A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JULY 25, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, 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; Debbie Stivender; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing one item under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, a request from Public Works for approval to return funds, in the amount of $26,400.00, that was posted as maintenance surety for Silverwood Subdivision.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Growth Management

Request for approval to advertise proposed ordinance amending Section 3.02.01, to provide for removal of “Reserved” subsection, Lot of Record.

Request for approval to advertise proposed ordinance amending Section 3.01.03, to allow for putting Exotic Animals back into the Lake County Zoning Matrix.

Procurement Services

Request for approval of contract with GMB Engineers & Planners, Inc., for the Transportation Concurrency Management System, in the amount of $186,950.00.

Public Safety

Request for approval and execution of Hazards Analysis Agreement, by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)

Public Works

Request for approval to return funds, in the amount of $26,400.00, posted as maintenance surety for Silverwood Subdivision.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENTS TO CLERMONT JOINT PLANNING AREA AND JOINT LAND

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that she was pleased to present them with a proposed amendment to the Clermont Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreement’s boundary, noting that the City of Clermont has requested that the County expand said boundary to the north, so that the City Council may entertain an annexation proposal.

Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and presented the City’s request to amend their JPA, so that they can annex into the City a tract of land consisting of approximately 580 acres, which is under one ownership, with the north 140 acres being located outside of the JPA. He stated that the owners of said property have requested annexation into the City, but, under the JPA, the City cannot annex the property, unless they amend the boundaries to include the north 140 acres, and, since it is under one ownership, the City has requested that the boundaries be moved to the north, to include that 140 acres.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval of Amendments to the Clermont Joint Planning Area and the Joint Land Development Regulations, as presented.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ONBASE ADMINISTRATOR FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT

Mr. Steve Earls, Director, Office of Information Technology (IT), addressed the Board requesting approval to hire an OnBase Administrator within the IT Department, to provide support to the Lake County Community Access Network (LCCAN) partners, during implementation of their new patient information system. He stated that response to the technical needs of the partners during the rollout is vital to the success of the program. He stated that, initially, this position will be funded by the Federal HCAP grant and, upon expiration of the grant, the position will be funded by the Building Services Division.

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, addressed the Board and explained how the LCCAN partners and the HCAP grant works, noting that one of the main focuses of the HCAP grant is to build collaboration and coordination between the indigent clinics in the community, and the LCCAN software program allows those clinics to share information about patients and their treatment, to make sure that they are getting access to the proper care. He commended Mr. Earls and his staff for all their hard work and diligence in making the system work well, noting that, by doing it inhouse and having the IT staff support the maintenance and upkeep of the software, it has saved the County a considerable amount of money.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Information Technology for approval to hire an OnBase Administrator to support the Lake County Community Access Network (LCCAN) information system. The OnBase Administrator position is included in the FY 2007 budget, so the request is to add the position in the current year.

PUBLIC WORKS

MAINTENANCE MAP FOR PORTION OF N. GRASSY LAKE ROAD

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and presented this request, a request for approval of a Maintenance Map for a portion of N. Grassy Lake Road, noting that the map is being proposed to establish exactly what the County maintains, from U.S. 27 to Founders Ridge, which is within the limits of the City of Minneola.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County had heard from the School Board regarding the bus route on N. Grassy Lake Road, which was addressed at a previous Board Meeting, and was informed by Mr. Stivender that a representative from the School Board was present to discuss said route with the Board, which he noted two elementary school, two high school, and two middle school buses travel.

Mr. Stivender stated that, in 1966, N. Grassy Lake Road was a 30 to 40 foot wide maintained clay road and the entire area was 100% citrus. He stated that the road was surface treated in the 1980s and has been overlaid since then, so it has been 20 years since the road was paved, however, according to the County’s records, which go back 40 years, the road was always county maintained. He stated that there are other areas that were not included in the Maintenance Map that some of the property owners are maintaining, which he pointed out on said map, noting that the County owns the right of way south of N. Grassy Lake Road and the property owners along the road maintain the edge of the pavement, so the County has stayed away from their property and has not gone on the north side of the road, but has claimed maintenance on the south side of the road. He noted that he had spoken with one of his employees that has been mowing the County’s roadways for over 30 years, who documented same, along with the Area Maintenance Supervisor and the Road Superintendent, so staff feels very comfortable with recommending to the Board that they accept the Maintenance Map.

Ms. Sherry Rife, a resident of N. Grassy Lake Road, addressed the Board stating that she had sent the County a letter, along with various photographs (contained in the backup material), addressing a concern she has about staff’s claim that the County has maintained the right of way on the south side of N. Grassy Lake Road, noting that she and her husband have lived at that location for the past 12 years and have always maintained the right of way, which she elaborated on.

Commr. Cadwell questioned the County Attorney’s Office about whether the County had provided enough proof that it has maintained said right of way over the years and was informed by Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, that his office had looked into the matter. He stated that, if the County has not maintained said right of way as it claims it has, it could end up having a reverse condemnation case brought against it. He stated that the recording of the Maintenance Map before the Board this date effectively says that the property within the map belongs to the County and that the County is not taking property from the homeowners who live along that roadway.

Mr. David Berger, Area Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works, addressed the Board stating that the employee that maintained said right of way retired after 35 years and that he had gotten his information about what portion of the right of way was being mowed by the County from him.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval to accept a Maintenance Map for a portion of N. Grassy Lake Road (No. 1944), as presented.

PUBLIC WORKS

RESOLUTION ADVERTISING PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION PETITION

NO. 1090 – HOWARD B. LEFKOWITZ, REPRESENTATIVE AARON D.

MERCER/FARNER BARLEY

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and presented this request, a request for approval of Vacation Petition No. 1090, Howard B. Lefkowitz, to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of Grassy Lake Road and N. Grassy Lake Road.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2006-121, advertising the Public Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1090, Howard B. Lefkowitz, Representative Aaron D. Mercer/Farner Barley, to vacate right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of Grassy Lake Road (No. 1846) and N. Grassy Lake Road (No. 1944), in conjunction with re-plat known as Founders Ridge, lying in Sections 5 and 6, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as presented.

PUBLIC WORKS

PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY BARRICADES ON SULLIVAN ROAD

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and presented this request, stating that the Lake County School Board’s representative was present to discuss this request and to answer any questions the Board might have from a previous discussion that was held regarding the matter, at a prior Board Meeting.

Mr. Steve Johnson, Attorney, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board stating that he had done some research regarding the issue that had come up for discussion at one of the previous Board Meetings regarding the school bus routes, of which there are three, that will be affected by the Board’s decision this date. He stated that there were two issues that the School Board had some concern about, one being the immediate impact on the students that are going to be affected by the closure of Sullivan Road, especially in light of all the work that is being done in the area of N. Grassy Lake Road and Grassy Lake Road; and the other being the long term impact involving this request, if a temporary barricade turns into, as it often does, a permanent barricade. He further elaborated on the matter, noting that he was informed by the School Board’s Transportation Director that, if the County places a barricade across Sullivan Road, their buses will not be able to travel down Sullivan Road, because they will not be able to turn around. He touched on the fact that there is currently a lawsuit in the Courts involving the County, to determine whether or not said area will be rezoned, and the School Board feels that, pending the outcome of that particular case, a change in the status quo of that area and what will be able to be developed in the future is not a good idea. He stated that it is also a concern that, in the worst case scenario, the School Board spent money on the property involved with the lawsuit and it is not rezoned, so the ultimate value to the taxpayers for that particular piece of property and being able to market it is going to be adversely affected and impacted by any closing of the road, in that it limits the most direct access to the closest, largest arterial roadway, which is Hwy. 27.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the Ladd brothers, addressed the Board stating that they have under contract the John Lowndes property, which is the property that Mr. Johnson alluded to during his presentation. He stated that, because there is a PD&E Study being done, and, because the City of Minneola is in the development process involving the Ladd project, they feel it is premature to close Sullivan Road. He stated that it was his understanding that it is a temporary closing and wanted to make it clear that the temporary closing of the road, to try to realign the traffic that travels said road, is one thing, but a permanent closing of the road would be another, which his clients would strongly oppose, until they can get their development plans together and get them approved. He stated that the property is zoned Suburban and has a PUD approved on it, which mandates they use Sullivan Road for access. He stated that, if the County closed Sullivan Road where it is being proposed to be closed, they would still be using Sullivan Road as part of their access, if the property were developed, pursuant to the PUD that mandated the use of Sullivan Road out to Hwy. 27, however, noted that his clients are redefining that PUD into the City of Minneola and all of that may evaporate, but, today it is premature and they do not know what the plan is going to be.

Ms. Susan Hildebrandt, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that at a previous meeting, approximately one month ago, the Board voted unanimously to dead end Sullivan Road and that she had submitted a list of approximately 50 roads in Lake County that were dead ended, most of them having the same width and limited right of way as Sullivan Road and most of them having more homes located on them than Sullivan Road. She stated that, if it has been allowed and works all over the County, why would the residents along Sullivan Road be treated any differently. She stated that her husband was able to turn around on Sullivan Road with his landscaping truck and trailer; therefore, she did not understand why the school buses could not do the same. She stated that she had a signed petition containing the names of 97% of the owners and residents that live on Sullivan Road, requesting the closure of it. She questioned why the 3% minority dictates in this case, rather than the 97% majority, especially when the 3% minority does not currently have rights to develop their property, which she elaborated on. She stated that she hoped the Board would listen to what she had to say.

Ms. Teresa Bowman, a resident of Sullivan Road, addressed the Board stating that she has seen the school buses turn around on Sullivan Road on many occasions, noting that the bus turns onto Seminole Trail, backs up, and comes right back down the hill, picking up students.

Ms. Lorraine Frankenfield, a resident of Victorian Estates, a development in the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she was representing several residents in her development who would also like to see Sullivan Road closed, because they feel that it is a very dangerous road to travel and are concerned about the safety of the school children. She discussed the fact that some of the students “hill hop” on Sullivan Road, which is dangerous, as well as party on the road. She stated that the School Board says the school buses do not turn around on Sullivan Road, but they do. She asked the Board to approve the request.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval to place temporary barricades on Sullivan Road, near the intersection of Grassy Lake Road.

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 1078 – SANDRA L. DZIAK – UMATILLA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and presented this request, a request to vacate a public easement in the Umatilla area, which goes through the property in question. He stated that the owner has been granted an alternate access, so the Board would be approving the vacation of one access and substituting it with another. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leila Hudmon, the owner of a parcel of land contiguous to the property in question, addressed the Board stating that, when said property was sold to the applicant, Ms. Dziak, there was an oral agreement between Ms. Dziak, the property owner on the other side of her property, Mr. Nolan Raby, and herself, that the entire easement between the properties would be closed off at the time of said purchase; however, after the sale of the property, Ms. Dziak indicated that she was just going to close her portion of it and that it was their responsibility to close the other portion of it. She stated that Mr. Raby agreed to give Ms. Dziak, at no charge, 50 feet of his property on the other side, allowing Ms. Dziak to have a gated access to her property. She stated that Mr. Raby informed her the day prior to this meeting that he still had not received documentation from Ms. Dziak indicating that the sale had taken place. She submitted, for the record, a letter from Mr. Raby stating that he was unable to attend this meeting, due to his health, but that he was giving Ms. Hudmon permission to speak on his behalf, and asked that a continuance of this request be granted until a later date, to allow Ms. Dziak time to resolve some issues involving her property, Mr. Raby’s property, and Ms. Hudmon’s property. She asked that a continuance be granted, as well.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Ms. Hudmon noted some other concerns that she and Mr. Raby have about the applicant’s request and the property in question.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the Board approve the request, subject to an alternate access to the north being obtained, which would give Mr. Raby some leverage in obtaining the documentation alluded to by Ms. Hudmon from the applicant, Ms. Dziak.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-122 - Petition No. 1078, by Sandra L. Dziak, to vacate a public easement, located in Section 11, Township 18, Range 27 East, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5, as presented, subject to alternate access to the north of property in question being obtained.

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 1080 – ROBERT GODWIN – CLERMONT

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Works Department, presented this request, a request to vacate tracts and rights of way in the Plat of Monte Vista Park Farms; and to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of East Lake Louisa Road, in the Clermont area. He stated that the applicant initially requested to vacate easements and rights of way coming off of the Southern Connector, which is not yet built, at which time he noted that everything involved with this request is contingent upon the Connector being opened. He stated that the applicant wants to move forward with the necessary paperwork involved with this request, however, pointed out the fact that nothing will happen for approximately one year. He noted that there is a utility reservation on said property, which will remain in place.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Joe Territo, a property owner on East Lake Louisa Road, addressed the Board stating that the proposed vacation of a portion of East Lake Louisa Road would affect access to his property and that he had sent the County a letter containing nine concerns that he had about the request, which he reviewed with the Board, however, noted that he feels the County has addressed those concerns and has come up with a resolution that is satisfactory to him. He thanked staff for working with him to resolve said issues.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-123 - Petition No. 1080, by Robert Godwin, Representative Robert B. White, Jr., to vacate tracts and rights of way, in the Plat of Monte Vista Park Farms, to replat a subdivision known as Foxchase; and to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of East Lake Louisa Road (No. 0946), all located in Sections 6 and 7, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as presented, ensuring that an adjacent neighbor, Mr. Joe Territo, has access to his property; that the utility reservation is to stay accessible to the County; and that nothing else is to be vacated, until the Southern Connector is completed.

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 1087 – DANIEL J. AND ANGELA DECKER – CLERMONT

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Works Department, presented this request, a request to vacate a right of way in the Plat of Monte Vista Park Farms, in the Clermont area. He stated that said right of way goes through some wetlands, as well as through an adjacent neighbor’s yard, and does not serve any public purpose; therefore, staff was recommending approval of said vacation. He noted that there were some issues between some of the property owners, but they have been resolved.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-124 - Petition No. 1087, by Daniel J. and Angela Decker, Representative Kristin Nailos, to vacate right of way, in the Plat of Monte Vista Park Farms, located in Section 16, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2, as presented.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

REZONING

Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that this meeting had been properly noticed, at which time he submitted, for the record, the Proof of Publication pertaining to same. He informed the Board that the applicants for Item No. 8 on the Rezoning Agenda, Rezoning Case No. PH48-06-2, Kanta Deeying/Guy Grayford, Tracking No. 54-06-Z, had requested an indefinite continuance of their case, until the County’s Comprehensive Plan has been adopted.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request for continuance.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request for an indefinite continuance for Rezoning Case No. PH48-06-2, Kanta Deeying/Guy Grayford, Tracking No. 54-06-Z, A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential District), until such time as the County’s Comprehensive Plan is adopted.

Mr. Bennett then informed the Board that the County had received a request from the applicant for a 120 day continuance, for the following cases:

Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson

Craig Kosuta & Associates

Rezoning Case No. PH16-06-3

Tracking No. 24-06-PUD/AMD

Amend PUD Ordinance No. 2004-78, to increase the residential and commercial use component and decrease the office use component of the PUD.

Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson

Craig Kosuta & Associates

Rezoning Case No. PH24-06-3

Tracking No. 26-06-Z

A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial)

Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson

Craig Kosuta & Associates

Rezoning Case No. PH25-06-3

Tracking No. 27-06-Z

A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial)

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 120 day continuance, until the Board Meeting of November 28, 2006, for the above noted cases, to allow the applicant to work with staff regarding same.

REZONING CONSENT AGENDA

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, which contained cases that were recommended for approval and which were not controversial, as follows:

Ordinance No. 2006-68

Robert T. Sheets

Rezoning Case No. PH65-06-1

Tracking No. 79-06-Z

R-6 (Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), as presented.

Ordinance No. 2006-69

Hart Construction and Development, Inc.

Sammy D. Hart

Rezoning Case No. PH67-06-1

Tracking No. 81-06-Z

R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), as presented.

Ordinance No. 2006-70

Ferndale Baptist Church

Rezoning Case No. PH68-06-3

Tracking No. 82-06-CFD

A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), as presented.

Ordinance No. 2006-71

Vorlon, LLC

Steven J. Richey, P.A.

Rezoning Case No. PH71-06-1

Tracking No. 85-06-CUP

C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial), as presented.

Ordinance No. 2006-72

James and Janice Young

Rezoning Case No. CUP06/7/2-4

Tracking No. 84-06-CUP

CUP (Conditional Use Permit), as presented.

Ordinance No. 2006-73

Barbara Shelley/Shelley’s Septic

Rezoning Case No. CUP02/5/4-3

Tracking No. 89-06-CUP/REV

Revocation of CUP in A (Agriculture) (Ordinance No. 2003-96), as presented.

At this time, each Commissioner disclosed, for the record, those cases where they had spoken to the applicants, or the applicants’ representatives, prior to this meeting.

REZONING CASE NO. PH72-06-3 – A TO R-3 – JON ROBERTS/SHARON

FARRELL, LAND USE ASSOCIATES, LLC – TRACKING NO. 86-06-Z

Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request to rezone a site located within the Urban Expansion future land use (FLU) category, consisting of 29.6 +/- acres, in the Okahumpka area, northeast of the US 27/SR 25 and CR 48 intersection, on Hollondel Road, from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), to allow for a single family residential subdivision. She stated that staff found the request to be consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, was recommending approval of the request. She noted that the Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 5-1 vote, as well.

Commr. Stivender informed the Board that a main concern of one of the residents in the area was a turn lane off of CR 48 onto Hollondel Road and that she had worked with the Public Works Department and had gotten that concern resolved.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that, originally, Ms. Sharon Farrell, with Land Use Associates, LLC, represented the applicant, however, noted that she had moved out of the State, so he would now be representing the applicant. He stated that there were some concerns from the residents in the area, but that he felt all their concerns had been addressed at the Zoning Board Meeting. He noted that there will be a maximum of 90 units in the proposed subdivision, and that, should the developer not develop the subdivision as a 55+ community, there would still be no problem with the concurrency language contained within the Ordinance (applicant voluntarily agreed to said language).

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

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 Ordinance No. 2006-74, Jon Roberts/Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter, Clements, Lowry and Duncan, Rezoning Case No. PH72-06-3, Tracking No. 86-06-Z, a request to rezone a 29.6+/- acre parcel in the Okahumpka area from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), as presented, to allow for a single family residential subdivision.

REZONING CASE NO. PH66-06-5 – A TO R-3 – DONALD AND SHARON

KUESTER/DAVID REED/CHERRYWOOD COVE/BRUCE DUNCAN, ESQUIRE

TRACKING NO. 80-06-PUD

Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request to rezone a 5+/- acre site in the Lady Lake area, south of the CR 466 and Rolling Acres Road intersection, in the Urban Expansion future land use category, from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), to allow a single family residential subdivision, with the density being restricted to the R-3 zoning district, at three dwelling units per acre. The Town of Lady Lake has indicated that water and sewer services are available to the site; the Public Works Department has stated that the entrance to the site shall line up with Jackson Street, so additional right of way may be required; and school concurrency language has been included in the proposed Ordinance. Staff has found the request to be consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, recommends approval of the request. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, as well, by a 6-0 vote.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that his office had received one letter in opposition to this request, which addressed a concern about Little Dirt Road, at which time he noted that it is the intention of the applicants to access their property off of Rolling Acres Road and not off of Little Dirt Road. He stated that the applicants originally filed for a PUD; however, because of the rules that govern a PUD, they had to go with a straight rezoning. He stated that the applicants could have gone with an R-4 zoning, but decided to go with an R-3 zoning, which is a lower density, being three units per acre. He noted that they have no objection to the school concurrency requirement.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the fact that the individual that submitted the letter of objection was concerned about his farming operation and how it would be affected by the additional residents that would be moving into the proposed subdivision and the fact that he is protected by the Florida Statutes and has the right to continue his farming operation, as well as the fact that there are a number of trees on the site in question, and that, in order to protect said trees, the homes in the proposed development could possibly be clustered a little closer, or some multi-family units could be constructed.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-75, Donald and Sharon Kuester/David Reed/Cherrywood Cove/Bruce Duncan, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. PH66-06-5,Tracking No. 80-06-PUD, A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), a request to rezone a 5 +/- acre parcel in the Lady Lake area from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), to allow for a single family residential subdivision, as presented.

REZONING CASE NO. PH55-06-5 – AR TO CFD – NATHANIEL AND

CAROLYN RICHBURG/SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

(SECO)/VICTORIA BUCHER – TRACKING NO. 62-06-CFD

Commr. Hanson declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from the discussion and vote regarding this request, due to the fact that her realty office has a listing in close proximity to the property in question. She then passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Cadwell, turning the Chairmanship over to him.

Ms. Jennifer DuBois, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request to rezone an 18.76 +/- acre parcel, presently vacant, located in the Rural land use category, southeast of the intersection of SR 44 and CR 439, in the Mount Dora area, from AR (Agricultural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the creation of Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s (SECO’s) Mount Dora Operations Center, to consist of a 10,000 square foot office building, a 10,000 square foot warehouse, a 4,500 square foot equipment storage building, a covered external material storage area, an equipment storage area, a fuel island, and a 199 foot monopole communications tower, due to the fact that they have outgrown their current facility, located on Hwy. 441, in Eustis. The monopole tower, as presented, is of concern to staff, as it is inconsistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations, which requires them to be centered within the boundaries of the property recognized as the parent parcel and requires them to maintain a separation of 400% of the tower height (796 feet, in this case) from any single family or duplex residential unit, which the proposed tower fails to meet. It was noted that the tower must meet all the provisions of Section 3.13.00 of the LDRs, which may be accomplished by either camouflaging the tower, or by receiving a variance from the Lake County Board of Adjustment. If a variance is necessary, it must be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of site plan review. The applicant has also requested relief from two of the landscaping provisions contained in the LDRs. Originally, they wished to modify the required 10 foot Type “A” landscape buffer along the east, south, and west property lines, by planting five ornamental trees and a single row of shrubs per 100 linear feet, instead of three canopy trees, two ornamental trees, and a single row of shrubs; however, at the May 3^rd Zoning Board Hearing, the applicant, instead, proposed a 20 foot Type “C” buffer around the entire site. The Zoning Board approved, by a 4-2 vote, to recommend approval of the rezoning request, with the condition that a Type “C” buffer be planted around the entire site and that the required chain link fencing be placed within the 20 foot buffer.

Ms. DuBois submitted, for the record, a revised Preliminary Development Plan (County Exhibit A), which the applicant had presented to staff, noting that it contained a couple of modifications to the landscape buffer, being that the applicant is proposing, at the north property line, abutting SR 44, a Type “C” landscape buffer, with a berm, which will consist of a minimum of six canopy trees, five ornamental trees, and a double row of shrubs, per 100 linear feet; along the south property line, they are also proposing a 20 foot Type “C” landscape buffer, with a berm, but are proposing to modify that Type “C” buffer slightly, by planting eleven ornamental trees and a double row of shrubs, per 100 linear feet; and along the east and west property lines, they are proposing a modified Type “C” buffer, but without the berm, featuring eleven ornamental trees and a double row of shrubs, per 100 linear feet. The reason for requesting all ornamentals, instead of a mix of canopy trees and ornamentals is that, in the event of a natural disaster, larger trees would not impede emergency power restoration activities on the site and it is staff’s feeling that this request is reasonable. In addition, the applicant is also seeking relief from Section 3.13.11 of the LDRs, which states that landscaping shall be required at the base of a communication tower and ancillary structures, and are proposing, instead, fencing around the perimeter of the site, within the 20 foot landscape buffer. It is their assertion that the mandatory buffering around the entire perimeter of the site will be sufficient and, based upon the nature of the business and the fact that the entire site will be landscaped, staff feels that these requests are reasonable. It was noted that, if the rezoning is granted, they will be incorporated into the associated Ordinance. With the exception of the tower issue, staff finds the project consistent with all applicable provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the request.

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board, stating that, with regard to the issue of the tower, the applicant is either going to camouflage it and have it meet the Code, or go back through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), for purposes of having flexibility and placing it closer to the line. He stated that the applicant has talked to the neighbor on the south side, which would support the idea of doing it through the BZA. He stated that the Board would not be approving it today, other than requiring the applicant to get a variance.

Mr. Barry Bowman, Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Advocacy, SECO, addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and gave a power point presentation (Applicant’s Exhibit A) about SECO and its need for a new operations center to serve north Lake County, being (1) the rapid growth that Lake County has experienced over the past several years, combined with the continuation of said growth, and (2) the fact that the existing Eustis facility cannot be expanded – it simply is too small. He stated that the number of consumers that SECO serves in Lake County has risen considerably over the past 25 years and is expected to double in the next 25 years. He stated that the existing Eustis facility has served as an Operating Center, as well as a Customer Service Center, and it, along with their Groveland Office, was constructed in 1969, before there were any buffering requirements. He stated that its age, combined with its size and inability to be expanded, creates efficiency, safety, housekeeping, and aesthetic issues. He stated that said facility is not conducive to an efficient restoration effort. He stated that SECO has developed a plan to efficiently and cost effectively handle its responsibilities to provide excellent customer service in Lake County, which he elaborated on. He stated that the initial site plan has been revised several times, in order to accommodate, as much as possible, concerns that were expressed at the Zoning Board Meeting, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that SECO is contributing right of way along its west property line, as will the adjacent property owner, for the extension of CR 439, south of Hwy. 44, and SECO will also be paving said stretch of CR 439, which fits perfectly into the County’s Comprehensive Traffic and Road Plan. He stated that the site in question was chosen to respond to the needs of its current and future customers, in an effective and efficient manner, noting that it needs to be near those it serves. He stated that SECO sent an explanation of the proposed project to its members in North Lake County and asked them to mail back a signature care, indicating their support, and received back in excess of 9,500 signatures supporting the project, with only 13 members sending cards back indicating they were opposed to it. It was noted that there were also letters of support, in addition to the signature cards, from members in Lake County.

Dr. Craig McIntyre, McIntyre Associates, Inc., representing the applicant, addressed the Board and discussed a concern that has been expressed about SECO storing poles treated with CCA (Chromated Copper Arsenate), a legal wood preservative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, at the proposed site, at which time he submitted, for the record, an Executive Summary (Applicant’s Exhibit B), containing research regarding the environmental impact of CCA treated poles. It was noted that SECO uses a Department of Agriculture specification to buy its wood poles and to further indicate the environmental acceptability of the current storage of CCA poles, the Groveland facility was inspected by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on June 23, 2006, and was found to be in compliance. Even though they have clearly shown that the storage of said poles outdoors is acceptable and, to their knowledge, every other utility in the State stores their poles outside, SECO, in the spirit of cooperating with its neighbors, will commit to providing covered storage of all CCA poles, to minimize concerns about leaching at the new facility. The EPA recommends that there is no need to remove any CCA treated wood structure that is already in place, nor is there any need to remove soil that is adjacent to any of those structures, or underneath them. It was noted that, if there were any leaching of chemicals from the poles, it would be limited to the immediate area, and, since the poles are going to be covered, it is inconceivable that there would be any affect of CCA leaching – there would be no mechanism or means for any chemical loss from the treated poles to the immediate environment.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and discussed the issue of Community Facility Districts (CFDs), the use being requested by the applicant, noting that they were created for purposes of providing a use to go anywhere in the County. He stated that the County’s Comprehensive Plan does not limit the use of this facility, or this district, nor do the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which indicate that CFDs are allowed in every land use category, at which time he distributed, for the record, a handout (Applicant’s Exhibit C), containing references from the County’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as its LDRs, noting that it outlines all the major policies within the County’s Public Facilities District, which policies the applicant complies with. He stated that it also outlines the need for CFDs and the need for a use such as Public Facilities in Lake County, upon the Board’s discretion, through a CFD process. He stated that they looked at what impact the proposed facility would have on the area, noting that, contrary to what has been indicated by the press, the area in question is not heavily developed, at which time he displayed a map (Applicant’s Exhibit D) of said area, which contained dots for each house within a one mile radius of the site. He stated that the density within said radius is one unit per 14 acres, at which time he noted that the County’s staff has defined a residential developed area as one unit per acre, so the site is in an area that is Rural in nature. He stated that the timing is appropriate, in that it will not be encroaching into a heavily developed area and there are minimal impacts around it, so that, when development occurs after the fact, said individuals will know the facility is in place and it will not be a surprise to them.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing various property owners to the south of the proposed site, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that it was going to have a massive affect on her clients, at which time she discussed said site and what could potentially be done to make it a site that could handle the proposed use, which she noted serves almost half of the customers in Lake County. She discussed what aspects of the proposed facility will be visible from the road, as well as from her clients’ properties, and the sign that was placed on the substation site advertising the rezoning request and the fact that she felt residents in the area did not realize exactly what the rezoning entailed. She displayed and submitted, for the record, nine (9) photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit A) of SECO’s Eustis facility, as well as the proposed site, at which time she discussed the fact that the Board was told that utility companies all over the State store their poles outside and that she feels Lake County can do better than that, on the edge of the Wekiva Basin, in a beautiful green belt area. She stated that her clients are asking that the Board require indoor storage of all materials on the site and that they consider significant buffers (between 100 and 200 feet) on the southern portion of the property, to protect the surrounding properties from the affects of light, noise, and activity, noting that the proposed site is a very large site and there is more than enough room to make the facility more compatible. She stated that, if the site in question is the right one for the applicant, geographically, then her clients are asking the Board to make it right, from an aesthetic standpoint.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.

REZONING CASE NO. PH55-06-5 – AR TO CFD – NATHANIEL AND

CAROLYN RICHBURG/SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

(SECO)/VICTORIA BUCHER – TRACKING NO. 62-06-CFD (CONT’D.)

Mr. Michael Condom, the owner of a parcel of property located directly behind the proposed facility and someone who has been in the construction business for many years, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that it was upsetting to him, as well as his neighbors, that their interests would be ignored, in favor of a huge company that has the resources that SECO has, to pick such a terrible site for a drop yard and outside storage area, noting how ugly and unattractive such areas can become, how noisy they can be, and how dangerous the materials stored on such sites can be to surrounding areas, with regard to health hazards, at which time he gave a brief power point presentation (Opposition’s Exhibit B) regarding the health hazards that exist from wood preservatives containing arsenic and chromates, obtained from a HESIS (Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service) Fact Sheet, provided by the Department of Health Services, covering such issues as uses and contents of wood preservatives; how arsenic and chromates enter and affect your body; legal exposure limits and medical monitoring; reducing your exposure; and resources, as well as a report about the affects of arsenic being in one’s drinking water. He suggested that the Board get the University of Florida, who has done extensive research about this issue, to review the applicant’s site plan and conditions, to make sure that they are necessary and beneficial, as stated in the intent of the CFD, before approving this request.

Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and asked that no variance be granted for the applicant; that they be made to apply with the County’s Code, with regard to the tower; and that a wall be required for screening, rather than a chain link fence.

Mr. James Duncan, Chief Executive Officer, SECO, addressed the Board stating that, although they have been categorized as a huge utility, they are a member-owned, not-for-profit electric cooperative and will not generate one additional dime of revenue, as a result of the proposed facility, and, instead, are seeking the Board’s permission to invest millions of dollars at the site, for a facility whose only purpose is to ensure that the current and future SECO members in northeast Lake County have the most reliable electric service they can provide. He stated that SECO enjoys an exceptional reputation as a good corporate citizen and as an environmentally friendly electric utility and have already agreed to significant enhancements to the landscaping and berming, above what would normally be required, and even though the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency do not require it, or even recommend it, they have agreed to cover their pole storage area, which may become the first covered pole storage area in the State of Florida. He stated that they try to recognize the input of their members, at which time he reiterated the fact that over 9,500 northeast Lake County residents are in favor of the project, with only 13 being opposed to it. He stated that, had the results been only 60/40 in favor, or 70/30 in favor, SECO would have withdrawn their request and tried to relocate their facility somewhere else. He stated that no one wants a substation or utility facility in their neighborhoods, but everyone wants 100% reliable electricity, and SECO is trying to be responsive to a need, noting that the Eustis facility is horribly undersized. He stated that he suspected any site SECO would have chosen would have had similar opposition and asked for the Board’s approval of their project.

Mr. Wilson Sheppard, President of the Board of Trustees for Sumter Electric Cooperative, addressed the Board stating that he was a lifelong resident of Lake County (83 years), noting that he was born in the County, as well as his mother and her father, and has probably seen more growth and change to the County than almost anyone else in the room. He stated that his experience with growth is that people like the benefits of growth, as long as it is not in their backyard, but sometimes that is not possible - sometimes growth dictates where change will occur. He stated that, based upon his experience in Lake County, the location of the new SECO Operating Center makes complete sense, since it is located across the street from their substation, it is centrally located where the growth is occurring, and it is large enough for many years of use. He stated that it is plain that SECO needs a new facility and county staff, as well as the Zoning Board, recommended approval of the proposed site and he feels it is an ideal location for said facility and hoped the Board would share his opinion.

Mr. Dan Riordan, the owner of a parcel of property on the west side of the proposed site, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, for two reasons, being (1) the communications monopole tower, and (2) leaching from the poles. He stated that the proposed facility will be located only 50 feet from the well of one of his neighbors and he is concerned about the trucks at the facility, as well as the proposed warehouse, and the fact that the facility will be located in the Wekiva area, at which time he asked the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Kenneth Green, President of the Local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to confirm the fact that the unionized employees who work for SECO operate the center as vital to their efforts to provide reliable electric service to Lake County residents and that such a center will enable them to respond effectively, when there are major outages, due to weather. He stated that of extreme importance is the fact that a modern operations center will provide them with a much safer environment to work. He stated that, overall, the construction of the center will mean that the operations will be more streamlined and, consequently, more efficient for the co-op as a whole, which helps them remain financially healthy and also has positive benefits for their employees, in that it provides them with good wages and health benefits. He stated that he would appreciate the Board’s consideration and acceptance of the proposal before them.

Ms. Diane Riordan, wife of Mr. Dan Riordan, addressed the Board and submitted a folder (Opposition’s Exhibit C), containing a map of the site in question, as well as several photographs of sites that she feels would be more suitable for the proposed facility. She stated that she feels the site in question is too small and presented reasons why she felt the other sites would be more suitable.

Ms. Liz Downs, a resident of the City of Eustis and a SECO employee (Customer Service Manager at the new facility in Eustis), addressed the Board stating that she worked at the old facility in Eustis for almost five years and that it is hopelessly inadequate to meet the needs of their customers. She stated that, as Mr. Sheppard pointed out during his comments, no matter where SECO would decide to construct a facility, there would probably be opposition. She stated that, with growth comes change, and change is difficult. She asked the Board to vote in favor of the request.

Mr. Ken LaRoe, who lives approximately one and one half miles from the proposed site, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was outraged that he is a SECO customer and that his utility checks would be paying for SECO employees to waste their time sitting in this meeting, noting that the people that are opposed to the request are attending the meeting on their own time and their own dollars. He stated that the customer cards referred to earlier in the meeting was a slick advertising piece that was sent out to SECO’s customers and was full of inaccuracies, which start with the sign that was placed on the proposed site, which he elaborated on. He stated that his read of the Ordinance pertaining to this request would not withstand a legal challenge, therefore, felt the Board should deny the request. He stated that the citizens of Lake County are outraged by what is happening in the County and that he feels it is time, with the elections coming up, that it starts being reflected in the polls.

Mr. Donnie Kent, a resident of Altoona for the past 38 years, and an employee of SECO for the past 17 years, addressed the Board stating that he has worked for three utility companies and, by far, SECO cares more about its members and its employees than any other company that he has worked for. He asked the Board to take into consideration the fact that SECO has outgrown its current site and needs to move on.

Mr. Egor Emery, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that the County is currently working on its Comprehensive Plan and is supposed to plan where it is going to put its CFDs in the future, so that people will know what they are facing and not have such facilities constructed next door to them. He stated that the proposed site was not the right location for such a facility, in that it is an industrial use and should be in an urban setting, and the zoning in the area was not appropriate for the facility, as well; therefore, the request should be denied.

Mr. Derek Eveleth, an employee of SECO for approximately 20 years, addressed the Board stating that, with the ever increasing growth in the County and the growth of their staff – the number of contractors in their office that is needed to keep up with the increasing growth that is going on, they have outgrown their facility. He stated that moving to the new location would help SECO better serve its customers, by having a more centralized location, and that, with the ongoing construction in the City of Eustis, the new office would be a much safer and more efficient site, not only for the SECO employees, but for their contractors, their customers, and the community. He asked the Board to approve the request.

Ms. Susan Ray, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board stating that her property is located to the east of the proposed site and that her house is located where she and her family will have to look at the new facility every day. She disputed the number of customer cards that were said to have been sent out by SECO, versus the number of cards that they received back, noting that she was not sure how they got such a high number of favorable cards. She stated that she believed a lot of the cards were sent back, because people were not totally aware of exactly what is going to take place at the proposed site, and the fact that the facility is not going to personally impact some of them the way that it is going to impact her family. She stated that the proposed facility is not in the best interest of the public, in that it will not be providing an essential utility that is solely restricted to the property in question, and there is not a critical life or death need for it to be located at said site. She addressed staff’s determination that the property is consistent and compatible with the existing land use and the fact that there would be no adverse impact on the natural environment and no adverse affect on nearby property values. She asked the Board to react to this request as if it were being located near their property, noting that all the property owners surrounding the proposed site will pay the ultimate price, if the Board makes the wrong decision, at which time she submitted, for the record, a statement (Opposition’s Exhibit D) covering the issues that she addressed.

Mr. Mickey Gauldin, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that he was an employee of SECO and was present representing 70 employees, who were present in the audience, in support of the operations center and the proposed rezoning. He asked the Board to approve the rezoning change before them, not just for SECO, but for the members they serve in the community, as well.

Mr. Bill Ray, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was concerned about the size of the proposed site (will support 12 football fields) and the fact that the lighting system that will be needed to light such a large facility will create the effect of a giant stadium being lit to the surrounding property owners, which is what they have to look forward to, along with the noise that will be generated from the site. He stated that the proposed site is not the place to put such a facility. He displayed a photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit E) of his home, at which time he discussed the elevation from the road level to the spot where his home is located and questioned whether or not SECO’s retention ponds will be sufficient, or whether his property will be the final resting place for the water runoff. He stated that his well is about 30 yards from the area where the poles will be stored and he is concerned about them leaching into the aquifer, along with HDG from the hardware, and PCBs from old transformers, as well as any gas leakages from the fueling island. He stated that he was concerned about the communications tower, as well, in that it will be an eyesore to the entire community. He asked the Board to deny the request and submitted, for the record, a statement (Opposition’s Exhibit F) indicating his concerns.

Mr. Lewis Stone, Attorney, representing SECO, addressed the Board stating that the County is doing the best it can to provide for smart growth and part of it is adequately preparing for the infrastructure that is necessary to support smart growth. He stated that there has been some build-out in the area in question and there will, undoubtedly, be more build-out, and, hopefully, the additional build-out will be done wisely. He stated that, unlike some other things, electric facilities have unique support requirements and this is a support requirement for facilities that are already in the area that serve Lake County and have been serving Lake County. He stated that SECO is trying to upgrade their facility – it is not merely an opportunity to make a profit, but is something that is being done to better serve the community for growth that has either already been planned, or will be planned, in a way that is safe and reliable and will cause the employees that live in the area to not have to drive all over the County in hazardous conditions, in order to accomplish these goals. He stated that he feels it is the appropriate site and without question is needed and now SECO is looking at the Board to allow them to do what is necessary to serve its members in the County better.

Mr. Lynn Warburton, Director of the Florida Elks Youth Camp, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that he wanted to publicly thank SECO for their efforts, in trying to provide for its members’ future needs, and would strongly encourage the Board to approve the request before them.

Mr. Robert Curry, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board in favor of the request, stating that he feels the members of SECO are extremely well served, noting that he has had experience with a good number of electric companies around the Country and SECO goes well out of their way to do things right that other companies ignore. He stated that what has been stated this date shows there is no doubt that a new facility is needed and needed quickly, in order to respond to the community. He stated that he feels SECO has done due diligence and had the community in mind, when they designed their new facility.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments and concerns that were made this date, noting that SECO feels comfortable that they have answered the questions and concerns that have been raised. He then answered some questions that the Board had about the request, with regard to the issue of the tower and its location and whether or not Riordan Road is scheduled to be paved.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Department of Public Works, addressed the Board stating that it was his understanding that the property owners are trying to work out the issue of a future alignment involving Riordan Road and CR 439. He stated that there may be a slight offset between the two roads, but that the County would do its best to try to make sure that it is not significant enough to cause a traffic problem. He stated that it is his understanding that SECO is trying to work with all the property owners, to make sure that said alignment happens. He stated that the Lake Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (LSMPO) long range plan and the County’s plan is for there to be an extension of a roadway from CR 439 south, to line up with Round Lake Road.

At this time, Mr. Richey submitted, for the record, a revised version of the Preliminary Development Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit E) for the proposed Mount Dora Operations Center, with regard to the revised 50 foot buffer, to contain canopy trees, on the east side and the south side of the proposed site.

Ms. Carol Stricklin, Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that, with regard to the issue of lighting, she would suggest that the Board include language in the Ordinance that a photometric plan be provided to the County, indicating the lighting design, showing the lighting on the adjacent properties and also how specific areas of the site could be lighted individually.

Mr. Richey readdressed the Board stating that he was asked about the berm to be located on the front of the property and questioned whether the Board wanted the facility, which is to be designed in an old cracker barrel style, with a tin roof, to be seen from Hwy. 44. He stated that, if SECO puts the berm behind the building, next to the employee parking, they could do that, so that the building actually shows up as an old cracker barrel style house.

Commr. Cadwell stated that it would be his inclination to leave the buffer in the front of the property.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-76, Nathaniel and Carolyn Richburg/SECO/Victoria Bucher, Rezoning Case No. PH55-06-5, Tracking No. 62-06-CFD, AR (Agricultural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), as presented, with the following conditions: That language be included in the Ordinance that a photometric plan be provided to the County, indicating the lighting design and showing the lighting on the adjacent properties, as well as how specific areas of the site could be lighted individually; that a 50 foot buffer be installed on the east and south sides of the property; that canopy trees be installed on the east and south sides of the property; that a groundwater monitoring system be installed, to monitor wells in the area; that the CCA (chromated copper arsenate) treated poles be covered; and that all stormwater stay on the site.

Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 1:10 p.m., the Vice Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:40 p.m.

COMMISSIONERS

The Vice Chairman passed the gavel back to Commr. Hanson, turning the Chairmanship back over to her.

REZONING CASE NO. PH38-06-4 – A TO PUD – SORRENTO VILLAGE/JAY E.

FOLK, V.P./MCINTOSH & ASSOCIATES - TRACKING NO. 49-06-PUD

Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request to rezone several parcels, totaling 312 +/- acres, located within the Sorrento/Mt. Plymouth Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) on the Lake County Future Land Use Map (FLUM), with a portion of it being in an area known as the Main Street portion of the Compact Node, and the remainder of the property falling outside of said Node, currently zoned A (Agriculture), R-1 (Rural Residential), R-3 (Medium Residential), and R-6 (Urban Residential), for a mixed-use planned unit development, consisting of townhomes and single family residential units, to be developed in three (3) phases. The property, in terms of the residential density calculations, was determined to earn 71 points, which would give it a 6.0 dwelling unit per acre maximum density; however, the maximum allowed in the Urban Compact Node is 5.5 dwelling units per acre. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning request, at a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations and is compatible with the surrounding development pattern for the area, therefore, recommends approval of the request, subject to the conditions set forth in the Ordinance. It was noted that 33 letters were received in opposition to this request, as well as a petition, containing 128 signatures (County’s Composite Exhibit A), which were submitted, for the record. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, as well, by a 5-2 vote, as amended, with the following conditions:

1. A transportation easement and linkage of the project to SR 46 and CR 437 shall be required.

2. All requested variances to be withdrawn.

3. The language for the school student station availability, contained in the draft Ordinance, shall remain in the Ordinance in its final form,

along with the 19 acre site for the school.

4. If the City of Mount Dora does not provide central sewer, a subregional sewer system would be acceptable. The applicant felt a 500,000

gallon per day regional sewer system would be excessive. This shall not be located across from the school. Amendment: If a package

plant becomes necessary, it must come back for a public hearing, as an amendment to the existing PUD Ordinance.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, informed the Chairman that a proposal had just been presented to him, which might settle some of the problems involving this request, and asked that he and Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, be allowed to meet briefly and discuss said proposal, noting that they may be able to come to some sort of an agreement and may not need to take the time that it would normally take to hear this case. He requested a brief recess.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 1:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.

REZONING CASE NO. PH38-06-4 – A TO PUD – SORRENTO VILLAGE/JAY E.

FOLK, V.P./MCINTOSH & ASSOCIATES – TRACKING NO. 49-06-PUD (CONT’D.)

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, addressed the Board stating that it was agreed that the requirements regarding water and sewer being provided to the site, as well as those regarding school concurrency, will remain in the Ordinance. She stated that she and Mr. Richey went through some items and agreed to the following, with regard to the development plan, itself: That the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Committee Objectives and Policies that are set forth in their overlay districts be adhered to, with the Main Street district being permitted 5.5 dwelling units per acre and the Suburban residential area being permitted 2 dwelling units per acre, with a minimum open space requirement of 50%, and that the 25% open space requirement that applies to all PUDs be applicable to the portion that is within the Main Street district; that the school site be moved from its original location to another location within the development, with a stipulation that the School Board will have five years to construct a school, once utilities and the road is available – if the School Board does not construct a school on said site, under those terms and conditions, it will revert back to public land for the development’s homeowners association; that the number of units be limited to a total of 776; that all of the townhomes in the Main Street area be of a traditional neighborhood design, with rear entry garages, through alleyways; that all the lots shown in yellow on the map will be 60 foot wide lots; that there be a single road, with a cul-de-sac and 90 foot lots in another area of the development, which was pointed out to the Board, provided that a 100 foot buffer is maintained around the perimeter of the property; that canopy trees be planted on the north and west sides of the property, where there are currently no trees; and that a maximum of 25% single family residences be allowed for the 60 foot wide lots, with front entry garages, with the remainder of the homes to have side or rear entry garages.

Mr. Richard Levy, representing the applicant, addressed the Board regarding a design standard that was of concern to the community, being that of identical homes all in a row, so the developer is committing to no more than three (3) consecutive identical styles of homes being allowed in a row, such as no more than three front entry, or side entry, homes be allowed in a row, in order to break up the façade at the street.

Ms. Campione continued to review the items that she and Mr. Richey agreed upon, being that a 15 foot buffer along the southern part of the eastern most portion of the property be increased to 50 feet, north of Niblic Street; that traffic calming devices be planned for said area, to prevent cut-through traffic to Adair Avenue, with said portion of the subdivision (southern most part, around floodplain and wetland areas, or light green areas shown in southern part of map) being designed to utilize Adair, the intent being that there will be no direct access from SR 46, along the north/south spine road, all the way to Adair Avenue; that only pedestrian traffic be allowed on Glen Eagle Street, as opposed to vehicular traffic; that a 100 foot minimum buffer be provided on the southwestern boundary of property, with existing buffers to remain as shown on map; and that a lot plan be presented to the community, at a community meeting, for input, before proceeding to preliminary plat stage, with the developer to provide architectural renderings, graphics, and a lot layout.

Mr. Charles Stieren, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board stating that he lives on the corner of Rainey Road and Adair Avenue and that, in December of last year, he realized he had a problem, which he addressed with the Public Works Department, with regard to the speed limit on said roads, which is 25 miles per hour. He stated that the County conducted a study (Opposition’s Exhibit A) and found that 1,394 cars per day use Adair Avenue, at which time he submitted, for the record, said study, along with a number of petitions (Opposition’s Exhibit B), containing signatures of residents in the area, questioning whether they had children or animals living with them and whether they wanted the speed controlled in their neighborhood.

Mr. Egor Emery, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board stating that, as a long time participant in the County’s planning process, he was amused at the lack of planning that seems to be going on with this particular case. He encouraged the Board to be innovative, wherever possible, but was uncomfortable with the way that the process was going, noting that he would like to have more time to review the documents, as they are being put together, for the benefit of all the citizens of Lake County. He stated, for the record, that he wished the Board would establish, for every development in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area, a rule that developers will be required to follow the guidelines put forth by its citizens, through the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee, in that said guidelines have been put forth towards the Comprehensive Plan that the County is trying to adopt, and that he hopes all developments that come before the Board between now and the time that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted will be held to those standards, to the extent to which they can. He stated that the County needs to get those rules on paper, so that everyone can follow them.

Ms. Cindy Poirier, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, addressed the Board stating that she was neither for nor against the proposed development, but that she was for the residents having more information about it, noting that she took the day off from work to attend this meeting, in order to obtain more information about it. She stated that she wanted to help the Board make good decisions about growth, but, without sufficient information, she cannot do that and did not feel that she should have to take a day off from work, in order to get the information she needs to do it. She suggested that there be a community bulletin board for the residents, which will prevent them from becoming angry about proposed developments, because they feel they are being left out of the process. She stated that, if the County would provide them with more information, it would enable them to make informed decisions about upcoming developments, so they could serve the Board better, enabling the Board to serve the community better.

Mr. Steve Johnson, Attorney, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board stating that no decision has yet been made regarding a potential school site for the proposed development, noting that the first workshop dealt with the school site being located on the left side of the project; however, due to some objections to said site, the applicants came back with an alternative site, but at neither of said meetings did the School Board take a vote, or agree that one or the other sites was better. He stated that, in the School Board’s Five Year Plan, there is an Elementary School “J”, to serve the general area, but there is some concern as to whether that site would be available within the time limits needed to start building “J”. He stated that the School Board has maintained its position and did not want the Board to think that there were any negotiations for a school site, expressed or implied, for the development in question. He stated that the Board’s decision to include school concurrency requirements in the Ordinance will go a great way towards relieving some of those problems, but he wanted to make sure that the Board was clear about the matter, since there has been some confusion in the past about what the School Board’s position has been on different projects and he wanted to make sure that there was none on this one.

Ms. Judy Bevirt, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board stating that she was a lifelong resident of Central Florida and has lived in Lake County for the past 13 years. She stated that she has three children in the County’s school system and would encourage the Board to stick to the school concurrency requirement in the future, noting that the County’s school system is currently a mess. She stated that, as a parent, it is very upsetting to see all the development that is going on in the County, with no additional schools being built, and the traffic situation is an issue, as well.

Ms. Carol Saviak, Executive Director of the Coalition for Property Rights, a grass roots education and advocacy group based in Central Florida, with members in Lake County, addressed the Board stating that she was present to speak on behalf of the applicant. She reminded the Board that the applicant was only seeking to exercise his inherent property rights and has brought forward a proposal that is both sustainable and 100% consistent with both the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the future land use designation of Urban Compact Node. She asked them to also think about the fact that the State took a very extreme measure in adopting the Wekiva Protection Act that not only contemplated, but fully intended, to shift density out of the zone directly adjacent to the river, which makes the application before the Board this date fully appropriate in the eyes of the best planners in the State. She stated that that is what she intended to convey to the Board, however, before leaving her home to come to the meeting, she reviewed some of the comments recently issued by the Lake Sentinel and would like to speak in defense of the Board and its actions. She stated that the Board, as well as individual Commissioners, have been labeled corrupt for approving development and she feels that that charge deserves intellectual rebuttal, noting that it is not corrupt to support property rights and it is not a corrupt act to support the rights most closely associated with the American dream and, make no mistake, this request is the dream of this land owner and the dream of future home buyers that will live on his property, which is quite the opposite from corrupt. She stated that the Board’s primary responsibility, as a government leader, is to protect both the property rights and the individual rights of its citizens. She stated that each of the Commissioners have the ethical and legal responsibility to approve reasonable land use requests, which comply with the structures of the State; therefore, when the Board approves any development application that complies with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and other state laws, they are upholding the rights of the land owners, which is the way that the system was designed to work. She stated that it is not always popular and the Country’s forefathers realized that the exercise of individual rights would not be popular, which is the specific reason why this Country has a representative form of democracy. She stated that protecting individual rights requires deep thought and good solid decision making, so they should not let anyone, or any newspaper, convince them that voting for property rights is wrong. She displayed a copy of the front page of the Orlando Sentinel (Applicant’s Exhibit A), dated July 25, 2006, that reads, “Lake Commission Votes to Support Property Rights!”, which she submitted, for the record. She thanked the Board for their consideration and support of the applicant’s request, for what it is, being the exercise of property rights.

Ms. Kathie Beselico, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board and noted some concerns she had about the issue of the buffer, which was clarified for her.

Mr. John Ingorsoll, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board stating that he was not quite sure where the Board stood on the school concurrency issue and how all the newer developments will be impacting Round Lake Elementary School, which is currently at 155% capacity, and developments like Sullivan Ranch, Wolf Creek, and Summer Brook, will push Round Lake Elementary over 200% capacity. He discussed the State moratorium that became effective July 1, 2006, at which time he questioned whether the County has a moratorium on building, in a situation like this, noting that no school is in place to relieve the pressure on Round Lake Elementary and no school land has been approved and zoned that is suitable for a new school. He stated that school concurrency is the County’s only hope to make things right for its children - the County’s future. He asked the Board to just say “No” to this request, noting that, either the County has school concurrency and a moratorium, to allow it to catch its breath, or there will be a disaster at Round Lake Elementary. He noted that it is up to the Board.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board stating that, for the past 18 months, they have been meeting with various groups in the neighborhood, to try to resolve the outstanding issues on the property in question, which has various zoning classifications, and all of it meets the County’s Comprehensive Plan, at 5.5 units per acre. He stated that the settlement this date limits the 5.5 dwelling units on a portion of the property and adopts rules at 2.0 dwelling units per acre that are not in affect yet, but the applicant is agreeing to accept it. He stated that, to clarify the school situation, they will not put one child in one school, unless the applicant has a deal worked out with the School Board, period; and approval of this request is contingent upon that happening – either the applicant will be providing a school site and working with the School Board to provide monies for schools, waiting until there are schools and not building anything, or building an adult only community. He stated that the Board would not be approving any children for any schools this date and he wanted to make that clear. He stated that the applicant has scaled back the proposed project and has tried to be sensitive to the needs of the surrounding property owners and the settlement that Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, and Mr. Richard Levy, representing the applicant, presented to the Board. He stated that the plan that the Board is being asked to approve this date is far better than the previous plan, with 50% open space on portions of it, as well as a school concurrency requirement. He stated that a great majority of the individuals that Ms. Campione represents have signed off on this request and the applicant has buffered and protected them and their interests, in a mutual basis, that benefits both parties, which is what this process is all about.

Ms. Campione thanked the Board for their patience, in letting her and Mr. Richey, representing the applicant, go through this process and bring something back to them that is much better than what they started with.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson stated that she had some concerns about this request, being (1) that it be compatible with the area; (2) that it be rural in nature; (3) that it meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements; (4) that there be a site for a community building, due to the fact that there is currently not one in the area; (5) that there be a school site; (6) that the traditional neighborhood district be in the design, or at least some modification to it; (7) that there be trails and walkable communities; (8) that there be 50% open space; and (9) that, if there is going to be a market square, that there be utilities, which she noted was also part of the requirements of the Wekiva Parkway Commission – to gradually replace septic tanks with utilities and be able to remove septic tanks from the area. She stated that she felt all involved had come up with a plan that was workable, at which time she noted that it was important to her that whatever the plan was going to be that it be something that everybody could be proud of and something that would be sustainable into the future, so that 100 years from now it would still be valuable. She stated that she wished there were renderings of the proposed project for the Board and the public to see and that she wished there was more time, but that she was confident the process would work and would work well, with the community’s input.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-77, Sorrento Village/ Jay E. Folk, V.P./McIntosh & Associates, Rezoning Case No. PH38-06-4, Tracking No. 49-06-PUD, A (Agriculture), R-1 (Rural Residential), R-3 (Medium Residential), and R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District), as amended, with the following conditions: That the language contained in the Ordinance stay the same, with regard to water and sewer and school concurrency; that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee Objectives and Policies that are set forth in the overlay districts be adhered to, with the Main Street district being permitted 5.5 dwelling units per acre and the Suburban residential area being permitted 2.0 dwelling units per acre, with a minimum open space requirement of 50%, and that the 25% open space requirement that applies to all PUDs be applicable to the portion that is within the Main Street district; that the school site be moved from its original location to another location within the development, with a stipulation that the School Board will have five years to construct a school, once utilities and the road is available – if the School Board does not construct a school on said site, under those terms and conditions, it will revert back to public land for the development’s homeowners association; that the number of units be limited to a total of 776; that all of the townhomes in the Main Street area be of a traditional neighborhood design, with rear entry garages, through alleyways; that all the lots shown in yellow on the map be 60 foot wide lots; that there be a single road, with a cul-de-sac and 90 foot lots in another area of the development, provided that a 100 foot buffer is maintained around the perimeter of the property; that canopy trees be planted on the north and west sides of the property, where there are currently no trees; that a maximum of 25% single family residences be allowed for the 60 foot wide lots, with front entry garages, with the remainder of the residences to have side or rear entry garages; that no more than three (3) consecutive identical style homes be allowed in a row; that a 15 foot buffer along the southern part of the eastern most portion of the property be increased to 50 feet, north of Niblic Street; that traffic calming devices be planned for said area, to prevent cut-through traffic to Adair Avenue, with said portion of the subdivision (southern most part, around floodplain and wetland areas, or light green areas shown in southern part of map) being designed to utilize Adair, the intent being that there will be no direct access from SR 46, along the north/south spine road, all the way to Adair; that only pedestrian traffic be allowed on Glen Eagle Street, as opposed to vehicular traffic; that a 100 foot minimum buffer be provided on the southwestern boundary of the property, with existing buffers to remain as shown on the map; and that a lot plan be presented to the community, at a community meeting, for input, before proceeding to the preliminary plat stage, with the developer to provide architectural renderings, graphics, and a lot layout.

REZONING CASE NO. PH13-06-4 – A TO PUD – SORRENTO HILLS, INC./JOHN C.

GRAY, JR., MANAGER, EAGLE DUNES II, LLC – TRACKING NO. 13-06-PUD

Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request to rezone two parcels, totaling 202.33 +/- acres - one parcel, currently zoned A (Agriculture) and designated Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva), consisting of 163.14 acres, and the other parcel, currently zoned R (Rural), consisting of 39.43 acres, on the Lake County Future Land Use Map, for the creation of a single family residential subdivision, with a maximum allowable density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre, for the property located within the Urban Compact Node, which equates to a total of 898 dwelling units within the Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) designated property. The Rural land use designated property has a base density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 5 acres, which equates to a total of eight single family residential dwelling units within the Rural land use designated property. The total number of dwelling units for the overall proposed rezoning is 906 single family dwelling units. Staff found that the potential density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre was not consistent with the pattern of surrounding development and offered a recommendation of denial to the Zoning Board; however, it was noted that, if the density was reduced to match the existing development pattern of 1.0 dwelling unit per acre, staff could recommend approval. The Staff Report and the Recommendations and Analysis were forwarded to the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board recommended approval of the project, by a 4-1 vote, with the following stipulations:

1. There shall be no access to Equestrian Trail.

2. There shall be a decrease in density to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.

3. The buffer shall be increased from 25 feet to 100 feet along the Rural portion of the property.

4. The accesses to this PUD shall be restricted to CR 437 and through the existing Sorrento Springs development.

5. The medium density shall be moved closer to CR 437, where the low density is now located.

Mr. Bennett stated that staff worked with the applicant, in an attempt to work through some of the issues, but that they were still recommending denial of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. John Gray, Jr., Manager, Eagle Dunes II, LLC, addressed the Board stating that the subject property is now owned by Eagle Dunes II, of which he is 100% owner. He reviewed what has transpired with the property up to this point in time, noting that there is a lot of water under the bridge. He stated that, when he originally looked at the area, he looked at the County’s Comprehensive Plan and reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan, as well, noting that, as a developer, those are the things that he has to rely on. He stated that he also has to rely on the availability of sewer and water and the market place, at which time he noted that he was proud to say that, according to the Orlando Business Journal, The Villages of Sorrento Springs was No. 1 in all of Lake County, as far as success in the number of sales for the year 2005, which he feels will continue for the year 2006. He stated that, when he was developing The Villages of Sorrento Springs, he had charrettes with conceptual and creative people, as well as engineers and marketing people, at which time he distributed, for the record, a spiral booklet (Applicant’s Exhibit A), containing photographs, sketches, and information showing the concept that was used for The Villages of Sorrento Springs, noting that the amenities, the entryway, and the plan for Sorrento Hills will be identical to that of The Villages of Sorrento Springs. He stated, however, that he went above and beyond that process, noting that he used a lot of the same architectural elements, but came up with a different theme, being that of an equestrian theme, from the entrance gates, to the fencing, to other components. He stated that he feels they have made every concession that has been asked of them, with regard to this project.

Mr. William (Bill) Ray, AICP, Senior Planner, Bowyer-Singleton & Associates, addressed the Board stating that his team worked extensively on the proposed project before the Board this date. He stated that they started off requesting a density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre; however, it was reduced to 3.5 dwelling units per acre at the Zoning Board Meeting, and then, after meeting with area residents and working with the County’s staff, that figure was further reduced. He displayed an amended site plan (Applicant’s Exhibit B) of the proposed project, noting that it shows an interconnecting trail; a walkable community; 50% open space, rather than the required 25%; and some other things that were recommended by the community that have been incorporated into the plan, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that the initial Staff Report indicated that there were only three concerns, which was incorrect, noting that there were multiple concerns, but that the applicant went through the file, obtained copies of the written comments, and responded to them. He stated that the applicant has agreed to the following: to retain the open land and pastures of the rural area, by clustering development in the northeast corner of the 40 acre tract; to protect approximately 22 acres of a native oak and pine habitat that is located on the site, which is not currently protected by any local, state, or federal regulations; to provide an environmental education program with the homeowners, in combination with the maintenance plan that is to be developed for this area of open space; to prohibit specific uses within the buffers along the trails, such as motorized vehicles and ATVs; to cluster the more dense development away from the rural area, next to the CR 437 corridor; to utilize “dark sky” techniques and technology, in order to minimize ambient light pollution; to provide additional buffering throughout the entire project, averaging a 100 foot buffer, in its entirety; to utilize native drought tolerant plantings in the buffer and the landscaping, similar to that which is known as “Florida friendly”; to not pursue a blending of density from the Urban Compact Node area into the Rural area; to eliminate and prohibit access to an equestrian trail to the south; and to not pursue acquisition of an adjoining 32 acre tract in the Urban Compact Node. Mr. Ray stated that, in the development of this plan, they further determined that, if they were going to be setting the bar, they needed to set it a little higher, so, not only did they agree to protect up to 50% of open space within the development, but they agreed to provide a PUD Concept Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit C), which shows the intent of what the development is to look like. He stated that they looked at clustering and recreational amenities in the wooded area that would be of an architectural style, as reflected in the pattern book that they developed; another community recreation center was proposed and internalized; and they have multiple pocket parks throughout the development that are small in size, but provide opportunities for neighbors to have access to parks within one-eight of a mile of their property. He stated that all of these are design elements that are referred to as “smart growth”. He stated that they worked with the adjoining property owners, to make sure that they protected their buffers to the south, along the rural area, and to the other adjacent property owner to the southwest, where they had specific concerns. He stated that they met with said individuals, identified what their concerns were, and those individuals were now present at this meeting, in support of the proposed project.

Mr. Ray stated that the residents wanted to see additional landscape buffering along CR 437, so the applicant came up with a Landscape Concept Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit D), which he reviewed with the Board, noting that, at maturity, it will exceed 60%. He stated that they worked with staff to develop an entire corridor plan, which has not been developed to date, because it is a regional window into the community. He stated that they wanted to protect view sheds going into the project, so that there would not be a walled feeling, while driving down the road. He stated that the proposed buffer utilizes native drought tolerant vegetation and they incorporated an irrigation monitoring system into the project, as well, and are willing to commit to it, to further reduce the dependence on potable water as irrigation. He stated that they integrated stormwater recycling into the project, which is one of the first times that it has occurred in the County. He stated that, all in all, they have come quite a bit further than where they were, when staff recommended a density of 1.0 dwelling unit per acre. He stated that they came in with definitions for compatibility and had to look at Rule 9J5, which is a governing Statute from which the Comprehensive Plan is derived, as compatibility is not defined specifically in the County’s own Comprehensive Plan. He stated that they anticipated there would be some conflict in the uses, which they plan to handle through buffering, landscaping, and preservation of open space – it did not mean that a residential use was not compatible with another residential use. Mr. Ray stated that they were proposing to shift densities out of the Wekiva area into a specific area designated as the Urban Compact Node, noting that, in their site selection, they recognized that they did not want to develop in an area that was wetlands, or contained an abundance of the 100 year flood plain, so they selected the site in question, which is in the Urban Compact Node, and have moved forward from the 5.5 dwelling units per acre to 3.5 dwelling units per acre and are now at 2.89 dwelling units per acre, which is the gross density that is broken up between the units that are required in the Rural area and those in the Urban Compact Node. He stated that this project has gone over and above what is required, noting that it is in compliance with the current Wekiva Ordinance and that Ordinance is not even on the books yet. He stated that they have presented a positive project and have given the County a guide book, showing architectural renderings, from which staff can further direct the project, when they get into the preliminary plat submittal, and the applicant is agreeing to be substantially compliant with the documentation that is in front of the Board this date. He asked that the Board approve the project, as submitted, with the 50% open space, the walkable community, the groundwater recycling, and all the things that the applicant has already reached an agreement on with the community and with staff.

It was noted that a total of 579 homes are proposed for the project, with a density of 2.89 dwelling units per acre.

Mr. Egor Emery, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board regarding a couple of concerns he has about the proposed project, being (1) staff’s recommendation that the applicant not go above 1.0 dwelling unit per acre, with reasons to support it, only to have the Zoning Board recommend a contradiction to it and approve the request; and (2) the fact that the applicant is providing 50% open space, but is concerned about the net buildable area and what the approved use is for the land. He stated that the Board needs to have a finished plan, so that the citizenry of the County can explore what is being proposed. He asked that the Board go with staff’s recommendation and deny the request.

Ms. Leslie Campione, representing various residents that live on Equestrian Trail, who are opposed to the request, addressed the Board, stating that she has been working with said individuals for some time on this project. She questioned various aspects of the applicant’s adjoining project, which this project will be connected to, being The Villages of Sorrento Springs, noting that it was her understanding that said project is one unit per acre, taking into account the golf course. She stated that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee, in its Objections and Policies, which have been transmitted and accepted by the Local Planning Agency and is now being passed on to the Board, for consideration, show the area in question as being in the Suburban residential overlay district, which would be 2.0 dwelling units per acre, with 50% open space. She stated that, if the golf course were taken out, it would be at 2.0 dwelling units per acre, but, if the golf course were put back in, it would be at 1.0 dwelling unit per acre. She discussed the fact that, although something might be designated and dedicated as a particular thing, it is something that might not actually come to fruition along the way. She stated that the connection to Equestrian Trail would not be permitted, at which time she noted that she went through the PUD Ordinance, and the items that she would be covering were not in said Ordinance, so some work still needs to be done to the Ordinance. She stated that connection to the adjoining properties would not be permitted, with the exception of The Villages of Sorrento Springs property, and no additional property could be added to the PUD. She stated that “dark sky” lighting techniques are to be used to reduce the ambient light effects; a densely landscaped buffer, or berm, shall be installed along CR 437, with a significant setback for the homes off of CR 437; a sidewalk shall be installed along CR 437, for future connections; with regard to the tree line along the west boundary, it is requested that the conservation easement include that tree line, so that said trees cannot be removed by adjoining property owners, as houses are built in the area; that the use of ATVs not be permitted in the open space areas; that there be only eight (8) dwelling units on the rural tract, as is being proposed; that the 50% open space be integrated into the entire site; and that the 2.0 dwelling units per acre be applied to the parcel that is 160 acres in size. She stated that staff recognizes the fact that urban services are not there, because this is not an urban area, and, while 2.89 dwelling units per acre does not sound so bad, when the 40 acres in the back of the property is factored in, the reality is that, on the 160 acres, it is a lot higher density. She stated that, according to the overlay district, 2.0 dwelling units per acre would be appropriate at this location.

Ms. Heather Brush, who resides on Equestrian Trail, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that the area in question is not a high density area, it is rural. She stated that, if the applicant develops the property at a higher density than 2.0 dwelling units per acre, it is going to look like it is 8.0 dwelling units per acre, because of where the homes will be located. She stated that the surrounding property owners are concerned that the houses being proposed are going to be smaller, less expensive houses, which are going to be located 10 feet apart, and will not hold their value down the road, at which time she displayed and submitted, for the record, two photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit A) of the Eagle Dunes development, noting that it is not an attractive development.

Mr. Robert Curry, a resident of Seminole Springs, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, noting that Sorrento Springs has been developed at a density of 1.0 dwelling unit per acre, in the middle of an area that is 1.0 dwelling unit per acre and is bordered on the Wekiva, at which time he pointed out the fact that there are some developments in the Wekiva area that were grandfathered in, before the Wekiva rules went in. He stated that The Villages of Sorrento Springs was wrong for the area and is a bad precedent for the proposed development.

Ms. Joan Hill, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the Board needs to keep the rural flavor of the area in question, noting that Lake County is becoming like Altamonte Springs. She stated that the proposed development is horrendous for those people who have chosen a rural lifestyle. She asked the Board to vote for the lowest density possible for the area and allow the people that live there to keep the rural flavor of the area.

Mr. Steve Cooper, Attorney, representing Bill and Marcy Gray, the owners of a parcel of property that is adjacent to the rural 40 acre parcel involved with this request, addressed the Board stating that Mr. and Mrs. Gray will have the greatest impact from the proposed development, however, noted that they met with the developer and the developer made every concession that was requested of him by the Grays, so they are in support of the proposed project. He noted that he read the Minutes of the meetings that have been held for the last six months and it appears that there has been concession after concession after concession, on the part of the developer, with regard to this project.

Mr. Ray readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made this date, at which time he noted that he had a letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District, with regard to the Wekiva River Protection Area, endorsing density, central utilities, and central water, which he noted the applicant is agreeing to provide, with the densities that are being proposed. He discussed the issues of urban sprawl and clustering and reiterated some of the things that the applicant has agreed to provide. He discussed the issues of “smart growth”; the need for higher density developments; and the fact that the Wekiva study area already recognizes a commercial node within the Wekiva River Protection Area. He stated that, all in all, the proposed development is the appropriate development at the appropriate time, at which time he pointed out the fact that myregion.org endorses this style of development.

Mr. John Gray, the applicant, readdressed the Board stating that he has accommodated every concern that has been brought to his attention. He stated that he would agree to the 2.0 dwelling units per acre, for the 160 acre parcel, but that he would not do any of the things that have been offered to date, being the buffers, central sewer and water, tree preservation, and stormwater reuse. He stated that it would be a better deal for him, so he was prepared to make the change. He noted that, in the rural area, he would do one 1.0 dwelling unit per five acres.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that this was the fourth public hearing on this case and that he did not want to go back over what was discussed at the previous meetings, but that he would request that the Minutes and exhibits from the meetings of January 24, 2006; April 25, 2006; and May 2, 2006, be incorporated into the record of this meeting.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Charles Gray, father of Mr. John Gray, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the project would not be economically feasible for them to do below the requested density of 2.89 dwelling units per acre; therefore, if the Board did not see that that was possible, would respectfully request that they be allowed to withdraw their petition this date.

It was noted that the Board did not support the requested 2.89 dwelling units per acre, at which time the applicant withdrew his request.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Stivender left the meeting, due to another commitment.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 3:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 4:15 p.m.

TRANSMITTAL OF WEKIVA RIVER PROTECTION AREA TEXT AMENDMENT

Mr. Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that this Ordinance represents the changes necessary to meet the requirements of the Wekiva River Protection Act, as amended. He stated that the Local Planning Agency (LPA) conducted two public hearings on the Ordinance and the version being presented this date is the version that they approved on July 10, 2006, however, noted that this version, as recommended, does not include the Objectives and Policies relating to the Wekiva-Ocala corridor. He referred to a memorandum (County Exhibit A) that had been sent to the Board from staff, which he noted summarized the proposed additions and changes to the Ordinance, which was submitted, for the record. He noted that there were a couple of scrivener’s errors in the Ordinance that would need to be corrected, should the Board choose to proceed with transmitting it to the State. He noted that a letter (County Exhibit B) from Mr. John Keating, with the law firm of Keating & Schlitt, dated July 25, 2006, was received by staff this morning and a copy was furnished to the Board, at which time he submitted, for the record, a copy of said letter.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Chris Belflower, a resident of Deland, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to voice his support for the Wekiva policies recommended by the LPA, which were crafted after much deliberation by the LPA, and also from a great volume of input from the voting public, however, noted that he felt the policy before the Board this date should not be the version that is transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated that the version that should be sent to DCA will be sent to the Board with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there is a concern about the definition that the LPA has created, as well as the inclusion of the Wekiva-Ocala corridor protection, which he elaborated on. He cautioned the Board to think long and hard about the will of the voting public, noting that it is time to enact the sound policy created by the LPA, at which time he urged the Board to send the policy to DCA, with the LPA recommended open space definition and also the inclusion of the Wekiva-Ocala corridor.

Ms. Peggy Belflower, a resident of Deland, addressed the Board stating that her home is located within the Wekiva-Ocala corridor, so she is familiar with it. She stated that, on May 18, 2006, the LPA, after careful thought, consideration, and public participation, unanimously voted to transmit the Wekiva Ordinance to the Board for adoption, as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She stated that, in July of this year, lawyers representing speculator developers, who want to rape the Wekiva-Ocala corridor, manipulated county staff into manipulating the LPA to revote its own document and cut the Wekiva-Ocala corridor out of it, which is what is before the Board this date. She stated that, if the Board were to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it needs to include in it all the strike-through language regarding the Wekiva-Ocala corridor. She stated that the corridor was supported by the DCA, in its report to Lake County, dated April 14, 2006, where DCA states that the County has the responsibility to protect the sensitive habitats and recharge areas on a jurisdictional-wide basis, not limiting it to the Wekiva Study Area, and it states, “including outside of the Wekiva Study Area”, which the DCA specifically recommended. She stated that it might be argued by opponents that there is no data and analysis to support inclusion of the corridor in this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but the DCA recommends, not requires, data analysis, and she submits to the Board that staff has plenty of data analysis to include the corridor as relevant. She stated that reinserting the strike-through language and voting for transmittal of the Ordinance to DCA, for review, will show Lake County’s intent to protect the sensitive natural resources of the State.

Mr. Charles Lee, representing Audubon of Florida, addressed the Board stating that, overall, they feel the Board has a very good product in front of them and that the LPA has done an excellent job and would hope that the Board would vote for transmittal of the document to DCA this date. He stated that he felt the Board would hear a lot about the removal of the term “Wekiva-Ocala connector”, noting that staff has an explanation for why they did that, relating to data and analysis; however, he feels that those from an environmental standpoint would be more comfortable if the Board were to put the language in the Ordinance, and, if DCA, during their review, raises the question of a need for greater data and analysis, the County could put said language in the Ordinance at that time and nothing would be lost by doing so. He stated that, on the other hand, if the Board were to do it the way that county staff is recommending, which is to hold it over, until the time that the 2025 Horizon plan is transmitted, there is a concern that that may give some in the development community a leg-up on things. He stated that the Board could erase that fear, by putting said language in the Ordinance and letting DCA make whatever comments they are going to make about it. He stated that DCA has come out with recommended criteria for the Board to look at, with regard to the Wekiva Protection Act and the Wekiva Parkway Protection Act, noting that said criteria is now available and he feels that county staff and the LPA has done a very good job of mirroring those, in the transmittal that the Board is about to make, hopefully, this date.

Mr. Frank Royce, City Commissioner, City of Eustis, addressed the Board stating that he was present to personally support the Board’s transmittal of the document before them to DCA, noting that the City of Eustis is undergoing the same process and has transmitted their document to DCA and it is now up to DCA to come back to them with a recommendation. He stated that Mr. Keith Schue, a member of the LPA, was a big help to the City of Eustis, with regard to helping them come to a determination about open space and how to describe the open space that the City is proposing. He stated that the City is requiring 25% open space within its boundaries, at which time he noted that they are enhancing what is normally looked at as open space, not looking at wetlands, rights of ways, yards, etc., although he noted that they are requiring 60% pervious areas per lot, which keeps some of them larger than normal. He stated that, with regard to the JPA area, in the northeast corner of the City, they have decided to come up with two transitional overlay areas, going from 25% to 35%, from Estes Road to Lake Eldorado Drive, north to south, and from that point to the next road to the east 45%, knowing that 50% was going to be coming to the Board as an open space number to look at. He stated that the City is trying to transition through their LPA where they currently have services at 25% and going more restrictive further east. He stated that they are trying to work into what the Board, hopefully, will be doing this date. He thanked the Board for all their efforts, noting that the City appreciates what they do.

Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, addressed the Board and questioned several aspects of the proposed Wekiva Ordinance, noting that he had several concerns regarding commercial sites within the Wekiva Study Area (WSA), having owned a parcel of property that is located within that area, being his office building, which he elaborated on, noting that it is located within an area on the map that is not within the Eustis Joint Planning Area, nor the Mount Dora Joint Planning Area, nor any of the designations within the Wekiva Basin, but it is still located within the Wekiva Study Area. He stated that, based on the regulations, he is required to provide 35% of his property as open space, dedicate that 35% to a conservation easement, and then put posts, or similar markings, designating it as undevelopable land, every 50 feet throughout his site. He stated that it is a little overburdening for commercial sites within the Basin, noting that the policies and procedures for residential are there, but they are not for the commercial sites. He referred to Page 36, Policy 1-25.5, Paragraph 1, of the Ordinance, questioning whether the requirement for a “similar legally recorded and binding instrument” would be a site plan for a commercial site – whether it would designate the open space on the site plan or not; and whether one of the entities, being a conservation agency, such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), a non-profit conservation organization or land trust, or Lake County, would accept 7,000 square feet of landscaped lawn area as a conservation easement, and whether he would have to market it as such, noting that he feels it is a little overburdening on commercial sites and there is no provision for that not to happen. He stated that, if he were to add on to his building, he would be developing his site and would be subject to said rules. He stated that it also calls for 35% open space for all non-residential sites, which would include agricultural, at which time he noted that he would like to have clarification for some of his agricultural clients within the Wekiva Study Area and what that means to their nursery operations – whether they would be non-forming, as of the date of the adoption of the proposed Ordinance, as far as not having 35% of their site designated as conservation land, and whether they would be exempt, because they are commercial agricultural operations, such as nurseries, green houses, etc.

Mr. Green referred to Page 37, Policy 1-25.6, Paragraph 5, of the Ordinance, stating that there is a conflict in said Policy, with regard to the use of native plants, noting that it calls for the use of native plants and right plant, right place landscaping techniques, which means that it requires the use of native plants only, yet in Paragraph 8, it calls for the use of Best Management Practices, according to the principles and practices of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, which is not limited to just native plants. He stated that the Ordinance needs to require one or the other, not both. He referred to Page 45, Policy 7-4A.9, where it calls for the principles and practices of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, which requires that new development within the Wekiva Study Area (WSA) shall be designed to limit turf grasses and landscaping, and require regular irrigation and chemical application to no more than 50% of all pervious areas, which means that his current office building would no longer be allowed to be irrigated, which would be an amendment to the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which now require all landscaped areas to be 100% irrigated. He referred to Page 46, Policy 7-4A.10, of the Ordinance, questioning exactly what the Landscape and Lawn Care Certification Program would entail, with regard to the limiting of water use by landscape and lawn professionals. He then referred to Page 27, Policy 1-20.11A, noting that it states that additional school facilities shall not be allowed within the Wekiva River Protection Area A-1-20 and A-1-40 Overlay Districts; therefore, based on said language, Seminole Springs Elementary School would not be allowed to expand in the future. He stated that he felt said issues needed further investigation, or additional language, to clarify them.

Ms. Debra Dremann, representing Newland Communities, as well as Mr. Robin Lynholt, the owner of 1,600 acres, which he has owned and maintained for well over 50 years, addressed the Board stating that her clients had applied for an administrative request to change their land use, based upon the fact that they understand the importance of the Wekiva-Ocala corridor connection, but that they believe said area requires further study, so they withdrew their application, to enable them to work with the County and other environmental agencies, to understand the area and how their property can contribute to it. She stated that she just wanted to clarify the fact that her clients are not proposing a mixed-use, high density project, they have never proposed a high density project, and they do not intend to build a high density project on their land.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, addressed the Board and presented, for the record, a Notice of Appearance (Opposition’s Exhibit A), listing all of the property owners and business owners in Lake County that she would be representing this date, with regard to the Wekiva Ordinance and the transmittal of same to DCA. She urged the Board to delay the transmittal of said Ordinance, until they see how the pieces fit together, noting that just a few of the things that Mr. Green brought to their attention are replete throughout the Ordinance. She asked the Board to review Mr. Keating’s letter very carefully, noting that it took two years to come up with the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act. She stated that she does not feel there is data and analysis to support what is contained within the Ordinance and she feels it is bad policy to send something to DCA and let it be their responsibility to see if it is supportable or not. She stated that what the Ordinance contains is a sweeping change of how the County is going to do business in the study area and in the protection area. She stated that she did not feel DCA was going to be happy, because a lot of the definitions contained within the Ordinance also affect what is in the County’s Conservation Element, and what may be in the Transportation Element, the Housing Element, and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).

Ms. Carol Saviak, Executive Director of the Coalition for Property Rights, addressed the Board stating that she did not find either the concept or the content of the Ordinance before the Board this date acceptable. She stated that what she saw was simply increased restrictions on development and very little indifference to science, facts, and the planning process. She stated that she feels the County has a set of regulations that have been designed specifically to appease neighbors, voter groups, and the very respected Mr. Charles Lee, present in the audience. She stated that she did not see anything in the provision that tells her that it is going to affect the environment. She stated that she also did not see in the Ordinance one’s free use and enjoyment of their property, in the manner of their choosing - anything that in any way references any compensation mechanism for the property owners that are having their inherent property rights taken away. She stated that she believes some of the environmentalists and residents present at this meeting are just as greedy as the developers that they love to hate, noting that they want to strip landowners of their rights to fully develop their property, potentially to the highest and best use, and are asking the Board to provide them with specific benefits, which represent their special interests, at a cost to those landowners. She stated that, with regard to the issue of open space, she feels what they really want is 100% open space and no development whatsoever. She stated that visiting this meeting and seeing what recently happened reminds her how very important her work to re-inject property rights into the public dialogue is and how very far the Nation has fallen and how much elected officials are placing accountability to a few dozen, or a few hundred, voters above fact based decision making.

Mr. Jon Pospisil, a resident of Goldenrod, in Orange County, addressed the Board stating that he is a native Floridian and a landowner, who is trying to come up with an economically sound way of developing approximately 35 acres in the Wekiva Study Area. He stated that it appears the County wants to have 50% open space for just about everything in the Wekiva area, including areas that may be designated one dwelling unit per acre, which poses a significant burden, with no discernible public benefit to property owners. He stated that, far from the notion that the Ordinance will somehow preserve a rural flavor to the area, it will actually have the opposite affect. He displayed and submitted, for the record, a sketch (Opposition’s Exhibit B) showing a ten acre tract, with a road down the middle, which he reviewed with the Board, noting that it would allow ten one acre sites and would qualify as 50% open space, should someone decide to lay out a subdivision the way that he laid out the one in his sketch. He stated that that space would be open, whether the County had a 50% open space requirement or not, which he elaborated on, and that it seemed to him that it would be wise for the Board to delete the one dwelling unit per acre zoning requirement.

Mr. Tyler Everett, Law Clerk, Akerman Senterfitt, addressed the Board stating that he had researched this issue extensively, along with Ms. Bonifay, noting that they looked at DCA’s objectives and goals and found that the County’s document went stride for stride with the provisions of it, except for the Wekiva-Ocala corridor, which was clearly outside the bounds of the recommendations of DCA.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, addressed the Board stating that he was representing a couple of clients, both of which are looking at doing costly developments in the Wekiva Study Area. He addressed the issue of the schools that are located within the Wekiva, noting that, as Mr. Green had mentioned earlier in the meeting, it is going to be tough to expand a school that has the acreage available, when the County has a policy that prohibits it. He stated that he agreed with Ms. Bonifay’s comments, however, noted that there were two policies that he would like to address, one regarding the Wekiva Transitional District and the other regarding the Wekiva Transitional Rural District, noting that, in the area that is closest to the municipalities, the JPAs, and the more transitioning areas, it requires 50% open space, and in the area that is closest to the Rural areas, the Wekiva, and the areas being protected, it is 35%. He stated that the County may want to flip those and put the 35% where it is more urbanized and the 50% where it is more rural, or protected. He reinforced the definition of “open space”, noting that he spoke on several occasions to the LPA, where they do want to address it as a countywide definition of open space. He stated that he was informed not to worry, that the definition would be taken care of when the County got to percentages, which went from 25% to 50%, so what one takes out is increased and now the percentage of open space is increased, so there is no balancing act between the two, but more constraints placed on pieces of property in two ways, which he finds to be an issue, when the County starts looking at properties specific and at properties that are agricultural in nature, noting that they have impacted the value of agricultural lands tremendously, because now they do not have the ability to develop at the same densities that they had before, without changing their zoning or land use, just by a simple definition change.

Mr. Bill Ray, Senior Planner and Environmental Specialist, Bowyer-Singleton & Associates, addressed the Board stating that he felt it was premature to transmit the Wekiva Ordinance to DCA, in that he feels it contains some fatal flaws that need to be worked out, on some very specific points, one being Policy 6C-5.3, which states that all residential developments shall utilize swales, swale blocks, and raised driveways whenever possible. He stated that swales are one way to convey stormwater runoff, but they are not the best or only way to do it, noting that the County needs to evaluate the most appropriate way to do it. He addressed the issue of land use strategies within the Wekiva, the fact that the County needs to look at minimum densities and, specifically, at approval criteria, and it needs to change “net acre” to “upland acre”. He stated that removing wetlands from the open space criteria is wrong, noting that for 30 years the County has been trying to incorporate an environmental ethic into the community and give wetlands a sense of value – a sense of place in the community, something other than a swamp. He stated that they have a value for environmental education, wildlife observation, viewing areas, etc., and to say that they cannot be used anymore, that they are just a set aside zone, when they are associated with a passive recreational use, or environmental educational program, they have a bona fide viable reason to be included as open space within the community – they are not just a set aside zone. He stated that it takes the County back to where it was 15 to 20 years ago. He stated that, with regard to the open space criteria of 50% arbitrary, it does not provide environmental protection, it provides a perception of environmental protection. He recommended that the County hold further workshops, before transmitting the Ordinance to DCA.

Mr. Robert Curry, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to clear up a misconception, noting that it was stated that Seminole Springs Elementary would not be allowed to expand – that it was quoted that “schools shall not be allowed within the Wekiva River Protection Area A-1-20 and A-1-40 overlay districts, which are sending areas. He stated that Seminole Springs Elementary School is in the R-1-20 district, which is the receiving area; therefore, is not covered by said regulation. He informed the Board that he has attended in excess of 70% of the LPA meetings and that he wanted them to know that the members of that committee have killed themselves to do their job for the County. He stated that they are volunteers that have worked very hard and the Board should be proud of them.

Mr. Rob Kelly, President, Citizens Coalition of Lake County, Inc., addressed the Board stating that there has been considerable community involvement with the LPA during the past two years, noting that input has been heard from community groups, environmental groups, development groups, land use attorneys, land investors, and land owners and that he felt it was safe to say that all of the groups probably did not get everything they wanted in the Wekiva Ordinance transmittal package. He stated that nine people sit on the LPA, with varying backgrounds, and that he feels those nine people have done a very good job of understanding the issues related to the policies and putting the transmittal package together. He stated that his group would like to recommend that, if any changes are made to the Ordinance, that the Wekiva-Ocala corridor be reinserted, but short of that change, asked that the Board not consider any further changes to the open space definition. He stated that they would also request that the Board not look at a sector plan for the area, or a plan called by any other name, that may open up the area to further development, noting that the Wekiva policies, as written, are thorough. He urged the Board to transmit the Ordinance, as proposed.

Mr. Keith Schue, a member of the LPA, addressed the Board stating that, although he was not speaking on behalf of the LPA, he would encourage the Board to support the product that the LPA has given the County. He stated that it is a good product and represents the deliberation of nine people, all looking very carefully at the area in question, as well as the issues. He stated that the Ordinance respects urban and rural boundaries and issues that protect open space, which is a clear mandate coming from the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act, and it provides a sound growth management framework within the area. He stated that, as it relates to the Wekiva-Ocala corridor, if it was added it would be great, however, noted that there is a statement where staff indicates that it will be included, as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Barbara Howell, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board stating that she would like to thank the group for all their hard work, noting that she feels the Wekiva Ordinance is a very good product, but that she feels DCA will wonder why there is nothing in it about the Wekiva-Ocala corridor. She asked the Board to approve transmittal of the Ordinance, but to consider putting the Wekiva-Ocala corridor back in it.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson noted some concerns she had about the proposed Ordinance, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same.

Mr. Sheahan, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and made the following changes to the proposed Wekiva River Protection Area Text Amendment Ordinance: On Page 6, Line 20, strike Ocala; On Page 26, Line 23, change 473 to 437; on Page 27, Line 8, change additional to new primary and secondary; on Page 36, Line 27, change Policy 1-26.5 to Policy 1-25.5 and on Line 46, at the end of the sentence, add for areas greater than one acre; on Page 37, Lines 15 and 16, change Policy 1.26.2 and Policy 1.26.3 to Policy 1-25.2 and Policy 1-25.3, and on Line 28, after “native plants”, add shall be encouraged; on Page 39, Line 19, change used to encouraged; and on Page 46, Line 1, change establish an to support the education and certification programs of the Cooperative Extension Service. He discussed the overlay districts, noting that the overall reaching impact is not fully known, until the County adopts the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. He stated that, currently, as proposed, the Wekiva Transitional District would limit the density to a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre. He stated that residential proposals exceeding one dwelling unit per five acres would require a PUD zoning and 50% open space, at which time he noted that DCA has actually recommended 60% open space in these cases. He stated that non-residential development was 35%, which is the identical standard recommended by DCA. He stated that the current zoning within this category ranges from (A) Agriculture to (CFD) Community Facility District and no conflicts would be created in that particular overlay district. He stated that, in the Wekiva Traditional Rural District, the proposed maximum density would be one dwelling unit per five acres, or up to one dwelling unit per three acres, using a PUD and 35% open space. He stated that non-residential would be 35%, however, in said district, there is existing zoning of one dwelling unit per two acres, under the Agricultural Residential zoning district, so the application of that overlay would create potential non-conformity.

Commr. Pool questioned how the County could fix it and was informed by Mr. Sheahan that staff will not know the full impact, until the Future Land Use Map is amended for the 2025 plan. He stated that it could be the pleasure of the Board to remove said policy from the transmittal.

Mr. Minkoff stated that a concern he has about the matter is that the County has a current Comprehensive Plan and it is likely that the amendment could be adopted before the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, which would create inconsistencies with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as its Land Development Regulations.

Mr. Sheahan stated that the Ordinance cannot be adopted before the effective date of the 2025 plan.

Mr. Minkoff stated that that would be the case under their current reading - that they are not going to process amendments, however, noted that that interpretation or Statute may change, particularly in the Wekiva area, if they are interested in trying to get the Wekiva Parkway amendments done and the County is four years down the road trying to adopt a Comprehensive Plan, so the County cannot be assured of it.

Mr. Sheahan stated that the other option is that the Ordinance will come back with the ORC (Objections, Recommendations, and Comments) Report from DCA, so the County could hold off on the second hearing, until those issues are resolved.

Mr. Minkoff interjected that staff could make it consistent, in that case.

Mr. Sheahan informed the Board that, on Page 36, Line 27, of the Ordinance, Policy 1-26.5 should be corrected to read Policy 1-25.5. He stated that, under Paragraph 3, on the same page, staff could add to the last sentence the wording, “for areas greater than one acre”, which he noted would alleviate the need to put in markers for extremely small parcels, or sites, an issue that Mr. Green had addressed during his presentation. He stated that, on Page 37, Line 28, the language, “use of native plants and other drought tolerant species” could be added, to address a concern that only native plants be planted, however, Commr. Hanson pointed out the fact that the current language does not state that said plants must be used. She stated that it could state that said plants shall be encouraged.

It was noted that the sentence shall read, “Use of native plants shall be encouraged...”

Mr. Sheahan stated that, on the same page, on Lines 15 and 16, Policy 1-26.2 and Policy 1-26.3 should be changed to Policy 1-25.2 and Policy 1-25.3. He stated that on Page 46, under Policy 7-4A.10, staff would suggest that, rather than the language, “The County shall establish an education and certification program…”, it should be changed to, “The County shall support the education and certification programs of the Cooperative Extension Service…”, noting that said language would accomplish the same goals. He stated that, with regard to the language encouraging and requiring the use of swales throughout the Ordinance, as alluded to earlier in the meeting by Mr. Bill Ray, the Public Works staff wanted the Board to be aware of the fact that, within the Wekiva Study Area and the Wekiva River Protection Area, swales are encouraged by DCA, in many cases, under the recommended Goals and Policies. He stated that, on Page 39, on Line 19, the Public Works and Transportation staff had a concern about the porous pavement materials requirement, noting that their concerns range from the fact that, occasionally, the materials are not available and they do not hold up as well in all circumstances, so their suggestion is that “shall be used” should be changed to “shall be encouraged”, to give staff some flexibility.

Commr. Hanson questioned what deleting the definition of the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node does to the Ordinance and was informed by Mr. Sheahan that that definition was added to Policy 1-20.4, on Page 16 of the Ordinance. He noted that it is the definition for the entire Urban Compact Node.

Mr. Walter Wood, Senior Hydrogeologist, Environmental Services, addressed the Board stating that some of the work that was done on the Ordinance was done prior to his involvement with it and that a lot things were not included in it, however, noted that staff took the policies recommended by DCA and the Department of Environmental Protection and included them in the Ordinance and they firmed up some of the definitions, as well, so that when a term was used it would be defined. He stated that he was comfortable with what is contained within the Ordinance before the Board this date.

Commr. Hanson questioned how much involvement there was by the landowners that will be affected by the changes, noting that she was very concerned about how it will affect their properties. She stated that she wanted to make sure that they were given due process by the County.

Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that the County had extensive public participation throughout the entire Comprehensive Plan update process, but, particular to this Ordinance, two LPA meetings were held, where the LPA welcomed and invited landowners to speak. She stated that several of them did speak and that there was opposition to some of the definitions, but that some of them were very encouraged by the additional protection measures that are going to be provided by the Ordinance. Upon being questioned about the matter, she noted that she was satisfied that the Ordinance was ready for submittal to DCA.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved transmittal of the Wekiva River Protection Area Text Amendment Ordinance to DCA, as corrected and modified by staff, as follows: On Page 6, Line 20, strike Ocala; On Page 26, Line 23, change 473 to 437; on Page 27, Line 8, change additional to new primary and secondary; on Page 36, Line 27, change Policy 1-26.5 to Policy 1-25.5 and on Line 46, at the end of the sentence, add for areas greater than one acre; on Page 37, Lines 15 and 16, change Policy 1.26.2 and Policy 1.26.3 to Policy 1-25.2 and Policy 1-25.3, and on Line 28, after “native plants”, add shall be encouraged; on Page 39, Line 19, change used to encouraged; and on Page 46, Line 1, change establish an to support the education and certification programs of the Cooperative Extension Service.

Commr. Stivender was not present for the discussion and vote.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

CHANGE IN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that the Board Meeting scheduled for August 8, 2006, was being cancelled and that the Budget Workshop that was scheduled for said meeting will be held on August 15, 2006, after the Regular Board Meeting.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

SCHOOL CONCURRENCY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, informed the Board that, based on the comments that were in the newspaper this date, the School Board has agreed to a level of service of 100% up to 125%, where core facilities allow; that it has been indicated that they are going to agree to charter schools, with the provision that, if future litigation allows them to remove it, that they will be free to do that, in keeping with the School Board Association’s policy; and that everyone seems to be happy with the school concurrency areas, at this point in time.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the plan is to resolve those last three issues on Thursday, at the meeting scheduled to be held at Lake Receptions, at 1:00 p.m., and, hopefully, the Interlocal Agreement will be completed, before the meeting scheduled to be held on August 23, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., at Lake Receptions, allowing the Board to review it, line by line, and immediately start adopting the agreements after said meeting.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISPATCH CENTER AND OFFICE

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is to be located in the new Public Safety Complex; however, it has been determined that, during the design process, the space that was to be allocated for EMS in the footprint of the building was left out and that the Board needed to approve for staff to direct the architects to design an area that would include EMS. He asked that said item be placed on the Agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for staff to direct the architects to design an area in the new Public Safety Complex that would include space for a dispatch center and office for EMS.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

LETTERS ENDORSING CENTRAL FLORIDA SPORTS COMMISSION’S BID

TO HOST 2008 USA TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIP EVENTS

Commr. Hanson requested the Board’s approval for her to send out letters endorsing the Central Florida Sports Commission’s bid to host the 2008 USA Track and Field National Junior Olympic Cross Country Championships, the USA Track and Field National Club Cross Country Championships, and the USA Masters Outdoor Track and Field Championships.

It was the consensus of the Board that Commr. Hanson send out said letters.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

____________________________________

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK