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