A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
August 22, 2017
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 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: Timothy I. Sullivan, Chairman; Leslie Campione, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Wendy Breeden; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jeff Cole, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk of Court; Kristy Mullane, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Angela Harrold, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Pastor John Blake of the Good News Church in Leesburg gave the Invocation and Commissioner Sullivan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda update
Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, commented that he had no changes to the agenda.
Commr. Sullivan moved Tab 28, Public Hearings for Rezoning Cases, up in the agenda to take place prior to Tab 25 because there was a large number of residents in attendance who were there to speak about two of the rezoning cases.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 11, 2017 (Regular Meeting) and July 25, 2017 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Vance Jochim, a writer on local governmental issues, stated that he felt the Board should require more detailed presentations and deliverables for contract vendors such as the lobbyist group, Gray Robinson P.A. He opined that payment to these contract vendors should only be made if the deliverables are met.
Commr. Campione noted that it was important to point out that the agenda would be very large if all of the vendor detail was included. She stated that in many instances it is difficult to put a cap on an amount paid to a vender such as the lobbyist or special magistrates. She explained that doing so would be unfair to property owners because those are proceedings that determine their rights and that should not have a cost limit. She explained further that County staff has a record of the amount of time the lobbyists spent working towards the goals of the Board and based on previous years, they are aware of the correct costs. She commented that the Board had reason to believe that the new contract cost was a better value because of that. She pointed out that the lobbyists meet with legislators year round and the Board has the ability to reevaluate the cost if the firm is not fulfilling the requirements. She added that the County sees direct benefits from the work that they do.
Commr. Blake noted that the expense to the lobbyists was $50,000 in FY 2017 and the County saw a benefit of $10,000,000 back in State appropriations.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that the item being considered in the consent agenda was an amendment to the contract and the original agreement included a two page scope of services requirement that outlined what needed to be accomplished.
Commr. Sullivan pointed out that the original lobbyist agreement is a “professional services” contract, which is different from a typical vendor agreement and he stated that the Commission watches the budget thoroughly.
Ms. Nancy Madden stated that she had been to visit Lake Hiawatha Park in the City of Clermont after seeing residents ask for help to preserve and protect the park from the addition of a new boat ramp that would lead to dredging and increased boater activity. She explained that she had attended the city council meeting in Clermont where the issue was discussed and she opined that the reasons behind moving the boat ramp to Lake Hiawatha Park did not make sense. She encouraged the Board to get involved on behalf of the residents to help with the situation.
Mr. Cole reported that County staff had attended the city council meeting in Clermont as well and staff had conveyed the Board’s interest in being involved in the decision making. He noted that there was a meeting to take place between himself and the Clermont City Manager.
Commr. Parks reported that he reached out to the Clermont City Council members as well and emphasized that the Board could assist them in finding a solution; however, there were still issues with the grant.
Commr. Breeden asked if the work had begun on the road for that area.
Commr. Parks replied that the road work had to have the Board’s approval before starting.
special guest from east ridge high school
Commr. Parks introduced Ms. Keira English, a senior high school student from East Ridge High School, who had reached out to him to learn about local government and she was in attendance to learn how a board meeting was run. He explained that over the summer she was exploring different careers in architecture and he opined that it was impressive. He stated that he wanted to celebrate the students in the community who were working hard and achieving success.
proclamation – constitution week
Commr. Sullivan read Proclamation 2017-84 declaring September 17 through 23, 2017 as Constitution Week and presented it to a member of the local Daughters of the American Revolution chapter.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2017-84 representing Constitution Week.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, 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.
City of Tavares – Ordinance 2017-08
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance 2017-08 from the City of Tavares amending the boundaries of the City by annexing approximately 25.35 acres of land generally located north of Lane Park Road west of Camp Road and rezoning said property from Lake County Agricultural (A) to City of Tavares Wetlands Preservation Area (WPA).
Environmental Review Revision – Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project from the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Florida Gas Transmission Company LLC, Docket No. CP17-79-000.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through Tab 24, as follows:
Community Services
Request approval of the update to the Lake County Transit Division Title VI Plan, which includes a Limited English Proficiency Plan, and supporting resolution. There is no fiscal impact.
Request approval to submit the FY 2017-2018 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care Competition program grant to assist homeless families. The fiscal impact is $97,857.00 (100% Grant funded).
County Attorney
Request approval of Resolution 2017-100 instituting Eminent Domain proceedings for acquisition of property needed for the CR 466A Road Project (Phase 3A), and approval to proceed with pre-suit negotiation offer. The fiscal impact is not determinable at this time.
Request approval to award contracts 17-0018, to Bowen, Schroth, Mazenko & Broome, P.A. (Eustis); GrayRobinson, P.A. (Orlando); Shuffield, Lowman & Wilson, P.A. (Tavares); and Vose Law Firm, LLP (Winter Park), to serve as special magistrates to conduct proceedings and render non-binding recommendations regarding land use and environmental disputes in accordance with the procedures listed in the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, and the County's Land Development Regulations. This is a new contract and fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.
Request approval to advertise an ordinance amending Section 14-35, Lake County Code, pertaining to activities that are prohibited due to the excessive noise they generate and restricting the hours during which certain residential construction activities that generate noise may take place. There is no fiscal impact.
Request approval to accept Offers to Purchase on the following County-owned properties: Alternate Keys 1602238, 3304560, and 3866121; request approval to award bid to the highest bidder to purchase Alternate Key 1461979; and approval for Chairman to execute any necessary closing documents. The fiscal impact is $7,376.00.
County Manager
Request approval of 2018 Board of County Commission meeting dates as follows: January 9 and 23, February 13 and 27, March 13 and 27, April 10 and 24, May 8 and 22, June 5 and 19, July 10 and 24, August 7 and 21, September 11 and 25, October 9 and 23, November 6 and 20, December 4 and 18.
Request approval of amendment to the agreement between Lake County and Gray Robinson, P.A. for lobbying services. The annual fiscal impact is $60,000.00 (expenditure).
Economic Growth
Request approval of funding agreements with the cities of Mount Dora, Eustis, Clermont, and Leesburg, and the Florida Disc Golf Foundation for the design, construction and maintenance of five championship level, 18-hole disc golf courses that will comprise the Lake County Disc Golf Trail, as well as approval for staff to make any necessary budget transfers. The fiscal impact is not to exceed $150,000.00 for design and construction (TDT expenditure), and not to exceed $7,000.00 annually for maintenance (TDT expenditure). Commission Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5
Facilities Development and Management
Request approval to award contract 17-0234 to provide, install and support security cameras at the County Administration Building to Commercial Systems Group (Orlando). The contract includes an option to purchase additional systems on an as-needed basis during the initial term of the contract. The fiscal impact for the full term of the contract is $17,860.00 (expenditure). Commission District 3
Fiscal and Administrative Services
Request approval to declare the items on the attached list surplus to County needs, authorize the removal of all of the items on the attached list from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records, and authorize the Procurement Manager to execute any required title documents.
Request approval of Veterans Treatment Intervention Programs Agreement. The estimated fiscal impact for FY 2017 is $4,600.00 (revenue). The estimated fiscal impact for FY 2018 is $42,235.00 (revenue).
Public Resources
Request approval of contract 17-0819 to Advanced Commercial Contractors, Inc. (Eustis, FL) to provide and install a storage building with overhang and driveway at the Minneola Athletic Complex, Minneola, FL. This contract is a firm fixed price arrangement with a fiscal impact of $111,621.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2
Public Safety
Request approval of the T-Mobile Structure Lease Agreement for co-location of a communications device on a County tower located in South Lake County (Fire Station 112). The FY 2018 fiscal impact is $33,000.00 (revenue). Commission District 1
Public Works
Request approval of Resolution 2017-101 extending the golf cart community within the Astor Forest Campsites Neighborhood to include a segment of Blue Creek Road (9787A) as appropriate for the operation of golf carts. The fiscal impact is $55.00. Commission District 5
Request approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement with the City of Leesburg. The fiscal impact is $149,628.90 (revenue). Commission Districts 1 and 3
Request approval of Resolution 2017-102 authorizing the reduction of the speed limits on portions of Thrill Hill Road (5880), Windy Hill Drive (6279), North Thrill Hill Road (6280), and East Eldorado Lake Drive (6480), in the Eustis area. The fiscal impact is approximately $320.00. Commission District 4
Request approval to apply for a fiscal year 2018 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) grant for FWC to purchase 864 bear-resistant garbage carts on behalf of Lake County for deployment to Lake County residents per the Board-approved fee schedule, and approval to purchase additional carts using $34,560.00 in funds to be collected from cart deployment. The fiscal impact is $34,560.00 (revenue/expenditure).
Request approval of the final plat for Pineland subdivision, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Pineland final plat; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements Between Lake County and Ladd Development, Inc.; accept a check of $3,500.00 for maintenance of improvements; and execute Resolution 2017-103 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Mercado Court “Part” (County Road No. 0833A). The fiscal impact is $1,115.00, which represents the final plat application review fee for the Public Works Department (revenue). Commission District 1
Request approval of the final plat for Serenoa Village 1 Phase 1A1 subdivision, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Serenoa Village 1 Phase 1A1 final plat; execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and VK Avalon Groves, LLC; and accept a performance bond of $762,019.62. The fiscal impact is $1,115.00, which represents the final plat application fee for the Public Works Department (revenue). Commission District 1
Request approval of contract 17-0431, Traffic Sign Materials, to eleven (11) vendors, and authorize Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $225,000.00.
public hearings: REZONING
rezoning consent agenda
Mr. Tim McClendon, Planning and Zoning Manager, Economic Growth Department, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor and noted that Tabs 1 through 4 on the Rezoning Consent Agenda were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 2, 2017. He requested that the Board approve the Rezoning Consent Agenda consisting of Tabs 1 through 4.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 4, as follows:
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2017-24
Rezoning Case # RZ-17-07-3
Takvorian Properties Rezoning
Rezone property from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Urban Residential (R-6).
Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2017-25
Rezoning Case # RZ-17-09-4
Heirloom Property CP Rezoning
Amend Planned Commercial (CP Ordinance #73-91 to include Caretaker’s Residence as a permitted use on the subject property
Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2017-26
Rezoning Case # RZ-17-10-1
South Lake Regional Park CFD Rezoning
Rezone property identified as AK # 1103231 from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to facilitate the development of the South Lake Regional Park.
Tab 4 Ordinance No. 2017-27
Rezoning Case # FLU-17-07-5
USA Aviation Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) on approximately 7.79 acres, located east of Mikasuki Train and south of Maggie Jones Road in the Eustis area from the Conservation Future Land Use Category (FLUC) to the Rural FLUC.
rezoning agenda
Tab 5
Rezoning Case # CUP-17-04-5
Williams Truck Yard CUP
Allow a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a truck yard for citrus and produce truck transporting operation on approximately 5.07 acres of agriculturally zoned land, located at 19211 East Altoona Road, in Altoona.
Mr. McClendon reviewed Tab 5, Case Number CUP-17-04-5, for Williams Truck Yard located at 19211 East Altoona Road, Altoona and stated the property was approximately 5.07 acres and the applicant was requesting a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) to allow a truck yard for a citrus and produce truck transporting operation. He explained that the Future Land Use designation was considered rural and agricultural. He reported that staff analysis stated that the small scale trucking operation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs (Land Development Regulations.) He noted that the applicant applied for the CUP due to a code violation he received because he was already parking the trucks on the site. He pointed out that to offset any potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighbors, staff had included a list of conditions that consisted of limiting the total number of trips per month to 10, which equated to only five trucks per month using East Altoona Road to access the property, they could only access the property during the hours of operation, which would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and there could be no commercial repairs or maintenance on site. He reported that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting that took place on August 2, 2017, a number of neighbors were in attendance to speak out against the rezoning and submitted a letter of opposition. He explained that the Planning and Zoning Board made a motion to approve the rezoning but the motion was denied. He stated that there was not an official recommendation suggested by the Planning and Zoning Board so staff was requesting either an approval with the conditions listed or a denial from the Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Shelly Jeckiniak, a resident of Umatilla, spoke on behalf of her parents who live on East Altoona Road, next door to the truck yard property. She explained that her parents were elderly and had been disrupted daily by smells from burning that had taken place on the property as well as noise. She stated that her parents go out to lunch and will be away from their home for much of the day to stay away from the disruption that they have had to endure. She reported that it had been a peaceful area to live in until recently and she was concerned for her parents if the property was rezoned.
Mr. Robert McWhorter, a resident of Altoona, stated that he lives on the property that adjoins the applicant’s to the north and he reported that since the applicant had moved in, there had been many disruptions. He explained that the road way was not large enough to handle the large trucks moving up and down it. He alleged that the applicant had continued to violate codes and brought a truck in on a Sunday. He stated that the applicant had burned tires on the property and the fire department had come to the property to put the fires out. He pointed out that on the applicant’s business Facebook page there had been advertisements for repair and mechanic work to be done on the property and he added that there had been oil drums on the property so he speculated oil changes were taking place and well as other mechanical repairs. He opined that he did not want the neighborhood to go from residential to a commercial neighborhood and he felt having the truck yard in the neighborhood would negatively impact the home values.
Ms. Ann Ingram, a resident of Altoona, stated that she had moved to East Altoona Road in 1988 and stated that she felt the rezoning would bring her property value down. She was worried about this because she had been planning to sell her 10 acre property. She explained that having a truck yard in her neighborhood also concerned her because she, as well as many other neighbors, had horses on their properties. She commented that they rode the horses down the road and the horses could get spooked with a semi-truck using the road. She opined that it would deteriorate the neighborhood and noted that there were other places already zoned for that type of activity that the applicant could use to park the trailers.
Ms. P. Chassie, a resident of Altoona, commented that it was a residential rural area and encouraged the Board to think about whether or not they would want to live next to a truck yard. She stated that she was concerned that if the applicant was able to conduct business in the neighborhood that would lead to other businesses coming in.
Mr. Duane Booth, an engineer from Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott, Inc. and representing the applicant, stated that there were residents in Lake County that he knew who parked their trucks on their property and come and go daily. He explained that the applicant had a rental property where two of his trucks were stolen from so he bought the property in Altoona to build his home and to park his trucks where they could be monitored. He noted that the applicant’s business was over the road trucking. If there is a driver available the truck is signed out to that driver and the driver takes the truck home, which meant the only time a truck would be parked on the property would be if there was not an available driver. He commented that the request was for ten trucks a month because they were not a daily operation but instead a temporary storage site of the trucks. He explained that the trucks on the site were not loaded and the refrigerator systems were not running. He noted that the request does not include maintenance of the vehicles and the applicant was not operating a repair shop. He pointed out that the applicant had been clearing the brush and the debris from the yard and he did receive permits for the burning of the debris. He added that each time the fire department was called they investigated and let the applicant restart the fires due to his permits. He reiterated that the applicant’s request was for storage of the trucks only and that it was not a large scale trucking operation. He reported that the applicant saw trucks from other businesses in the area utilizing the road as well.
Mr. Chris Williams, the applicant and owner of Williams Truck Yard, reported that the previous day he had been working on the property and allegedly witnessed four different trucks drive down East Altoona Road. He explained that there were four different businesses that operate in the area and that utilize the road. He opined that this was a personal issue and not due to the trucks. He stated that the petition had forty-two signatures on it but there were not that many people that live in the area so he felt that the neighbors were seeking out other opposition to the truck yard. He remarked that he would not be bringing a large amount of traffic to the road. He addressed the mechanic shop allegation by explaining that there had been an old truck rear end on the property that was there temporarily and then moved to storage and it was not being serviced on the property. He explained that the only repairs being done on the property were to his personal vehicles and to the tractors and mowers that maintain the property. He reported that based on resident input that came from the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, he put up green fabric around his property so he would not disturb his neighbors.
Mr. Booth stated that he wanted to make clear that the request was for 10 trips per month and that would be less than what he would be allowed as an individual resident. He noted that the applicant would not be performing commercial maintenance or repair on the property.
Commr. Blake stated he was concerned over the structural integrity of the road and pointed out that the applicant had advertised commercial mechanical repair on his business’s Facebook page.
Mr. Williams replied that the advertisement for repair had been at his old shop in Tavares in an industrial park and he would take the advertisement down since it was not relevant any longer. He commented that when the trucks drive down the road they would not be loaded and would not further deteriorate the road.
Commr. Parks noted that while the applicant should be able to maintain his personal equipment, it needed to be clear in the conditions that he was not able to perform commercial maintenance on his trucks or any type of retail maintenance.
Mr. Booth replied that it was agreeable with the applicant to amend the language in the conditions to include no commercial maintenance or retail sales of maintenance are allowed to be conducted on the property.
Commr. Blake asked if a noise study had been completed.
Mr. Booth replied that a noise study had not been completed yet but if it came back with an unfavorable report once it had been conducted, then the applicant would do what was necessary to mitigate the noise to the surrounding residents.
Commr. Campione pointed out that most of the noise would be up and down the road and wondered how that would be mitigated. She noted that the condition stated that the trucks would be limited to carrying citrus and produce cargo and asked if there would be a time when it would be possible that the trucks would be carrying cargo.
Mr. Williams replied that the trucks would be empty of cargo and that he would agree to the condition being amended to state that there would be no cargo at all.
Commr. Campione asked if the applicant lived on the property.
Mr. Williams responded that his intent was to build a home and live on the five acre property with the trucks because his current property was too small to keep them on it.
Commr. Campione asked when the code enforcement citation had been given.
Mr. Williams stated that he was unsure of when the code enforcement citation was given but it came after equipment was placed there. He explained that at the time he received it, he was unsure about how many trucks he could have on the property. He noted that he asked what he needed to do to clear the violation and it was suggested to him that he apply for the CUP.
Commr. Campione asked how many trucks an individual could park on a property without the CUP zoning.
Mr. McClendon responded that the only permitted use of a truck yard in the agricultural zoning district would be for a citrus and produce trucking operation and only five trucks were allowed to be parked on the property to accommodate that.
Commr. Campione asked if private individuals were allowed to park their trucks on their own property.
Ms. Marsh clarified that the code enforcement case for Williams Truck Yard was opened in January 2017 and she responded that private individuals are able to park semi-trucks on their property as long as the vehicle is used by the resident of the lot or parcel. She added that there can only be one vehicle parked per five acres and cannot exceed 12,000 pounds. She pointed out that the applicant owns 5.07 acres.
Commr. Breeden asked if the code enforcement case pertained only to the trailers that were parked on the property or were there other issues involved.
Ms. Marsh responded that the original violation was for running a trucking business on the property.
Commr. Blake commented that there seemed to be older buildings on the property and wondered what the property had been used for previously.
Mr. Williams replied that there were no structures on the property when he purchased it but there were building remnants from a house and mobile home that were no longer there.
Commr. Blake clarified that the metal buildings currently on the property were placed there by the applicant.
Commr. Breeden asked if the buildings were constructed with corrugated metal and if the applicant had permits to construct them because she was looking at a structure in a photo that she felt code enforcement would not allow.
Mr. Williams replied that it was a 40 foot by 50 foot corrugated metal building and he did have a permit for its construction. He clarified that the image of the building in question was not on his property. He pointed out that his building was green and white and that was the only one currently there.
Commr. Breeden asked the applicant if he brought equipment he used elsewhere to that property to repair.
Mr. Williams replied that he did bring his personal mower and tractor back and forth between his two properties to maintain them.
Mr. John Chassie, a resident of Altoona, alleged that on the previous Sunday he saw stock trailers on the property that transport animals and livestock and as he passed one on the road, he had to pull over to let it through. He reported that he has lived in the area for two years and that it has always been scenic and peaceful throughout the area. He opined that if the trucks were able to utilize the road then that would hurt the peacefulness and beauty of the neighborhood. He expressed that he was concerned that the conditions that were listed in the ordinance would not be kept to by the applicant. He stated that there were other residents that have trucks on the road for their businesses as well as packages being delivered and trucks that are going to a residential construction site; however, he pointed out that these were items of a residential nature and not a trucking operation that would be ongoing. He reported that there are many neighbors that have horses right around the applicant’s property, including him, and they often ride their horses on the dirt road.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this rezoning case, the Chairman closed the public comment.
Commr. Sullivan read the conditions to the ordinance.
Mr. McClendon pointed out that one of the conditions was for no repair or maintenance of commercial vehicles.
Commr. Parks clarified that the condition would mean that no repair to any vehicles as a business would be allowed on the property.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the LDR stated that only truck yards for citrus and produce transporting operations were allowed in the agricultural district and she stated that she got the impression from the photographs that this was not citrus and produce. She stated that while she felt it was a legitimate business, it did not fit under the agricultural zoning district and she opined that essentially placing a truck yard in a residential neighborhood did not seem fair to the residents. She also felt that it seemed like the type of situation that the code enforcement team would have to spend a lot of time monitoring. She pointed out that if the citrus and produce cargo were taken out of the conditions, then it negated what the code provision was being put in place to do.
Mr. Williams noted that the reefer trailers that were kept on the property were for hauling blueberries from the local farms around the county.
Commr. Campione asked if the drivers park their car on the property, take the trucks to haul the cargo, then come back to park the truck back on the property and then leave.
Mr. Williams replied that the trucks typically went home with the drivers and the trucks were only parked there if there was not a driver assigned to the truck at the time. He stated that several of the businesses that are operated in the area had more than one truck and he opined that he would have less of an impact than those businesses.
Commr. Parks asked when the noise study would be submitted.
Mr. McClendon responded that the first step was to get an approval on the proposed CUP and then the applicant would need to submit a site plan with a noise study. He explained that if there was detected noise, it would need to be mitigated by the applicant.
Commr. Breeden wondered if there was way to have the applicant clear up the code enforcement issue prior to the CUP approval.
Mr. McClendon stated that the CUP approval was needed in order to clear up the code enforcement issue.
Mr. Glen Guzman, Lake County Code Enforcement, stated that the code enforcement case was started in January 2017 and the way to meet the compliance of the code violation was to have the proposed CUP approved and put in place. He added that if the CUP was not allowed, the Code Enforcement Department would then proceed with their case against the applicant to have the trucks removed.
Commr. Campione wondered if the company hauled cargo other than agricultural.
Mr. Williams replied that his trucks were for agricultural purposes only.
Commr. Blake stated that he respected the business; however, he was concerned about the road stability and the Facebook advertisement for repair work and maintenance being done on the property.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Case Number CUP-17-04-5, for Williams Truck Yard located at 19211 East Altoona Road, Altoona.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:23 a.m. for 15 minutes.
rezoning agenda
Tab 6 Ordinance No. 2017-38
Rezoning Case # RZ-17-12-2
Anderson Hill CP Amendment
Remove acreage from existing CP (Planned Commercial) zoning district (Ordinance 2004-07) and create a new CP Ordinance for the removed acreage.
Mr. McClendon reviewed Rezoning Case No. RZ-17-12-2, regarding the Anderson Hill CP (Planned Commercial) Amendment, and noted that the applicant was requesting to remove acreage from CP Ordinance 2004-07 and to allow for an amended list of permitted uses on the removed acreage to include general retail sales. He pointed out that the subject property was located in a major commercial corridor located on the west side of U.S. 27, north of the intersection of US 27 and Anderson Hill Road, and the property was currently developed and was approximately 1.55 acres. He stated that the application was consistent with the CUP (Comprehensive Use Plan) and LDRs (Land Development Regulations.) He pointed out that the subject property and the property to the south were part of an annexation application that was currently under review in the City of Clermont. The properties were contiguous to the city limits and Clermont stated that the city would provide utilities to the properties. He reported that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the requested action and he requested that the Board accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with the modified conditions as follows: deliveries to the retail space cannot take place before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m., and the applicant was to construct a masonry wall on the western boundary of the property within 12 months of the proposed ordinance adoption.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecilia Bonifay, an attorney with Ackerman, LLP and representing the client, stated that it was a small piece of the larger property with direct access on to US 27 and there was a current structure on the property. She explained that the structure had previously been used as a gym and an automobile and watercraft sales and repair business. She stated the owner and applicant would like to expand the allowable uses to include general retail sales to allow for a carpet and tile business. She commented that the property had been a part of a previous annexation application; however, there were several questions pertaining to that particular application so the applicant withdrew the request, met with the area neighbors to modify it and recently refiled. She stated that the subject property was before the Board because the applicant had a tenant interested in the space; however, the tenant’s business did not fall under the allowable uses so the request was to add “general retail” as an allowable use. She added that the subject property would later be integrated into the larger property if approved in the City of Clermont. She reiterated that the current request was only to add “general retail” to the list of allowable uses for the subject property so that a tenant could utilize the space. She noted that the applicant had added constructing a wall separating the subject property and the neighborhood as well as adding the limitation of delivery hours to mitigate noise.
Mr. Quint Roberts, from Anderson Hill DLSU, LLC and also owner and developer of the property, reported that the property had been purchased with a 9,000 square foot building already on it and they had been marketing the building space for use. He stated that they had interest from a carpet and tile store owner for the building but in order for the carpet and tile store to utilize the space, the zoning needed to allow for general retail use because it was currently only zoned for automobile and watercraft sales and repairs and gym uses. He noted that he wanted to mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding neighbors by installing a masonry wall to address light and noise from the retail space. They also agreed to limit waste pick up and deliveries to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. He pointed out that the request was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board as well as by staff.
Commr. Parks clarified that the business that wanted to go into the building space on the subject property was a carpet and tile business.
Commr. Campione asked the status of the current annexation application with the City of Clermont.
Ms. Bonifay replied that the annexation application was submitted at the end of July 2017, and the hearings could take place in September 2017, and possibly continue into October 2017. She noted that the request for adding general retail to the allowable uses for the subject property was submitted to the County after the annexation application was submitted to Clermont.
Mr. Peter Pensa, Director of Planning at the AVID Group who were the applicant’s planners and engineers for the project, stated that they added the provision of installing a small masonry wall within 12 months of the request because if the annexation application was approved in Clermont, a larger wall would be installed as part of a condition on that project; however, if the annexation application was not approved, this ensured a small masonry wall would still be installed on the subject property. He noted that that outdoor storage or displays and restaurants would not be allowed in the space unless it was approved by the Board in a separate request.
Ms. Pat Colvin, a resident of the area, represented Mr. Fernando Mateo, who lives directly behind the subject property, and she read a letter from him that voiced his concerns. She read from the letter that when the property was purchased there was a reasonable expectation that the new owner should have known the set uses of the subject property. She explained that he was not against the property being repurposed but felt having it zoned as general retail use would result in late truck delivery, additional noise and could lead to the potential of increased crime in the area. He asked in the letter that the Board consider the residents’ concerns when deciding. She asked why the use could not be specifically defined as a flooring or carpet and tile usage.
Ms. Carol Colvin, a resident of the area, pointed out that the people who live in the area are Lake County residents and not residents of the City of Clermont. She felt the change in ordinance would be a detriment to the residents. She stated that if the lease contract was not completed or renewed by the carpet and tile store then any retail business could move in there without limitations on operating hours. She opined that without set limitations an out of town developer had free reign and that could have a negative impact on the area residents. She stated she was also concerned about the noise level of delivery and garbage trucks and increased traffic. She felt that neighbors who work during the day would be disturbed by the noise and lighting from the development in the evenings. She pointed out the potential for an increase in crime was a major concern to her. She reported that she had received the public meeting notifications from the City of Clermont in regards to the annexation application and those meetings were to be held September 11, 2017, and September 26, 2017.
Mr. Scott Wheeler, an area resident, stated that he felt there were unaddressed issues within the application. He stated that approving the request would lead to additional demands on public facilities and have impact on roads, police, drainage etc. He pointed out that within the application it was noted that the proposed rezoning should not be in conflict with public interest and he stated that the applicant did not provide evidence how it would not conflict. He felt that the public interest should have been investigated. He stated that the owner did not provide information on the development’s effect on neighborhood property values. He opined that because the applicant did not address the issues noted by the County in the application, that it was not a complete document and until it was cleaned up and comprehensive he felt the Board should not approve it.
Mr. Charles Russ, a resident of the area, stated that approving the request would set a precedent because it was a broad term and wondered about how it would keep other retail businesses from moving into the space. He specifically noted his concern over a medical marijuana retail business being able to move in to the area. He commented that the Board should wait to approve or deny the request until Clermont made a decision on the annexation application. He stated that he wanted a more specific retail name under the allowable uses.
Mr. Tim Srodes, a resident of the area, requested that the Board and staff converse with Clermont so that it was approached holistically. He stated that he would like to see the allowable use be specific to carpet and tiles sales instead of general retail use and he wanted hours of operation to be added as well. He commented that it keeps being called a commercial corridor; however, he opined that this was different from the other commercial developments in the area because this property abutted residential properties. He noted that he wanted to keep the neighborhood safe and that he had major concerns over additional traffic on Anderson Hill Road.
Ms. Jennifer Cotch, a resident of the area, explained that she and her neighbors had asked for help several months prior regarding the annexation application that the applicant submitted to the City of Clermont. She noted that the Board had voted unanimously to send a letter to the City raising concerns about the annexation and afterwards the applicant withdrew the application. She opined that the new application contained the same issues and she encouraged the Board to reissue an updated letter that mimicked the old letter. She stated that she was concerned about the road safety since Anderson Hill Road allows for drivers to easily cut through at high speeds and there are no sidewalks, curbs or gutters. She asked that the current rezoning request be denied so that the project could be reviewed as a whole. She wondered if there would be site plans or lot lines provided because there were other factors that needed to be addressed such as storm water collection.
Rose Farrell, a resident of the area, stated that the parcels had been purchased at different times and there were several applications submitted and withdrawn at different times over the previous several years, which led to confusion. She noted that there had been one meeting that took place between the applicant and residents but the residents still felt frustration over the responses they received. She stated there were additional concerns over the development besides the increased traffic on Anderson Hill Road but that seemed to be the only focus of the applicant. She opined that the application had discrepancies, which led to misconceptions on the proposed plan. She requested that the change to add general retail uses not be approved by the Board as she felt the application needed further review to protect the residents.
Ms. Bonifay explained that the only request currently before the Board was the request to add general retail uses to one piece of the property’s allowable uses and legally that was what the hearing was limited to. She commented that the fact that the applicant owned two other pieces of property adjacent to the subject property was not relevant to the hearing. She stated that the applicant had complied with the County’s rules and staff found that the application was sufficient and had recommended approval of the request. She said that staff drafted the ordinance with the only change being limitations added by the applicant. She remarked that it was a standalone parcel and reiterated that they were only requesting an amendment to an existing CP ordinance and the request was not a new ordinance. She requested that the Board follow the staff recommendation and of the Planning and Zoning board.
Ms. Marsh requested that all maps being presented by the residents and the applicant be submitted to the Clerk for record.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this rezoning case, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Breeden clarified that the current hours of operation in the application were carried over from the previous ordinance and would only be applied to the automobile and watercraft sales and repair businesses.
Commr. Parks noted that the restriction of the delivery hours added by the applicant did not limit or reference the hours of operation to the retail use.
At this time, Commissioners Sullivan, Breeden, Blake, and Campione disclosed that they had each met with the applicant separately and received several resident emails, which are a part of public record.
At this time, Commissioner Parks disclosed they he met with Ms. Cecilia Bonifay, Mr. Quint Roberts, Ms. Jennifer Cotch, Ms. Rose Farrell, Mr. Tom English, Ms. Carol Colvin and Mr. Tim Srodes.
Ms. Marsh stated that the discussion had to be specific to the piece of subject property on the current application and reminded the Board that the requirements were on pages three and four of the packet for the categories that needed to be considered. She clarified that the larger annexation issue could be brought back to the Board at a different time for discussion.
Commr. Parks requested that the discussion of a revised letter addressing the Board’s concerns on the possible annexation be placed on the agenda for the following meeting.
Commr. Campione felt that the Board did not have current information from all sides to make informed decisions during the drafting of the letter so she requested that the Board be supplied with the most current information prior to the revised letter being drafted.
Commr. Parks stated that the term “general retail uses” was too broad and wondered if there was a way to make it specific to tile and flooring. He noted that he was also concerned that operational hours had not been defined. He was disappointed to hear that there had been no meetings with the community prior to the application being submitted because as the county grows, it is important to keep communities involved. He did not feel the issue of access points had been addressed and he felt that it was important to make it clear that the access was granted through all three parcels and that could lead to an access being granted onto Anderson Hill Road, which he wanted to avoid.
Commr. Parks made a motion to deny the request to remove acreage from CP Ordinance 2004-07 and allow for a new list of permitted uses to include general retail sales on the removed acreage; however, that motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commr. Breeden stated that she felt Commissioner Parks made a good point and wanted assurance that access would be accommodated from one parcel to the other regardless of who owned the property. She asked if pharmacies would be considered under general retail uses.
Ms. Marsh replied that general retail uses within the code included auto parts stores, apparel stores, business machine sales, clothing rental stores, computer stores, department stores, discount stores, drug stores, furniture stores, home goods stores, garden supply and hardware stores, office supply, pest control, toy stores and variety stores.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the property had a zoning that could allow for businesses that tended to be very loud so she suggested that the general retail uses be made more specific to allow for the carpet and tile store to be able to utilize the vacant space. She suggested using categories such as home improvement, garden and hardware uses. She explained that making the zoning more specific does not deny the owner the ability to use the property and allows for businesses that are less intensive than what was currently zoned and the owner did have rights under that zoning. She stated that a decision needed to be made that would protect the surrounding residents and the subject property’s owner, while not sending a message to Clermont that anything could be put there. She listed that good ways to mitigate the situation would be to limit the delivery hours, limit that the dumpster could not be emptied before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., and address in the ordinance that the owner was responsible for providing cross access to the property to the south.
Commr. Parks agreed that a lot of those needs could be met; however, he felt that addressing the easements needed to be in writing first because there were a lot of concerns from the residents. He suggested that the case be continued and a decision not be made until more information was obtained especially since it was part of a larger project.
Commr. Breeden pointed out that they were unable to discuss the larger project at that time and the only item that was being discussed under the agenda was the amendment to the allowable uses for that specific property’s zoning. She stated that she agreed the operational hours should be limited.
Commr. Campione remarked that the building was already in place and was vacant and she felt a carpet and tile store would be less intrusive to the surrounding residents than an auto and water craft repair and sales business.
Commr. Blake noted that the current allowable use came with issues that could affect the environment.
Commr. Parks stated that he was concerned that specific hours of operation had not been noted and a 24 hour operation could potentially have a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Marsh reported that she had been handed a Joint Access and Cost Easement Agreement that was recorded in 2005 and it was submitted for the record.
Commr. Parks asked if the agreement was for all of the parcels.
Ms. Bonifay noted that the cross access easement agreement was for the subject parcel and the parcel to the south as that was in the CP zoning ordinance for both. She stated that the applicant would be open to limiting the hours and being more specific on the uses.
Commr. Parks clarified with Public Works that there was not a cross access easement for all of the parcels.
Mr. Schneider explained that the easement did not include all three parcels and was only for the subject parcel and the parcel to its south. He noted that staff did have questions on the easement itself and those questions were sent to the County Attorney for review. He explained that normally when a parcel comes to staff under commercial zoning, there is a recommendation that cross access is given to adjacent parcels to provide for frontage road requirements.
Commr. Blake confirmed that the current request in front of the Board was an amendment to the current CP zoning to modify the uses of the property.
Commr. Sullivan stated that limiting the hours of operation until 9:00 p.m. could be added to the amendment as well.
Commr. Campione commented that the ordinance could state that cross access easement had to be available to the parcels to the south and that could help with distributing trips.
Commr. Sullivan stated that the Board had to meet the rules of what the zoning called for so the hours of operation could be limited and a designation of a cross easement access allowed but property rights also needed to be respected.
Commr. Parks responded that he appreciated property rights but that the surrounding home owners also had property rights and he would have liked the subject parcel to be included with the application that concerned the property as a whole.
Commr. Campione felt that this was a good way for the Board to be able to weigh in on the issue by allowing the property to be used by a business so it was not sitting vacant while also allowing them to be able to put greater restrictions on it than what currently existed.
Commr. Parks stated that while he appreciated the additional measures, he preferred that the decision be tabled or be decided upon concurrently with Clermont’s decision on the annexation application. He added that he felt the easement concern had not been fully resolved.
Commr. Breeden stated that the property abutted Highway 27 and she felt that the uses outlined would benefit the vacant building. She remarked that her position on this particular application did not negate the Anderson Hill Road issues that could not be discussed in the meeting.
Commr. Blake pointed out that it was highway frontage property under commercial use, which he felt was worse than general retail use. He added that he would feel better not being over prescriptive because if the carpet and tile business did not work out, it would put an undue burden on the property owner to find another business in the three niche markets being suggested.
Commr. Campione commented that she would agree normally but this was a unique situation because the Board had a way to tailor it so that the decision would not open a door for people to take advantage of the property, while also keeping the responsibility of taking care of the residents in the area. She felt that it would be one step closer to having a better overall master plan for the future of the property.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Rezoning Case Number RZ-17-12-2, Anderson Hill Road, Ordinance 2017-38 with the removal of “general retail uses” as an allowable use and replacing it with “carpet and tile, home improvements, hardware and garden supplies” as allowable uses as well as limiting delivery and trash removal hours to occur between 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and limiting the hours of operation for the additional uses from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. She noted that in additional the wall provisions as stated in the application would be required and cross access easement shall be accommodated for the parcels to the south.
Commr. Parks voted no.
public hearing – infrastructure sales tax
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Budget Manager, presented the Infrastructure Sales Tax proposed 5 Year Funding Plan. She explained that it had been approved by voters on November 13, 2015, for the authorization period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2032. She stated that the taxes collected are evenly distributed between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, the Lake County Schools and all of the Lake County municipalities. She added that the current authorization stipulated that fifty percent of proceeds must be used for transportation purposes and the other fifty percent would be used for other purposes in compliance with Florida Statutes. She noted that the authorization beginning on January 1, 2018 would not have those same designated funding allocations but would allow specific project categories, which included Public Safety projects, quality of life projects, Public Works projects, and other public infrastructure. She reported that the revenue for the first five years of the new authorization totaled approximately $81.8 million. She reviewed the funding strategy noting that the first quarter of funding for FY 2018 still had to be divided 50/50 between transportation purposes and other purposes based on the current authorization. She pointed out that the fifty percent for the other purposes in the previous authorization was to be used solely for payment of the debt service for the Capital Improvement Bond issue. The remaining funding for that under the 5 Year Plan would fall under the new Infrastructure Sales Tax authorization beginning in January 2018. She reviewed the projected revenue for each category over the five year revenue projection. She explained that the 5 Year Plan provided the framework for the Board to determine projects and priorities; however, the Board would only be approving funding one year at a time. She pointed out that the Sales Tax Ordinance provided for an annual public hearing in August, which was the purpose for the presentation and hearing currently taking place. She reviewed all of the funding allocations by department totaling $15.85 million for Fiscal Year 2018, which included $3.20 million for Public Safety projects including Sheriff vehicles and fire station equipment and improvements, $3.25 million for Quality of Life to be primarily used for park improvements, $4.15 million for Public Works projects including road projects and road resurfacing, $3.05 million for Other Public Infrastructure projects including the Tax Collector’s Building and the Animal Services Facility, and $2.2 million for debt service.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. T.J. Fish, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) stated that he appreciated that a fiber optic project had been included and he noted that it was helpful because it benefited the master plan that was being worked on with Lake County Public Works. He explained that once the master plan was completed then technology based projects that would enhance the transportation network would be defined. He commented that he also supported the Wekiva Trail Development lease option with Florida Central Railroad project. He remarked that he felt transportation received the least funding in the 5 Year Plan and he opined that was a concern. He remarked that the road impact fee program was working well in south Lake County. He explained that he wanted to emphasize that there were a lot of different pieces involved when it came to road projects and he stated that the funding for roads required a lot of diversification such as funds coming from grants, impact fees, sales taxes and gas taxes. He stated that a dedicated funding source for road projects was something that should be considered.
Commr. Blake asked how much funding should be allocated for road resurfacing.
Mr. Fish replied that it should be a very large amount and that currently the County was only resurfacing the critical roads so they would not need to be rebuilt. He stated that there was not a program in place that truly kept up with the needs of roadwork.
Commr. Sullivan stated that a gas tax could be authorized for that as well as impact fees.
Commr. Campione pointed out that it was important to be careful because charging too high of impact fees could dissuade businesses from coming to Lake County; however, if the businesses come then the tax base is added to, which leads to more revenue. She asked if the new flyover addition on State Road 441 near State Road 46 would contain a sidewalk.
Mr. Fish responded that a sidewalk would be put in place and it would run along SR 46 with a curb and gutter; however, the trail path was unable to be placed there. He opined that based off of voter support of the Infrastructure Sales Tax, the voters would support a local, second option gas tax if that meant improving more of the roads.
Mr. Cole remarked that other opportunities were being explored for Wekiva Trail development and staff would report back with further information.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Parks clarified that the total five year estimated revenue of $81.8 million was a conservative projection. He opined that it would be beneficial to have any additional revenue go to road and sidewalk projects only because that could assist in the county catching up on needed roadwork.
Commr. Sullivan noted that the revenue was projected at three percent to be conservative and priorities could be shifted once a year.
Commr. Campione stated that she wanted to be sure there was enough allocated for 2018 that would allow for design and engineering on the new Animal Shelter because that would determine what the true costs will be for the new facility. She asked whether staff could be directed to make sure that was done or if the topic would need to come back to the Board for discussion and approval.
Mr. Cole replied that it would need to come back before the Board because the project list was all that was being approved. He explained that a RFP (Request for Proposal) would be sent out for the Animal Shelter and then that would be brought back before the Board.
Commr. Breeden asked if the $100,000 for Animal Services on the project list was for design and engineering. She also noted that she would have liked to have had funding set aside for the Wekiva Trail.
Mr. Cole responded that it was his understanding that more than the $100,000 would be needed for design and engineering in FY 2018 for the Animal Shelter.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Infrastructure Sales Tax project list for FY 2018.
public hearing – commercial design standards
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER IX, SECTION 9.10.00, ENTITLED “COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS’; INCLUDING A NEW SUBSECTION 9.10.03, ENTITLED “MT. PLYMOUTH-SORRENTO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS”; ESTABLISHING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES IN THE MT. PLYMOUTH-SORRENTO CRA; 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.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved amending Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, Chapter IX, Section 9.10.00, entitled “Commercial Design Standards”, by including a new subsection 9.10.03, entitled “Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area Commercial Design Standards.”
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearings – ordinance 2017-33
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE IX ENTITLED “MEDICAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES”; EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM UNTIL NOVEMBER 30, 2017 WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY PROHIBITING MEDICAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES; PROHIBITING THE TAX COLLECTOR FROM ISSUING ANY NEW BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS COUNTYWIDE FROM MEDICAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES DURING THE EXTENDED MORATORIUM PERIOD; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Marsh noted that she provided further information to the Board the previous day that outlined that the cities of Mount Dora and Mascotte would be allowing the dispensaries within their city limits. She stated that the ordinance would need to be adjusted to allow for the Tax Collector to issue business tax receipts within those jurisdictions. She also noted that due to this the change to the ordinance language would need to be “during which time the Tax Collector shall not issue any new local business tax receipt in any jurisdiction where such uses are prohibited” and the end would state “nothing herein shall prohibit the Tax Collector from issuing business tax receipts for medical cannabis activities or such activities that are permitted by the local jurisdiction.” She requested that if the Board approved the ordinance that it be approved with that change.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jochim clarified that the cities of Mascotte and Mount Dora would be allowing the dispensaries. He reported that he was in attendance at a meeting in the City of Astatula and it was decided that the moratorium would be allowed to expire there and then the city would take applications for dispensaries.
Ms. Marsh remarked that the cities of Montverde, Fruitland Park and Tavares were undecided at that time.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Campione pointed out that it appeared as though there would be medical marijuana dispensary locations allowed within certain cities of Lake County. She stated that because of that she would support adopting a ban of dispensary locations in the unincorporated areas of the county. She felt that it was more beneficial that the dispensaries be located within urban settings.
Ms. Marsh noted that this ordinance was for the moratorium only and that she would be bringing back alternative ordinances for banning and allowing, which would be heard by the Board at a later date.
Commr. Breeden felt that she would not support continuing the moratorium but would support banning the dispensaries. She stated that she thought the Florida Association of Counties should work with the legislation at the state level to allow more local regulation than what was given.
Commr. Parks pointed out that the Board was not violating the Florida Constitutional Amendment that was passed allowing medical marijuana to be legal. He noted that residents would still have access to it in Lake County by delivery and there would be three cities that would be allowing it within their city limits. He stated that he supported the moratorium but he felt that the ordinance banning the dispensaries should be adopted sooner rather than later.
Commr. Campione clarified that Commissioner Parks would approve the moratorium with the knowledge that an ordinance banning the dispensaries would be the next step.
Commr. Sullivan stated that he felt the dispensaries should be available in Lake County but if the cities were allowing them then he supported banning them in the unincorporated areas. He opined that the moratorium gave the Board time to develop regulations for the ban.
Ms. Marsh explained that the ordinance for the ban had been drafted and could be brought before the Board at the next regularly scheduled meeting since it seemed that the general consensus of the Board was to ban the dispensaries within unincorporated areas.
Commr. Breeden remarked that she could support the moratorium if a ban was the next step.
Commr. Sullivan commented that he wanted to be sure that there would be some available to patients who could benefit from the medical marijuana and he expressed his concern that having it delivered only added to the cost of something that could be a medical necessity in the community.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and unanimously carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2017-33 as amended for the jurisdictions allowing dispensaries within the city limits, extending the temporary moratorium prohibiting medical cannabis activities within unincorporated areas of Lake County until November 30, 2017.
legislative priorities Fy 2018
Mr. Bill Veach, Deputy County Manager, presented the proposed legislative priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 and he noted that each year the Board submits a list of priorities and requests to the Lake County Legislative Delegation. The County works closely with its lobbyists, Gray Robinson P.A. and Alcade and Fay, to obtain funding for priorities and to track the legislation. He reviewed that in the past the County had sent key staff members and Commissioners to Tallahassee during Lake County Days to support legislative efforts. He reported that due to the timing of the Legislative session, the Chamber Alliance had put Lake County Days on hold until 2019. He added that since there would not be a 2018 Lake County Days, Gray Robinson had been coordinating some pre-session meetings in Tallahassee for Lake County Commissioners and staff. He stated that during the 2017 legislative session, Lake County was able to secure $10 million in funding for Citrus Grove Road and $200,000 in funding for the Veterans Treatment Court Program.
Mr. Veach reported that some of the 2018 top priorities for the proposed State Legislative requests for Lake County were funds for the County Road 437 realignment, Phase III of County Road 466A, a natural gas infrastructure at the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, and South Lake Regional Park’s central wastewater, potable and reclaimed water connection. Other priorities were funds for First Responder Wireless Technology, reoccurring funds for the Veterans Treatment Court Program, and to modify statutory language pertaining to Central Florida Expressway Authority projects within Lake County. He noted that requests for ongoing priorities for 2018 would include the support for full funding of the State Aid to Libraries Grant and to support retaining the full amount of the dedicated revenues for state and local SHIP (State Housing Initiative Partnership) funding from the Florida documentary stamp tax. He stated that other priorities included funds for allocating utilities along Citrus Grove Road, supporting Lake Technical College’s Center for Advanced Manufacturing request of $1.4 million to purchase equipment, funds for the redesign of Sorrento Avenue, as a Complete Streets Project, and $228,000 in funding for the Offender Reintegration Program, which is a two-year program that would help coordinate services for individuals reentering the community. Other priorities in this category were the East Lake Community Park central sewer connection, the Cannon Property land acquisition, Helena Run Preserve site improvements, Ferndale Preserve multipurpose trail, amending ISBAs (Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements) and amending the statutory language that limits the uses of the Infrastructure Sales Tax.
Mr. Veach summarized the 2018 proposed Federal Legislative requests for Lake County as detailed above. He then reviewed upcoming important dates and requested that the Board approve the proposed legislative priorities for 2018.
Commr. Breeden stated that she felt the ISBA issues and the Infrastructure Sales Tax allowable uses should be top priorities.
Commr. Sullivan commented that those two items could be things that legislators could help introduce to legislation since they were items that did not require funding.
Mr. Cole replied that the ISBA and Infrastructure Sales Tax items would be moved to top priorities and he noted that the top priorities were the items staff would have the lobbyists focus their attention. He commented that once the items were approved by the Board they would be placed in a book for review.
Commr. Campione asked if the language being amended for the ISBA would include roadway maintenance responsibilities.
Ms. Marsh replied that the language had not been written at that point because the issue had just been brought up recently due to some active ISBAs. She explained that the current ISBAs were written to state that the cities should take over the roadway maintenance when the city surrounds the road and that was not currently happening, which led to the desire of amending the ISBA language.
Commr. Campione suggested that the amended language could state that if a city is not willing to take on the maintenance of the road then the County has the ability to terminate the ISBA.
Commr. Blake pointed out that the priorities added up to roughly $43 million in requests and he asked what the amount was the previous year. He wondered if the Florida Secretary of Transportation had taken issue with any of the CFX (Central Florida Expressway Authority) requests to expand into Lake County.
Mr. Veach responded that the request for 2018 was slightly higher than that of 2017 but was not aware of the exact amount.
Commr Parks replied that there had not been an issue with the CFX requests and it was listed as a priority because Lake County was the only county in the state that had the requirement of needing FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) approval for CFX projects.
Commr. Blake opined that the Cannon Property should not be on the priority list because he did not want to take away funding from other projects that were a higher priority. He also reported that there was more maintenance expense for the property than what was first anticipated and he felt that supporting it could limit some other issues moving forward.
Commr. Breeden noted that the Cannon Property was within her district and she asked that it stay on the list.
Commr. Parks stated that while some of the management issues were still unclear, he wanted to keep it on the list because there were good grant opportunities to maintain the property.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the request to the state was for $4 million per acquisition portion of the property and she was concerned that if it was included with the other priorities they could run the risk of losing funding for other projects that the Board had been working toward. She suggested thinking about how it could be presented and she wondered if requesting it on a Federal level would be more beneficial.
Commr. Parks stated he felt there were higher priorities but the value of having it formally listed with the lobbyists would ensure that the project would make it to the correct people.
Commr. Blake expressed his concern over the requirement of having controlled burns every two years after the property was acquired and noted that there had also not been a solution found for the access issue to the property.
Mr. Cole noted that there was a requirement for controlled burns to address the Federally Endangered plant species and staff was waiting for a response from the Florida Forest Service as to when those controlled burns would need to start. He stated that two remaining issues for the access to the property were the 15 feet of easement that was still needed and the timing of the land management responsibilities, which they were still awaiting an answer on.
Commr. Sullivan stated that until the details were figured out he did not feel it was beneficial to keep the Cannon Property on the priority list because the Helena Run Preserve item was also on the list and was a higher priority.
Commr. Breeden remarked that she was concerned about the Helena Run Preserve item because the improvements were dependent upon an agreement with the adjacent property owner regarding the parking area.
Mr. Cole stated that there was an agreement under way with the adjacent property owner and that some of the improvements were unrelated to the parking; however, his understanding was that there still needed to be an agreement with the property owner. He pointed out that the Florida Forest Service had submitted an application under the Cannon Property for Phase II funding and that had not been approved by the Federal Government. He confirmed that the Cannon Property would be listed under other priorities.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and unanimously carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the 2018 proposed legislative priorities with the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement language amendment item and the Infrastructure Sales Tax allowable uses item being moved to the top priority listing.
reports – commissioner parks – district 2
Cross florida greenway trail
Commr. Parks requested an update on the signage for the
Cross Florida Greenway Trail. It was noted that the update would be added to an
upcoming agenda.
health sciences collegiate academy
Commr.
Parks stated that he attended the Health Sciences Collegiate Academy opening of
the school year and noted that he was impressed with the facility and
appreciated the other Commissioners that attended.
workforce development grant
Commr. Parks noted that staff was joining with the Orlando Partnership, formerly the Economic Development Council, for the Workforce Development Grant and he felt positive about the outcome.
montverde academy
Commr. Parks reported that he attended the Montverde Academy open house for the start of the school year and he stated it was a good event. He was impressed with the positive economic impact the school continues to have on the area.
cranes view lodge
Commr. Parks noted that he attended a tour of the Cranes View Lodge in Clermont and it is a nice facility. He encouraged the Board to go visit the facility and receive a tour.
world cup of soccer
Commr. Parks stated that Central Florida, specifically the
Orlando area, would be bidding to host the 2024 World Cup in Soccer. He pointed
out that if the area is awarded the ability to host the game, it could lead to
a substantial positive economic impact for Lake County.
reports – commissioner breeden – district 3
citizen academy
Commr. Breeden reported that she attended the Lake County Sheriff’s Office’s first of fifteen Citizen Academy sessions and she stated that it was very informative.
leesburg library eclipse viewing
Commr. Breeden noted that she saw that the Leesburg Library had a good turnout in residents attending the viewing of the solar eclipse that took place on Monday, August 21, 2017.
reports - commissioner blake – district 5
animal shelter adoption event
Commr. Blake stated that he appreciated the communication from the Animal Shelter staff on the adoption event that took place on Saturday, August 19, 2017.
Mr. Cole pointed out that over 80 dogs and cats, along with two guinea pigs, were adopted.
reports - commissioner sullivan – chairman and district 1
animal shelter volunteers
Commr. Sullivan opined that staff should reach out to the Animal Shelter volunteers to let them know their help is appreciated and that they do a great job.
Commr. Campione agreed that doing something special to keep the volunteers engaged was important. She felt that the adoption event was good and the staff did a great job putting it together.
Mr. Cole noted that there would be an Animal Shelter
update provided to the Board on September 26, 2017.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:12 p.m.
__________________________________
timothy i. sullivan, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK