A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 28, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday November 28, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill; Elaine Renick; Linda Stewart; and Debbie Stivender.  Others present were Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Commr. Welton Cadwell, Chairman, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that there is a change to the two Budget items in Tab 1, which are year end cleanup items for the Fiscal Year.  She clarified that the total transfer in Tab 1, Item 1 is $722,434.00.  She also stated that the Item 2 figure that is in the Agenda book is actually correct; however, in the Agenda that was handed out, the revenue that is received should be $3,175.00.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he would have to leave early and would be gone all week at a meeting, and he requested the Board to appoint Commr. Hill as the temporary Vice-Chairman while he is out of town in case something needed to be signed. 

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved adding the appointment of Commr. Hill as temporary Vice-Chairman to the Agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved appointing Commr. Hill as temporary Vice-Chairman while Commr. Cadwell is out of town.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Stivender stated that she wanted to pull Tab 8 so that Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, could explain to the public why the price on that project is so high.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 7, as follows:

Budget

Request for approval of Budget transfer in the amount of $722,434.00 - Various Funds, Various Departments, reconciliation of outstanding account line balances for FY 2006. County policy stipulates that actual expenditures cannot exceed the budget for a major object within a fund.  A major object includes:  Personal Services, Operating Expenses, Capital Outlay, and Debt Service.  Actual expenditures were in excess of the budget for several major objects in various funds. Documents will be provided under separate cover.

Request for approval of Resolution No. 2006-220 to amend the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 in the amount of $3,175 deposited into Conservation Resource Management Fee and provide appropriations for the disbursement for Regular Salaries.  The Board of County Commissioners has requested and been awarded $150,000 in funds under a cost reimbursement grant, of which $12,800 is estimated to be received in Fiscal Year 2005/2006.  The actual grant receipt was $3,175 greater than anticipated.  The funds will provide administrative support for implementation and support of the Mobile Irrigation Lab Program.

Community Services

            Request for approval for the Board to endorse a free legal seminar for landlords entitled “Avoid Liability: What Every Landlord Should Know About Fair Housing and Landlord/Tenant Law.”  The seminar will be held on December 4, 2006, from 9:00 to 12:00 at the Lake County Agricultural Center.

            Request for approval of agreement with Community Care Health Services pursuant to the September 19, 2006 Board meeting, and authorize signature by the chairman to sign subsequent contracts and other related documents contingent on County Attorney approval.

            Request for approval of agreement with We Care of Lake County for delivery of Coordinated, Comprehensive Primary and Specialty Healthcare for medically indigent residents.

Economic Growth and Redevelopment

Request for approval of an application for the Transportation Impact Fee Deferral Incentive Program for KZMSS, LLLP.

Growth Management

Request for approval and execution of a Release of Fine, property owner – Karen Wells, Code Case No. 2004100078 – Commission District 5.

            Request for approval and execution of a Release of Fine, property owner – Marshall H. and Betty L. Gaard, Code Case No. 2005080233 – Commission District 5.

            Commr. Stivender explained that Tab 8 was an approval of the bid on a contract with Art Walker Construction, Inc., and Public Works has been working with the City of Tavares on it for quite some time.  The original bid came in at $800,000.00, and she wanted the public to understand that this project was ahead of some of the other projects that people have been inquiring about.  She commented that this project takes money away from those projects and prevents them from being done in a timelier manner in order to complete this one.  Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that the original estimate was done about three years ago, for about $880,000, but the price of asphalt has tripled in the last two years.  Therefore, this is factored into the construction costs, and there have also been some modifications to the project to make it work.  Mr. Stivender explained that this is a project that connects Dead River Road to Woodlea Road, which would allow people to go from the ball fields on Woodlea Road to homes on Dead River Road without having to get on State Road 19.

            Commr. Stivender further commented that Dead River Road is a dead end, and that this project would give another alternative route in emergency situations, and it has been in the works for about the last 15 years.  Mr. Stivender also explained that the next project they will be working on is the modification of Woodlea Road at the light west of this location.  Commr. Stivender commented that she wanted people who were wondering why the projects which were in the five year plan got postponed, to know that one of the reasons was that the estimates for projects such as this one were coming in higher, which takes more money from the projects below them on the list.  Mr. Stivender commented that this was being managed by the City of Tavares, but it was being funded by impact fees, since impact fees are collected by both the City and the County.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 8 on the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, as follows:

            Public Works

            Request for approval of the low bid amount of $2,101,088.00 submitted by Art Walker Construction, Inc. and authorization for the City of Tavares to proceed with the contract and construction of Captain Haynes Road.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            Ms. Amy King, Deputy Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board to present the City of Groveland Joint Planning Agreement.  She stated that this Joint Planning Agreement was approved by the Local Planning Agency by a vote of 8-0, and was also approved by the City of Groveland.  She stated that there was a concern by the County Attorney’s Office regarding Article III, Item 4, which states, “It is the intent of the County and the City to protect the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern as defined in Section 380.0051, Florida Statutes, and Florida Admin Code R-28-26.003.  Towards that end, both parties agree to implement the residential density cap of one dwelling unit per five acres…”  She stated that the concern is that currently the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, allows the timeliness, provided that it met a higher density than that, and they cannot regulate through an interlocal agreement what has already been adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.  The County Attorney’s Office has suggested that it should read, “Toward that end, both parties agree to attempt to implement the residential density cap,” and the last sentence should read, “It is the intent of the County to discontinue usage of the timeliness analysis when the new comprehensive plan is adopted, if the new plan so provides.”  She stated that staff recommends approval with those language changes.  She introduced Theresa Graham, Planning Director with the City of Groveland, if the Board had any questions they wished to direct to her.

            Commr. Renick stated that the above-mentioned changes were significant, and that “intent to implement,” instead of “will implement” might be too vague.  She asked why it would be a problem to have stronger language.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the difficulty would be that this language is inconsistent with their current Comprehensive Plan, and that they are generally prohibited from adopting regulations or rules that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that this could be implemented as soon as the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted.

            Commr. Stivender asked if this should be postponed, and if the City was in a hurry to get this done.

            Ms. Graham replied that the City has been trying to go forth with this for some time, but it is not crucial.  She also stated that there are several aspects in the Agreement that are very good and would help the City and County plan together, because most of the Joint Planning Area is being developed without as much input from the City as it might like.

            Commr. Renick stated that she would rather postpone this issue and clean it up.  She also commented that postponing this would not preclude them from going forward with the Land Development Regulation (LDR) process, which takes the most time.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that the Board does not have a problem with the boundaries shown on the map.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the Land Planning Agency (LPA) has voted among themselves to transmit the Comprehensive Plan to the Board in January.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board agreed to postpone the City of Groveland Joint Planning Agreement until the first Board Meeting in February, 2007.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS

VACATION PETITION NO. 1096 – LARRY F. SHERER. – MT. PLYMOUTH

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, presented this request, stating that they have had a request for postponement of this Vacation Petition, showing the area in question on an aerial map.  He stated that the request is to postpone it for 30 days which would not bring it back to the Board until the 23rd of January, 2007.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board agreed to postpone Vacation Petition No. 1096 of Larry F. Sherer, located in Section 29, Township 19, Range 28 in the Sorrento area, until January 23, 2007.

VACATION PETITION NO. 1097 – ROBERT A. HITCHCOCK – ASTOR

Mr. Stivender presented this request, stating that he recommends approval of the applicant’s request to vacate a portion of the right of way in Section 37, Township 15, Range 28, in the Astor area, showing the area in question on an aerial map.  He showed where property was vacated a few years ago along Hwy 40, and stated that they are relatively small lots, and he sees no public purpose for those rights of way as they exist today.

Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Stivender if there is still an issue regarding access, and whether he needs a stipulation regarding that or if that has been satisfied.

Mr. Stivender replied that he believes it has been satisfied.  He stated that the Hitchcocks have legal access, and there is access to Ninth Street, so it appears that all legal access issues have been resolved.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Stivender commented that Item No. 4 on the summary provided stated that Ms. Mary Hamilton, Stormwater Manager, had a concern about flood plain issues.

Mr. Stivender responded that the two issues are not related, that there were concerns about stormwater and flood termination in the 100 year flood plan, but it is not relevant to the vacation itself, and that it will be taken care of as part of the site development issues.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved and executed Resolution No. 2006-219, Vacation Petition No. 1097, by Robert A. Hitchcock, to vacate right of way, located in Section 37, Township 15, Range 28, in the Astor area – Commission District 5.

VACATION PETITION NO. 1098 – AVERY C. ROBERT – UMATILLA

Mr. Stivender stated that this is a remnant of an old right of way, and that there is a development occurring in this area.  Also, he commented that it is an ingress and egress easement that shows up in a title research that is not being utilized at this time, nor is it anyone’s legal access.  He recommended approval to vacate this portion of an access, utility and drainage easement, located in Section 21, Township 18S, Range 27E, in the Umatilla area.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Esquire, the applicant’s representative, addressed the Board, stating that all they are doing is closing an internal easement that runs through the property, and that they are not extending any roads to anyone else or doing anything else.  He also stated that there is a drainage easement that runs down into Lake Dalhousie that they are vacating, so that it could not be used for future drainage directly into the lake, and that those are the two reasons they are closing it.

Mr. Joe Lobato, who lives at the end of Timberlane Drive in Umatilla, near this site, addressed the Board to state that his concerns were whether there is good enough reason to change what is already there and what the new drainage would be.

            Mr. Stivender responded that the plat information he has in the file shows access off of Whygul Road down to the site, and there will be lots along that roadway, but that the drainage easement that is shown on this drawing has no reference to the new construction and design plan.

            Mr. Lobato responded by stating that he is concerned that the owners of a new piece of property will be given carte blanche to do whatever they want.  He asked if there is an easement there on the records now.

            Mr. Stivender responded that something occurred many years ago that is not relevant today, and the property was never developed the way that easement was intended, so therefore the easement should be eliminated and a new design for new construction should be developed.  He also stated that the new property owners will have to submit to all the St. John’s Storm Water requirements, as well as County and State requirements.

            Commr. Renick asked why the vacation has to be done first, and not included as part of the development at the same time.

            Mr. Stivender responded that they are two separate types of issues, and one is a title issue to clear title on a vacant piece of property.

            Mr. Minkoff responded that he did not see any legal reason why it could not be done at the same time if it was in conjunction with a new project.

            Mr. Richey responded that all they are trying to do is clear title, and that when someone buys this piece of property, they are going to go through the platting process, and they would raise the issue of title because there is an easement running through the length of this piece of property which is undeveloped, and that would be considered a title defect.  He also stated that this vacant piece of property will ultimately come back through the platting process, but the title defect would have been cleared up.  He also stated that this would not cut off anyone’s access in any way, shape, or form, because both sides of this easement are completely contained within this piece of property.

            Mr. James Spinney, from Eagles View Circle, off of Timberlane Drive, addressed the Board asking what the process was to notify people of the meeting regarding vacation of property.

            Mr. Stivender responded that anyone within 150 feet of the easement would be notified, unless there is a big issue, and then a larger area is notified.  Also, it is advertised in the newspaper and on the site.

            Mr. Spinney asked if there is a sign that should have been put up at the end of Timberlane Drive and how long  the sign was supposed to be up.

            Mr. Stivender responded that that was probably too far from the location to have notification of this vacation.

            Mr. Spinney expressed concern that the sign that was on the property was hard to see and was not up for a long enough amount of time, and that he and a lot of other property owners in that area were not informed of the vacation.  He was also concerned that if the developer already owns the land and is already planning to divide it into 67 lots, why they are now concerned about clearing the title.

            Mr. Stivender responded that road vacations were largely in effect in the early 1950’s.  Before that time, there were a lot of plats that were replatted on top of replats, but that did not clear up the title issue associated with longevity of ownership and rights to an easement.  So, they developed a system that is in effect today, which is to post a public notice that anyone that has any right or interest in that easement has an opportunity to object or be in favor of it.  Many of the road vacations are to clear title of old subdivisions going back to the 1920’s and 1930’s or easements that have no relevance to what is on the property.

            Commr. Renick opined that when there is a development next to a huge area that is undeveloped, then those property owners would obviously be interested in what is going on next door, and she could not understand why the County could not expand their notification to keep nearby property owners informed.  She asked Mr. Richey if he could take the time to explain this issue to the number of people that are concerned about this.  He responded that he does not have a problem with continuing it for two weeks, so that he could meet with them and address their concerns.

            Commr. Stewart commented that she thinks the County needs a better way of letting the public know about things like this, and that was one of her concerns before she was elected County Commissioner.

            Mr. Spinney stated that he was concerned whether the change of the contour of the land, swales, or drainage would affect the land that surrounds it.

            Mr. Richey responded that this easement would not be able to be used for future development, and that any future developers would have to get all its permits and stand on its own, which includes drainage systems and road systems.  Therefore, this vacation will not adversely affect surrounding property owners at all.  He opined that this property should be actively looked at by nearby property owners.when the land is being developed and platted and construction plans and permits are being done.

            Mr. Randy Clark, who lives on Timberlane Drive in Umatilla, addressed the Board, to state that the concern that they have is that they have a nice, private subdivision, and that they do not want Timberlane Drive opened up to their subdivision.  He asked if the granting or denying of this vacation would effect whether the developer would be able to open the road.

            Mr. Richey responded that it would have no effect.

            Mr. Rue Hestand III, who lives on Thrill Hill Road in Eustis, and who owns property adjacent to the vacated property, stated that he agrees with the vacation because he has cows and horses, and that he was concerned that a subdivision there with a road right into their property that they could not gate would be a huge liability for him.

            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. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board agreed to postpone Vacation Petition No. 1098, by Avery C. Robert, to vacate a portion of an easement located in Section 21, Township 18S, Range 27E, in the Umatilla area until December 19, 2006.

            ORDINANCE CREATING PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE PROGRAM

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this is a public hearing for final adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-110, amending the Lake County Land Development Regulations, and placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor for its final reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 5.01.01; LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDING SECTION 5.02.00, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR AN OPTION FOR A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT; AMENDING SECTION 5.03.02, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PUBLIC FACILITY/SERVICE CAPACITY REVIEW CRITERIA; AMENDING SECTION 5.03.04, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED ALTERNATE DATA FOR CAPACITY ANALYSIS; PROVIDING AN EXEMPTION FOR TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY FROM ALTERNATE DATA FOR CAPACITY ANALYSIS; PROVIDING FOR AN OPTION FOR A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT; AMENDING SECTION 5.03.07, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PAYING FOR CAPACITY RESERVATIONS; CREATING SECTION 5.04.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR A METHOD OF MITIGATING IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING GENERAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING THE APPLICATION PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR DETERMINATION OF PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE OBLIGATION; PROVIDING FOR IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE MITIGATION; PROVIDING FOR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR APPROPRIATION OF FAIR SHARE REVENUES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Minkoff explained that this Ordinance makes a few typographical type changes to the Concurrency Section, but that the gist of the Ordinance begins on Page 8, where the portion of the Fair Share Program is established.  He went on to explain that the Ordinance is a requirement of Senate Bill 360, which was passed at the 2005 legislative session, and is required to be adopted by December 1, 2006, with substantial help from the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director of the MPO, stated that when the County Commission approves a new development, using Proportionate Share as a basis for approving it, then that is going to be in their County Work Program.  However, there are cities that will be relying on the County-run facilities and will approve their development inside that municipality.  If there is a city that wants to approve a development; there cannot be concurrency without the County agreeing to put a County road improvement in their own Work Program.  When the County approves the developments in the unincorporated area, then they are stating that that road project is either already in the Work Program and funded or the County is willing to put it in there by virtue of the County approving that development.

Commr. Renick stated that she was concerned about whether or not this was addressing the real impact and whether they need to add some language mitigating the impact of the Transportation Facilities.

Mr. Fish explained that the reason that it is stated that way is because there will be situations where the County may decide to go with the option of going without any additional lane capacity, and that the County may want to come up with something else, whether it was six or eight lanes on a facility, a parallel reliever, or transit capacity improvements.  He commented that that was why it was a little bit nebulous the way it was worded because it does not strictly advocate a certain amount of lanes every time the County approves a development.

Commr. Renick expressed concern that someone could come up with a proposed mitigation that the County will not be aware of, and that the County will still have the impact of that, and the fear is whether or not the County would be addressing the direct impact.

Mr. Fish opined that the reference of having it in this Ordinance is valid, and that her concerns will be the topic of a different discussion as they get into the era of enforcing Transportation Concurrency and looking at a Constraint Work Facility.  He commented that that would have to come about during the process of the County deciding what it really wants to have in the Work Program that it intends to build in terms of transit planning.  He stated that the County has to have a plan before it asks for a transit contribution, and right now the County does not have a lot of transit plans.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one 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 vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-110, Creating Proportionate Fair Share Program to establish a method for mitigating impacts of new development on transportation facilities.

            REZONINGS

            Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board, stating that there were five items on the consent agenda, but they have received notice from the applicant that Tab 2, PH No. 89-06-5, Louis Meucci, Trustee, et al, The Highlands at Lady Lake, Greg Beliveau, Tracking No. 117-06-PUD, has been withdrawn.

            REZONING CONSENT AGENDA

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            No one was present in opposition to the requests.

            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. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, excluding Tab 2, which was withdrawn, as follows:

            Tab 1 - Ordinance No. 2006-111

            Obed and Coretta Graham

            Christopher J. Shipley, Esquire

            Rezoning Case No. PH 91-0-5

            Tracking No. 121-06-CFD

            A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to allow for construction of a       church.

            Tab 3 - Ordinance No. 2006-112

            David and Beth Wilkinson, Jeffrey and Julie Clay, Edward and Debra Jordan,

            Glenn and Margaret Callin, Wayne and Christine Clay

            Rezoning Case No. PH 92-06-02

Tracking No. 123-06-Z

            R-6 (Urban Residential) to A (Agriculture) to allow for agricultural uses

            Tab 4 – Ordinance No. 2006-113

            Bruce Staley and Jacob Staley

            Rezoning Case No. CUP No. 06/11/2-3

            Tracking No. 122-06-CUP

            Conditional Use Permit in AR (Agricultural Residential) to operate a plant nursery

            Tab 5 – Ordinance No. 2006-114

            YellowFin Properties LLC

Guy or Catherine Bartels

Rezoning Case No. 87-06-4

Tracking No. 116-06-RP

R-6 (Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Professional) to allow for professional offices

REZONINGS – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES

Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, stated that there was a request for a 90-day continuance on Tab 6, PH No. 80-06-3, Fla-G District Lutheran Church, Michael Mahler, Vice President, Tracking No. 93-06-PUD, because there are some traffic items that need to be addressed by Public Works and Growth Management.

Commr. Cadwell confirmed from Mr. Bennett that staff has no problem with the continuance.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the 90-day continuance of PH No. 80-06-3, Fla-G District Lutheran Church, Michael Mahler, Vice President, Tracking No. 93-06-PUD.

Mr. Bennett explained that the next three cases are related, which are Tabs 7-9, and that staff has requested a continuance of those because these properties are currently pending annexation into the City of Leesburg.  He stated that he spoke a couple of weeks ago with the representative of the applicants, Mr. Craig Kosuta, and asked him for a letter, but he has not yet received anything, which is why staff has recommended continuance as opposed to an applicant continuance, of the following cases:

Tab 7 – PH No. 16-06-3

Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson

Tracking No. 24-06-PUD/AMD

Tab 8 – PH No. 24-06-3

Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson

Tracking No. 26-06-Z

Tab 9 – PH No. 25-06-3

Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson

Tracking No. 27-06-Z

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the staff continuance of the above-referenced cases.

OTHER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS TO MT. PLYMOUTH-SORRENTO ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Commr. Stewart stated that work on the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Advisory Committee is ongoing; and that the four previous appointees are knowledgeable about the process, aware of the Committee’s procedures, and have done an excellent job on the Committee.

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the reappointments of Priscilla Bernardo Drugge, G. Curtis Duffield, Scott Taylor, and Judy Weis to their previously–held positions on the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Advisory Committee to serve four-year terms ending October 11, 2010.

REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

REQUEST TO HOLD CLOSED SESSION

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that the Statutes authorize the County Attorney to request a closed session to discuss pending litigation, and that this agenda item is to formally make that request for December 5, 2006.  He commented that he anticipates that it may last about one and a half hours.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s request for a special closed session for December 5, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. and will set aside approximately one and a half hours for that closed session.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – DISTRICT 1

STATUS OF BALANCED PLAYGROUND

Commr. Hill stated that many citizens have been contacting her about Balanced Playground.  She commented that they are excited about it and want to know when the County will officially open it.  She inquired whether Parks and Recreation would know what the status was regarding the opening of the playground, and whether a date could be set for the official opening.

Commr. Stivender stated that she has been working on that and that she has calls into the Governor’s Office to find out when he can come with the Governor Elect, and that she was planning on having that in December.

Commr. Cadwell asked if we are just waiting for the Governor for the ribbon cutting.

Commr. Stivender replied that that was correct, but that the public could currently use the playground.

Commr. Hill inquired whether the County wanted to have a separate opening with the committee, the Children’s Foundation, and the Citizen’s Commission For Children.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he does not know if the County should do anything officially, but just make sure it can be utilized.

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that she will look into getting a press release out that the playground was open and ready for use.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2

APPOINTMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY (LPA)

Commr. Renick stated that it was her understanding that the School Board appointed Cindy Barrow at their meeting on November 27 to take the place of the outgoing School Board member, Becky Elswick.  She stated that she had a suggestion for her district.  She commented that only one other person has applied for membership in the LPA besides her and Commr. Stewart’s nominees, so that it would probably be better to hold off on any further appointments at this time.

Commr. Cadwell commented that their terms do not expire until the end of January, 2007.

Commr. Hill opined that it would be very beneficial to that group to have Ms. Barbara Newman stay as the At-Large Representative for that last month, at least, and then if she does want to reapply, she will let the Board know.  She commented that if the Board is going to appoint two new members, it would be beneficial to keep her on the Committee.  She also stated that she believes that Mr. Keith Shue would like to stay on also.

Commr. Cadwell commented that the Board has not received anything yet from the School Board regarding their appointment on the LPA, but the Board could include it in the motion, and they will accept whoever the School Board ultimately appoints.  As far as the At-Large Representatives, the Board would give them an opportunity to reapply.  He suggested that the motions should be done by District.

Commr. Stivender commented that the Board should leave the At-Large Representatives in their positions at least until the end of their terms.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Rob Kelly to replace Ms. Ann Dupee as the District 2 appointee to the LPA; and the appointment of Ms. Cindy Barrow or the designated appointee of the School Board, to replace Ms. Becky Elswick, as the School Board Representative to the LPA.

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Peggy Belflower to replace Mr. Richard Dunkel as the District 4 appointee to the LPA.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STEWART – DISTRICT 4

MAIN STREET DESIGN CHARETTE REPORT

Commr. Stewart stated that the Sorrento-Mt. Plymouth Advisory Committee will have its first meeting since she has taken office, on December 13, 2006. She informed the Board that Mr. Brian Canin, President, Canin and Associates, is going to giving his report at that time on the Main Street design charette, and she wanted to make sure that it would be advertised.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5

COMMISSIONER REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE FORMS

Commr. Cadwell stated that at the first meeting in December, the Board will elect a Chairman.  He commented that the Board is going to need to make committee appointments quickly, because there are six or seven committees that do not have Commissioner Representatives.  He explained that generally when new Chairmen come in, they send out a form for Commissioners to list the committees they are interested in serving on, and that they would do that in January.  His suggestion was for the new Chairman to hand out that form the first meeting in December and to make those appointments the second meeting in December.  He also stated that it would be beneficial for the Commissioners to receive those forms right away to reduce the amount of time some committees would be without a Commissioner Representative.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

 

_________________________________

WELTON CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK