REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
The Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Pastor Ed Price from the United Faith Assembly of God in Leesburg, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would like to request a Closed Session under his business, and that would require action by the Board at that time.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the discussion of a Closed Session on the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 8, as follows:
Request for approval to submit an application for a Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant to initiate a Hispanic Outreach Program at selected Lake County Library System libraries.
Request for approval to submit an application for a Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant to activate PC Management at two libraries and Print Management in twelve libraries.
Request for approval to advertise changes to the
positions designated by
Request for approval of the Lake County Watershed Atlas Project Agreement between Lake County and the University of South Florida for the continued development and ongoing maintenance of the Lake County Water Resources Atlas for a total Fiscal Year 2007 cost of $95,250; and approval of the Funding Agreement between Lake County and the Lake County Water Authority; approval of related Budget Resolution No. 2007-27 in the amount of $7,500, changing the language on the Resolution to read “pending Board approval on February 27,” instead of February 6.
Request for approval and execution of a Release of Fine. Property Owner: Allen F. and Jennifer A. Brush, Code Case No. 2005030238. Commission District 5.
Request for approval and execution of a Release of Fine. Property Owner: Susan M. Polak, Case No. 2004050071. Commission District 1.
Request for approval to apply for Environmental Protection Agency Technical Assistance Grant and authorization for Chairman to sign letter of support.
Request for approval of the Memorandum of Agreement by and between the Florida Department of Corrections and Lake County Department of Public Safety
Ms. Amy King, Deputy Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board to report that staff was bringing the City of Groveland Joint Planning Agreement back to them that day per their request. She explained that the Board heard it last year, and decided to postpone it until the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan, which had not happened yet. She stated that staff was recommending continuance of this agreement until that point, with the date uncertain.
Commr. Stivender commented that she had discussed this with staff, and feels that any Joint Planning Agreements (JPA) that are still out there that have not been done, such as Montverde, need to be held off until they do transmit. She felt that it was better to do them all at one time rather than piecemeal. She also stated that she already had a meeting with a couple of the Cities in her district about this issue, and having the JPA in place had not helped the LPA (Local Planning Agency), because the LPA was making their own decisions.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to postpone the JPA for the City of Groveland and all other Cities that have not transmitted their Comprehensive Plan until the County received them.
PETITION NO. 1094 – SHAMROCK HOMES –
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, presented this request by Shamrock
Homes, stating that they
were requesting a postponement of this Vacation Petition for 30 days, showing
the area in question on an aerial map.
He explained that since it was a
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. 1094 of Shamrock Homes, a vacation of a portion of a drainage easement in the Plat of Biscayne Bluff, located in Section 29, Township 18 S, Range 26 E, in the Grand Island area, for 30 days.
PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON GROUNDHOG DAY TORNADO RELIEF EFFORT
Mr. Jerry Smith, Emergency Management
Director, noted that it was Day 26 of their response to the Groundhog Day
Tornadoes, and that it was the tenth day of the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) being at Level 2 activation, with operation hours now from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. He commented that they had a
great partnership with the First Assembly of God in Eustis in working through
some of the
He announced that the last day for
curb site pickup of debris would be March 2 for
Mr. Smith related that 33 trailers had been provided by FEMA with about two or three others in the wings. He specified that 38 families had received the maximum amount of $28,200.00 in assistance. He also reported that Ms. Dottie Keedy, Director of Economic Growth and Redevelopment, has worked very well with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to get phone number information for those businesses to work with them in getting aid from the SBA. He pointed out that 1,832 applications had been sent to individuals in all three counties for SBA loans, but only 65 of those had been returned. He wanted to advise the public that if they get that application, they needed to fill it out and turn it in to either get loans at very low interest rates or be denied and continue through the algorithm of aid. He also stated that they were working with LASER (Lake-Sumter Emergency Recovery) for the long-term recovery.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Mr. Smith responded that the Citizens’ Information Line was being answered 24 hours a day; from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. by County staff. He stated that after 6:00 p.m. it rolled over to Lake Sumter Emergency Medical Services, where they had an algorithm that they followed to either provide information or call him if they could were not able to provide that information. However, they had not had any calls after 6:00 p.m.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the
Mr. Smith reported that the Emergency Declaration had expired on midnight last Friday, February 23, and that they were back to operating on normal purchasing approval and authority and had been working with the Procurement Department on that.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONINGS
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management, addressed the Board, stating that there were two items remaining on the Rezoning Consent Agenda and that there were two items on the Regular Rezoning Agenda.
Commr. Stewart requested to pull Tab 3 from the Consent Agenda., to hear it separately as a Regular Agenda item.
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. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, excluding Tab 5, which was withdrawn, and Tab 3, which was pulled, as follows:
Tab 2 - Ordinance No. 2007-10
Rezoning Case PH No. 74-04A-2
Tracking No. 14-07-PUD/AMD
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Neighborhood (C-1), to restore the previous zoning in place prior to the PUD. The property was included in the PUD due to a scrivener’s error in the legal description contained in Ordinance No. 2004-94 for the Millbrook PUD, as presented
REZONING CASE PH NO. 8-07-4 – CENTEX HOMES/TOM DALY/PAT KNIGHT
Mr. Bennett stated that the property as to Tab 3 was otherwise known as Sullivan Ranch, and that the applicant was requesting to amend the building setbacks in the PUD Ordinance to permit a five-foot rear setback for pools, screen enclosures, and spas. He related that the Zoning Board recommended approval of that request, and that he opined that it was a typical reduction to account for those types of additions or accessory structures within the lot. He called attention to the text in the staff report that stated that there was some concern about the topography in this area and what effect that would have on lot grading, drainage and erosion if those kind of accessory structures were extended back to the lot within five feet.
Commr. Stivender asked what the conditions were that were referred to in the staff report that would be necessary for approval.
Mr. Bennett explained that the applicants would need to come back as part of the Plat Staff Review of those developments and let them see the lot grading situation. He suggested that it would be done at the preliminary plat stage so that they could look at all the lots in the Plat to actually look at a preliminary lot grading plan that would allow them to make some decisions about how deep the lots were and whether they were appropriate for those kinds of setbacks. He stated that this action was simply allowing the PUD for that five-foot setback to occur, but that it did not necessarily authorize it until such time as the Plat was approved.
Commr. Stewart asked that if the new grading and lot plan was approved and that it was found to cause increased damage to the surrounding environment, if the five foot setback would still be allowed.
Mr. Bennett stated that in that case, that decision regarding the five-foot setback would be placed in staff’s hands, because staff had approval of the preliminary plats.
Commr. Stewart asked for clarification that if the Board voted for approval and then discovered that there would be damage done, then the five-foot setback would not be approved in that particular area.
Mr. Bennett explained that if the staff found that there was unacceptable erosion, grading, or drainage problems resulting from the potential of the setback, they would not approve that particular preliminary plat scenario.
Commr. Stewart suggested that they possibly postpone the decision and look at the plans first.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they did
those on a case by case basis in existing subdivisions. He suggested that if the Commissioners were not
comfortable with staff having the ability to make that decision, they may want
to vote against this. He asked the
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would like to see Mr. Bennett’s language put in the PUD on Page 3 where the change was being made, but if that was not put in, each individual lot or groups of lots would have to apply for a variance.
Commr. Renick commented that one of the applicants’ options could be to build fewer homes on bigger lots so that they would have room for pools and screens.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Mr. Tom Daly, with Daly Design Group, addressed the Board and stated that he was there on behalf of Centex Homes. He explained that the issue was that when they redid the previously approved PUD a couple of years ago to take out the golf course and put in the equestrian center, they failed to put in a rear setback for swimming pools, but they put a rear setback in for a 20 foot back yard. He explained that there was a glitch in the Land Development Code that stated that if not specified in the PUD’s, that that would become the setback for all accessory structures. He went on to explain that when Centex Homes applied for a pool permit for the new residents, it was denied by the Building Department, which took a literal interpretation of the rear yard setback. He related that in November, he approached County staff to amend this part of the PUD, and meanwhile the residents who have moved into their homes have had to wait to install their pools. He stated that they had submitted to the Public Works Department a detailed individual lot grading plan for all the lots within the Sullivan Ranch project, and that they were successful in their effort to save a lot of the trees. He commented that they did not want their homeowners to have to come back for variances, and that they had anticipated putting pools in, but that it was just an error on their part that they did not recognize when they went through the original zoning that necessitated this application.
Commr. Stewart asked Mr. Daly how many homes backed up to the outside perimeter of his property.
Mr. Daly answered that that was hard to say, and that they had greenbelts that ran along the south end and a required 25 foot minimum buffer on the north property line. He stated that the lots varied from 60 to 90 foot lots with buffers already in place as part of the original PUD. He stated that they were beyond the preliminary plat process, and that the preliminary and final plat had already been approved, and the homes were either finished or being constructed.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Bennett if they had a system in place that if they approved this request, they could put in language that would require them to be signed off individually by staff.
Mr. Bennett suggested that it would be advantageous to defer this zoning case for at least two weeks in order for them to take a look with Public Works at the Preliminary Plat and the lot grading plans and come back to the Board with a definitive answer about whether or not it would work.
Mr. Daly responded that they had been working with the Public Works Department, providing them with the information they need since November, and there were residents living in the homes. He specified that they had given the staff a full package of all the individual lot grading information.
Commr. Stewart stated that she commended Mr. Daly for eliminating the golf course with its sizeable water requirements and that she thought he had some great ideas. She commented that she was not trying to put any road blocks in his way, but that she would feel more comfortable if staff could look at it a little bit more.
There being no one else present 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 moved to defer the decision until March 20 on Rezoning Case PH No. 8-07-4, Centex Homes, Pat Knight, Daly Design Group, and Tom Daly, Tracking No. 11-07-PUD/AMD, so that staff could look into any potential problems caused by the setback.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 9-07-4 – JACK CASSELL/LESLIE CAMPIONE
Commr. Cadwell disclosed that prior to the meeting he was asked a procedural question by the applicant and the attorney in regards to the opposition, but that it got into more than just a procedural question.
Commr. Stivender disclosed that she discussed this case with Mr. Gary Cooney.
Commr. Hill disclosed that she discussed this case with both the applicant’s attorney and the opposition attorney.
Commr. Stewart disclosed that she discussed this case with Ms. Campione.
Commr. Renick stated that she received an e-mail regarding this case and shared that e-mail with all the Commissioners.
Mr. Bennett stated that this was Case PH No. 9-07-4, that the owner was Jack Cassell and Barbara and Don Harvison, and that the applicant was Leslie Campione PA. He explained that this was taking an essentially existing PUD that provided for 34 single family units with a density of 0.98 dwelling units per acre and adding 5.93 acres that were currently zoned agriculture and had one existing dwelling unit. He stated that what was proposed on the 5.93 acres was 36,000 square feet of commercial space and 15 dwelling units. He explained that the net result of this proposal was a PUD for the entire property, including the 5.92 acres, 35 dwelling units and 36,000 square feet of commercial space.
He related that the Zoning Board recommended approval for the rezoning that was requested. He added that this property was located in the Eustis Joint Planning Area (JPA) and that this site, in staff’s opinion, met the location criteria for a Neighborhood Activity Center, which provided for potentially from 10,000 to 50,000 square feet of commercial use in these particular types of locations. He pointed out that in this case, there was high level road access. He commented that there had been some issue with regard to whether or not the 50,000 square feet of commercial allowed in the Comprehensive Plan included retail commercial and office. He related that the staff’s position was that the 50,000 square feet was a total number including both retail commercial and office and applied within the area of that intersection, with the practice being “first come, first served,” which would leave potentially 14,000 square feet of remaining commercial capacity to be employed at other parts of this intersection.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Bennett if a professional building could be placed in commercial zoning.
Mr. Bennett answered that his
department deduces that office use is included as one of the uses permitted in
a commercial zone. He went on to explain
that staff also looked into whether there was market support for the requested
amount of commercial space. He stated
that within a 1.25 mile circle which was specified in the Comprehensive Plan as
the market area for a
Commr. Cadwell commented that that would not even include people who drive through that intersection.
Commr. Stivender commented that it
would fall more into the category of a
Mr. Bennett stated that convenience
shopping was a different kind of shopping than a regular grocery, clothing, or
furniture store. He opined that if they
looked out into a typical three mile area, they would be looking at something
higher-level. He also stated that it
would be helpful to see where Eustis believed their community shopping areas
should be, since it was in the Eustis JPA.
He commented that two quadrants of the intersection are at some phase of
annexation into the City of
Mr. Bennett stated that the only issue still remaining was how long the applicants would have before they used their allocation of the 50,000 square feet, and that currently the Land Development Regulations (LDR) did not address that particular issue. He stated that it might be appropriate for the Board to place a condition that stated they needed to move on it within a relatively reasonable amount of time.
Commr. Cadwell asked if Mr. Bennett was suggesting putting that language in the individual PUD’s or looking at the LDR’s. He opined that he did not think it was good policy to put it in a PUD.
Mr. Bennett responded that it could occur either way, but that they could not amend anything going forward currently as far as putting the language in the existing plan.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Campione, the applicant
and the attorney for the owners, stated that the 5.93 acre tract that was being
added to the property was currently owned by Don and Barbara Harvison, but that
she was closing on that property on Thursday, March 1. She explained that they had a PUD that was
approved in 2005 for 35 acres, which allowed for 34 units of single family
residential development. She opined that
the intersection was too busy, active, and noisy to be conducive to single
family homes at that corner. She
commented that she wanted to limit the types of commercial uses there to more
of a rural village community center with a traditional neighborhood design with
three pods around a village square. She
felt this would be in line with the open space design and traditional
neighborhood design that were being discussed for the City of
She noted that they had already
approached the City of
She stated that the issue with the commercial zoning was that the owners across the street had RP (Residential Professional) zoning already, and that she did not want to do something that was unfair, but she felt that the rules were unfair. She commented that she tried to come up with a proposal that met everyone’s needs and would be realistic for this site, and she proposed reducing in the PUD Ordinance the retail uses on their property to a maximum 25,000 square feet, and that if she did not use all of that space, the remainder would be available to the property on the other side of the road. She opined that since the Comp Plan spoke specifically about the need for planned commercial zoning and had addressed the distinction between retail space versus office professional, that PUD zoning allowed professional office space to exceed the 50,000 square foot limit as long as it was taking into account an overall development plan through a PUD. She also opined that this kind of limitation was doing a disservice to the County’s business community and the general public because they were missing an opportunity to locate those uses where they needed to be, and she asked the Board to use the PUD to allow for more flexibility.
Ms. Campione stated that she wanted to explain about the boundary dispute and explained that Mr. Jack Cassell had owned the property for about ten years and was issued a title policy on it and a survey that took the property out to the bypass road. She stated that Mr. Cooney’s clients purchased the property on the west side of the road approximately a year ago, and their survey showed their boundary coming over on to the east side. She commented that each party had title insurance, and it was an issue that would have to be worked out. She noted that in working on an agreement, there would be a possibility that the parties might work on allocations of square footage in order to make it part of their boundary agreement. She also pointed out that the 2005 PUD used the same legal description that they were currently using except for the additional five acres.
Mr. Bennett stated that there were some issues that had come up as a result of Ms. Campione’s discussion with the Board as well as other lingering issues, and that it may be practical to defer this to work out some of those issues before the Board takes final action.
Commr. Renick stated that she felt
very strongly that since the City of
Commr. Stewart agreed with Commr.
Renick’s thoughts about this, and commented that Ms. Campione had stated that
she did want to be annexed into Eustis, and she opined that this property would
definitely would be annexed into Eustis one day. She commented that Eustis was presently busy
with the process of revisiting its own LDR’s and considering a new zoning plan
and that they were not taking action on anything right now, but they would be
in a position to do that soon. She felt
that the City of
Mr. Bennett stated that staff would check on the annexation status of the properties to the west, because if they were already in the process of annexation, the whole issue with regard to the type and amount of square footage would be a moot point, because they would be in the City of Eustis and subject to its Comp Plan and LDR’s.
Commr. Cadwell commented that citizens had a right to come to the Board if the property was in the County, even if the Commissioners, by their actions, showed them they did not agree with their requests. He commented that there might be cases where the County did not want property to be annexed by a City.
Ms. Campione reiterated that they
were closing on the property on Thursday, March 1, and that it was very
important for them to get their zoning in place. She opined that they were offering a
reasonable way to address the allocation issue.
She also stated that they were hitting obstacles from a bureaucratic
standpoint, and that Eustis was where they wanted to be, but that they could
not do business right now with all that uncertainty. She also noted that they had gone to great
lengths to take into account the discussions that the City of
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Gary Cooney if he had a problem with the postponement.
Mr. Gary Cooney, representing John Kingman Keating, Trustee, the joint property owner, stated that he did not have an issue with postponement. He stated that he would rather have the Board postpone this before he went ahead with his presentation to the Board.
Commr. Cadwell assured Mr. Cooney that if the Board decided not to postpone, he would have an opportunity to get back up to speak.
Commr. Hill stated that the outcome would depend on the water and sewer issue, and none of the properties would go forward without these amenities, and when that determination was done at the City level, then a decision could be made depending on how much the City can service in that area. She also commented that traffic capacity would be another issue that would have to be studied.
Mr. Bennett stated that the deferral
would accomplish four things. One would
be to determine if this would be an appropriate intersection for a
Commr. Stivender inquired about how the County addressed the utility issue in the past, and if they had to have the utilities in place or an agreement with a municipality or a utility service prior to construction.
Mr. Bennett stated that at zoning time, they would have to have a letter stating the services were available.
Commr. Stewart commented that it looked like Ms. Campione and her clients put a lot of work into this and she liked what they had done. She stated that it was not known what would go in across the street, but that this was a quality project.
Mr. Bennett stated that the key
element was the information from the City of
Commr. Renick specified that the City of Eustis would have to put the JPA item on their agenda, advertise it, discuss it, and then get the information back to the County, which would take a while.
Ms. Campione proposed that the Board allow her to add the additional acreage to the site, that the density stay at one unit to one acre, and that they be permitted to come back and revisit the commercial zoning aspect of the property at a later date.
Commr. Renick commented that that would be changing it at the last minute.
Ms. Campione responded that they had a PUD on the property already, and she would just be asking to add the five acres to their PUD.
Commr. Cadwell explained that if the Board voted down their request that day, they still would have their PUD and they could move forward with it.
Commr. Stivender asked the
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Cadwell commented that the Board had previously discussed not doing that kind of thing in the zoning hearings and trying to make sure they get it right. He told Ms. Campione that he knew she wanted assurances on the 5 acres before she bought it, but that if language was added to the document adding the 5 acres, he did not think it would be good document. He opined that if that was the only issue that they were discussing, it would probably be on the Consent Agenda. He commented that he believed they would be better served if she agreed with the postponement.
Ms. Campione stated that a three-week
postponement would be fine, and they could then work out whether to withdraw
the commercial request and hopefully get feedback from the City of
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff if in their motion they could prohibit someone else from abiding by the Board’s rules and moving forward.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they could not do that and that that would be a staff determination as to what kind of development would be allowed in that zoning district.
There being no one else present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to postpone Rezoning Case PH No. 9-07-4, Jack Cassell and Leslie Campione, Esq., Tracking No. 13-07-PUD/AMD until the next Zoning Board Meeting on March 27, 2007.
REZONING CASE PH NO. 4-07-1 – RUDOLPH RODE/BUILD FLORIDA, INC
Mr. Bennett related that Tab 4 was Case PH No. 4-07-1, and that the owner was Build Florida, Inc. and the applicant was Rudolph Rode. He explained that the existing zoning was R-6 (Urban Residential District), and that they were requesting a change to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential Zoning District), and correct the scrivener’s error in the legal descriptions to Ordinance No. 2004-20 and 2004-76, totaling roughly 15.61 acres. He stated that staff recommended approval of the request to rezone the property as set forth in the attached Ordinance, and the Zoning Board concurred with staff recommendations, voting 5-0 to take the action that was being recommended to the Board.
Commr. Renick asked Mr. Sandy
Mr. Minkoff responded that in a straight rezoning case, they could not put those conditions on it, and that the only buffering that they would need to meet would be the buffering requirements that are in the current LDR’s.
Mr. Bennett stated that within this practice, there was nothing in terms of requiring a buffer that they could do as part of the straight rezoning.
Commr. Renick stated that the Board would have been able to put that kind of requirement in a PUD, but she felt that the only other option would be to vote this down and encourage the applicant to meet with the residents in the area to work out the buffering problem.
Commr. Stivender commented that the other subdivisions that had been put in were R-6, which was a higher density than the R-4, and were not required to have buffering either, and what was there had been put in voluntarily because the developers wanted a buffer there.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rudolph Rode, the Applicant,
addressed the Board and explained that he already had zoning and housing
backing up to Emerald Greens Subdivision, and this was just a continuation of
that. He stated that the additional
property will enable him to move his main drive off of
There being no one else present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hill commented that this property was in District 1 and that she heard this case in 2004, and that they had rezoned this case from a PUD. She commented that it was a mixture of all kinds of things, including a CUP, and the County zoned it R-4 to develop it into a single-family property. She remembered that at that time, under the motion, it was to include water and sewer and to preserve whatever habitat necessary under the environmental aspect and landscaping, buffering, and other things. She stated that it was a straight zoning, but the applicant agreed to and was going to address all the landscaping aspects during design as well as the GAP fee for the schools. She stated that even though this request was a straight zoning, he would be at the same level of landscaping and all of the things in the original Ordinance if the motion specified to include them all together.
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, showed the Board the area on the map that was previously rezoned under the two original Ordinances, and stated that the land would be landscaped according to the Land Development Regulations that applied to the R-4 district. He noted that the applicant was basically developing under the R-4, but at a lesser density than what was permitted by the Comp Plan and the LDR’s. He explained that there were some scrivener’s errors in the legal description pertaining to those two Ordinances. He specified the applicant wanted to add the road connecting into it as Phase II at some point and pick up ten additional lots during that process, which would still meet the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. He noted that the applicant was aware of the fact that he would be subject to School Concurrency on this second phase. He stated that Mr. Rode had met the vesting requirements for what was already approved at this point and that the GAP fee would no longer apply. He stated that the whole development pattern for the area was all R-4 and R-6, which did not require any form of walls or buffering between the developments. They hoped that the developer would landscape the lots to provide some form of buffer, but there were no regulations that the County could place on him to require that. He went on to explain that the old existing PUD was an old, defunct development that did not meet Land Development Regulations today, and they had no landscape requirements as part of the PUD at that time.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Rezoning Case PH No. 4-07-1, Build Florida, Inc. and Rudolph Rode, Tracking No. 1-07-Z to rezone the property to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential Zoning District), correcting the scrivener’s error in the legal descriptions to the previous Ordinances No. 2004-20 and 2004-76, and combining the conditions into the proposed Ordinance, thus rescinding Ordinance No. 2004-20 and 2004-76.
APPOINTMENT TO SALES SURTAX OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Mike Bakich to serve on the Sales Surtax Oversight Advisory Committee as a member of the public at large as designated by the Lake County School Board, to serve a term ending November 19, 2010.
Commr. Stivender stated that she would like to recommend Mr. Michael R. Stone for the District 1 position expiring on 2009 and Mr. Bud Beucher for the second representative, which was a new position ending in January 2010.
Commr. Stewart inquired whether the Board just recommended the individuals, but not vote to actually appoint them.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Renick opined that she did not know Mr. Bob Stevens, but that he had quite a resume. She stated that she knew Mr. Gary L. Clark, and that he would be excellent also.
Commr. Stivender stated that it would be fine with her to send the whole packet of applications, but that her recommendations would be Mr. Beucher and Mr. Stone.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to forward the applications of all the individuals who applied to the Central Florida Sports Commission for election consideration to the vacant Lake County positions on the Central Florida Sports Commission Board of Directors. The individuals who applied were Mr. Michael R. Stone, Mr. Bud Beucher, Mr. Gary L. Clark, Mr. Louis Rossi, and Mr. Bob Stevens.
SCHEDULE OF CLOSED SESSION
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to schedule a Closed Session on March 13, 2007, at 10:30 a.m.
PUBLIC RECORDS SUNSHINE LAW REVIEW
Minkoff stated that on the evening of February 26, they held the Public Records
Sunshine Law Review and about 35 people attended. He added that on Monday evening, March 5, at
6:00 p.m., another Public Records Sunshine Law Review was scheduled in Tavares,
and about 85 people had registered to attend. REPORTS
IMPACT FEE RELIEF FOR TORNADO VICTIMS REBUILDING SITE HOMES
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager noted that the County had previously waived permit fees for those who needed to reconstruct or improve their homes or mobile homes after the tornadoes hit. She requested input from the Board regarding covering impact fees for individuals with homesteaded properties who wanted to build site-built homes to replace the mobile homes destroyed by the tornadoes, since the mobile home impact fees were less than for site built homes.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to add this item to the Agenda.
Commr. Hill asked if some of the sites would fall into the Affordable Housing category. She commented that if they did, the County already had a mechanism to do that. She also stated that if the County was going to cover the impact fees, she recommended allocating the entire amount for all the homes in case they all elected to do that, so that they do not come back piecemeal.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the Board should not group these individuals with the Affordable Housing program. He stated that if they established legally that the impact fees had to be collected, that the County should find a way to cover it.
Commr. Hill commented that she was not opposed to that at all, but would like to know the full amount so that the funding source could be determined.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board directed staff to look into ways the County could cover the impact fees of those that wanted to replace mobile homes destroyed in the tornado with site built homes.
BCC MEETING SCHEDULE CHANGES
Ms. Hall stated that at the last Board meeting, she mentioned that the Board would have a Work Session on March 27. She noted that they had run into some complications on the scheduling and have rescheduled that for Friday, March 30. She commented that it should be on the Commissioners’ calendars.
DONATION FOR CHILDREN’S ACCOMMODATIONS AT COOPER MEMORIAL
Ms. Hall noted that the Cooper Memorial Library Association had donated $108,000.00 for a children’s garden and children’s room furnishings at the new joint use library in Clermont. She commented that she would be bringing that item for Board recognition at a future date. She also stated that the funds were deposited with the Lake-Sumter Community College Foundation in time for them to get a grant to match that.
Commr. Hill gave kudos to Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Services Director, and her staff for working through this.
Commr. Renick stated that she was glad to hear about this, because one of the sticky issues with the debate about the library downtown versus that at the College was whether the large College library would be intimidating for children’s programs or whether children would be encouraged to use it and not be shut out.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – DISTRICT 1
Commr. Hill reported that the March
of Dimes kicked off its fund drive with a breakfast in the rotunda of the
Commr. Hill thanked Mr. Jim
Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, for attending two meetings with her in
LEESBURG HIGH SCHOOL WOMEN’S BASKETBALL TEAM
Commr. Hill stated that the Leesburg High School Women’s Basketball Team went to the final four, and that she would be bringing back a resolution to the Board for a presentation for them.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2
PALATLAKAHA RIVER PARK HIKE
Commr. Renick opined that the new
park rangers were a great group of people, and stated that they had a hike on Saturday,
February 24, at the
PRESTIGE CONCRETE PLANT FINES
Commr. Renick brought up the problems
that were reported in the newspaper regarding the Prestige Concrete Plant,
which had been an ongoing headache for residents. She commented that Prestige had not been good
about complying with their agreement a number of times. She stated that they had gone before the
Special Master and had gotten a $5,000.00 fine, and that there were two more
fines coming up before the Special Master this month. She noted that the residents had been
suffering with this situation for years, and that she wanted that community to
benefit from the fines. She reported
that Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Mr. Minkoff reported that those monies currently go into the Code Enforcement fine fund that they often use for community purposes, and that some of those monies could be put back into the community if the project met a public purpose. He explained that it could not just be given to the homeowners, but if there was a project in that neighborhood that would meet a public purpose, it could be spent on that.
Commr. Renick stated that she was sure there would be need for overtime since they had been running Code Enforcement on the weekends because of this situation. Commr. Renick asked that staff look into ways that the fine money could be spent.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff if there was a repeat offender law.
Mr. Minkoff responded that generally the Code Enforcement division did not try to collect money, but tried to ensure compliance, so even when they have had repeat offenders, often times a substantial amount of the fines were forgiven if they gained compliance. He stated that the fines went up on a per day basis, and usually the Code Enforcement Office recommended a much higher fine when it was a repeat case as opposed to a new case.
Commr. Renick commented that DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) had fined Prestige $26,000.00 so far, but that she understood that when they came into compliance, they did reduce those fines, but that she predicted there would be a number of DEP visits in the future. She opined that they were all looking forward to Prestige moving into a legitimate industrial park and not next to a residential area.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3
Commr. Stivender commented that the
LIBARARY ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS
Commr. Stivender stated that she had made a mistake last week and did not read through all the information that was given to them in the backup on the Library Advisory Board. She explained that they had more than one applicant for District 3. She noted that the letters had not gone out to appointees yet, and she wanted to request that the Board allow her to change the recommendation to appoint a different person. She also explained that she did not have the recommendation of the Library Advisory Board regarding the person that they had recommended at the last meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the revision of the appointment to District 3 to the Library Advisory Board on the Agenda.
Commr. Stivender stated that per the Lake County Advisory Board’s recommendation, she would like to name Dr. Terry Jackson as the appointee for the District 3 vacancy and rescind the past appointment of Mr. John J. O’Connell. Commr. Stivender commented that Mr. O’Connell applied for several appointments, so they would try to find another location for him on another board in that district.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board rescinded the appointment of Mr. John J. O’Connell and appointed Dr. Terry Jackson for the vacant District 3 position on the Library Advisory Board.
STATE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED CONFERENCE
Commr. Stivender reported that they
had a meeting February 26 for the Transportation Disadvantaged Board, and that
the State Conference would be held March 13.
She stated that it was requested that the State’s Community
Transportation Coordinator’s (CTC) sponsor contribute $500.00, which they had
not had to do in the past. She stated
that she had already asked Ms. Cindy Hall,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the item regarding allocation of $500.00 for the State Transportation Disadvantaged Conference on the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to direct staff to find an allocation of $500 for the State Transportation Disadvantaged Conference.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STEWART – DISTRICT 4
CHILD CARE AWARENESS MONTH AND PARENTS AND CHILDREN’S DAY
Commr. Stewart stated that as a liaison to the Early Learning Coalition and after 32 years of teaching school in Lake County, she was very pleased to have the honor of moving that the Board approve Proclamation No. 2007-29 proclaiming March 2007 as Child Care Awareness Month and April 1, 2007 as Parents and Children’s Day in Lake County, because children and good parenting are both very important.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2007-29 proclaiming March 2007 as Child Care Awareness Month and April 1, 2007 as Parents and Children’s Day in Lake County.
Commr. Stewart related an e-mail from
Claude “Tonto” Ray, from Minneola, regarding the motorcycle accident and death
of Tavares Police Office Mike Pool on February 11. She commented that not only did Mr. Ray lose
a friend, but
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Ms. Debra Foster addressed the Board to ask for help regarding boom boxes and loud music coming from vehicles. She opined that it was a health issue for a lot of people, especially the elderly, those with heart conditions, and those that were sensitive to sound. She commented that she is often awakened at night due to the noise and that it would sometimes speed her heart rate to the point that she could not breathe.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had had
a conversation with Ms. Foster about this, and he had asked the Sheriff to look
into this in the area which she lived.
He commented that her area was unique because she had the City of
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Renick stated that they had talked before about needing more in terms of a noise ordinance.
Cadwell assured Ms. Foster that the Board would have the
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
WELTON CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK