A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD
JANUARY 29, 2008
The Lake County Board of
Reverend William Tyson, from the Union Congregational Church in Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy
County Manager, informed the Board that Tab 2, under the
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Tab 15, under the County Attorney’s Reports, a request for approval of a Resolution instituting eminent domain proceedings for acquisition of property located along the CR 466 – Segment A Road Widening Project; and approval to proceed with pre-suit negotiation offers, was being postponed until the February 5, 2008 Board Meeting, due to the fact that one of the retention ponds on the project is being reworked and staff needs to get the legals correct.
Commr. Stivender requested that Tab 4, a request from Public Works regarding a Countywide Resurfacing and Sidewalk Project, be pulled for discussion.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender
and seconded by Commr. Renick to approve the
Request to (1) declare items on submitted lists surplus to county needs; (2) authorize the removal of all items on said lists from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records; and (3) authorize the Procurement Services Director to sign the vehicle titles.
Request to acknowledge FOR INFORMATION ITEM - NO ACTION REQUIRED. The Procurement Policy revisions
enacted by the BCC on September 27, 2007, delegated authority to the
Request for approval of Resolution
No. 2008-11, authorizing the posting of “No Parking or Fishing on the Bridge”
Request for authorization to accept
a maintenance bond, in the amount of $40,000.00, from Hewitt Contracting
Company, Inc., associated with a right of way utilization permit on
Request for authorization to execute Resolution No. 2008-12, accepting Hooks Street (County Road No. 1346), from 600 feet west of Sandhill View Road to Hancock Road (County Road No. 1254), into the County Road Maintenance System - Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to execute Resolution No. 2008-13, accepting Citrus Tower Boulevard (County Road No. 1350), from US 27 to SR 50, into the County Road Maintenance System - Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to execute Resolution No. 2008-14, accepting Steve's Road (County Road No. 1248), from the western property boundary of Lost Lake Reserve to 1,315 feet east of the intersection of Citrus Tower Boulevard (County Road No. 1350), into the County Road Maintenance System - Commission District 2.
Request for approval and signature
by Chairman on Agreement between
Under discussion, Commr. Stivender
informed the Board that, with regard to Tab 4, a request from Public Works for
authorization to award Countywide Resurfacing Lane Park Cutoff Road Sidewalk
and Mohawk Road Sidewalk Project No. 2008-01, Bid No. 08-0219, to Orlando
Paving Co., a division of Hubbard Construction, in the amount of $1,100,006.49;
and encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $967,000.00, from Renewal Sales
Tax Capital Projects Resurfacing, and $133,006.49 from Renewal Sales Tax
Capital Projects Sidewalks, it is a project that the Public Works Department
has been working on for quite some time – getting sidewalks where the schools
are located. She noted that the
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
Request for approval of lease agreement with Data Graphics, for office space – Commission District 4.
Request for approval of Sumter
Electric Cooperative (SECO) Perpetual Utility Easement and Agreement for Area
VACATION PETITION NO. 1124 –
CUROTTO/SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP - PLAT OF GROVELAND FARMS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public
Works Director, explained this request, stating that it involves rights of ways
that are all throughout this section of south
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Fant, Manager, Lake 64, LLC, owner of the property in question, addressed the Board stating that his company was asking for approval of the vacation, to allow them to replat the property into 64 two and three-quarter acre or larger lots, for a subdivision.
Mr. Kris Ector, adjacent
property owner, addressed the Board in opposition to the request and pointed
out the fact that the paperwork before them, which shows Neff as being the
property owner of their parcel is his wife’s former name. He stated that he and his wife have been in
contact with the County regarding their parcel for the last 20 years - since
1988 - and have had discussions with the
Their being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Renick stated that she had not had enough time to review all the information the Board had been given regarding this request and asked that it be postponed until a later date.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Vacation Petition No. 1124, Lake 64, LLC, Rep. Donald J. Curotto, Shutts & Bowen, LLP, until the February 26, 2008 Board Meeting.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2008-15, appointing members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, as follows:
Liaison Representative Who Actively Serves on Local Planning Agency
Resident Actively Engaged as Not-for-Profit Provider of Affordable Housing
Resident Actively Engaged as For-Profit Provider of Affordable Housing
Resident Representative of Areas
of Labor Engaged in
with Affordable Housing
Resident Who Is Concerned Citizen for Affordable Housing
Resident Who Represents Essential Services Personnel Defined in Housing
PUBLIC HEARINGS: REZONINGS
Commr. Cadwell noted that there would be a change in the order of how some of the rezoning cases would be heard by the Board.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that the meeting had been properly advertised, as acknowledged by the Proof of Publication contained in the Board’s backup material, and that there were two changes to the Rezoning Agenda, being (1) that Agenda Item No. 9, Case No. PH7-07-4, Eagle Dunes, LLC, had been moved to the top of the Regular Agenda; and (2) that the County had received a request for withdrawal of Agenda Item No. 3, Case No. CUP08/1/1-2, Alex MacDonnell, which staff would support.
REZONING CASE NO. PH31-07-5 – A
TO PUD –
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
It was noted that the applicant was willing to wait until that process is completed.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Stewart to postpone
Under discussion, Commr. Renick noted some concerns she had about a 60 day postponement.
Commr. Stivender amended her motion from a 60 day postponement to a postponement until the PLAAC process is completed.
Commr. Stewart seconded the amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Renick asked that Rezoning Case No. PH4-08-4/5, Kenneth T. and Laura L. West, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and heard under the Regular Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, as follows:
Ordinance No. 2008-2
Ellis Duane Eisnor
Rezoning Case No. CUP08/1/2-4
Renewal of CUP in A (Agriculture), to allow for continuance of minor automotive repair shop, as presented.
Ordinance No. 2008-3
Keatley Investments – Hillcrest, LLC/
aka Lake County BCC
Rezoning Case No. PH06-08-1
Rezone 23.58 acres from R-3 (Medium Residential) and A (Agriculture) Zoning Districts to CFD (Community Facility District), with existing CUP No. 450-2, for the purpose of bringing the established use of a cemetery into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations
(LDRs), as presented.
WLW Construction, Inc. and John F. Wagner, III, et al/
WLW Construction, Inc.
Rezoning Case No. PH40-07-4
(Continued until February 6, 2008 Zoning Board Meeting)
Ordinance No. 2008-4
Rezoning Case No. PH41-07-4
Rezone .75 acres from R-1 (Rural Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), as presented.
Carole and Michael Reading,
Rezoning Case No. PH35-07-4
(Continued until February 6, 2008 Zoning Board Meeting)
REZONING CASE NO. PH7-07-4 – A AND CFD TO PUD – EAGLE DUNES II, LLC
AKA VILLAGES OF SORRENTO SPRINGS
PUD/NKA ESTATES OF
SPRINGS PUD/JOHN GRAY, JR.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, thanked the applicant, the involved citizens, and his staff for participating in some very lengthy discussions, in order to bring everybody to the table and obtain a consensus on this request.
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior
Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented
this case, stating that the property in question is located in the Future Land
Use of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva), with a
maximum land use density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The present zoning is A (Agriculture), with
an existing zoning density of 1 dwelling unit per five acres. The applicant is requesting to rezone 161
acres in the north Sorrento area from A (Agriculture) and CFD (Community
Facility District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), to allow 160 single
family dwelling units, at a proposed density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. Staff finds the proposed rezoning request
consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations that permits PUD zoning in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact
Node (Non-Wekiva) Future Land Use Category.
The Urban Density Point Analysis would allow up to a density of 3.5
dwelling units per acre. The Lake County
Schools Growth Planning Department determined that the project would contribute
66 new students to the school system and would adversely impact three district
schools, if the rezoning is approved.
The proposed development will be subject to school concurrency. Three major intersections will fail to meet
concurrency and will not accommodate the additional traffic that would result
from the proposed development; however, if the rezoning is approved, said
issues could be addressed through a Proportionate Share Agreement. The intersections are
Mr. Hartenstein displayed the Master
Conceptual Plan, pointing out the fact that it shows a
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney,
Akerman Senterfitt, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating
that the project in question has been renamed from The Villages of Sorrento
Springs to The Estates of Sorrento Springs.
She discussed the issues of school and transportation concurrency and the
fact that she did not feel the impact on the schools would be significant and
that Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, discussed, in a
memorandum contained in the Board’s backup material, needed intersection
improvements, being a traffic signal at the intersection of Wolf Branch Road
and CR 437 and a northbound right turn lane at the intersection of SR 46 and CR
437 and what the applicant’s requirement will be regarding same, being either a
proportionate share for the traffic signal and right turn lane, or, as an alternative,
a proportionate share of another project in the area that the County feels is
needed. She stated that, after the
Zoning Board Meeting, there were still a few issues to be resolved, at which
time the applicant sat down with clients of Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney,
representing the opposition, as well as with other members of the community,
and, with staff, reviewed and discussed each and every point in the Ordinance
and then drafted language which they felt everyone could live with. She stated that the one remaining issue is
the classification and characterization of the Tree Park (longleaf pine
community), which she elaborated on, distributing a handout (Applicant’s
Exhibit A) containing information regarding same, noting that she feels what is
on the property is a silvopasture and agroforest and not a longleaf pine
community. She stated that, while she
respects those members of the community who have raised that issue and have
their professional opinions, the applicant sought the professional opinion of
another environmental consultant, Mr. Bill Ray, with Boyer-Singleton, who has
been in touch with various universities, as well as the Division of Forestry
and the agricultural community regarding the matter. She stated that they called Mr. Hartenstein
and had the County’s staff member that determined the tree forest to be a
longleaf pine community meet with Mr. Ray and review the site and that Mr.
Hartenstein had a report of their findings, which has determined the tree
forest to be an agricultural area and not a longleaf pine community, as
originally determined. She stated that a
cattle feeding operation is currently on the property, with upland scrub, pine,
hardwood, and some upland forest. She
stated that the applicant feels, because 50% of this project will be open
space, with extremely large buffers around the entire site, and because of the
fact that they will be doing a large amount of equestrian type four-board
fencing that the residents want, they need to have the ability to utilize the
community and make it function as a community; therefore, they are asking
approval to put in some passive recreational uses on the site, which have been
included in the site plan. She stated
that the applicant has agreed to the number of structures being asked to be
allowed in the
Mr. Ray informed the Board that, upon
evaluating the property, he found a canopy cover comprised primarily of
longleaf pines and live oaks, with a secondary of laurel oaks. The property was determined to have been in
agropasture for at least the last 50 years and, in viewing it as a silvopasture
and agropasture, the applicant is looking at ways to preserve what resources
are still remaining on the site and, after realizing that it was of a
significant resource to the community as a Tree Park, through the process, have
elected to protect the entire area. He
noted that, if it was a higher classification as a longleaf pine community,
under the County’s LDRs, the applicant would only be required to protect 25% of
the area, but is actually protecting 100% of it, as it stands. He further elaborated on the matter, noting
that, upon realizing there was some conflict involved with the findings, he
went back to the data and the site and consulted with other peers in his
profession and determined that the site contains a silvopasture, which is a common
use within the southeastern part of the
Commr. Cadwell mentioned the beetle infestation that is occurring in the County at the present time and questioned what the applicant will do with the property, should he lose the pine trees.
Mr. Ray stated that they did not get into that issue, however, noted that he would recommend that it be addressed in the management plan, requiring that, should a die off of the trees start occurring, the applicant work with the County regarding any replantings of native vegetation and comparable species.
Ms. Bonifay responded to a concern
by Commr. Stewart that the applicant was not happy with the Ordinance before
the Board this date, when it was giving him everything he wanted – passive
recreation, trails, and up to four pavilions in the Tree Park, noting that, if
that was the impression the applicant had given, it was incorrect - that the
applicant is very much in support of the Ordinance and would ask that the Board
approve it, because it represents what was negotiated with the opposition. She stated that the only concern she was
informed about was that of anything being located within the Tree Park, because
it was thought to be a longleaf pine community, which is not the case, based on
the Division of Forestry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the
scientists in that field. She stated
that the applicant wants to preserve the trees in the Tree Park, so no trees
are to be removed, unless they become damaged or have an infestation, which, in
that case, they will be replaced. He
Commr. Hill questioned whether the applicant would be putting in a fire wall, due to the City of Eustis not providing water to the site, noting that there have been some flow and pressure problems with water in that area.
Mr. Ray suggested that the matter be addressed within the management plan.
Mr. Sheahan readdressed the Board stating that, during the site plan review, the applicant will be required to meet the County’s fire regulations, which will likely include a fire wall.
Commr. Hill then addressed the issue of the trails and whether they would be equestrian or pedestrian and was informed that they would be pedestrian trails with equestrian style fencing, since there is an equestrian community within the area. It was noted that the details are spelled out in the Ordinance.
Ms. Bonifay stated that this proposal came before the Board in a different form a couple of years ago, but she was not involved with it at that time. She stated that the applicant re-filed the request, because it is located within the Urban Compact Node, which allows up to 5.5 dwelling units per acre, and requested approval of a proposal for 3.5 dwelling units per acre, for a total of 500 homes; however, due to prior discussions with the residents in the area, he wanted to make good on some things that were discussed, being buffers around the development and the overall look of the project, so, in an effort to move this project forward, he agreed to 1 dwelling unit per acre, for a total of 160 homes. She noted that a huge power line easement that runs through the property helps dictate, to a certain extent, where the open space can be located, as well as where certain lots can be located. She stated that they want connectivity, thus, the reason for having a trail system and there will be some pocket parks scattered throughout the development, as well. She stated that the applicant is trying to develop a very sensitive, low impact development.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney,
representing the opposition, addressed the Board stating that she had just been
given a packet of information about the
Mr. George Giddeon, the owner of a
parcel of property in close proximity to the property in question, addressed
the Board stating that the proposed project has come a long way and that he is
happy with the current proposal and the homes that will be developed, but noted
a concern about the Tree Park and the fact that, although it is part of the
property and needs to be utilized by the prospective homeowners, he feels it is
a mistake to construct pavilions in it.
He stated that he feels there should be trails, such as one would find
in other natural parks, but that he is totally against any pavilions being
allowed in the
Ms. Jean Etter, a resident of
Ms. Leslie Garvis, the owner of a
parcel of property in close proximity to the property in question, addressed
the Board and concurred with Mr. Giddeon’s comments, noting that the residents
of the area, as well as staff and everybody else involved, have worked very
hard on this project and that one of their major concerns is preserving the
Tree Park. She stated that the experts
the residents have talked to have indicated that the types of trees located in
Mr. Keith Schue, representing the
Nature Conservancy, addressed the Board stating that the proposed project is
located within the Wekiva Study Area - it is outside the Wekiva Protection
Area, but is within the Wekiva Study Area, which has been the focus of a lot of
attention, with good reason. He stated
that he feels tremendous strides have been made, in terms of getting the
density to where it is something that is compatible with the community, noting
that there have been a lot of good discussions between members of the community
and he thanked the applicant for inviting the Nature Conservancy to participate
in those discussions. He stated that the
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board
stating that, in conferring with the applicant, it is the applicant’s intent to
have a management plan, but she feels the more appropriate thing to do would be
for the applicant to present something to staff and have staff bring forth a
recommendation to the Board regarding the
Mr. John Gray, Jr., the applicant, addressed
the Board and thanked staff and the residents for working with him on the
proposed project, noting that he feels it is going to be a beautiful
development and that he agrees with the idea of coming back before the Board
with a management plan, as suggested. He
discussed the fact that he grew up in the area where a park is presently
located, which he and his family currently enjoy, but that his family sold said
property and made a charitable contribution.
He stated that he has taken an active role in putting another 1,000
acres that adjoin that park in preservation, which contains a six mile bicycle
path through it. He stated that there is
another 700 acres on the north side of the St. Johns River that he was actively
involved in putting in preservation, in working with the Florida Department of
Transportation, so he is very sensitive to the issue of the
Commr. Stewart commended and sincerely thanked Mr. Gray for working so hard with the surrounding property owners, to come up with a plan that everyone can live with.
Mr. Sheahan readdressed the Board stating that he felt he and the County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, had come up with some language that would go to the root of the concerns and would be acceptable to staff.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
reviewed changes that staff made in the Ordinance, noting that it currently
reads, “An environmental assessment and management plan shall be prepared and
submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary plat of the
first phase of the development for review and approval by the County.”, which
will be changed to read, “for review and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.” The following language
will also be inserted, “No development in the
A motion was made by Commr. Stewart
and seconded by Commr. Stivender to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning
Board and approve Ordinance No. 2008-5, Eagle Dunes II, LLC, also known as The
Villages of Sorrento Springs PUD, now known as The Estates of Sorrento Springs,
John Gray, Jr., Rezoning Case No. PH7-07-4, a request to rezone 161.074 acres
from A (Agriculture) and CFD (Community Facility District) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development), to allow a single family residential development, consisting of
160 dwelling units, as amended, as follows:
Under Item C., Paragraph 4. d., on Page 4 of the Ordinance, the language
“for review and approval by the County” shall be changed to read “for review
and approval by the Board of County Commissioners.” The following language shall also be
inserted, “No development in the
Under discussion, Commr. Renick
noted some concerns she has with the project, one being the fact that the City
Commr. Stewart stated that, if she had her way, this project would go away and never come back and the property in question would stay exactly the way it is, but things could be so much worse than they are, which is what she is afraid of down the line - several years from now – what could happen with the property in the future, with regard to densities. She stated that she could live with 1 dwelling unit per acre much better than she could live with 5.5 dwelling units per acre, which is exactly what could have happened. She stated that she agreed with Commr. Renick about the issue of water and that the County is going to have to start saying that there is not enough water for everybody.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board keeps telling developers that they need to bring good projects before them – it is not that they do not want any projects, they just want good projects and he feels this one is a good project, so he was going to support it, at which time he called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Renick voted “No”.
REZONING CASE NO. PH4-08-4/5 – A AND AR TO A – KENNETH T. AND
LAURA L. WEST/LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC.
GREG BELIVEAU, AICP
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented this case, stating that the future land use for the property in question is the Wekiva River Protection Area, Sending Area No. 2 A-1-20. The land use density is a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres, but may increase to a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, through the application of the development point rating system, contained in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Wekiva section of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The applicant is requesting to rezone 185.43 acres from A (Agriculture) and AR (Agriculture Residential) to A (Agriculture), with one dwelling unit per 20 acres, to permit single family residential development of the property. The request is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. He stated that one of the reasons this request was brought forward to the Board was because of the split zoning, noting that they came in originally with a preliminary plat, at a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, and, during that initial review is when it was discussed about the points review, where the applicants would have to show how they could justify the 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres density, and, because the LDRs only allow the A-1-20 zoning district in this future land use category as a permitted zoning district and, because the applicants were wanting to move forward with the proposed development of the property, staff wanted to be consistent with the zoning that would be permitted for the property and utilize the points system through the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs for the review of it. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 7-0 vote, and, based on the findings of fact, staff was recommending approval as well. The County received no letters of opposition regarding the project.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional
Planners, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that, if one were to take the
points away for the number of lots they are doing on this parcel of property,
the gross density would be 1 dwelling unit per 9.25 acres – it is not 1
dwelling unit per 5 acres and he wanted to make that clear. He stated that, because of the point system
in the Wekiva, it is triple net – one cannot count wetlands, the 100 year flood
plain, or the roads, and, when all of that is taken out, that is how you get to
1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Regarding
the septic system, he noted that it is an innovative septic system process that
creates a useable waste product that can be used for irrigation of landscaping,
which is being used in all areas of critical state concern and is endorsed by
the State of
Commr. Renick stated that she was familiar with said system and that the key to it is maintenance, noting that, if one has such a system and does not do the monthly maintenance, it can end up being worse. She stated that it takes a lot of personal responsibility on the part of the homeowners.
Mr. Beliveau interjected that the homeowners association will require maintenance of the system, as well as the Health Department and the rules of the Wekiva River Protection Act.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Commr. Stewart commented that the property is a wonderful piece of land that not only is located in the heart of the Wekiva River Protection Area, but is adjacent to a pine forest, as well, which has scrub jay habitat. She noted that she would hope the developer is careful about how the land is used and would commit to protecting all the open space through a permanent conservation easement.
There being no further individuals 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 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2008-6, Kenneth T. and Laura L. West, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc./Greg Beliveau, AICP, Rezoning Case No. PH4-08-4/5, a request to rezone 185.43 +/- acres from A (Agriculture) and AR (Agriculture Residential) to A (Agriculture), to permit a single family residential development of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH43-07-1 – R-6 TO R-1 – LISA TOUCHTON
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to recess and hear this case after the recess, due to the fact that they were due to attend a March of Dimes function away from the Administration Building and would not be returning until 1:30 p.m.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m.
REZONING CASE NO. PH43-07-1 – R-6 TO R-1 – LISA TOUCHTON (CONT’D.)
Mr. Steve Green, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented this case, stating that it was a request to rezone a 3.7 acre parcel of property from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to R-1(Rural Residential). The future land use designation on the property is Urban Expansion, which allows a land use density of 4 units per acre. The zoning district is R-6, which allows up to 6 units per acre. This case was presented to the Zoning Board on January 3, 2008, and, at that time, staff did an assessment of the request, which was submitted for the purpose of housing a horse (non-intensive agriculture use), and found it to not be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs); therefore, staff was recommending denial of the request. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 7-0 vote. Two letters of opposition were received by the County.
Ms. Lisa Touchton, Applicant, addressed the Board and submitted a handout (Applicant’s Exhibit A) containing four photographs of her property, at which time she answered questions and addressed concerns the Board had about the request.
It was noted that, although the property is located in a residential area, it is a rural area and contains mixed uses, and that, should the applicant decide at a future date to sell her property, the rezoning would remain the same and there would be no way to restrict a future property owner from having more than one horse; but, on the other hand, 18 houses could be constructed on the property, with the current zoning.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2008-7, Lisa Touchton, Rezoning Case No. PH43-07-1, a request to rezone a 3.7 acre parcel from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), allowing the housing of a horse (non-intensive agriculture use), as presented.
INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT ACT PRESENTATION
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
distributed copies of the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act, at which
time he gave a brief background history of the Act, noting that his office had
an agenda item that came before the Board on November 6, 2007, requesting
approval of a Resolution initiating an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement
process with the City of Groveland, but that the Board postponed the request,
indicating that they would like to have it come back before them at a workshop
meeting, where they could discuss the concept in general, which is what their
goal is this date. He stated that his
office had reproduced that agenda item for today’s meeting, however, noted that
it was for informational purposes only – that the intent was not to approve the
Resolution alluded to in the request. He
stated that, in 2003, Senator Constantine got tired of dealing with annexation
issues in the Legislature and requested that the League of Cities put together
a group to try to come up with a Bill that both the Legislature and the League
of Cities could support that would end the annual annexation legislation that
both of them filed. Until then, the
Cities would file legislation each year to make it easier to annex and the Counties
would file legislation to make it harder and no Bill was ever passed. He stated that a committee was created,
consisting of commissioners from the City of Orlando and Orange County, as well
as elected officials from throughout the State, attorneys, planners, etc. The Committee met for approximately 18
months, came up with some proposed legislation that was originally introduced
in the 2004 legislative session, and the Bill was ultimately passed in 2006. He stated that, in many areas of the State, they
would have elections for annexation, which would fail, so they would repeat
them over and over again, so the Cities were trying to have involuntary
annexations and trying to make it easier to do it. He stated that the Counties opposed
annexations, but, in some areas of the State, they wanted to require the Cities
to annex, examples being that the Cities were annexing the areas where there
were fairly nice homes, expensive properties, and commercial areas, but were
not annexing those areas where the homes were not as nice and the tax base was
not there, so the Counties were being saddled with having to provide services
to the poor areas, while the Cities were annexing all of the more lucrative,
wealthy areas. He stated that, in some
cities, annexation was a big issue and arguments were occurring over the rural
line, where the Counties wanted it to remain rural and the Cities wanted to
make it urban, which more closely describes
Mr. Minkoff stated that what came out of the Committee was a Statute that gave the Cities what they wanted - a much easier way to annex and a much more flexible annexation Statute, but, in order to get it, they had to enter into an agreement with the County, which is called an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement, which can be very broad or very narrow, depending upon what the parties want it to be. He stated that one thing the Statute did was give the Counties a way to enforce an annexation agreement, noting that, up until that time, the Courts were striking down agreements where it stated that the Counties would not annex over a particular line and the Courts were holding that those agreements were not enforceable. He stated that this Statute makes it clear that, if a city and a county, or two cities, enter into an agreement saying where a particular line will be, that line will be enforceable in court, which is a very important thing that came out of it. He stated that the Statute really focuses on the efficient and effective delivery of services to the public, which was Senator Constantine’s goal – that said areas should be looked at, not from whether they were going to be in the Cities or the Counties, but who was going to provide services to the area, and how they would be provided for and delivered efficiently. He stated that the Statute is purely voluntary, noting that no government can be made to enter into one of said agreements; however, the Statute is mandatory to the extent that, if a city or county is invited to negotiate and does not do it and an agreement comes out of that negotiation, the City or County would be bound by that agreement. He stated that the Statute also strongly encourages that negotiations be held by elected officials and not by the lawyers, the managers, or the planning staff. He stated that the agreements can be very broad, at which time he referred to the handout that he had distributed to the Board, pointing out that Statute 171.203 indicates that an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement may address any issue concerning service delivery, fiscal responsibilities, or boundary adjustments. The agreement may include, but need not be limited to, provisions that: (a) Identify a municipal service area; (b) Identify an unincorporated service area; or (c) Identify the local government responsible for the delivery or funding of the following services within the municipal service area, or the unincorporated service area: (1) Public safety; (2) Fire, emergency rescue, and medical; (3) Water and wastewater; (4) Road ownership, construction, and maintenance; (5) Conservation, parks, and recreation; and (6) Stormwater management and drainage. It also includes services other than natural gas and electric, where there are agreements. It can establish a process and a schedule for annexation of an area within the municipal service area (area that is going to be a future city). It authorizes very different processes for land use decisions, including joint decisions by the County and Municipalities. It allows the City to actually do the planning for the area that is going to be part of the City – the municipal service area, if the County agrees. It addresses other issues concerning service delivery, including transfer of services, fiscal compensation, etc., as well as the joint use of facilities and co-location of services. He stated that it pretty much means that anything can be discussed between the Cities and the Counties, with respect to what they do, and, if the County and the Cities can get an agreement like this, the annexation rules are thrown out. He stated that the consent requirements for annexation are loosened slightly; however, the County can agree to allow the Cities to annex things which created enclaves, which is currently prohibited by law, and the County can allow them to annex areas that do not meet the compactness test of the Statute, which currently would be prohibited by law. He stated that the agreement goes so far as to say that the County could let the Cities annex property that is not even contiguous to their current city limits, if it was in the area that was planned to be urban, but, before doing that, the County would want to have a good handle on how it was going to do services there, because it would become little islands of cities sitting in a sea of unincorporated areas, much like what exists today, except that it is islands of unincorporated areas sitting inside a sea of cities, when they create the enclaves.
Commr. Cadwell questioned how, once the boundaries are set, they could be changed in the future and was informed that the agreement could go for as long as 20 years and it requires that there be some type of process.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board stating that the GIS Department has looked at all the annexations in the County from 1882 through the end of 2007 and has put together a presentation to be presented to the Board at a later date; however, he was asked by Commr. Cadwell to give the Board a brief snippet of that presentation, so that they could see how much the County has changed over the years and how quickly it has changed, with regard to annexations. He noted that he only cued up the years from 1990 to the present, at which time he reviewed said annexation maps with the Board.
Commr. Stewart stated that, in looking at the maps, it appears that what the County and the Cities have been doing has not been working and that there does need to be more communication between them and working together. She stated that they need to decide what they want the County to be in 20, 30, or 40 years and work together to make sure that they reach that goal.
Commr. Renick commented that some people may think it is about jurisdictions and revenues, but that is not the case – it is about getting together and doing some planning.
At this time, representatives from various cities addressed the Board and expressed their concerns about the issue of annexations and the fact that they are thrilled to hear of this potential and applauded the Board and staff for bringing it to their attention, in that they feel it is necessary for consistency, transparency, and accountability, which they feel is what the residents of the County are desiring and looking for – responsible government. They noted that they look forward to entering into a relationship of this nature, in that they feel it is a great opportunity for them to partner with the County, so that growth can be better managed and allow the County to grow the way they all want it to grow. They feel it will be a vehicle that will go a long way in helping them all not only plan better for the future, but implement what they put in those plans and provide a much better level of service for both the Cities and the County – that by consolidating some of those services, it will provide a better level of service and a more economical way to provide those services to the citizens of the County and the Cities.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he felt it would be easier for the Cities and the County to resolve any issues there might be between them through other avenues than having to fight them through the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and suing each other.
One of the representatives stated that he hopes, when everybody gets invited to the table, the larger cities will not take over and dictate to the smaller cities what is going to happen to them – that everybody will be given a fair shake.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the agreement would not have anything to do with the size of a city - that, if a city shows up at the table and tries to negotiate, but cannot come to an agreement, the other cities cannot do anything about it - that the city would be free to ignore the agreement that is approved – it would only be if a city did not show up at the table that it would be bound by the agreement. He noted that the next step in this process would be for the Board to approve a Resolution identifying a city or cities that they would like to invite to the table and a geographic area that they would like to discuss and what issues they would like to discuss for that area.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the matter be put on a future agenda, for further discussion, and, in the meantime, have each Commissioner look at their individual areas and discuss any issues there might be with their city councils and bring forward any ideas they might have at that meeting.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS ORDINANCE PRESENTATION
Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and thanked them for having this workshop, giving staff the opportunity to discuss with them this issue, as well as the next three issues on the Agenda.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that, as they had directed, staff had compiled data and developed some guidelines for their consideration, which he noted could be applied to architectural, as well as site design.
Mr. Ricardo Soto-Lopez, Chief
Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented
the Board with an outline regarding Design Guidelines for Commercial Activity
and Planned Development within
Ms. Karen Ginsberg, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and continued the presentation, noting that design guidelines can reduce massing, create a visual relationship between neighboring developments, and encourage pedestrian activity. They can define standards that have the flexibility to address a variety of sites and developments within the County. They can be applied to multiple uses, such as designated commercial corridors, overlay districts, and PUDs. For determining implementation, items such as staffing, submittal materials, and the review process could be considered, as well. Location criteria for commercial corridors can be based on future land use designations, road classifications, zoning, and proximity to special areas of concern. A tier system can be used to vary guidelines, dependent upon size, in that a quick service restaurant could have different standards than a larger building, such as a big box. She reviewed the various types of facades that could lend themselves to unique guidelines, being the primary, the secondary, and the corner facade; discussed the effect that different architectural treatments have on the same building, as shown in the backup material; and noted that stepped massing assists in mitigating height and allows the taller building to become more compatible with its surroundings. She stated that guidelines, colors, and materials can influence the aesthetic value of a building and screening methods can disguise a variety of common site and building elements. She displayed examples of various architectural designs that are currently being utilized and noted that, as with architectural guidelines, criteria for applying site development standards can be specified in tiers, at which time she displayed examples of various site designs. She stated that community center overlay districts can be applied to preserve community character and encourage pedestrian activity. She discussed how setbacks, architecture, and landscape can frame a space and influence a pedestrian experience, as well as allow for the site specific uniqueness of the user, showing various examples of same. She stated that design guidelines in PUDs can be used to enhance and encourage innovative design, noting that items to consider are lighting, connectivity, open space, and buffers, and language can be written to encourage architectural variety and address the redundant cookie cutter effect.
Commr. Hill discussed the costs involved with businesses abiding by said guidelines and whether or not they would be able to obtain financial help to do so, noting that some cities have CRA districts and can help those businesses that want to change the look of their building, but questioned what those businesses will do that are not located in a city that has a CRA district.
Mr. Sheahan stated that each community is unique, so the County may want to have separate standards for each one of them and adopt them separately within the Code, or none at all. It would depend on the level of guidelines that the County puts in place and on what a particular community wants. If it is a matter of limiting the size, height, or footprint of a building, there are things that can easily be incorporated into the County’s site plan review process. It depends on what the end product is, as to what the impact is going to be. He stated that staff did not see it applying to the entire county, because there are some areas where it may not be appropriate, or realistic, and that is why staff said distinctive communities, main street districts, PUDs, etc., which he elaborated on. He stated that, with regard to costs, there may not be any costs involved, but, on the other hand, if there are other aspects involved, such as certain architectural treatments, etc., there would be more costs involved with that. He questioned whether the Board would like for staff to go forward with the distinctive communities and find out which ones are interested, or whether they would rather have staff start off with a main street type approach, where they deal with the major commercial centers, adopt standards for them, and as they take that forward, start talking to the distinctive communities and bring that together, or do it as a separate amendment.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he feels PUDs need to be in place, so that, if the economy picks back up and there are developments coming into the County, it will already have the standards in place.
Commr. Renick indicated that she feels the County needs to get the basics in place and then approach the major commercial centers.
Commr. Stewart commented that she feels that is where the County should concentrate its efforts now and then the smaller communities can come on board, as things move along.
Commr. Hill questioned when the County would require someone to switch to the new guidelines and was informed that it would be when someone comes in for a permit and goes through site plan review.
Staff noted that they will work closely with Ms. Dottie Keedy, Economic Growth and Redevelopment Director, but that they want some design guidelines and that the purpose of this workshop was to determine whether they are going in the right direction, whether the Board liked what they saw this date, whether staff needed to put it into an Ordinance format and begin the work, and whether the Board wanted them to start with the distinctive communities, or would rather they hold off on it.
The Board felt staff should start with the PUDs and the commercial corridors and then phase in the other areas and that staff was going in the right direction regarding the matter.
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE PRESENTATION
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that, as they had directed, staff evaluated the existing Landscape Ordinance regulations and has proposed significant changes, with input from many agencies, including industry professionals. He noted that three hearings have been held thus far, in December and January, and the Ordinance is currently being considered by the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and is expected to be forwarded to the Board on January 31, 2008, for consideration.
Mr. Grant Wenrick, Landscape Architect, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and gave a power point presentation regarding revisions to the County’s Landscape Code, noting that there are eight major focus areas that fall under Chapter 9.01 (Landscaping Standards) and Chapter 9.02.00 (Protected Trees) of said Code that staff is looking at, being: (1) Plant and Rule Changes; (2) Parking Lot Landscaping; (3) Building Landscape Areas; (4) Landscape Buffers; (5) Retention Pond Landscaping; (6) Street Tree Landscaping; (7) Irrigation Changes; and (8) Tree Replacement Requirements. They propose making the list of plants in the current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) a separate document, which will allow easier edits to it, being that there are always new plants coming out. The list will identify the allowable trees, shrubs, groundcovers, etc. and will include an expanded list of prohibited vegetation, as well as identify water use areas that each plant and vegetation type is typically classified as and whether or not the plant is native or Florida Friendly.
Commr. Stewart questioned whether the County could require that 50% of the required plants be native and the other 50% be drought resistant. She stated that the County certainly does not want anyone planting plants that require a lot of water, because there is not going to be a lot of water in the future to water them.
Mr. Wenrick informed her that there has been some debate about the matter. He stated that years ago the industry trend was all native; however, there are a lot of plants that are Florida Friendly that do quite well. He stated that there is language in the proposed Code that promotes the use of Florida Friendly plants, which is a new term that means “right plant, right place”. He reviewed the proposed plant and rule changes, as follows:
· Requiring that 50% of required plants be native.
· Requiring diversity in required plantings, to protect against disease.
· Amending the minimum tree and shrub sizes, to allow for more selective diversity.
· Limiting use of palm trees in parking areas to 20% of required trees.
· Increasing canopy tree requirement from 6 trees per acre to 10 trees per acre on
commercially developed land.
The issue of parking lot landscaping was discussed, at which time Mr. Wenrick stated that staff was proposing a requirement that canopy trees be provided at an average of 50’ maximum spacing around the perimeter of parking lots for shading and aesthetics. Staff is also requesting approval to require that commercial buildings have a minimum 40% perimeter landscaped screen approximately three feet wide, to break up building walls. A landscape island or median strip for every 20 parking spaces would be required for parking areas greater than 80 spaces. Terminal islands requirements are being clarified and trees are to be separated by a minimum of two parking spaces. Staff is promoting interior parking islands and an option is provided to allow a landscape median instead of an island, and parking lot lights, if used, would be placed in the parking lot and not in the landscape islands, to avoid conflict with landscape material, and a consideration is being brought forth requiring that canopy trees be spaced at 50’ intervals along roads deemed internal access roads and for commercially developed land, which they hope will add to the aesthetics within the County. Staff also looked at adding building landscape areas, based on a building’s first floor square footage for different building types, as follows:
· Single Family Residential - 35% landscape area
· Townhome and Multifamily - 350 square foot, per first floor dwelling unit, or 35% of ground floor units, whichever is less
· Commercial, Retail, and Mixed Use - 25% landscape area
· Office - 30% landscape area
It was noted that staff is promoting more landscaping around buildings and less water consuming turf areas.
Mr. Wenrick informed the Board that, with regard to landscape buffers, staff is proposing that they be enhanced, noting that, with the new Code, they are providing a variety of different widths and, as the buffers get narrower, they are being more stringent and requiring walls and/or fences, at which time he reviewed the various types of buffers, being A - requiring 3 canopy trees per 100 linear feet; B – requiring 4 canopy trees per 100 linear feet; C – requiring 5 canopy trees per 100 linear feet; and D – requiring 8 canopy trees per 100 linear feet, along with the types of walls and fences that would be allowed, such as privacy fences and walls that include stucco and brick veneer. Staff is considering putting restrictions on chain link fences along public rights of way, to try and increase the aesthetics, and is requiring that the majority of landscape buffers occur outside of walls, to try and make it a public amenity. Another change that staff is proposing for landscape buffers is to require ornamental trees in all buffer types, in that Buffers A and B do not require ornamental trees, it is optional, and for the larger buffers, being Buffers C and D, staff is proposing a requirement of 300 square feet of additional groundcover, in addition to the screen scrubs, canopy trees, and ornamental trees, in an effort to further add to the diversity of the buffers and limit the turf areas, to limit watering.
Mr. Wenrick stated that, with regard to Retention Pond Landscaping, staff was proposing that the County require three canopy trees per 150 linear feet of retention pond frontage, noting that they feel retentions ponds can be enhanced and made into amenities. Littoral lake edge plantings are being encouraged, where feasible, in that many lakes in the County have a variety of water tables, so it is hard to implement it countywide, because it is not present in the dry areas. Another design consideration staff looked at is the requirement for Street Tree Landscaping, as shown in a sketch contained in the slide presentation, as well as photographs showing a neighborhood with street trees and one without. Staff has worked with the Public Works Department, because of maintenance and utility issue concerns, and is proposing that trees be placed 10 feet outside of rights of way at regular intervals and is proposing Water Conservation and Irrigation Improvements, as follows:
· Amended, to encourage new WaterStar (new water conservation measures by the St. Johns River Water Management District), Florida Irrigation Society and Florida Friendly Standards in updated Code.
- Encourage use of Micro-irrigation
- Limit use of overhead irrigation sprays
· Amended, to establish water use zones, to limit high water use landscaping
- 20% Maximum – High Water Use Zone
- 40% Maximum – Medium Water Use Zone
- 40% Minimum – Low Water Use Zone
· Amended, to allow temporary irrigation or hand watering, instead of permanent irrigation, to allow plants to establish.
· Use of alternate water sources where available, is encouraged.
occurred regarding hand watering versus irrigation and bahia grass versus
Commr. Cadwell stated that, when staff has a discussion about the use of stormwater, if it is going to be required for the smaller subdivisions, or individual homes, they need to include the Mosquito/Aquatic Plant Management Department in those discussions.
Mr. Wenrick stated that one of the last areas staff looked at for the Board’s consideration was tree removal changes and they are proposing the following:
· To require mitigation for smaller trees. Propose change from 4” caliper to 3” caliper.
· To require mitigation based on tree size, not per tree. Propose that 33% of tree inch calipers removed be replaced.
· Propose establishment of a Tree Mitigation Fund, to replant on public property, as a solution of last resort.
· Amend, to allow sample survey plots for sites larger than 5 acres.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would not want the Tree Mitigation Fund to be used, unless it was the very last resort – the end of the process, where everything else has been done to mitigate the site.
Commr. Renick stated that she understood the reason for using language such as “encourage” in the Ordinance, however, noted that she feels the County is beyond that point and the word “require” may have to be used instead.
Discussion occurred regarding the limiting of palm trees in the landscape, due to the fact that they do not offer any shade, when used in parking lot landscaping; they are not good for screening purposes; and, from an ecological standpoint, they do not offer as much as a flowering, or fruit bearing tree would; as well as the prohibiting of cypress mulch in the landscape.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD LAKES PRESENTATION
Mr. David Hansen, Public Lands
Manager, addressed the Board stating that the County has acquired a 1,584 acre
parcel of property in east Lake County, known as the Neighborhood Lakes
property, to ultimately be used for passive recreation, noting that there will
be restoration, it will be the corridor for the Wekiva Parkway, and it will be
managed as part of the Rock Springs State Preserve. He stated that staff recently learned that
the timeframe for the parkway could be two years out, just for the survey, with
the beginning of construction being another five years, and completion of the
actual construction an additional five years.
In order for the State to manage the property, the County will have to
enter into a lease agreement with them, where the State will lease the property
from the County and manage it for approximately ten years. The
· Cattle lease to be subordinate to potential gopher tortoise relocation areas.
· Allow for creation of trail internal to Parcel 5 with signage and kiosk.
Mr. Keith Schue, representing the Nature Conservancy, addressed the Board stating that he felt Mr. Hansen was doing a fine job, in considering the issues, however, informed the Board that the Nature Conservancy is looking at how they can protect lands in more innovative ways, because the State is having difficulty coming up with money to buy lands and upland mitigation is a potential way of protecting lands, as an alternative. He stated that mitigation can be a revenue source to help the County restore land, which can be a real positive. He stated that it would apply, whether the County is receiving tortoises from a private developer who is developing some land and looking to relocate tortoises, but would also apply if the County were relocating tortoises from a county Public Works project, such as a school or road being built, where tortoises were found on the site. He stated that there just needs to be a ledger sheet to know that there is some kind of funding that accompanies the tortoises and encouraged the Board to look very carefully at how it accounts for those numbers.
The Board indicated that they would like for staff to move forward with the Neighborhood Lakes Lease Agreement, as presented to the Board this date.
OPEN-AIR VENDOR ORDINANCE PRESENTATION
Ms. Terrie Diesbourg, Zoning Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that she was bringing before them the Open Air Vendor Ordinance, which, by definition, pertains to a person or company providing merchandise, food, or produce for sale located out-of-doors. The stalls or structures used by open air vendors must be temporary open structures, which do not require a building permit. The open stall or structure shall not be larger than 200 square feet. An open air vendor is a temporary operation, which shall include, but not be limited to hot dog vendors, produce stands, holiday merchandise sales, or car sales, produce, roots, leaves, small grain, fruits and/or vegetables grown for consumption. She stated that staff was looking for direction as to how the Board would like for them to proceed and whether they would like to make any changes to the Ordinance. She noted that there were some minor changes in the commercial portion of it, noting that, because the way the Code currently reads regarding the zoning permit is vague, staff changed the wording to state that the permit shall be issued for a period of 30 consecutive days and, additionally, there is more restrictive requirements for sanitary facilities and proof that they are going to be maintained.
Discussion occurred regarding the Ordinance, at which time the Board noted concerns they had regarding it.
Commr. Stewart stated that she felt the County was making open air vendors selling their wares a big problem and it should not be.
Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board, in response to some concerns they had about the Ordinance, noting that the County is getting a lot of calls about open-air vendors and that it is hard to define exactly what it is that people like to see being sold and what they do not. The problem is that, when the County gets a call about somebody selling peanuts or watermelon in an agriculturally zoned area where they did not grow them, Code Enforcement has to cite them, and staff would like to recommend that agricultural products be allowed to be sold in agricultural or rural areas, because a lot of times that is the closest produce a community has, without traveling thirty to forty-five minutes to a city; however, the problem is that, once the County allows it, they have to regulate it, make it accessible for handicapped individuals, etc. She stated that the rest of the items are listed so that, if there is a complaint against somebody, Code Enforcement will have regulations to lean back on that say an individual is permitted to sell their products, providing they follow the rules.
Commr. Cadwell feels staff is moving in the right direction, however, suggested that, before any action is taken regarding the matter, each Commissioner meet with the Growth Management staff and the Code Enforcement staff, individually, and bring the matter back before the Board at a later date for further discussion and/or action.
Ms. King brought up for discussion another item, being that, if the County were to allow the selling of produce and agricultural products in the rural, agriculturally zoned areas, they would like for them to have the ability to do it for a longer period of time than 30 days, noting that, currently, the license is only for 30 days. She stated that staff is suggesting that it be for one year, which would run with the occupational license that they obtain from the Tax Collector’s Office.
OTHER BUSINESS (CONT’D.)
PRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS
A brief discussion occurred regarding private water systems in the County and the need for the County to be aware of said systems and where they are located, as well as the fact that the Board needs to hold a Water Workshop in the near future.
DISCUSSION REGARDING PLAAC PROPERTIES
Discussion occurred regarding the PLAAC properties and the purchase of same, at which time the County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, recommended that staff send said property owners a letter letting them know that the County is ready to negotiate with them about the purchase of their properties and ask them to give the County their best and lowest offer, which staff will bring back to the Board at a later date, along with the appraisals (to be kept confidential) for each property, and let the Board evaluate the quality and value of said properties, based upon the appraisals.
Mr. Ken LaRoe, Chairman, PLAAC, addressed the Board stating that he sent a letter to each of the Commissioners indicating some concerns he has about the matter and offering some suggestions on how to handle it, which he elaborated on, one being where the money is going to come from to purchase said properties and maintain them. He stated that he has been fighting for over a year for some goals and objectives, to try to prevent what they are faced with now, noting that there is not a procedure in place to take care of it. He stated that, during a marathon meeting that was held, the PLAAC decided they would send seven properties to the County, for their consideration, which they did, but it has now become eight properties and the eighth property is what is causing a problem. He feels that, if the County would take the eighth property out, there would probably be enough money to buy all seven of the remaining properties, if the Board so desired, and the property owners agreed to it. He stated that he was concerned about the fairness issue, in that PLAAC sent seven properties to the Board for consideration and there were 40 people in the audience whose properties did not get sent up and now there is an eighth property and none of the people who were present that day are probably aware of this meeting, or that the matter was going to be discussed, so there is no representation present at this meeting for those people.
It was the consensus of the Board to
move forward with the
It was noted that Lake County Days,
which the Board participates in, is scheduled to be held February 19-20, 2008,
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2
Commr. Renick distributed to the Board, for their perusal, copies of two newspaper articles from the Orlando Sentinel dealing with water issues – one pertaining to a recent water summit that was held in St. Augustine, where dozens of elected officials from across northeast Florida agreed that allowing Central Florida to tap into the St. Johns River for drinking water would eventually bring disaster, noting that what was stated in the article was mild; and the second article pertaining to the fact that farmers in California have found that, with water becoming increasingly precious in that area of the Country, selling their water is more profitable than growing crops. She stated that there are a lot of things that the County is going to have to do, with regard to the issue of water, noting that it is a very complicated issue. She stated that it is a known fact that Central Florida has not done everything it can, in terms of conservation, and has not made a real effort to limit demand and get a handle on growth and it came through loud and clear at the summit.
Commr. Stewart stated that she feels the County is headed in a direction that is going to make some people unhappy about not being able to have the type of grass they would like to have, or not be able to have all the foliage they would like to have, but the County has no choice in the matter, noting that it cannot just wave a magic wand and get more water - it has got to start conserving water now and putting into place some very serious conservation measures.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
Commr. Cadwell stated that staff
brought to his attention the fact that there is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and
Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, distributed to the
Board a map showing the southern part of Horizon’s West in
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
directed staff to bring up to Orange County the points Mr. Sheahan alluded to
and the fact that they are of concern to
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
Commr. Hill informed the Board that
the City of
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
MEMORIAL SERVICES MARKING ANNIVERSARY OF GROUNDHOG DAY
Commr. Cadwell reminded everyone
about the two memorial services that will be held in
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
NEIL KELLY, CLERK