A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

July 26, 2011

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 8:30 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were:  Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Leslie Campione, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Jimmy Conner; and Welton G. Cadwell.  Others present were:  Darren Gray, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Courtney Vincent, Deputy Clerk.

addendum 1-IA - closed session

Mr. Minkoff stated he had previously asked for the closed session authorized by Florida Statute 286.011 to discuss pending litigation in front of a court or administrative agency, and once the closed session started, it would be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation and litigation expenditures.  He noted a court reporter would record the entire session, as well as when they begin, when they end, and all discussions in the proceedings, including the names of all persons present at any time and whoever speaks.  He explained the court reporter’s notes would be transcribed and be made public at the time the litigation was concluded, and at the beginning of the session the Chair or the entity was required to give notice of who would be at the meeting, which was the Board; Ms. Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager; and himself.  He added he had a copy of the required advertisement of the meeting.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 9:00 a.m.

INVOCATION and pledge

Pastor Richard Fountain from the First Baptist Church of Tavares gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Mr. Minkoff requested that Tab 4, a Public Hearing regarding the adoption of a proposed Ordinance assigning the duties of the Local Planning Agency to the Lake County Zoning Board and changing the quorum requirements to the majority of voting members, be pulled from the agenda due to improper advertising of the Public Hearing.  He stated it would be rescheduled for early August.

Commr. Hill stated there was an addendum under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda as well as under the County Manager’s and Commr. Cadwell’s Reports.  She also asked to add a request for the Board to appoint a city representative to the vacant position on the Lake EMS Board of Directors.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the addition of the request to appoint a city representative to the vacant position on the Lake EMS Board of Directors to the agenda.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1, 2 and Addendum 1-IIA, as follows:

Public Resources

Request for approval and signature of FWC Contract No. 11081, Development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for Scrub Habitat in Lake County, FL. Fiscal Impact: Fiscal Impact is $224,420 (Non-Federal in-kind match: $70,600; Grant funding: $153,820 with $116,900 for Lake County and $36,920 for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission)

Public Works

Request for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2011-98 authorizing the installation of the "STOP" signs with “All Way” plaques on North Hancock Road (1354) northbound at the intersection of Fosgate Road (City Maintained) and the Lake Minneola High School driveway. Commissioner District 2, Section 9, Township 22, Range 26, No fiscal impact.

Addendum 1-IIA

Request from Public Works to approve and execute a Maintenance Agreement between Lake County, ZMSS, LLP, and LADY LAKE RE, LLC, for the maintenance of a County owned stormwater retention pond for CR 466 in the Lady Lake Area.  The fiscal impact is a savings to the County of the costs of maintenance of the Pond in an undetermined amount.  Commission District 5.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tab 3 as follows:

Request from the County Attorney for approval of extension of Revocable Non-Exclusive License Agreements between Lake County and the Cities of Eustis, Tavares and Mount Dora regarding property located on Frankie's Road near the County’s Animal Control Facility to keep animals on a temporary basis Fiscal Impact $5,000.

public hearings

Ordinance regarding transportation impact fees or concurrency reservation fees

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

An ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, Florida; amending section 22-11 of the lake county code entitled repayment of impact fees; providing for the conversion of transportation prepayments or concurrency reservation fees into credits or exemptions; providing for the transfer of transportation credits to other property within the same impact fee district; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in the code; providing for filing with the department of state; and providing for an effective date.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Jim Bible from Showcase Homes addressed the Board stating he supported the proposed ordinance as it was written.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and reserved comment to the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2011-38, amending Section 22-11 of the Lake County Code regarding the conversion of prepaid transportation impact fees or concurrency reservation fees into transportation impact fee credits or transferable impact fees.

Ordinance dissolving the environmental protection advisory

board

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

An ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, Florida; repealing lake county code chapter 2, article IV, division 7, section 2-90.19 through 2-90.23, entitled environmental protection advisory board; providing for inclusion in the code, providing for severability; filing with department of state; and providing for an effective date.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and reserved comment to the Board.  

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2011-39 dissolving the Environmental Protection Advisory Board.

Vacation petition 1168 – Old Eustis Road – Mount Dora

Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, addressed the Board regarding Vacation Petition No. 1168 to vacate a drainage easement off Old Eustis Road in section 19-19S-27E in the Mount Dora area, Commission District 4.  He explained the request was to vacate an existing drainage easement on the petitioner’s easterly property line and to relocate the easement and install a drainage system along the westerly property line.  He recommended approval.

Commr. Campione asked if roots would be a problem with the new drainage easement.

Mr. Stivender replied that any drainage system would have age and root issues; however, he expected a longer life expectancy for the new drainage system than the previous system.

Commr. Campione mentioned there were some issues across the road from the property with regards to springs.

Mr. Stivender explained that the north side of Lake Gertrude was spring-fed, and during the rainy season the water drained into the lake, specifying that the drainage easement addressed one issue but not all of the issues in that area.

Commr. Campione asked if staff would continue to look at how they could improve that entire area.

Mr. Stivender answered that they would.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Christina Wilkins, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, addressed the Board stating she was the property owner where the new drainage system was going to go.  She remarked that there was a big oak tree that straddled both her property and the property where the new drainage system was going to be installed and asked the Board if a statement from an arborist had been obtained stating that the drainage system would not kill the tree.

Mr. Stivender replied that they did not have one, but that she could require it as a part of her stipulation for acceptance.

Commr. Campione stated she was in favor of that.

Ms. Wilkins asked how deep below ground the new drainage system would be.

Mr. Stivender answered that he would need to verify the depth and get back to her.

Ms. Wilkins remarked that the deeper they could place the drainage system the better chance the oak tree had to survive, adding that there were about four large oak trees in total over that part of the property.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and reserved comment to the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1168, to vacate a drainage easement off Old Eustis Rd. (19-19S-27E) in the Mt. Dora area (Commission District 4), and execution of Resolution No. 2011-99, with the stipulation that a certificate be obtained from an arborist stating the replacement drainage system would not endanger the large oak trees on the property.

2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, discussed Tabs 8 through 16, explaining that the agenda items were intended to resolve the challenges made to the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.  He stated Tab 8 was a settlement agreement with all of the property owners who had challenged the Plan, specifying that it was intended to be a complete settlement and would resolve all of the issues that were raised.  He stated that Tabs 9 through 16 were individual ordinances that would make amendments to the Plan, implementing the settlement from Tab 8.  He informed the Board that if they approved Tab 8, it meant they agreed with all of the changes proposed in the settlement and that they would have to approve Tabs 9 through 16 as well, which implemented those changes.  He added that it did not prevent someone from challenging the amendments later.  He suggested the ordinances be read together and public comment for all nine Tabs be taken at one time so the Board could hear from the public on all issues before making up their mind on any of them.  He added that if they could not agree on one part of the settlement agreement, then they would need to postpone decisions on all nine Tabs in order to work out the issue.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 9 regarding the “Clonts Property” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

An ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, Florida, amending the lake county 2030 comprehensive plan future land use map by assigning the urban low density future land use category on the approximately 711 acres also known as the Clonts property; providing for proof of publication as required by section 163.3184(11), Florida statutes; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 10 regarding the “Thrill Hill Property” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

An ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, Florida, amending the lake county 2030 comprehensive plan; amending the text of the future land use element by creating policy i-1.6.6, which limits residential density to twenty-five (25) dwelling units on said 28-acre parcel; requiring central utilities for potable water and sewer services be provided under specified conditions; stipulating maximum required open space on said parcel; stipulating maximum required setbacks on said parcel; providing for proof of publication as required by section 163.3184(11), Florida statutes; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 11 regarding the “Pospisil Grays Airport Road Property” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

An ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, Florida, amending the lake county 2030 comprehensive plan; amending the text of the future land use element by creating policy i-1.6.5, which limits residential density to sixty-five (65) dwelling units on said 65 acre parcel; requiring central utilities for potable water and sewer services be provided under specified conditions on said parcel; providing for maximum required common open space on said parcel; providing for proof of publication as required by section 163.3184(11) Florida statutes; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 12 regarding “Sorrento Commons” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CREATING POLICY I-1.6.8, WHICH SPECIFIES CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID 22-ACRE PARCEL; AMENDING POLICY I-2.1.4 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE MOUNT PLYMOUTH-SORRENTO MAIN STREET FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY; STIPULATING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON SAID PARCEL BE CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3184(11), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 13 regarding the “Nola Land Company Property” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM REGIONAL OFFICE TO URBAN LOW DENSITY FOR SAID PARCEL; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CREATING POLICY I-1.6.9, WHICH LIMITS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO 894 AGE-RESTRICTED UNITS ON SAID 541-ACRE PARCEL; PROVIDING FOR VESTING PERIOD OF 12 YEARS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNED IN ORDINANCE NO. 2006-30; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3184(11), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 14 regarding the “Long and Scott Farms Property” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CREATING POLICY I-1.6.7, WHICH ALLOWS THE USE OF A PAVED AIRSTRIP ON SAID 700-ACRE PARCEL; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY EXCLUDING AREAS FROM THE YALAHA-LAKE APOPKA RURAL PROTECTION AREA; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3184(11), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 15 regarding the “W.D. Long Family Farms Property” on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A; REMOVING THE SOUTH LAKE RURAL PROTECTION AREA OVERLAY FROM THE MAP AS SPECIFIED BY OBJECTIVE I-5.5; REMOVING THE SOUTH LAKE STRATEGIC AREA PLAN OVERLAY FROM THE MAP AS SPECIFIED BY POLICY I-1.4.9; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3184(11), F.S.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance for Tab 16 regarding text amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on the floor for its first and final reading by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY AMENDING POLICY I-1.2.4 CALCULATION OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "NET BUILDABLE AREA"; AMENDING POLICY I-1.3.1.4 COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES TO SERVE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND POLICY I-1.3.10 COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE URBAN FUTURE LAND USE SERIES TO CLARIFY THAT INCLUDED COMMERCE USES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA; AMENDING POLICY I-1.4.4 RURAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY TO INCLUDE GREEN ENERGY FACILITY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITY USES; DELETING POLICY I-1.4.9 SOUTH LAKE STRATEGIC AREA PLAN FOR SOUTH LAKE COUNTY; AMENDING POLICY I-3.4.8 SETBACKS FROM KARST FEATURES TO CLARIFY SETBACK OF IMPERVIOUS DEVELOPMENT FROM KARST FEATURES; AMENDING POLICY I-5.1.2 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO CLARIFY THE TRANSFER, SALE OR EXCHANGE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE URBAN LAND USE SERIES; DELETING OBJECTIVE I-5.5 SOUTH LAKE COUNTY RURAL PROTECTION AREA; DELETING POLICY I-5.5.1 IMPORTANCE OF SOUTH LAKE COUNTY RURAL PROTECTION AREA; DELETING POLICY I-5.5.2 LAND USE IN THE SOUTH LAKE RURAL PROTECTION AREA; AMENDING POLICY I-7.5.9 REQUIRED USE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO AVOID ADVERSE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS; AMENDING POLICY I-7.7.2 AGRICULTURAL LAND RETENTION STUDY SUPPORTING AGRICULTURE AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC BASE; AMENDING POLICY I-7.9.1 LOCATION OF DRI'S REQUIRING CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPATIBILITY WITH LAND USES AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS FOR A PROPOSED DRI; AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT BY AMENDING POLICY II-1.1.9 SANITARY SEWER LEVELS OF SERVICE TO CHANGE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF UTILITY PROVIDERS; AMENDING THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT BY AMENDING POLICY III-2.5.4 PROTECTION OF ISOLATED AND EPHEMERAL WETLANDS BY REMOVING THE TERM "EPHEMERAL"; AMENDING POLICY III-2.5.40 MINIMIZE THE USE AND IMPACT TO WETLANDS BY ADDING SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES THAT WILL ALLOW DREDGE OR FILL IN WETLANDS OUTSIDE AREAS WITH SPECIAL PROTECTIONS; CREATING NEW POLICY III- 2.5.11 TO BE ENTITLED MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS WITHIN AREAS WITH SPECIAL PROTECTION; AMENDING AND RENUMBERING EXISTING POLICY III-2.5.11 WETLAND DEDICATION TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF INVASIVE VEGETATION OR OTHER ACTIONS AS A CONDITION OF THE PERMITTING AGENCY AND TO CLARIFY THE POLICY DOES NOT IMPACT DIRECT WATER ACCESS; RENUMBERING AND AMENDING POLICY III-2.5.12 ESTABLISH MINIMUM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ALLOWING FOR VARIABLE BUFFERS AND RECOGNIZING THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION CAN REQUIRE GREATER BUFFERS; RENUMBERING POLICIES III-2.5.13 THROUGH III-2.5.15; AMENDING POLICY III- 3.2.8 IMPACT OF LAND USE ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT CORRIDORS RECOGNIZING THAT WILDLIFE AND HABITAT CORRIDORS ARE IDENTIFIED BY AN AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION AND THE COUNTY WILL PROTECT SUCH CORRIDORS; AMENDING POLICY III-3.2.17 WILDLIFE CONSIDERATION WITHIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS REQUIRING IDENTIFICATION OF A HABITAT BY SITE SURVEY, REQUIRING A BIOLOGICAL STUDY, REQUIRING A SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN; AMENDING POLICY III-3.3.1 CONSERVATION OF NATURAL UPLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES REMOVING TEXT NAMING SPECIFIC UPLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES; AMENDING POLICY III 3.3.2 SURVEY AND PROTECTION OF NATURAL UPLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES CLARIFYING THAT PROTECTED UPLANDS ARE COUNTED TOWARD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF INCENTIVES FOR PRESERVING PROTECTED UPLAND COMMUNITIES; AMENDING POLICY III-3.4.4 SLOPE AND LAND USE FOR CONSIDERATION OF MAINTAINING EXISTING GRADIENTS; AMENDING THE ECONOMIC ELEMENT BY AMENDING POLICY IV-2.1.1 SITES, LAND USE AND UTILITIES TO RECOGNIZE AREA WHICH PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT BY AMENDING THE TITLE OF POLICY VII-1.4.5 MANDATORY DEDICATION OF LAND FOR RECREATION TO LAND FOR ACTIVITY-BASED RECREATION; AMENDING POLICY IX-1.3.8; SETBACKS FROM KARST FEATURES TO CLARIFY SETBACK OF IMPERVIOUS DEVELOPMENT FROM FARST FEATURES; AMENDING CHAPTER X DEFINITIONS 8 ACRONYMS BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF "NET BUILDABLE AREA" TO INCLUDE A COMBINATION OF PARCELS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT; ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR GREEN ENERGY FACILITY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITY; RENUMBERING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3184(11); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

 

Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director for Growth Management, addressed the Board stating his department worked with the County Attorney’s Office to reach a settlement with the petitioners on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.  He reported the amendments were properly advertised and then described each of the amendments.  He stated Clonts Grove was located in South Lake County adjoining US Hwy 27, just south of Clermont and within the Clermont Joint Planning Area.  He explained that the settlement on the property changed the future land use to Urban Low Density, clarified that commerce uses were exempt from locational criteria should the property be developed using the traditional neighborhood design criteria contained in the Plan, and also included a revision requiring sanitary sewer level of service to be consistent with the Clermont sanitary service. He stated the Thrill Hill Road property settlement recognized what would be allowed under the assigned designation of Rural Transition, clarified when central sewer and water were required, and provided a stipulation as part of the settlement and not the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that specified maximum building setbacks.  He stated the Grays Airport Road property settlement agreement provided for a maximum density of 65 dwelling units on 65 acres, noting the property was classified as Rural Transition.  He added that there were no changes in the land use and the settlement clarified when central sewer and water would be required.  He stated the Sorrento Commons proposed settlement would grant the anchor store to the petitioner’s property that was provided for in Mount Plymouth policy.  He noted it would also increase the size of the structure to 50,000 square-feet and the size of all other commerce structures would be changed and increased from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet based on an analysis of the Main Street corridor of existing buildings.  He added that the settlement also required adherence to strict design criteria for any future development on that property, mentioning that the design criteria was contained in the settlement agreement and would not be part of the Comprehensive Plan.  He stated the Nola Land Company property settlement agreement would amend the future land use map to change the land use to Urban Low Density, and invest a proposed planned unit development approved by Ordinance 2006-30 through a project-specific policy which had been granted for a 12-year period.  He stated the W.D. Long Family Farms property settlement removed the South Lake Strategic Area Plan as well the South Lake Rural Protection Area from the future land use map as well as eliminated the enabling policies in the future land use element.  He mentioned there were several changes to the policy as related to the regulation of development impacts and wetlands.  He also noted that changes to the procedures, especially those affecting isolated wetlands, outside of the Green Swamp and outside of the Wekiva River Protection Area were contained in the text amendment ordinance as well the settlement agreement.  He specified that policy IV-2.1.1 had been amended to recognize the importance of the South Lake area outside of the Green Swamp to the economic future of Lake County. 

Mr. Sheahan stated the Long and Scott Farms property settlement amended the boundary of the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area by removing approximately seven square miles, included a specific provision to allow paved airstrips in the Rural Future Land Use category just for that property, and amended the uses of the Rural Future Land Use category to include green energy facilities as a typical use and renewable energy facilities as a conditional use.  He discussed the differences between the existing Comprehensive Plan and the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan as currently written in regards to the Long and Scott Farms property, displaying a chart comparing the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area (RPA) requirements to the Rural Future Land Use requirements as well as the Rural Village category for the current Comprehensive Plan.  He explained that the Rural Future Land Use category reduced the development potential of the Lake Jem area and was intended to preserve the historic community from the impacts of future overdevelopment, adding that the removal of the RPA did not remove the Lake County Distinctive Historic Community designation.  He specified that areas currently categorized as Rural would remain so, but the Rural Village Future Land Use category would be removed from the Lake Jem community under the 2030 Plan, and the parcels would be reassigned as Rural Future Land Use.  He emphasized that the Rural Village category from the current Comprehensive Plan was actually more development-oriented than the proposed and adopted Rural categories.  He commented on the two new uses being added to the Future Land Use category to provide clarity, explaining that the green energy facility would allow passive energy uses such as solar and wind while renewable energy facilities for the processing and distribution of agricultural products into biofuel would be listed as conditional use.  In regards to the paved airstrip, he specified that the petitioner was asking to be allowed to exercise what had previously been granted zoning approval, which was a 1,455 foot paved airstrip.  He noted that Ordinance 2004-85 granted permission for the paved airstrip and contained conditions required of the applicant.

Commr. Parks asked if there were currently any plans for a subdivision or anything else that might go against the density rules for Clonts Grove.

Mr. Sheahan answered that there had been an applicant who applied for a planned unit development in 2006 but the application had been withdrawn.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Paulette Smariga, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  She expressed that Lake Jem was a special area within Lake County and mentioned that she became involved in the present issue when a resident of Lake Jem went door to door regarding the zoning issue to gather neighborhood support.  She stated the residents wanted a rural area and did not want development.  She remarked that the residents had only been given seven days notice of the Public Hearing and opined that the Public Hearing had not been properly noticed, that they should have had 30 days notice regarding being removed from the zoning map and they had not asked to be removed.  She opined there was also a violation of the Sunshine Law because the residents had no reasonable opportunity to participate in the negotiations and saw no notices that they were ever opened to the public.  She stated the three major issues the residents were opposed to and would like corrected were the paved airstrip, the removal of RPA status, and the two new classifications.

Mr. Jim Thomas, a resident of Winter Garden and a representative of Friends of Lake Apopka, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  He stated that since 1990, Friends of Lake Apopka had been fighting for the restoration of Lake Apopka, and anything that encouraged a compost facility or airstrip on the north shore of the lake would compromise the restoration process.  He emphasized that ecotourism was important to Lake Jem’s economy, and the addition of the paved airstrip would diminish the native wildlife population.  He stressed the Friends of Lake Apopka were concerned about any compromise to the restoration process.

Ms. Janis Murphy, a resident of Mount Dora, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  She expressed concern regarding the paved airstrip, mentioning she had heard that since Orange County had approved the airstrip, Long and Scott Farms had decided to become Long and Scott Developers instead of Family Farms, opining that they were trying to ruin the Lake Jem area.  She remarked that there would be major problems with industrial parks around the airport, submitting photographs of the industrial park area around the Sanford Airport and Orlando International Airport.

Ms. Constance Harvey, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  She noted the road she lived on was adjacent to the Long and Scott Farms property.  She stated she agreed with everything that had already been said by Ms. Smariga, Mr. Thomas, and Ms. Murphy as well as what would be said by other Lake Jem residents during the Public Haring.  She asked the Board to not ruin their community.

Mr. Lenley Schultz, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  He stated he moved out to the Lake Jem area a year ago to retire after living for 25 years in Orlando next to the airport.  He remarked that he understood the smells and loud noises associated with an airport and opined that it would ruin the rural area.

Mr. Stephen Camulli, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  He stated he had a problem with the paved airstrip, the seven acres being excluded from the RPA, and the addition of the green energy stipulations.  He asked how one square acre of property had caused seven square acres to be excluded from the RPA.  He commented that the majority of the airstrip would be located in Orange County with only a 50 foot expanse stretching into Lake County, but he did not understand why the 6,000 foot runway was proposed for that area which would allow jets and other types of aircraft to come in and out, creating an audible and environmental impact on the area.  He opined that the green energy stipulations would open the door to more industrialized development and remarked that it went against the County’s Economic Action Plan because it would not help protect the area’s quality of life and unique character.

Ms. Susan Tobin, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement, specifically objecting to the language that allowed Long and Scott Farms to expand the airstrip.  She mentioned that if the language in the ordinance referencing the expansion of the airstrip was removed, then it would make many people happy.  She also objected to the inclusion of the entire Lake Jem area into the RPA exclusion zone.  She remarked that she did not fully understand the difference between the RPA and the Rural Area category, stating residents had asked staff to help explain the difference.  She reiterated that if the residents could understand the impacts to their land, it might make them more willing to go along with the changes.  She stated the rest of the seven square miles, not including the property for Long and Scott Farms, would like to stay within the existing RPA category.

Mr. Robert Buckmann, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  He stated he and a lot of his neighbors did not understand why one person who owned one square mile was causing seven square miles to be removed from the RPA.  He remarked that they did not want to be removed from the RPA.  He suggested just removing the Long and Scott Farms property from the RPA.  He stated the other objection was the runway that would lead to an airport, mentioning that it was right next to a bird sanctuary.  He stated they did not want an airport there.

Ms. Mary Ellen Proctor, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  She stated she wanted her property to remain a part of the RPA.  She remarked that while Mr. Scott had every right to request his property be removed, his couple of hundred neighbors wished to remain a part of the RPA.  She stated she was also opposed to the airstrip because of how it would affect their homes from the noise and pollution of air traffic, adding that they did not know what types of planes would be utilizing the runway.  She expressed that Lake Jem was a nice community, and an airport was not congruous to the lifestyle of the area.  She commented that the petitioners had bundled their requests for the property as a tactic to delay the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Linda Wheat, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  She agreed with what her neighbors had previously stated regarding the airstrip and the removal from the RPA.  She asked if there would be another meeting for residents to speak out against the conditional use permit (CUP) on the biosolids/sewage composting facility.  She said she was worried about that facility because residents of Lake Jem had wells in the area, noting that Shelly Septic had had a lot of fines and they did not want any problems with their water.

Mr. Sheahan stated that the next Public Hearing to address that CUP was scheduled for August 23, 2011.

Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, a resident of Clermont and a representative of the Alliance to Protect Water Resources (APWR), addressed the Board against the Clonts Grove property settlement agreement.  She stated the APWR was primarily concerned because of the property’s location in the Lake Wales Ridge, adding that the Board was already aware of the APWR’s concern regarding affects to the aquifer.  She thanked Commr. Parks for asking if there was any development happening in the area related to the property, commenting that she did not know if there was but there had been interest over the years.  She suggested the Board pay close attention to future affects of development.

Mr. William Morris, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board in support of the Sorrento Commons settlement agreement.  He stated this was the third time he had appeared before the Board in support of the project, noting that in the past there had been organized opposition to it that had been primarily sponsored by local merchants who felt threatened by any increased development.  He expressed concern over the attitude of the local merchants towards the project and opined that the area needed the project.

Ms. Linda Bystrak, a resident of Leesburg and a representative of the Oklawaha Valley Audubon Society, addressed the Board against the W.D. Long Family Farms property settlement agreement.  She stated they had concerns about the paved airstrip being so close to Lake Apopka, remarking that it was an important area to them and they thought that adding extra noise and airplanes to the area would only hurt the restoration process as well as the native wildlife.  She pointed out that there were numerous other airports including the Leesburg International Airport that would love to have the extra business.  She suggested directing air traffic to those existing airports.  She added that she also had concerns about what was involved in the RPA, especially pertaining to the Lake Wales Ridge and recharging the aquifer.

Ms. Miranda Fitzgerald, the attorney for the petitioners from the W.D. Long Family Farms property, addressed the Board urging them to support the settlement agreement.  She stated they had worked very hard with County staff on the settlement agreement, and she felt it would help the County as a whole and not just the South Lake County area.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, representing the petitioners for the Long and Scott Farms, Clonts Groves, Nola Land Company, and Sorrento Commons properties, addressed the Board in support of the settlement agreements relating to those properties.  She opined that the settlement agreement for Sorrento Commons was an equitable solution to give the property some value, noting the increase in square footage was not a large amount.  She remarked that the Clonts Grove settlement agreement would restore the property to the land use it had had since 1991, which would have changed in the 2030 plan, and added that Mr. Clonts had no immediate plans to develop the property, but he would like to see the value of it maintained.  She discussed the Long and Scott Farms property, stating she had received copies of letters from residents concerning the property, which she believed contained a number of inconsistent and misrepresented statements made in those letters about the status of the property and the status of the CUP.  She explained the airport had been approved through a prior ordinance a few years ago, and there were a number of limitations on the airport including that it was not allowed to handle jet traffic.  She submitted a copy of the ordinance for the record and added that the only thing the settlement agreement did was recognize what the ordinance had already provided.  She clarified that Mr. Scott had not requested to change the land use category for any other property besides his own, the area to be removed from the RPA had been a decision made by County staff, and accusations that it had been done intentionally and maliciously were wrong.  She then discussed the green energy issue, remarking that they had thought they were doing a good and progressive thing in recognizing the other policies in the Comprehensive Plan that promoted green energy and the utilization of rural products for green resources.

Mr. Lewis Michael, a resident of Mount Dora in the Lake Jem area, addressed the Board against the Long and Scott Farms property settlement agreement.  He remarked that the residents of Lake Jem had a problem with the compromise plan.  He stated that while he did not blame Mr. Scott, he did blame the County for not adhering to the rules set out for compromise proceedings which required that the proceedings be open and accessible to the public.  He commented that there was no way to tell from the notice what was going to be accomplished at the meeting and the changes that were made were only supposed to apply to the Long and Scott Farms property.  He remarked that the notice was misleading because there had been no way for them to know that the request for the change of one parcel would result in the change of so many other parcels.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman announced that there would be a fifteen-minute recess at 10:30 a.m.

 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments, cont.

The Chairman closed the Public Hearing and reserved comment to the Board.

Commr. Hill asked if the issue of the property owners who wished to remain part of the RPA could be brought back before the Board after the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan went to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and was returned to the County.

Mr. Sheahan stated that if so directed by the Board, he could return with an amendment that would put the Lake Jem area back into the RPA if the property owners wished to return to that classification.

Commr. Hill asked for the amendment to be brought back at a later date so as not to delay the other requested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.  She asked Mr. Sheahan to explain again the difference between a Rural classification and an RPA classification using the matrix he had previously displayed.

Mr. Sheahan explained that the Rural Future Land Use category was a broad-reaching overall policy defining rules for what a landowner could do with their property, at what density and intensity, how much could be built, how much open space was required, and defined conditional uses versus what was typically permitted.  He remarked that the RPA was an overlay to that policy and was used to specify rural areas appropriate for low residential density and rural-appropriate uses such as agriculture and equestrian uses.  He clarified that the uses allowed under the previous Rural Land Use category and the uses allowed under the proposed Rural Land Use were almost identical, though there was a little more specificity in the 2030 Plan such as specific uses that were now classified as conditional.  He reported that staff had removed the Lake Jem area from the RPA because the Lake Jem subdivision did not meet the RPA criteria.

Commr. Hill asked the County Attorney’s Office to respond to the Public Hearing and Public Notice issues that had been raised by the citizens during their comments.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney, replied that the current proceedings were governed under Chapter 163 and not Chapter 125 of the Florida Statutes or Chapter 14 of the Lake County Code.  She remarked that one of the issues raised was that the negotiation sessions were not noticed or made available for the public to attend.  She read a portion of F.S. 163.3184(6) under the new law that went into effect on July 1, 2011 and which stated that, “all parties granted intervener status shall be provided reasonable notice of the commencement of a compliance agreement negotiation process and a reasonable opportunity to participate in such negotiation process.”  She reported that all of the petitioners in this case were part of the negotiation session, they did not have any interveners, and the Statute does not make it open to every member of the public to participate in that negotiation.  She also explained that the same law that went into effect on July 1, 2011 specifically stated that for the adoption of a compliance agreement there was a ten-day advertising notice of a Public Hearing, which the County complied with, and it also stated that the local government shall hold a single Public Hearing.  She stated the County was in compliance with the public notice requirements.

Commr. Cadwell asked the County Attorney how the Board should approve the numerous settlement agreements.

Mr. Minkoff replied that the Board could discuss them in any order, but they would need to vote on each Tab separately.

Commr. Cadwell remarked that they needed to get the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments settled that day because he had a number of commercial projects in his district that were not a part of any of the settlements before the Board but that had been unable to move forward for months because of the need for the settlement.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification of what the compliance agreement and settlement would do with regards to the airstrip, noting there had been a lot of concern expressed over it.  She stated that there was a zoning ordinance that addressed a paved airstrip on that property and that ordinance stated that the Lake County ordinance would become nullified if Orange County changed what they had already approved.

Mr. Sheahan specified that ordinance 2004-85 stipulated that the ordinance would become null and void in that event.

Commr. Campione commented that the compliance agreement stated that there would be a paved airstrip permitted on the property under the Comprehensive Plan, but it did not allow an ordinance change.  She asked if the ordinance would have to be changed if Mr. Scott wanted the airstrip expanded beyond what the zoning ordinance already allows.

Mr. Sheahan stated that was correct.

Commr. Campione asked if lifting the RPA from the rural land use would not cause any changes to aquifer protection as covered in the text of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Sheahan replied that that was correct.

Commr. Parks agreed with Commr. Cadwell that the Board needed to move forward with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.  He suggested that if the amendment was approved to allow property owners back into the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA, the residents should take a community-based planning approach to create a land use category, similar to what was done in Ferndale and that it would address all of the concerns, and they could voluntarily be in that category without the vagueness of the RPA.

Commr. Campione said she thought that was a good idea.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 8, a Stipulated Settlement Agreement to resolve challenges to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 9, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-40 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by Clonts Groves, Inc. as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 10, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-41 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by Jon Pospisil related to property on Thrill Hill Road as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 11, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-42 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by Jon Pospisil related to property on Grays Airport Road as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 12, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-43 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by Sorrento Commons, LLC as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 13, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-44 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by the Nola Land Company, Inc. as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 14, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-45 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by the Long and Scott Farms Family Limited Partnership and Long and Scott Farms, Inc. as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 15, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-46 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by W.D. Long Family Farms, LLP et al. (a/k/a South Lake) as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 16, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 2011-47 to resolve challenge to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan brought by W.D. Long Family Farms, LLP et al. (DOAH 10-8961GM), Jon Pospisil (Case Number DOAH 10-8880GM), Sorrento Commons, LLC (Case Number DOAH 10-8960GM), Clonts Groves, Inc. (Case Number DOAH 10-8957GM), Long and Scott Farms Family Limited Partnership and Long and Scott Farms, Inc. (Case Number DOAH 10-8958GM) and Nola Land Company, Inc. (Case Number DOAH 10-8959GM), as provided in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

Addendum 1-IIIA Resolution to Florida Public Service

Commission

Commr. Cadwell asked if the Board would consider his request for a resolution to the Florida Public Service Commission now instead of later in the agenda.

The Board agreed to move the agenda item forward.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2011-97 to the Florida Public Service Commission asking that it aggressively examine Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.’s request for Transfer of Certificates from Harbor Hills Utilities under Rate Case Docket 110019 and 110019-WS and deny the transfer in its entirety.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

County manager

Discussion and approval of millage rates

Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager, reviewed that the County was required to submit their millage rates to the Property Appraiser by August 1, 2011.  He announced that Mr. Steve Koontz, Budget Director, was going to give a presentation to the Board regarding the County millage rates.  He reminded the Board that back in December they had directed him and Mr. Minkoff to have the millage rates remain the same.  He stated there was one more budget workshop on August 23, 2011 at the end of that day’s Board meeting.

Commr. Hill specified that the millage rates would be addressed again during two Public Hearings in September, one on September 6^th and one on September 20^th, both at 5:05 p.m. in Board Chambers.

Mr. Koontz began the millage rate resolution presentation by stating that the millage rates for 2012 were being set at the same rates as 2011.   He specified the millage rate for the general fund would be 4.7309, for the Lake County Ambulance fund it would be 0.3853, for the Public Lands Program it would be 0.1101, and the total County wide millage would be 5.2263.  He added that the other two millage rates for unincorporated and select areas would be the Stormwater, Roads, and Parks millage which would be set at 0.4984, and the Fire EMS millage which would be set at 0.3222.  He reported that the first Public Hearing was scheduled for September 6, 2011 at 5:05 p.m., which would be noticed through the TRIM notices that would go out in August.  He reported that the second Public Hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm.  He stated that the advertisement for that Public Hearing would need to be done by September 16^th.  He added that the Public Hearings would be held in Board Chambers.  He requested the Board approve the millage rates to be included on the TRIM notifications and the Public Hearing dates.

Commr. Conner commented that while they kept the millage the same, the taxable value for property decreased, which in effect lowered property taxes.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the proposed millage rates to be included on TRIM notifications in accordance with the County Manager’s recommended Fiscal Year 2012 budget as well as the Public Hearing dates and times and approval to advertise them.

Fiscal and administrative services

Resolution to initiate preparation of fire assessment roll

Mr. Gray stated that the County needed to submit fire assessment rates to the Property Appraiser by August 1, 2011.  He mentioned that a consultant had reviewed the fire assessment rate and how those funds were spent versus the advanced life support (ALS) MSDU.  He stated Mr. Koontz would give a presentation on the fire assessment initial rate resolution.

Mr. Koontz recapped that the same presentation had been given to the Board on July 5, 2011.  He remarked that the purpose of the fire assessment was to fund fire protection services but that it could not fund ALS services, adding that the purpose of the proposed resolution was to initiate the annual process for the preparation of the Fire Assessment Certified Roll.  He reported that the proposed rates were originally set up to be an 80/20 percent split between basic fire services and ALS, but the recommendation that was approved was for a 75/25 percent split.  He stated the proposed rate for residential was $181, which was a three percent increase over the current year rate of $175.  He stated that the proposed rate for hotel/motel/RV park was $44, which was a 12 percent decrease from the current year rate of $50.  He reported that the proposed commercial rates saw a decrease of 53 percent compared to the current year rates, the industrial/warehouse rates saw a decrease of 65 percent, and institutional rates saw a decrease of 20 percent.  He requested the Board approve the initial fire assessment rate resolution.

Mr. Gray added that there would be a Public Hearing regarding the fire assessment rates during the September 13^th Board meeting.

Mr. Koontz specified that the Board could decide to lower the rates at that time, but they could not raise them.

Commr. Cadwell commented that he thought the consultant’s study regarding the fire assessment rates illustrated that the rates were fair.  He remarked that the savings in the business community would be reflected back into the community and economy to help offset the increase in residential rates.

Commr. Campione opined that the study set the rates where they were supposed to be.

Commr. Parks expressed that his reluctance was based on the increased residential rate, but stressed that they had exhausted every effort to not have to raise the rate.

Commr. Conner remarked that if the Commissioners did not vote for the proposed fire assessment then they were not voting for a 50 percent decrease to the business, industrial, commercial, and institutional fire assessment rates.  He opined that businesses were being overburdened and the new rate helped fix that, adding that while he did not like raising the residential rate by $6, they could not continue to approve businesses paying an unfair amount.

Commr. Hill stated that the consultant’s study ensured the rates remained legally compliant.  She added that the Public Hearing would allow citizens to express their concerns as well as provide a chance to further explain the assessment.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2011-100, initiating the annual process for preparation of the Fire Assessment Roll, authorizing the publication of the advertisement for the Public Hearing, providing direction to notice all affected parties of the proposed rates, and directing the imposition of Fire Assessment fees for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011.

Public works

request for traffic signal at hancock rd. and diamond club dr.

The Chairman noted that while the issue of the proposed traffic signal was not open to a Public Hearing, she had received a speaker request card from Ms. Judy Proli, a resident of Clermont, who wished to speak in favor of the proposed traffic signal.  She stated it would be put in the record that Ms. Proli was in favor of the traffic signal.

Mr. Gray informed the Board that the request for the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Hancock Road and Diamond Club Drive/West Point Boulevard had come from Commr. Conner’s office.

Commr. Conner stated the intersection was unique because there was a blind approach on Hancock Road that made the intersection dangerous.  He reported he had worked with staff to get a favorable staff recommendation, but did not have one at that time.  He remarked that he did not want to wait to have a traffic signal installed until a person was critically injured or killed while coming out of Diamond Club Drive making a left onto Hancock Road.  He requested the Commission support putting a traffic signal in that intersection.

Commr. Cadwell asked if the funding for the traffic signal project would come from another project in the South Lake County area.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, replied that that was correct, specifying that funds that were originally going to be used to purchase additional property along Hancock Road would be pulled from that project to be used on the traffic light project.

Commr. Campione questioned if they knew whether the majority of people in Summit Greens and College Park really wanted the traffic signal and if they would be willing to help pay for it.

Commr. Hill asked how many intersections were on the list for traffic signals in South Lake County, mentioning that there were a number of areas waiting for traffic signals.

Mr. Stivender reported that the County Public Works department maintained 130 traffic signals on the State system, 60 signals on County Roads, and 170 flashing lights at school zones and intersections.  He commented that the location in question had flashing lights at either end to identify it as a dangerous intersection.  He mentioned that Public Works received 15-20 requests for traffic signals per year and only three to five of those requests were considered warranted enough to hire a consultant to review the intersection, specifying that only about two to three per year were warranted.  He stated that they tried to get State money to help fund those projects, and there was a wait time to get the projects done.  He remarked that for the proposed traffic signal, it would be some time next spring before it was designed and built, adding that some took as long as three years to get constructed.  He specified that the intersection in question had been studied in 2008 and again in 2010 and it was determined that a traffic signal was not warranted at that time.  He related that they had looked into increased police protection and flashing lights, and opined it might be appropriate to return in the autumn or winter to reevaluate if a signal was warranted.

Commr. Conner asked if every dollar had been budgeted for specific projects or if there were reserve funds that could be used.

Mr. Stivender replied that the entire budget had been allocated for projects, but they were able to recommend a particular location to pull the funds from because they usually did not complete all scheduled projects in a budget year.

Commr. Cadwell commented that the traffic signal project was small enough that it would not hold up any other projects.

Commr. Parks asked about installing a raised directional median.

Mr. Stivender commented that the left turn was the most dangerous and using a raised directional median to prevent left turns would make the intersection safer and the cost was minimal.

Commr. Conner replied that doing that would require people wanting to make a left to turn right and then make a u-turn on Hancock which was where all the speeding occurred.

Commr. Parks remarked that his concern was that there were a lot of bad intersections, and while he was not saying he was against the traffic light, he was only looking for a way to prevent creating precedence with other intersections and perhaps see if the City of Clermont would agree to share the costs.

Commr. Hill asked if Clermont had requested a traffic light at that intersection.

Mr. Gray replied that the City Council had referred the issue to the County because it was on a County road.

Commr. Campione asked Mr. Stivender if Public Works performed another study in February or March during peak residential times if the intersection might then warrant a traffic signal.

Mr. Stivender replied that he did not expect the numbers to change very much.

Commr. Campione asked the Chairman if Ms. Proli could address the Board because she wanted to hear what Ms. Proli had to say.

The Chairman agreed to allow Ms. Proli to speak.

Ms. Proli, a resident of Summit Greens development, mentioned that what was different about the Summit Greens community was that they shared the entrance to their community on Diamond Club Drive with the Diamond Players restaurant and Golf Club, adding that there were many golfing events that took place there.  She commented that travelers looking to get across the road had to move across four lanes of highway and around a grassy median, which made it difficult to see if there was any oncoming traffic from the right until the driver was in the middle of the road.  She reported that several cars making a left-hand turn out of Summit Greens had been sideswiped and the people in the cars injured.  She asked what price could be put on driver safety when it was a relatively small amount to install a traffic signal.  She stated that when the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) widened State Road 50, they took away the deceleration and acceleration lanes for that road, creating a dangerous situation for the front entrance of Summit Greens.  She mentioned she had called Mr. Ray Goodgame, Clermont City Councilmember, to voice a complaint on the intersection.  She added that she also talked to the Police Chief of Clermont and asked for some police cars to be posted around that area because of the propensity of drivers to speed on that road.  She reported that the speed limit was 45 miles per hour, but the Police Chief had told her there were drivers going between 60 and 70 miles per hour.  She remarked that the police had placed an empty police vehicle on the road to deter speeding, but people had begun to realize that there was no officer inside.  She asked the Commissioners to approve the traffic signal.

Commr. Campione asked Ms. Proli if she typically used the entrance in question to make a left hand turn.

Ms. Proli answered that most often she did because SR 50 was under construction and no longer had the acceleration/deceleration lanes, making it more dangerous and causing more residents to use the back gate than the front.

Commr. Campione asked if she would use the main entrance on SR 50 once the construction was completed.

Ms. Proli replied that the entrance on SR 50 would still not be used because over half of the residents lived closer to the back entrance and so they would continue to use that entrance more, adding that most people made a left turn from the back entrance.

Commr. Cadwell commented that when SR 50 was completed there would still be no deceleration lane.

Ms. Proli added that the residents had not been informed about the removal of the acceleration/deceleration lanes.

Commr. Cadwell commented that when FDOT decided not to put the deceleration lane back onto the road, it helped change his mind on the issue because of how dangerous the entrance became, noting that it made the main entrance practically useless.

Commr. Parks agreed that the deceleration lane was very important and proposed bringing the issue before the Clermont City Council to ask the City to help share the cost of the traffic signal.

Mr. Gray stated the request could be made of the City of Clermont for them to help pay for the installation of the traffic signal, and it would not slow down the project at all.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved authorizing a traffic signal at the intersection of Diamond Club Drive/West Point Boulevard and Hancock Road and instructed staff to take steps toward installation.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman announced that there would be a fifteen-minute recess at 11:57 a.m.

REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

Tentative district map

Mr. Minkoff stated that Districts 2 and 3 needed to be made smaller because there were too many people in them.  He informed the Board that staff had created a map that attempted to maintain district layout while evening out the population, adding that Commr. Hill and Commr. Parks had also created maps with the help of Ms. Sue Carroll, GIS Project Manager for GIS Services in the department of Information Technology.  He stated it was the decision of the Board as to how the district boundaries should be divided, and that the map staff had provided had attempted to keep municipalities as well as future growth areas together.

Commr. Hill noted that she knew there were citizens who wished to comment on the district maps, and stated there would be a Public Hearing for the final adoption of the district map that would be set for a later date.

Commr. Cadwell commented that the outline for his district remained relatively the same on all three of the maps that had been presented to the Board, and there did not appear to be much difference from the original map County staff had produced as a starting point.

Commr. Hill replied that her district grew in land space but not in population.

Commr. Cadwell remarked that the only thing redistricting did was ensure the districts had an equal amount of people, adding that commissioners ran for election countywide.

Commr. Parks mentioned that many people from South Lake had expressed that they wanted to be a part of the districting process and wanted two commissioners to reside in South Lake, where approximately 40 percent of the County’s population was located.  He remarked that he lived in South Lake County, and he wanted to represent South Lake, and that there was a natural inclination for a commissioner to represent the area where he or she lived.

Commr. Cadwell noted that historically he did better representing a district further away from where he lived.

Mr. Minkoff asked Ms. Carroll to display the map that Commr. Parks had created representing the 40 percent separation of the County.

Ms. Carroll noted that the dividing line was by Lake Harrison.

Commr. Conner commented that with the way the districts were now there could be three representatives from South Lake, but depending on how he looked at it, the map Commr. Parks was proposing would actually provide one less opportunity for someone from South Lake County to run.  He added that he did not agree with the separation of Lake County into North and South regions.  He expressed that he liked representing Groveland, Mascotte and Montverde.  He noted that some of that would have to change because he had too many people in his district right now, but stated he was not enamored with the suggestion Commr. Parks had made.

Commr. Parks clarified that he had not yet decided on one particular alignment. 

Commr. Hill explained that for the map she had submitted, she looked at the map of the County and attempted to figure out how the County would be divided up, including consideration for the location of cities and areas.  She noted some cities worked well with each other and so she tried to keep them together.  She added that she then revised the map to make it more concise, and mentioned that while the revised map had not been submitted to the Commissioners, Ms. Carroll could display a copy.

Ms. Carroll noted that the district boundaries Commr. Hill had used followed Census block boundaries, so they did not necessarily follow a road or any other recognizable boundary.

Commr. Campione expressed that it was good to have diversity within a district.

Commr. Conner remarked that the process of redistricting should not require major reconstruction of the boundary lines.

Commr. Conner commented that before the Board selected any map, there should be a Public Hearing to allow the Board to hear public input and then make their decision after that.

Commr. Parks agreed.

Commr. Hill recommended the Board select a number of maps, perhaps six, that adhered to district population regulations, explaining that it would provide better opportunity for public comment than if residents of the County were to attempt to make a district map on their own.

Commr. Parks commented that the Board had received a resolution from the South Lake Chamber of Commerce as well as the Town of Montverde and emails from citizens expressing concern over the redistricting maps.

Commr. Conner agreed with Commr. Hill’s suggestion of displaying four or five maps for residents to comment on.

Commr. Hill suggested the Board select the maps to be displayed at the next Board workshop.

Mr. Gray remarked that the next Board workshop would be on August 9, 2011.

Commr. Cadwell suggested advertising that the maps would be available for viewing, recommending that staff display large copies of the maps in the rotunda of the County Administration Building, and have people who wished to comment submit their statements in writing to the Board so the comments could be reviewed by the Board before the Public Hearing.

Commr. Campione and Commr. Conner agreed with Commr. Cadwell’s suggestion.

Commr. Conner noted the Board would not be making a final decision on a district map at the first Public Hearing.

Mr. Gray recommended setting the date for the Public Hearing concerning the districting maps for Tuesday, August 30^th.  He commented that the maps could be on display for a couple days before the meeting for citizens to review.

Commr. Hill stated she would like the maps up for the entire month of August.

Mr. Gray stated that the Board would approve the maps to be displayed in the rotunda of the County Administration Building at the August 9, 2011 Board Workshop and the Public Hearing where the Board would select one map to advertise as the potential new district map would take place on August 30, 2011.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

Addendum 1-IIIA – resolution in support of turnpike interchange

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution No. 2011-101 in support of the construction of the turnpike interchange at mile marker 279 in Lake County.

Opening of county public lands properties

The County Manager announced that the County’s Public Land properties of Ellis Acres, Lake May, and The Pasture were opening to the public today, July 26^th, for passive recreation.  He added that a ribbon cutting would take place at Ellis Acres next month.

REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1

County Manager and County Attorney Evaluations

Commr. Hill reminded the County Attorney and the County Manager to submit their evaluations in time for the August 8, 2011 deadline.

Appointment of city representative to lake ems board

Commr. Hill noted that Fruitland Park Mayor Chris Bell had resigned from the Lake EMS Board of Directors but wanted to maintain his option to rotate back on to the Board of Directors at a later time.  She stated Lady Lake Mayor Jim Richards had accepted the offer to join the LEMS Board of Directors.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved appointing Mayor Jim Richards to the LEMS Board of Directors.

Meeting with hospital district

Commr. Hill reported she would be meeting at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon with the hospital district.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

 

_________________________________

Jeniffer hill, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

NEIL KELLY, CLERK