JULY 22, 2008

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 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; and Linda Stewart.  Commissioner Debbie Stivender was not present.  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.


Pastor Michael Sweeney, New Life Church of God, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.


Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that besides the addition of Addendum 1-I to the Consent Agenda, she would like to pull Tab 21 that was listed under Public Hearings, because they had actually intended on having that in August and did not advertise the notice for that item.

Commr. Renick mentioned that the St. Johns River Water Management District’s staff recommended approval of the permit for Niagra, and she thought they would need to decide on direction for Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney.

Commr. Cadwell consented to put it under the County Attorney’s business.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board moved to add the discussion of Niagra to the Agenda, under the County Attorney’s business.


On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 9, and Addendum 1-I, as follows:


            Request for approval of Resolution No. 106 to amend the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 in the amount of $8,513 deposited into Reimbursements and provide appropriations for the disbursement for Improvements Other Than Buildings.  Lake County has received a reimbursement from Sprint Nextel for costs incurred by the County pursuant to the Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement approved by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners in September 2007.  In August 2004, the Federal Communications Commission issued a Report and Order modifying its rules governing the 800 MHz band for the purpose of reconfiguring the 800 MHz band to minimize harmful interference to public safety radio.  This reimbursement is Sprint Nextel's share of the cost to reconfigure Lake County affected frequency allocations.

            Community Services

            Request for approval of the Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Assistance Support Grant between the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.

            Request for approval of distribution of 1. Byrne grant funds among local jurisdictions applying for funding. 2. Signature of Chairman on original letters of support. 3. Approval for submission of applications for the Sheriff for additional technology improvement for Lake County Detention Center and Fully Equipped DUI/Traffic Control trailer 4. Signature on grant documents including application, certificate of acceptance, EEO certifications and subsequent grant documents.

            Conservation and Compliance

            Request for approval of Satisfaction & Release of Fine, Owners Name: Phillip Howard Westlake, Case# 2005010025.

            Request for approval of Satisfaction & Release of Fine, Property Owners: Robert G. Richardson & Rose M. Gonzalez, Case# CEB 314-00.

            Information Technology

            Request for approval of payment in the amount of $56,510.96 to ESRI for annual GIS software licensing maintenance.


            Request for approval to (1) declare the items on the attached lists surplus to County needs, (2) authorize the removal of all of the items on the attached lists from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records, and (3) authorize the Procurement Services Director or designee to sign vehicle titles.

            Request for approval to "piggyback" a negotiated agreement for auctioneering services by Osceola County, RFP#06-224-RJ.


            Request for approval to execute Local Arts Agency Report for Grant Number 08-8002 for the 2007 – 2008 program year awarded by the Florida Division of Cultural Affairs.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1-I.  Request from Community Services for approval of the attached Execution Resolution No. 2008-107 for the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills and Resolution No. 2008-108 for the City of Minneola to participate in the Lake County Urban County Partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).


On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 10 through 12, as follows:

            Request for approval of Purchase Agreement with Ellen Meisse for right-of-way needed regarding three parcels for CR 466 Road Widening Project.  Commission District 5.

            Request for approval of Purchase Agreement with ZMSS, LLP, for right-of-way needed regarding CR 466 Road Widening Project.  Commission District 5.

            Request for approval of Purchase Agreement with WRYP, LLC, for right-of-way needed regarding CR 466 Road Widening Project.  Commission District 5.



            Mr. Ronald Collodi, Code Enforcement Services Director, introduced the independent consultant, Mr. Gary Siebein, Senior Principal Consultant, Siebein Associates, Inc. and stated that Mr. Siebein had a Masters in Architecture from the University of Florida and was a Professor of Architectural and Environmental Acoustics there as well.

            Mr. Siebein stated that he would be discussing some acoustical issues that the citizens of Lake County could consider as they began to think about long-term development of their noise ordinance.  He commented that they should develop a Comprehensive Plan that allowed them to preserve and maintain a lot of the qualities of the acoustical environment and the nature of the community that people have come to enjoy in this area, and then work through a series of tiered strategies to encourage development and balance between what exists and what needs to come.  He named the fundamental issues that were involved in developing noise ordinances, primarily related to health and safety, as well as the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) levels that were mandatory industrial applications to prevent hearing damage.   He noted, however, that even at levels less than those OSHA levels there could be health effects other than hearing damage, such as raising blood pressure, causing stress, increasing gastro-intestinal motility, causing sleep disturbance, and annoyance.  He went over the OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure Levels, stating that at levels of 90 decibels over an 8-hour work shift, hearing protection would be needed.  He also mentioned that individuals who spent most of their time in areas, industries, or near major airports where sound levels can be above 75 decibels were considered “diseased” and generally would suffer both hearing loss as well as stress symptoms attributed to noise, whereas levels of 65-75 were considered healthful.  He commented that when they were making decisions on current projects, especially in the rural fringes to the developing counties, they need to keep in mind that the potential traffic and noise impacts would not manifest themselves for possibly 10 or 20 years, so it was important for them to look into the future to the extent possible.  He stated that federal agencies such as HUD (Housing and Urban Development), Florida Aviation Authority (FAA), and Federal Highway Administration had average day/night sound levels that they would consider appropriate for their particular projects before noise impacts were determined, which were an average sound level of 65 dBA outdoors and 45 dBA indoors.  He mentioned that EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) named 55 dBA as an average day/night sound level and that many municipalities enact sound level windows for residential areas of 55-60 dBA during the daytime hours and 50-55 dBA during night time hours.  He noted that dealing with sound levels when there was a nightclub or fitness center right next to, below, or above residential dwelling units caused challenging circumstances.  He stated that they needed to look at the sources of community noise, such as transportation, industrial, entertainment, construction, and domestic sources, as well as from nature.  He opined that the fact that noise was tied up in the many ways that people live made the decision of how to regulate it very difficult, especially since it varies with seasons, time of day, location, and weather conditions and was not constant.

            Mr. Siebein commented that it was up to the citizens of the community to decide how they wanted to define, measure, and limit sound or noise; which ones should be limited or permitted; and how to control disturbances.  He related that there were three methods to control community noise, commenting that zoning and planning were by far the most effective ways to do this by developing Comprehensive Plans with the idea that there were certain activities that may occur in certain areas that were noisier or more difficult to mitigate than those of the general community.  He recommended considering an environmental acoustic assessment as part of the PUD process for projects that would have potential impacts.  He stated that noise ordinances, which were meant to reduce the propagation of sound, were usually utilized on an after construction and complaint basis.  He noted that this was necessary, because noise factors could not always be predicted, but that a lot of the necessity could be reduced greatly by planning.  He explained that the third method to control community noise was to tie building codes into the requirements needed to get a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) at the time of construction for a project that has been noted during the planning process to have some acoustic impacts, and it would be very easy using computer models to design noise mitigation while a building was being built.  He reported that generally a ten-decibel increase was heard as twice as loud and was actually ten times the amount of sound energy, meaning that a ten decibel reduction in sound would make a huge difference in the noise level that someone was hearing.  Pitch or frequency also made an important difference in the quality of the sound, and the ear is less sensitive to low frequency sound than to high frequency sound.  Also, tone and harmonics changed the way a sound was perceived, with a complex tone consisting of more than one frequency being less annoying to people than a tone containing a single frequency.

            Mr. Siebein next discussed the general types of noise ordinances that were adopted, one of them being an overall sound level limit ordinance, which generally would have either an A-Weighted or C-Weighted Sound Level Limit.  The C-Weighted curve was developed in the 1930’s to approximate the frequency or pitch response of the human ear to louder sounds, and the A-Weighted curve deducted significant amounts from the low-frequency or bass sounds.  He added that in general the A-Weighted sound level had only about a 40 or 45 percent correlation with the way that most people perceived loudness, and the C-Weighted sound level was sometimes used where entertainment or industrial noise was sought to be regulated, because it did not de-emphasize the low frequencies, but it was not widely used and did not have a lot of legal precedent.   He talked about another type of ordinance using octave band sound level limits, which break the frequency scale up into individual components called octaves based on music.  The disadvantage of this system, however, is that it would require a better meter and highly trained personnel to measure and interpret the data, but it gives both an indication of loudness and allows diagnostics and mitigation design.  Another type of measurement was whether a noise was plainly audible at a certain distance or at the property line, but the subjectiveness of this measure was problematic.  He reported that another type of system was using maximum sound level relative to the ambient noise level, which allowed for a very diverse community, but the disadvantage of using this system was that it required both a measurement of the disturbing sound source and of an ambient, as well as an analytical process to compare the two, which put a greater burden on enforcement authorities.  He related that the multi-tiered noise ordinance, possibly with an A-Weighted or Octave Band, was sometimes used.  He also mentioned that there were many communities that were beginning to limit sound levels in clubs to OSHA limits and factoring in how loudly it could be heard to interior buildings next door in dense urban areas.  He has learned by working with attorneys that the precise definitions of subtle things are relatively important, such as defining night time hours, distances, and plainly audible and whether they would require people to sign a formal complaint, which may result in confrontations.

            He summarized his recommendations to the Board, including linking the noise ordinance requirements to Planning and Zoning as well as building permits; requiring environmental acoustic assessments by NCAC (National Council of Acoustical Consultants) or INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engineering) member firms for future residential or commercial projects to identify noise issues before projects were built; considering specific exemptions and prohibited acts; referencing ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) measurement standards within the ordinance; trying out the ordinance on a trial basis for a period of time to fine tune it and assess the strengths and weaknesses, which also would foster dialogue and bring the community together; training enforcement personnel; purchasing meters; developing standard operating procedure for enforcement personnel; and providing rational, measurement-based data as the basis for sound level limits and districts in the ordinance.  He named three acoustical components that could be developed in the Comprehensive Plan, which were to reduce, buffer, and mitigate potential noise sources during design; preserve and enhance desirable sounds; and design for new sounds, social activities and quiet areas of repose.  He concluded that it was possible to have a quiet community that could meet existing laws, encourage growth, and provide for a better tomorrow.

            Commr. Cadwell asked whether it would cause problems for enforcement officers to be able to use discretion if a municipality or county used a multiple tier and a plainly audible system.

            Mr. Siebein stated that the ones that they have seen have given the enforcement officer a choice between options, using the word “or,” such as if it is plainly audible at a certain distance to a person of normal sensibilities or if it exceeds the A-Weighted sound level limits in Table 1 or the octave band levels in Table 2.

            Commr. Stewart clarified with Mr. Siebein that he thought a multiple method ordinance was best and that he would recommend the A-Weighted, the octave band, and the audibles.

            Mr. Siebein commented that this was not that much different than other types of law enforcement issues, such as when a police officer pulls over a driver who appears intoxicated, then has the driver touch their nose and stand on one foot, and then perhaps gives a breathalyzer test to that driver.  He points out that at each step, the enforcement would become more scientific and more precise with less drivers being submitted to them.  He mentioned that some local governments call for outside help if a more complicated or subtle measurement such as octave band was needed.

            Commr. Renick asked whether they had to redo the whole ordinance or just modify the old one and how successful their current ordinance was.

            Mr. Minkoff responded that they had twelve public meetings based throughout the county, with the source of noise different in different parts of the county.  He also mentioned that at one time they had brought the possibility of using the A-rated or C-rated noise scale, but the Board elected at that point not to do that and to stay with their annoyance ordinance, adding some specific prohibitions, which was the only change that was made at that time.

            Commr. Renick stated if their old ordinance has been successful, maybe they should just amend it to add a section that just dealt with industrial noise.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that they could not just single out industrial for enforcement, but they could incorporate something that industry could fit into, and they could identify businesses that they thought would be noisy and require them to design their facilities with the noise study up front, but they could not have a different noise scale for a different use in the same area.

            Commr. Cadwell was concerned about the expense of training and buying expensive equipment if it would only be used very infrequently.

            Commr. Renick was concerned that enforcement would be a real burden.  She asked Mr. Minkoff if different cities could have different areas.

            Mr. Minkoff agreed they could do that, but explained that they could not just pick a decibel level out of the air and apply it in the entire county.  He related that to come back with a decibel level, they would have to study the different areas in the County and provide the background information to the Board necessary to adopt that rule.

            Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Collodi how many multi-site noise complaints they normally got.

            Mr. Collodi responded that excluding the referrals they got from the Sheriff’s Office for regular weekend parties, they only get one consistent complaint about the same business.  He added that one thing that would help them from an enforcement point of view more than anything would be to make the newest development responsible to meet the noise levels.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that there was some interest in looking at the multi-tiered limits and looking at certain areas before they talked about the decibel system itself.  He also thought that they should pick some sites to try as a test run the ideas they had talked about before applying them to the whole county.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that if that was the consensus of the Board, he could work with Mr. Siebein to look at the County, come up with representative samples from some different areas, do some background noise studies, and bring that back to the Board with some recommendations and a new ordinance which would address noise regarding new developments and amendments to their noise ordinance which would be multi-tiered.  He would also bring the back-up information as to how they came up with the decibel levels for different areas in the County.


            The Chairman announced at 10:25 that there would be a 15-minute recess.

            PUBLIC HEARING


            Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he had property on Quale Grove Road, but stated that he did not have a conflict regarding this case.

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was Vacation Petition No. 1126 to vacate a portion of Towerwood Drive, which was located north on County Road 439 in the Eustis area in Commission District 5, located in Section 26, Township 18S, Range 27E.  He reported that Quale Grove Road was a County-maintained road on the north side with a right of way granted as part of this 80-acre tract some time ago, and Mill Creek Road, another County-maintained road, was realigned at about the same time as the access to the subdivision was put in.  He related that this was a request to vacate a portion of Towerwood with the understanding that there would be removal of the public right of way to be replaced with a private easement.  He added that after they had recommended approval, a lot of interest and opposition came forth at the last minute.  He showed a map that exhibited the property owners that were in opposition to the vacation and commented that the easements for ingress and egress of the five-acre tracts were all over the place, since this was a lot split that was done on a rather large scale.  He explained that lot splits of this nature were allowed prior to between 1985 and 1995, which did not require the applicant to go through a subdivision process or to bring it up to any standard, and only required that they dedicate a minimum 50 foot right of way to the public.  He further stated that since there was a lot of discussion about other issues regarding this community other than the road vacation, they planned to have a meeting with the property owners to talk about the other issues despite what happens with the road vacation.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing, and had the residents who were in favor of the vacation speak first.

            The Applicant, Ivy Simpson, stated that their main issue for this petition was safety on Towerwood Drive and noted that their home was at the intersection of Winterwillow, which was a two-lane road, and Towerwood, which was a one way road.  She noted that she was familiar with her neighbor’s vehicles, since she saw every vehicle that traveled into and out of the neighborhood on both those roads, and knew when there was a strange vehicle there.  She related that the main artery to travel to Millcreek Meadows was Winterwillow, and very few people used Towerwood unless they were on horseback or walking.  She noted that she started noticing strange vehicles and ATV’s (All Terrain Vehicles) traveling at a very high rate of speed from Quale Grove, which was the paved area, to the north heading down Towerwood and sliding their vehicles around the corner, exiting out at Winterwillow to CR 439.  She commented that these were not their neighbors and were using the road solely for their own entertainment.  She stated that this happened so often that they called the police, but were told that unless the police witnessed the incident, they could not do anything about it, and the only thing that could be done was to get the road closed.  She was also concerned that the road was so narrow, with a lot of overhanging trees, that someone would not be able to see anyone walking or driving, and that her son and granddaughter were almost hit by speeding cars while walking down Towerwood.  She emphasized that Towerwood has truly become a safety issue to pedestrians and horse lovers, and the speeders were tearing up Winterwillow, a major artery for Millcreek Meadow residents.  She explained that to stop this dangerous behavior, they came up with a plan to put an electric gate in the middle of Towerwood with a horse crossing on one side and a pedestrian crossing on the other side, and with a code pad on each side of the gate with a very simple pass code for the residents to easily travel from one side to the other.  She also added that if there was a problem with Winterwillow, they would just keep the gate open.  She emphasized that they did not want to close the road, but just wanted to stop the behavior that they could not seem to stop any other way before someone got hurt.

            Mr. Eric Felgemalher, a resident of Towerwood Drive, stated that his neighbor’s concern about the high-speed traffic and the ATV’s was justified.  He explained that Towerwood, which was just a trail, was frequented especially after heavy rainfall by young men in their pickup trucks who would use it to go mudding.  He pointed out that they had to maintain the road themselves, and that made their job that much more difficult.  He related that they had several occasions where the deputies had come back through Towerwood looking for someone who had escaped pursuit by using the S-curves on CR 439 as a blind, coming back through Towerwood Drive using the trees to shield them from law enforcement, and coming back down Winterwillow.  Additionally, they have repeated issues where teenagers would sit and drink at the north end of Towerwood and leave piles of beer cans there.  He concluded that it was a safety issue, and they did not want to block the rest of the neighborhood, but they wanted to get some control over the situation.

            Ms. Leticia Metcalfe, a resident who lived on the corner of CR 439 and Mill Creek Road, with the back of her property crossing Towerwood Drive, stated that when she took her horse out or walked, she used that back section.  She related that it was hard to determine which way a car was coming from until it was actually right there, and on one occasion a car came barreling down the road toward her and then proceeded to just turn, skid, kick up dirt, and then went back the way they came from.  She pointed out that she could have been hit if the driver had lost control of that vehicle.  She emphasized that it was a dangerous situation.  She commented that she did not think the applicants were proposing to close the road, but to give access to everyone who lived there.  She also mentioned that anytime she wanted to ride her horse, she had to go up and down the road beforehand to pick up glass and debris.

            Mr. John Simpson, the Applicant, stated that he did everything he could, including putting up signs and taking videos of people racing through on their ATV’s and pickup trucks and sliding through the turns, but the police would have to catch them in the act to be able to do anything about it.  He was told by the County that it was a public easement, was not a regulated road, and the speed limit was 35 miles per hour.   He related that he was told by County staff and policemen that he could try to get the easement closed and then regulate the road himself.  He showed a drawing of what he proposed to do, which illustrated what Ms. Ivy Simpson had related earlier.  He commented that they hoped that the people who were racing through there would not bother with stopping at the gate and pushing in a code to go through, and that the gate was there to discourage, although probably not completely eliminate, the illegal traffic.  He noted that in the case of an emergency resulting in the obstruction or washing out of Wintewillow, the gate would stay open until the road was repaired.  He emphasized that they were not trying to take anything away from anyone that lived in their neighborhood, but that they were trying to make the road situation in the neighborhood better by giving safety on the road back to their neighborhood and reducing a lot of the damage that was being done to the road by people who did not belong there.

            Mr. Stivender explained that if the applicant could work it out with his neighbors, the proposed gate could be installed without having a road vacation.

            Commr. Cadwell called for the residents who were opposed to the vacation to speak.

            Mr. Pam Seigler, a resident of Natures Edge Trail, related that she and her husband had a great deal of concerns regarding this petition and that she used Towerwood Drive as an alternative on an extremely foggy morning to avoid children, buses, and traffic during a time of low visibility or when she picked her mail up from the cluster mailboxes.  She was concerned for her community, because many times this road had been impassible because of bad storms, and commented that the concrete that was put in the culvert by Mr. Simpson has already started collapsing after only a year and that she was concerned about what would happen during a hurricane.  She was also concerned that after a storm the gate would not work, cutting off the Towerwood Drive easement as the only way for police, fire, and medical personnel to have access to the residents of Mill Creek Meadows, as well as leaving residents stranded without any access out of the community.  She also pointed out that Mr. Simpson would own the property of the easement if the vacation was granted; the residents would only have the Simpson’s word that they would be community minded; and if someone else purchased their property in the future, there would be no guarantee that the new owners would open the area in an emergency.  She mentioned that she had not seen four-wheelers or any signs of debris on that road in a long time.  She submitted a petition and several additional letters that residents had not had a chance to mail in opposition of the road vacation.

            Ms. Juli Benham, an original resident of Winterwillow Lane, mentioned that her mother had had a stroke in October and that her house had burned down in 2004; and in both instances emergency vehicles had a hard time getting through.  She stated that if they closed Towerwood, it would delay emergency response time, which was not appropriate.

            Ms. Laura Ohrich, a resident of Rollingwood Trail who also owned property on Quale Grove Road, noted that even though one of her neighbors was a Lake County police officer who was a frequent walker and that she walked nearly every night with a group of women in that area, none of them had ever witnessed teenagers partying there.  She mentioned that four-wheelers also traveled up and down her street very quickly, and while it was a concern, it was something they all had to deal with.  She also commented that it would be difficult to get through the proposed gate with horses, because they got spooked easily.

            Ms. Dawn Lutz, a resident of Winterwillow Lane, commented that when they first bought the property, they knew they were responsible for maintaining the roads.  She stated that speeding vehicles and four-wheelers were also a problem on her road, she had to watch when her son was out on the road, and the residents on Towerwood were not the only ones having to cope with the safety issues.  She opined that 35 mph was an extremely fast speed limit for that road.  She concluded that she did not think closing Towerwood was the best option for the reasons that other people have brought up.

            Ms. Genie Evers, a resident of Mill Stream Court, stated that they traveled Winterwillow every day, and stated that Mr. and Mrs. Simpson have put huge logs on the easement making it difficult for emergency vehicles as well as residents to drive through.  She was also very concerned about the difficulty of access for emergency vehicles into the area, and she indicated that the Simpsons should do more to maintain the property they were responsible for in front of their house on Winterwillow Drive.

            Mr. Richard Barrett, a resident of Winterwillow Lane, stated that most of the four-wheelers came from the Quale Grove area and the subdivision that was beyond that, as well as their own area.  He reiterated the opinion that the Simpsons’ situation was no different than all the other residents of that neighborhood who also had to put up with the four-wheelers and had to maintain their property.

            Ms. Dee Shepherd, a resident of Winterwillow, reiterated the concern about whether the gate would open during a storm.  She noted that people who lived out in the country on a dirt road had to deal with four-wheelers and traffic, and she added that the gate would scare her horse and prevent it from crossing, which would completely stop her from riding in the sand mines.

            Mr. Thomas Seigler, a resident of Natures Edge Trail and one of the original residents in that neighborhood, stated that aside from putting in the concrete around the culvert, the Simpsons had not done much to the road.  He commented that for the last six months, there has not been anyone on four-wheelers coming down that road, because they had moved out of the area.  He opined that the emergency situation was a lot more important than the four-wheeler situation.

            Mr. Simpson rebutted that he put 50 bags of concrete under the front edge of the culvert about a year and a half ago after it washed out, and it has not washed out since then except a little at the top, and he had also added concrete at the top to address that issue.  He also stated that he had been out with his tractor to smooth out the road many times.  He pointed out that everyone in the subdivision used the section of road that went by his house.  He concluded by stating that the four-wheelers had been replaced by pickup trucks, and he opined that the culprits had just gotten old enough to obtain driver’s licenses.

            The Chairman closed the public hearing.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that he thought that some of the things that Mr. and Mrs. Simpson brought up were valid points and that he was familiar with that area.  He stated that he did not know if closing the road would fix all of Mr. Simpson’s problems, and he thought that if there was some way for them to assist in some type of road improvements, he suggested that they set up a meeting with the residents who lived out there and the Sheriff’s Office within 60 days to deal with the two-pronged problem of the quality of the road and how the traffic was being handled.  He recommended that the Board vote for denial of Vacation Petition No. 1126.

            On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board denied Vacation Petition No. 1126, John Simpson, to vacate a portion of the right of way for Towerwood Drive, located in Section 26, Township 18S, Range 27E, in the Eustis area.

            Commr. Stewart complimented the Simpsons in going above and beyond trying to satisfy everyone, and commented that did not happen a lot of the time.



            Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Services Director, explained that the Lake County Library Advisory Board was recommending approval of five library impact fee projects that totaled $722,707 listed under Tab 19 and stated that the funding was available.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved five applications for funds from the Library Impact Fee Fund; signature of Interlocal Agreements for disbursement of Library Impact Fee funds to the City of Umatilla, the City of Minneola, the Town of Lady Lake, and the City of Mount Dora, pending County attorney approval; approval to commit Library Impact Fee Funds for the Cooper Memorial Library building project, said funds to be deposited with the LSCC Foundation; and approval of budget transfer 2008.9-495 in the amount of $287,174 from Library Impact Fee Fund reserves and appropriation of funds.


            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that Tab 20 was an ordinance that was an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, which was related to a case in which the Board approved the Settlement Agreement previously.  He placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only, as follows:


            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. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-46 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

            Mr. Ian McDonald introduced himself to the Board, stating that he would be the County’s new Chief Planner and would be heading up the long-ranch Comprehensive Planning session.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS:


Mr. Steve Greene, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, commented that the Zoning Agenda was strictly consent, and at this time, there had been no changes to the Agenda.

Commr. Renick had some questions about Agenda Item No. 5, Case No. PH29-08-3.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, pulling Tab 5, as follows:

            Tab 1 – Ordinance No. 2008-47

            Ralph Strickland

Rezoning Case No. PH#22-08-4

Request approval to rezone approximately .45 acres from Urban Residential (R-6) to CP in order to continue limited commercial uses on the property.

Tab 2 – Ordinance No. 2008-48

Fabiola R. Gillis

Ivan Uribe

Rezoning Case No. PH#34-08-2

Request approval to rezone a portion of the 1.7-acre site from Rural Residential (R-1) Zoning District to the Medium Residential (R-3) Zoning District to allow a Minor Lot Split.

Tab 6 – Ordinance No. 2008-50

Staff-Initiated Revocations

(A)  James P. Gills/Charles Hwang

Case No. CUP#86/4/2-2

Staff initiated revocation of a CUP in CP (Planned Commercial) for construction of an RV park, due to the RV park was never constructed and operation never began. (52 +/-acres).

(B)  Larry Grimes/Clermont Baptist Church

Case No. CUP#89/12/2-3

Staff-initiated revocation of a CUP in Agriculture for temporary asphalt plant, property was rezoned to CFD (Community Facility District) for establishment of a church in December, 2001.  (10 +/-acres)

(C)  James & Mildred Bradford/Beatriz Cadena, et al

Case No. CUP#93/1/3-2

Staff-initiated revocation of a CUP in Agriculture for placement of a mobile home for a caretaker’s residence, due to the mobile home being now classified as an accessory dwelling and in compliance with Section 10.01.06 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations.  A CUP is no longer required. (5 +/1ac)

 (D)  Phoebe J. Mueller

Case No. CUP#95/5/1-4

Staff-initiated revocation of a CUP in Agriculture for placement of a mobile home for the care of an infirm relative, due to the mobile home being removed and a residence was constructed on the property through a lot split application process. (10+ acres)

Tab 7 – Ordinance No. 2008-51

Voluntary Revocations of Conditional Use Permits as follows:

A) Dura Stress Inc.

Case No. CUP#897-5

Voluntary revocation of a CUP in M-1 (Heavy Industrial) for placement of a mobile home on site for a caretaker’s residence for security reasons.  Property has been sold and mobile home removed from the property.


(C) Henry Church

Case No. CUP#97/6/1-4

Voluntary revocation of a CUP in Agriculture for placement of a mobile home for use as a caretaker’s / security guard living facility to assist in the care and maintenance of an existing greenhouse operation.  The mobile home is no longer needed and has been removed from the site. (10 +/-acres)

(D) Calvin and Lillian Holton

Case No. CUP#99/8/3-2

Voluntary revocation of a CUP in Agriculture for temporary placement of a mobile home with an existing residence for the care of an infirm relative. The mobile home has been removed and the use is no longer needed. (1.05 +/ac)

(E) C. Agnew Thompson

Case No. CUP#93/3/1-2

Voluntary revocation of a CUP in Agriculture for placement of a mobile home for a caretaker’s residence.  CUP is no longer needed. (28+ac)


Mr. Greene explained that the Zoning Board approved the particular request on Tab 5 on the Consent Agenda, which was a request to change the zoning from Community Commercial District (C-2) to Heavy Industrial District (HM).  He reported that the property was essentially surrounded by other HM designated properties, and he thought the owner wanted to undertake automobile sales on the property, which would be a conditional use under C-2, but HM would give them the full right to conduct that type of activity there.  He noted that it was a very small piece of property off of County Road 561, and they did not anticipate any heavy industrial activity taking place on it.

Commr. Renick was concerned that if they gave the applicants the heavy industrial use, they would use it for other purposes.  She did not understand why a zoning change was necessary to use the property for auto sales.

Mr. Greene stated that the applicant did not want to have to get a conditional use approval.

Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the process to do that would be the same process as rezoning.  He also noted that he was not concerned, because he thought that this zoning would work with the surrounding area and what else was out there.  He commented that the County’s own LDR’s were restrictive, that they were not able to do just any heavy industrial on that property, and that every industry was constrained by its size.

Mr. Greene specified that it was .47 acres.

Ms. Julianne Thomas, Senior Planner, stated that since the parcel was very small, what they were going to be able to do with it was very limited, and usually heavy industrial took up more space and was more intensive.  She pointed out that one of the reasons staff recommended approval was that it was surrounded completely by heavy industrial uses.  She also noted that this was not approval of any sort of site plan or variance, and if the applicants wanted to do something different, they would have to submit a site plan that met all the LDR regulations, unless they were asking for a variance, which would require a decision by the Board.

Commr. Renick stated that she did not realize it was completely surrounded by heavy industrial.

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. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2008-49, Michael R. and Jennifer A. Gebhardt, Case No. PH#29-08-3, to change the zoning from Community Commercial District (C-2) to Heavy Industrial District (HM).




Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director, stated that they were there to adopt the TRIM rates for the Fiscal Year 2008-09 budget, which was required under Florida Statute, Section 200.065, and they would have to notify the Property Appraiser by August 3.  He related that the rates they were recommending were from the County Manager’s recommended budget that she presented to the Board on July 15, which was the roadmap for all services, programs, and capital projects they would be doing for 2008-09.  He stated that the rates include a general fund rate of 4.6511, which was a reduction of .0899 mils from the current rate and a Public Lands Debt Service millage rate of .1101, which was also a reduction of .0899.  He mentioned that both of these reductions totally offset the rate that would be needed to fund the Emergency Medical portion of the Fire Rescue Budget, and that rate is .3222 mils, which was only collected in the unincorporated areas and the cities of Astatula, Howey-in-the Hills, and Lady Lake.  The remaining two millages were proposed at the current millage rate, which is .4651 for the ambulance service and an unincorporated millage of .494 for stormwater, roads, and parks.  In addition to these rates, he asked that the Board also approve the date, time, and place for the public hearings, which were recommended for September 9 and September 23 at 5:05 p.m. in County Commission Chambers.

Commr. Hill commented that she did not have a problem with these rates, but that she might have some opposition to the solid waste increase when they discuss that in an upcoming meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 14, the request to set millage rates to be included on the TRIM notifications in accordance with the County Manager’s recommended Fiscal Year 2008-09 budget and approval of the public hearing dates and times for September 9, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. and September 23, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. and approval to advertise these hearings.



Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Director, stated that this item was for approval of the agreement with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities for continuation of the Med Waiver program.  He related that currently the County subsidized this program for about $177,000 a year and that the clients that they primarily transported were from Sunrise Arc.  He reported that this year they took a 7.2 percent decrease in funding from the legislature under this program, so the County’s contribution overall was going to increase by $19,000 a year.  He noted that they did appropriate this anticipated budget change in their proposed budget for 2008-09.

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 15, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities Med Waiver Services Agreement Addendum “A.”


Mr. Harley explained that they were asking to rescind the approval of Resolution No. 2008-74 and accept the Lake-Sumter MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Resolution No. 2008-14, acknowledging that the Board would be the recipient for the FTA (Federal Transit Administration) funds.  He related that initially they thought that they just needed to adopt the resolution that the Board had adopted, but they should have just asked them to accept that resolution naming the County as the recipient of FTA funds under the 5307 program.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 16, the request from Community Services to rescind the approval of Resolution No. 2008-74 and accept the Lake-Sumter MPO Resolution No. 2008-14.



Mr. Barnett Schwartzman, Procurement Director, stated that this was a contract award approval that was coming to the Board as a departmental item because of the dollar value and the fact that under their RFP process, they were recommending award to the second lowest offer because of what they considered to be a huge technical superiority associated with that vendor.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 17, a request from Procurement for approval and execution of an agreement with RouteMatch Software, Inc. to purchase, furnish and install paratransit scheduling and dispatch software.



Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that they were just extending Kimley-Horn’s contract, who were the designers of County Road 466, to allow the County to use them as expert witnesses at the Order of Take Hearings that were scheduled for July and August, should that be necessary.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 18, Amendment #4 to the agreement between Lake County and Kimley-Horn and Associates for additional services regarding the “Expert Witness Testimony” for the Order of Take Hearings on CR 466.  Commission District 5.



Commr. Cadwell commented that he looked at the list, and geographically, they were all fairly equal, so that was not an issue.

Commr. Renick recommended Ms. Terry Godts for this position.

Commr. Hill recommended Mr. Lowrie Brown, who had submitted an application several times.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that they postpone this item so that he could personally talk to both individuals.

There was a consensus to postpone Tab 23, the appointment of the individual to the vacant at-large representative seat on the LPA (Local Planning Agency) to complete an unexpired term ending January 31, 2009.


There was a consensus to postpone Tab 24, the appointment of representatives from the cities of Clermont, Leesburg, Minneola, and Fruitland Park to the Lake County Arts and Cultural Alliance, until Commr. Stivender could be present.


Commr. Hill announced the appointment of the following individuals to upcoming vacant positions on the Lake County Impact Fee Committee for two-year terms beginning August 7, 2008:

Mr. Ray San Fratello (representing the Chamber Alliance)

Ms. Karen LeHeup-Smith (representing the League of Cities)

Ms. Jean Kaminski (representing the Home Builders Association)

Ms. Carol MacLeod (representing the Superintendent of Schools or designee)

Mr. Bill Benham (representing the Agriculture Industry)

Mr. Bill Calhoun, Ms. Nancy Lee Hulbert, and Mr. Richard Giacobe (Citizens-at-large)

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the above-mentioned appointments for Tab 25 to the Lake County Impact Fee Committee for two-year terms beginning August 7, 2008.



            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that at the last FAC (Florida Association of Counties) conference and prior to that, through the Association of County Attorneys, several counties had been exploring the possibility of filing a suit against the State regarding the Regional Conflict Counsel and the obligation of the counties to provide office space and other monies for the Counsel.  He noted that Lake County had not had a request for office space yet, but they have had a request for some of the computer money that was shared with the other constitutional officers such as the State Attorney and Public Defender.  He reported that at the conference, FAC agreed to participate in that suit and at last count, 23 counties have agreed to sign on as plaintiffs in the case.  He wanted to bring this before the Board to see whether they would like to join, and he commented that the costs would be small because the fees were being split between all of the counties as well as FAC.  He indicated that the fees would probably be anywhere from a few hundred to $2,000 at most to participate.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board agreed to join with FAC and other counties to challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 2007-62 as to the requirement that counties provide office space and pay other costs for the Regional Conflict Counsel.


            Mr. Minkoff related that he sent to the Board the staff recommendation regarding the expectation that Niagra Bottling, LLC would be granted the St. Johns River Water Management permit, and that even though they still had not received formal notice, he anticipated that they would get that in the next day or so.  He informed the Board that the three paths at this point were to do nothing; elect to go to the Board hearing and attempt to sway the St. Johns Board not to grant it in a political sense; or request a full administrative hearing, which essentially would begin a lawsuit to try to stop the issuance of the permit.

            Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff what kind of funding it would take to request the administrative hearing, if the County had to do that alone.

            Mr. Minkoff answered that they would have to use outside counsel, and related that when they did that with OUC (Orlando Utilities Commission), they were getting estimates of between $250,000 and $500,000 to challenge it, mainly because of the high costs of the consultants that were necessary.  He reported that Groveland had already hired an outside counsel, and he thought that they were given an estimate of $200,000 so far, and he added that Groveland’s attorney had not discussed their response yet, but anticipated doing that in the next week or so.

            Commr. Renick suggested that they contact the cities, the Lake County Water Authority, and the Water Alliance, to have a number of interveners together on this.  She opined that this discussion was happening everywhere.

            Commr. Cadwell recommended having Mr. Minkoff contact the other city attorneys that had utilities to see if they were interested in partnering with the County in this so that they would not have to bear it all alone.

            Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that the Governing Board Meeting was August 12, which would give the Board until their first meeting in August to make a final decision, and they could bring the issue up at the budget hearings set for later in July if they had a time problem.  He stated that he would contact the other city attorneys and bring it back to the Board.


            Mr. Minkoff reported that beginning September 1, the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) makeup will change from three County Commissioners and two School Board members to two County Commissioners, one School Board member, and two citizens, and that one of the citizens would be appointed by the School Board and one by the Board of County Commissioners.  He further explained that the Board would have to appoint an individual who owns homestead property in Lake County and was not a member or employee of any taxing authority or representing property owners in any type of administrative or judicial review.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that they did not have time to advertise, so he recommended that Mr. Minkoff state what the qualifications were and then have staff bring names back, and they will appoint someone from the public.


            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.




                                                                        WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN