A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEPTEMBER
26, 2006
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
September 26, 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; Cindy
Hall, 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
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1
to the Agenda, containing one item under Other Business, a clarification of the
terms of Mr. Jim Miller and Mr. Ken LaRoe, who were appointed to the Public
Land Acquisition Advisory Council on September 19, 2006. She also corrected a typo in the Fee
Schedules for Fiscal Year 2006/2007, under Tab 1 of the County Manager’s
Consent Agenda, noting that, under Growth Management, Zoning/Customer Services,
Administrative Appeals, it shows the old fee of $140.00 and the new fee as
$500.00; however, the change was not calculated properly. She stated that the new fee should be
$360.00, rather than $500.00.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr.
Stivender asked that Tab 1, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, be
pulled for discussion regarding some other items in the Fee Schedules.
Commr.
Hanson asked that Tab 4 be pulled, to allow the individual representing the
Peanut Butter (P.O.P.) project to make a brief presentation to the Board.
Commr.
Cadwell asked that Tab 6 be pulled, to allow Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community
Services Director, to give the Board a brief overview of why the County is
requesting approval to transmit the Local Housing Assistance Plan to the
Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Community
Services
Request
for approval and authorization of signature on Resolution No. 2006-189, to amend the Hurricane Housing
Assistance Plan, effective the State’s Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
Request
for approval for VolunteerLAKE to apply for small grants, monetary support, and
donations under $2,500.00, to support volunteer programming for the Volunteer
Center; and authorization for the County Manager to sign documents associated
with those requests.
Request for approval of the submission of
application for “My Safe Florida Home” Program funds; and authorization for the
County Manager to sign the application.
Procurement
Request for approval and execution of contract with Dr.
Yvette Vinton, for veterinary services.
Public
Safety
Request
for approval of updated Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Mount Dora.
Request
for approval and execution of Modification No. 1 to the State Homeland Security
Grant (SHSG) Agreement, to (1) reinstate the original Agreement, which expired
on August 31, 2006; and (2) to extend the Agreement until December 31, 2006.
BUDGET
FEE
SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007
Commr.
Stivender stated that she was concerned about the $400.00 fee, with regard to
Exhibit E of the Fee Schedules for Fiscal Year 2006/2007, under Growth
Management, Appeal to Building Officials Decision, noting that she feels the
fee is too high.
Commr.
Pool noted that he had the same concern, in that he did not feel a $400.00 fee
was appropriate.
Mr.
Jason Showe, Revenue Coordinator, Office of Budget, addressed the Board stating
that he had followed up with the Growth Management Department, with regard to
the Commissioners’ request, and the information he was given was that
administrative appeals take up a lot of staff’s time and the County does not
have a mechanism to recoup the costs involved with administrative appeals,
thus, their reason for said fee.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she felt the fee should be reduced and questioned how
staff came up with said amount, to which Mr. Showe responded that he did not
have an answer to that question.
Commr.
Pool concurred, stating that he also questioned the County going from nothing
to a $400.00 fee.
Commr.
Stivender then asked the County Attorney to explain the reason for the $360.00
fee to be charged for Administrative Appeals, questioning what type of appeals
it would pertain to.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it would be appeals to the Board of
Adjustment, where the decision of the Zoning official was being challenged,
however, noted that it would be unusual to see such an appeal, in that it does
not happen that often.
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that, even though it does not happen very
often, it is a way for the County to recoup staff’s time that is put into the
preparation of the information that goes to the Board of Adjustment.
Commr.
Stivender then questioned the fact that, with regard to the Sale of Maps and
Publications, the County is going from nothing for the 60” x 60” map to $75.00
and then increasing the fee for a copy of the Future Land Use Map from $20.00
to $37.50. She questioned how it
compared to what the Public Works Department charges for their maps and whether
it costs more for the County to make the maps than it does Public Works.
Mr.
Showe stated that it was his understanding that it is a higher quality of map
that the County is able to provide this year, which explains the increase in
the cost of the maps.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from Budget for approval of Resolution No. 2006-188, adopting the Fee
Schedules for Fiscal Year 2006/2007, deleting the $400.00 fee being charged to
appeal the Building Official’s decision and clarification of the Administrative
Appeal, to show that it covers more than just staff’s time.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
PEANUT
BUTTER P.O.P. PROJECT
Ms.
Helena Osborne-Ponsi, representing VolunteerLAKE, addressed the Board and
introduced Ms. Jennifer Sullivan, a sophomore in high school, noting that she
would be giving a presentation about the Peanut Butter P.O.P. “People
Overcoming the Problem of Hunger” Project.
She stated that there are quite a few organizations that are embracing
the project, being the 4-H, the University of Florida – IFAS Extension, Second
Harvest Food Bank, Publix, the Children Services Council, Elder Affairs,
Veterans Services, Library Services, Housing and Community Development, Teen
Court, and VolunteerLAKE.
Ms.
Sullivan addressed the Board and gave them pertinent facts about hunger in
Central Florida, noting that approximately 53,900 different Central Floridians
receive food assistance in any given week.
She stated that 65% of the pantries, 64% of the soup kitchens, and 45%
of the shelters surveyed report an increase in the number of clients since
2001. She stated that, with the rise of
Central Floridians receiving help from food pantries, they are in need of food,
and one of the most needed items is peanut butter, because most food banks
cannot purchase it, due to its cost, thus, the reason she chose to collect peanut
butter. She stated that October 28,
2006, 4-H Clubs will be at local Publix stores across Lake County, where they
will be collecting peanut butter and will be distributing information about the
problem of hunger, as well as about the 4-H Program and the organizations that
partner with them. She stated that her
main goal for this project is to spread awareness about the problem of hunger
and, by doing this, make a difference in the community. She stated that, with the Board’s help, they
can make a difference.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from Community Services for approval and endorsement of the Peanut Butter
P.O.P. “People Overcoming the Problem of Hunger” project for National Make a
Difference Day, on Saturday, October 28, 2006; and permission for VolunteerLAKE
to partner with Peanut Butter P.O.P., to make October 28, 2006, a countywide
awareness event.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PLAN
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community
Services Director, addressed the Board stating that, for quite some time, staff
has been having some discussions with the representative from Affordable
Housing by Lake, about the development and retention of workforce housing in
the County, noting that one of the problems has been that the citizens who make
up the workforce have been unable to get into housing. He stated that, based on some prodding and
advice from Affordable Housing by Lake and the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, staff is recommending some changes to the Local Housing Assistance
Plan (LHAP), which he noted was just approved by the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation on September 1, 2006. He
stated that they want to restore the rehabilitation assistance for moderate
income households, noting that the County has not served that segment of the
population for quite some time, because it has been serving very low and low
income households. He stated that staff
is also recommending that the County increase the home purchase maximum awards
to $35,000 for very low income households; $30,000 for low income households;
and $10,000 for moderate income households.
He stated that they want to use the same maximum purchase price for new
and existing homes and increase the amount to $247,387.00, which is 90% of the
Orlando MSA average price, per the United States Treasury. He stated that they also included in this
some definitions of essential service personnel and established preferences for
households with members in those types of occupations. He stated that they defined the essential
service personnel as personnel or individuals who are employed in occupations
or professions in which they are considered to be essential service personnel,
such as law enforcement, public safety, medical personnel, education, and
public works.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact
that it is retroactive to July 1, 2006, so someone currently in the system
would qualify.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved a request from
Community Services for approval of the amendments to the Local Housing
Assistance Plan, retroactive to July 1, 2006; and authorization for the
Department of Community Services to transmit the Plan to the Florida Housing
Finance Corporation (FHFC).
Commr.
Stivender asked that staff bring a status report back to the Board at a later
date, to see how many people have actually applied for assistance in the
moderate income level, as well as a list of the income ranges.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
RATES FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved a request from
the County Attorney for approval of rates for outside counsel.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL
BUSINESS
PUBLIC WORKS
PAYOFF OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND
RECORDING OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works
Director, addressed the Board and requested approval to accept a payoff of a
Special Assessment that was done in 2002 and to record the Satisfaction of
Lien, noting that they are trying to clean up their books.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved a request from
Public Works for approval of a request to accept a payment, as payoff of
Special Assessment No. 694113; and approval to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
PUBLIC
HEARING
ORDINANCE INCREASING AMOUNT OF
ADDITIONAL COSTS COLLECTED
IN
CIVIL TRAFFIC PENALTY CASES
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for
its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION
9-15, ENTITLED COLLECTION
OF ADDITIONAL COSTS IN CIVIL TRAFFIC
PENALTY CASES, INCREASING
THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COSTS
COLLECTED IN CIVIL TRAFFIC
PENALTY CASES; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING
FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
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 Ordinance No. 2006-95, amending Section 9-15
of the Code, increasing the amount of additional costs collected in civil
traffic penalty cases.
REZONINGS
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board stating that the Rezoning Meeting
had been duly advertised, at which time he noted that there was one change to
the Agenda, being a request for a 30 day continuance for Rezoning Case No.
PH80-06-3, Florida-Georgia Lutheran Church, Michael Mahler, Vice President,
Tracking No. 93-06-PUD. He stated that
Mr. Steven J. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, submitted a letter
requesting the 30 day continuance to the Board Meeting scheduled for October
24, 2006, to allow the applicant time to provide additional traffic information
to staff.
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. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request for a 30 day continuance for
Rezoning Case No. PH80-06-3, Florida-Georgia Lutheran Church, Michael Mahler,
Vice President, Tracking No. 93-06-PUD, a request to rezone a 186.7 acre
parcel, presently the site of the Woodlands Lutheran Camp, from CFD (Community
Facility District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the creation of a 226
unit residential PUD.
At
this time, each Commissioner disclosed, for the record, those cases where they
had spoken with the applicants, or the applicants’ representatives, prior to
this meeting.
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. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool 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. 2006-96
Ralph and Ruth Butler
Bright House Network
Rezoning Case No. PH83-06-2
Tracking No. 106-06-CFD
A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community
Facility District), as presented.
Ordinance No. 2006-97
Vantaggio Investment Group, LLC
Amy Imilsis Velazquez
Rezoning Case No. CUP06/8/2-5
Tracking No. 90-06-CUP/AMD
Amend
CUP06/4/1-5, to increase height of communications tower from 116 feet to 225
feet, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH82-06-3 – A
TO R-3 – STEPHEN KANE/DAN MATTHYS,
PRINKIN
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS – TRACKING NO. 108-06-Z
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board
and presented this case, a request to rezone a site consisting of 20.38 acres
of a 40+/- acre tract, located in the Howey in the Hills area, south of Number
Two Road on Silverwood Lane, from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium
Residential). The site lies within the
Urban Expansion and Suburban future land use categories. The Urban Expansion future land use category
allows four dwelling units per acre, and the Suburban future land use category
allows one dwelling unit per five acres.
She stated that the applicant is requesting the R-3 Zoning District for
a single family residential subdivision.
Ms.
Allen continued her analysis of the request, indicating that staff finds it to
be consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and
Comprehensive Plan; school concurrency language has been included in the
Ordinance; and the rezoning request and its proposed land use is consistent and
compatible with the surrounding land uses and development patterns in the area,
therefore, recommends approval of the request.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr.
Dan Matthys, Prinkin Development, addressed the Board stating that he agreed
with staff’s assessment and would address any concerns the Board might have
about the request.
Ms.
Patricia Perez, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, noting that a site plan, school impact, roads, and
basic things like water have not been addressed. She asked that the Board wait until those
issues were resolved, before approving the request.
It
was noted that, as the site plan is reviewed, said issues will be addressed.
Mr.
Matthys readdressed the Board and responded to the concerns that were brought
to the Board’s attention by Ms. Perez, noting that capacity is available on
Number Two Road; they are discussing the issue of water being provided to the
site with the Town of Howey in the Hills; they are discussing with the
developer to the east the possibility of connecting to that development, noting
that the current access to the site is a 66 foot wide easement that comes down
Number Two Road; and they will comply with all the school concurrency
requirements.
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, by a 4-1
vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Ordinance No. 2006-98, Stephen Kane/Dan Matthys, Prinkin Development
Consultants, LLC, Rezoning Case No. PH82-06-3,Tracking No. 108-06-Z, a request
to rezone a site consisting of 20.38 acres of a 40+/- acre tract from A
(Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for a single family residential
subdivision, as presented.
Commr.
Hill voted “No”.
REZONING CASE NO. PH75-06-4 – A
TO PUD – WILEY DAVIS, JR. AND ANN
DAVIS/ LAND USE ASSOCIATES,
LLC/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING
NO.
80-06-PUD
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request
to rezone a 25 acre parcel, presently zoned (A) Agriculture and located within
the non-Wekiva portion of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node to PUD
(Planned Unit Development), for the creation of a 25 unit single family
residential development, to be restricted to one dwelling unit per acre. A request for rezoning to R-1 (Rural Residential)
was made to the Lake County Zoning Board on November 2, 2005, and to the Board
of County Commissioners on November 22, 2005.
At the November 22nd public hearing, the Board voted
unanimously to deny the application, without prejudice, citing concerns over
the project’s compatibility with neighboring properties. It was the position of the Board that the
applicants should petition for a rezoning to PUD, rather than a “straight”
zoning category. The applicants complied
with said request, submitting a new application and a conceptual plan depicting
25 lots, each with a minimum area of one-half acre, and 8.07 acres of open
space, including a 3.88 acre community park.
Two of the public schools that will serve the project, being Round Lake
Elementary and Mount Dora Middle School, are presently over capacity;
therefore, it is the position of staff that, prior to final plat approval, the
applicants shall obtain a written statement from the Lake County School Board
that adequate school capacity exists for each level of school, that the
development is exempt from concurrency requirements, or that appropriate
mitigation has been accepted by the School Board for the development. Staff finds the desired use consistent with
all other provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and
Comprehensive Plan, therefore, recommends approval of the request.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board
stating that he discussed with the School Board the issue of Round Lake Elementary
School and the new elementary school that is being proposed as School “J”, and
the School Board’s position is that, because Round Lake Elementary is a charter
school, it is open to everybody to attend, as required by State law, and that
is why the attendance zones do not apply to said school, as they do to
non-charter schools. He reviewed the
history of the project and the three issues that the Zoning Board and the Board
previously dealt with. He stated that
the applicants revised their original plan, which is the new plan before the
Board this date. He stated that the
Zoning Board has recommended approval of the plan, by a unanimous vote, and
staff has presented a positive report, as well.
Mr.
Tony Roberts, the developer, addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey,
and discussed what is being proposed for the development in question, as well
as answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding said development. He stated that he clustered all the open space
in the middle, to create a centralized park, consisting of approximately 3.88
acres, at which time he displayed a photograph of the park area and various
plats for the different phases of the proposed development (Applicant’s
Composite Exhibit A), with regard to the issue of the location of the
easements, which he submitted, for the record, noting that each lot is one-half
acre or larger, to accommodate homes of a minimum square footage of living
space of 3,000 square feet and there will be a buffer between the existing
development to the south and the proposed development of approximately 250
feet. He stated that the lots in the
development to the south are one-third acre in size, noting that his goal with
having the larger lots is to be able to accommodate larger houses, thus, the
reason for the 3,000 square foot minimum requirement for the houses. He noted that, if he went to one-third acre
lots, rather than the proposed one-half acre lots, they would not accommodate
the larger houses. He then answered
questions from the Board regarding the buffer and the retention areas for the
development, at which time Mr. Richey stated that the developer would not have
a problem with having in the PUD a provision which states that the water
retention area will be landscaped with trees, etc.
Mr.
Tom Terrill, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to the
request, stating that there is ongoing litigation concerning the issue of the
easement from Dr. Eric Coe to Wiley C. Davis, Jr. and Ann Davis through the
Wolf Branch subdivision on the south side of the subject property, at which
time it was noted that there was information (two letters from Attorney James
L. Homich, indicating that use of said easement would be illegal, and copy of
recorded easement) contained in the Board’s backup material regarding same.
Mr.
Jack Baggelaar, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to
the request, stating that the developer wants to take the safe, quiet streets
where residents take walks and gather to speak to one another and where their
children ride their bicycles and play and replace it with large, heavy
equipment coming and going, endless contractors’ vehicles driving up and down
their streets, construction debris in their yards, and strangers driving down
their streets, where their children play, for the next three to five years,
because the proposed development does not have its own entrance – the issue is
in litigation. He stated that the
applicants have neglected their own entrance and have put the burden on the
people around them to provide them an entrance.
He asked the Board to deny the request.
Mr.
John Ingersoll, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to
the request, stating that the analysis of the request falls short of
considering many of the important requirements of school concurrency, noting
that two schools that will serve the proposed development are over-capacity and
one is under-capacity. He stated that
the figures that were used were from May 24, 2006, and it is an entirely
different picture now. He stated that
the analysis should be more complete, so that there will not be another year
with Lake County not completing at least one new school, noting that Lake
County is the only county in a seven county area that did not complete one new
school last year. He further elaborated
on the matter, noting that it is the school children that are going to have to
pay the price, when big subdivisions begin to have their assault on Round Lake
Elementary, noting that it and School “J”, if the County ever gets it, will be
over-capacity by 2009. He stated that
the area needs a moratorium, until things get sorted out, noting that
development after development has been approved, but not one new school has
been built. He stated that school
concurrency has to be pursued in a more expeditious manner, or there is going
to be a disaster in that area of the County.
Mr.
Mike Jeffes, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to the
request, at which time he reviewed and submitted, for the record, a packet of
information (Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A), containing a photograph of the
park alluded to earlier and where the fence line is, in comparison to where the
line of homes are located, showing the distance from the park and the next property,
along with various documents, pertaining to the request. He stated that, if the developer wants to
build houses in the area, the residents of the adjacent development do not want
to see their property lines coming back to said fence, at which time he noted
that, to protect the houses that are located along the back side, there should
be at least a 100 foot setback from said fence, on the Davis’ property. He stated that they do not want the proposed
development buffering their conservation area.
He then discussed the issue of open space and as to whether it was going
to be conservation, preservation, and common areas, or whether it was going to
be somebody’s backyard. He stated that,
on November 22, 2005, the proposed plan had 25 homes on 25 acres, 33% open
space, and one-half acre lots; however, there has since been a configuration of
the homes, but the statistics have not changed.
He referred to the Minutes from the Board of County Commissioners’
Meeting of November 22, 2005, reading into the record an excerpt from said
Minutes. He stated that the proposed
development was advertised on the Internet on April 25, 2006, and it was shown
as having 25 lots, from one-half acre and up.
He stated that the Ordinance shows the development consisting of 120 +/-
acres, with a minimum of 50% of the property being dedicated as open space on
the final plat, incorporating the 25% conservation open space. He stated that
Commr. Hanson stated in the Minutes from the November 22nd meeting
that the density of one dwelling unit per acre was still reasonable and would
meet the point system, but that she would not want to see the open space be any
less than the open space requirements of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, so it
would probably need to go back to the drawing board. He stated that the developer went back to the
drawing board, but left all the plans there, because, statistic-wise, they did
not change. He stated that all the
developer did was reconfigure the homes.
He stated that the proposed plan shows this date 25 homes on 25 acres;
32.2% open space, which represents 8.071 acres; and one-half acre lots, so they
are short 18%, or approximately four and one-half acres, of open space. He stated that the developer can make the
proposed plan work, noting that they need to go back to the drawing board and
have four and one-half acres of open space added on to what they already have,
which they can do by eliminating nine homes.
He stated that they can still build their homes on one-half acre sites
and they can still have their own water and septic.
Mr.
Francois Tete, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to
the request, at which time he discussed concerns he had about the proposed park
and the issue of the easement, noting that he would go along with the developer
constructing 15 houses on the site in question, but no more.
Ms.
Nancy Husebye, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board, in opposition to
the request, stating that she was not against Mr. Davis building on his
property, however, noted that she lives in the adjacent subdivision and is not
in support of the entrance to the proposed subdivision going through her
subdivision. She stated that there are a
lot of families with children and she is a walker and does not want to worry
about increased traffic coming through their subdivision, creating a safety
issue with the children and the walkers in her neighborhood.
Ms.
Ann Davis, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that, before any of the
people that addressed the Board this date, in opposition to the request, lived
in the area, she and her husband fought growth in the area, as has everybody
else, but growth is coming. She stated
that she feels what is being proposed is fabulous, questioning whether the
adjoining residents would rather have apartments than the houses being
proposed. She stated that the Board
promised her and her husband the road that they need in 1998 and that, as she
understands it, the road is in her and her husband’s name this date. She stated that there is a video of the Board
telling her husband that, if she and her husband would allow the homes in the
park where those people opposed to the proposed development live to come in,
they would have access to their property, because they donated an easement
across the front of their property for said development. She stated that she did not understand how
anything could get turned so backwards, where she and her husband will be
locked in and not have right of way to sell their property. She stated that said individuals would not be
living in their subdivision, had she and her husband not signed off on the
easement allowing a roadway to be constructed to their subdivision.
Mr.
Richey readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made
to the Board by those individuals in opposition to the request.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that it was his understanding that the right of way issue was
going to be settled in court and questioned whether any action the Board would
take this date would hinder either side of the issue.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that staff has examined the court file
and there is a bond requirement that, in order for the lis pendens to stay in
effect, at the time of platting, the applicant will have to prove to the County
that they have access to a county maintained road and that, if they were to
lose the lawsuit, they would not be able to construct the proposed subdivision
through the easement in question, but, if they were to win the lawsuit, they
would be able to do so.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she felt the revised plan was better than the original plan,
which she elaborated on, and noted that the issue of the road will be worked
out in court, and that, as far as the issue of school concurrency was
concerned, regardless of what the perception might be, the steps that the
Board, the School Board, and the Municipalities have done to move forward with
school concurrency have been tremendous and there will not be development,
until school concurrency is met, or the School Board allows those developments
to move forward.
Commr.
Stivender questioned the issue of the additional landscaping being required
around the retention areas and as to whether it was covered well enough in the
PUD.
Mr.
Hartenstein stated that it was not covered well enough in the PUD, noting that,
when it was mentioned earlier in the meeting, he was going to ask for
clarification regarding the matter, before the Board voted on the request, if a
motion was made for approval, that those areas be landscaped. He stated that he felt the developer should
be required to meet the Type B buffer planting requirements for said
areas. He stated that there was also
mention of a minimum house size of 3,000 square feet and questioned whether it
would be the Board’s desire to have that incorporated in the language of the
PUD, as well.
Commr.
Pool stated that it would depend on whether the Board wants more open space and
smaller houses, or larger houses and less open space.
Commr.
Hanson stated that, with regard to the landscaping, she would want there to be
more of a design in the landscaping, rather than just a perimeter buffer.
Mr.
Hartenstein interjected that the Board could make it part of the requirement
that it needs to be done through a landscape architect. He stated that the way the Ordinance
currently reads, staff could not require that at the development review stage,
because the proposed development is under 99 units, unless the Ordinance
specified that the landscape plan be prepared by a registered landscape
architect.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she would like to see included in the motion the fact that
the landscaping be designed by a landscape architect, for approval by the
County.
A
motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Stivender that the
Board uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No.
2006-99, Wiley and Ann Davis/Steven
J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH75-06-4, Tracking No. 96-06-PUD, a request
to rezone a 25 acre parcel from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision, as
presented.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to have a landscape
architect do the landscaping for at least the retention areas and that it would
be good to have them do it for the park portion of the development, as well.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that the Board should just require it for all the open
space areas, at which time Mr. Hartenstein stated that, as far as the buffers
around the PUD was concerned, the applicant is going to be required to have a
landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the PUD. He clarified the fact that, in addition to
that, the Board wants to have the retention areas designed and landscaped by a
landscape architect, as well.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr.
Hill voted “No”.
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At
10:45 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. PH81-06-4 – LM
TO R-2 – OTTO E. BEYER ENTERPRISES,
INC./BOBBIE
F. HINES AND JEANETTE WHITE – TRACKING NO. 110-06-Z
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request
to rezone a .58 acre parcel, presently zoned LM (Light Industrial) and
designated Urban Expansion on the Lake County Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to R-2
(Estate Residential), permitting the applicants to convert the existing single
family residence into a family residential home (assisted living facility
permitting six patients). The subject
parcel is located approximately 1/8 mile west and south of an existing Adult
Congregate Living Facility. It is a
permitted use in all residential zoning districts, according to Table 3.03.03
of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The area is designated on the proposed FLUM
as industrial and, if adopted as proposed, has the potential to cause
incompatibility issues in the future, as the area develops consistent with the
proposed plan. Staff finds the requested
use consistent with all applicable provisions of the County’s LDRs and
Comprehensive Plan, therefore, recommends approval of the request. The Zoning Board recommended approval, by a
7-0 vote, and one letter of opposition was received by the County.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms.
Bobbie Hines and Ms. Jeanette White, the applicants, addressed the Board,
stating that the house will be for individuals with mental disabilities and
will only house four (4) individuals at the present time. They stated that the individuals, who do not
need a lot of assistance, will work at Sunrise ARC, in Leesburg, during the
day. They then answered questions from
the Board regarding the request.
Ms.
Katherine Corbett Christie, the owner of a parcel of property adjacent to the
property in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and
questioned whether said individuals would live by themselves, or whether there
would be staff living in the home, as well.
It
was noted that one or the other of the applicants will be in the facility at all
times – the individuals will never be left by themselves.
Ms.
Christie displayed and submitted, for the record, a photograph of the house in
question and a plat (Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A) showing the property
lines of both the applicants’ and her family’s property. She stated that she was concerned about the
size of the lot and the house, noting that she did not know if the Department
of Children and Families (DCF) and Sunrise ARC has a minimum square footage
requirement or not and that she was concerned about some huge oak trees on the
property that might need to be removed, to accommodate for any driveway that
might be constructed leading to the back of the house.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that the County’s rezoning would not waive the applicants
from any rules or regulations that they will have to abide by with DCF. He stated that any action the Board would
take this date would not control that one way or another.
It was noted that the applicants will not need
to use a driveway that is owned by Ms. Christie and her family to access the
back of the house – they will construct a ramp leading to the back of it.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-100, Otto E. Beyer
Enterprise, Inc./Bobbie Hines and Jeanette White, Rezoning Case No.
PH81-06-4,Tracking No. 110-06-Z, a request to rezone a .58 acre parcel in the
Mount Dora area from LM (Light Industrial) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the
purpose of converting an existing single family residence into a family
residential home (assisted living facility, permitting six patients), as
presented.
REZONING CASE NO. MSP05/10/1-3 –
CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
EXISTING MINING OPERATION
PERMITTED UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
2005-113 – LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES, LLC – TRACKING NO.
109-05-MSP
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board and presented this case, a request
to correct the legal description of the existing mining operation that was
permitted under Ordinance No. 2005-113, as approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on December 20, 2005. He
stated that it was a total mining area of 44.3 acres. He stated that the Board approved the
Ordinance, which allowed a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a Construction and
Demolition (C&D) landfill facility on a 44 +/- acre parcel, located in the
Agriculture zoning district and in the Rural future land use category. The applicant submitted an application
indicating 44.3 acres and provided Property Record Cards legally describing the
property, which was only for a total of 40 acres. It was the applicant’s intention, based on
the application submitted, to mine and reclaim with C&D a total of 44.3
acres. Staff has reviewed the owner’s
overall legal description and concurs with the applicant to include the
remaining 4.3 acres to the subject mine and allow the applicant to proceed with
the mining of the property, as approved.
As previously stated at the Board Meeting on December 20, 2005, staff
finds the request consistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations
(LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan and, in addition, the Lake County Water Resource
Division has reviewed the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports and is able
to support the request. Staff recommends
approval, as conditioned in Ordinance No. 2005-113, to amend the Ordinance
amending the legal description to include the 4.3 acres to the Mining Site Plan
operation. There are no changes to the
Mining Site Plan or the Operation Plan.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr.
Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board
stating that, in the Ordinance that was adopted by the Board, it states 44.3
acres and contains both of the alternate key numbers for the two
properties. He stated that what happened
is that only one of the alternate key numbers, which is the 40 acre parcel, was
included in the legal advertisement that went out. He stated that the applicants’ application
contained 44.3 acres and every site plan that was submitted, during the six
hours of testimony that was heard the day of the hearing, and every site plan
that was referred to, when meeting with the residents in the area, referenced the
44.3 acres. He stated that it was simply
an oversight and the applicants are requesting that it be corrected. He noted that the applicants have received a
Notice of Intent from the Department of Environmental Protection of their
intent to issue the permit for this project.
Mr.
Robert Newsome, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, and submitted, for the record, a handout
(Opposition’s Exhibit A) containing photographs of the County’s notice to
rezone the property in question. He
stated that the notice contained no date, time, or reference – it was just a
blank notice, much like their last notice, noting that they did not fill in all
the information. He stated that, being
the notice was not posted properly, by the County’s own Ordinance, it requires
that the notification be properly posted and where those cases are not properly
posted, the Board may postpone or deny the application, without prejudice. He stated that the last time this case was
heard, the Board Chambers was full, which is a pretty good indication that the
residents in the area were not properly notified about the public hearing. He noted that he just happened to see the
notice one day, while driving by it, and checked to see if it was the notice
from previous public hearing. He asked
that, should the Board approve the request, they require some of the traffic
improvements that they inquired about when the case was previously heard by
them be done, such as turn lanes, repair of CR 455, etc.
It
was noted that whatever was required by the Board at that time would continue
to be required and that the Board’s approval this date would only be to correct
the scrivener’s error contained in the Ordinance.
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. Hill and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-101, Lake Environmental
Resources, LLC/Bruce Duncan, P.A./James Golden, Rezoning Case No. MSP05/10/1-3,
Tracking No. 109-05-MSP/AMD, correcting the legal description of an existing
mining operation permitted under Ordinance No. 2005-113, as presented.
ADDENDUM
NO. 1
OTHER
BUSINESS
CLARIFICATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO
PUBLIC LAND ACQUISITION
ADVISORY
COUNCIL
Commr.
Stivender clarified the terms of Mr. Jim Miller and Mr. Ken LaRoe, who were
appointed to the Public Land Acquisition Advisory Council on September 19,
2006, noting that Mr. Miller’s term will expire October 1, 2007, and Mr.
LaRoe’s term will expire October 1, 2008.
It
was the consensus of the Board that said clarification be accepted.
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
SUNRISE
ARC VISITATION
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he and his staff have
embarked on a program where one day a month they visit Sunrise ARC of Lake
County, Inc., an employee service provider that deals with disabled people, and
have a birthday celebration for those individuals having a birthday that month. He noted that his office will be closed for a
couple of hours on that particular day each month.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
CANCELLATION
OF WORKSHOP MEETINGS
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that, typically, a workshop is scheduled for
the second Tuesday of each month, but she has nothing to bring to the Board on
October 10th or November 14th, 2006, therefore, does not
plan to schedule a workshop for those days.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL - DISTRICT 1
THIRD
ANNUAL ELDER SYMPOSIUM LUNCHEON
Commr.
Hill reminded the Board that Thursday, September 28, 2006, is the Third Annual
Elder Symposium Luncheon, to be held at Lake Receptions, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. She noted that Dr. Todd Husty, from
Channel 2, will be a keynote speaker at the luncheon and invited everyone to
attend.
2-1-1
SYSTEM
Commr.
Hill informed the Board that it has been several years since the County looked
at the 2-1-1 System and that she is getting more and more requests that the
County look at it again, therefore, would like for Ms. Cindy Hall, County
Manager, and Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, to revisit
it. She stated that it was her
understanding that there are a lot more opportunities for the County to partner
with private and non-profit organizations, with the possibility of one of them
becoming the lead agency, rather than government, but that government would be
included in it.
It
was noted that staff would look into the matter and bring some recommendations
back to the Board at a later date.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2
WEST
ORANGE/SOUTH LAKE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
Commr.
Pool stated that he is the Liaison Commissioner for the West Orange/South Lake
Transportation Task Force and that an issue will be coming before them at their
next meeting, with regard to whether or not they should continue their lobbying
efforts. He stated that their lobbyist,
who was hired by the Task Force, has been very successful in Tallahassee in the
past and questioned whether the Board wanted to continue with said lobbyist,
noting that he did not want to vote on the matter, without bringing it to the
Board’s attention.
It
was the consensus of the Board that the Task Force continue with its lobbying
efforts.
MAGNOLIA
PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, LLC REZONING CASE
Commr.
Pool stated that an issue has come up involving Rezoning Ordinance No. 2006-8,
Magnolia Property Associates, LLC, noting that, when said rezoning case was
approved, certain things were deleted from the Ordinance, one being that no
automobile related activities, such as service and repair, would be allowed;
however, it has appeared in the Ordinance as one of the things that would be
allowed, so the residents of Magnolia Pointe Subdivision would like for the
matter to be readdressed. It was noted
that Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Magnolia Property Associates,
confirmed that said use was not intended for the site in question.
Staff
was directed to meet with the property owner regarding the matter and bring a
report back to the Board at a later date.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3
BOUNDLESS
PLAYGROUND DEDICATION CEREMONY
Commr.
Stivender updated the Board on the issue of the Boundless Playground dedication
ceremony, noting that she is trying to get Governor Jeb Bush to come to Lake
County for said ceremony, to be held sometime during the month of November,
after the elections, but prior to him leaving office. She noted that everyone will be invited to
attend said ceremony.
CHAMBER
ALLIANCE OF LAKE COUNTY
Commr.
Stivender informed the Board that she is working with Mr. Robert Johnson, with
the Chamber Alliance of Lake County, regarding Lake County Days, scheduled to
be held in Tallahassee in February or March of 2007.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4
EVALUATIONS
FOR COUNTY MANAGER AND COUNTY ATTORNEY
Commr.
Hanson brought up for discussion the issue of the evaluations for the County
Manager and the County Attorney, noting that the Board had received the tallies
on their performances, which she noted were all very good. She stated that she feels the County is very
fortunate to have them in their positions and would recommend a 4% increase in
their salaries.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 4% increase in salary for the County Manager
and the County Attorney.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
REGARDING
THE WEKIVA AREA
Commr.
Hanson stated that Commr. Cadwell had brought up for discussion the issues of
the Comprehensive Plan amendments and school concurrency, with regard to the
Wekiva, in trying to work with Tallahassee, to get those items approved,
however, noted that the County is in a moratorium position, with regard to
them. She stated that the Board was
going to see if the County could be granted any leniency regarding said issues,
but, after speaking with a representative on Friday, feels there is no way that
it will happen, without a legislative act.
She stated that, in the same token, she was not sure it was terribly
important, because the County is following school concurrency and will be
abiding by it; and, with regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendments, noted
that Tallahassee is locked in, but that whatever is in effect today regarding
the Wekiva will continue in effect, so the County’s old rules are applying,
rather than the new ones. She stated
that she does not feel there is much that the County can do about it, but that
whatever influence Commr. Cadwell has in Tallahassee will be appreciated.
APPOINTMENTS TO MT.
PLYMOUTH-SORRENTO PLANNING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Commr.
Hanson stated that there are four individuals that are up for reappointment to the
Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, but that she would rather
wait and let the new Board make those reappointments or appointments. She stated that it will mean that there will
be a little bit of a gap, because said individuals’ terms expire on October 11,
2006, but she feels that the Committee can continue on, in that there will be
enough members for a quorum, should there be a need to hold any meetings before
said reappointments or appointments are made.
RAISING
THE GAS TAX
Commr.
Hanson stated that several years ago the Board looked at raising the gas tax
and she feels the time has come for them to look at it again, noting that the
County’s road needs are tremendous. She
stated that it would require a four-fifths vote and that, as she understood it,
if it were to be approved, it would not be implemented until 2008. She stated that staff had put together some
figures, indicating what said tax would mean to the County, and questioned
whether the Board felt they should look into the matter again.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he would be hard pressed to support it, at this point in
time, and that he did not feel there was any way the Board could sell to the
public the fact that it is a good idea.
Commr.
Pool commended Commr. Hanson for her efforts, however, noted that he would not
be able to vote for a fifth penny increase at this time either.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
____________________________________
CATHERINE
C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK