A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
may 22, 2012
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 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: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, 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; Neil Kelly, Clerk of Court; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Pastor Ken Scrubbs from the First Baptist Church of Leesburg gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he wanted to add a request from the Triangle Boat Club that would require a Board vote to the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to add that item to the Agenda under his reports.
Commr. Campione stated that she had a proclamation with regard to Lake Community Action Agency that she wanted to add under her reports.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to add that item to the Agenda.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that he would be presenting the proclamation the Board approved at their last meeting regarding EMS.
Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager, related that he has just found out about resignations of two positions, and he would like the Board to vote on recruiting for those during the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to add that item to the Agenda under the County Manager’s business.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
No one present wished to address the Board.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk’s Office.
Annexation Notification for Ordinance 2012-08 from City of Tavares
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Tavares Annexation Notification for Ordinance 2012-08 amending the boundaries of the city by annexing approximately 1.28 acres located at the northeast intersection of US 441 and 7th Sunfish Street and rezoning said property from Lake County Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to City of Tavares General Commercial (C-1). This ordinance was approved by the Tavares City Council on April 18, 2012.
Monitoring Annual Report of Covanta Lake II for FY 2011
Request to acknowledge receipt of Lake County Department of Environmental Services Solid Waste Operations Monitoring Annual Report of Covanta Lake II for FY 2011.
Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement
Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement for the City of Eustis, Town of Lady Lake, City of Tavares, and City of Umatilla, as well as an Affidavit regarding authenticity, in compliance with Florida Statute 163.01. This agreement was executed for the purpose of providing insurance through Public Risk Management of Florida.
Notice of Application Approval for Harbor Hills Utilities Water System
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Application Approval for Transfer of Water Certificate for Harbor Hills Utilities Water System in Lake County and notification that HWW proposes to begin charging the Base Facility Charge on a monthly rather than a bi-monthly basis.
Letter from FDOT Announcing Public Meeting for PD&E Study
Request to acknowledge receipt of letter from the Florida Department of Transportation announcing an alternatives public meeting regarding the PD&E Study concerning plans to widen SR 19 in Lake County from CR 48 to CR 561 on Thursday, May 24, 2012 at Adventure Christian Church located at 3800 SR 19, Tavares at 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Parks requested to pull Tab 16 regarding the contract to ERC General Contracting Services for closure of the County’s Central Phase II Landfill cell for a quick discussion to note that the intent of that effort was to comply with the Landfill Regulation Amendment and to minimize future expenditures associated with the transportation and disposal of the County’s leachate. He pointed out that the County will realize large savings from that, since that has been a big problem for them, and mentioned that the Board had approved that item several months ago with extensive public discussion.
Mr. Stivender elaborated that it would result in a savings of an expenditure of $600,000 to $700,000 per year.
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 3 through 17 as follows:
Conservation and Compliance
Request for authorization for the for BCC Chair to sign Certificate of Participation for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) FY2012 Program and name Brenda Quattlebaum, Lake County Probation Specialist, to coordinate all local efforts of the grant.
Request for authorization to fill one (1) vacant Code Enforcement Officer position within the Conservation & Compliance Department, Code Enforcement Division. The fiscal impact is $43,031.
Request for approval to (1) declare the items on the attached list(s) surplus to County needs, (2) authorize the removal of all of the items on the attached lists from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records, and (3) authorize the Procurement Services Director or designee to sign vehicle titles.
Request for authorization to fill one (1) vacant Senior Contracting Officer position within Procurement Services. The fiscal impact is $56,084.
Request for approval of the attached Direct Deposit Policy.
Facilities Development and Management
Request for approval and execution of the contract for commissioning services in support of the Emergency Communications and Operations Center (ECOC) to Hanson Professional Services, Inc. and the On-Call contracts for commissioning services to 1) Hanson Professional Services, Inc. and 2) SGM Engineering. The fiscal impact for the ECOC contract is $78,411. The fiscal impact of the on-call contracts cannot be determined at this time.
Request for approval for Chairman and Commissioners to declare and sign Proclamation No. 2012-57 designating June as Tobacco-Free Parks Month. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval of three position changes within the Public Resources Department, Parks & Trails Division for recruitment of 1 vacant Park Ranger position, creation and recruitment of 1 Park Ranger position, and deletion of 1 vacant Public Lands Manager position. The fiscal impact for the two Park Ranger positions is $81,026.
Request for approval for continuation of the current standardization of Naztec Traffic Control equipment, and authorize the procurement office to issue purchase orders to the manufacturer for related goods and services as may be required. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $60,000.
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute a satisfaction and release of lien for the attached six (6) special assessments. All properties are located in Commission District 5. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval and signature of third amendment to the Proportionate Fair Share Agreement with Clermont Motor Sales, LLC, also known as Toyota of Clermont. The fiscal impact is $29,950.00. Commission District 2.
Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2012-58 authorizing the posting of 25 MPH speed limit signs on Eagle Point Dr. (5741) and Golden Tree Dr. (5841C) in Commissioner District 4, Section 6, Township 19, Range 26. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval and acceptance of the attached list of public right of way deeds that have been secured in conjunction with roadway and/or stormwater projects. There is no fiscal impact. Commission Districts 1, 2, and 5.
Request to approve and award contract 12-0215 to ERC General Contracting Services, Inc. for closure of the County Central Phase II Landfill cell, to include approval of the attached budget transfer to support the project. The fiscal impact is $1,992,205.72.
Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2012-59 to Advertise Public Hearing to vacate right of way and drainage easement on Punkin Center Rd. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 18 through 21 as follows:
Request for approval of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. as outside counsel for Worker’s Compensation claim issues.
Request for approval of Letter of Amendment to lease rate for leased spaced for the Department of Community Services located at 1300 Duncan Drive, Building E, Tavares.
Request for approval of Mediation Settlement between Richard Covino, Amanda Stewart, and Lake County – Fiscal Impact $40,500.00, plus Mediation fees (unknown at this time).
Request for approval of request by School Board to extend possession of County-owned property known as the Bus Barn until October 15, 2012.
presentation of proclamation no. 2012-54 to robotics teams
Commr. Campione commented on behalf of the Board that they were very proud of the students who participated on these robotics teams and their accomplishments and that they were representing Lake County well.
Commr. Parks recognized Dr. Susan Moxley, Superintendent of Schools, and Dr. Tod Howard of the School Board, who will help him present Proclamation No. 2012-54. He noted that they were there to honor the first robotics teams of Lake County, and he read the Proclamation and presented each of the four high-school teams from East Ridge, Lake Minneola, North Lake County, and South Lake with that proclamation.
Edgardo Ramos, the representative from the Knight and Nerdy team from East Ridge High School, commented that their robotics team has grown quite a lot from last year and noted that they placed ninth. He stated that the team has helped him in his endeavor to become an engineer and has helped him discover skills such as “gracious professionalism” and handling of real-life situations.
Austin Vrotney, representing the Lake Minneola team Nerds of Prey, stated that this has been a very wonderful learning experience, and he thanked his team for standing by his side all of the way.
Jessie Poen, a representative from North Lake County’s 12 Volt Bolt, comprised of Mount Dora, Tavares, Eustis, and Christian Home and Bible High Schools, noted that this was her fifth year with the team and commented that First Robotics has been the most amazing experience that she has had in her entire high school career. She opined that it has been remarkable to see how much her team has grown and changed and related that the teams help and support each other, which is something that is not seen in any other kind of competition. She thanked the Board and the community for their support, which has helped them compete in two regionals and win several awards, and she presented the Board with a spring certificate.
Lisa Willis, representative and team president for South Lake High School’s Net Mates, mentioned that last season was their first year as a robotics team, and she opined that being part of First Robotics goes beyond learning engineering and science to also learn skills such as leadership and teamwork. She also thanked Lake County for supporting their team.
Dr. Moxley stated that every day was a great day in Lake County, especially when they could recognize the outstanding accomplishments of their young people that are represented in this room. She added that she was proud of their hard work and pointed out that although they carry a full schedule of school work, a lot of the work done in preparation for this initiative is done after the school day in partnership with many community volunteers; she then recognized those volunteers as well as the instructors from the schools who were the mentors and coaches for this program.
Commr. Campione commented that STEM initiatives go hand in hand with their economic development goals and strategies.
emergency medical services week proclamation presentation
Commr. Cadwell read and presented Proclamation No. 2012-55 proclaiming May 20 through 26 as Emergency Medical Services Week in Lake County to Mr. Jim Judge, Director of Lake EMS.
Mr. Judge noted that Dr. Paul Banerjee, the medical director for Lake EMS, was recognized by the State of Florida, Bureau of EMS, Department of Health, as the EMS Director of the Year for the State of Florida.
presentation on north hancock road traffic study
Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, Public Works Department, stated that this study was requested by the Board in September to look at two and a quarter miles of roadway starting at SR 50 running north to Turkey Farm Road, looking at operational and safety improvements and existing conditions without looking at future capacity. He started out by giving a project overview and history and showing a map of the area, and he mentioned that in the future North Hancock Road will extend north to the new turnpike interchange that is being planned on the east side of Minneola. He described the project schedule, starting with data collection in November of 2011, and he noted the first public meeting on March 19 and that many newsletters were mailed out to the public. He explained that they mainly looked at Warrant 1 and 2 from the Federal Highway MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) Standard Criteria, both of which look at volume of intersecting traffic, since they were the warrants that most applied to what they were studying. He also listed the methods used for good access management and pointed out that the National Highway Institute reports that inadequate access management can increase travel time delay by as much as 40 to 60 percent, which can cause businesses to lose much of its market area, and he commented that having some roads that are good for higher travel speeds is good for the community. He informed the Board about what they would look at during the North Hancock Road Corridor Analysis, such as pavement striping, street lighting, and sight distance, and gave some recommendations of the safety audit, including pavement restriping, trimming of vegetation along the corridor, and increased speed enforcement by the City of Clermont. He noted that the sight distance requirement of 500 feet for a 45 mph speed limit is met on all of those intersections, and they did not find any significant delays or queues during the intersection analysis and also did not find any significant patterns of crashes for time of day on the route. He pointed out that the amount of crashes fell statistically within the average on that corridor of crash data statewide as well as within the range of expected crashes at signalized and unsignalized intersections for that corridor. He then went over the crash history and recommendations for specific intersections along that corridor.
Mr. Schneider concluded that more signals at the intersections along the route would give drivers on the side streets higher access and more ability to turn in and out; however, that would slow down traffic on the main highway, and they went for higher traffic capacity instead because of what the County is planning for that road in the future. He specified that there were four intersections that could warrant a traffic signal, which were Legends Way, Oakley Seaver Blvd., Diamond Club Drive, and North Ridge Blvd., depending on how they wanted to treat this roadway. He summarized that design and spacing of the driveways and turn lanes are adequate; posted speed is appropriate, although they did request further speed enforcement from the City; the sight distance is adequate; additional street lighting is not warranted; and traffic signals and access management alternatives were considered. He emphasized that N. Hancock Road is designed as a roadway for higher speed at the expense of access, but median modifications would maintain a higher capacity and provide a safer alternative. He listed some minor improvements that were needed, including restriping of intersections, fixing some sidewalks and curb ramps, and looking at modification of landscaping that interferes with sight distance. His short term recommendations were to modify the striped median to raised concrete at the Target South/Regions Bank entrance at a cost of $16,000, construct a directional median opening at the South Lake Sumter Community College/Target entrance at a cost of $16,000, repair sidewalks and ramps at a cost of $16,600, and restripe North Hancock Blvd at a cost of $43,500; however, he pointed out that those were things they would typically do anyway for routine maintenance. He stated that the County needed to make a decision on how the road was to be treated as far as access and capacity so that they could decide whether to put in traffic signals or median modifications in the future. He further recommended continuing to monitor the intersections and do the short term improvements which are maintenance items over the next year, program the long term improvements when warranted by an engineering study of traffic and safety data on the corridor, and complete their final report.
The Chairman opened the presentation for public comment.
Ms. Darlene Phillips, a resident of Summit Greens in Clermont, read a letter from Ms. Ruth Campbell, another resident of that development that could not attend the meeting, regarding a traffic light for the intersection of Summit Greens Boulevard and Hancock Road, stating that each year it becomes more difficult to exit onto Hancock, since vehicles are speeding in both directions, the hills and curves impair vision, the road is heavily traveled, and the traffic continues to increase. She opined that it is a safety issue on Hancock and an accident waiting to happen, and she requested for the Board to consider a traffic light in that location so that the area is safer for the community. Ms. Phillips added that she also believed there should be a traffic light at that location and believed a majority of the residents of that community feel the same way.
Ms. Judy Proli, also a resident of Summit Greens, commented that the residents of Summit Greens were only asking for safety for not only their community but everyone that drives on that road, especially considering the added traffic because of the new restaurant in that location. She noted that they were sandwiched in between two major thoroughfares, which were SR 50 and Hancock, and she pointed out that another resident in that community got into an accident last month. She related that the blind curve to the north side of them is a problem, because they cannot see the cars coming around that bend, which causes accidents. She opined that lowering the speed will not work, because people have a natural tendency to speed up on that road, especially the college and high school students who use it. She requested that the Board give them a traffic light at that location before someone gets killed.
Councilman Ray Goodgame from the City of Clermont recapped that the Board previously voted unanimously for a traffic signal at the above-mentioned intersection at Diamond Players Club for public safety, and he opined that there was a bad situation there. He reported that over the last eight months the City has probably issued 300 traffic speeding tickets at that location, which could probably fund that signal if needed, and he emphasized that they were doing that for public safety for all citizens traveling in and out of the communities of College Park and Summit Greens, students going to the new high school, and those traveling to SR 50 into Orlando. He related that the Clermont City Council has recommended the signal and has also contacted Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, to request that the signal be installed, which is a serious issue for them. He added that the vehicles traveling south in the mornings travel at a very high rate of speed, and he opined that the intersection had all of the conditions of speed, curves, dips, and short sight range to warrant a light there. He mentioned that the City Council was looking at making Legends Way right turn out only, and they will be sending that recommendation to the County soon.
Mr. Dick Scott, Vice President for Business Affairs for Lake Sumter Community College, related that they looked at the traffic study results and are very interested in this issue. He commented that they are very concerned with safety as well for their students and all of the members of the public that come to their campus and library and that they share the concerns that have been expressed; however, their board wanted to make sure that the County was not hasty in their judgment to place traffic signals in various locations only to find out two or three years later that a traffic signal was needed more in a different location. He pointed out that Clermont was their largest and fastest-growing campus, and they wanted to make sure that the best decision is made for the future as well as the present.
Mr. Jim Purvis, a resident of Clermont, confirmed that an email he had sent the Commissioners had been received, had been put into the record, and included in the backup materials for the meeting. He pointed out that this was a request to improve a current dangerous condition at the particular intersection near Summit Greens and that there was precedent for traffic lights to be removed and reused at another intersection as conditions change within the county and Central Florida. He noted that the demographics of the area of an older group of people should be taken into consideration, and the development is an age-restricted community. He opined that traffic warrants are not the sole criteria for controlling intersectional traffic, and he urged the Board to consider common sense versus just statistics.
Ms. Ginger Martin, a resident of Clermont, noted that Councilman Goodgame only met with a small group of Summit Greens residents and that approximately 70 tickets rather than 300 had been written in the past year at that location. She emphasized that a few residents took the liberty of speaking for over 1400 residents in Summit Greens without their permission, and she pointed out that the residents have alternative and safer means of exiting their community. She stated that she did not believe that all drivers should be inconvenienced for a small number of residents who insist on being accommodated by a traffic light, especially at the expense of taxpayer money. She concluded that a traffic signal was not warranted, and traffic signal decisions should only be dictated by research, facts, cost, and results of traffic studies by the Public Works Department.
Mr. T. J. Fish, Lake-Sumter MPO Executive Director, reported that Hancock Road is in the long-range Transportation 2035 Plan as a future arterial that will connect to Florida’s Turnpike. He commented that Public Works provided a thorough, excellent presentation, and he explained that there was a tradeoff between mobility on that corridor and access for the people who live on it, with access needing to be second to mobility because of the plan for that road. He commented that more traffic lights, especially if there is any question about necessity, only bogs down that corridor. He requested the Board to incorporate the 2035 Plan into their decision.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced at 10:20 a.m. that there would be a ten-minute recess.
presentation on north hancock road traffic study (cont’d)
Commr. Parks noted that they wanted to study the whole corridor rather than just one aspect, and he opined that the recommendations from staff would make that corridor much safer.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he was still not completely convinced about the median changes that were recommended in the study and wanted to discuss that more with staff. He also indicated that he was still inclined to support the traffic light by Summit Greens.
Commr. Hill stated that by looking at the volume that each intersection was handling at this time, the Diamond Club intersection has the least volume, but has quite a few crashes, although she was not sure of the reasons behind some of those crashes, some of which seem like vehicle operator problems. She commented that she liked the idea of the medians, and she believed that Oakley Seaver would be the intersection that would most need a traffic light in the future, although she did not think a light at any of the intersections was warranted at this time.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the way this road was originally designed and how the County wanted it to function in the future is really the heart of this issue, although safety is a huge concern. She commented that the crashes are due to the left turn movement out of the Diamond Club exit, and those crashes could be avoided by making a right turn there and making a U-turn. She also noted that staff recommendations would make that U-turn easier and that U-turns are being used regularly on roadways to move traffic. She opined that placing traffic lights throughout this corridor would slow traffic, lower the capacity, and change how this road was originally designed as well as their plans for this road as a collector. She stated that she believed that some of the recommendations such as trimming vegetation, changing the stop bar, and striping would go a long way to address the safety issue. She commented that she also believed that Oakley Seaver would be the most likely place that they would need a light in the future, and moving lights from one intersection to another after people were used to them was very problematic. She concluded that she would be in favor of the various modifications to the corridor without adding lights but making the patterns more recognizable with turn lanes and those types of improvements.
Commr. Conner pointed out that there were more crashes at Diamond Players Club per number of vehicles than any of the other intersections, and he commented that he would not want to support the recommendations for medians until further study. He noted that the Summit Greens residents do have the option of turning right and making a U-turn; however, he expressed concern about the age of the community there, which was not shown in the traffic studies, and voiced his support of a traffic signal there. He also mentioned that there was a natural tendency for vehicles to speed up in that location, since they were coming from a two to a four-lane road, and he believed they should give some consideration to the City of Clermont’s recommendation concerning the speed limit. He stated, however, that he did not think they should do anything drastic right away.
Commr. Campione responded that she believed that the County would be putting in many more traffic lights throughout the county if they had to have them at every intersection where there were senior communities, which could be a very problematic precedent. She suggested that they look at the recommendations further and move forward at another meeting.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that when the County first planned that road, it was supposed to be a bypass from US Hwy 27 to SR 50, with little development on the road at that time, but that it was different now than what it was.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the short-term recommendations of staff, including restriping the Summit Greens intersection, the directional median at Legends Way, and repair of sidewalks and ramps, with the understanding that the Board would continue to monitor the intersection at Summit Greens as well as discussing enforcement of speed limits with the City of Clermont.
interlocal agreements to award impact fees for libraries
Ms. Wendy Breeden, Public Resources Director, explained that they had three interlocal agreements for library impact fee projects for the City of Mount Dora, the City of Minneola, and the Town of Howey in the Hills, and it is a public hearing since this involved their member libraries. She mentioned that the Lake County Library Advisory Board approved the recommended projects at its March meeting, which total about $74,000.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the applications and signature of interlocal agreements with the City of Mount Dora, the City of Minneola and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills to award impact fees for the expansion of their municipal libraries' buildings or services.
public hearings: rezoning
Commr. Campione stated that they needed to move Tab 7 up to be heard after the Rezoning Consent Agenda, since there were people in the audience that had come from out of town to be there to provide some technical information for that case and had to keep appointments elsewhere afterwards.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Manager, Department of Growth Management, displayed the advertisement of the hearings on the monitor and related that he had no changes to the Consent Agenda.
rezoning consent agenda
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following Rezoning Consent Agenda items:
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2012-35
Liberty Baptist Church, Inc/Lee Chapman
Request to amend the CFD Ordinance #42-88 to add the use of a communications tower. Ordinance #42-88 will be superseded and replaced by the proposed ordinance.
Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2012-33
Lake County BCC/D. Gray/W. Breeden
Request to rezone property from R-1 to CFD to allow conservation and passive recreational uses.
Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2012-34
Joseph Hussey, Jr./Stephens & Barrios, LLC
Request to rezone property from Urban Residential (R-6) and Planned Commercial (CP) to CP Zoning to allow up to 8,000 square feet of commercial uses and replace CP Ordinance #1985-58 with a new ordinance.
rezoning regular agenda
rezoning tab 7 - ph#25-10-3 – long & scott farms airstrip
Commr. Campione noted that she greatly appreciated that Mr. Jim Wikstrom from the FDOT Aviation and Seaport Program’s District 5; Mr. Bart Vernace, Assistant Manager of the FAA Orlando Airport District Office; and Mr. Robert Christianson, Director of Operations and Land Resources for the St. Johns River Water Management District, were all present at the meeting to give technical information for fact-finding that was needed at the last meeting.
Mr. Sheahan recapped that there were several questions related to roles that FDOT plays with state airports and FAA’s role with general aviation airports under their authority, and he related that they sent several questions to Mr. Wikstrom and Mr. Venace related to airport permitting and some of the offsite litigation issues and impacts that arose out of the April hearings and forwarded the responses to the Board last week.
Commr. Hill disclosed for the record that she spoke by phone with Mr. Bob Williams, who informed her that he has been recently retained by Long & Scott, and they also discussed the contents of a developer’s agreement.
Commr. Campione disclosed that she also spoke with Mr. Williams, as well as Mr. Rich Dunkel, Mr. Charles Lee, Ms. Deborah Parks, Mr. Jim Thomas and Ms. Connie Harvey and has received numerous emails.
Commr. Cadwell recapped that he disclosed at the first meeting that he met with the applicant, but has not met with him since, and he met with some Lake County citizens who are opposed to the rezoning.
Commr. Parks disclosed that he had met with the applicant before the first hearing and has also met with Mr. Dunkel and Ms. Parks.
Commr. Conner disclosed that since the last meeting, he spoke with the Mr. Hank Scott, Mr. Williams, Mr. Ed Brooks, and Mr. Don Magruder.
Mr. Gray clarified that Tab 26 on the Agenda regarding the Developer’s Agreement would be heard at the same time.
Commr. Parks asked if the Applicant has submitted an application to the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.
Mr. Wikstrom responded that the applicant has made applications to the FDOT for a site approval for them to create or develop a public use airport. He elaborated that this project was a long way from application to the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which was the federal plan, and this was just to see about establishing a site for a public use airport at this point.
Commr. Parks asked if there has been any master plan submitted or a revised diagram indicating a plan of what is being proposed since the last hearing.
Mr. Sheahan responded that there has been no master plan submitted for this application, which is simply limited to the Lake County portion of the property, and as testified in the last hearing, the procedural steps are that the applicants receive local government approval for the airport, then work with the state, and then move on to attempt to obtain FAA approval. He added that the applicant had done a feasibility study about a year ago that looked at a regional analysis, which is in the backup materials and were working on the Orange County side related to the aviation growth center under a separate property.
Mr. Sheahan then presented the case, stating that this was a continuation of a case that began in April and that the request was to remove a condition from paragraph 1 (I) from Ordinance 2004-85 which stated that the ordinance would become null and void if Orange County land use approvals are changed, unless the changes are approved by the Board. He related that they have received three letters in support of this project and 38 letters in opposition, including resolutions from the City of Oakland and Montverde, and they have received six letters of appearance in this case. He showed the location of the property in the Lake Jem area on a map displayed on the monitor, noting that there was about 50 to 75 feet of pavement on the Lake County side, and he stated that the subject property is 1455 feet supporting the Orlando North Airpark, specifying that the airstrip on the Orange County side is 3000 feet for a total length of 4455. He mentioned that the airport is a privately-owned facility which contains 52 hangars and is restricted by ordinance to single-engine and twin-engine aircraft, with jets and helicopters prohibited under the current ordinance. He explained that the reason this was before the Board today was because Orange County approved the land use amendment for the adjacent property as a growth center, which will allow up to 750 square feet of aviation-related uses, including 370 hangars; 2.8 million square feet of industrial uses; 50,000 square feet of commercial uses; and 150,000 square feet of office uses; and the developer has a planned development application pending approval with Orange County’s Development Review Committee, which requires that the transportation impacts to Lake County be addressed and mitigated through the developer agreement, which is also before the Board today. He stated that the two primary questions in this case are whether this is an appropriate place for an airport and what type of airport would be most appropriate. He noted that the packet contained two ordinances, one which would essentially remove any restrictions and allow the airport to continue without restriction and another which would re-impose the same conditions which are currently imposed on the property. He commented that the ordinance was separate and apart from the developer agreement, which could be approved by separate resolution.
Commr. Cadwell opined that if the developer’s agreement takes care of the Board’s concerns regarding transportation, it would be in bad faith not to approve it in dealing with Orange County, and he believed they were obligated to move forward with it in that case and that the rezoning is a separate issue from the developer’s agreement.
Mr. Sheahan commented that it would give Lake County a seat at the table for any transportation issues and assures that they are addressed.
Mr. Robert Williams representing Long & Scott Farms, owner of the land around the existing airport as well as the old airport that had been there since 1963, mentioned that the true applicant for the zoning was the West Orange Aviation Authority (WOA), which is an independent special district created by the legislature that owns the simple title to the runway itself and the hangars. He clarified that Long & Scott Farms does not have a contract to sell any of that land or change the end user and that they intend to farm as long as they can on that property. He explained that this is an application to expand the airport and particularly the hangar and adjacent uses that go with an airport that predated WOA. He recapped the history of the airport, noting that it has had some restrictions on it and has been a light use airport. He stated, however, that there has been an expansion in that industry, and there was a need for outlying airports for smaller sport planes and light private and business planes. He related that WOA is looking into whether it is an appropriate place to potentially expand an airport, and Long & Scott in conjunction with that has gotten approval from Orange County to develop collateral facilities such as hangars that would support an airport if and when it is ever expanded. He pointed out that Long & Scott Farms was required to do some substantial things to satisfy the terms of the developer’s agreement, including a complete traffic study of nine different roads and intersections and to provide mitigation in dollars, construction, or phasing if and when that development took place; and he opined that Orange County has protected Lake County’s interests with this agreement, which he believed was the only issue regarding that aspect of it.
Mr. Williams commented that the other issue of whether this was the right location for an expanded airport beyond the existing 3,000 feet was not a question that needed to be answered that day, although his clients as well as WOA and many others believe that it is a good location and that there was science to support that. He also opined that according to the information received from FAA and FDOT, a lot of the concerns the Board had last time about those agencies changing restrictions on off-site properties is unfounded, since he understood that those agencies do not exercise jurisdiction anywhere but on the airport property itself and not on the adjacent properties. He also pointed out that the process for approval of an airport involves years of environmental, air space, power line, tree, and residential studies; public hearings; and a lot of science. He requested approval for the developer’s agreement and continuation of the application for the Lake County zoning for a period not to exceed six months in order to work with the many inner-governmental parties that have an interest in this and would agree to a standstill agreement as far as developing the runway or extensions of the airport during that time, which was suggested by Mr. Minkoff.
Mr. Guy Haggard, Chairman of the West Orange Airport Authority, commented that it takes a long time to go through the planning process, since they had to do environmental studies, a master plan which is expected to take at least six to eight months, construction drawings, and permitting, all of which he estimates would take about one to two years minimum. He added that they also have to meet with all of the agencies involved, and six months gives them enough time to resolve some of the issues that have come up in the last few months. He commented that they wanted to create an economic engine that is good for the community.
Mr. Minkoff elaborated that County staff held up the developer’s agreement pending the rezoning, because they wanted it to be heard at the same time, since they could not discuss the zoning except at an advertised hearing under quasi-judicial hearing rules.
Mr. Sheahan added that because of concern from the community about the development impact, they wanted to make sure that both agenda items were properly noticed and that there was as much public participation in the process as possible; however, if the developer’s agreement was brought separately, it would not require the same notice requirements as the rezoning, and they did not want them treated as two different standards.
Commr. Campione commented that there are impacts to Lake County that go far beyond transportation impacts as a result of the rezoning request, and she would only feel comfortable approving the developer’s agreement if they made their other concerns very clear to Orange County as well as making it clear that that the approval of that agreement does not constitute acquiescence to the expansion being proposed with regard to the aviation activities.
Commr. Parks stated that he supports allowing more time to get the public involved and to get the answers to the questions that have not been answered, although it could be a good project. He also indicated that he was torn about whether or not to approve the agreement.
Mr. Williams clarified that Orange County has not approved an airport extension at this point, which is pending and still has to go through the FAA and FDOT process, but they have only approved collateral uses on vacant farmland that could support hangars and other types of airport structures whether the airport is expanded or not, and they wanted to get the developer’s agreement in place in order to be able to obtain approval for the future land use of that property.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that they would be going through this process even if the airport authority was not involved.
Commr. Campione commented that she saw all the aviation activities as being intertwined in that overall land use. She then clarified that it was offered that they would only address the developer’s agreement that day and would not get into any of the rezoning information, and she noted that they needed to allow those who have filed a notice of appearance an opportunity to address their concerns regarding the continuation and the agreement.
Ms. Deborah Parks, a resident of Lake Jem, stated that she was a little hesitant about the developer’s agreement, since she believed it would be the legal vehicle if these restrictions are going to be upheld on the airport, unless it could be stipulated that for the time being the restrictions currently on the airport would remain in place. She mentioned that she was originally going to discuss what it was like to live less than 3,000 feet from the end of the runway, including noise and pollution. She commented that she could support a continuation because the zoning has to be looked into regarding whether to expand the airport or if it was appropriate in this area, as long as the current restrictions stay in place during the continuance. She also pointed out that there have been serious infractions and violations by the airport, and she asked for more Lake County Code Enforcement assistance regarding the current violations at Orlando North Airpark with the control and responsibility Lake County has under Ordinance No. 2004-85, although the airport itself is in Orange County.
Mr. Charles Lee representing the Florida Audubon Society clarified that if the Board does nothing on the rezoning issue today and merely acts on the developer’s agreement relating to road transportation, their existing zoning ordinance for this property with all of its restrictions as well as the condition that the Board would have to approve any change that Orange County would approve, including expansion of the airport, remain in place. He commented that the developer’s agreement is a standard agreement which relates to highway transportation and road capacity issues which are not related to the concerns of the Audubon Society, since their concern was with the expansion of this airport to a regional general aviation public airport facility that WOA had enunciated in the minutes of its board meetings an intent to include in the national airport system to seek federal aviation funding, which would therefore invoke mandatory enforcement of a number of the restrictions of the FAA. He requested that the Board include some verbiage in the motion approving the agreement which states that they have concerns and puts Orange County on notice that their existing zoning ordinance which is in effect prohibits airport expansion by limiting the types of aircraft and limiting to daytime operations only, and he suggested that there be an official letter from Lake County to Orange County transmitting that they have significant concerns regarding whether this is an appropriate place to expand an airport and would like the opportunity to address them. He concluded that he did not think a continuance would do any harm if the Board did those things.
Commr. Campione commented that Orange County’s process of amending the land use nullified Lake County’s zoning on this property, and they would have to put that ordinance back into place.
Mr. Lee responded that he believed staff told him that ordinance remains in effect.
Mr. Sheahan explained that the ordinance states that it would become null and void if the approval of the Board is not obtained; however, since their request is currently in the system for consideration and is in the process, that requirement is on hold until a decision is made.
Mr. Minkoff elaborated that the applicant would not be able to use the property at all for an airport if the ordinance was null and void, and they would currently be in violation; however, if the ordinance was still in effect, they would still be subject to the regulations that limit the airport. He noted that either way, they would not have the authority to use it for jets, helicopters, or night flying in this interim period.
Mr. Williams acknowledged that it is their understanding that those restrictions remain in effect right now until the Board takes final action.
Commr. Campione clarified that it was everyone’s position that those conditions are intact.
Ms. Loretta Satterwaite, a resident of Apopka and Vice President of the Orange Audubon Society, related that she had a petition she was going to present to the Board on the ordinance issue, which she was instructed to hold on to for now. She commented that she had no real problems with the continuation, if the ordinance is still in current usage with the same restrictions, but she pointed out that her group was made up of volunteers who took time off from work or other things to attend these meetings, and she also stated that she believed they could go ahead with the developer’s agreement at this time also.
Mr. Jim Thomas, President of Friends of Lake Apopka, also noted that he did not have a problem with the extension as long as everything which is currently in place will continue, but he gave the Board a packet of information to let the Board know what is happening on the North Shore of Lake Apopka, such as the grand opening of the first trail on June 1. He mentioned that he believes that an environmental assessment of that whole process will be against the airport.
Ms. Constance Harvey commented that a six month extension may be a good idea if they can provide a master plan of everything that would be happening on that facility, exactly how long the runway would be, and type and size of the planes. She stated that she did not think the developer’s agreement should be approved, because it did not address other costs such as police or fire, since the airport would bring a lot more than just vehicles, and she asked the Board to prolong the developer’s agreement as well.
Ms. Melba Seron pointed out that Lake County’s many beautiful springs, rivers, and forests are conducive to having tourism as its main industry, and she indicated that jets do not fit into that scenario.
Ms. Peggy Cox, a resident of Clermont, mentioned that she has had a long-time interest in the North Shore Restoration and environmental issues, and she related that she was in favor of the continuation because there were too many unanswered questions regarding the future land use designation which Orange County granted. She pointed out that the fact that the development was designated as an airport growth center shows that there probably will be further development of that airport and was one of the reasons that the legislature moved the focus of WOA from West Orange County near Horizon West to the area north of Apopka. She opined that the developer’s agreement on transportation impacts was not just because of the airport, but was because of the intensity of that future land use amendment that called for 2.8 million square feet of industrial space, and she noted that Orange County staff recommended that they not adopt it, since there was already a lot of industrial commercial space permitted in Orange County around airports and large DRI’s (Developments of Regional Impact). She related that she believed that the developer’s agreement needs to be approved because of the impacts to Lake County, although she was not sure if they needed to do it now, and that she supported the continuation of the rezoning, as long as the existing ordinance and its restrictions stay in place.
Mr. George Wiggins, a President of the Tangerine Improvement Society, related that the group was adamantly opposed to the aviation growth center, stating that as part of the Zellwood rural settlement, they could only designate it a growth center because it is in a rural settlement in order to get their land use change and rezoning. He opined that the County would send a message that they were approving the future airport expansion by approving this request, because that was part of that, and he requested that the Board attach the conditions that Mr. Lee previously mentioned if it were approved, including a letter to Orange County stating the Board’s concerns. He also commented that he had taken a day off from work to be at this hearing and believed it was inappropriate for the attorney to ask for a continuance at the last minute.
Mr. Louis Smith expressed concern about any amendment which would allow the airport to expand and encourage jet aircraft.
Ms. Laura Michael stated that she was against the development of the jet airport.
Mr. Rich Dunkel, a resident of Mount Dora, commented that the continuation would not be a bad thing, because six months would give them the opportunity to communicate with Orange County to let them know that this issue has focused a lot of attention on Lake Apopka, the North Shore, and the tourism and trail possibilities that are there. He suggested that they have a joint meeting or committee to investigate the ecotourism possibilities that would impact this portion of both counties, mentioning that birding has become very popular and underserved.
Ms. Linda Bystrak, a resident of Leesburg, stated that this area was known for its wildlife and large numbers of birds, which would increase the likelihood of a bird strike, and she gave statistics, such as the damage to airplanes and number of deaths due to bird strikes, as well as the actual number of bird strikes. She mentioned that if new commissioners are elected in the next election, they will not have any background or knowledge of this issue in six months, and she suggested a five rather than six month continuance.
Mr. Stephen Camulli, a resident of Lake Jem who was within the 10,000 foot hazardous wildlife attractant separation area, noted that this airport was already discussed last July, but he stated that he did not mind a continuance on this as long as they maintain the current ordinance and restrictions. However, he pointed out that this was being designated as a general aviation airport, and he opined that if this is allowed to keep moving forward, the restrictions would get overridden, which would expose the County to significant consequences without any economic benefit, since it is in Orange County.
Ms. Carol Johnson, a resident of Winter Garden, related that a master plan takes approximately 18 months, and an environmental study takes one year, but these issues were known ten years ago when WOA was attempting to build an airport in southwest Orange County. She mentioned that the City of Apopka spent $350,000 on a feasibility study focused on the Orlando North Airport, but not west of that location. She stated that she did not believe the developer’s agreement should be approved yet, since there would be other agreements needed relating to other concerns such as the environment, and she believed that one agreement should cover all of those concerns. She also stated that she agreed that a continuation of six months to a year was needed.
Ms. Janice Murphy stated that she was opposed to the Board approving the developer’s agreement, because she felt that it needs to cover everything, and she commented that this decision would really affect people. She asked the Board to postpone the zoning as well.
Ms. Margaret Lindsay, a member of the PEAR Association and the local Audubon Society chapter, who does a lot of volunteer work in the environmental areas of Lake County, mentioned that she was involved in the upcoming Wings and Wildflowers Festival that the County was sponsoring. She was very opposed to this zoning, because this is an important birding area, and Lake Apopka was an important stop for the birds. She pointed out that ecotourism brings money into the area, and she asked that the Board make sure the ecotourism industry is protected before they enter into the agreement.
Ms. Alice Hoelzen-Hawthorne, a resident of Clermont who was on the board of the Oakland Nature Preserve, stated that they hope that the Board does not allow jet airplanes in this part of the county, since it would be a shame to ruin what Lake County has. She believed there was a way to work together to find some place to expand aviation within their metropolitan area, but not in this particular location.
Mr. Ronald Parks, a resident of Lake Jem, noted that he has lived approximately 3,000 feet from the end of the runway since 2004 and stated that he believed they needed a lot more information on their proposed sites and expansion plans before they remove any restrictions.
Mr. James Dinsmore, a resident of the Villages and member of the local Audubon Society, commented that he was not excited about the concept of continuation, but he realizes they have no choice due to the lack of information, and he requested that the Board stipulate to continue the current restrictions on airspace in Lake County until they have more information. He expressed concern about the $150 million that taxpayers have paid to restore Lake Apopka and the North Shore District to make it safe for wildlife, since he believed that the development that is planned for that area would greatly restrict the ability for birds to use that area. He urged the Board to look at the long-term picture of this project, and he opined that it was not the best location for a new airport.
Mr. Richard Smith opined that they were losing sight of the big picture, and he believed that they needed to handle the zoning and the developer’s agreement as one single matter; he did not think that extending the decision would do any good and would deter people from attending more meetings to oppose the rezoning. He pointed out that there was already an industrial park on CR 561 that was not fully built out, with a lot of room for expansion, and another one between Leesburg and Clermont. He concluded that the issue was whether they wanted a jetport in the middle of the Lake Apopka Restoration Area.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Campione asked which of the requirements mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment creating growth centers regarding the West Orange Aviation District, including the preliminary feasibility study by FDOT and FAA which would authorize WOA to proceed with preparation of a final site selection study, have already been fulfilled.
Mr. Wayne Bennett from the Orange County Growth Management Department answered that none have yet been done or fulfilled. He explained that the entitlements for the Long & Scott PD (Planned Development) are split into two groups, one of which is the 750,000 square feet of airport-related uses that could go forward without the full airport master plan process; and all of the rest of the entitlements of the 2.8 million square feet, the 150,000 square feet of office, and the retail are all are tied to the Orange County Board’s approval and adoption of an airport master plan and the inclusion of the specific land use controls related to the airport into Orange County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. He added that the airport conceivably would involve more property and entitlements than just the Long & Scott properties along Jones Road that may be part of that overall program. He pointed out that Lake County’s agreement only deals with the Long & Scott PD, but there will still be the rest of the airport and its entitlements to address at some future point in time.
Commr. Campione clarified that their staff has opined that the current limitations on that airport facility remain intact so that any enforcement issues that come up could be dealt with.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to postpone the rezoning of PH#25-10-3, West Orange Airport Authority, Long & Scott Farms Airstrip for six months.
developer’s agreement for mitigation of IMPACTS FROM LONG &
SCOTT FARMS PROPOSED AVIATION GROWTH CENTER AND PD
Commr. Campione expressed concern that the process regarding the above-mentioned rezoning for the Long and Scott Farms’ Proposed Aviation Growth Center and the developer’s agreement has been so disjointed, with the Board being given bits and pieces of information, and she believed the Board needed to be very clear about what their intent is on this. She asked Mr. Minkoff what would be possible to accept as an exhibit to the Developer’s Agreement which would list the Board’s concerns, such as ecological impacts to the restoration area, water management issues from the standpoint of storage capacity of the North Shore area, and impacts of aviation activities on adjoining property owners.
Mr. Minkoff responded that the agreement can easily be amended with a paragraph stating that it only is intended to deal with transportation and not any other impacts, and the Board reserves the right to deal with those impacts through any legal process that is available.
Mr. Williams stipulated that he did not mind that language being added.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Developer's Agreement for Mitigation of Development Impacts related to Long and Scott Farms' Proposed Aviation Growth Center / Planned Development, including an amendment to the agreement stating that this agreement only deals with transportation and not any other kinds of impacts and a cover letter that will be attached to the agreement to the Orange County Commission stating that the Board is not endorsing the location of a jet airport at that location and wants to have input regarding the development of that area.
rezoning tab 4 – lpa#12/5-1 – protection of shorelines
Mr. Sheahan explained that this item is an amendment to Policy III-2.2.7, Protection of Shorelines, which would eliminate setback requirements for structures on canal lots within the policy, and he pointed out that although setback for structures and impervious surfaces of canals are currently addressed in the LDR’s, this policy change would provide for administrative adjustments and variances where necessary and would also recognize previously approved variances and average setback determinations. He noted that the impetus for this County-initiated amendment was that there were unintended consequences that resulted from strict adherence to a 50-foot setback from canals and 100-foot setback for drain fields from wetlands, which caused previously buildable lots to become unbuildable or substantially reduced the buildable area on that particular lot. He added that the policy also did not address previously-approved variances and average setback determinations, which has already resulted in one applicant who was well along in the development plans requiring a vested rights determination. He stated that the policy currently requires septic tank drain fields to be set back at least 100 feet from all mean high water lines of lakes, wetlands, or jurisdictional wetland lines, including canal shorelines. The policy change would require that they be located as far landward as possible, where they have the least impact on surface water and wetland, be consistent with state law, and use an advanced treatment system when they have to be closer than 50 feet. He related that this would essentially reinstate the policy and procedures that were in existence prior to the approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he recommended approval and that the Planning and Zoning Board also unanimously recommended approval. He clarified that this would just be for transmittal and that it will come back to the Board as soon as they know there are no objections from the state.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment LPA#12/5-1 for Protection of Shorelines.
rezoning tab 5 – lpa 12/5-2 – pine lakes rural support corridor
Mr. Sheahan stated that this was another County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor to include an additional 2.65 acres, and he pointed out that this case is directly related to the rezoning request on Tab 6, which was a request to rezone property from Agriculture to Planned Commercial District.
Mr. Minkoff explained that since this was going to include an ordinance adoption hearing, he would read the title of the proposed ordinance first. He also commented that it was unusual for them to do small scale amendments like this.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP; AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY I-1.4.4 RURAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY TO ALLOW UP TO A 30 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO FOR RURAL SUPPORT USES AS ALLOWED FOR AGRICULTURAL, CIVIC AND RECREATIONAL USES; AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY I-184.108.40.206 RURAL SUPPORT CORRIDORS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMIUMUM BUILDING SIZE FROM 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET FOR RURAL SUPPORT USES AND AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE TABLE FLUE 6 TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL 2.65 +/- ACRES WITHIN THE PINE LAKE RURAL SUPPORT CORRIDOR; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3184(11), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Sheahan explained that this property is located at the northeastern extent of the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor and is the parcel which is subject to this amendment. He noted that this amendment would allow additional development at this location that is enabled by the rural support corridor, and he pointed out that the text amendment which was in the original packet was not restricted to this location, so the Board has been provided with the updated one. He illustrated the location of this property on a map on the monitor, and he mentioned that although this would allow additional space of up to 10,000 square feet on this small-scale property, it would leave the current 5,000 square foot limitation for rural support corridors in place. He stated that it would also allow an additional amount of impervious surface in the Rural Future Land Use Category for this property alone equal to what is allowed for Agricultural Civic and Recreational Uses. He informed the Board that he would go on to describe the rezoning case which is associated with this amendment and have the Board vote on both afterwards.
tab 6 – ph #18-12-5 nicholas magrone/chw, inc.
Mr. Sheahan related that this request, which is related to Tab 5 discussed previously, is to change the zoning from Agriculture (A) on 2.65 acres to Planned Commercial (CP) in the northeastern extent of the Pine Lakes community, which was surrounded by other CP uses, including convenience stores and a vacant furniture store. He explained that the reason for this request is that there are currently no vacant properties available that could support a 9,000 to 10,000 square-foot mercantile establishment within this corridor, since most of the area was platted out into single-family residential lots or consisting of wetlands. He mentioned that the applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan as part of the application, which showed that there would be one entrance off of CR 44, with no egress or ingress from the private road behind the establishment, and the ordinance requires that all existing vegetation that is not within the development footprint remain, resulting in a heavily-wooded site. He noted that staff has waived some of the parking requirements for this site to reduce the impacted area, and there will be an area set aside for pervious parking to reduce the impervious surface ratio. He added that the ordinance also requires that certain design criteria be met for a rustic or country-type design, and the side of the building will be seen from the street. He reported that neighbors and some of the interested parties in this case indicated that they had concerns about lighting, noise, impacts to bears, litter, illumination, and preservation of existing landscaping, but he assured the Board that the ordinance contains conditions that address all of those circumstances. He stated that the applicant has a market study showing that there is a need for this store in this location, and they have received favorable comments from the public as well that this type of store is needed in this community. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this rezoning by a vote of 6-1.
Commr. Campione commented that she has attended three meetings at the community building in the Pine Lakes area to hear the issues and concerns from residents in that area, and she saw a lot of support for this by those who believed there was a real need for retail in this area because of the distances they have to drive to otherwise buy those types of products.
Mr. Guy Parola, representing the applicant, opined that they have worked very hard with the County’s staff, and he stated that he will reserve his time for any questions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Edward Creamer, a resident who lives across the street from this site opined that they do not need another store at that location, since there were already some convenience stores in that area to take care of those needs. He also expressed concern that there will be more trees removed than what was indicated, as well as concern regarding noise, lights, and bears. He concluded that he was against the development of this store.
Mr. Jim Brown, a resident who also lives across from the proposed rezoning site, opined that the residents who have shown support for this store reside in Cassia and Royal Trails and not in the immediate vicinity. He also commented that most of those who signed the petition asking for this development believed they were just signing in to show they were present at the meetings, and he handed the Board another petition signed by residents who were against the rezoning. He pointed out that this plan would change the master plan to be able to put the store at that location, and he opined that this store would not provide the residents of Pine Lakes with any needs that were not currently available in the surrounding businesses. He stated that there was property at the intersection of SR 44 and 437 set aside for this kind of development.
Mr. Charles Averitt, a resident of Pine Lakes who lives near the site, reiterated his concern about water runoff onto his and his daughter’s property that he expressed at the last meeting and opined that 90 percent of the people that attended the meetings at the community center in Cassia who were in favor of this were from Royal Trails or Cassia. He asked whether they should change the master plan for one individual, and he suggested that it be mandated that they put a sound barrier wall behind the store besides the 50-foot tree buffer as well as having the gopher tortoise nests that were on that property moved. He commented that he was strongly against the rezoning.
Mr. Parola clarified that he believes that the water on the site flows to the northeast, resulting in their engineers doing some reworking in order to accommodate the 50-foot undisturbed natural buffer. He explained that this property was chosen because it is contiguous to existing commercial and for the natural buffer that provided distinct barriers between the store and residential. He pointed out that post-runoff of the water cannot exceed pre-runoff, and they realize that they would have to rectify any problems that exist on the site. He also mentioned that it was their understanding that Florida Avenue was dedicated to the County, which did not accept it and maintains no responsibility of it. He pointed out that they were adding more buffer than he has ever seen for a 9,000 square-foot building. He indicated that they would undertake a noise impact study if it was in the County’s Land Development Code, and he emphasized that the store would not be open 24 hours, with most of their clients in and out of the store within ten minutes. He opined that they have demonstrated that they are willing to do what was necessary to ease any misunderstandings or concerns of the residents.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Rezoning Tab 5, Ordinance No. 2012-32, for the Pine Lakes Rural Support Corridor Amendment for LPA#12/5-2, which is a County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Small Scale Map and Text Amendment.
Commr. Campione commented that she believed that the consumers who need the variety of goods and who otherwise would have to travel far to get them would benefit from this business and that it will also create jobs.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Rezoning Case PH#18-12-5, Nicholas B. Magrone/CHW, Inc., Magrone Property, which was a request to rezone 2.65 acres from A to CP for commercial development, and Ordinance No. 2012-37.
presentation by st. johns river water management district
Mr. Robert Christianson, Director of the Division of Operations and Land Resources with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), stated that he will give a status report and power point presentation on a project they were undertaking which deals with ownership of land by SJRWMD, explaining that they have been acquiring property for about 35 years for water-related resource protection. He illustrated on pie charts the total dollars spent, which was over $1 billion of taxpayer money, and total acres acquired of over 700,000 acres, as well as the sources of those acquisitions, most of which was state funding, and he pointed out that less than five percent of the funding for those lands has come from ad valorem tax dollars. A chart was presented which showed within what counties that land was located, including 25,846 acres in Lake County, 200 of which they had joint ownership with the County. He commented that the SJRWMD was trying to decide if there were any portions of the properties that they do not still need, and there was a specific process for disposition of any surplus properties, including appraisal and determination of the sales price and a super-majority vote of their board for conservation lands. He pointed out that the revenue they receive by selling the property could only be used to acquire more lands in order to improve their inventory. He gave some statutory guidelines for how they needed to manage the properties and the types of uses that are authorized, such as sustainable agriculture, water resources, and especially general recreation; and he mentioned that a little over 10 percent of the land was leased out for revenue-generating activity such as cattle leases, which make up about 20 percent of their land-management budget.
Mr. Christianson related that the second question they had been pondering is whether they should pursue alternative uses for the properties, and they were currently in the process of assessing that and whether the SJRWMD still needs each property. He indicated that they wanted public and partnership involvement in that process, were planning on having a series of four public meetings throughout their district in June and July, and the County was invited to participate to the extent that they wished. He commented that they were taking a very scientific and resource-based approach to understand the importance of each property to the district and whether any were surplus. He mentioned that they have set up a page on their website that describes this process, including the dates and locations of the meetings.
appointments to children’s services council
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board reappointed Debbie Thomas (District 3), B. E. Thompson (District 4), and Jack Holder (at-large member) to the Children's Services Council to serve two-year terms ending May 14, 2014.
Commr. Conner mentioned that there were more people seeking an appointment than there were vacancies at this time, but they were going to try to get Ms. Julie Yandell back on this committee in about a month through a change in policy.
Mr. Gray elaborated that staff was processing an amendment which would allow a citizen in any other district to fill a vacant position if there is no one for that district.
appointment to affordable housing advisory committee
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Kent Adcock as Resident who is designated as an advocate for low-income persons in connection with affordable housing to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to serve the remainder of an unexpired two-year term ending November 30, 2012 and an additional two-year term ending November 30, 2014; and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2012-60.
reports – county attorney
lease to triangle boat club
Mr. Minkoff related that the County owns a small piece of property near the Dead River Bridge that for a long time has been leased to the Triangle Boat Club, which has been prohibited by the lease from using the property for commercial purposes. However, he asked the Board to give approval to authorize the club to let a tour operator temporarily store his boat during construction of the Dora Canal Bridge this summer, since he will not be able to get his boat through the canal during that time. He recommended giving approval to the club for the tour boat operator to keep his boat there during that time, noting that it should be for less than 60 days, and he assured the Board that appropriate protections will be made regarding insurance.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board gave approval to allow the Triangle Boat Club to do that.
reports – county manager
approval of vacated positions
Mr. Gray reported that last week he had received two resignations for positions that were critical that he would like to start recruiting for. He asked for approval to recruit for the Program Analyst position in their Economic Development and Tourism Department and a Fleet Mechanic I position, which is for work on all of their fire trucks and apparatus.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved recruitment for those positions.
economic development presentations
Mr. Gray recapped that the Board had asked him to do an economic development presentation called A Year in Review in each of the three micro-region areas, and he informed the Board that the dates for those were June 7 at 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. for the northeast region at the Eustis Community Center; June 13 at 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. at Venetian Gardens for the northwest region; and June 8 at 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. for the South Lake region at Minneola City Hall.
Commr. Campione pointed out that Workforce Central Florida reported that the County’s unemployment numbers were down.
commissioner hill – vice chairman and district 1
questions from citizens regarding impact fees
Commr. Hill relayed that citizens have been asking her questions regarding impact fees, such as how the County would incorporate the transportation dollars and what they would do in the future regarding impact fees. She asked whether the Capital Facilities Advisory Committee (CFAC) was still currently meeting.
Commr. Campione responded that the CFAC had their first meeting last week, with impact fees being one of their main topics.
comprehensive plan process
Commr. Hill related that there were still many people who chose to postpone their development requests until after the Comprehensive Plan was completed, were not part of the settlement agreements, and wanted to know the process and how to come back with that.
Mr. Gray responded that they have already approved the schedule, and they just need to contact Mr. Sheahan or the Growth Management Department.
Commr. Campione elaborated that they have already given authorization for staff to work on the ones that the Board had already looked at but kicked back procedurally and bring those forward, but the applicants will have to start the process if they do not fit in that category.
commissioner parks – district 2
meeting regarding us hwy 27 and sr 50 interchange
Commr. Parks commented that he attended a constructive meeting with FDOT, County staff, the MPO (Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization), and the City of Clermont last Friday, May 18, regarding the interchange of US Hwy 27 and SR 50, which resulted in a good resolution to the issue of directing eastbound traffic on Hooks Street to resolve issues such as long delays in the evening.
new requirements regarding sand skinks
Commr. Parks discussed the resolution that the Board approved expressing concern about the new requirements regarding sand skinks which could delay a development project up to one year and result in unclear, inconsistent, and costly mitigation; and he noted that parcels of land above 92 feet are affected, which is most of South Lake County, as well as those with highly permeable soil, which describes most of the County. He specified that there have been developers of small-scale projects in South Lake along urban corridors whose projects are being delayed significantly, and although there is only so much the County could do since these regulations come from the United States Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Act, he asked the Board to add this as a top priority to their legislative agenda and allow him to work with staff on an expedited permitting system, especially for the projects along SR 50.
Commr. Cadwell noted that they were looking at a county-wide master conservation plan so that developers would not have to get that individually done to mitigate those things.
Mr. Gray responded that they have an update regarding that scheduled for the last meeting in June.
cfac committee meeting
Commr. Parks reported that the CFAC met last Thursday, May 17, and was focusing on the education component at this point, and there would be a lot of staff presentations initially from the School Board, such as how they deal with funding for schools, what the budget issues were, and what they want to do with impact fees.
Commr. Campione requested that the Board be informed about the meeting dates, and she indicated that she would be especially interested in hearing an overview of the School Board’s capital funding.
Mr. Gray reported that the presentation of the road program when staff will go over all of the CFAC recommendations is scheduled for August 14.
commissioner conner – district 3
league of cities meeting
Commr. Conner related that he attended the League of Cities meeting as the liaison, and he pointed out the disparity in tax values from city to city, with the Town of Montverde and the City of Mount Dora doing well.
commissioner cadwell – district 5
red light issue on cr 466 resolved
Commr. Cadwell reported that Public Works staff handled a red light issue on CR 466 and came up with a good solution for that problem.
Commissioner Campione – chairman and district 4
proclamation for lake community action agency month
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2012-56 recognizing the month of May as Lake Community Action Agency Month.
cleanup event in Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area
Commr. Campione mentioned the cleanup event in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area last weekend, and displayed a flyer advertising the event that had been put up in the library and local businesses, as well as mailed out to residents immediately adjacent to the park area notifying them of the event. She opined that the event was a huge success with a good turnout.
Mr. Stivender specified that 30 tons of material were hauled away last weekend.
wild and scenic river management plan dedication
Commr. Campione related that last week she attended the Wild and Scenic River Management Plan dedication for protecting the Wekiva River, which was a great event, and she mentioned that she had sent some of the information presented at that event to Mr. Gray to forward to the Board regarding some of the issues that were raised, such as septic tank issues, that will be discussed in the future.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
leslie campione, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK