A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JULY 28, 2009

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 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:  Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Elaine Renick; Linda Stewart; and Jimmy Conner.  Commissioner Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman, was not present, due to another commitment.  Others present were:  Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Pastor Michael Allen, First Baptist Church of Umatilla, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she would be giving them an update on the Lake County Judicial Center Expansion Project under her business, noting that a meeting was recently held regarding the matter, and she would like to make sure that staff is following the Board’s direction and ask for clarification, if necessary.

Commr. Hill interjected that she had a message from Administrative Judge Don Briggs about the proposed project that she would read into the record at that time.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 and 2, as follows:

Public Safety

Request from Public Safety for (1) acceptance of Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds, in the amount of $62,758; (2) approval for County Manager to sign Award Letter accepting EMPG funds; and (3) approval of Resolution No. 2009-102, amending the General Fund, in order to receive unanticipated revenue, in the amount of $33,281, for the EMPG Award.

Public Works

Request from Public Works for approval to apply for Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance through the Fiscal Year 2010 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) Grant Program.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tab 3, as follows:

Request for approval to declare submitted County owned property as surplus, for purpose of disposal; approval of Resolution No. 2009-103, declaring said property as surplus; authorizing donation of said property to Habitat for Humanity; and approval and execution of County Deed and any other documents necessary to transfer said property to Habitat for Humanity.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

BUDGET

Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director, addressed the Board regarding a request for approval to have the millage rates set, under Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, to be included on the TRIM (Truth in Millage) notices, in accordance with the County Manager’s recommended FY 2009/10 Budget, which the Board is required to adopt no later than August 3, 2009, noting that they will become the maximum millages that can be adopted, when the public hearings are held in September.  He informed the Board that the proposed rates are the current millage rates, which equates to an approximate 8.8% reduction in property taxes, because of the drop in the tax base from $20.9 billion to $19.1 billion.  He reviewed the proposed rates, noting that they, as well as other revenues, support the proposed FY 2009/10 Budget, totaling $302.6 million, which was submitted to the Board on July 15th.  He commented that the proposed Budget is $55 million less than the Budget that was adopted in FY 2008/09.  He commented that the Board is required to set the date, time, and place for the first and second public hearings, which staff is proposing to be held on September 15th, at 5:05 p.m., and on September 22nd, at 5:05 p.m., in the Commission Chambers, at the Administration Building.  He noted that both dates, along with the tax rates, will be mailed to all property owners with their TRIM notices around August 20th.  He remarked that three budget workshops are scheduled to be held on August 11th, 12th, and 13th, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, in the Training Room (Room 233), at the Administration Building.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Budget Office that the millage rates be set, to be included on the TRIM notices, in accordance with the County Manager's recommended FY 2009/10 Budget, as follows:  General Fund – 4.6511; Ambulance Fund - .4651; Voter Approved Debt (for Environmentally Sensitive Lands) - .1101; Stormwater, Parks and Roads - .4984; and Fire MSTU - .3222; that the public hearing dates and times be September 15th , at 5:05 p.m., and September 22nd, at 5:05 p.m.; and approval to advertise said public hearings.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REORGANIZATION OF LAW LIBRARY ORDINANCE

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 12, SECTIONS 12-16 THROUGH 12-17, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 12-18 THROUGH 12-19, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED “LAW LIBRARY,” TO REFLECT THE LAW LIBRARY’S REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE LAKE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12-16; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12-17; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF SECTIONS 12-18 THROUGH 12-19; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one present wished to address the Board.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2009-40, reflecting the Law Library’s reorganization within the Lake County Library System, as presented.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  REZONING

Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that there were no requested changes to the Rezoning Consent Agenda, but that staff had received two requests for postponement on the Regular Rezoning Agenda, being: (1) a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. CUP09/7/3-3, Peer Ali Zafarali, LLC/Liyyahkaat Altaf Zafarali/Peer’s Meat/Slaughterhouse, until the September Rezoning Meeting, the reason being that the applicant has recently obtained counsel and would like to meet with the adjoining property owners, to address any concerns they have and to allow counsel to properly review the case; and (2) a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. MSP09/7/2-5, Dan Cordle, Steven J. Richey, Esquire/Professional Dirt Services, until the September Rezoning Meeting, as well, as the applicant’s legal counsel, Mr. Richey, would not be able to represent the case at this meeting, due to health issues.

rezoning consent agenda

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one present wished to address the Board.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, as follows:

Ordinance No. 2009-41

Staff-Initiated Revocation of Conditional Use Permits:

CUP No. 606-5                            Roy Walker/PMCC, LLC (Postponed to 8/5/09)

CUP No. 88/9/3-1                        Henry Gonzales/Nancy Steinmetz (C)

CUP No. 89/2/5-3                        Frank Richardson/James and Connie Elmore (D)

CUP No. 00/3/1-4                        Donald and Donner Holter and Laura Ann Day (E)

CUP No. 00/9/3-4                        M. David and K. Schwalb (F)

CUP No. 993-4                            B & R Holland (G)

CUP No. 189-5                            L.H Schonauer (Postponed to 8/5/09)

CUP No. 255-3 & CUP 255A-3  Robert Moyer (I)

CUP No. 303-3                            William C. Errain (J)

CUP No. 416-2                            W. J. Stevens/Mission Church (K)

CUP No. 728-5 & 728A-5           J. Whitaker and O. C. May (L)

CUP No. 126-5                            Talmadge Etheredge (M)

CUP No. 001-2004                      Claudia and Earnest Fagin (O) (Withdrawn)

CUP No. 176-3                            Campers’ Inn of America/Frank and Mary Pellegrino (P)

CUP No. 288-1                            Francis Durfree (Q)

CUP No. 07/8/1-5                        Tail End Farms/Paul and Marnie Lewis (R)

CUP No. 831-3                            Jeff Baker (S)

CUP No. 89/8/4-1                        Jack and Rosemary Purdum (T)

 

Ordinance No. 2009-42

CUP No. 87/5/1-4

Kathleen A. Waters (Revocation) (1-N)

 

Ordinance No. 2009-43

CUP No. 09/7/3-5

Vantaggio Investment Group/Amy I. Velazquez/Vantaggio Tower

 

Ordinance No. 2009-44

CUP No. 09/7/1-5

M & J Groves, Inc./Margaret Stricklen

Verizon Wireless/Laura Belflower, P.A.

Verizon Wireless Tower

 

PH No. 56-08-2

Water Conserv II, RIB Site No. 10 (Withdrawn)

 

PH No. 57-08-2

Water Conserv II, RIB Site No. 1 (Withdrawn)

 

REGULAR REZONING AGENDA

REZONING CASE NO. cup09/7/3-3 – cup in a - peer ali zafarali, llc/liyyahkaat altaf zafarali/peer’s meat/slaughterhouse

The Vice Chairman noted that it had been requested that this case be postponed until the September 22nd Board Meeting, at which time discussion occurred regarding whether to grant the postponement, or not.

Commr. Conner stated that he felt the Board should hear the case, noting that he was not aware that the applicant had requested a postponement and did not appreciate not being told about it in advance and wanted that on the record, because he felt it made him look like he had not done his homework, when he had extensively studied this case and had meetings with staff regarding it.  He stated that he was not willing to grant a postponement and did not see why, with people in the audience opposing it, it even needed to be debated.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there would have to be a public hearing on the request for postponement.

Mr. Sheahan stated that the applicant had requested the postponement just prior to the start of the meeting.

Commr. Conner commented that he did not think it was a good policy for an applicant to be able to request a verbal postponement of his/her case just prior to the start of the meeting and that it needed to be changed.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the applicant was present in the audience, and the Board would have to allow him to address them and tell them why he needs a postponement.

Mr. Blair Johnson, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he had just been retained by the applicant to represent this case the previous day and, in looking at the documents, feels that part of the problem the residents have with the application is that it was originally written using Soto Road as the access road, when, in fact, it will be CR 33.  He noted that Soto Road is the address for the property, but access to the proposed facility will be off of CR33, which is a much better road.  He commented that they would like to have time to amend the application, correcting the access road, and to meet with the residents and try to address their concerns.  He apologized for the late request, however, noted that he could not have handled it any differently.

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing regarding the request for postponement.

Mr. Richard Vaughn and Ms. Carol Wood, residents of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that the residents that were present in the audience would like for the case to be heard.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board in opposition to the request for postponement, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Conner and Commr. Hill disclosed, for the record, that they had received communication from various people who are opposed to this request.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board denied a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. CUP09/7/3-3, Peer Ali Zafarali, LLC/Liyyahkaat Altaf Zafarali/Peer’s Meat/Slaughterhouse, until the September 22, 2009 Board Meeting.

Commr. Hill voted “No”.

REZONING CASE NO. MSP09/7/2-5 – cup and mining site plan - DAN CORDLE/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/PROFESSIONAL DIRT SERVICES

It was noted that this case had been requested to be postponed until the September 22nd Board Meeting, as well, at which time Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board explaining that he was aware that his request for a postponement was not within the ten day rule recently set by the Board, but that he was having some health problems and would not physically be able to present the case to the Board, and he found out after the fact that Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, the applicant’s project engineer, was not going to be able to attend the meeting, as well.

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing regarding the request for postponement.

Mr. Tim Draudt and Mr. Walter Guy, residents of Tavares, addressed the Board in favor of the postponement.

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

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. MSP09/7/2-5, Dan Cordle/Steven J. Richey, Esquire/Professional Dirt Services, until the Board Meeting of September 22, 2009.

REZONING CASE NO. CUP580-2 – STAFF INITIATED REVOCATION OF CUP - CANTWELL AND HILLIARD

Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that this request was for approval of the Staff Initiated Revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 580-2, which permitted a mobile home in the Agricultural Zoning District, for use as a caretaker’s residence, however, noted that the permit is no longer necessary, as the Code allows for accessory dwellings.  He stated that the CUP was granted in 1977 and had a three year provision for review by the Director of Planning, but the home was never built, so the CUP is unnecessary and is an added expense for the property owner, due to the annual inspections; therefore, staff was recommending that the CUP be revoked.

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one present wished to address the Board.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2009-45, Cantwell and Hilliard, Rezoning Case No. CUP580-2, Staff Initiated Revocation of CUP, which permitted a mobile home in the Agricultural Zoning District for use as a caretaker’s residence, as presented, due to the fact that the CUP is no longer necessary.

rezoning case no. cup09/7/3-3 – cup in a – PEER ALI ZAFARALI, LLC/LIYYAHKAAT ALTAF ZAFARALI

Mr. Steve Greene, Chief Planner, Planning and Community Design, Growth Management Department, presented this case, stating that the applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agricultural Zoning District for a slaughterhouse operation.  He stated that the property is approximately 25 acres in size and is located on Soto Road in the Mascotte area, just east of CR 33.  The property is designated Rural, is surrounded by agricultural zoning, and comes to the County by way of a prior Code Enforcement violation for the slaughterhouse operation, which was taking place without proper permits; however, the case has since been closed, due to the fact that the applicant ceased said activity and submitted the request before the Board this date.  He indicated that the applicant proposes to construct a 60’x100’ slaughterhouse, for the purpose of processing livestock, which will include cattle, goats, and lambs, as well as a loading and parking area, for people to drop off their animals and pick up their prepared meats.  He informed the Board that a slaughterhouse activity is not, by right, a granted agricultural activity; however, it is consistent with the rural nature of agricultural properties.  Due to the nature of the operation, the wastewater, potable water, and disposal of livestock waste and offal shall be permitted and inspected through and per Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulations and conditions have been included in the Ordinance, with regard to impact mitigation on the surrounding environmental characteristics of the property, such as existing wetlands.  If approved, the CUP will be required to undergo site plan review and approval, prior to its operation.  The site plan will ensure that the buffers, setbacks, wetland protection, threatened and endangered species identification, solid waste disposal, impervious surface ratio, floor area ratio, and stormwater management adhere to the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant will be required to comply with all federal and state regulations.  As it pertains to the effect on adjacent properties, the activity has a potential to have a negative impact on the environment; however, there are conditions in the Ordinance to reduce potential impacts, such as the generation of noise, flies, and odors, and the applicant has proposed the implementation of a solid waste disposal management plan.  There will be adequate buffers and the activity will be centrally located on the property and there will be a limitation on the number of livestock that can be kept on the property, in addition to the hours of operation for the activity.  He remarked that, with regard to how compatible the proposed use is to the existing character of the neighborhood, it is situated in a rural area within agriculturally zoned properties, most of which are non-intensive agricultural or low scale residential type properties.  With regard to steps to be taken to minimize the impacts, the Ordinance has conditions that staff believes will mitigate the impacts and the recent Noise Ordinance will require a noise study to be presented with the site plan application, to determine unnecessary noise mitigation that would be required for the operation.  Regarding the adequacy of public facilities, he noted that Soto Road is a non-maintained dirt road and, according to information presented to staff, it would be the primary access, however, said road would have to be improved and there are conditions in the Ordinance for that.  He commented that, pertaining to fire services, the closest fire station is the Mascotte Fire Station; however, Lake County has a manned fire station (No. 82) at The Plantation subdivision that would be designated as a first responder for any fire emergency that may occur at the property.  He indicated that staff has reviewed the application, in accordance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and finds that it is consistent with the conditions specified in the Ordinance, therefore, recommends approval of the request.

Mr. Blair Johnson, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the proposed use is not the type of use that most people would want anywhere near them, but the application meets the requirements for where a slaughterhouse would be located.  He informed the Board that he regretted the fact that he and the applicant missed the Zoning Meeting, in that he feels it was a strike against them.  He stated that the applicant did not realize how important it was for him to be present at that meeting and address the concerns of the residents.  He referred to the aerial contained in the Board’s backup material, pointing out where the proposed facility will be located on the property, which will be 1,275 feet from the closest residence.  He stated that there are three parcels that the applicant’s children will be constructing their homes on, noting that they are not asking to construct the slaughterhouse away from where they will be living, leaving the residents in the area to deal with the problems, but are willing to put their money where their mouth is and build their homes next to where the slaughterhouse will be located.  He remarked that, not only are they going to have to comply with the County’s requirements regarding how the slaughterhouse will be operated, but they are going to have to comply with state and federal requirements, as well.  He stated that all the processing on the property will be inside the facility – there will be no outside activity at all.  Even the animals being delivered to be slaughtered will immediately be taken inside the facility, so there will be no noise involved with the operation, other than the loading and unloading of the animals.  He discussed the fact that the residents are concerned about their property values being affected, should this request be approved, and about the enjoyment of their property, however, noted that he feels, with the requirements that staff has recommended in the Ordinance and the requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the State, the residents can be certain that there will be no impact to their properties.  He submitted, for the record, a petition (Applicant’s Exhibit A) containing the signatures of eight property owners in the area in favor of the slaughterhouse operation.  He stated that the applicant is willing to do whatever the Board requires to enable him to use his property for the slaughterhouse.

Mr. Richard Vaughan, a property owner on Soto Road, addressed the Board stating that he was present on behalf of a lot of his neighbors who could not be present at this meeting, at which time he submitted, for the record, a petition (Opposition’s Exhibit A) containing 53 signatures of individuals opposed to the request.  He stated that they are against the slaughterhouse, because they feel it will affect their property values and they are concerned about the odors that it will produce, and they do not feel it will make any difference whether the slaughterhouse is located on Soto Road, or CR 33.  He commented that the property in question is located in a nice community, where everybody is close nit, and they keep their properties neat.

Mr. Jay White, the owner of White’s Fiberglass Industries, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, noting that he lives approximately one-half mile from the property in question and has lived in the area since 1958.  He stated that a slaughterhouse is currently located in Center Hill, which is in close proximity to Mascotte, and, when they slaughter the animals, an odor is emitted from it that is sickening.  He remarked that the residents in the area do not need a slaughterhouse in their neighborhood.

Mr. Ray Wood, a property owner on Soto Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that he has lived in the area for approximately eight years and enjoys the country setting.  He stated that it is hard enough to sell a home during these bad economic times and feels that, if the slaughterhouse is approved, it will definitely affect the property values of the homes in the area.

Mr. David Gay, the owner of Grass Roots Airpark, which is located less than one-half mile south of the property in question, addressed the Board and submitted, for the record, a document (Opposition’s Exhibit B) containing guidelines for slaughterhouses, referring to Page 3, Item 5. - Location, which states that slaughterhouses should be located outside or on the periphery of a city or town and shall be away from an airport.  He then referred to a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit C), which he read and submitted, for the record, that he had written to Commr. Conner regarding the proposed slaughterhouse and the fact that the airport community, combined with Grass Roots Estates, consists of 33 residential lots, and there will, ultimately, be 75 aircraft using the airport.  The north/south runway has approaches and departures running directly over the proposed slaughterhouse property and he is concerned that birds, both scavenger and predatory, will be attracted to the slaughterhouse, due to potential improper discarding of carcasses and also to feed on rodents and other small animals that will be attracted to the facility.  He indicated that the concentration of birds will be in the regular flight pattern of the aircraft and will become a safety hazard and that it is likely Lake County will be creating a liability should the facility be approved.  He stated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that garbage dumps, landfills, and slaughterhouses not be located within two miles of an airport, due to the potential flight safety hazards caused by birds.  In addition, the facility will create obnoxious odors, which will diminish property values in the area.  He asked the Board to consider the negative impacts and potential liabilities that the proposed facility will create and deny the request.

Mr. Jason Robbins, a property owner on Soto Road, who is opposed to the request, addressed the Board and questioned where the slaughterhouse’s disposal of waste will be, if all the processing is going to be located inside the facility, noting that that is where a lot of the residents’ concerns lie – with the smell and the rodents and the impact that it is going to have on the community.  He stated that most of the residents in the area have sunk their life’s savings into their lifestyles and building their homes.  He remarked that the residents understand that the applicant needs to make a living; however, pointed out the fact that everybody else in the area has jobs that do not impact their neighbors.  He noted that he was speaking on behalf of his mother, as well, who also lives in the area and is opposed to the request.

Ms. Ponnalea Esquivel, a property owner on Soto Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that she understood the applicant was considering not using Soto Road for access, because it is not county maintained, however, noted that the residents do not want the road to be county maintained, because they like not having extra traffic on it, other than those people who live on the road, or are visiting people who live on it.  She explained that the proposed slaughterhouse is going to be constructed on top of a hill on the applicant’s property and she lives on the river and her property is low, with wetlands located in the back, so when the water is high, all the swamp water from the applicant’s property and the property adjacent to it runs through her property and she has horses, which concerns her.  She remarked that she and her husband live in the area for a reason, being that they like the quietness of it and they like the fact that there are no industrial businesses in the area.  They feel that, even if the applicant uses CR 33, rather than Soto Road, they are going to hear the noise of the trucks delivering the animals to be slaughtered and they do not want to be able to hear them.

Mr. Kenneth Pumphrey, a property owner on McKenzie Road, in the area in question, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that a small lake on his property and three or four other small lakes in the area all feed into each other, and he is concerned about waste from the slaughterhouse operation contaminating them.  He noted that the residents are afraid to use them for fishing anymore, due to that fact.  He also is concerned about the fact that the proposed slaughterhouse is not an operation that is conducive to the area, which is agricultural and residential, noting that he always thought of a slaughterhouse as a commercial operation.

Ms. Jacqueline Edmondson, a property owner on Soto Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that she and her family are opposed to the slaughterhouse, because of potential odors that will be generated from the animals being slaughtered and the fact that they do not want the added traffic that it will generate, should the request be approved, because they are concerned about the safety of the children in the area.

Ms. Francis Soto Young, a property owner on Soto Road and the daughter of the gentleman that the road was named after, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that her family is opposed to the slaughterhouse, because they travel through Center Hill on a regular basis and smell the odor that is omitted from the slaughterhouse that is located there, even though the animals are slaughtered inside the facility, and they are concerned about the added traffic that the slaughterhouse will generate.  She feels approval of the request will only bring down the property values in the area.

Ms. Carol Wood, a property owner on Soto Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, stating that it was wrong on so many levels.  She stated that the property in question is located in a beautiful, rural, residential neighborhood, where some of the neighbors have horses and it is a wonderful place to go home to after a troubling day, but, if the request is approved, the neighborhood will no longer be one that the residents will look forward to going home to - hearing the animals crying and smelling them being slaughtered.  She stated that the slaughterhouse does not belong in a residential neighborhood and she is concerned about another gentleman that lives in the neighborhood that does the same thing and is just waiting in the wings for this request to be approved, so that he can come before the Board and request approval to do the same thing.

Ms. Jean Vaughan, a property owner on Soto Road, in opposition to the request, addressed the Board stating that she lives on a lake and across the field from the proposed slaughterhouse and that, over the 18 years that she has lived there, she has seen dead carcasses not being attended to.  She noted that she has a horse farm and is very much an animal lover and does not want to hear the animals being slaughtered.

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

Mr. Blair Johnson, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made, indicating that, with the applicant changing access to his property from Soto Road to CR 33, it should not impact the neighbors at all; the facility will be located far enough away from the adjoining properties that the applicant does not feel noise will be an issue; the waste from the animals will not be disposed of on the property, but will be taken off of the property and incinerated; the applicant denies that any waste has ever been disposed of in the lake that is located on their property and they deny that any slaughtering has been taking place on the property, in violation of the Code Enforcement requirements that they agreed to comply with.  He stated that, in the economic situation that the Country finds itself in at the present time, with so many businesses shutting down, he feels a business that will be employing five people or more and will give the County an additional tax base should be approved.  He noted that he feels the residents are overreacting and that they just do not want a slaughterhouse in their area, because it has a bad connotation, however, pointed out the fact that staff has given consideration to all of the issues addressed this date and their recommendation is for approval.

A motion was made by Commr. Conner and seconded by Commr. Stewart to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and deny a request for approval of Rezoning Case No. CUP09/7/3-3, Peer Ali Zafarali, LLC/Liyyahkaat Altaf Zafarali, for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agricultural Zoning District, to allow for a slaughterhouse operation.

Under discussion, Commr. Renick stated that she understood the request was a sensitive matter and not a popular use for the property in question, however, noted that the issue was whether or not the property was the appropriate site for a slaughterhouse.  She stated that she was a little concerned about where the slaughterhouse was actually going to be located on the property, in relation to the nearby residences, and whether 25 acres was a large enough parcel to allow it to be hidden from the residences.  She was also concerned about it being constructed on the top of a hill on the property, in that it will be more easily seen by the residents in the area.  As far as the issue of noise being generated from the animals being loaded and unloaded is concerned, she noted that there is going to be noise from any agricultural use, where cattle and other animals are being loaded and unloaded, no matter what.  She then discussed the issue of odors that it is felt will be generated by the proposed slaughterhouse, noting that the Board would not want something with a noxious odor to be located in an area that is predominantly residential, other than in an agricultural area.

Mr. Greene, Chief Planner, pointed out on an aerial contained in the Board’s backup material, exactly where the slaughterhouse is proposed to be constructed on the property in question and where the closest property owner would be located from the facility.

Commr. Renick stated that she did not understand the statement that was made about carcasses being seen in the area.

Mr. Stan Wilson, Lake County Code Enforcement Officer, addressed the Board, stating that, during staff’s investigation of the property, in response to the Code Enforcement complaint, they observed antlers, horns, and skulls for the most part, but did not observe any carcasses.  He stated that, apparently, goats were being slaughtered on the property and there were allegations of cows being slaughtered, as well, but they were not able to substantiate that, noting that they made at least ten site visits to the property, between December of 2007 and May of 2008, when the case was closed, after the Special Master Hearings were held.

It was noted that between 50 and 100 animals per week will be processed at the proposed slaughterhouse, versus the 1,000 per week that are slaughtered at the facility in Center Hill.

Mr. Liyyahkaat Zafarali, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the proposed slaughterhouse will be a small operation, unlike the size of the slaughterhouse that is located in Center Hill, noting that there is a restriction governing how many animals they will be able to slaughter per week.  He indicated that he and his wife plan to build a house on the property in question and raise a family, close to the site of the proposed slaughterhouse, along with his sister and brother, so they are not going to do anything to diminish the value of the property or cause it to have an odor.

The Vice Chairman called for a vote on the motion to deny the request, which was carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.

OTHER BUSINESS

appointment to lake county impact fee committee

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Linda Nagle to serve as the Home Builders Association representative on the Lake County Impact Fee Committee, to complete the unexpired term of Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director, who is retiring, ending August 6, 2010.

reports – county manager

lake county judicial center expansion project

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, updated the Board on a meeting that was held recently regarding the Lake County Judicial Center and looking at ways to reduce the size and cost of expanding it.  She stated that all the stakeholders, including the Clerk of Courts, the Chief Judge, the Public Defender, a representative from the State Attorney’s Office, and a representative from the Sheriff’s Office, were present at that meeting and were informed as to staff’s interpretation of the direction of the Board, which was to use the current courtrooms, as they stand, and add to them, to keep the budget within $35 to $47 million, or thereabouts, and to design the building so that it can be expanded, since it is a smaller building and will need to be expanded in the future.  She stated that discussion occurred regarding the number of courtrooms that will be needed, in perhaps a phased-in approach, and where they would be located.  She commented that security was a main consideration and a new juror room appeared to be a priority and they discussed holding off initially on the repair of the envelope of the building, since they cannot be certain as to how the new design will be butted into the current building.  They feel it would not be wise to begin, until they know what that will be and be able to have expansion room on the same site as the courthouse.  She stated that, at the end of the meeting, it was determined that the architects would work on some preliminary ideas to bring back to the Board, hopefully, by the end of August, and the intent would then be to look at the designs, perhaps tweak them, and, if need be, based on operational needs and workflow, cite some pros and cons, which would then come back to the Board for consideration and further direction.  She questioned whether the Board felt that was the proper way to go, or whether they felt there needed to be a modification to that approach.

At this time, Commr. Hill read into the record a letter from Administrative Judge Don Briggs, containing a brief background history of what has occurred up to this point in time, with regard to the proposed Judicial Center Expansion Project, and how he felt about the matter, indicating that public buildings should be built with an eye to the future and with fiscal prudence, not only in terms of space, but also in terms of endurance - that the taxpayers deserve no less.  He further indicated that the smaller project now envisioned will provide additional space in three years or so, but it will not provide a building for the taxpayers that will last nearly as long as what was intended when the process began.  In fact, depending on the size the Board chooses, the building may be full before it even opens.  He stated that it, of course, would be the choice of the Board and that the future will tell whether it was a wise one for the taxpayers.

Commr. Hill stated that she felt the motion she heard that day specified parameters in the redesign, which was utilizing the $47 million, or thereabouts, incurring no new debt, and to preserve and keep the eight courtrooms.  She stated that one Commissioner expressed a desire to bring the Public Defender back into the building and another Commissioner expressed a desire to leave $11 million in Reserves for the future, but she did not feel those were included in the motion.  She commented that there was a lot of discussion, which centered around the redesign that day, and the major concern is the inherent design flaw that exists in the present building and not repeating it in the new redesign.  She explained that, with the possible layoffs that are being looked at, various departments are going to be consulted and then the construction team will bring all those concepts back to the Board for further direction, probably in late August, as the County Manager indicated.  She stated that approval of the $800,000 and looking at some of the repairs that need to be done to the current building was also brought up for discussion, however, they want to hold off and make sure that, if there is a redesign, maybe some of it could be incorporated into the redesign.  She remarked that she did not feel the process was a problem and that most of it was Commission driven, reminding the Board about the numerous public hearings and workshops that were held every step of the way, regarding the proposed expansion project, including the workshop and public hearings with the City of Tavares, so that they could weigh in on the design, because they were looking at aesthetics, etc.  She stated that she feels the Board needs to recognize and respect how the stakeholders function and perform their duties in the Judicial Center, at which time she noted that some Courtroom Mock-up Meeting Minutes, which she provided to the Board for their perusal, were available to anyone that is interested in looking at them.  She informed the Board that, if she misunderstood anything and got the motion wrong, she needed to relay that fact, because it has to do with the redesign.

Commr. Renick commented about how some things seem to take on a life of their own and comments are made about things that were never said, noting that she never heard the word “opulent” or “Taj Mahal” in any of the discussions that were held about the Judicial Center Expansion Project.  She stated that she heard Commr. Conner indicate very strongly that he did not want the eight courtrooms to be touched and that she thought the discussion that followed that was about the fact that the Board did not necessarily want to make a decision about it at that particular meeting – that they did not want to tie the architects’ hands and would send it back to them with a clear slate, given the budget constraints, and the other thing dealt with the $11 million issue.  She stated that she actually brought that issue up, however, pointed out the fact that she had stated, “…a part of that $11 million”, but how much to keep back as a cushion and whether or not they were going to do that was just something that was brought up, but no decisions were made about it, and now she has people commenting to her that it was a good idea to save the $11 million, even though it was not what she said, so there seems to be some misunderstanding about it.  Another misunderstanding that she was a little disappointed about was to have a judge say that they had not been involved in the process, noting that she realized a very small stakeholders meeting was held, however, pointed out the fact that there has not been much else, other than individual meetings with staff.  She feels the thing to do would be to hold a workshop, where all the Commissioners and Judges could be present to hear what was going on.  She stated that, as far as Judge Briggs’ comments about the public libraries that have recently been constructed in the County are concerned, she feels they are ostentatious, as well, however, noted that the Board was not involved with their design.

Ms. Hall, County Manager, interjected that, if the Board feels a workshop would be the way to go, staff would be happy to set it up and invite anyone that the Board would like to have present and they could go from there.

Commr. Hill stated that the parameters were set by the Board, however, recognized the fact that several of the Commissioners were elected during the process and may not have been updated on the issue.  She commented that the two options involving the courtrooms were not usable, under the parameters of the $47 million, thus, the reason the Board needs to have the architects come in and discuss why a whole redesign would have to happen.  She explained that, if the eight courtrooms were not going to be utilized and that was not a direction, the redesign could take on a whole different look.

Commr. Stewart interjected that she felt the Board would be remiss, if they stated that the eight existing courtrooms would have to be kept, because they have to look forward to the future, to save the taxpayers money in the future, and the redesign might possibly mean that some of those courtrooms will have to be closed.  She stated that, if the Board definitely says “No” to that option, they might be hindering themselves, and she feels they need to find out.

Commr. Conner remarked that someone is going to have to prove to him that it is in any way cost effective to stop using perfectly good courtrooms and spend $5.7 million to redesign them into office space.

Commr. Stewart agreed with Commr. Conner’s comments, in that, at this particular moment in time, it would not be cost effective to redesign the courtrooms into office space, but she feels that, as far as the addition goes, looking to the future, it may be cost effective and feels the Board should look into it.

Commr. Conner stated that, with regard to Commr. Renick’s comments, he felt what she was saying was that she wants more Commission involvement and oversight in the proposed project, which is something that he has been a proponent of all along, noting that one of the things that he is interested in is knowing what the options are.  He commented that the Board may have options of their own, which he elaborated on, noting that one of the compelling reasons is to get the Public Defender behind a secured area.  He then clarified the fact that what Commr. Hill read into the record was taken from an official signed letter from Administrative Judge Don Briggs, dated July 16, 2009.

It was the consensus of the Board that the County Manager set up a workshop, to be held on August 4th, after the Comprehensive Plan workshop, to further discuss the matter and get the County going in the right direction, with all the stakeholders to be invited.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION’S NEW WEBSITE

Commr. Renick distributed a card containing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s new website “ProtectingOurWater.org” and encouraged the Board to access it.  She noted that on the back of the card was the title of a video that she would recommend the Board watch, titled “Mapping the Road to Watershed Restoration”.

PROPOSED CHET LEMON SPORTS FACILITY

Commr. Renick informed the Board that she felt there was a misunderstanding, with regard to a recent discussion they had about the proposed Chet Lemon sports facility.  She stated that she presented a request to the Board from the South Lake Chamber of Commerce, as to the best way to have Mr. Lemon give a presentation about what he has in mind for the facility, and that the County Manager took it to mean that she was asking that a presentation be made by Mr. Lemon to the Board, in the Board Chambers, whereas, the South Lake Chamber of Commerce feels it would be better to hold a workshop in south Lake County, to discuss the matter.  She stated that, due to that misunderstanding, the County Manager needed clarification as to what the Board directed.

Commr. Conner noted that the Cities of Tavares, Eustis, and Apopka had approached Mr. Lemon, as well as representatives from east Lake County, regarding the facility and that he feels it needs to get from the talking stage to the next stage, whatever that is.

It was the consensus of the Board that a presentation be given, at a date to be determined, in a workshop at the Administration Building, rather than in south Lake County, in order to be neutral, regarding the proposed Chet Lemon sports facility, to determine what the next step will be regarding it.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CONNER – DISTRICT 3

Commr. Conner stated that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is in the process of reviewing the County’s Comprehensive Plan and he would like to ask the Chairman, Commr. Cadwell, to consider having them give a presentation to the Board, in a workshop, on their findings or opinion of the Comprehensive Plan, in that he feels it would be helpful to the Board.

It was noted that Commr. Conner’s request would be relayed to the Chairman, to possibly be put on the Agenda for an upcoming meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

 

 

 

__________________________________

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________

NEIL KELLY, CLERK