MAY 22, 2007

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 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, Vice Chairman; Elaine Renick; Debbie Stivender; and Linda Stewart.  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.


Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.


Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she would like to pull Tab 7, because that department would be handling that issue in a different manner; and she wanted to discuss Tabs 11 and 13 at the same time since they related to the same area.  She also stated that they had one Addendum under the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda dealing with a lease agreement for the Health Department.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they had an emergency ordinance, and asked Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, if they needed to take action on the emergency ordinance itself or just the emergency portion first.

Mr. Minkoff responded that the ordinance would require a four-fifths vote of approval by the Board today and should be added to the Agenda, if the Board wished.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the emergency ordinance on the Agenda.


On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 8, pulling Tab 7, as follows:


Request for approval of the following Budget Change Requests:

1.  Budget transfer - General Fund, Department of Facilities Development and Management, Facilities Management Division. Transfer $117,247 from Contractual Services to Overtime ($27,082), Professional Services ($55,165), and Repair and Maintenance ($35,000). Additional funds are needed for the following projects: Overtime for work to remodel the Judicial Center fourth floor done by Facilities staff; Professional Services for architectural and engineering services for the Historical Courthouse cornice and Astor Library parking lot; and Repair and Maintenance for repair of Historical Courthouse cornice. Funds are available in Facilities Services Contractual Services due to lower cost for actual custodial contract than estimated in adopted budget.

2.  Budget transfer - General Fund, Department of Facilities Development and Management, Facilities Management Division. Transfer $52,500 from Contractual Services to Utility Services. Additional funds are required for Energy Management for utilities due to increases for additional facilities not included in the adopted budget as well as rate increases. Funds are available in Facilities Services Contractual Services due to lower cost for actual custodial contract than estimated in adopted budget.

Community Services

Request for authorization to advertise for bids for Lake Kathryn Community Development Block Grant Phase VI Paving Project No. 2007-02 at an estimated cost of $183,442.00. Funding will be through the Community Development Block Grant.

Growth Management

Request for approval and execution of a Release of Fine,  Property Owner: Sherry L. Puckett, Code Case#2005010140 - Commission District 5.

Public Works

Request for approval for execution of SJRWMD Participation Agreement, Memorandum of Agreement, and approval of PEC Scope for design of Hollondel Road Regional Stormwater Pond. TRACKING # STR 07016 - Commission District 3.

Request for approval of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Mascotte for the Sunset Avenue Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study --- TRACKING # SDY 07015; CRC # RI-0706 - Commission District 3.

Request for execution of the Statement of Commitment for Upper Ocklawaha River Basin Management Action Plan.

Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute satisfaction of liens for the attached four (4) road assessments.


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 Consent Agenda, Tab 9 and the Addendum No. 1-I, as follows:

Request for approval of Agreement with Stricklen Appraisal Services, P.A. for CR 466 Segment A Project – Commission District 5.

Addendum No. 1-I

Request for approval of renewal of lease agreement between Lake County and St. Clairsville for Health Department lease space.




Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Emergency Ordinance on the floor for reading, by title only, as follows:


Mr. Minkoff explained that this year the legislature created Law 2007-4, which authorized this increase, and authorized it retroactively if the Board acted and delivered a copy of an ordinance by June 1 to the Property Appraiser.  He stated that it was noted in the summary that approximately a little over 4,000 homesteads had qualified for this exemption in Lake County.

Commr. Cadwell asked if the income restriction for that ordinance was $20,000.

Mr. Minkoff responded that it was actually a little more than $20,000, because another part of the act called for an increase in that as the cost of living went up, so it was slightly higher than $20,000, but still relatively low.  He also explained that it was adjusted gross income, so that there might be some people who had some income that would not be included in that, but for the most part, this would be for very low income people.

Commr. Cadwell asked what happened after the legislature met and they put this in as a constitutional issue.

Mr. Minkoff responded that the bills they had seen so far had a combination of revenue restrictions for this year and proposed constitutional amendments that would be on the ballot that would become effective in the future, and once they saw what they did, they would have the ability to readdress it if the Board wanted to.

Commr. Cadwell commented that there were a lot of people in this county that could utilize that, but the down side was that they needed to apply for it every year and the County would not be able to fund a program to make sure that they did that, but they would get a notice that informed them that they needed to file every year.

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 Emergency Ordinance No. 2007-22 increasing the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 for people over the age of 65 with limited income.



Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Chairman asked him to quickly go through the three cases comprising this agreement, and instructed them to turn to Exhibit B of the settlement agreement.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the first case involved Ordinance No. 2004-90, Hart Family LLC, which was a proposal originally to redesignate 142 acres from Rural to Urban Expansion.  He showed on an overhead map where the property was located, using Hartwood Marsh Road and Hancock Road as reference points, pointing out that the City of Clermont surrounded the property almost on three sides.  He stated that the proposed settlement called for repealing the ordinance, which would leave those 142 acres rural.  He went on to explain that the second case was 2004-99, which was Vrablik and was an ordinance that designated 355 vacant acres from Suburban to Urban Expansion.  He showed the location of the property on the overhead map, using US Hwy 27, the entrance to the Industrial Park, the Welcome Center, and the Turnkpike as reference points.  He specified that the proposed settlement in this case called for repealing that ordinance, which would put the property back to Suburban.  He explained that the third case, which was called 2001-27 LLC and George Corbett, changed 98 acres from Rural to Urban Expansion and Commercial Activity Center Overlay.  He stated that the proposed settlement would leave approximately 18 acres of this property to become Urban Expansion and Commercial Activity Center Overlay, with the requirement that when the Comp Plan was amended to incorporate this settlement, that the maximum amount of commercial development of 250,000 square feet be allowed on that parcel and would have them rescind the ordinance that dealt with the other 80 acres.

Commr. Cadwell commented that it would be simpler to divide the three cases out.

The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Hart Family case, Ordinance No. 2004-90.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that he represented the Hart Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and pointed out that this went back to a large scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment which was done in 2004, and it was rezoned and sent to the State.  He related that the State issued a notice in February of 2005 that they were going to find it in noncompliance, and they were advised as the property owners that they needed to undertake to defend that action.  They did that, and were advised by the County Attorney that the burden was on them to settle the case that DCA had brought against Lake County.  He further explained that they met with County staff, and worked out a settlement agreement with the State in March of 2005, which required them to do some water balancing and some additional traffic analysis on the Hart property and also provide some additional data analysis with regard to Clermont’s ability to provide them with water and sewer.  He also noted that subsequent to that, all those requirements of that settlement agreement had been complied with, and they had received a proposed settlement that simply adopted the Comp Plan Amendment and settled that outstanding issue with the State in September or October of 2006.  In the meantime, they had been processing through the County and various governmental agencies this particular project.  He also pointed out that they had provided a school site that was currently the location of a school occupied with almost 400 students.  He stated that it was determined that that proposed settlement agreement was not what the State should present to the County, and the settlement agreement that the Board had before them that day basically undid what they had relied on since 2005 in their zoning, construction plans, school site, and the extension of water and sewer lines.  He respectfully asked the Board not to approve the settlement agreement brought forth that day, but to approve a settlement agreement with the State that did what they originally had proposed to do and allowed them to get the benefit of all the information and money they had spent over the last couple of years going through this process, and that he would come back with a proposal that did what they had originally agreed to do.  He also commented that when this Comp Plan went through, the JPA was not in effect, which was Clermont’s major concern at that time.  They had designed this project and construction plans to the JPA standards that existed at the time they started this, and they would be meeting the standards of the JPA that had evolved over this last year.

Commr. Renick stated that she recalled that the City of Clermont had a concern with a density issue in addition to the JPA issue, and that Clermont had wanted it to come before them instead of the County Commission, since it was surrounded on three sides by the City, and Clermont was concerned that it would not be given as low a density as they would have given.

Mr. Richey responded that now they would be bound by the JPA, which was far less than the four units to the acre that was in the Comp Plan Amendment, and that the density issues were now moot.

Commr. Cadwell asked the County Attorney what would happen if the Board denied the settlement agreement today.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, responded that they would go back to the Department of Community Affairs and attempt to bring something back to the Board that was in line with whatever direction the Board gave them that day.  He stated that they did have the proposal that Mr. Richey mentioned, which in this case would have allowed the Comp Plan to be amended, but they would have to go back and verify that that offer was still open, and that would be a DCA decision.

Commr. Cadwell commented that he hoped the Board would deny the settlement agreement and let them come back with something else, considering the water and sewer, being surrounded by the City, and the school concurrency situation.

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

Commr. Renick stated that the stipulation agreement rescinded the Comp Plan and the change from Rural, and as the District 2 Commissioner, her recommendation was to approve it the way they currently had it.

Commr. Renick made a motion to approve the settlement agreement the way it currently was presented before the Board, which was seconded by Commr. Stewart.  The motion failed by a vote of 2-3, with Commr. Stivender, Commr. Hill, and Commr. Cadwell voting “no.”

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill, and carried by a motion of 3-2, the Board denied the settlement agreement that was before them that day and allowed staff and the applicant to go back to DCA.

Commr. Renick and Commr. Stewart voted “no.”

Mr. Richey explained that the same scenario that he had alluded to had taken place on the case of Vrablik also, and that in addition to that, this case in particular had complete construction plans approved to build on this piece of property and develop it.  He noted that they also had all their water and sewer permits for distribution from DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) and all the other agencies with regard to the St. Johns River Water Management District.  He stated that they ended up getting a PUD that approved a certain number of density units and that it would be making housing available to serve the needs of the workers in the Industrial Park, which was still the intention of this project, and that this property was comp planned and zoned at that time based on those representations.  Also, they had entered into an agreement with Groveland to provide central water and sewer, which provided those services to the Industrial Park.  Mr. Richey also noted that Groveland was in the process of spending millions of dollars to upgrade utilities in that area based on that utility agreement to serve this project.  They anticipated that this project would be under construction a year ago, and that the developer and the City both had obligations of millions of dollars on that utility agreement.  He noted that more than one hundred acres of this property was comp planned at seven units to the acre, which they had the ability to develop, and the original proposal from DCA was to do a blending to reduce the density on that to four units to the acre and increase the density on the other half of the property.  He proposed that the Board reject the revoking of the Comp Plan Amendment and allow them to come back and work out this blending issue.  He emphasized that the density that they were proposing was less than what the Comp Plan on the total parcel would allow, which could avoid them having to go through a Comp Plan Amendment ultimately.

Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Richey if he was willing to put some language in any future settlement agreement or any PUD that would spell out the workforce housing if they denied the settlement agreement he currently had.

Mr. Richey stated that they could probably work out some wording that would accommodate potential changes in impact fees but yet have that initial workforce housing, and he agreed to put that in writing.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not agree totally agree with everything that Mr. Richey said, but that if the Board rejected the agreement today, they would bring something back to the Board after working with staff to develop that.  He also commented that they might have to have a closed session to discuss how they approached it, and he did not want specific directions on a settlement that day.

Mr. Allen Sherrod, Vice Mayor of the City of Groveland, stated that as Mr. Richey mentioned, they had extensively worked to put water and sewer capacity in that area to provide services for them, and he believed that it would be best to reject this agreement and let them come back with another one.

Commr. Cadwell asked if he was speaking on behalf of Groveland or as just one member.

Mr. Sherrod responded that he was speaking as one member, but he knew that the city had over $9 million in the treatment plant that was on Hwy 19 and Hwy 27.

Commr. Stewart asked how many units would be on the property.

Mr. Richey responded that there would be 577 units on 455 acres.

Mr. Minkoff commented that this was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would govern the entire property and set it at a maximum of four units to the acre, and then other zoning issues would address the density.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board moved that they deny the rescinding of Ordinance No. 2004-99 with the understanding that they would work with staff on blending and making sure that workforce housing was part of the new settlement agreement.

Commr. Renick voted “no.”

Mr. James Johnston, Attorney, of Gray Robinson in Orlando, stated that the third parcel involved two pieces of property owned by two different parties, that he represented Superior International Investment who owned the 18 acre parcel, and that they were fine with the settlement which put a 250,000 square foot cap on the commercial on that 18-acre parcel.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Johnston added that he knew there were rejections of the other two items of this agreement and that they were “married” together, and requested that if this portion was approved, that they could continue to move forward, since this had been going on since 2004.

Commr. Cadwell clarified that Mr. Johnston was requesting approval for that portion of the settlement agreement.

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

Mr. Minkoff commented that this was a package deal with DCA, and he suspected that they would allow them to parcel it out, but he did not have assurance of that, but that he would aim to do that.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the stipulated settlement agreement to rescind the portion of Ordinance 2004-98 that proposed to change the future land use designation on the 80-acre Corbett parcel from Rural to Urban Expansion and Commercial Activity Outlay so that the future land use designation on that parcel will remain rural and amend the ordinance with respect to the 18.397 acres to change the land use designation to Urban Expansion and Commercial Activity Center Overlay.




            Commr. Cadwell asked if there was a zoning case related to this issue.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that was true and that the zoning case was listed as a separate Tab later in the meeting, but that they were separating those out.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that when they got to that Tab, he had gotten a request to postpone the rezoning, but he did not want to postpone the purchase of this.  He commented that they were going to build the tower, no matter what happened with the zoning, but did not know if the Board would be more comfortable waiting for after that discussion to approve this.

            Mr. Gary Kaiser, Public Safety Director, stated that they needed to go ahead with the tower.

            Commr. Hill asked that if they went ahead and approved the contract, whether there was a time frame that it had to be done in or it would cost the County more money.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that they were anticipating a slight modification to this agreement that would accommodate that extra 30-day delay.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the contract to Motorola, Inc. for the purchase of a communications tower and related equipment on the premises of Fire Station 13 in Paisley.


            Mr. Barnett Schwartzman, Procurement Services Director, stated that they had completed some very complex negotiations last week regarding the MV Contract Transportation, Inc. Agenda item, and a new contract was prepared by the County Attorney to incorporate all current and previous changes into one document.  He noted that a copy of the new contract signed by the vendor was sent to the Board last Friday, May 18, and the agreement provided for services through January of 2008 only.  He commented that decisions needed to be made in the next several months to finalize the infrastructure for the support operation to all of those services, and that this agreement got them started and moving through January while they did the detailed research they needed to do to determine how they wanted the final infrastructure to look.  He related that the options included the landfill, lease facilities, and other County facilities.  He concluded by saying that this bought them the time to provide the services until the final decisions could be made.

            Commr. Stivender thanked staff for working on this diligently to get it done and that the buses were running and articles were written up in the newspaper about the service, but that they had some fine tuning to do.

            Commr. Hill clarified with Mr. Schwartzman that this was not from the general fund, but that federal grants would be taking care of that contract.

            Mr. Schwartzman responded that he believed that was correct.

            Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that they did provide a match for the grant, and currently they were supplying enough money from the general fund to exceed that match requirement.

            Ms. Hall clarified that the contract they were looking at combined both the fixed rate and the TD (Transportation Disadvantaged), and the TD had the general fund supplement to it.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the agreement with MV Contract Transportation, Inc. for Public Transportation Services.

            PUBLIC HEARING


Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was Vacation Petition No. 1109, T. Berry Long for Park Hill Homeowners, to vacate the right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of a cul-de-sac of a county maintained road, known as Parkdale Drive, in the Plat of Park Hill, in the Leesburg area, Commission District 1.  He showed on the overhead that what they were essentially doing was taking the area shown in the Plat with the cul-de-sac existing in that location and turning it into the portion he showed on the map, and showed lots being added and a temporary cul-de-sac put at the end of it, vacating a portion which would be part of Lot 33 and the proposed replat of the area, putting in a temporary easement shown in Tab 11 and posting a bond for that to take care of the modification of the plat.  He explained that the property to the east was owned by the developer, and they were working through that process.  They were very concerned that the replat would eliminate the ability to turn around, so therefore, they acquired a temporary one.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1109 and execution of Resolution No. 2007-82.


            PUBLIC WORKS


            Mr. Stivender stated that this was to accept the temporary easement agreement that was referred to in Vacation Petition No. 1109 (Tab 13) that they had just discussed.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 11, to accept the final plat for Park Hill Partial Replat and Tract B and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Park Hill Partial Replat and Tract B plat, accept a temporary easement agreement with Long Farms North, Inc., accept a performance bond in the amount of $55,739.00, and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Long Farms North, Inc.

            PUBLIC HEARING


            Mr. Stivender stated that this had been before the Board on many different occasions, and showed on a map using Hwy 50, Old Hwy 50, Lake Blvd., and the Orange County line as reference points for where the property was located.   He explained that the request was to vacate the old right of ways, that they were working through the site plan, and that the old plat right of ways still existed on this property.  He mentioned that they worked out some agreements with the property owners on how the trail would connect, and he said that there would be a road going through Plaza Collina to access Hwy 50 as part of their matrix and that they were minimizing Lake Blvd as part of that site plan.  He commented that they had worked through all the issues concerning this vacation and believed they were at a point where they had solved them all and were ready to vacate this property.

            Commr. Renick stated that she would be asking for this to be postponed.  She explained that even though she understood staff’s position that there was no need to keep this easement, she would be more comfortable if they were far enough along to see the site plan before they actually voted on an easement.  She believed that this could be voted on at the end of the process rather than the beginning.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that the reason they did it that way was so the developer did not spend engineering money and site plan money over a parcel that they did not own.

            Mr. Stivender added that it would continue to create a cloud over the title on the property, and they would not be able to move forward with anything.

            Ms. Cecilia Bonifay from Akerman Senterfitt, the attorney representing Plaza Collina, stated that they had submitted this last November, so they had not rushed in to do something hurriedly, and they had been working with the staff at a number of meetings, which the public attended.  She also stated that when the County accepted the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) development order, they talked about the access roads through this project.  She noted that they also approved PUD zoning for this, and attached to that was the concept master plan at that time, which clearly showed the access points for the project.  She stated that the two right of ways had no impact in terms of being used as access for the site, but they were creating a cloud on title when they had perspective tenants that they were marketing to.

            She commented that the clients gave right of way all along the property boundary for the West Orange Trail, and that was done because the County was at risk of losing their federal grant because they did not have the remaining piece that would connect what they had to the West Orange Trail.  She emphasized that this developer went forward with that without requiring anything of the County at that point, but in good faith gave that trail.  She also noted that now that the trail was opened, the County also needed an additional 15 feet, which was part of this vacation, which was going to be given to the County.  She added that they were also accepting the County’s drainage, which was not accommodated.  She related that Mr. Stivender indicated that the County asked the developer to now give an additional easement to realign the trail so that it would actually connect up on the other side with the Orange County trail.  She also commented that they had spent a lot of time in meetings with staff to work on the site plan to alleviate all staff’s concerns.  She stated that delaying this would cause them economic harm and was adverse to their position in the marketplace.  She urged the Board to move forward with this, and opined that it had no impact on the site plan.

            Commr. Renick commented that she was not suggesting any kind of extensive delay, but staff knew that she had a number of people concerned about the trail and Old Hwy 50, and she understood that they would be updated before anything else came before them.

            Ms. Bonifay commented that she had tried repeatedly to have meetings with Commr. Renick and her client, and she had refused to meet.  However, she pointed out that Commr. Renick  had met with representatives of the City of Oakland, neighbors in this area, and everyone but the property owner.  She stated that she would be happy to update her at any time.

            Mr. Stivender commented that one of the concerns regarding the trail was getting the additional 15 feet, which would allow them to eliminate the barb wire fence in that location.  Also, he explained that they had a signed agreement regarding the additional right of way, which had not been recorded yet; it was subject to getting this vacated or the site plan, whichever came first.  He related that this would realign the trail so it would line up better with the Orange County trail.

            Commr. Stivender asked if he was saying that the easement that was there had no public use and was surrounded by the developer’s property, and as a trade-off, what they had done was give the County the right of way to complete the bicycle trail, which they needed.

            Mr. Stivender responded that the County had already completed it, but this would enhance it.

            Commr. Cadwell asked Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, if this road vacation would affect that site plan in regard to the concerns.

            Ms. Stricklin responded that when this vacation petition was presented in November, they did not recommend moving it forward because they did not have sufficient information that the site plan would be processed to determine that there would be adequate site access and bicycle and pedestrian access.  She related that the site plan had been submitted in three parts, which was reviewed by their development review services in March and had been resubmitted earlier that month.  Based upon those submittals, they had recommended approval of the vacation petition, because they believed that the site plan submittals demonstrated that there was not a need for those right of ways and easements at this time.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that an additional two weeks until the next Board meeting might give everyone a comfort level regarding this.

            Ms. Stricklin commented that at that time they would have completed their review of the revised submittal they had received, and they would be happy to present the staff’s findings regarding the site plan to the Board.

            Commr. Cadwell emphasized that at that time, the site plan discussion would be an informational type thing for the Board and not a public hearing, and asked Ms. Bonifay if she had a problem with a two week postponement.

            Ms. Bonifay commented that she hoped it would be determined that it would be taken up for a vote at that time.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that they should have policy discussion possibly at a workshop in the future.  He emphasized that this was a big project and they wanted to make sure everything was done correctly.

            Ms. Bonifay opined that the vacation issue was a totally separate issue from the site plan once it was determined that the roads were not necessary.  However, in an effort to try to be open in the process, she stated that she would agree to that, but that she was concerned that the information that was available was not gathered.  She would also like a date certain that this would be voted upon.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing to comment on the two-week postponement.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to postpone Vacation Petition 1100 until June 5 at 9:00 a.m.


At 10:07 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.



It was noted that this meeting had been properly advertised and that there were five items on the Rezoning Agenda, but that one of them was a request for continuance.

Commr. Hill disclosed that she had talked to people regarding Tab 2 and Tab 4.

Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he had talked to staff about Tab 2, and he talked to Mr. Greg A. Beliveau about the timing of the case, not the substance of the case.  However, he disclosed that he heard Mr. Keith Schue speak as a Nature Conservancy advocate on that case.

Commr. Renick stated that she had an e-mail and that Ms. Nancy Clutts at the League of Cities spoke positively about the project in Tab 2.

Commr. Stivender disclosed that she spoke to people regarding Tabs 3 and 4.


Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director, Growth Management, suggested to the Board that the Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permits in Tab 5 be moved to the Consent Agenda, if possible, to be dealt with in a single motion.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing on any of the revocations of the conditional use permits in Tab 5.

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 the Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permits in Tab 5, Tracking No. 34-07-CUP/REV, and Ordinance No. 207-23, for the following:

CUP #148-2, B 3 Leesburg South Venture LLC, Annexed by City of Leesburg

CUP No. 97/4/2-3, Bruce and Nancy Sanford, Annexed by City of Leesburg

CUP No. 269A-2, Royal RV Resort, Annexed by City of Groveland

CUP No. 679-2, Florida Power Corp, Annexed by City of Leesburg

CUP No. 92/4/1-5, City of Umatilla, Annexed by City of Umatilla

CUP No. 92/1/2-2, Edgar Revis, Annexed by City of Groveland


            Mr. Alfredo Massa, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, presented Rezoning Case No. PH15-07-1, which was a petition to rezone property submitted by the owner, Ms. Marion Zimmerman, and the Applicant, Thomas G. Wenski, Bishop, of the Archdiocese of Orlando.  He stated that they received a request from the Applicant’s attorney to change the name on the record to Thomas G. Wenski as Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando and the Successors in Office, a Corporation Sole.  He explained that the property in question presently was under the land use of Urban Expansion (UE) and Suburban with a zoning of R-1 (Rural Residential), permitting one home per acre.  He further explained that the property was in Commission District 1 and was surrounded by rural land uses and R-1 zoning.

Mr. Massa read the Summary of Analysis in the backup materials, including that it consisted of 37.72 acres on Lake Unity Nursery Road, which was an unpaved roadway, and that the Applicant was requesting to rezone the parcel from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facilities District) for a religious retreat.  He also explained that the Applicant did not plan any additional construction on the property.  He commented that the Archdiocese of Orlando intended the retreat center to allow for quiet contemplation, and therefore, the surrounding residences would not be negatively impacted by the proposed use.  He also stated that the proposed use would not create a substantial number of trips on the surrounding roadway network and that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the surrounding land uses.  Also, the proposed use was not anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.  He mentioned that there was one comment received in opposition to this request, which was entered into the record, from Ms. Evelyn Baez-Rojas, a resident who lived on Lake Unity Nursery Road in Fruitland Park, who believed that the area would be adversely affected by an increase in traffic and that the land use would impact the wildlife and woodsy atmosphere.

Ms. Massa stated that given the aforementioned findings, staff recommended approval for the rezoning, and that on May 2, the Zoning Board voted 6-0 in favor of it with the conditions that there shall be no outdoor group activities from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., there shall be no music played outdoors or other outdoor activities causing excessive noise from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., the number of overnight guests shall be limited to two persons for each bedroom, and the overall number of people allowed on the property at any given time shall not exceed 70.

Ms. Francis A. Aguilar, a resident of Orlando who owned property immediately adjacent to the parcel, on the south corner by the lake, respectfully requested that the Board deny the rezoning, and stated that currently the area was rural with most people owning multiple acres.  He commented that the road was a two-lane sand and dirt road, and he was concerned that allowing 140 trips per day would impact the local surrounding area.  He was also concerned about accommodating parking for 70 people and the drainage from the property going into Lake Unity, which was a small freshwater lake fed by springs.  He also had questions about whether 70 visitors would include support staff and whether further construction would be allowed on the property.  Other concerns he had were about the property values being affected and about people that were not part of the neighborhood and did not have a vested interest in maintaining the character of the neighborhood coming in.

Commr. Stewart asked Mr. Aguilar if he felt that he would be less impacted by having this piece of property developed with up to 37 homes than he would be by this.

Mr. Aguilar responded that he felt that the people who owned those homes would have a better stewardship of the property, and that currently most people were building on a larger number of acres.

Mrs. Leslie Aguilar, wife of the previous speaker, stated that they were very thankful to find a piece of property that was quiet and on a dirt road that would restrict a lot of traffic from going through.  She also clarified that there would only be a maximum of 17 single family homes on buildable land if it was developed, because some of that land was wetlands.  She stated that it was important to them to find an area that was healthy, because she had chemical sensitivity.  She was also concerned about having to look out her window at 70 vehicles in a parking lot and about future uses and whether this retreat would ever be converted to a full-scale church or other high-traffic facility.

Commr. Cadwell stated that in this particular zoning district, the County could be specific in regards to what they could do with that, and it would have to come back to a full-blown public hearing if the Board chose to put that wording in there for any change in use or buildings.

Mrs. Aguilar asked whether there would be parking restrictions imposed.

Mr. Massa responded that during the site plan review process, that would all be taken into review and consideration.

Ms. Cynthia Raleigh of Baker, Hostetler, who was representing the Diocese of Orlando, clarified that there was a buffer strip on the southern portion of the property, which was approximately 25 feet.  She also commented that any issues regarding cars being seen from their property could be adequately addressed with buffering, and she opined that the Diocese was a good and a quiet neighbor, and that the retreats were quiet retreats for contemplation and not a place for loud music or parties.  She did not believe that there should be concerns about the noise level.

Commr. Stewart inquired about their future plans.

Ms. Raleigh stated that there were no plans to build anything additional on the property, and commented that the house was in bad shape, and it was going to cost a lot of money just to bring it up to commercial code.

Commr. Renick commented that according to the backup notes, Mr. Wilde from her law firm stated that the retreat would only be attended by about 30 to 40 people, rather than 70, and that the Zoning Board was looking at a worst case scenario.  She also commented that this was a retreat for adults and that it should be quiet.  She inquired whether there was room for an additional buffer in the event that there was a problem.

Mr. Massa stated that restrictions could be placed in the ordinance.

Ms. Raleigh commented that the Diocese had these facilities all over Central Florida, and they were not frequently used, and that given the relatively isolated location of this one, she did not think it would be used more than once a week.  She stated that she could not guarantee that, but in general, they were not used every day.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-24, Tab 1, Rezoning Case No. PH15, 07-1, Tracking No. 22-07-CFD, as amended by the Zoning Board with changes to decrease the amount of people allowed on the property to 40, any additional construction to come back before the Board for approval, change to Type C buffering on the southern portion of the property, pervious surface to be used for parking to the extent possible, and to adhere to shoreline regulations.

Commr. Stewart voted “no.”



Commr. Cadwell stated that this was the case that he mentioned earlier that he would like to request a 30-day postponement for, and that they might have some other options in the same general area.  He noted that the tower might have to be moved a little bit, but that the County Attorney stated that they could do that in 30 days.

The Chairman opened the public hearing in regard to the 30-day postponement.

On a motion by motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to postpone Tab 2, Rezoning Case No. PH26-07-5, Lake County Paisley Fire District, Rob Richardson, Lake County Public Safety, Tracking No. 33-07-CFD for 30 days.



Mr. Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, presented Rezoning Case No. PH10-07-3, and stated that this was a property owned by Mr. Ely Frank Symphorien and that the Applicant was the Church Iglesia Refugio De Amor.  He explained that the Applicant was requesting a zoning amendment from Rural Residential (R-1) to Community Facility District (CFD) in order to build a church.  He noted that this case was originally presented to the Board on April 24, 2007, so he would give a brief overview, stating that the parcel was located in the Minneola/Clermont area at the intersection of Turnpike Road and CR 561A and was within the Suburban Future Land Use Category (FLUC).  He also commented that a church was a permitted use in the CFD District, and that the City of Minneola had submitted a no objection letter.  He mentioned that at the April 24 Board Meeting, the Board requested that the Applicant submit a Conceptual Site Plan, and that they had done so, a copy of which was included in the back up material packets.

Mr. Sheahan also reported that the Public Works Department had requested that two additional conditions be added to the ordinance having to do with the access management, and that one of those conditions was that a site entrance be located at CR 561, but after further review, staff had requested that that condition be removed from the ordinance and worked out at the site plan review process.

Commr. Stivender commented that they had looked at the intersection shown in the site plan coming out at CR 561 and did not feel that it was a viable option and that it would be a hazard.  Also, she related that in her discussions with the owner, she gathered that they were starting out very small, and she had talked to staff and they thought that maybe coming off of Turnpike Road, which was a paved road, would be a safer alternative until they got to a point where they were a larger church.

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. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-25, Tab 3, Case No. PH10-07-3, Ely Frank Symphorien, Tracking No. 16-07-CFD, with the requirement that the entrance to the site be determined by staff at the site plan review and that there be no requirements to pave the parking spaces at this time.



            Mr. Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, stated that this also was a case that was brought forward to the Board at the April 24 meeting, and that there were concerns by several residents and neighbors about this particular application.  He noted that there was a community meeting with the neighbors to work out their differences that was held on May 3 at the home of Terry and Wendy Ashton and was attended by a member of their staff and that further meetings and conversations were held with the Nature Conservancy representative, resulting in several revisions of the site plan to address the concerns of the neighbors.  He reported that site plan was provided to staff on that Friday, and the information was not included in the backup materials.  He also related that Mr. Keith Schue, of the Nature Conservancy, had submitted an e-mail to staff late the night before in support of this application.

            Mr. Sheahan briefly explained that this application was to rezone 57.11 acres from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to allow for the construction of a seminary used in conjunction with a training facility.  He specified that differences from the previous presentation by staff of the ordinance revolved around a relocation of the driveway to a point acceptable under their access standards away from the intersection between CR 44 and Eustis Sand Lake Road, elimination of one of the loop trails, which was a concern by the adjacent property owners, and a proffer by the applicant to place 80 percent of the site under a conservation easement.

            Commr. Hill stated that she noticed in the ordinance that there were to be no overnight guests, that there was outdoor lighting mentioned, and that there may be some evening activities.  She asked if they could include in this ordinance time frames as to noise and outside activities similar to the original Zoning Board recommendations in Tab 1.

            Mr. Sheahan responded that they could certainly include those conditions.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, representing the applicant, stated one additional item was put in the ordinance, which was a request to allow them to use pervious surfaces for part of their parking.  He further specified that they had computed the number of parking places that they felt was more than they currently needed and wanted to leave the rest as grass, leaving the possibility to improve it in the future if necessary.

Commr. Stewart commented that she thought this was a very good project, especially since all the neighbors were happy with it, and she was excited that they were preserving 80 percent of its land as conservation easement.  She wanted to make sure that the wording of the conservation easement specified that it was protected well into the future, and suggested to LPG that they allow the Nature Conservancy to review their easement.

Mr. Beliveau stated that they had consented to that and that they had already been provided a sample copy of their template.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Wendy Ashton of Forestdel Drive, Eustis, requested and received confirmation that there would be dark sky lighting utilized on the site.

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 approved Ordinance No. 2007-26, Tab 4, Case No. PH17-07-5, Wesley D. Scovanner, et al, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., Tracking No. 24-07-CFD, with the inclusion of leaving the pervious surface spaces and limiting the outdoor activities on the property.



            Commr. Stivender stated that she and staff went to Arlington Ridge last week and met with the owners of Arlington Ridge as well as a representative of Prestige.  She felt that the meeting went very well, and they were working on a site plan to address some of the citizens’ concerns.



            Commr. Cadwell stated that he would be in Tallahassee on June 12 for the special legislative session and requested that the worksession for discussion regarding stricter standards for a heavy industrial ordinance be postponed.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, cancelled the June 12 session, and it was later rescheduled, after the meeting ended, for June 18, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in Chambers.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that he wanted the Board to talk about policy only at that session and not talk about specific cases.

            Commr. Renick stated that the public should be made aware of what the County was doing in terms of a site plan at Arlington Ridge and what was required and what would be in place for Prestige specifically that was not in place for the South Lake location and that they were not just moving the problem as it was to the new location.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that would be two issues, and that if they wanted to have a public meeting in front of the whole Board in regards to that particular site plan, the Board needed to instruct staff to do that.  However, he commented that talking about new rules in general for the industry would be a separate issue from that, and that it would not be good policy to think about only one project while discussing what industrial rules in general should be in place.

            Commr. Stivender commented that at the Arlington meeting, she explained to them that they were in the City of Leesburg and all of that was approved by the City around the Industrial Park that had been around for 25 years, and that it was the ideal place to put them.  She stated that she would look at the overall safety, noise, and dust for any industrial park and what they were putting in around it.

            Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, requested direction regarding the timing of the Prestige site plan and whether they should extend the site plan review process.

            Commr. Stivender asked if they had met the requirements by staff.

            Ms. Stricklin responded that they would determine that after they received the resubmittal that week.

            Commr. Stivender commented that if they had met the requirements, there was no legal right to not approve it, and asked the County Attorney for his opinion regarding that.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it was possible to change the rules in mid-stream, but if they did that, they would pay compensation to the property owners.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that they extend the site plan review and have a presentation to the Board on what was going on with it.  He stated that this case was different from most, because they had been involved in it from the beginning.

            Mr. Minkoff commented that they probably would not have the ability to put additional requirements on this proposal that was not in the current code, but opined that a week or two’s delay in approving the site plan would not cause them any major issues.

            Commr. Cadwell directed the County Manager to put a presentation of the site plan to the Board on the Agenda for the Board meeting of June 19 at 10:00 a.m., with public input.


There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.





                                                                        WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN