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