All Utilities Are in Place

·         Deliver Services that the County is Not Able to Provide (Sewer and Water)

·         $10,939,930 Dollars Impact Fees to Schools

·         $7,049,613 Dollars School Taxes Annually

·         The Type of Development Lake County Wants and Needs

 

            Mr. Duncan explained that, under the worst case scenario, the total number of students generated by the development would be 71 students; under the best case scenario, 13 of those 71 students would attend Lake County Schools.  The project would pay almost $11 million in school impact fees by the time of build out; that includes the fees that they paid today plus the fees that they would pay on these additional homes.  If you consider the worst scenario, the 71 students would each come to school with $154,000 in impact fees; if there were 13 students, those schools would come with $841,000.  Between the general school millage rate and the capital outlay millage rate, the project would generate a little over $7 million in taxes every year that would go directly to the School Board; with the worst case scenario with 71 students that is almost $100,000 a year for each of those students; the best case scenario for them would be 13 children that would produce over half a million dollars a year in impact fees.  Mr. Duncan stated that the County impact fees and annual County taxes are substantial; the total impact fees to the County for this project would be $4,878,000 for library, parks, fire and road; annual taxes would be a little over $8 million.

            Mr. Duncan asked Superintendent Anna Cowin to address the Board; Ms. Cowin noted that she would like to wait until after public comment to make her remarks.

            Mr. Duncan explained that there are 803 total acres and 1,606 units, with two units per acre and, as pointed out by staff, the future land use on this property would allow up to four units per acre; the urban area density analysis would allow up to six units per acre; so this is considerably less than what could be developed there.  Of the 803 acres, there would be 260 acres of golf; 30 acres of golf and tennis clubhouse facilities; 20 acres of a mixed use commercial; and 321.2 acres would be set aside for open space/conservation which is 40% of the overall project.  They had one neighbor, Al Brokes, who was at the Zoning Board meeting, and he owns property that is contiguous to this along Number Two Road. He had some concerns regarding his ability to continue to operate his agricultural endeavor; as pointed out by Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, at that meeting, the Florida’s Right to Farm Act would protect his ability to continue with his agriculture endeavors if this project is developed.  The Ordinance will require that they set aside a 50 foot buffer between them and any agriculture uses and, in talking to Tom Lyon, they would agree to limit single family homes around Mr. Brokes’ property, to eliminate any concerns about privacy.  The project has central water and sewer.  Mr. Duncan stated that they are available to answer questions and will reserve their right to rebut if there is any opposition they need to address.  There will be no access to this project on Number Two Road; staff had some concerns about the quality of Number Two Road; all access will come off of CR 48 at another entrance; and there are three parcels under this request today.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Egor Emery addressed the Board and stated that he is concerned about all of the issues including those raised by staff; no one advocates for all of the other services that are also strained by the insolent development in Lake County.  He stated that they measure the capacity for schools, but his concern is for roads like CR 48, and other facilities and services like fire and medical, as well as open space; and he is not sure this development meets all of the criteria that a community needs.  Mr. Emery stated that clearly this particular parcel has some positive aspects to it, such as its historical significance, but so does the rest of Lake County. He asked the Board when they thought they would be catching up with all of the things they need to make their community livable and to keep their quality of life, if they keep approving developments at this pace.  They double the density on some of the property and, as they vastly increase the number of people needing services in the County, they need to consider each one carefully and look at all that is needed and not just the schools.  Their services are strained because the impact fees are still short of the 100% of impact costs of each development.

            Ms. Anna Cowin, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, addressed the Board and stated that it was pretty difficult to make a decision whether to come here today; she has not spoken pro or con on developments; but she thinks it is important to understand that they need to look to developments that are good; developments that provide a benefit to the community more than just rooftops.  Ms. Cowin stated that, in looking at this particular project, she recognizes not only through her observation, but Jan Newman’s, the consultant for the School Board, that there are certain developments that do benefit Lake County Schools.  She explained that, if the prices of homes in a development are over $350,000 and certainly $550,000 as being discussed today, then they meet this requirement and there is a definite benefit to the system, because of the addition of revenues that are coming in long term in comparison to other developments.  She felt that they should try and promote the kind of development that they want instead of stopping all development and this would be a good example.  She has known this family for a very long time and, as shown over the years, they have produced quality development.  They should be supporting this kind of development and people that provide this type of development, and the impact on the schools will ultimately be positive; this is the kind of growth and development they want and this is the reason she has taken this bold move to come here today and support it.  Ms. Cowin explained that she announced at the School Board meeting that she was going to be supporting developments that inure a benefit to their district and help Lake County in the vision that they have for their schools, and the vision they have for their community.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Mr. Duncan stated that he would like an opportunity to comment on some remarks made by Mr. Emery.  Regarding the open space, they are at 40%, which is a substantial figure in light of what they have seen in Lake County in the past; this would be 321 acres of open space and conservation will be set aside in this development.  He read the school report that was generated through the School Board’s experts, and the figure in the most recent report was $284,000 which is the cut off line of when it becomes cost effective for government; that figure may have gone up since that study, which is a year or two old.

            Commr. Pool interjected that Dr. David Dinslow from the University of Florida had done the study, and the number is correct unless it has gone up in the last year.

            Mr. Duncan explained that they are in a unique situation and, like the Harbor Hills project that the Board approved not too long ago, they have that historical data that allows them to show that the student generation rate that comes out of this development is considerably lower than the student generation rate figures that the School Board uses.  He explained that there are different generation rates for mobile homes and apartment complexes, but one single generation rate for all single family subdivisions within the entire County.  He pointed out that $1.3 million in sales tax was generated by Mission Inn last year; the County received directly $185,000; $340,000 in ad valorem taxes were paid last year on top of the single family residents; and between $160,000 and $200,000 was generated in Tourist Development Council money last year from Mission Inn.  He stated that clearly this is a project, as pointed out by Ms. Cowin, that benefits Lake County, and these are the types of projects they need in order to subsidize the things that Mr. Emery is concerned about.

            To address Mr. Emery’s comments, Commr. Stivender stated that there is a Lake County fire station presently in the Yalaha area, which would serve this site in a very timely manner.  The County is also making improvements to CR 48, and she is sure that any other improvements would be done by this development, so they are keeping up with the transportation and safety issues; and Howey is next to it, and it has a police department.

            Mr. Duncan stated that to bolster the argument on the roads, it is $3.38 million worth of road impact fees that this project will pay into the County coffers.

            Commr. Hill stated that she thought it was quite courageous of the School Superintendent, Ms. Cowin, to come and speak to the Board, and she noticed from the minutes that Mr. Metz had almost the same philosophy, but he did vote against it.  She asked Ms. Cowin if there is a philosophy within the School Board where they feel comfortable addressing certain developments that they feel the County should be promoting.

            Ms. Cowin stated that she cannot speak to Mr. Metz because she has not had a conversation with him, and Mission Inn has not had a conversation with him, and she does not know if he was actually there when their consultant referred to the different developments, but generally the majority of the Board have a philosophy of opposing all development without exception; that is why she felt is was important for her to announce that she would actually support development and this is the first one and, although she is probably not going to be coming very often, she feels strongly that they should encourage the development that they want and they need that will benefit them.  She did speak to Board members individually about being here today; they really made no comments one way or another and basically let the issue pass.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he thinks that everybody understands the economics of this project but, on the build-out, they show ten to 15 years total, and he asked if this was going to be in phases or was it going to be market driven.

            Mr. Duncan explained that there are actually different pods within the community; one of the pods they are getting ready to open is the larger estate home pod, which will actually increase the average cost of these houses.  They are going to be phased in because there will be different pods of each development, the townhouse pod, the estate home pod; large estate homes that are going to be from $800,000 to $1.5 million; so there will be phasing involved in the project.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to know if the open space, the 40%, includes the golf course, which Mr. Duncan did acknowledge noting that Lake County continues to recognize them as open space.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that Lake County has one of the most strict golf course ordinances in the state and country.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve Rezoning Case PH#100-05-3, Robert Beucher, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Owner; Robert Beucher, General Partner, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Applicant; a request to rezone A (Agriculture) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add acreage to existing Mission Inn PUD and amend the existing PUD Ordinance #2004-61; Tracking #119-05-PUD/AMD; Ordinance 2005-107.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she thinks that Mission Inn traditionally has done the type of community that they can be proud of and has certainly set an example for others in the County.  It does have the clustered development, which allows them to have the open space, and 40% is still a large amount of open space, even with the golf courses, and they are a revenue enhancer.  When you look at the impact fees that they will pay other than schools, it is close to $5 million and that would be for parks, library, fire and roads.  She did believe that, if it did come under a DRI process, they would probably have a hard time finding how they could improve the project.

            Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

            RECESS & REASSEMBLY

            At 10:35 a.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

REZONING CASE PH#73-05-2 – LAKE GROVE UTILITIES, INCORPORATED, OWNER – KARL SANDERS, ESQUIRE, FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS – APPLICANT – AMEND ORDINANCE #38-90 – TRACKING #81-05-CFD/AMD

 

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#73-05-2, Lake Grove Utilities, Incorporated, Owner; Karl Sanders, Esquire, for Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Tracking #81-05-CFD/AMD; a request to amend Ordinance #38-90 to allow one 200 foot monopole communication tower.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, Ms. Allen explained that the site consists of 91.50 acres located in the Four Corners area on the west side of US 27 and north of the CR 474 intersection.  According to the variance granted by the Board of Adjustment on October 13, 2005, the location of the tower must be centered north and south, and east and west on the property; the tower itself must maintain a minimum 600 foot setback from the north and south property lines.  Approval of the variance allows the tower to be less than 400% of the tower height (800 feet) from residential property.  Since the variance has been granted, the desired amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Lake Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan.  Staff recommends approval of the request; the Zoning Board recommended approval 5-1 at the December 7, 2005; staff has received one letter of opposition.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Ms. Rosel Pine of Edwards Cowin in Jacksonville, addressed the Board and stated that she is here on behalf of Cingular Wireless.  As Ms. Allen has indicated, this would be a rezoning of an existing CFD for the Lake Grove Utilities sewer plans, in order to allow the construction of a 200 foot monopole antenna for Cingular Wireless and, with the variance, staff has recommended approval; the Zoning Board has recommended approval; and the tower will allow them to complete their coverage in this area and fulfill their obligations to provide 911 service.

            Commr. Pool pointed out that, in the last light situation, they made sure that, during the evening hours, it was not a white strobe light; that it was a slow blinking red light.

            Mr. Charlie Pachini, Cingular Wireless Design Engineer, addressed the Board and stated that, as far as the light, there are a number of different options they can put up there, and they can accommodate any kind of lighting on it.

            Commr. Stivender explained that the wording the County used in the other tower cases was “a dual lighting system at the top of the tower shall be utilized with a red steady light at night rather than a flashing strobe” and Mr. Pachini noted that this would not be a problem.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Rezoning Case PH#73-05-2, Lake Grove Utilities, Incorporated, Owner; Karl Sanders, Esquire, for Cingular Wireless, Applicant; a request to amend Ordinance #38-90 to allow one 200 foot monopole communication tower; Tracking #81-05-CFD/AMD; Ordinance 2005-108.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that there was a fencing problem; one of the letters in opposition to the fence noted disrepair to the residential side, and she wanted to know if they would be repairing that part.

            Ms. Allen explained that the fence is owned by Lake Grove Utilities, and she did forward that letter to Code Enforcement.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned whether the motion included the lighting language.

            Commr. Pool stated that the motion would include the correct lighting per their recommendation for dual lighting.

            Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

REZONING CASE PH#101-05-3 – PETE BENEVIDES, OWNER – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE #2003-62 – TRACKING #125-05-CP/AMD

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#101-05-3, Pete Benevides, Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #125-05-CP/AMD; a request for an amendment to the existing CP (Planned Commercial) Ordinance #2003-62.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicant is requesting an amendment, as noted, to address the inability to meet the 25 foot wetland buffer requirement, and to request that the expiration date established in the ordinance be extended for an additional 24 months.  The applicant is requesting a 21 foot average wetland setback for all structures and impervious surface; they have submitted a copy of the proposed mitigation plan that was submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Army Corp of Engineers for their review and approval; if approved, the applicant will be required to submit the approval documents of this plan prior to any site plan approvals by the County.  Staff is recommending approval of the request; the Zoning Board recommended approval 6-0 at the December 7, 2005 meeting.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public meeting and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that he represents the applicant.  As indicated by staff, two years ago they rezoned this piece of property with a CP zoning.  They sold a piece of property and the person, not being familiar with the rules and regulations, did some significant clearing on the property; it is right across from the industrial park.  They ended up taking the property back and working with the agencies to re-establish and protect the wetlands that were altered during that time of ownership.  They are reducing the square footage of the buildings as originally approved; there was less usable land when they did the actual wetland lines; they are asking for some flexibility and setback is part of this reestablishment and replanting that they worked out with the agencies.  It will be the same uses but a smaller footprint, less coverage, and more replanting to make it right.  As staff had mentioned, there was an expiration date in the last CP, and they are asking that this be extended 24 months.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#101-05-3, Pete Benevides, Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; a request for an amendment to the existing CP (Planned Commercial) Ordinance #2003-62; Tracking #125-05-CP/AMD; Ordinance 2005-109, with the condition of a 24 month extension.

REZONING CASE CUP#05/12/1-3 – ANDREW J. & JONI HANSEN, OWNERS – ANDREW J. & JONI HANSEN, APPLICANTS – RENEW EXISTING CUP#03/2/1-3 – TRACKING #123-05 CUP/AMD

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case CUP#05/12/1-3, Andrew J. and Joni Hansen, Owners; Andrew J. and Joni Hansen, Applicants; Tracking #123-05 CUP/AMD; a request to renew the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP#03/2/103), which will expire on March 11, 2006.  As indicated in the backup material, this is a 47 acre parcel south of Howey located off of Lake Emma Road on Lake Morgan.  It is a wakeboard and ski school, and the owners are requesting to renew the existing CUP #03/2/1-3, which will expire on March 11, 2006.  The existing CUP allows the owners to operate and maintain a ski school and wakeboard training facility in and on real property in Lake County.  The proposed conditional use is in compliance with all requirements; it is consistent with all of the noted regulations and the Comprehensive Plan; the renewal will not have an undue adverse effect upon nearby property; and it is compatible with the existing or planned character of the area.  Mr. Hartenstein stated that verification with the Code Enforcement Division has revealed that no complaints or code cases have been filed against this CUP during the last three year review period.  As indicated in the Summary of Staff Determination, this application is to renew the existing CUP, and to eliminate the requirement to seek renewal every three years.  The owners’ request is to continue to operate the existing ski and wakeboard school on Lake Morgan with the following changes to the CUP:  1) eliminate the requirement to renew the CUP every three years; 2) allow a third single-family residence to be constructed on the property to provide separate living quarters for the male and female students; 3) allow two powerboats to operate on the lake at the same time and remove the restriction “When abutting property owners and/or their guests are using Lake Morgan, the ski school cannot operate on the lake.” There will be an annual inspection performed by the Code Enforcement Division to insure compliance with any and all conditions of the CUP.  At the December 7, 2005 Zoning Board meeting, the Board recommended approval 6-0 to continue the existing CUP with none of the requests made by Mr. Hansen, and to require that the CUP come back in three years for review.  Staff recommends approval with the conditions as outlined in the attached ordinance.  Staff has received a total of 87 letters and e-mails in support of the ski school operation, and a total of 21 against it.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, Mount Dora, addressed the Board and stated that she is here today on behalf of Hansen Ski School and Wakeboard Center.  Ms. Campione represented the Hansens in 1998 when the request was made for the initial issuance of the CUP for this particular location, and three of the Commissioners today were on the Board at that time.  When the case came back up for renewal in 2003, all of the members today were on the Board and there was a unanimous decision to re-issue the CUP.  In the first meeting in 1998, there was an existing ski school or camp on Moon Lake and, at that time, the Hansens had permission to use Little Lake Blackwelder, which is now called Lake Morgan.  The property was sold and the owner of the property did not choose to renew the lease with the Hansens, so they had to find a new site.  They found this site; it is ten acres of uplands; it is a total of 43 acres; the remainder of property is actually lake bottom.  In 1998, they asked if they could build their ski school here.  There was a lot of discussion at that time regarding what would happen with all of the undeveloped property around this lake, so a decision was made to allow a three year term, so the Hansens would have to come back for another hearing, once the CUP expired, as determined by the County Attorney.  There was also a concern, at that time, if things changed around the lake, whether the ski school would be permitted to continue and, it was determined through discussion that they would look at it as this changes and see whether the uses can continue to co-exist or not.  As far as the construction of a building on the property, a decision was made that it should be a traditional single-family type construction so that, if the use ever went away, they could continue to reside on the property, or sell the property, and it would not give the appearance of an institution as opposed to being a single family residence thus protecting the County and the applicants.  After three years, the CUP was re-issued and, at that time, the subdivision had come to fruition and it was decided that another three year term would be put on the CUP.  There was a lot of discussion about the Hansens’ expectations and their need to continue their business, as well as the expectations of private property owners on the lake.  Today they are asking for a re-issuance of the CUP, and for a couple of changes to be made to the CUP.  As far as changes, the Hansens would like to be able to build another single family residence; they have ten acres; the land use is suburban; and this is an area that could probably be platted in the future.  She explained that they do not want to expand the school or increase the number of students that can attend the school; they want to be able to separate the male and female students; right now they keep students at local hotels; and it is not an expansion of the school.  The next request is to remove the review term so that it would run like a traditional CUP, and to permit the use of the buildings and structures as a ski school indefinitely without review.  They want to use this as their base for the ski school so that, in the future, if they decide that they are not going to allow the ski school to operate on Lake Morgan anymore, they will at least have a home base, so they can house their students and continue to take them out to other lakes in the area.  They are requesting an indefinite term on the use of the buildings and structures, but to continue to review the use of the lake.  Ms. Campione explained that the ski school only operates Monday through Friday; it does not operate on the weekends.  Right now, if anyone else goes out to use the lake, according to the language, the Hansens would have to take their boats in.  They are asking that the Hansens be permitted to have at least one boat on the lake.  She explained in detail how they handle the situation now when someone else is on the lake.

            Ms. Campione stated that she would like to go ahead and present testimony to the Board and get some information on the record.  After looking at the file, she realized that the new subdivision, The Ranch Club, actually has a common boat ramp for this lake, and there are 116 units that have access to this lake at any time. It could be very problematic on a small lake, and it would be a very intensive use of the lake.  She would suggest that they basically have two intensive uses, a ski school that wants to operate Monday through Friday; and 116 units that have full access to that lake; and thus far, they have not had any real problems.  She feels that they can continue to operate and co-exist and, if additional conditions need to be placed in the future, they can address them as the problems arise; not speculate that they will definitely have problems. Ms. Campione called Mr. Andrew (Andy) Hansen, the applicant, to present testimony.

            Mr. Andy Hansen testified that one of the issues in the very first hearings was based on the number of students and the impact to that area.  They reduced the number of students to a total of 16; they are not requesting to increase that number; they have one full time student that comes from Texas; they have 16 students for two weeks in the spring time; they have 16 students for two months during the summer; the rest of the time they have between zero and ten students; and they use three different lakes when they have 16 students.  He testified that Lake Morgan, Lake Emma, and Lake Lucy are public lakes, and they use a public boat ramp to access those lakes; they also use Lake David in downtown Groveland, which is accessible by public boat ramp.  Mr. Hansen explained how they handle situations on the lakes when they encounter other people out in their boats, and he testified that they did look at several other locations for their school. He has a letter from Reliable Peat who built water ski lakes for Jack Travers International Water Ski School, and he has talked to him about doing the same for him but, as indicated in his letter, there are so many complications with reclamation and construction that it makes it almost impossible and extremely expensive to create or duplicate something like that but he is still looking for a location. He worked with Toyota Boats in the industrial park, and they had considered constructing a lake using the retention pond but there was a liability issue. They have also taken their students to the Lake Harris Chain but, because of alligators, and the quality of that water, they stopped going there. In regards to water testing, Mr. Hansen testified that, in order to address one of the first issues expressed by the opposition, they had a study done by Tech Labs in Orlando, and they brought that research forward at their last hearing, which showed that the lake is as pristine today as it was when they first started using it.  He explained that they did water skiing and wakeboarding at one point, and then they changed to just wakeboarding; they do have apparatus in the water for this sport.  They received permits from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for eight sliders on this lake for the commercial use.  There were two slalom courses on that lake when he bought the school over 12 years ago; they were not permitted and were removed.  There are other slalom courses in this area, as he described, and there is a slalom course permitted on Lake Arthur in their name; they had it permitted before they were told by the Commission not to use that lake.   The Ranch Club, as a development, went to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and had ramps put in on both Lake Morgan and the Lake Emma Chain, and there is a slalom course permitted on the Lake Emma Chain, which is accessible to the people that live at The Ranch Club. Mr. Hansen testified that they have never had any problems on Lake Morgan, as far as people wanting to use the lake when they were using it for skiing purposes and, as explained earlier, each time they encountered someone there, it was handled in a cordial manner.  He testified that he does anticipate additional traffic because of new homes being constructed at The Ranch Club, and this has been communicated to them by the Commissioners that eventually there will be homes on that lake.  They believe they can co-exist with them; they do not want exclusive use of the lake; and they are more than willing to work with the homeowners.

            Ms. Campione addressed Commr. Cadwell’s question by clarifying that there would be a provision in the CUP that states that the use of Lake Morgan by the ski school would expire every three years; they would have to come back in for re-issuance but use of the buildings and property could continue as a ski school indefinitely.

            At this time, Ms. Campione showed a video (about four minutes) of the World Wakeboard Center (WWC), which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.

            Ms. Campione stated that she has three witnesses that Mr. Hansen has offered to speak, and then they will conclude their presentation.

            Mr. Terry Dorner addressed the Board and stated that he is Vice President of World Sports and Marketing, and they produce professional water skiing and wakeboarding events around the world.  Mr. Dorner stated that he was a student at what was Allen’s Ski School about 30 years ago, which operated on Lake Morgan, and they skied there and trained there five days a week, Monday through Friday.  He stated that this particular lake and this particular venue is an institution and is legendary in the world of water sports, and the lake, the facility, and the coaches have produced hundreds of national and world champions.  From a personal perspective, it would be a shame if the program went away.  He has known the Hansens for years and they are a family that is characterized by hard work, honesty, and integrity; the program is in good hands; and they will be reasonable as they have demonstrated in the past.

            Mr. Dan Stewart, O’Brien Road, stated that he lives about four miles from the Hansens on a lake about the same size and, on their lake, there are six former professional water skiers and wakeboarders, as well as other boats.  It is safe to say that they and their families use the lake more than the average lakefront owner.  Mr. Stewart explained how he and others seem to manage their co-existence on the lake as adults and do not require the County to be the referee for their lake use.  There are 200 acres of undeveloped land on the lake and he wants to know if he has to be concerned about a developer who may want to sell to those who will curtail their use of the lake.

            Commr. Hanson explained that this is the reason someone would have a CUP, because that will eventually happen; that is why it is a CUP rather than a guaranteed use forever.

            Mr. Stewart stated that, if they are looking at the amount of boat traffic, it is a very similar situation to what they have on their lake, and they do not require a referee.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that Mr. Stewart is not operating a commercial operation.

            Mr. Trey Weber addressed the Board and stated that, when he was young, he did not have a lot of money, and the Hansens let him do chores for them in trade for wakeboard lessons.  They are great people, and he asked the Board not to shut down their wakeboard camp.

            Ms. Campione stated that she had a few remarks in closing.  She explained that there have been a few issues that have emerged in the Zoning Board meeting based on the statements that were made there, and there was a lot of talk about what the expectations of The Ranch Club owners were when they purchased their property, as far as the ski school.  A review of the minutes reflects clearly the discussion that took place.  At the Zoning Board meeting, a perception was given that there were problems occurring on this lake and, if anyone from The Ranch Club offers testimony, she certainly would like to find out if they have had incidents, because they are not aware of problems between the owners at The Ranch Club and the ski school.  Also there was the idea that, by adding the extra building, they were actually expanding and will have more users on the lake; that is not the intent; the number of students will remain the same; and they will continue to use lakes other than just Lake Morgan.  A comment was  made that this was a commercial operation as opposed to someone using the lake that has lakefront access, but they need to keep in mind that around this lake there are lakefront lot owners; there are 116 lots and a lot of them are not on the lake but they want to be able to use the lake.  She feels that, if it does not work in the future, the Board will see fit to impose whatever restrictions, conditions, limitations necessary to allow the Hansens to continue their operation.

            Ms. Campione requested the opportunity to cross examine any of the witnesses, and Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that the Code does not authorize her to do this but rebuttal will be allowed.

            Mr. Bill Higgins stated that he is a lot owner at The Ranch Club and President of the Homeowners Association and, on behalf of their Board and the 116 lot owners and residents, he would like to say that they are opposed to the commercial use, or any use on Lake Morgan.  Mr. Higgins noted that the video (Exhibit A-1) was very nice and well done, but they are not opposed to the World Wakeboard Center’s operation.  As stated, they operate on other lakes, and they do a great job, but they are opposed to it on Lake Morgan. 

            Ms. Joan Baskett, Eagle Run, Groveland, stated that she is a homeowner in The Ranch Club community and Director of The Ranch Club Homeowners Association.  Ms. Baskett explained that The Ranch Club consists of 116 five acre home sites; all are individually owned; they have an active Homeowners Association; currently there have been 12 homes built; five are under construction; five have been permitted and approved by the Architectural Review Committee to begin construction; by the end of 2007, they project The Ranch Club properties to be 50% built and occupied; many property owners do not wish to build homes immediately but they still come to the community for recreational purposes; some come from other states on vacation and use the community common areas; it is an equestrian community with paths and winding roadways; there is a preserve area with wildlife and wide open areas of pasturelands; there are waterways and lakes with the largest being Lake Morgan with 13 home sites located directly on it; 22 home sites have use of the lake.  Ms. Baskett stated that located on Lake Morgan is their community boat ramp for all of The Ranch Club property owners to share; Lake Morgan is the only lake in this community that is designated for recreational watercraft use.  They are very concerned about Lake Morgan being used for a commercial operation; it is disruptive to the property owners that live near the lake; and it is unfair to everyone who has rights to use the lake.  It is not reasonable that one entity should be able to monopolize so much time on the lake.  She is also the Secretary of The Ranch Club Homeowners Association and many of the homeowners have contacted her regarding this issue. They are all in complete agreement that they do not want Lake Morgan to be used for commercial purposes.  The Association has received several complaints regarding the WWC’s use of the lake.  Their CUP states that commercial use of the lake is prohibited when other property owners are present and, on several occasions the employees and students of the WWC have refused to comply with the requirement to leave the lake when other people are using it; they have been argumentative and aggressive; and that causes problems.  No formal complaints to the County were filed by The Ranch Club Homeowners Association because they were under the assumption that the CUP would shortly expire and the problem would resolve itself.  It has been noted that Lake Morgan has been used for commercial purposes for many years perhaps alluding to some form of grandfathering in of this business, however, Lake Morgan and the surrounding property is not and has never been zoned for commercial use.  As a business owner, Ms. Baskett stated that she is aware of the time, resources, and work it takes to run a commercial enterprise but, in all fairness, they were given due notice that things were changing and relocating their business was inevitable.  She stated that three years ago the Board had the foresight to realize that commercial use of Lake Morgan could not continue and that is why the CUP had an expiration date.  As a homeowner and representative of The Ranch Club Homeowners Association Board of Directors, she is opposed to any and all commercial use of Lake Morgan.

            Mr. Kevin Zibolski, Sunset Lake Circle, Winter Garden, stated that he owns Lot 16 in The Ranch Club on Lake Morgan, and he is adamantly opposed to the issuance of this CUP.  He bought this property to build his dream home with the intention of using Lake Morgan for his personal recreation and enjoyment on a daily basis.  The applicant will tell the Board that he wishes to work together with other property owners and, although the Zoning Board did not agree to the request, the current application says “There has been precedence established with the school’s operation. All other boat operation should give preference to World Wakeboard Center’s boats during their operating school hours Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”   Their attitude is exemplified with the applicant’s reference to Lake Morgan as Lake Hansen;  the applicant has admitted that it is not possible or safe for other water activities to take place while they are operating; and they have made it clear that rotating or sharing is not an option because they have paying students.  Mr. Zibolski stated that every single property owner on Lake Morgan is opposed to this permit; 17 out of 18 lakefront property owners.  Petitions were submitted for the record at the Zoning Board meeting including an additional 50 or more petitions from The Ranch Club property owners with deeded access to Lake Morgan; there is 100% opposition by the abutting property owners.  The applicant has stated that the permit shows eight sliders on Lake Morgan, a fun box, and a kicker ramp.  Mr. Zibolski presented to the Deputy Clerk a picture of a slider, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-1; and an aerial photo of Lake Morgan that shows the applicant’s area that is lake bottom and the location of the permanent sliders, ten of them, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-2.  He stated that they are monopolizing over 3,000 feet of lake frontage with these sliders; some are actually permitted right in front of The Ranch Club property owners’ community ramp.  Mr. Zibolski stated that he is adamantly opposed to this permit.

            Commr. Stivender asked Mr. Zibolski if those sliders were on the lake when he bought the property, and he stated that right now there are actually only two of them sitting on the lake, but they are permitted for ten, and he thinks that they did not place the others on the lake because it would have been more controversial for the hearing.  Mr. Zibolski stated that he is trying to get a hearing in Tallahassee to discuss the excess and unnecessary use of the lake, because they were permitted when there was no objection and no one there at the time.  At the time he bought the property, he was not told that the sliders were permitted for this lake; he did know there was one slider in front of the Hansens’ residence.

            Mr. Don Sharp, a property owner in The Ranch Club, stated that he objects to this wakeboard school being on Lake Morgan.  He stated that the attorney referred to it as a ski school, but there is a difference between a ski school and a wakeboard school; he believes that a wakeboard school is an extreme sport.  He explained that this lake is 57 acres but it is not large enough to accommodate the activities that the Hansens choose to continue and possibly expand.  Even though it was explained that there is a lot of history involved with the applicants and their business, he also brings much to the County, and he feels that this is an invalid presentation and an aggressive action.  In regards to the 87 letters and e-mails in support of the ski school operation, he questioned how many of those were homeowners on the property.  As noted in the Zoning Board minutes, Larry Metz was concerned about the congestion and operation of wakeboards, if they had two boats on the water.  Mr. Sharp noted that, on December 13, 2005, he received a phone call from Commr. Pool about this case and, because of their conversation, he would request that Commr. Pool abstain from voting on the issue.  Commr. Pool responded briefly to the comments.

            Mr. Chris Larsen, property owner in The Ranch Club, stated that he is in the process of permitting a new home, and he has deeded access to Lake Morgan.  In his opinion, more students on site rather than in hotels are an expansion to the school although there will be the same number of students on the lake; two boats instead of one sounds like an expansion; expanded rights for the Hansens versus the deeded rights of the homeowners at The Ranch Club sounds like an expansion; removing the expiration date from the CUP sounds like an expansion; and their use of the lake is deeded without expiration.  The Hansens are a commercial enterprise and they have a temporary permit.  Mr. Larsen stated that, when they purchased their property at The Ranch Club, it was their understanding that temporary permits are temporary because the existence of the organization at that location might be temporary.  They bought property with the understanding that, when the permit was ready to expire, they would have the opportunity to make their case as deeded residents of The Ranch Club.

            Mr. Rich Reper, Harbor Lane, Clermont, stated that he has property in The Ranch Club, and he is against the CUP, specifically the commercial use of Lake Morgan.  Mr. Reper showed the Board the web page for WWC noting that it is a world wakeboard center; it is on the worldwide web; it is a substantial business.  In addition to training and providing a camp for the kids, this is a commercial venture; they are selling equipment including wakeboards and boats. As part of their big business, they have facilities for up to 16 students per week; many weeks are sold out; and if a student is going for two or three weeks or a whole season, he questioned their activities on the weekends.  He also pointed out that, on their web site, they advertise “Lake Hansen is crystal clear and entices every wakeboarder to train and play hard.”  He stated that they are doing this with a private lake.  This is a big business and they are capitalizing on a private lake, Lake Morgan.  Mr. Reper submitted the web page information to the Deputy Clerk, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-3 (composite – 4 pages) for the Opposition.

            Ms. Stacey Ferrari, Sunset Lake Circle, Winter Garden, stated that she wanted to make it clear that, while she does not yet live in The Ranch Club, she did buy a home site there directly on Lake Morgan to enjoy a water skiers lifestyle.  She bought the property knowing about the existence of the WWC, and the terms of the CUP that allows it to operate on Lake Morgan.  She explained that she introduced herself to the Hansens, told them about purchasing the property, and about her intentions to do slalom skiing on Lake Morgan, only to have Mr. Hansen tell her otherwise and suggest that she do it somewhere else. She explained how she was depending on the language in the CUP to expire in 2006, which she felt protected her right to enjoy the lake, because it is not privately owned by the WWC.  She should not be denied the same rights and have to wait to use the lake when she just invested a great amount of money to own property for her own personal lifestyle.  Ms. Ferrari explained that she had further contact with Mr. Hansen only for him to again suggest that she go to a slalom course on Lake Lucy, and he went on to say that her slalom skiing would damage his wakeboard camp’s image and have a detrimental effect on his business.  She stated that his ten permitted sliders, which are a considerable size, do interfere with other boating activities and, for the record, she is in complete opposition to the renewal of the CUP that allows them to operate a commercial business on Lake Morgan; she is not in opposition to the WWC or the Hansens using the lake for their own personal interest.

            Mr. Howard King stated that his family has owned property off and on near Lake Morgan for about 125 years.  He stated that the business in Villa City was a very nice business, and it has grown and he congratulates Mr. Hansen for the quality of skiers he has turned out, but it is too big, and he needs to do one of two things.  He needs to either buy out his neighbors so that he has exclusive rights to this lake, or move to another lake.  Mr. King explained that other schools have had to do that; he should also have to do that.  Secondly, there has been some concern about the name of the lake.  He would like to point out that the lake is platted as Lake Morgan; his great-grandfather actually named the lake in 1884.  Mr. King stated that he thinks this is too big a business; Villa City is really not the place for it at this point in history; and he wishes him luck in finding a new location.  Mr. King submitted a copy of a newspaper article from “The South Lake Press” dated December 28, 1962, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-4 for the Opposition.

            Ms. Ruth Stokes, Winter Park, stated that she owns 12 acres on Lake Morgan plus an additional five to six acres extending into the lake, which is called lake bottom; all of this was recorded in Lake County in July, 1976.  She supports all that has been said by those opposing this application for renewal of the CUP for the Hansens.  Her venue is from a historical position, and it is the same that it has been for years in opposing the many nuisance requests of this applicant to add land, delete land, revise growth management plans, amend CUP, split lots, request variances, and now extend and revise the present CUP; and that position since 1998 has been that his commercial operation of a ski school, now wakeboarding school, does not belong on this small lake in their historical, rural, residential and agricultural community.  It prevents the quiet enjoyment of the lake for the lakefront owners, their guests, and now their homeowners having access to the lake.  Now more than in 1998 the land use has changed and his use of the lake is not conducive for the present and future homeowners.  The WWC has been in operation since 1993 and continues to be an expensive exercise for her and other residents affected by these repeated requests, and they have found it necessary on several occasions to engage legal assistance and time take off from work to appear before the different County hearings.  It is not reasonable or fair for this commercial entity to cause so much stress for them.  The last time she appeared before the Board, there were three people opposing; now there are many constituents opposing this issue.

            Ms. Campione stated that, in closing, she would like to make some comments about some of the things the witnesses have said today.  As far as the sliders, the Hansens have those permitted through DEP, and they have three children who have been world class champions, so they would be using those sliders whether they were operating a ski school or not.  As far as getting other permits for a slalom course on the lake, Ms. Ferrari or anyone can apply for one; the State regulates that type of activity.  Ms. Campione addressed comments made by Ms. Ferrari noting that there is no need for anyone to be concerned about using the lake when the WWC is operating and, as indicated in the CUP, the WWC does not operate on the weekends.  She also noted that hearing that there has been some confrontations is totally contrary to their position, as testified to by Mr. Hansen; there have been no complaints registered with the Code Enforcement Board, and there have been no investigations. With regard to some of the statements about fishermen, paddle boats, canoes and kayaks, those 116 users at The Ranch Club are probably going to have to work out some issues among themselves, as well.  Ms. Campione stated that they are asking that the different competing interests use these conditions that are reasonable to balance the interests and, if additional conditions need to be placed in the future, that is certainly within their jurisdiction to take care of that, but right now it has been working and they are asking that they allow the Hansens to continue to do what they have done in the past.  They are asking that they allow them to indefinitely have their property as their home base for the ski school; that the use of the lake come back up for renewal as it has in the past; that it be examined at that point as far as whether everyone is co-existing and working together; and that they be permitted to build that additional unit so that they can house the guys and girls in separate dorms.  They have not had any problems on the lake, as Mr. Hansen has testified, but she felt that the issue of having one boat on the lake could be abused by those folks that would like to have the Hansens not be able to use their ski school.  She stated that, if the Board decides they want to address some of the issues, perhaps they can look at the hours of operation but continue to allow them to operate at least one boat during the hours of operation, as outlined in the CUP.  She noted that the ski school ceased in 1996, with it being solely wakeboarding now.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Mr. Hartenstein explained that the applicants have two structures on the property right now, and they are asking for one more structure under agricultural zoning.  Mr. Hartenstein explained that, if the ski school ceases to operate from that site, they would have to plat it as a subdivision, which would entail a rezoning in order to have current lot sizes for three lots.  It was noted that the surrounding zoning is R-1 and R-2.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board knew this day was going to come and that is the reason this CUP is a lot different that some of the others, because it has that three year period where they will look at it each time; other CUPs are inspected yearly by staff to make sure they comply; but they knew this was going to be different.  In their comments, they will continue to operate the business if the lake was not there, or if there were different restrictions on the lake.  If the Board is going to consider renewing the CUP, he would hope that they would at least look at the language where it says “duration” and have it for a one year period.  With the rate of growth out there, even in one year, it may be a different situation.  He explained that the Hansens own property; they have the right to use the lake; and if the CUP goes away completely he thinks they will be in worse shape, but then they can utilize the lake for their own personal use.  He clarified that he is less concerned about the whole property, if they believe they can operate the business out of there without the use of the lake but, in regards to the use of the lake, he would not go more than a year.

            Commr. Pool explained that Ms. Ferrari can slalom or ski on that lake today without any permission from the Board, as well as Mr. Hansen or anyone else with or without the CUP but, without the CUP and restrictions and guidelines, they are going to be considerably more impacted on weekends and weekdays during all hours.

            Mr. Hartenstein stated that the only code violations have been in the form of complaints about an access issue on Lake Emma, and they were found by Code Enforcement to be invalid complaints.  He had Code Enforcement research the last three years, and there has not been one complaint filed against that ski school for operating on Lake Morgan.

            Discussion occurred regarding the number of slides that are permitted by DEP, and Mr. Minkoff explained that the fact that they have a DEP permit does not mean that the CUP could not limit them.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, if the Board goes along with that, she would require that those eight additional ones be removed under the permit and not be allowed.

            Mr. Hansen addressed the Board and stated that they have a permit for eight sliders on the lake, and they have eight sliders on the lake.  He explained that this process is very expensive; they have allocated dollars for sliders to go into those locations; the sliders are currently on the shoreline ready to be positioned in those locations; there are four permanent ones right now on the water; there are four on the shore ready to be placed.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that they need to understand that this goes into even more argument with the opposition that, even when they shut down, the visual effect is still there on a very small lake.  As he said, the Board knew this day was going to come and today may be the day in regards to the use of the lake but, if not, he would hope that the Board would at least look at the lake issue in a year as opposed to three years.  He would encourage them to add the language Commr. Hanson has offered in regards to the number of slides.

            Commr. Hanson noted that, after this discussion, she would still say limit it to the four sliders that are existing on the lake.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the Chairman is suggesting that, if Mr. Hansen puts more than four on the lake, the CUP becomes null and void.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she wanted to make some personal observations and comments, because she moved into an area with a small lake, Lake Idamere, with half of it being in Tavares and half being in the County.  The County built a dock about 90 feet out into the lake; the frontage on the other side is in the City; and now there is a huge business that builds pontoon boats that are 90 to 100 feet long and they are allowed to use their lake to do flotation testing, which would eliminate any use of the lake by the residents when he is on the lake.  As a citizen, she went to Tavares and said she wanted a timeframe for him to use the lake, and they had to compromise the use of the lake.

            Commr. Stivender made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Rezoning Case CUP#05/12/1-3, Andrew J. and Joni Hansen, Owners and Applicants; a request to renew the existing CUP#03/2/1-3; Tracking #123-05 CUP/AMD; Ordinance 2005-110; to extend the CUP with the following requirements;  there will never be more than 16 students; she does not think there needs to be another building there because, if it were to no longer be a school, you could only get the two residences and she did not want to put them in a bind where they would have to tear one down if they could not plat it; she would like to keep 2.b. on Page 2 but limit it to one boat on the lake and, throughout the document, change everything that says a ski school to a wakeboard facility; keep the same hours, the Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., that the use of the lake issue come back for the Board to review every year but that the buildings and the wakeboard school run with the land and not have to come back and be renewed every year; and that the four slides that are in the water and are permitted and already constructed be the only ones allowed on the lake.

            Commr. Pool seconded the motion for discussion and stated that obviously it is the placement of the sliders that are the most important so, to allow four is one thing, but he thinks it they need to be on the Hansens side of the lake; and even though he understands that Mr. Hansen owns the acreage, he is trying to help position them in a way that may be more advantageous to everybody, so that they have a win-win situation.

            Ms. Campione attempted to tell the Board the cost of the sliders and the fact that they have already been bought; but Commr. Hanson said that she realizes the cost but only wanted someone to show her the location of the four sliders that are already in the water.

            Mr. Hansen explained that they purposely held back on putting the two sliders on the other side in front of their boat ramp just for aesthetic purposes, because they are very expensive and it takes time to raise the money to construct them.  Mr. Hansen pointed out the location of five sliders that are permanent right now, and the location of his property.

            Commr. Hanson questioned the number of sliders that are actually in the water noting that Mr. Hansen had indicated earlier that there were only four in the water.

            Mr. Hansen stated that he recounted the sliders.  He explained that they pull them off the lake and put them in different spots; they are on anchors and can be moved around; they are very expensive; but there are five currently on the water in location.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she is going to stay with the four, as noted in her motion.

            Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.

            Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Hanson voted “no”.

            Mr. Minkoff repeated the motion, for clarification, as follows:  the change from the current CUP would change it to allow 16 students; still only allow the two structures that they currently have; leave Page 2. B. keeping that, if there are other people on the lake, they cannot operate a boat on the lake; same hours; that the CUP, as to the use on the lake, would expire each year and would have to be reapplied for; that the use of the land for housing the students would turn into a normal CUP with an annual inspection and a three year review; and that there would only be four sliders that would be used on the lake.

            RECESS & REASSEMBLY

            At 12:50 p.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m.

REZONING CASE PH#87-05-5 – CHAD L. & KRISTIE L. PENLEY, OWNERS – CHAD PENLEY, APPLICANT – A TO R-3 – TRACKING #104-05-Z

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley, Applicant; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential); Tracking #104-05-Z.  As indicated in the Summary of Analysis, the applicant wishes to rezone the nine acre parcel, which is presently vacant, for the creation of a single family residential subdivision; central water and sewer will be supplied by the City of Umatilla.  He explained that R-3 zoning permits a maximum of three dwelling units per acre and this density shall take precedence over that of the point system density, as explained in the Summary.  He also noted that the Future Land Use designation is Urban Expansion, which has a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre.  The use is consistent with all other provisions of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan.  Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone from A to R-3.

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained that staff asked the developer and consultant to go back and do some additional surveying, so they have done that and have some additional information to bring forward.  They do not have a final survey completed today, but they do believe they have an accurate alignment of the SR 19 right-of-way and Maxwell Road, and there is the possibility that this site could be improved with the existing right-of-way that is there today.  He noted that he did see plans this morning.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Dwayne Booth, Farner, Barley and Associates, stated that he is the Project Engineer representing Chad Penley.  Mr. Booth explained that, at the October hearing, the main question was the intersection at Maxwell Road and SR 19.  He spoke to Commr. Cadwell in early November and staff has been at this site the past two weeks surveying; they have a little bit of work left to do but he does have some information that is 90% to 95% accurate with regards to that intersection. Staff is still confirming other information with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and hope to have that next week.

            Mr. Booth referred to a map that showed the parcel right below Silver Beach Heights (outlined in blue) and stated that the City of Umatilla is about 1,200 feet south of them; about 1,260 to the east of them.  As shown, it looks like the R-3 is starting to create a corridor.  They have been in discussions with the City about water and wastewater services; if they get the R-3 zoning, it makes sense to get the sewer there; if they do not get the R-3 zoning, the City said that their definition of availability is not met and they would not require them to connect to sewer.  Mr. Booth submitted the map to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.

            Mr. Booth showed the Board an Assessment Map of the area noting that they met with Mr. Schneider and Patty Harker, Right-of-Way Manager and, as shown, the old Glendale Subdivision was platted in 1887.  The roads that are shaded have been vacated except for the pieces that actually cross Maxwell Avenue (three pieces), and the old plat calls them Old Railroad Road; the map calls it Railroad Street; and the plat map and the old original plat shows 140 feet of right-of-way.  The assessment map was submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant.  In their survey, as shown, the shaded areas are the portions of the old plat that were left out of the vacation.  Mr. Booth explained in detail the area surrounding the stop bar at the SR 19 intersection.  He submitted the survey to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-3 for the Applicant.  Mr. Booth stated that he met with Mr. Schneider yesterday and again this morning to discuss the site distance, as he explained and, in looking at the DOT green book standards, it was 475 as a minimum at 60 miles per hour (mph); this is posted at 55 mph; the desirable was 650 feet.  They are still in the process of verifying the right-of-way line.  If that is the right-of-way line, they can move the fence back about eight or nine feet; and move the fence on the other side of the road two to three feet; and then they will have more than the 650 feet of the site distance to make that a safer intersection.  Mr. Booth showed the Board the same intersection overlaid on the aerial to support what they found noting that they are lining up perfectly with all of the fences.  This map was submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-4 for the Applicant.  They will have to do some section work in Silver Beach Heights, and they will have some other information from DOT, to be completed in another week or two.  He submitted the aerial to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-5 for the Applicant.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to know, with that additional footage along there, if they think that makes it a safer intersection.

            Mr. Schneider stated that it was safer and it is a proper method of measuring the site distances, 20 feet back from the travel lane and measuring out minimum turning movement site distances and, if that is the location of the right-of-way, staff would request the developer to coordinate with the property owners to have the fence moved back and, at that point, there would be the proper site distance at that intersection.

            Mr. Booth stated that the applicant is requesting R-3 zoning, even though there had been discussion about R-2 zoning.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, when he heard this case the first time, his comments and his feelings have not changed in regards to the development pattern in that area, and he still believes that R-2 would best suit this property.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation from the Zoning Board for R-3 zoning and approved to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential); Rezoning Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley, Applicant; to rezone a nine acre parcel for a single family residential subdivision; Tracking #104-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-111.

            Commr. Stivender voted “no”.

REZONING CASE PH#103-05-3 – COOPREE, INC., OWNER – RICHARD LANGLEY, P.A., APPLICANT – A TO HM – TRACKING #122-05-HM

 

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case PH#103-05-3, Coopree, Inc., Owner; Richard Langley, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to HM (Heavy Industrial Uses).  As indicated in the Summary of Analysis, the applicant wishes to rezone approximately 80 acres in the North Groveland area; the parcel is located adjacent to the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park.  Mr. Kruse reviewed the surrounding zoning, as reported in the Summary, noting that Suburban future land use designation allows new light industrial development without a Comprehensive Plan amendment; the parcel is adjacent to an existing Employment Center designation; but Policy 1-1.6 indicates light industrial development, therefore, it does not support the applicant’s request for a change in zoning to HM (Heavy Industrial).  Staff is unable to support the request to HM but can support a change to LM (Light Industrial).  Mr. Kruse noted that the site would be served by an existing central water and sewer system and would utilize the existing roadway network in the Commerce Park.  He did have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Langley about the option of going to LM; he indicated to him in a phone conversation that he would be agreeable to that.  The Zoning Board voted 4-0 for approval of LM zoning.

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Richard Langley stated that he is the applicant and he has the property under contract; Coopree, Inc. is the owner.  Mr. Langley stated that he did agree to reduce it to LM (Light Manufacturing); the other would require a Comprehensive Plan change and approval by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#103-05-3, Coopree, Inc., Owner; Richard Langley, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to LM (Light Manufacturing); Tracking 3122-05-HM; Ordinance 2005-112; as recommended by the Zoning Board and staff.

REZONING CASE MSP#05/10/1-3 – LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, LLC, OWNER/APPLICANT – MSP IN A – TRACKING #109-05-MSP

 

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case MSP#05/10/1-3, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, Owner/Applicant; a request for a MSP (Mining Site Plan) in A (Agriculture) for a construction and demolition (C & D) debris landfill; Tracking #109-05-MSP.  Mr. Kruse stated that he has some additional signed petitions, with 422 signatures, which were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit C-1 for the County.  As indicated in the Summary of Staff Determination, this is a request for a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a construction and demolition (C & D) landfill facility on a 44 acre parcel located in the (A) agriculture zoning district.  The parcel is located in the rural future land use category and is currently being operated as a clay mine under Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #1004-3, which was granted by the Board in March of 1986.  The applicant is proposing to fill the void left by mining with C & D material.  Since the original approval of the mine was granted under a CUP, the applicant is requesting a MSP to void the CUP and allow reclamation of the mine with C & D material and the continuation of mining.  There are currently five other mines that are using C & D materials as part of their reclamation in Lake County.  Mr. Kruse reviewed the detailed information supplied in the Summary referring to specific Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and policies.  In addition to refilling the mine pit with C & D materials, the owner is requesting to be able to recycle steel, concrete and other recyclable materials including the option for chipping tree material into mulch.  Staff finds the request to be consistent with the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan, and the Water Resource Management Division has reviewed the hydro-geological and geotechnical reports and is able to support the request.  The Zoning Board approved the request 3-2 with conditions that have been added as follows:

  • extensive buffering be required along the adjacent property owners that are zoned agriculture and do not have a valid agricultural exemption; this buffering shall include additional vegetation and berms;

 

  • in term of hours of operation, that they be closed Saturday and Sunday and extended hours of operation may be rendered upon approval of the State of Florida Emergency Order following a natural disaster (such as hurricanes), however, the extended hours must be made in writing to Lake County Department of Environmental Services Department and require the operation;

 

  • C & D material must be covered weekly by an improved method that will be outlined and discussed in detail in the operations plan.

 

            Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  She disclosed that she met with those individuals for and against the application.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Potter, Clement, Lowry and Duncan, stated that he is here on behalf of the applicant, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC.  Mr. Duncan submitted the following documents for the record to the Deputy Clerk, and they were marked and entered as exhibits for the Applicant:  Expert’s Qualifications and Background – Exhibit A-1; Construction and Demolition Debris (C & D) Landfill Study on Nearby Residential and Agricultural Property Values – Exhibit A-2; 1 page summary from Calhoun, Dreggors & Associates, Inc. – Exhibit A-3; and 2 page Summary of Results from Calhoun, Dreggors & Associates, Inc. – Exhibit A-4.

            Mr. Duncan stated that this is a request for a reclamation plan for an existing sand mine, which has been there for approximately 30 years.  It is about 80% completed meaning that most of the sand and materials have been removed from the mine, but there is some existing materials that will be removed as part of this reclamation plan.  It is located on CR 455 between Howey and Montverde.  Mr. Duncan stated that they have two options with this hole in the ground; one, reclaim it under the old existing mining ordinance and old rules and regulations that would allow them to leave the hole in the ground as it is and slope it to a two-to-one slope; and two, fill it up with C & D debris or some other type of landfill.  He explained that C & D debris is considered by the State of Florida as clean fill noting that this particular method of closing the sand mine is recognized by the County and the State as the most effective and safest way to reclaim these existing pits.  The C & D landfill will begin after the mining and the CUP is approved by the County, and by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).  They are requesting a 10 or 15 year life span of the C & D pit; a much shorter period of time in light of the construction going on in this area right now, however, they do acknowledge that this could change.  After all of the requirements are met for the reclamation, this will be reclaimed to the natural grade of the property prior to the operation of the sand mine, and it is the intention of the developer to donate the 44 acres back to the County.  The property is located adjacent to thousands of already approved homes in Lake County; it is a couple of miles from Sugarloaf, Montverde, Minneola, and Clermont, an area that is fast growing and establishes the need for this pit in this area.  There will be some detailed discussion regarding traffic and, because of its location, it will reduce the hours of truck traffic, and the cost for developers to dispose of this material.  The County has currently stopped accepting C & D material; it actually transports its C & D material outside of the County to a landfill in Orange County.   Before they ever filed their application with the County, they began having public meetings with residents, and they continue to make themselves available throughout this process. The public hearing were originally scheduled in October; staff requested additional time and information and they were willing to continue the case; the Zoning Board held a hearing in November; the opposition requested an additional continuance because some folks wanted to be present at this hearing and they agreed to continue it again.

            Mr. Duncan stated that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills has provided the Board with a Resolution requesting that the Board deny this CUP and reclamation plan.   The matter was first heard at the Council meeting on September 26, 2005, and they were never notified of the intention of Howey to bring up this matter; the Council requested their attorney to draft this Resolution; it was brought to them on October 10, 2005; but they were never invited or notified of their intentions to hear this case.  In looking at the minutes of that meeting, an excerpt from an article that appeared in “The Lake Sentinel” was read into the record by Councilman Olsen; the article they used to base their decision on had nothing to do with this particular site; it was specific to the Grantham pit on SR 46 in the Mount Dora area.  On the very same day they held their hearing, there was an article in “The Lake Sentinel” that had a quote from James Bradner, DEP who, when asked about the history of these folks, stated “The applicant has a reputation for operating these facilities according to the rules.”  Mr. Duncan stated that this is something that the Council should have considered before approving the Resolution.  Mr. Bradner has dealt with his clients who have owned and operated two other facilities; one is still currently in operation.  Because neither they nor any of their representatives were given the opportunity to speak to the Town of Howey, they are asking that the Board make their decision on what they hear today, and they have several experts who will be testifying.  He showed the Board about a four minute video, which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit A-5 for the Applicant.

            Mr. Jim Golden, HAS Golden Engineers, Orlando, addressed the Board stated that they are the engineers of record for this project and have been working with staff over the past nine or ten months on this application.  Mr. Golden explained that they have worked over 25 years in the State of Florida designing similar facilities. He reviewed a slide presentation; it was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit A-6 for the Applicant.  As shown, the area is rural and surrounded by agricultural and rural residential land uses, and staff and the Zoning Board found it consistent under agricultural zoning.  The slides showed the actual pit in operation; currently it is approximately 45 feet deep; about 70% to 80% complete for excavation; the slopes are about two to one; and it has been operational since 1975.  The area is very good for borrow pit use, and it supplies good sand and clays for the local construction industry.  There are some existing trees and berms around the facility; and it is a highly needed facility in the County.  Last year, the storms created millions of yards of hurricane debris, and these facilities can take land clearing and hurricane debris, as long as it is from demolition.  Mr. Golden stated that they accept the recommended permit conditions, additional buffering, and other controls already mentioned by staff.  He explained how the pit would look if it was left un-reclaimed as shown in the chart; it would be approximately 90 feet deep with steep sides; and it would be allowed under the current mining permit.  They are requesting to reclaim this pit back to natural grade; they are not asking for any vertical expansion or anything above grade; only enough so that stormwater runs off the sides to stormwater ponds surrounding the facility.  He pointed out the buffering areas around the perimeter of the site, as shown in the site plan, noting that there is currently a berm along CR 455, which would be further enhanced with additional trees; berms will be added to the eastern side and southern side and will adjoin rural residential land uses; to the west is currently a grove that will be enhanced with additional trees on the western boundary.  The interior of the site is proposed to be a 26 acre sandy landfill; that leaves them 18 acres for the stormwater ponds and other buffering areas, approximately a 100 foot setback from CR 455.  The entrance to the site allows them to stage approximately nine to ten trucks to get traffic off of CR 455.  They set back the footprint of the landfill from the private wells surrounding the property 500 feet according to DEP rules; and they have added 13 groundwater monitoring wells.  Mr. Golden continued to review Exhibit A-5 that contained information regarding C & D wastes; unacceptable wastes; a waste control flow chart; environmental controls; voluntary permit conditions; good neighbor policies; and details of the Landfill Study on Nearby Residential and Agricultural Property Values prepared by Calhoun, Dreggors & Associates.

            Mr. Duncan talked about the monitoring of the well and asked Mr. Golden who was responsible for the monitoring and who pulls the test samples from the well.

            Mr. Golden explained that a third party certified consultant would have to pull those samples from the wells; a third party State certified laboratory would test those samples; the raw data is sent to the State; that report comes back to County staff and DEP.  He explained the benefits from pulling certain waste; the voluntary condition to monitor the waste; and the insurance policy that has to stay in place for a minimum of five years noting that the County can request to extend that as long as they think is reasonable to make sure that the site is fully stable.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, with the reduction of Saturday and Sunday, he wanted to know if they think they can stay inside the time frame of the life of the mine.

            Mr. Duncan felt that they could meet the time frame; Saturday was to address some of the good neighbor policies, as outlined in Exhibit A-6; closing it down really does not impact the length of the pit itself but limits the ability for local residents to come there on the weekend.

            Commr. Stivender wanted to know when they do maintenance of their vehicles, or maintenance of the site, and whether they do this during the week or does the Board need to address this issue.

            Mr. Duncan explained that maintenance of the site is done on a daily basis, but the covering of the site will be done once a week, pursuant to the Zoning Board’s requirements.

            In regards to Commr. Stivender’s question about covering the site daily, Mr. Golden explained that it would take more effort to move the sand from the borrow area to the working phase on a daily basis, and it may require the landfill to shut down a little earlier to allow that covering every day, but he could speak to the owner to see if he is amenable to that condition.

            Mr. Duncan called Mr. Ted Wicks to testify noting that he will focus primarily on the suitability of this particular site for this use.

            Mr. Wicks addressed the Board and stated that he is with Wicks Consulting Services, and they are the engineers of record on the project.  They were asked to become a part of the project team basically because of their historic experience with the Lake County mining ordinance and their local presence in dealing with permitting of C & D operations.  In this case, they are in a position to bring this back to grade; and to restore it to almost the topography that it had pre-mined.  It is a great location; geotechnically it meets all of the requirements of both the state, federal and County guidelines; it is an existing pit that, if left to reclaim under the current CUP, the mining requirements would only have them do the sloping and some minor re-vegetation.   This is an opportunity to go back to the original grades and to provide a higher and better use than leaving it as an open pit.  The County has had some definite needs with respect to solid waste over the years, and this provides a valuable component to their solid waste program.  He has been before the Board on several occasions for C & D and Class III operations and, in those hearings, he heard a lot of the fears and testimony from the opposition, but they have the technology that addresses public safety, odors, and contaminated ground water.  They also have extensive liability if it is not done right, and they are required to post the sureties to protect against long term care and closure.  Mr. Wicks requested that the Board give favorable consideration to their request before them today.

            Mr. Duncan called Rick Dreggors, their property appraiser who conducted an extensive study on this particular use including the impacts it has on surrounding property values.  The Board has the executive summary and chart that he will be referring to in his testimony.

            Mr. Rick Dreggors, Real Estate Appraiser and President of Calhoun, Dreggors & Associates, Inc., Orlando, addressed the Board and stated that he was asked a few months ago to look at this property and conduct a study of property values adjacent to other solid waste facilities in Central Florida.  As part of that study, they had to identify the location of the other facilities and limit their focus to C & D facilities, and they included the County’s Class I facility in Astatula, at the request of the applicant.  After going to the DEP offices, they identified the following facilities:  1) Golden Gem Road Landfills; 2) C.R. 33 Landfill; 3) Professional Dirt Services Landfill; and 4) County Class I – Astatula. They also identified a couple of other facilities, but there was either no market activity to provide amendable comparisons, or there were a lot of industrial uses around that facility.  The information was shown in Exhibit A-3 and Exhibit A-4, which he reviewed with the Board.  He pointed out that the homes that were closest to the Golden Gem Landfills, less than one-quarter of mile, actually sold for more per square foot of living area than the homes farther away from the facilities.  The appreciation rates were similar for land closest to the Golden Gem Landfills; the average annual appreciates rate was 5.4%; they went down as they got further away from the facilities.  He reviewed the information for each facility, as shown in Exhibit A-4.  In conclusion, Mr. Dreggors testified that, in his opinion, there is no adverse influence on the effect of property value as you get closer to these landfills.  The full reports have been presented, Exhibit A-2, and the summaries, Exhibits A-3 and A-4.  In addition to his own research, his office conducted a nationwide research on published articles or studies by other appraisers, and also by other universities on this very issue, as to whether or not these have an adverse influence on value, and those articles and studies are also an attachment to his study, Exhibit A-2; those articles did not find any adverse influence to property next to a C & D facility.  One of the studies conducted in 2003 did find for a Class I facility (household garbage) some reduction in value to property as you got closer to the landfill, but they are dealing with a C & D facility; they confirmed with the professors at Penn State that they were dealing with a Class I facility, not a C & D.  In addition to the studies from the universities, there were other studies by other appraisers, which concluded no impact to property values to these types of facilities.  As additional support, he has brought with him copies of appraisals prepared by the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (Expressway Authority) for the acquisition of rights-of-way in West Orange County and, in looking at the map at CR 545, they have located two facilities there; these were not part of his original group, the four facilities he talked about earlier, but they looked at the appraisals that were prepared on behalf of the Expressway Authority, because the rights-of-way for the Western Beltway come very close to those two C & D facilities.  The appraisers for the Expressway Authority also did not note any adverse influence for those rural residential properties adjacent to those two facilities.  As part of the Horizon West Plan, which is also adjacent to those two facilities on CR 545, the planners for Horizon West, which is a 30,000 plus acre project in West Orange County, have shown on their land use plans how these properties would be developed adjacent to these facilities, and they have residential homes right up next to some of these facilities so, as part of the planning process for Horizon West, the planners are proposing to construct homes adjacent to those two landfills.

            In response to questions from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Dreggors reviewed Page 2 of Exhibit A-4 noting that they looked at homes in the Royal Harbor Subdivision and Lakeside at Tavares Subdivision and, because that area is pretty well developed, there were not any land sales for them to look at; they just looked at the sale of homes and appreciation rates, as noted.  It was pointed out that the Lakeside at Tavares Subdivision actually has a visual view of the landfill.

            Commr. Stivender stated that there is a development that has been approved between the two subdivisions that Mr. Dreggors studied next to the Astatula Landfill that is in the City of Tavares, and that property sold for a considerable amount of money. She wanted to know if Mr. Dreggors took that into consideration with the land prices, because it actually abuts the landfill.

            Mr. Dreggors stated that they did not look at the property, but they can.

            Mr. Tony Luke, Luke Transportation Engineers and Consultants, addressed the Board and explained that they routinely do traffic studies in Lake County usually for a more intense trip generation, and he has done quite a few projects with Mr. Golden and his team throughout the State.  They worked closely with County staff; they met the adopted concurrency requirements for traffic impact studies; they worked closely with their client in terms of determining the loadings and truck trips anticipated and planned for this project.  They also took into account both land mining activities going on at the same time as a C & D landfill activity.  They completed their study in May, and they went through a review with Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, and John Maruniak, Transportation Planner/Engineer, County staff, and they also received some minor review comments from Mr. Maruniak about the middle of October; they responded to those comments; he discussed it with Mr. Maruniak; and he was fine with the results of the traffic study as it met the County’s adopted requirements.  They worked closely with Mr. Golden on the market for this site and that ties in closely with the regional routing.  Most of the traffic is coming from the southwest, about 75%; the balance of it comes from the northwest; and then to a lesser degree from the northeast and southeast.  They looked closely at the scenic highway and considered the traffic on that route, and there was really no reason to have much of their traffic, if any, on that route.  In conclusion, they met their adopted concurrency requirements; they worked closely with staff; and they met staff approval with their traffic study.

            Commr. Stivender wanted to know if the traffic study addressed accel/decel lanes, turn lanes, stacking, or those types of items.

            Mr. Luke stated that they did look at those items, and they looked at the Highway Capacity Manual Software Analysis at the intersections; they determined what that analysis produces; and they found that, with the existing configurations, all quality level service would be at a good level.   It was noted that staff had a question about the possibility of a deceleration lane to the west, and staff is still reviewing that possibility realizing that they are at the intersection of SR 19 and CR 455, and this project would add some amount of traffic to that intersection.  There is a higher level of existing trucks through that intersection today but that is the only location where there was a question about a deceleration lane or a left turn storage lane.

            Commr. Stivender explained that she drives CR 561 a lot and there may be a need for a left turn depending on how much traffic actually comes from CR 561, and she wanted to know if that would be a problem.

            Mr. Luke explained that they could consider that, if their projections change and there is a greater percentage coming from the east rather than from the west, but the far better regional route is to the west.  This project has been in operation since the 1970s, so it has been generating trucks for quite awhile; they did not do a traffic count of the existing sand mining activities; they accounted for continuance of 30 trucks in and out a day of just the sand mining activity; they as well as staff felt that was on the conservative side.  They added another 60 truck trips in and out for just the C & D activities; the total of 90 represents a net.  The need for a deceleration lane would be minimal from this site, because it does not generate the number.

            Commr. Pool wanted to know what the distance is that people normally travel to carry their debris to those pits, and Mr. Luke noted that this question was not raised by staff and therefore, this information was not included in the data.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to know what factors helped them come to the conclusion that the scenic byway portion of CR 455 will not be used for truck traffic.

            Mr. Luke explained that that they looked at the anticipated origins of this material and they did not find this to be a fast path to get this site; and they did not see a predominance of this type of activity demand through that route because there are quicker routes and greater areas of demand for the other routes.

            Commr. Stivender stated that, as part of the scenic byway requirements, it cannot have truck traffic on it.  Signs have already been placed at this location and, if this is approved, it would be up to that company to make sure that this is not a truck route.

            Mr. Duncan explained that, if this C & D pit is denied, the mining operation will continue; there will be a certain number of trucks that will continue to go in and out of there daily; that number will probably increase with this operation.  As that sand disappears and with the covering requirements that were imposed on them by the Zoning Board and potentially by this Board, more of that sand is going to need to stay on site because they are actually going to be utilizing it on site for the purposes of providing the cover.  If they approve the C & D pit, a lot of those sand trucks will go away.  They could possibly end up with a net increase of zero because they are eliminating the sand trucks coming in and out of the site and simply replacing them with the C & D fill trucks.

            Mr. Duncan called Mr. Jim Hall, resident Planner from Canon and Associates, to talk about the compatibility and some of the issues that staff addressed in their report.

            Mr. Jim Hall, Canon and Associates, Orlando, stated that, when you place this type of use in a rural area, it is going to affect people far less than if you were to put it in a more urbanized area, but the Comprehensive Plan is clear where a landfill should go and the rural nature is a benefit especially with the landscaping, buffering, and cover requirements.  He noted that there are agricultural uses around the site, and the landfill is going to replace a borrow pit, which is a permitted use in the agricultural district.  Mr. Hall referred to the aerial included in Exhibit A-6 for the Applicant noting that the yellow dots are the homes in the surrounding area and, if you go a quarter of a mile radius, that is about 125 acres, and there are about 25 homes in that 125 acre area; the density is very low; the east-west road to the south will most likely get no traffic.  The lots and homes on CR 455 are fairly remote from the road.  They agree with staff that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs and, if you look at the Standards for Review, this project meets all four steps and is an acceptable location for this use.

            Mr. Duncan stated that Mr. Hall has some personal experience with regard to the West Orange Landfill that his clients operate.  There are development patterns occurring all around that landfill, and he asked Mr. Hall to talk about how it has no effect on the development patterns around that particular landfill.

            Mr. Hall stated that there are two landfills; one the clients operate; another that Republic Services operates; and they are each about 80 acres.  They are in the area where Horizons West is located and where there are 5,000 to 6,000 unit projects.  The whole 35,000 acres has been set up since 1995-96 with the DCA, so they do not have to do a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) because the development restrictions in there are so dense.  They put in a minimum density of five units an acre, because they wanted enough people living there that it would balance jobs, services, commercial, parks and schools, and for all of these to be there at the same time, and these landfills sites are right in the middle of what they call their town center, which is the crown of Horizons West.  These landfills have residential uses, not rural residential uses, but a minimum of five units an acre and up and they are all around these landfills, because they are going to be filled back to grade; they are going to become green; or offer other development opportunities in an urban setting. 

            Mr. Duncan stated that there are about 1,500 signatures of opposition, which is impressive, but he wanted to point out that some of those signatures were obtained through some misinformation.  He explained that people were given a flier in an attempt to mobilize the opposition, and it showed a Class I landfill, with birds pecking at household garbage.  He stressed that this is not at all what they are trying to propose today.  He submitted the flier to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-7 for the Applicant.  He thinks it is safe to assume that this would put fear into a lot of people and unjustified fear, because they are not trying to put a mountain of garbage in this area; this is a construction and demolition (C & D) fill area in an existing pit, and it is simply not at all what is being depicted on the photograph.  They will rest their position and give the opposition an opportunity to address the Board but, with the burden of proof, they would like the opportunity to rebut at the end of their presentation.

            Mr. Bob Olson, Howey Council, stated that he wanted to correct an impression that was given earlier.  He stated that Resolution 2005-21 was brought up in citizens comments after their Council meeting by Howey citizens; not anybody else.  The only concerns they had was traffic on SR 19, because they have a lot of construction and new homes on CR 48 in Tavares coming across SR 19 on the bridge and running southward; there is also a lot of development taking place on Number Two Road.  He stated that there is already too much traffic on SR 19 going to Howey.  One of their citizens brought the concern of gypsum wallboard being put in there and, as it decomposes, it creates hydrogen sulfide and, even though they included that in the Resolution, they do not know if that is correct or not; that was the only point he needed to make.

            Commr. Stivender disclosed that she did attend a meeting that they invited her to in Howey, and they were very cordial as she listened to their concerns, as they are today.

            Mr. Tim McCormick, Howey-in-the-Hills, addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that no matter how they sugar coat it, these people want to put a dump in their backyards and what they have planned for CR 455 far surpasses what was shown by Mr. Duncan.  He stated that the Board has before them an issue of zoning, and they have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the cost to the community, or if it is even beneficial to the community.  He represents a group of neighbors who live and work in the area of the proposed dump, and they have come together to make known their objections to this zoning change.  He asked those present who were with this group, the Concerned Citizens of Old Howey, to stand at this time; there were approximately 60 people standing.  He stated that, rather than to present repetitious comments, they, as a group, have decided to offer the Board a presentation not unlike their opponents that will give them the facts that this facility is wrong for their community.  Even during the Zoning Board meeting, the applicant’s council stated that C & D waste currently was hauled to the Keene Road facility in Apopka; it failed to mention the facility in Zellwood until today.  He pointed out that an Information Packet has been presented to each Commissioner, from the Concerned Citizens of Old Howey, and to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition.  Mr. McCormick explained that the dump on Keene Road in Apopka was recently granted a large expansion and an additional height of 50 feet above grade should the need arise; this facility is less than 15 miles from the proposed facility.  The Hewitt facility on CR 33 is still under development and they anticipate at least another ten years until closure; they also have a dump on CR 545 still under development; and there are five C & D facilities operating in Lake County, as noted.  He addressed issues of concerns, which included the affect on the environment, odor, noise, pollution, damage to roads, danger for recreational uses of the area, and negative impact on property values, noting that the applicant cannot guarantee that all prohibited items will be removed from the loads of debris brought in to the site, or that their facility will never contaminate their aquifer and springs.  He discussed debris that can contain solvents using construction shown in Exhibit O-1 noting that it takes as little as one gallon of these contaminants to contaminate one million gallons of water.  Mr. McCormick referred to a pamphlet put out by the Lake County Department of Environmental Services that states “A single gallon of oil can contaminate one million gallons of water!”  The pamphlet was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit O-2 for the Opposition.  Mr. McCormick continued his comments of concern and reviewed the information in Exhibit O-1.  He pointed out that right now they have a hole in the ground, and it is just like the one that the County has less than one-half mile down the road at the intersection of Buckhill and CR 455, but the old County pit has been reclaimed by trees and vegetation.  There is a brand new apartment complex in Leesburg behind Babette’s Furniture that is being built in a reclaimed sand pit.  Mr. McCormick pointed out that there are plenty of things that can be done with this property, things that would be profitable to the current owner and without the liability of a dump.  The applicants said they were going to be generous and give the completed site to the County as a park; but as they have done in Orange County, he thinks they are going to be back wanting to go higher and wider.  In Exhibit O-1, the agreement with Orange County says, once that landfill is closed, they are not responsible for any conditions that might happen afterwards.  Mr. McCormick urged the Board to deny the applicant’s request for a CUP and rezoning to prevent this dump from becoming a reality.

            Mr. John Mapp, Jr. addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  He stated that he lives on CR 561 about six-tenths of a mile southeast of the proposed dump site.  Mr. Mapp explained that C & D leachate is very nasty so they are very concerned about their water supply.  He explained how surface water generally flows noting that old geological survey maps show that there used to be a closed depressional area confined within the boundaries of this property before it became a borrow pit.  At the Zoning Board meeting on November 2, 2005, he had asked if there had been any core samples taken to ascertain the properties of that closed depressional area to verify that the confining area protecting the Floridan Aquifer was intact in that area. Mr. Golden had replied that there had been one sample taken in addition to the general samples taken throughout the property; Mr. Mapp felt there needed to be several observations at the bottom of the old possible sinkhole to verify that the aquifer is protected.  He explained that Double Run Spring is about 2,500 feet north-northeast of the property, and there is the need to protect the aquifer in this region that is much more environmentally and geologically sensitive than being portrayed by the applicant.  The other area of concern has to do with the site recharge analysis and the hydrogeological investigation noting that the applicant has sited some specific analysis based on site evaluation of soil samples showing that the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is about 1.3 inches per year, and that the horizontal flow rate of surface water is only about 1.2 feet per year, however, the applicant is sighting a regional average evapotranspiration rate, as he explained, of 39 inches per year.   A more appropriate site specific analysis would be obtained by looking at a 1996 US Geological Survey Study on a de-forested site off of Avalon Road in extreme western Orange County, which is similar to the site they are considering today, which results in a 3 to 3.5 inch recharge to the Floridan Aquifer, and a horizontal flow rate of the surface water that must be eight to ten feet per year minimum rather than the one or two feet per year contained within the study.  He stated that this is going to threaten the surrounding properties a lot faster than the analysis now portrays.

            Ms. Teresa Kraa stated that she and her fiancé are residents of Howey-in-the-Hills and business owners in Ferndale.  She was here to educate the Board about the recreational aspects of this area in Lake County, especially concerning two groups, the bicyclists and the motorcyclists who would be affected by this proposed operation.  As far as the bicyclists, she has spoken to many riders of the Horrible Hundred event held on November 20, 2005 about this proposed site.   The petitions that were signed showed the diverse areas that these people traveled from to participate in this event, as well as other races.  Ms. Kraa presented four bicycle course maps noting the close location of each route in relation to the proposed dump site noting that the Yalaha Bakery Ride and the American Way Pumpkin Hill routes got directly by the site.  These were submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and they were marked and entered as Exhibit O-3 (composite – 4 pages) for the Opposition.  She presented the Great Floridian Triathlon courses, Lap #1 and Lap #2, both a 112 mile bike course noting that the routes go directly by the proposed site.  These were submitted and marked and entered as Exhibit O-4 (composite – 2 pages) for the Opposition.  Ms. Kraa stated that there were 299 individuals that placed in the Great Floridian Triathlon, with 37 states being represented.  She submitted the results, which were marked and entered as Exhibit O-5 (composite – 6 pages) for the Opposition.  Then there was the Florida Challenge Triathlon, a 56 mile bike course, with 418 results published and 27 states being represented.   The course and results were submitted and marked and entered as Exhibit O-6 (course); and Exhibit O-7 (results – composite – 7 pages).  She pointed out that, even though the races take place on the weekends, they train throughout the week on these roads.  She presented a newspaper article where they publish these events, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-8 for the Opposition.  She noted that there are many other races and the Triathlon Center is located in Clermont, which supports a lot of them.  Ms. Kraa stated that cycling is the fastest growing sport especially in the State of Florida, where ideal year round weather and beautiful scenery make Lake County and the Sugarloaf Mountain area especially appealing to these athletes.  They face many challenges on the roads and, with this proposed site, they will encounter heavy truck traffic and debris such as nails and lumber along the roads.  One of the fastest growing events is the Leesburg Bike Fest held each spring where approximately 125,000 to 150,000 motorcyclists attended the 2004 Bike Fest.  There was an article published in the Dixie Biker Magazine that tells one man’s view of this Bike Fest, which Ms. Kraa submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-9 for the Opposition.  She noted that there are many other events that bring a lot of money to the area.  Ms. Kraa stated that, with the traffic flow from the southeast from Montverde and the Green Mountain Scenic Byway, and with the Bella Collina subdivision going in, she wanted to know how they specify that the truck traffic will not drive from Bella Collina to this site down to CR 455; and she wanted to know if they are going to be out there monitoring that road.

            Commr. Stivender stated that this is what she was trying to get them to explain when they had it split up; how do they make them go around and get on SR 50 and US 27 rather than taking the short cut.  She stated that this Board is unified and is still working on getting the Rails to Trails, or bike paths, and widening shoulders when they can and getting the necessary funding for all of this in order to bring these events into the County. They have all, at one time or another, served on the Tourist Development Council (TDC).

            RECESS & REASSEMBLY

            At 3:50 p.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

REZONING CASE MSP#05/10/1-3 – LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, LLC, OWNER/APPLICANT – MSP IN A – TRACKING #109-05-MSP (CONTINUED)

 

            Ms. Luann Newsome, Bruce Hunt Road, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  She stated that she is not a resident of the City of Clermont but a resident of Lake County.  She showed the Board about a four minute video, which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit O-10 for the Opposition.  The video depicted the conditions of the roads in this area including CR 455, CR 561, and SR 19.

            Mr. Robert Newsome, Bruce Hunt Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Newsome addressed the application, which indicated that there would be 90 trucks a day; initially they had said 60 construction material, and 30 sand trucks.  Today he heard testimony that there will be 40 sand trucks and 60 construction trucks; and because the sand mind is not going to be operating, the net will be zero, with no trucks on CR 455.  At the Zoning Board meeting, they quoted that the 40 trucks will increase to about 80; and it seems that their answers are changing based upon what they want to hear.  A visit to their Winter Garden location revealed the number of trip tickets on a normal day to be 170; on a busy day it is 210.  With 170 to 210 trip tickets on CR 455 that means there will be 340 to 420 heavy vehicles on the roadway per day; this is a 566% to 700% increase in heavy truck traffic; but their expert would have you believe that the project would have no impact on the traffic or the roadway.  With the traffic count from Lake County of 2,815 vehicles on CR 455, the additional truck traffic equates to a 12% to 15% increase; that is far from no impact.  A recent count of large trucks on CR 455 indicated that there were 240 trucks in a nine hour period; their study only looked at 15 minutes.  Using their low figure of 50 trucks a day will equate to 120 trips, and a 50% increase in heavy truck traffic on CR 455.  At the Zoning Board meeting, they claimed that the dump was needed because of several large developments to the east on CR 455 and CR 561.  He addressed the development of Bella Collina noting that the most direct route is right down CR 455.  They claim that 75% of the truck traffic would be from SR 19; the study submitted does not show one truck coming from the east of CR 561.  The roads will be destroyed; the signs will not stop the truck drivers.  He quoted an FDOT engineer that stated “One heavy truck on a roadway is equal to 100,000 passenger cars as it relates to wear and tear on a roadway.”  He explained that CR 455 was once a State Road that was probably designed in the 1950s, and it was handed over to the County in the 1970s.  He explained that he measured asphalt and lime rock in the potholes on CR 455 noting that it meets the standards for a bicycle path in Lake County.  Mr. Newsome showed the Board pictures that depicted the condition of the roadways in relation to this site and submitted them to the Deputy Clerk.  They were marked and entered as Exhibit O-11 (composite – 4 pages) for the Opposition; and he submitted a chart depicting the road standards and lane dimensions, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-12 for the Opposition.  He stated that Lake County and DOT have the same standards when they build a roadway, as he explained, noting that the number of heavy vehicles they are going to put on that roadway is going to destroy CR 455.  He does not feel that the citizens should be paying for private business use of a road when they know it is going to destroy the road and will cost about $28 million to fix it.

            Ms. Lisa Cimini, CR 455, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Ms. Cimini stated that she is a property owner, and a concerned citizen of the Old Howey area.  She explained that, on CR 455 going west toward Buckhill Road, there once stood the archway Mr. Howey built welcoming everybody to Howey-in-the-Hills; this is not only a historical road, it is a scenic road.  She stated for the record that everything she says today is her opinion, and she will be presenting some facts and data.  She stated that the C & D landfill in Zellwood was known as “Smellwood” and, as quoted in an article from “The Orlando Sentinel” some of the residents thought that the news of the two landfills was to blame for the odors.  The article indicated that the owner of the business, Jeff Brannon, knows that the place sometimes stinks because “it is a landfill after all.”  Ms. Cimini explained that the landfill is located on CR 545 in an area that is known as Five Corners, where the neighbors complain of stench.  They complained of the odor, as she described, and felt that their health issues were a result of these facilities being nearby.  She reviewed the DEP analysis that addressed the cause of the odor; and she showed a picture of the Orange City C & D Landfill noting a fire that was caused from combustion.  She also discussed the results of the research that had been done that addressed hydrogen sulfide noting health issues that could be caused from it and, after taking a neighborhood survey, they found 12 residents with asthma; 16 with mold allergies.  She addressed ongoing studies that have shown arsenic poisoning; noise associated with machinery; and pointed out the visual affect it has on the landowners including those on Little Lake Harris.  Ms. Cimini submitted a CD-RW to the Deputy Clerk, which contained the pictures shown to the Board, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-13 for the Opposition.  Ms. Cimini asked the Board to vote against this request, as a landfill dump does not fit into their quality of life.

            Mr. Bob Ripple addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Ripple stated that Howey-in-the-Hills is a very unique geographical area and has a natural beauty that cannot be found anywhere else in Florida; it took him three years to find his beautiful place in Florida.  He explained that there are two of the highest spots in Florida on both sides of this proposed dump, the reason this area has drawn so many people to the area from all over the country, to enjoy the scenic byways, the rolling countryside, and the panoramic views.  William J. Howey referred to the area as “the Alps” of Florida; one of the highest elevations of Florida is just a mile from the proposed dump site.  He addressed the increasing number of multi-acre estates and new developments in the area including Sugarloaf Mountain and Arrowtree noting that the proposed dump site would be situated between both of these communities and would be within a half mile radius.  He explained that CR 455, a Green Mountain Scenic Byway, is one of the main gateways from the Orlando area into Howey-in-the-Hills; the town is home to the Mission Inn and the Howey Mansion; and the area accumulates tourist dollars. Also CR 455 is a main gateway through Montverde, the Montverde Academy, and Bella Collina; the proposed dump site is abutting CR 455 and is entirely visible from their communities and, even though they talk about berming the roadway, the entranceway is on CR 455.  Even though they imply that they are going to restore the site to its original topography, it is going to be a big hole full of garbage.  He stated that these landfills smell and it make it very difficult to entertain friends and family.  The people in Howey-in–the-Hills do not want the dump no matter what they say they will do; they will not be a good neighbor; and he is asking the Board to vote against this dump.

            Ms. Patricia Ritson, Lakeshore Boulevard, Howey-in-the-Hills, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Ritson, with Weichert Realtors in Clermont, stated that she has been a licensed real estate agent for over 15 years.  She showed the Board a Future Land Use Map that depicted the surrounding developments and the number of units in each, which totaled 2,290 units coming within the city limits of Howey-in-the-Hills.  The document was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit O-14 for the Opposition.  Arrowtree Subdivision, with 166 homes, is outside of Howey-in-the-Hills; The Mountains proposes 350 home sites: Bella Collina in Montverde has over 800 units.  Ms. Ritson stated that, even though the petitions were signed by Clermont residents, if the roads are to be redesigned, they will affect everyone in Lake County including Beauclaire Ranch Club off of CR 448 and The Ranch Club in Groveland on CR 555.  Mr. Ritson explained that, when a property is appraised, the lender requires the appraiser to fill out a form, which is part of the Comprehensive Valuation Package called Valuation Conditions.  She reviewed the information in this form that comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development noting under Property Considerations, Item f. Excessive noise or hazard from heavy traffic area; and Item j. Excessive hazard from smoke, fumes, offensive noises or odors would constitute a limiting condition on the appraisal; the form also includes other items, such as c. proximity to dumps, landfills, industrial sites or other locations that could contain hazardous materials; a. property lacks connection to public water; and b. lender will require water testing for “yes” response.  She submitted the document to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-15 for the Opposition.  Ms. Ritson noted that the owner of the landfill site has hired a licensed appraiser to tell you that statistics show that landfill sites do not have any material effects on property values in the area but keeping in mind that the definition of appraisal is “the act of process of developing an opinion of value” and the value is the monetary relationship between properties and those who buy, sell, or use those properties noting that the key word in real estate is “location”.  When selling a piece of real estate, the seller must disclose any known material fact that may affect the value of the property, and this includes a landfill site or possible odors that will be coming from this landfill site.  She submitted the Seller’s Real Property Disclosure Statement to the Deputy Clerk, which was marked and entered as Exhibit O-16 for the Opposition.  She discussed an article that was in “The Orlando Sentinel” where Robert Burke donated his home in Orange Tree Village to Amazing Grace Community Outreach Center on February 5, 1999 because he could not sell his home due to the smell that was being omitted from the nearby sandy landfill site and submitted the documents to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit O-17 (composite – 3 pages) for the Opposition.  She stated that the landfill site does affect the value of properties in the surrounding area.  She has listings in the area and the dump site is already affecting the sales.  She feels that this is not conducive to the area, and she hopes that they will vote against it.

            Dr. R. J. Thomas, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Dr. Thomas stated that he lives about a half mile from the proposed site; he is a biophysicist; he studies childhood onset cancers; he is a consultant at a center for disease control in Atlanta; and a research member at a hospital in New York City.  He referred to Exhibit A-5 for the Applicant and explained that what was shown were very bad samples of what could actually be brought to the dump.  He owns a construction business, and they do tile and stone work and, when they go to job sites and put their material in the container, they know what is not supposed to go in there, but there are others who haul their roll-off from their job sites and deposit it in their containers where it cannot be seen and this happens all of the time in construction.  The material is then dumped; it seeps into the ground; if they find a problem it is their insurance that goes up; and the prohibited material/liquids goes into the ground; there is groundwater contamination with leachate that affects their drinking water; and the result will be in the evidence of increased levels of cancer.  The whole area, in relation to CR 455, is developing with over 2,000 homes and, with this dump going in at this location, people’s dreams will subside.  He explained that the residents accept the fact that the business was there before them; it is a borrow pit; however, if there had been a dump there, they would have reconsidered the location.  It is obvious that there is concern and people absolutely do not want this, yet they are pursuing it anyway, even though it does not make a good neighbor.  He and others have put their life savings into their properties and they deserve better than this.

            Ms. Gail Becker, Valley View Drive, Howey-in-the-Hills, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Ms. Becker stated that she is 1.1 miles from the proposed site, and she is building a three story Victorian home; she is definitely worried about property values.  She explained that Howey-in-the-Hills is a prestigious and respected community in Lake County.  She explained that most of the holes in the surface of the earth are left as they are with no ramifications at all; a hole cannot pollute the aquifer; or mix gases or fumes; or pollute the air; or contaminate pristine lakes.  They should learn a lesson from Lake Apopka where the records show that no amount of insurance or money is going to bring that lake back to where it was and, even though they hope there will be no adverse effect on their environment, the applicant cannot offer any guarantees.  She has two businesses located 1.1 miles down the road, 17 acres, and the business she wants to open has to do with an outdoor tea garden, and she is concerned about the odors.  She suggested that the applicants could certainly find a more suitable way to turn a profit on 40 prime acres, and she has no doubt that they can develop a plan that will add to their beautiful city instead of detracting from it.  She understands that there is an existing dump within 12 miles of the proposed site, and it is only a fraction full.  She asked the Board for their support in protecting their interest and to deny the request.

            Mr. David Cimini, CR 455, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Cimini stated that he is the creator of the nine member committee here today, and he is very proud of them for taking the time to speak.   Mr. Cimini referred to the aerial included in Exhibit A-6 for the Applicant, with the yellow dots that indicated the homes in the surrounding area, and stated that he has a satellite photo with red arrows that represent every home within a three-quarter mile radius of that dump; and there are 240 homes around this dump.  The map was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit O-18 for the Opposition.  Mr. Cimini explained that he flies hot air balloons, and he has noticed more and more home sites being built every day.  He showed another aerial of the Zellwood dump and stated that, in looking at this site, there are no homes around it.  He submitted this map to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-19 for the Opposition.  He would like the applicants to purchase another piece of land like this in a rural area where there would be no one to disturb, because these 240 people really do not want to see this dump in existence.  He has been working on this proposed dump for three years, and he is asking the Board to vote against it.

            Ms. Brenda Muniz, Montverde Town Council, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Ms. Muniz wanted to put on record that they are very concerned about the increased heavy truck traffic this might bring to their area.  Being surrounded by a lot of construction, she cannot see how they would not be using their town to go through to be able to access this dump.  They have a school that is bisected by CR 455 and their biggest problem right now if trying to control the heavy trucks, to keep them down to 20 mph, and to stop at the crosswalks for the children.  It is a very dangerous situation, the road is deteriorating from heavy truck traffic, and their town is very concerned about it, and they do not want to see it increased.

            Mr. Ken Williams, South Buckhill Road, addressed the Board and stated that he has been here a little over 20 years, and this used to be a clay road.  Today Buckhill Road carries a lot of these sand trucks because it is the closest road to U.S. 27.  They are seeing so many accidents on that road now, and the bicyclists are out there.  He stated that having a landfill there may be something that is needed but they do not have the ability to handle that kind of truck traffic; the roads are not built for it.  He has asked the Public Works Department to fix holes on the roads, and he is waiting for the sand mine to play out so they do not have any more trucks out there.

            Mr. David Yergey, Magnolia Avenue, Orlando, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Yergey stated that he is not a resident of Lake County, but he owns 134 acres along with his brother directly across the street from the landfill.  The only point that he really wants to make is associated with the land use regulations that have not been discussed, and he has copies for the Board members.  He submitted a copy of Chapter VI, Public Facilities Element, Solid Waste Sub-Element – Chapter VI-B to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-20 for the Opposition.  As shown, the goal that was set forth associated with solid waste indicates the following:

Goal 6B-1: Solid Waste. Lake County shall provide for an integrated solid waste management system, which protects the public health, sanitation, and environment and provides for operational efficiency and beneficial land use and growth patterns.

 

            Mr. Yergey stated that, on Page 3 of Exhibit O-20, there were a number of objectives that were set forth in these regulations, and he wanted to bring to their attention Objective 6B-1-5: Environmental Monitoring of Private Solid Waste Management Facilities; and Objective 6B-1-6: Solid Waste Management Facility Planning, as follows:

 

Objective 6B-1-5:  ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING OF PRIVATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.  The Department of Environmental Services Shall Monitor Privately-Owned and operated Solid Waste Management Facilities Including Landfills, Resource Recovery Facilities, and Solid Waste Processing Facilities.  This Monitoring Is Needed To Ensure That Solid Waste Facilities In Lake county Remain In Compliance With Applicable Air, Groundwater, and Surface Water Pollution Standards Established By Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines.

 

Objective 6B-1-6:  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PLANNING.  The Department of Environmental Services Shall Plan New Solid Waste Management Facilities and Additions, Expansions, and Improvements To Existing Facilities To Meet The Present Needs and Support The Anticipated Growth For A Minimum Of 25-years Available Capacity.  To Assist In This Planning Process, A Reasonable and Effective Level of Service Shall Be To Reduce The Solid Waste Generation Rate and To Increase The Solid Waste Disposal Capacity.

 

            Mr. Yergey noted that Policy 6B-1-5.1 states “Upon adoption of its Comprehensive Plan, the County shall establish regulations to require all privately-owned, as well as publicly-owned, solid waste management facilities to be operated in a manner that will protect the public health, welfare, and safety.”  He knows that the Board is considering the second amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but it has not been completed; he believes that it would be premature to grant this application for a landfill without first considering that policy standard and, without determining whether they have complied with that particular provision, they cannot determine whether the size of this landfill is too much, too little, or even needed at all; they cannot make that determination without a plan in place to make that determination.  He noted that Policy 6B-1-6.5 states “The County may opt not to accept for disposal waste generated outside the County.”  He does not believe presently there are any existing controls that would control the amount of waste that would come into the County and, by allowing this landfill in the County without establishing the other parameters in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage other counties to send their landfill products here.  He understands it is a matter of economics, but it is not in the best interest of the residents of Lake County, or for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents.  Throughout all of the presentations today, there has been no reference to any such study or to any belief as to what the right size of landfill should be.  Mr. Yergey asked that they deny the request for this landfill and, if they are compelled that it is in the best interest of Lake County, he would ask that they put some strict parameters and additional conditions on this request.  The first condition would be a liner associated with the landfill that will solve any problems of contamination, even though Mr. Duncan indicated that the regulations do not require it and it is very expensive to do.  The second condition would be to increase the amount of the bond and, even though $600,000 is a large amount of money, from past experience dealing with other clients who have had potential environmental issues, on a limited basis, those costs increase and escalate tremendously and that amount should be doubled if not tripled.  The third condition would be to deal with the traffic issues; there is need for decel lanes based on the amount of traffic that this is going to generate.  Mr. Yergey explained that his grandfather developed these groves originally in the 1940s so, until the 1980s and with the freezes, it is not something they intend to develop.  He would respectfully request that they vote against this landfill.

            Mr. Joseph O’Regan, Marsh View Court, addressed the Board and stated that he would like to be non-partisan but he is a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and he has not heard one reason to have this dump at this location.  The Board has before them a lot of information to justify a decision to decline it and, if they choose to allow the dump to come into the County, it will be a terrible nightmare.

            Mr. Gary Sprower addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Sprower stated that he and his wife live directly behind the proposed dump site; they are the adjoining property owners.  If they had known about this before they purchased their property, they would not have bought it. He comes to them as a general contractor licensed by the State and a licensed real estate agent.  In regards to what goes into dumpsters, he has seen it first hand being a contractor, and there is no truck driver that could tell you what was in a dumpster; the camera monitoring is only going to detect what is on top of that dumpster; not what is buried underneath the debris.  He knows that they are not going to stop growth, and it helps the tax base but, if they adopt a new Comprehensive Plan, they should consider making the developer responsible for the debris; make them take a portion of their land, dig a hole on their property, contain the debris there; there would be no road traffic or safety issues; it would be contained on their site; and it could count as part of their green space and controlled management.  He suggested they change the Comprehensive Plan, stop letting materials go to other counties or cities, and simply make it an in-house issue.

            Mr. Anthony Lavender, Arrowtree Boulevard, addressed the Board and stated that he is a builder, and he knows they cannot stop growth and, even though dumps are needed, they are proposing to put a dump right next to prime property near Little Lake Harris.  He suggested they move it to another place.

            Mr. Glen Burns, Montverde, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant’s traffic engineer stated that he felt that the traffic coming from the scenic byway into the Montverde area would be “nominal” so they should not object to what he is going to ask of the Board.  Mr. Burns stated that, if the Board approves the dump, which he does not think is a good idea, he would ask that, as part of the CUP, they prohibit their customers from using the scenic byway to get to their dump. 

            Commr. Cadwell stated that this is a good idea, but he wanted to know how the County could enforce that action.  He agrees and does not want that traffic on there at all.

            Commr. Stivender stated that this is what she was saying from the beginning, that they do not need to travel that route, but she does not know how they would enforce that.

            Mr. Mike Inco, CR 565A, Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that he has been here all day listening to the issues brought before the Board, and it all boils down to two things, money and quality of life.  He has heard from the citizens of this County that they want quality of life and, even though there are those who equate money with quality of life, the citizens of this County have a moral responsibility, and the Board has a moral obligation, to Lake County.

            Ms. Miriam Resto, Astatula, addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that she does not believe that she has to live on top of this site to be affected by it, or to understand what other parents are going through or feeling because of this site.  She hopes that this is not one of those situations where somebody has to die, or people have to get terminally ill, in order for something to be done.  They understand that the gentleman wants to make a profit, but the profit should not have a negative effect on another person’s life, because it is their future, and they would appreciate it if the Board would take that into consideration.  It would be easier for them to go someplace where there is more acreage noting that Orange County might be an option.

            Mr. Duncan addressed the Board to rebut some of the concerns presented to the Board.  He stated that they have a chemist here today that is going to address references made to a study that was conducted by the University of Florida, Timothy G. Townsend, Principal Investigator.

            Mr. Mitchell Katz, HAS Golden, stated that the study referred to by Mr. Duncan was produced by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management.  Several sections of the report were exerted and he would like to give some context to it.  The study shows that there was a proposed landfill in Alachua County, and Dr. Townsend and his under graduates built four test cells; three of the cells had a formulated C & D mixture; the fourth cell had just C & D with nothing removed.  He referred to Table 2-1 (Page 4) Items Observed in Residential Construction Waste Loads noting that this is what his test cells would contain.  In three of the four cells, Dr. Townsend removed the things in Table 2-2 (Page 5) Commonly Removed Materials.  He explained that, in their testing, they did not find any volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds at appreciable levels in the leachate.  The only thing they found above a health level was arsenic, and they attributed it to the treated woods; the proposed facility will be removing that wood.  As it goes down through the soil and possibly hits the groundwater, there are wells on the side that will detect it, and it will provide reasonable assurance that any problems will be caught so they can act accordingly; it would also be below regulatory thresholds that are protective of human health.  In regard to hydrogen sulfide, the two sources the study addresses are concrete and drywall; this facility is not taking concrete.  The facility in Zellwood is under study right now in cooperation with the Orange County Environmental Protection Division.  He has looked at some of that data and it is not clear there is one primary source; it is a rural area; there is livestock; there are wetlands and marshes; septic fields; a waste water treatment plant; a lot of confounding factors that still need to be resolved.

            Mr. Duncan submitted the study by Timothy G. Townsend, Principal Investigator, University of Florida to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-8 for the Applicant.

            Mr. Golden addressed the Board and explained that they did quite a few site specific studies over two or three years on this site; all of the studies show stable soils on the site.  They did study the depressional area (slide 30), which they found through historical records, but they had met with the County early on and planned this investigation, and the chart reflects the boring locations in the center of this depression and at the edges of the depression.  They found stable soils all the way down to 200 feet, which is the way you investigate a potential sinkhole; they found this not to be a sinkhole; it is very stable; and County staff and DEP staff agreed with that determination and found no evidence that it could reactivate itself.  As far as the recharge area, they did the standard study they do for these types of facilities.  County staff agreed that they use regional data along with their site specific data.  The data showed it is a low recharge area and, even if they go to the three inches, as proposed, it is still a low recharge area; there is no high recharge at this site; and they saw no mounding during rainfall events.  They monitored this site four or five times throughout those two years during the wet season, and they think their calculations stand; a panel of experts have reviewed that with the State and County staff.

            Mr. Golden referred to the landfill site in Zellwood and explained that it was not cited for odor problems or gas problems.  He explained how the issues of odors were addressed and noted that they do not expect any problems at the site being proposed.  The landfill in Zellwood had a problem with a high water table; it was a Class III facility and accepted grass clippings and things that create odor; it had a lot of differences from a C & D landfill.  He noted that this problem has been resolved at the Zellwood landfill.  He referred to Slide 25 that shows a passive gas flare for an odor control system noting that they only go up about five or six feet, so they would not be visible above the berms.  Even if gas was generated at all, it would only last for a year or two before it is dissipated but that is at Class III facilities.  They do not see these as being needed at C & D sites but, even though it is over and above what they are required to do, they are ready to put them in so there is no question about controlling any potential odors.  In regard to the landfill capacity, the two landfills that were just approved in Orange County, the expansions, they are only going to last two or three years; they are short lived expansions and, at the request of the County, they got a variance to plato it out; it did not go up 50 feet.  He stated that the Lake County landfill is closed and it has to send waste out of the County, so they think that shows a need for capacity of C & D sites in the area.

            Mr. Golden explained that the site in question has a natural clay liner; they do not see a need for a liner; the State did not see a need for the liner; and County staff did not see a need for it.  If staff sees a need to increase the bond to cover any problems, they would talk to staff about that if it is reasonable.  The charts were submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and they were marked and entered as Exhibit A-9 (CD-R and hard copy) for the Applicant.

            Mr. Duncan addressed the need for a C & D facility and stated that staff, as well as others, have been attending meetings for the last three weeks dealing with two DRIs that are going into the area about eight miles directly up the turnpike from this C & D landfill; 14,000 homes are being proposed in two DRIs.  The City of Leesburg indicated in one of those meetings that they have 24,000 homes that are either approved or are in the works for that area.

            Mr. Duncan explained that, because the issue was raised about the bicyclists and motorcyclists, they agreed to close on the weekends.  In regards to truck traffic, they are an essential part of the economy, as he explained.  He spoke to his clients about those trucks, and they will, in cooperation with the County, provide letters to all of their customers telling them not to use CR 455; they will provide signs leading in and out of the facility that say do not use CR 455; they will be willing to pay for signs that they can put up and down CR 455 that say no truck traffic; weight limit signs are another possibility; anything that they can do to eliminate use of CR 455 they will do, to the point where they will not let their customers use the facility anymore if they are caught using CR 455 because they agree that it is a scenic highway, and it needs to be protected.  In regard to heavy traffic, their experts said four to eight trucks per hour going into this facility; the study shows about 124 trips per hour on that road; so they are talking about a total of 90 trucks.  Mr. Duncan stated that he said zero net effect because, when you eliminate the sand trucks and replace them with the C & D trucks, you have a zero net effect; and there really is no comparison between this facility and the Orange County facility that has 170 to 200 trip tickets, because it is a much larger facility.  He also noted that a reference was made to a 20,000 acre dump; they are talking about a 44 acre C & D landfill.  It does not matter where they propose this facility, because somebody is going to oppose it.  Many independent studies have been done; they cannot guarantee that no bad things will go into the landfill; many of those individuals present including the applicants live in Lake County; they studied the site for two years to determine if this site was suitable before they could make the application; and in May they began actively notifying the residents and meeting with them in August.

            Commr. Hanson wanted to know if sand or clay was being mined out of the site today.

            Mr. Duncan stated that both are being mined but they are about to run out of useable clay; they have to leave the clay base; and, if this is permitted, the sand will stay on the site for the purpose of covering. Mr. Duncan explained that they have a CUP in place right now.  The MSP is the County’s mechanism for closing this facility; it is a higher level of regulation and assurance for the County; and it is monitored at least every year.

            Mr. Kruse explained that the request would fall under the mining regulations where the mining inspector would go out periodically, maybe two or three times a year, and he would look at the pit and the C & D landfill material coming in, and document what they see during inspections.  They would also respond to complaints and, as far as he knows, there have been no complaints through Code Enforcement on the facility at CR 33.

            Mr. Duncan explained that the change in use may generate some additional transportation impact fees and, in addition, the County’s regulation will require bi-annual water testing on all 13 monitoring wells on site; it has to be pulled by an independent lab and submitted to the DEP and the County for testing twice a year.

            Ms. Blanche Hardy, Director of Environmental Services, explained that the County is going through the construction material containing arsenic, and staff will be coming to the Board to advise them that they have sent comments and considerable costs to DEP who will decide whether to pan it from C & D and send it to Class I.  She had heard there is a strong possibility that they will not be able to take it, pursuant to current regulations.

            Commr. Hanson called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Hanson wanted to give a little bit of the background of the C & D landfills and stated that she has been a strong proponent of them in abandoned clay pits because the clay liner is much better than any plastic liner, because the plastic will eventually crack; the clay will be much more protective.  Ten to 15 years ago, she also saw it as a means of extending the life of their landfill, which has a plastic liner and is much more expensive to prepare than an abandoned clay pit.  It seemed that it was a resource that they had within the County that would extend the life of their landfill.  They know that it is almost going to be impossible to site a landfill anywhere in the County, and they know their landfill in Tavares has a limited life, and they are looking at how they can extend it so, when opportunities come about, they try to support them.

            Commr. Pool stated that both sides have presented a lot of information, and he has said clearly up front there is a need for C & D pits; they need these facilities somewhere; but by looking at the yellow dots, there are clearly some C & D pits there that are still available.  He has asked himself, as a landowner, what he would expect as a surrounding property owner and whether he would want it next to him, and clearly there are people that live there and are concerned, so he cannot support it today, because he would not want it next to him, and he is not going to put it next to them.

            Commr. Hill stated that she has lived next to a landfill at Silver Lake, as shown in the report, and it was about 35 feet deep, but the landowner chose to make it into apartment complexes.  She believes that, if they had had the option to have it filled in and made into a park, she thinks that the property owners at Silver Lake probably would have liked that a little better, but they did not have that option.  She always thought that the mining ordinance included what happened to the site afterwards but it does not address that issue.  As presented by the realtor, there are many homes proposed within the cities, and she does not see where the real estate sales have gone down, even though they see the pit there, so she would support the C & D and returning it back to its original condition prior to being a pit.

            Commr. Stivender explained that she chose to live next to the Astatula landfill.  She lives in one of the subdivisions that is within a quarter of a mile of it, and she can see it.  When it was put there in the 1960s, she lived even closer to it, and her relatives worked there and, at that time, it really was a dump, but the regulations have changed over the years.  She has lived there for five years, and she has had no problems in her subdivision.  The person across from her bought their house three years ago and just sold it for an $82,000 profit six months ago, so she does not think the landfill is hurting her subdivision.  She chose to be there, but those here today are not asking for this facility to be there, but there has to be way to fill them in and, with regulations today, it limits what they can put in there.

            Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to approve Rezoning Case MSP#05/10/1-3, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, Owner/Applicant; the request for a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a Construction & Demolition (C & D) landfill facility; Tracking #109-05-MSP; Ordinance 2005-113; with the condition that the trucks do not go down the CR 455 scenic byway, and there will be an accel and decel lane added to the road.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that, if this is approved, she would like to require that it come back to this Board on a annual basis to review all of the things the Board talked about, including odor and everything the citizens had a concern about.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she would add that condition to her motion.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the Board really wanted to have a public hearing once a year, because they could end up with a half filled landfill and, even though he understands what Commr. Hanson is trying to do to have extra control over it, he could not see what this process would accomplish.

            Mr. Kruse explained that right now the applicant is required to do an annual mining report, in terms of reclamation.  The County’s mining inspector reviews it, along with other staff, for hydrogeological information.  If there is a problem, they coordinate that with DEP, and then it comes back to the Zoning Board, if they are not meeting the requirements of their plan.

            Commr. Stivender stated that the Board does not need to review it then, and she would remove that from her motion.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the question about covering and noted that it is proposed to be covered weekly as indicated in the application before the Board.

            Mr. Kruse pointed that, as noted in 3. A. Conditions of this permit, it states that “the permit may be revoked after due public hearing before the Lake County Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners” if there is problem, and then it can be shut down.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she wants to make sure there is no odor, and she asked Mr. Duncan if they can cover more than once a week.

            Mr. Duncan recommended twice a week.

            Commr. Stivender amended her motion to include language to cover twice a week; Commr. Pool amended his second to the motion.

            Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion to approve the request, as amended, with the condition that the trucks do not go down CR 455 scenic byway; an acceleration and deceleration lane will be added to the road; and they will cover twice a week; with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote.

            Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Pool voted “no”.

            OTHER BUSINESS

            APPOINTMENTS/CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint the following individuals to five vacant positions on the Cultural Affairs Council:  four-year terms – 9-30-2009 – Dorothy Kuhlman, Kimberly Lemonakis, Gary McKechnie; completion of unexpired terms – 9-30-07 – Terrence Shank and Chip Schane.

            REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

            AGREEMENTS/OFFICE SPACE/SHERIFF’S OFFICE

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that this is an extension of the lease for the Sheriff at the Villages for one year, with a one year renewal.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Amendment of Lease Agreement for office space located at 902 Avenida Central, The Villages, for the Sheriff's Office.

            AGREEMENTS/RICHARD H. LANGLEY

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request involves a contract with Richard Langley for the purchase of a portion of Lot 37, Lake County Central Park Phase 2, and Lot 2 containing approximately 122 acres.  There is litigation pending about the sale; the County has prevailed in the trial court but they have now appealed.  This extends the closing date to March 31, but it also provides that Mr. Langley will pay an additional five percent (5%) increase in the price.  He noted that Mr. Langley is willing to close it, if it were not for the litigation and, if they are longer than March 31, they will address the purchase price again at that time.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Second Amendment to Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement between Lake County and Richard H. Langley.

            AGREEMENTS/CITY OF UMATILLA/ANIMAL CONTROL   

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Umatilla pertaining to animal control services for the city.

            AGREEMENTS/PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC./CITRUS RIDGE LIBRARY

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Third Amendment to Lease Agreement between Publix Super Markets, Inc. and Lake County for space at Summerbay Shopping Center for Citrus Ridge Library.

            CSX RAILROAD

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request comes from the Public Land Acquisition Advisory Council (PLAAC), and they want to go ahead and have the County begin to negotiate with CSX for four (4) different sets of trails.

            Commr. Stivender wanted to know if this meets with the ongoing study and proposed plan for the location of the trails.

            Commr. Hanson explained that it will eventually; this involves pieces but they are within different loops.

            It was noted that they are now within the planned trail.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to initiate discussions with CSX Railroad for possible purchase of abandoned railroad corridors.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            AGREEMENTS/CONSULTANTS/PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the Board has a Memorandum dated December 19, 2005 from the Department of Growth Management, which has to do with the consultants for the Public School Facilities Interlocal Agreement.  The request is to authorize Planning Works, LLC as the consultant, subject to form and legality by the County Attorney.  The contract is not to exceed $75,000 at the hourly rates included in the packet.  There are also a number of resumes for their review.

            Ms. Carol Stricklin, Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to answer questions relating to the request noting that Planning Works is the lead consultant in Hillsborough County, but it is also part of the team that is working with other pilot communities on school concurrency issues.  Staff does not anticipate that it will cost $75,000 and the way that they are proposing to proceed with this contract is that they would authorize specific tasks; for example, they are talking with them about using the University of Florida to help with some of the demographic analysis and school projections and they would get a fixed price for that task.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the above noted request to the agenda.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement with Planning Works, LLC in an amount not to exceed $75,000.

            LEGISLATIVE POSITION 2006 BY COMMITTEE

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that she had handed out the Legislative Positions 2006 by Committee for their consideration.  Ms. Hall explained that they are going to handle it a little differently with the legislators, and they have divided the positions up by committee so that, when they talk to the different legislators, they can give them information on those items pertaining to the committees on which they sit.  At the public hearing last week where the Chairman presented the legislative positions, they did have one question by a reporter, not the legislators, as to priorities.  If the Board would like to select any of these as priorities, then staff would highlight them for the legislators as they sit on these committees.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the committees will start meeting in January, so he suggested they do this at the first meeting in January.

            Commr. Hanson suggested that staff separate those that have State support versus those that are particular to Lake County.

            Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Hill noted that it had been expressed to them by legislators that Commr. Hanson did a very good job in her presentation.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – DISTRICT #1

            IMPACT FEES

            Commr. Hill wanted to address the issue of impact fees noting that this is coming from the Impact Fee Committee as well as staff.  They are currently working on an RFP for a consultant to update the transportation impact fee study, but they have the library, the parks, and the fire impact fees that are also due to be updated late in 2006.  She would like to see a consensus of this Board to incorporate all of the updates and have them done at one time.

            It was the consensus of the Board to proceed in this direction.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that staff talked to the Board about not making it a legal services contract, since they have Nabors Giblin, and to only do an RFP for the non-legal portion of it.

            Commr. Hill explained that the School Board has already contracted with Randy Young for their updates.

            Commr. Stivender stated that the firm that the Board just hired to help them has also done a lot of impact fee studies.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3

            PROCLAMATION/DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the execution of Proclamation 2005-219 proclaiming January 16, 2006 as a day to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

            LEGISLATION/LAKE COUNTY DAYS

            Commr. Stivender reported that she met with Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, to discuss the new legislation that came through on the legislators not being allowed to take gifts, so they modified what they are doing on Lake County Days, February 13 and 14, as she explained. She thanked the Community Outreach Department and Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office, for getting all of this done, and she will notify Leadership Lake County, and the United Chambers.

            FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC HEARING

            Commr. Stivender presented the Board with a handout from the Work Program Public Hearing that she attended last night of the State of Florida Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 5.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #4

            WEKIVA

            Commr. Hanson noted that she was not able to attend the Wekiva meeting last week, but Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, attended in her place.  She reported on the septic tank issue noting that the industry seems to be taking a lead on having some studies done.  They did get a letter from the State DOH saying that they did not feel that there was a need for the study at this point, that there had been enough in the past.  Her recommendation would be that they add language as an alternative, if the counties wish to do their own study to show the need for those septic tanks to be replaced.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the Department of Health has a committee that looks at regulations, and Blanche Hardy, Director of Environmental Services, and Gregg Welstead, Director of Growth Management, will be attending that meeting, so it would be appropriate probably there.  Staff will work on some language, in terms of getting it into the Department of Health Rule.

            CLOSED SESSION:  UNION NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board will go into closed session, with everyone leaving at this time.  A court reporter will not be in attendance.

            ADJOURNMENT

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

 

 

 

__________________________­­­_________

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK