A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

january 28, 2020

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Wendy Breeden, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jeff Cole, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Pastor Sidney Brock from Heritage Community Church in the City of Fruitland Park gave the Invocation.

Commr. Sullivan, who had served as a Brigadier General in the Florida Army National Guard, noted that there were over 40,000 veterans who were residents of Lake County. He thanked Commissioner Blake for the suggestion and felt that having veterans lead the Pledge of Allegiance was a great way to honor many individuals who put their lives on the line for all of the freedoms that citizens have in the United States. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, said that after the agenda was first published, staff made an update to the resolution relating to Tab 7. He also stated that Tab 28 was added as an addendum and he asked for it to be considered under the consent agenda.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of November 13, 2019 (Special Meeting) and November 19, 2019 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Amanda Bordenkircher, Vicar of Corpus Christi Episcopal Church in Okahumpka, said that in the previous year, her church had applied for a block grant. She explained that they were trying to renovate their community building but that they had not heard whether their grant was approved. She asked about the status of the block grant, and Mr. Cole said that she could meet with Ms. Allison Thall, Director for the Office of Housing and Human Services, to discuss the item.

Mr. Charles Fields, a resident of Okahumpka, asked about the status of the extension and widening of County Road (CR) 48 from US 27 to CR 470 toward Florida’s Turnpike.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, indicated that the section of the road through Okahumpka was not currently on the County’s program for road widening; however, he noted that the section of the road from the turnpike interchange west into Sumter County was on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) program for improvements.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, as follows:

List of Warrants

Request to acknowledge receipt of the 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.

St. Johns River Water Management District Governing Board FY 2020 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the St. Johns River Water Management District Governing Board’s 2020 meeting schedule.

City of Umatilla Ordinances 2019-M and 2019-M-1

Request to acknowledge receipt from the City of Umatilla Ordinance 2019-M and Ordinance 2019-M-1.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Blake indicated an interest in pulling Tab 11 for a separate vote.

Commr. Campione said that Tab 11 was for approval to advertise an ordinance regarding simulated gambling facilities.

Commr. Blake expressed that there were many residents in his district who enjoyed this activity, and he felt that he needed to vote against it.

Commr. Campione noted that the item would be brought back for a public hearing and that residents could come and discuss it. She said that the County had heard from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) about this item and that it was being moved forward at the Lake County Sheriff’s request.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that there had been some issues with this activity in South Lake.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 20, adding Tab 28, and pulling Tab 11 for a separate vote, as follows below:

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tab 11.

Commr. Blake voted no.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval of a waiver of conflict for the law firm of Mateer & Harbert, P.A. (Orlando, FL) for its representation of Robert J. Arnick in connection with an eminent domain action concerning the Citrus Grove Road Project, and authorization for the Chairman to execute any requested acknowledgment and agreement. There is no fiscal impact.

agency for economic prosperity

Request approval:

1. Of the sponsorship agreement with the Spring Games, LLC to provide up to $50,000.00 for the 2020 Spring Games to be held at multiple softball complexes throughout Lake County.

2. To allocate $35,000.000 to the Office of Parks and Trails for work related to the Games at the Minneola Athletic Complex.

The fiscal impact is not to exceed $85,000.00 (expenditure of Tourist Development Tax funding). Commission Districts 2 and 3.

Request approval of sponsorship funding associated with the Greater Orlando Sports Commission (GO Sports) bids for the 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 National Collegiate Athletic Association Beach Volleyball Championship in Tavares, and authorization for the Chairman to execute the agreement with GO Sports if selected as event host location. The fiscal impact is up to $1,400,000.00 (expenditure - $350,000.00 per year for four years of Tourist Development Tax funding). Commission District 3.

Request approval of a letter of support for the Greater Orlando Sports Commission bids for the 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II Men’s and Women’s Golf Championships, the NCAA Division III Men’s and Women’s Golf Championships and the NCAA Beach Volleyball Championship. There is no fiscal impact. Commission Districts 1 and 3.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Request:

1. Approval of an EMT/Paramedic Training Partnership Agreement with the District Board of Trustees of Valencia College.

2. Approval of an EMT/Paramedic Training Partnership Agreement with Orlando Medical Institute, Inc.

3. Authorization for the Chairman to execute similar EMT/Paramedic Training Partnership Agreements with other colleges and educational institutions including, but not limited to, the District Board of Trustees of Seminole State College of Florida and Lake Technical College, Inc.

There is no fiscal impact.

Fire Rescue

Request approval of an updated client agreement with TargetSolutions Learning, Inc. (San Diego, CA) for the continued use of the National Fire Protection Association endorsed online education program for firefighters and first responders, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $14,400.00 (expenditure).

Request approval to apply for a Florida Department of Health, Emergency Medical Services, Matching Grant to purchase an ambulance for Fire Station 110 (South Clermont), and authorization for the County Manager to execute any necessary grant documents. The fiscal impact is $186,094.00 (revenue/expenditure - $139,570.50 in grant funding and $46,523.50 in County funding for the required grant match). Commission District 1.

Request approval to apply for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2019 Assistance to Firefighters Grant to replace the self-contained breathing apparatus system, and authorization for the Chairman to execute all related documents. The estimated fiscal impact is $1,842,995.00 (revenue/expenditure - $1,675,450.00 in grant funding and $167,545.00 in County matching funds).

Planning and Zoning

Request approval to advertise:

1. An ordinance to amend Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, to amend Chapter III, Section 3.15.00, Prohibited Uses, to prohibit simulated gambling facilities within unincorporated Lake County, and authorization, if accepted by a four-fifths majority, to hold the second public hearing of the proposed Ordinance at 9 a.m. on February 25, 2020.

2. An ordinance to create Article X, Chapter 3, Lake County Code, to be entitled Simulated Gambling, in order to prohibit simulated gambling devices and providing for enforcement and penalties.

There is no fiscal impact.

Public Safety

Request approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Montverde for Lake County to administer and process addressing within the Town limits. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time. Commission District 2.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Housing and Human Services

Request:

1. Approval of an agreement with Shepherd's Village Community, Inc. to expend State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funds to assist with costs associated with the development of Shepherd's Village Community, a 40-unit affordable senior housing rental development.

2. Approval of an agreement with Shepherd's Village Community, Inc. to expend Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to assist with costs associated with the development of Shepherd's Village Community.

3. Authorization for the Chairman to execute any necessary documents.

The fiscal impact shall not exceed $1,400,000.00 (expenditure - $450,000.00 in SHIP funding and $950,000.00 in CDBG funding). Commission District 1.

Library Services

Request approval for the Office of Library Services to submit an application for Library Impact Fees for the initial design and engineering of the proposed East Lake County Library. There is no fiscal impact from this action, but the action could result in a future total fiscal impact estimated at $3,500,000.00 (expenditure/revenue). Commission District 4.

Public Works

Request approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2020-9 to receive funds from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the Lake County Mosquito Management Program to be used for domestic mosquito control services, including vector borne disease surveillance, prevention, and response. The fiscal impact is $2,029.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Request approval of Resolution 2020-10 to increase the speed limit from 35 MPH to 40 MPH on Citrus Grove Road, from Grassy Lake Road to North Hancock Road, in the Minneola area. The fiscal impact is $200.00 (expenditure - sign materials). Commission District 2.

Request approval of Resolution 2020-11 to reduce the speed limit from 45 MPH to 40 MPH and post “No Trucks Over 10 Tons Local Delivery Exempt” signs on Britt Road, in the Mount Dora area. The fiscal impact is $150.00 (expenditure - sign materials). Commission District 4.

Request approval to release a cash surety of $157,406.30 associated with Right-of-Way Utilization Permit #7975 issued to construct a turn lane and sanitary sewer improvements for the Lakes of Clermont Health and Rehabilitation Center in Clermont. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $70,804.00 associated with Right-of-Way Utilization Permits #8931 and #8932 and Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53208 issued to extend a portion of Jim Hunt Road and to construct a water main on North Hancock Road for the Holden Ridge subdivision in Clermont. The fiscal impact is $590.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 2.

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $163,595.00 associated with Right-of-Way Utilization Permit #8301 and Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53197 issued to construct a turn lane and sidewalk for the Lady Lake Commons Shopping Plaza in Lady Lake. The fiscal impact is $800.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 5.

Facilities Management

Request approval of Contract Q2020-00062 with RMS Orlando, Inc. (Orlando, FL) for roof replacement at Fire Station 59 in Leesburg. The fiscal impact is $33,773.85 (expenditure). Commission District 5.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. He said that Tabs 1 and 2 were on the consent agenda and that the rest of the tabs were on the regular agenda. He indicated that for Tab 1, the applicant provided a revised concept plan that morning which shifted an entrance along Hammock Ridge Road and also reduced the number of proposed lots from 157 to 155. He requested that the Board approve the consent agenda as presented.

Commr. Parks asked to pull Tab 1 for discussion.

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. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 2, pulling Tab 1 to the regular agenda, as follows:

Tab 2. Ordinance 2020-4

Rezoning Case # FLU-19-05-1

RR & Sons Ventures FLU Amendment – Adoption

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately ten (10) acres from Regional Office to Rural.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1. Ordinance 2020-3

Rezoning Case # RZ-19-27-2

Hammock Ridge PUD Amendment

Amend and replace Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance #2005-105 with a new ordinance to rezone 14.99 +/- acres from PUD to Agriculture (A); rezone 16.12 +/- acres from Agriculture (A) to PUD; and to bring the PUD into compliance with current Land Development Regulations (LDR) and Comprehensive Plan policies. Additionally, the Application proposes setback waivers.

Tab 3. Ordinance 2020-5

Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2

Bella Collina FLU Amendment – Adoption

Amend Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Policy I-1.3.11 Bella Collina Future Land Use Category (FLUC) to include helicopter landing pad use.

Tab 4. Ordinance 2020-6

Rezoning Case # RZ-19-21-2

Bella Collina PUD Amendment

Amend PUD Ordinance #2018-31 to add helicopter landing pad use to the zoning district.

Tab 5.

Rezoning Case # CUP-19-06-4

Dickerson Kennel CUP

Conditional use permit on approximately 5.0 +/- acres to allow a kennel within the Agriculture (A) zoning district.

Tab 6.

Rezoning Case # RZ-19-20-3

Molokai Co-Op MHP Rezoning

Amend Ordinance #28-79 (Public Hearing #113-79-1) with the creation of a new ordinance to rezone 3.6 +/- acres from Mixed Home Residential (RM) to Mobile Home Rental Park (RMRP).

Tab 7.

Rezoning Case # RZ-19-22-5

G. Beliveau CFD Amendment

Replace Community Facility District (CFD) Ordinance #2001-74 with a new ordinance to increase the number of temporary residents of the existing dormitory from fourteen (14) to one-hundred twenty (120); to add an animal shelter; and to request the use of an existing six (6) foot solid fence in lieu of required perimeter landscape buffer.

hammock ridge pud amendment

Commr. Parks relayed that this was a subdivision that predated the Great Recession. He expressed a concern that the property was next to the Crooked River Preserve with a possible hydrologic connection. He requested for the open space to be managed similarly to what the Board requested for the Sorrento Pines project at the December 17, 2019 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, where the open space would be managed as a conservation area.

Mr. McClendon indicated that staff could mirror the language from the Sorrento Pines case.

Commr. Parks also asked for the buffer area to be landscaped with 100 percent Florida native plants. He clarified that he was not asking for this to apply for individual home lots but only for buffer and common areas.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, an attorney representing the applicant, indicated that they were amicable to these conditions. He showed the concept plan and noted that the entrance had moved because the County had raised the speed limit on the adjacent road to 45 miles per hour (MPH) and they did not meet sight distance with that speed limit. He indicated that they lost a few lots but moved the entrance. He commented that some of their open space was around the stormwater pond and that the Crooked River Preserve was in another location, and he asked if they could specify the open space south of the entrance road or west of the lots.

Commr. Parks supported indicating the open space west of the lots.

Mr. Crawford said that this was amicable, along with the landscape buffers.

Commr. Campione said that for the condition regarding conservation areas in the future, she felt that they should consider if it was adjacent to a water body and where it made sense. She indicated that it would not be done everywhere and that it could be positive for a neighborhood to have flexibility to do as desired if the open space would still be considered passive.

Commr. Parks agreed that it would make sense for a hydrologic connection near a water body. He noted that some neighborhoods would have more active open space and that this would be different.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 1, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-27-2, Hammock Ridge PUD Amendment, with the modifications for the buffer and common areas to be landscaped with Florida native plants and for the open space west of the lots to be managed as a conservation area.

bella collina flu amendment – adoption and pud amendment

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2, Bella Collina FLU Amendment – Adoption, and Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-21-2, Bella Collina PUD Amendment. He said that the future land use (FLU) case was located on the east and west sides of CR 455, within Commission District 2, with a tract size of approximately 1,900 acres; furthermore, the FLU request was to amend the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Bella Collina FLU category to allow the use of a helicopter landing pad. He displayed the current FLU of Bella Collina and the current zoning of planned unit development (PUD). He mentioned that Bella Collina was currently a mixed use community comprised of almost 870 single family lots, a golf course, and a hotel/lodge, with a telecommunications tower on site. He relayed that the proposed use was consistent with all of the elements of the Comp Plan, and he said that staff had worked with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and FDOT to ensure that this expansion met their rules and regulations. He said that for uses adjacent to the proposed helipad, there were single family platted residential lots about 65 feet from the proposed tract for the landing pad. He elaborated that this separation distance was greater than the typical 50 foot building setback within Bella Collina. He recalled that on January 2, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended to approve this request. He then presented the rezoning request, noting that it was also located on the east and west sides of CR 455, within Commission District 2, with a tract size of about 1,900 acres. He stated that the request was to amend the existing PUD ordinance to include a helicopter landing pad use. He displayed the location of the helicopter landing pad tract, noting that it was south of the Bella Collina clubhouse. He recalled that on January 2, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Board also unanimously recommended to approve this request, and he displayed the concept plan, noting that tract O was identified for the landing pad. He noted that there were no proposed gasoline or fuel storage tanks, no vertical structures, and no hangar storage; rather, this was only a landing pad. He read the requested actions to find the FLU amendment request consistent with the Comp Plan and approve the helicopter landing pad use as an allowed use, and to find the rezoning request consistent with the Comp Plan and approve the amendment to Ordinance 2018-31.

Mr. Jonathan Huels, an attorney representing the applicant, confirmed that they were seeking approval of a Comp Plan amendment and a rezoning that would allow a private helipad to be constructed in the Bella Collina community and be offered as an amenity to the guests and residents of Bella Collina. He noted that Bella Collina was a large project of over 1,900 acres, was bisected by CR 455, and was multiuse. He displayed a map showing the overall project, noting that the east side of the community was comprised of open space and residential subdivisions while the west side included the clubhouse, the golf course, additional residential uses, the hotel, and the restaurant. He pointed out the location of the proposed helipad and noted that it was immediately south of the clubhouse on a currently proposed open space tract. He mentioned that conversion of that open space would not violate any of the performance standards relating to the amount of open space required for the project. He displayed an image of the helipad and said that it was only a pad, with no vertical structures or improvements; additionally, it would have incorporated lighting. He stated that the purpose of this request was to help distinguish Bella Collina as a luxury community. He explained that they were receiving one to three flights per month for patrons and guests of the community, and they were granted permission to land on the driving range. He said that due to this demand, the developers wanted to have a dedicated space for these flights to take off and land from. He stated that this would provide an improved surface for the helicopters to land and take off from while also providing a global positioning system (GPS) point and be registered with the FAA. He also related that in the past few years, there had been three medical evacuation helicopters that had landed in Bella Collina, and he felt that the landing pad would improve the response times for these helicopters to land and take off. He mentioned that before they submitted this application, the developers shared the plans with the property owners in the immediate vicinity of the helipad. He elaborated that the developers received letters of no objection from 23 of 27 property owners, and he indicated that of the remaining four property owners, two were in foreclosure and the other two were remote owners who were unable to be contacted. He relayed his understanding that they nor staff had received any objections from residents of the overall Bella Collina project, though there had been some concerns from individuals in the Town of Montverde area for items including flight paths, the frequency of use, and how it would affect their lives. He did not think that it would have any impact to life in the general area, and displayed a suggested flight path map. He also indicated that the descent generally began close to the landing area and that most flights came from the south and east. He said that a helicopter requesting permission to land would coordinate with the Bella Collina clubhouse and that they would be provided with the suggested flight paths. He felt that this showed that there would be no impact on the surrounding community and that this would provide a fixed point for a use that was already occurring.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, suggested that the Commissioners disclose any conversations that they had with the opposition or the applicants.

Commr. Blake said that he had met with the applicant last week.

Commr. Breeden disclosed that she had met with the applicant and had received emails from the opposition.

Commr. Sullivan indicated that he had met with the applicant.

Commr. Parks also stated that he had met with the applicant and received emails.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Councilmember Jim Ley, with the Montverde Town Council, said that this subject had come up at the last Montverde Town Council meeting and that he was asked to attend this meeting to express concern for noise pollution, noting that they would like to see this mitigated by a time period that the helipad would be open unless there was an emergency. He also relayed a concern for the location of the helipad, mentioning that they thought that if the helipad would be located closer to Pine Island, then it would impact the residential areas in the Town of Montverde less. He expressed interest in a modification for when the helipad would be available for common use, such as from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Ms. Maria Morales, a resident of the Trails of Montverde, was worried for helicopter noise affecting her community’s horses, which she opined could lead to injury. She also indicated a concern for residents’ taxes increasing as Bella Collina developed, along with helicopter safety.

Mr. Greg Gensheimer, a resident near the proposed landing pad, expressed a concern for helicopter noise and said that he had suggested time constraints of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or sunup to sundown. He noted that he had horses and indicated a concern for the helicopter noise affecting them.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Campione thought that hours of operation could be reasonable as a general rule except for emergencies. She wondered if there could be a number of flights per month but noted that the developer would not want it to be a nuisance because it would impact their neighborhood. She felt that it would be in the developer’s interest to place their own limitations to protect the neighborhood; however, she said that the Board could possibly have a provision indicating that if it became an issue, then they could revisit it similar to a conditional use permit (CUP).

Mr. Huels said that they would not have any issue with reasonable time constraints but that sunup to sundown was unlikely to work because the ballroom in the clubhouse hosted events which could run into the evening. He commented that if there were time restraints, they would want to capture the first flight in for the first tee time and also capture individuals that may be there for an evening wedding. He proposed the possible hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. or 11:30 p.m.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that they could have an exception for if someone was flying in internationally to the City of Orlando early in the morning.

Mr. Huels confirmed this and added that it could also be for an emergency situation.

Commr. Parks asked Mr. Huels to point out the driving range on a map, and Mr. Huels said that it was north or northwest of the proposed helipad. Commissioner Parks then asked if they had about four flights per month, and Mr. Huels said this was correct but that it would be a busy month. Commissioner Parks also indicated an understanding that currently, they had to get staff to clear the area and that a helicopter could land on the driving range or another hole.

Mr. Huels said this was correct and indicated that currently, Lake Sienna received 12 to 20 seaplane landings and takeoffs per month and that this was more traffic than they anticipated for the helipad use. He reiterated that part of the request was to distinguish the community as a luxury brand and set it apart from similar communities in the region, along with catering to infrequent flights that occur with enough regularity that the developer thought that this would provide some use.

Commr. Parks asked to confirm if the helicopters would be landing there regardless, and Mr. Huels said this was correct. Commissioner Parks expressed a concern for there being regular flight paths over the Trails of Montverde but that holding themselves to these flight paths could reduce the noise. He noted the locations where the descent points would begin and commented that they would be at cruising altitude like any other helicopter before that point.

Mr. Huels relayed that Lake Apopka served as an ideal path for the pilots because there were no obstructions. He did not think that there would be any change or impact to the Town of Montverde due to this request, and he noted that the graphic could be provided to the charter pilots.

Commr. Sullivan asked if the flight paths would be part of the ordinance or the restrictions.

Mr. Huels responded that these were the suggested flight paths.

Commr. Breeden noted that the FAA may have comments about it.

Commr. Sullivan said that they could coordinate it with the FAA but relayed his understanding that they would not regulate it since it would be private. He commented that this could mitigate both time and noise constraints, and he suggested incorporating the flight paths into the ordinance.

Ms. Marsh thought that this could be added to the ordinance but that there would have to be a caveat that it would have to be in accordance with the FAA or other required restrictions.

Commr. Parks indicated his understanding that the FAA would indicate the preferred path unless there was an exception for weather or an emergency circumstance; furthermore, pilots would have those four options to approach.

Commr. Campione proposed a provision indicating that if this was to substantially change, then they would have to resubmit to the County, who could possibly place a limit on the number of trips or hours of operation as a result of the change.

Mr. Huels felt that this would be better than imposing hours of operation because it could be challenging to include an exception for a traveler that arrives late at night.

Commr. Campione wondered about limiting the use to 10 trips per month since the typical number of trips per month was about five.

Commr. Breeden asked about the developer’s response for if there were residents who wanted to commute this way on a daily basis.

Mr. Huels thought that this would be unlikely due to the cost of operating a helicopter. He explained that the types of helicopters coming there currently cost several thousands of dollars per hour to charter. He relayed that there had not been any interest in this and was unsure if it would be feasible due to there being an inability to store a helicopter onsite. He commented that someone commuting by helicopter would still abide by these flight paths, and he did not think that this activity would potentially impact the surrounding community.

Commr. Breeden noted that they would not be allowed to keep a helicopter there permanently, and Mr. Huels confirmed this.

Commr. Parks made a motion for approval with the modification to place the flight paths in the ordinance, and Commissioner Breeden seconded the motion.

Commr. Campione proposed that there would be a condition to clarify that if it were to change substantially, then the developer would have to bring it back to the Board so that they could address if there needed to be additional conditions.

Commr. Parks proposed there possibly being a timeframe of three years in which the use would be reviewed again.

Mr. Huels said that Bella Collina had its own Comp Plan policies and that this was a legislative policy. He suggested that this type of condition be in the PUD rather than the Comp Plan.

Ms. Marsh stated that generally, this would not be something that she would recommend for a zoning; rather, it would be more appropriate for a CUP because it would place a burden on staff to initiate the rezoning and bring it back to the Board. She noted that the Board had already considered adding language for bringing it back to the Board if there was a substantial change. She mentioned that the Board could conduct a County-initiated rezoning at any point and that if there were a significant amount of complaints, then staff could bring the item back through the public hearing process for the Board to reconsider conditions.

Commr. Campione asked if it could be considered to add language memorializing Ms. Marsh’s statements so that the ordinance would acknowledge that the County had the right to reopen the rezoning or initiate a rezoning change.

Commr. Parks added this to his motion, and Commissioner Breeden seconded it. Commissioner Parks indicated that his motion was for both the Comp Plan and the PUD ordinances.

Commr. Campione clarified that this language would only go into the PUD ordinance; therefore, Commissioner Parks rescinded his motion and Commissioner Breeden rescinded her second.

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Ley for his comments and said that she appreciated that the Town of Montverde had considered this.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2, Bella Collina FLU Amendment – Adoption.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-21-2, Bella Collina PUD Amendment, with the modifications to have the flight pattern memorialized, pending any verification with the FAA, along with including language stating that the County could initiate a zoning change pending any significant increase in activity, change in scope, or impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.

dickerson kennel cup

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 5, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-06-4, Dickerson Kennel CUP. He explained that the subject property was located on the west side of Orange Street, north of State Road (SR) 46, within Commission District 4. He elaborated that the tract size was approximately five acres in size and that the request was for a conditional use on around five acres to allow a kennel within the Agriculture zoning district. He displayed the existing FLU of Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood and the existing zoning of Agriculture. He then relayed these staff analysis findings: the applicant was proposing an approximately 4,200 square foot kennel; the five acre subject property was currently developed with a single family dwelling, a pool, stables, and a shed; animal specialty services, also identified as a kennel, was an allowed conditional use within the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU category; kennels were allowed as a CUP within the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); the applicant received a variance, VAR-19-24-4, to allow a kennel to be placed 50 feet from the western property line in lieu of 200 feet; and the conditions of the variance included a type A landscape buffer along the western, northern and southern property lines and along the southern side of the existing north ingress/egress into the property, along with a type A landscape buffer around the proposed outdoor play area. He related that staff had identified several conditions for this CUP including a maximum of 40 dogs, animal waste must be picked up daily, there could not be unaccompanied dogs without supervision, and there would be a restriction on the outdoor activities of dogs between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; however, the applicant wanted the ability to bring the dogs outdoors before the overnight sheltering. He said that on Friday, January 24, 2020, the applicant had submitted a noise study performed by a licensed acoustical engineer which indicated that there were no anticipated noise impacts associated with this use; additionally, the loudest noise events were lower intensity than the current road traffic along Orange Street. He displayed the concept plan and pointed out the shelter. He commented that the requested action was to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation, to find the application inconsistent with the Comp Plan, and to deny the requested CUP to allow a kennel within the Agriculture zoning district.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm the Planning and Zoning Board’s vote, and Commissioner Breeden said that it was 4-2 to deny the case.

Mr. Crawford, representing the applicant, noted that the original staff report recommended approval and found the request to be compatible. He questioned why the staff recommendation would change.

Mr. McClendon explained that staff had recommended approval and that they had an ordinance prepared with conditions that staff found acceptable; however, the requested action was the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board.

Mr. Crawford said that the owners had lived on the property for about five years and that they would be live-in operators of the kennel facility. He relayed that the closest house to the kennel and the outdoor play area would be the owners’ house, and he recalled that this case had been postponed from the November 19, 2019 BCC meeting with instructions for the applicant to talk to the neighbors and discuss conditions and concerns. He mentioned that they had a community meeting onsite and that over 20 people attended; furthermore, based on input from the neighbors, he had a list of conditions that they wanted to include to further minimize any potential impact. He said that they wanted to add the following conditions: no building or play area for dogs within 100 feet of the west property line; daily outdoor dog activities of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., noting that individual dogs may be allowed out until 9:00 p.m. for bathroom breaks only; no breeding or selling of dogs shall be allowed; overnight stay is required, mentioning that there would be no dog daycare clients due to concerns for traffic in and out of the facility; a type A landscape buffer shall be required around the dog play area; and sound attenuation materials shall be required on the play area fence. He said that the details of this material was in the noise study and that the building itself was a sound attenuated climate controlled building that did not have open windows or noise; therefore, the noise from inside the building would be limited. He relayed that the noise study indicated that there would be no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood with the conditions of the CUP. He explained that the sound attenuation material would be placed along the six foot high fence of the outdoor play area and that it would decrease the noise from inside the fence by an additional 10 decibels. He indicated that another condition would be that no more than four dogs shall be outside at any time, and he relayed that five dogs was the number that triggered a CUP for a kennel or animal care facility under the LDRs. He commented that each neighbor could legally have four dogs outside, and the noise ordinance would not take effect until 10:00 p.m. at night. He also stated that operationally, they wanted to do this for the safety of the dogs and that the dogs would never be outside unsupervised. He recalled that staff limited the number of dogs to 40 but noted that they only had 24 stalls and were willing to cap the limit of dogs to 30. He then proposed that the outdoor area shall be to the east of the kennel building toward the owners’ home rather than the neighbors. He also submitted a letter of support from the neighbors to the south.

Commr. Breeden noted that the definition of a kennel included breeding and selling dogs, and she supported prohibiting this.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Tom Rager, an individual who owned five acres west of the subject property, said that the proposed kennel had caused him to reconsider his plans for the property. He thought that his location and his only access over the 50 foot easement on the subject property’s north boundary line would result in him being greatly impacted by the proposed kennel. He expressed concerns for the following items: the west part of his property being in a flood zone and him having to construct a home near the applicant’s property line near the kennel; the kennel being a commercial business located in a residential area; having to drive by the kennel; traffic from customers; and waste pickup. He expressed opposition to the placement of the kennel in a residential area, and he asked the Board to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board’s vote for denial.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that he was to the west of the subject property, and Mr. Rager said this was correct.

Ms. Karen Brown, a resident east of the subject property, felt that the kennel could change the peaceful style of the area. She also expressed concerns for barking dogs, additional traffic, odor, setting a precedent for future commercial businesses in the area, and devaluing her home. She opined that reducing the number of dogs would not change the impacts, and she asked the Board to vote against the request.

Ms. Jodi Ogden, a concerned citizen, claimed that the map presented by Mr. Crawford was not the same subject property map in the CUP, nor did it show all of the properties involved. She relayed her understanding that the map in the CUP showed numerous properties including a nursery and a car lot. She felt that the area was residential with a mix of agriculture and residential homes. She recalled the Planning and Zoning Board’s vote and hoped that the BCC would also vote against the case. She noted that the area did not have city water and sewer and she expressed a concern for animal waste having to be contained until it was picked up, which could create issues with smells, health hazards and wild animals.

Mr. Reggie Tisdale, a resident on Wolf Branch Road, opposed the kennel and noted it would be a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood. He opined that it was not consistent or compatible with the FLU, nor was it consistent with the County’s revitalization effort in Sorrento. He felt that it would impact quality of life and 50 to 60 acres of existing developed residential property; furthermore, he was worried that it could affect 100 to 150 acres due to secondary impacts. He indicated a concern for economic impacts to land values, and he requested that the BCC deny this request as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Ms. Karin Pierson, representing The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks community, said that they had 58 signed names opposing the kennel. She noted that the property was zoned Agriculture and expressed a concern that approving the request could set a precedent of commercial enterprise operating in Agriculture zoned areas. She relayed her understanding that this was not a specified use for the Agriculture zoning district, and felt that there were locations that were already zoned for a kennel. She indicated a concern for noise, traffic, and breeding and selling dogs. She reiterated that her community was opposed to the kennel.

Mr. Larry Smith, a resident south of the subject property, indicated that he opposed the kennel for reasons stated by other residents.

Mr. Chris Shipley, with Shipley Law Firm, displayed a map of the subject property and pointed out several residents’ properties. He opined that there were no concessions that could be offered to address the residents’ concerns. He noted that the area was open pasture land, and he read from a County document that the County shall implement and enforce policies and programs designed to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of rural lifestyle and village charm currently enjoyed in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento community. He said that he had passed out an item to the Board recalling that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial, and he opined that the use was inconsistent with the Comp Plan and the FLU. He relayed his understanding that the subject parcel was too small for the area and that the kennel would be for large breed dogs. He noted that the applicant had to receive variances on three of the four sides, and he expressed concern for the request being a commercial use surrounded by residential uses. He remarked that a type A landscape buffer would be three hardwoods with shrubbery and felt that it would not be effective. He also expressed a concern for the dogs escaping and causing harm, and he said that a petition had been introduced into the record with 82 signatures in opposition. He asked the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Mr. Bill Einhellig, a resident to the north of the subject property, opposed the request and expressed concerns about noise from the facility. He asked the Board to consider denying the request.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Crawford disagreed that this case could set a precedent for further commercial development due to the Comp Plan and the LDRs directing kennels as one of the only commercial uses allowed in rural and agriculture areas. He noted that there was a 200 foot buffer requirement from any property line or the kennel would have to be centrally located with a variance, which the applicant did. He said that these types of limited commercial uses could also be done in industrial areas but that a property that could provide a 200 foot buffer would be prohibitively expensive for a kennel. He noted a suggestion that they should be on a road but indicated that this could not occur due to the 200 foot buffer and requirement to centrally locate it. He said that the staff report had referred to the area as an agricultural neighborhood. He displayed a map with the 500 foot buffer from the front piece of the kennel building and stated that the one house within 500 feet was the owner’s. He commented that it was 400 feet from the edge of the floodplain on Mr. Rager’s property to the front of his property and that if Mr. Rager built his house at the edge of the floodplain, they would be about the same distance from the kennel as the applicant.

Commr. Breeden noted that a home could not be placed at the edge of a wetland.

Mr. Crawford clarified that it was a floodplain. He introduced the noise study into the record and relayed that the results of the study revealed that there were no anticipated noise impacts associated with the operation of the kennel facility; furthermore, the loudest of noise events anticipated were infrequent and lower in intensity than the frequent traffic of automobiles traveling on the nearby roadways, aircrafts, and most of the frequent animal sounds heard in all directions. He referred to a segment of the noise study which indicated that the higher decibels up to between 60 and 70 decibels were all from trucks, while two dogs barking on the property were only around 50 decibels. He displayed a data sheet for the sound attenuation material around the outdoor play area and relayed that the proposed material would mitigate dog bark noise at the property line by roughly 10 decibels when installed at a height of six feet, which would render the dog barks significantly below most of the ambient noises measured at the property lines. He felt that the competent substantial evidence today from staff and the noise study indicated that they had mitigated impacts to the neighbors. He explained that for traffic, Orange Street had about 4,000 vehicles per day and Wolf Branch Road had about 10,300 vehicles per day with nearly 1,000 trucks; however, the kennel would have a single employee and 16 trips per day on average. He did not think that this would be a significant traffic impact to the neighborhood, and he felt that the conditions showed that they had tried to mitigate potential negative impacts to the neighborhood. He asked the BCC for their approval.

Commr. Breeden asked what type of noise attenuation material would be used for the kennel itself.

Mr. Crawford said that they had hired an architect who specialized in animal facilities and had coordinated the design to be the lowest impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

Mr. Jeffery Dickerson, the owner of the subject property, commented that the building had two levels of sound attenuation with interior/exterior sound attenuation which would make it so an individual would almost be unable to hear the dogs if they were standing outside the building. He indicated that the inside of the kennel needed noise attenuation because of the echoing when the dogs bark. He stated that the building was designed by a professional who had conducted similar work for large structures for rescues and other types of kennel operations.

Commr. Campione asked if he had ever operated a kennel of this magnitude or any kennel, and Mr. Dickerson denied this.

Mr. Crawford confirmed with Mr. Dickerson that he was retired military and that this was a second career hobby; additionally, Mr. Dickerson indicated that he was experienced with dogs.

Commr. Parks questioned why the kennel could not be located on a major road and if it had to be 200 feet back, and Mr. McClendon replied that this was how the code read and that the distance would include the property line.

Commr. Breeden disclosed that she had met with Mr. Crawford, Mr. Rager, and Mr. Tisdale, along with receiving many emails. She thought that the setback could be 200 feet from the west side and still have room for the play area.

Mr. Crawford showed an image with the setback at 75 feet and said that they agreed to push it to at least 100 feet. He mentioned that it could go further east but that this could begin impacting residents on Orange Avenue.

Commr. Breeden felt that the traffic to the parking lot could be an issue for the neighbors to the west.

Mr. Crawford commented that if they currently had a 75 foot setback, then the play area would be up against the back of the barn if they went further than that; however, he said that they could go that far. He mentioned that having the play area closer to the barn could help when using existing buildings to buffer the neighbors.

Commr. Blake disclosed that he had met with the applicant, Mr. Rager and Mr. Tisdale, and that he received many emails. He noted the floodplain issue with Mr. Rager’s property and proposed that to move the kennel as far away from that property line, the facility could be L-shaped on the other side of the barn so that the play area would be blocked by solid structures from any proposed residents. He also noted that the play area would be blocked from Mr. Rager’s property and the neighbor to the southeast, and the kennel would be in the middle of the property.

Commr. Campione expressed a concern for the size of the property and thought that it was too small for this use. She also felt that it should be incorporated into the residential area of the property rather than pushing it away from the owner’s home. She did not think that there had ever been a kennel approved in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood land use designation, and she noted that there had to be variances in a land use that she opined was not where a facility of this magnitude should be placed.

Mr. Crawford indicated that this was taken into consideration when designing the offered conditions. He opined that the traffic was de minimis and that the building could be moved. He said that they had taken Commissioner Blake’s suggestion to the architect but expressed a concern for having an L-shaped kennel. He showed a diagram of the kennel and said that it was designed to isolate the dogs from each other visually and for noise and smell. He indicated that in an L-shaped kennel, the dogs would be interacting with each other more closely; however, they could move the building more forward and use the barn as a blocking facility to ease the impact to the western neighbors.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that there was no way to maintain 200 feet from their boundaries for the play area.

Mr. Crawford confirmed this and said that they received the variance for this. He reiterated that only four dogs could be in the play area at any time which was the same number of dogs that anyone else could have without asking.

Commr. Breeden inquired about the proposed setback on the north and south sides.

Mr. Crawford said that the play area was about 20 feet by 20 feet and that the setback would be 140 feet from the north and south property lines.

Commr. Blake agreed with Commissioner Campione that the primary individuals who should be impacted by this were the Dickersons, and he thought that an L-shaped building could be built to block the outdoor play area and help Mr. Rager.

Commr. Campione commented that if this was a 10 acre parcel, then they could probably center everything toward the middle so that it would not affect neighbors. She was unsure how to do this on the parcel when considering the adjacent uses, and she mentioned that on a constrained property, they would be impacting someone else each time the kennel was moved in one direction.

Mr. Crawford felt that the number of conditions had not been seen in another kennel and made their impact to the surrounding neighborhood no different than anyone else. He said that the one home on the property would generate 9.7 trips per day which was more than the kennel would generate.

Commr. Campione commented that other kennels he was referring to were likely in the Rural FLU rather than the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU. She opined that the area was transitioning into a suburban type area and that there could be an inconsistency with introducing a kennel at this point in time.

Mr. Crawford agreed that it was an urbanizing area and pointed out that kennels were allowed in urban areas in industrial zoning. He stated that with this case, there was one house within 500 feet with a potential for an additional house within 500 feet. He opined that if they wanted to combine an urbanizing area where the need for this was without disturbing a rural area, then it would be a hybrid that worked. He noted that the kennel would be there before any individual except for the Ragers who moved into the area.

Commr. Campione suggested that a solution could be to reduce the number of permitted dogs by half due to them being unable to meet the setbacks. She opined that 40 dogs was substantial.

Mr. Crawford clarified that they were asking for 30 dogs and that they only had 24 stalls. He added that cutting this number in half would not be viable. He did not think that an L-shaped building would be impossible but said that it was recommended against by the architect. He indicated that it could be evaluated again if the majority of the Board felt that this needed to be done.

Commr. Breeden thought that the kennel could be kept in a straight line but the run could be narrower and longer to be between the two buildings.

Commr. Blake suggested possibly having a concrete wall connecting them or between them to block Mr. Rager’s property from seeing the kennel.

Commr. Parks expressed concerns about the intensity in the area and if the County’s code was setting up situations similar to this. He felt that the design modifications were positive and could work in a mixed use commercial area, though the code could make this challenging.

Mr. Crawford said that this part of the code was adopted when the area was more rural than it was now.

Commr. Campione thought that the County made a change to its LDRs where grooming facilities were allowed in shopping centers to accommodate dogs being boarded during the day but not for overnight boarding. She felt that this could be reconsidered, and she reiterated her concern that the property was too small and that a commercial use was being introduced into an area surrounded by residential uses. She opined that it was too intense for the property and the community, and she indicated that other kennels she had seen under the County’s ordinances had been on larger parcels so that the dogs could be in bigger areas.

Commr. Sullivan thought that there would be no issue if the subject property was seven or ten acres; however, when considering the waivers and that this was one of the fastest growing areas the county would have in the near future, he did not think that this request fit into that scenario. He expressed a concern for the subject property only being five acres.

Mr. Crawford clarified that there was only one variance for the 200 foot setback and that if the building was moved, they could meet 200 feet from the back and the only variance would be to the sides where they would meet 140 feet. He also mentioned that the owner also owned an adjacent piece of property which was not part of the CUP but was used to buffer themselves. He said that the conditions they offered were not waivers or variances and were only additional requirements beyond what the code required to minimize the impact on the neighbors. He reiterated that currently there was no one else within 500 feet from the proposed kennel, that they generated less traffic than a single family home, that the dogs inside would make virtually no noise to the outside, that the outside dogs would only be what the neighbors could have at one time, and that they had a sound study prepared by an expert indicating that there would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood.

Commr. Blake asked if there could be a compromise on a cap for the number of dogs, such as twenty dogs with only four allowed outside at any time, along with the configuration in the center of the property.

Commr. Campione expressed that she could not support this and that she felt that the property needed to be wider and larger to operate a kennel. She did not think that it could be introduced into this type of area without having disproportionate impacts on the surrounding area and residences.

Commr. Breeden asked what Commissioner Campione would see as transitional for that area. She thought that while the request had issues, it seemed transitional.

Commr. Campione expressed that she could not think of anything that someone would introduce into a residential area like this. She said that people were used to typical agricultural uses in that area but that a dog kennel was a commercial operation; however, she felt that they could coexist with agriculture when done on larger parcels.

Commr. Breeden asked if the Board recalled the kennel that they approved a few years prior.

Commr. Campione said that it was on Rolling Acres Road in the Town of Lady Lake and that it was an existing facility.

Commr. Blake added that they were asking to expand by a number of dogs and that it was a similar situation where a property owner lived behind the property who wanted to build a house there, and the County had required a sound study. He added that the facility was on 10 acres.

Commr. Campione also thought that it was a day boarding facility and that they had to show that the play area would not have an impact on the surrounding area. She noted that they had a track record because a certain amount of animals were there.

Commr. Blake remarked that he had taken his dog there and that an individual was unable to hear anything until they went inside the building. He mentioned that the existing kennel’s sound study indicated that traffic was louder than any sound impact on the neighboring property. He said that he understood the neighbors’ concerns but thought that the subject facility could be scalable to where it would not be a significant negative impact for anyone except the owners. He supported a smaller scale facility for 20 dogs with the other conditions with the building in the center of the property and in the configuration that he mentioned to where there was no view or direct line of sound from the play area to any of the surrounding property owners.

Commr. Parks expressed a concern that scaling it back could lead to the building being bigger than what was needed, and Commissioner Blake thought that the building could also be scaled back.

Mr. Crawford indicated that this was acceptable and that they could go back to their architect for an L-shaped building pushed as far toward the barn as possible with a limit of 20 dogs.

Commr. Blake specified that it would be to the point where the play area would be lined up directly with the existing walled barn and would extend vertically toward the road. He also suggested that the acoustic blocking material be applied to the exterior of the buildings facing the play area.

Commr. Breeden did not think that the material would need to be on the kennel side if an individual already could not hear it, but it could be on the barn side.

Commr. Sullivan felt that there could be a good compromise with 20 dogs. He noted that in the previous kennel case, sound was found to be addressed by the acoustic material. He was unsure if the kennel was feasible for 20 animals and added that this would be in addition to the other conditions that the applicant proposed, such as having only four dogs out at one time.

Commr. Blake noted that this could also reduce traffic impacts.

Commr. Campione said that she would not support this but expressed interest that if it went forward, all four walls of the play area would be sound attenuated.

Commr. Blake felt that this could create a better buffered play area and that adding the material to the exterior of both buildings could help address this concern.

Commr. Campione asked who regulated the waste disposal and if there were kennel best management practices.

Mr. McClendon said that there were no central utilities and that best management practices would require the waste to be picked up daily by the applicant and removed from the site. He commented that how it was disposed would be addressed during the site plan phase.

Commr. Parks reiterated his concern about the intensity of the use.

Commr. Campione asked if a potential motion would consider that patrons would have to enter the site at the same location as the Dickersons where their horse facility was as opposed to putting the impact on the easement that Mr. Rager used, and Commissioner Blake confirmed this. Commissioner Campione then inquired if the entrance would be internalized.

Mr. Crawford said that there was not room for individuals to come in on the Dickersons’ driveway on the other side due to there being an existing horse training facility on the one acre property that abutted the subject property. He commented that they could not have any extra buffering on the north property line because of the easement, but they would be landscaping down the easement line to eliminate the impacts. He remarked that with 20 dogs, there would only be five or six trips per day down that road.

Commr. Breeden asked if the parking lot could move east.

Mr. Crawford related that it would require a complete redesign and that they would need to use the existing easement.

Commr. Campione asked about what would happen if there were twenty dogs and each person brought one dog.

Mr. Crawford indicated that they did not turn over each day and that the average stay was three or four days.

Commr. Parks indicated a concern for traffic and felt that it could be underestimated. He also thought that there could be simple retail to draw people in, and Mr. Crawford replied that they were not planning on selling supplies.

Commr. Blake inquired about what would need to be redesigned using the property to the left of the horse track.

Mr. Crawford displayed an image of the horse training facility and indicated that they would lose the facility. He clarified that the Dickersons had horses for personal use.

Commr. Blake thought that the driveway could be widened to the left away from the horse facility side.

Mr. Crawford did not believe that it was enough for a commercial driveway. He explained that they had designed the site and that no one had indicated an issue with the driveway being on the north other than for the general traffic impact to the neighborhood, which they believed would be minimal.

Commr. Blake asked about the distance from the west property line to the barn, and Mr. Crawford thought that it was about 350 or 360 feet from the west side to the back edge of the barn.

Commr. Sullivan asked if the Board could deny the case without prejudice so that the applicant could bring it back.

Commr. Campione indicated that the applicant could possibly bring back a revised site plan today or at the next BCC meeting.

Commr. Breeden thought that the Board could request a postponement.

Mr. Crawford recommended that the case be postponed for 30 days.

Commr. Campione said that she could only support this if what came back reflected this discussion and met the conditions, and Mr. Crawford confirmed that it would.

Commr. Sullivan indicated that he would be willing to postpone the case for 30 days but that he was unsure that the request would still get three votes.

Commr. Breeden expressed that she would support a postponement to see if the applicant could present something that would be acceptable. She also recalled a previous comment from Commissioner Parks and asked if the Board needed to direct staff to look at this part of the Comp Plan or the LDRs and change them to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Commr. Campione inquired if this would include having a 200 foot setback in commercial zoning.

Commr. Breeden added that it could regard allowing kennels or considering what was allowed in particular areas.

Commr. Parks thought that a kennel in a commercial area could make sense based on performance criteria that could be designed into it.

Mr. McClendon indicated that staff could consider this.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied Tab 5, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-06-4, Dickerson Kennel CUP.

Commr. Breeden and Commr. Blake voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 11:19 a.m. for 10 minutes.

molokai co-op mhp rezoning

Mr. McClendon stated that staff needed to pull Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-20-3, Molokai Co-Op MHP Rezoning. He explained that the applicant and the abutting neighbors had developed conditions that they wanted to include in this rezoning; however, the current request was from Mixed Home Residential (RM) to Mobile Home Rental Park (MHRP) and staff could not condition that specific zoning district. He said that staff needed to pull this tab and bring it back next month to advertise it as a PUD so they could insert the conditions that the applicant and the surrounding neighbors had agreed to.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that this was the only way to accommodate some compromises that had been reached and put them into the ordinance.

Mr. McClendon confirmed this and explained that the only method staff had to insert those conditions was to rezone the property to a PUD.

Commr. Breeden said that the property was in her district, Commission District 3, and that she would support this.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board postponed Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-20-3, Molokai Co-Op MHP Rezoning, to the February 25, 2019 BCC meeting.

g. beliveau cfd amendment

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-22-5, G. Beliveau CFD Amendment. He explained that the location was exempt per the Florida Statutes and that it was in Commission District 5 with a tract size of 10.5 acres; furthermore, the request was to replace existing community facility district (CFD) Ordinance 2001-74 and replace it with a new ordinance to increase the temporary residents of an existing dormitory from 14 residents to 120 residents, to add the use of an animal shelter, and to request to utilize an existing six foot solid wood fence in lieu of a perimeter planting landscape buffer. He relayed these staff analysis findings: the proposed request was consistent with the Comp Plan within the Rural FLU, which conditionally allowed nursing or personal care facilities with animal specialty services; the CFD zoning satisfied the criteria within the Comp Plan; this was treated as a temporary use rather than a full time occupancy, so the actual density did not apply to this specific type of use; and the proposed request was consistent with the CFD zoning district and the LDRs. He indicated that the applicant was proposing to phase the development into these three phases: the first phase would utilize the existing dormitory onsite for up to 40 individuals; the second phase would begin work on a new building to allow up to 80 residents; and the third phase would adopt the 120 resident number. He also said that due to the capacity increase, staff proposed some screening conditions. He recalled that on January 2, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval by a vote of 5-2. He displayed the concept plan and said that the existing dormitory was the building closest to the northern portion of the site plan, and he pointed out the other buildings included in the other phases of the project. He read the requested action to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, to find the application consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to approve the requested rezoning.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, with LPG Urban and Regional Land Planners and representing the applicant, clarified that the existing building could house 40 people and that the phase two and three buildings would also be able to house 40 people each.

Ms. Kelly Smallridge, Executive Director for the Haven of Lake and Sumter Counties (the Haven), said that she had met with a neighbor about some concerns with the Haven and that staff would address issues such as residents of the shelter being too loud and how the residents were being picked up. She claimed that the neighbors Ms. Sara Dawson and Mr. Sam Dawson were sold a home but were never told that the shelter was behind them. She indicated that the Haven had changed many of its policies such as enforcing a speed limit on their driveway, though their grant funding was not discretionary and was unable to be used on the driveway. She opined that there had been no complaints from any neighbor until the Dawsons had purchased the adjacent home. She read a list of alleged complaints about the Haven, noting that law enforcement was coming to the shelter over 40 times per year; furthermore, she opined that they would be visiting the site more due to the address and aerial photos of the shelter having been released to the public. She indicated that she had to extend the fence down and install a new security system on it, and she also said that she had moved the pickup point from the end of the road to the middle of the driveway. She read more alleged complaints and clarified that regarding a claim that their budget was being mismanaged, they underwent four to five audits each year from state, federal and private entities. She denied that they had put 18 women on the street and explained that when the County had indicated that due to the facility only being zoned for 14 people, they had to exit 18 people who went to other shelters, hotel rooms, and apartments. She indicated that the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence reviewed the exited individuals and audited the facility, and the Florida Department of Health (DOH) also visited the site. She added that their water was tested continuously and the fire department inspected the site. She denied that drugs were being sold there and indicated that individuals who brought drugs or alcohol or who perpetrated violence were immediately exited. She noted that the residents could not congregate, and she read more allegations against the shelter. She denied that the residents had to walk three miles to get supplies and clarified that the shelter provided necessities. She said that the facility had a security system and that they were adding another camera system to watch the driveway, with plans for cameras on all 10 acres. She commented that when law enforcement visited the site, it was generally because they were bringing someone in, taking a report, or finishing an investigation. She acknowledged that law enforcement had been called due to violence, though she felt that this was a rare occasion. She mentioned additional claims and denied that the shelter’s children could overwhelm schools; furthermore, many children could attend the same school if their mother had a car. She also denied that they had issues with vandalism, and relayed her understanding that there were as many supporters of the shelter on the nearby road as there were those who opposed it. She expressed a concern that they had to turn 740 people away in a 12 month period, and she indicated an interest in selling the property but opined that this was unable to be done. She elaborated that it was bought with a grant from Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) and came with a 50 year lien indicating that the property had to be used for that purpose over that time period; furthermore, they had 30 years remaining. She commented that they would have to determine how to pay an amount of funds back and if they could receive enough funding to replace the property.

Ms. Brandy Carlson, Vice President of Programs with the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence and representing the applicant, indicated that her organization was the membership organization for the 42 certified domestic violence centers in the State of Florida, as well as the administrator of a significant portion of state and federal funding allocated to the centers. She indicated that they had worked with the Haven for many years and that her organization conducted monitoring, administration and oversight including comprehensive annual unannounced monitoring visits onsite over a three day period to include items such as safety, programmatic issues, fiscal issues, adherence to state and federal laws and regulations, and program and administrative standards. She elaborated that they also looked at annual fire and health inspections, and they required that an external fiscal audit be obtained and submitted to her organization on an annual basis. She said that the Haven provided critical lifesaving services and was the only certified domestic violence center in Lake County. She remarked that many of the domestic violence shelters in the State of Florida were located within residential areas and that one of the most common additions to domestic violence shelter properties were animal shelters. She indicated that there were many options regarding ensuring noise control, and that there was a considerable link between animal abuse and domestic violence. She explained that over half of the shelter residents throughout the state were children and that the individuals at the shelter were victims of crime. She mentioned the numbers of individuals who were being turned away from shelter services and she felt that it was critical that the services were offered.

Mr. Beliveau distributed a packet containing letters of support from law enforcement agencies that had memorandums of agreement with the Haven which included all of the Golden Triangle cities and the Cities of Fruitland Park, Clermont and Groveland, along with the Town of Lady Lake. He said that this represented over one-third of the population in Lake County and that the letters indicated that the undersigned respectfully requested that the BCC unanimously approve the requested CFD for the Haven as proposed, without any modifications. He continued summarizing the letters by stating that the Haven was an invaluable resource in Lake County, and the unfortunate demand for these services necessitated that the Haven be expanded as proposed. He indicated that the police departments were part of this process due to the women and children being victims of crimes. He then indicated that the Haven had currently been outlined as a CFD approved for 14 temporary residents and that they would still be there regardless of what happened today. He expressed an interest in expanding the facility to serve a population that was expanding proportionate to the population since the original approval, and he said that they had an existing six foot vinyl fence around the entire property and that there was a gate. He mentioned that in the CFD, the new buildings would be limited to two stories to be residential in character, and he reiterated that their proposal was to be phased with two other buildings while using the existing structure for the first phase. He explained that the Haven was founded in 1977 and provided a 24 hour hotline service; additionally, the Haven also provided crisis intervention and counseling. He related that an estimated 1.3 million women per year in the United States were victims and that in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to FY 2018, certified domestic violence centers provided nearly 670,000 nights of emergency shelter; additionally, the Haven provided 27,500 nights of assistance between 2017 and 2019. He indicated other statistics about domestic violence and stated that 5,667 requests for emergency shelters went unmet between October 15, 2018 and January 15, 2020 and that 740 of these requests went unmet by the Haven. He mentioned that the total number of people who went through the Haven from 2009 to 2019 was 2,741 and that the total number of people who used the Haven’s programs was 30,334. He remarked that domestic abuse, child abuse, and animal abuse frequently occurred at the same time and that women with pets may delay removing themselves from that situation. He commented that there was an estimated 2,500 family violence shelters in the United States and that 900 of them had pet shelters; furthermore, in Central Florida, there were pet shelters in Orange County, Nassau County, Okaloosa County, Walton County, and the Cities of Lakeland, Naples, Sarasota and Tampa, with another being under construction in the City of Deerfield Beach. He mentioned that these shelters utilized the Sheltering Animals and Family Together (SAF-T) program to monitor and operate the shelters which included these conditions: all animals must be leashed or restrained at all times during pickup and drop off; animals will be under a veterinarian’s care and will be checked when they arrive, as needed, with inspections; and strict procedures will be in place. He showed an example of what a shelter could look like and noted that the request was in compliance with the Comp Plan and the LDRs. He commented that there had been discussions about the safety of the facility and said that for individuals walking on Griffin View Drive, vans and drivers would be provided to take residents to the nearby Sunoco station. He clarified that the facility was not a prison and that residents were unable to be told that they could not leave; however, the facility could give them the option of utilizing the vans. He relayed an understanding that since this activity was reported to the facility, much of this traffic had been reduced and that drop offs and pickups were now required to occur on the facility’s driveway. He said that they had the ability to address the animal shelter concerns through the program to operate it, and that for utility concerns, through the development of the phases, they had the ability to provide a proper septic system and would not be connecting to any central water or sewer systems. He mentioned that they had looked up crime statistics and found that of the 40 calls that were made, 18 warranted further investigation, four occurred at the Sunoco station, and there was an average of one call per month which warranted concern. He displayed a map of the area and noted that the nearest house was over 500 feet away from the structure and that two lots west of the property were vacant. He commented that they had a stockade fence on the southern boundary line but that the home to the south had a partial view of the subject property line; however, they could augment the fence with additional landscaping and trees to screen that house. He showed the site plan and related that all of their setbacks from the two dormitory buildings to the south property line were over 200 feet and that on the east, the setback was nearly 90 feet, noting that there was a vacant tract there. He also mentioned that the animal shelter had a setback of 189 feet. He displayed information on nearby property values and noted that they found that from 2016 to 2019, only one property value declined while the rest increased. He showed a list of other services provided by the facility including court assistance, protective injunctions, information referrals, hotline calls, and group counseling, which had been done for years. He displayed a list of the services that had been provided at the facility, and mentioned that the facility also provided rape crisis support.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Sandra Skopaz, representing a group of women from The Villages who had volunteered for the Haven, felt that the facility’s service was critical and could be a matter of life and death. She opined that the facility was a safe refuge for women and children and noted that the shelter had been there for over 18 years. She asked the Board to approve the request.

Ms. Connie Hall, a concerned citizen, was worried for the Haven’s transportation and for women and children walking down the road with no lights or sidewalks. She opined that a walking trail onsite would be costly, and she indicated concerns for the facility’s use of funding and an article alleging that the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence was being investigated due to an individual’s salary. She thought that an animal shelter was not needed.

Ms. Marsh pointed out that the article that Ms. Hall referred to regarded a separate corporation and would not be something for the Board to use in their deliberations for their decision today.

Ms. Sara Dawson, a neighbor of the subject property, said that she was not against the existence of the Haven but opposed its capacity, location and operation. She indicated that she had 89 signatures of neighbors in opposition, and she asked about an impact report on the traffic, crime, schools, water, sewage and healthcare facilities prior to an approval of an expansion. She indicated that she had a statement from a septic company relating that one person used 50 to 60 gallons of water per day, which would be 7,200 gallons of water per day with 120 people at the Haven. She also expressed a concern for the following items: the Haven’s location being known; her house having been confused for the Haven; a domestic violence incident had occurred near her home; the ability to sell her home when considering the Haven’s location; the easement not being adequate for commercial traffic; the Haven not keeping promises or following zoning rules; and for her driveway being blocked by vehicles.

Mr. Marc Cunningham, representing the Eustis Elks Lodge, read a letter from Mr. Nicholas Miller, with the Eustis Elks Lodge, stating that the Haven was required to apply for a zoning change to maintain the same standard of support that they had provided to the community for over 18 years. He noted that the request was being challenged by neighbors of the Haven but felt that the Haven must receive the necessary zoning. He hoped that the BCC would vote for the good of the county over the desires of the few, and he asked the Board to grant the Haven the zoning they needed to continue their work.

Ms. Mary Louise Stancil, a neighbor adjacent to the subject property, opposed all aspects of an amendment to the original ordinance. She said that she was not opposed to the mission of the facility but felt that it was in the wrong location to suit the needs of the victims and placed citizens in harm’s way. She expressed concerns that no feasibility, environmental or traffic studies had been performed, that the 15 foot easement struggled to accommodate the present traffic, that code enforcement intervened when the facility increased the capacity above the lawful amount, and that the excess persons were unmanageable. She also alleged that she had an altercation with a group of women on the road and that the occupants had set off fireworks toward her home. She also relayed her understanding that occupants did not have curfew or confinement, that the LCSO did not have the capacity or budget to hire more deputies to patrol the area, and that law enforcement had been dispatched 280 times to the facility’s address. She felt that any increase would be detrimental and that the facility should be in an urban area closer to first responders and hospitals. She thought that emergency medical services (EMS) and fire rescue had been dispatched 411 times to the facility and that this was costly. She asked the BCC to deny any amendment to the ordinance, and she opined that the grant could be taken away with permission from the LRMC.

Ms. Suzanne Cunningham, Co-Chair of the Haven project with the Eustis Anna Miller Circle, said that in the past six years, they had received contributions of nearly $70,000. She felt that this rezoning was vital to support the ongoing need for an underserved population. She asked the BCC to vote for the greater good and noted that the Haven was the only party that did not have an option to relocate; rather, they were required to occupy the land for another 30 years or pay back the entire grant. She claimed that the road from the Sunoco station to the Haven was in good condition and that the facility residents she met had been thankful to be there. She concluded by reiterating her support of the Haven.

Ms. Marianne Mika, a neighbor of the subject property, claimed that the Haven had no regard for the effects they had on their neighbors and were unaware of what was happening outside the facility. She questioned why the Haven allowed their clients to call individuals to meet them outside the gates. She expressed concerns about cars in her driveway and in front of her property, and she asked how long the Haven’s new procedures would last. She inquired about how she could report her concerns, and she supported having a probationary period before increasing their number of beds to prove that they would keep their clients safe. She clarified that she was not attacking the victims but that she was concerned for their safety and the safety of the neighbors.

Ms. Sherry Piskadlo, Co-Chair of the Eustis Anna Miller Circle, said that her organization supported the rezoning request and that the facility had been in the same location for 18 years, opining that it was never an issue for the neighbors. She relayed her understanding that they had routinely housed 30 to 35 women, children and teens without any complaints. She thought that since someone new bought a house near the facility, complaints had caused a near-shutdown of the facility and allowed only 14 total residents. She remarked that since October 2018, over 550 abused women and children had been turned away and referred to other locations which may not have security from their abuser. She opined that the Haven should be grandfathered into the status they had for many years and be approved for rezoning to allow them to continue their growth and help the abused in the community. She noted that a proposed building was a shelter for pets so that abused women and children would not have to leave a pet behind with the abuser, and she thought that this could benefit the community. She indicated that the purpose of the Anna Miller Circle was to render service and improve the circumstances of needy and handicapped children; furthermore, they supported the Haven and requested that the BCC approve the request. She then submitted a letter signed by 36 members of her organization.

Ms. Candace Pailer, a concerned citizen, thought that 120 residents would be too many on five acres and that it would be excessive to have a kennel. She expressed a concern for the dogs being aggressive, and she suggested that pets could go to other shelters or be fostered. She also indicated a concern for schools and thought that abusers finding the site could cause issues for the Haven and the neighbors. She reiterated her opinion that 120 people was too much for the facility; however, she said that she supported the facility.

Mr. Dennis Wyatt, a Lake County citizen, believed that a 120 bed facility in a rural part of the county was an incorrect choice. He felt that the residents were sympathetic to the victims of spousal abuse but opposed the facility due to issues. He expressed concerns that the executive director of the Haven did not know that they were limited to 14 beds when they had 32 people, that the facility may not obey the law in the future, that individuals were walking down Griffin View Drive, and that children had to go to another school. He asked for the BCC to reject the zoning change.

Ms. Nola Jensen, a concerned citizen, indicated concerns for the following items: code violations; reports from the LCSO; that the Haven did not include calls to the LCSO from the surrounding community and only included calls to the Haven address for one year; and that the conditions of the CFD had been broken. She agreed that the Haven was a needed facility but disagreed with its location, and she noted that the Haven had indicated that they had no control over the women entering and leaving the facility, along with what they did outside the property. She claimed that 89 families were affected by the Haven and that the community had experienced safety issues. She requested for the Haven to be moved to a more appropriate place, and she felt that the Haven would serve the county more efficiently if it diversified its population throughout the county. She questioned where the victims would go when there was no more room to expand, and she indicated a concern for a potential vehicular accident on Griffin View Drive.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 1:00 p.m. for 30 minutes.

G. BELIVEAU CFD AMENDMENT CONTINUED

Mr. Dennis Barringer, a concerned citizen, was worried for the Haven not knowing about how many people were supposed to be in the building, for this causing 18 women to leave the facility, for the number of crimes in the neighborhood, and for the Haven not being a safe zone. He opposed allowing more residents at the Haven until they proved that they could manage their current population.

Mr. Richard Rackley, a neighbor of the subject property, was worried that there could be an accident with someone walking on the road and what would happen with 120 residents. He also indicated a concern for items being thrown on the road and how this could affect livestock in the area, along with people swimming in a nearby lake. He asked for sidewalks and street lights to be placed on the road if the request was approved.

Mr. John Green, an individual who owned property to the east of the subject property, recalled that there was a concern for crime when the facility was originally approved but that they were not against the Haven. He was worried for there being 120 residents on 10 acres with a dog shelter, and for devaluation of property. He opposed the request, and he asked the Board to consider the neighbors and vote no.

Ms. Vicky Raitz-Cash, a neighbor of the subject property, relayed some statistics of domestic violence and said that her neighbors had helped the facility’s residents. She did not think that the request was consistent with the area, and she felt that taxpayers were bearing the burden for a tax-exempt organization which used law enforcement, roads and emergency services. She relayed her understanding that most other domestic violence shelters in the state served single counties, and she indicated a concern that Lake County taxpayers were subsidizing another county. She felt that decentralization was the only solution for the concerned parties, and she asked the Board to vote no.

Mr. William White, a concerned citizen, suggested that if the request was approved, then the speed limit from the nearby nursery to the back gate of Harbor Hills should be changed to 25 MPH. He advocated for demanding that the State pass laws to address abusers, and he expressed a concern for the issue growing.

Ms. Lynn Waldrip, a neighbor of the subject property, thought that each of her neighbors supported assisting abused women and children but questioned that if the facility could not control 14 women, how could they control 120 women. She urged the Board to not let them expand to 120 residents, and she claimed that the facility’s residents used ride sharing applications and called their friends to be picked up on the neighbors’ driveways. She indicated that they also walked on Griffin View Drive and threw trash in the neighbor’s yard. She indicated a concern for the number of calls for law enforcement if there were 120 residents there, and she was also worried about safety and livestock. She asked the Board to be concerned about the neighbors.

Ms. Brittany Timmons, with the Community Foundation of South Lake, said that her organization had supported the Haven through grants and had helped some women who had been removed from the facility. She felt that the Haven was a needed resource in the community and that there was a need to increase the number of residents there. She thought that the Haven would consider the resulting actions if the facility was maximized to their desired capacity. She opined that the victims needed to be considered, along with what would happen if there was not a facility to help them. She asked the Board to consider the possibility of increasing the capacity.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Cole clarified that the County had not provided funding to the Haven since 2015.

Mr. Beliveau said that EMS had only visited the site nine times in the previous year. He explained that many children in the Haven still went to their original school but that others went to a school in the Town of Lady Lake. He stated that the traffic impacts would only occur when the residents were brought to the facility by law enforcement or if they traveled there with their own vehicle. He said that for impacts related to utilities and stormwater, they had to go through permitting processes and procedures similar to other developments; furthermore, they had to obtain permits from the St. Johns River Water Management District. He added that since their next phase was the existing structure, they were already utilizing the existing septic tanks and wells, and no improvements needed to be made; however, for phase two, they would have to perform any upgrades and undergo the permitting process. He then noted that they had already identified the organization to manage the animal shelter which had been utilized by other shelters in the state. He claimed that Ms. Smallridge had checked her records and the staff records for 18 years and that there had been no records of anyone calling the Haven to report that residents were misbehaving. He mentioned now that they were aware of the issues, they had attempted to obtain another van and more staff members; additionally, they had instituted procedures and processes to control access to the Sunoco station and the road system. He reiterated that the facility was not a prison and that they could not state that a resident was unable to leave the property, though they could have processes and procedures to limit this activity. He explained that the increase to 120 residents was a 10 to 20 year master plan and that it would take the Haven a considerable period of time to raise additional funds to accomplish this.

Commr. Campione asked that when there were 30 to 40 residents in the facility, was this from the start of the facility until when it was raised as an issue.

Mr. Beliveau thought that they had 30 to 40 residents after about six or seven years of the facility being there. He relayed his understanding that about 10 years prior, Ms. Smallridge had gone to the Lake County Office of Building Services and received building permits to expand her internal operations; furthermore, she had interpreted this as expansion opportunity despite not knowing that a zoning approval would also be required.

Commr. Campione inquired how long the facility had been operating with only 14 residents.

Mr. Beliveau replied that it had been slightly over a year and that the extra residents were removed on the day that Ms. Smallridge learned that she was in violation.

Commr. Campione summarized that the original zoning was issued in April 2001, that the improvements which enlarged the facility occurred about 10 years prior, and that the facility had been operating with 14 residents for about a year.

Mr. Beliveau confirmed that this was correct.

Commr. Blake asked if the Haven’s board had reached out to the foundation about being released from their lien obligation for a 50 year use of the property, and Mr. Beliveau denied this. Commissioner Blake then disclosed that he had met with Mr. Beliveau, had talked to Ms. Smallridge on the phone, and had spoken with the Dawsons, the Jensens, Ms. Stancil, and other neighbors. He stated that everyone he met with had respected the Haven’s mission, and he felt that it was a positive mission. He opined that the neighbors’ allegations were true and recalled that he personally had to avoid individuals walking on Griffin View Drive while driving. He distributed copies of the minutes from the April 24, 2001 BCC approval of the project and noted that the applicant had promised that there would be no additional construction at the shelter. He relayed that neighbors had brought up many concerns which had occurred as time passed, and he pointed out that residents had claimed that the chairperson of the Haven’s board of directors had informed them that they would have 40 individuals there despite the application having been for 14 people. He also mentioned that as a response to the concern that there would be 40 people there, the applicant had stated that they would not exceed what was in the ordinance and that a six foot privacy fence would be placed around the entire parcel. He summarized that the neighbors were promised that there would be no more than 14 people at the facility, and he remarked that the applicant’s representative had stated that they had provided the Board with evidence showing that there would be no impact for the purchase of property value; however, he opined that evidence had been presented which showed this to not be true. He then mentioned that the applicant clarified that there would not be any additional structures on the site but that there would only be some renovation to the existing site. He pointed out that Ms. Catherine Hanson, who was the BCC Chairman when the case came before the BCC in 2001, stated before the unanimous approval that she would not be supportive of the application if it included any additional homes or structures, and she hoped that there would be no future plans for more homes. He felt that this was clearly discussed about 20 years ago and that the residents’ concerns had proven to be valid. He also indicated that the approval in 2001 was conditioned upon the compromise for 14 people. He relayed his understanding that the issues increased after the facility violated the conditions of the approval and doubled their capacity. He mentioned that he had received calls from neighbors which led to the discovery that the facility was operating at twice the legal number of people. He thought that it was important for the Board to know that if the facility stayed at the number of residents they were approved for, there were not as many issues as there were from the expansion. He opined that requesting an expansion from 14 people to 120 people was not tenable when considering the performance issues over the past 20 years. He reiterated his support for the Haven’s mission but he did not think that they had explored the option to ask if they could be released from the obligation to stay there for 50 years. He expressed a concern for supporting a massive expansion when there had been issues and relayed that he could not support this when considering the disregard for what the County had approved in 2001.

Commr. Parks expressed support for what the Haven did but felt that the request was beyond the scope of the size and the scale of the area. He indicated an interest in the BCC cooperating with the Haven to look for another site. He relayed his understanding that the County had land available for this and that 740 people had been turned away from the Haven. He thought that if the Haven could get out of their contract, then there was a possibility that the County could partner with them to find a centrally located site which could accommodate 120 individuals from Lake County.

Commr. Breeden noted that the Haven served Lake and Sumter Counties.

Commr. Campione thought that part of the solution could involve working with Sumter County to pursue a concept of decentralization to keep the anonymity more intact by not having a large footprint in a particular area.

Commr. Sullivan opined that the need was there but that 120 residents was inconsistent with what the subject property could withstand. He expressed a concern for denying the request completely because there was a significant need for this; however, the maximum that he would be willing to approve would be 40 residents due to this not requiring any new buildings. He disclosed that he had met with both sides of the case, and he indicated a concern for the kennel. He commented that a typical resident could only have four dogs and that this would be the maximum he was willing to allow due to this fitting with the surrounding neighbors.

Commr. Breeden agreed that 120 residents would not be sustainable but that 40 residents could possibly be a compromise. She thought that it could be a considerable expense to have a properly operated animal shelter and that it was unlikely to have noise attenuation. She thought that the Haven could likely have done a better job of having rules and regulations, and that the women could be willing to abide by stricter rules and curfews, that there could be no drop offs or deliveries, and that there could be better shuttle service. She felt that the residents had outed the Haven, and she expressed a concern for the road there. She indicated that she had spoken to Mr. Schneider about the possibility of having a sidewalk but that the funding for this was typically school related. She felt that the request should either be denied or that there should be a compromise for 40 residents with some stricter rules.

Commr. Parks felt that there was a need for 120 beds or more but reiterated that this was not the correct location.

Commr. Breeden thought that there were other shelters with stricter rules and that this could work if everyone knew them.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there were not many shelters that were similar to the Haven.

Commr. Campione thought that there was room in the community to develop a solution but commented that she was persuaded by the events at the original meeting. She felt that it was important for representations to be adhered to, and she noted that the original intent was for the facility to be residential in nature so that it would fit in with the community and contribute to its anonymity. She opined that anonymity or protection for people living in a facility should be taken into account in any other location. She expressed interest in contacting Sumter County and its sheriff, along with the law enforcement agencies who supported the Haven to see if they could come together and help find an appropriate location or multiple locations to serve their mission. She also thought that exploring what the foundation could do with the subject property could possibly allow funding to be freed up and used for these purposes. She expressed support for denying the case. She then disclosed that she had met with Mr. Beliveau and the Dawsons.

Commr. Blake felt that for the County to maintain credibility, they had to look back at what was promised and live up to that.

Commr. Breeden disclosed that she had met with Mr. Beliveau, Ms. Jenson, the Dawsons, and Ms. Stancel.

Commr. Parks said that he had also met with Mr. Beliveau and the Dawsons. He felt that the County needed to respond to law enforcement and indicated that they wanted to partner with them to find another site.

Commr. Breeden said that the County could possibly lend some support for the Haven getting a deferral from the LRMC on the grant.

Commr. Parks indicated an interest in having geographic coverage for South Lake and South Sumter County.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there were many factors for siting and locating facilities and that they would have to work with experts to find the proper way to do this. She summarized that there was a commitment for the County to work with the Haven and that they appreciated the volunteers’ work.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board denied Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-19-22-5, G. Beliveau CFD Amendment.

Commr. Sullivan voted no.

public hearing: resolution 2020-12 to vacate right of way

Mr. Schneider said that this was a petition to vacate a right of way in the City of Umatilla area, northwest of CR 450 in Commission District 5. He explained that it was an unimproved right of way in the Plat of East Umatilla and that the purpose of the request was for safety and security reasons to permanently protect vegetation and wildlife in the area and to continue the private maintenance of this treed area. He indicated that there were no letters of support or objection, nor were there utility concerns. He displayed a map of the area and pointed out CR 450, West Fifth Avenue, West Sixth Avenue, and the red area for the platted right of way. He mentioned that there was no road there but that the three applicants had requested that the area be vacated, and staff recommended approval.

Commr. Campione asked if the red area would revert to each property owner on each side.

Mr. Schneider clarified that the red area would revert back to the original land owner and that in most cases, it would go back half and half but that it depended on where the original right of way came from.

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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2020-12 to vacate a portion of West Sixth Street, which was an unimproved right of way in the Plat of East Umatilla, located northwest of County Road 450.

public hearing: ordinance 2020-2 lake county investment policy

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 SECTION 2-24, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED LAKE COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY; INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS; AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING 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. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt and execute Ordinance 2020-2 amending Section 2-24, Lake County Code, entitled Lake County Investment Policy; Investment of Surplus Funds; Authorized Investments to update position titles.

public hearing: county road 455 realignment build alternative

Mr. Schneider said that this would be the public hearing for the CR 455 extension project development and environment (PD&E) study. He indicated that the purpose of the public hearing was to present the findings of the study and to request the Board’s approval of the final study recommendations.

Mr. Dwayne Darbonne, Managing Principal with Metro Consulting Group, stated that his firm prepared the deliverables associated with this project along with much of the information in the presentation. He indicated that the environmental review, the consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project were being, or had been, carried out by Lake County pursuant to 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) §327. He said that this hearing was being held in accordance with the federal and State of Florida statutes and laws, which he displayed, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and floodplain management and protection of wetlands. He commented that in regard to Title VI compliance, this hearing was being conducted without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. He mentioned that Lake County’s population continued to grow, and he showed a graph indicating that the county’s population growth from 1980 to 2020 had more than tripled. He added that population growth was anticipated to continue and that from 2020 to 2040, population growth was anticipated to increase by 37 percent. He remarked that the City of Clermont/Four Corners area was projected to have substantial growth in the future and that economic, land development and transportation projects in this region would include the following: the Wellness Way plan, which was a mix of residential, commercial, office, education, medical and recreational uses; Four Corners, with proposed housing, commercial, and a recently completed hospital; and continued growth along the U.S. 27 and SR 50 corridors. He then began discussing steps in the project development process and provided this information for the first step of long range planning: the need for roadway improvements was based on FLUs and projected traffic volumes; the need for improvements was originally evaluated based on an area-wide traffic analysis; improvements must achieve the long-term vision for growth and transportation across the region; and this corridor was identified in the adopted 2015 Wellness Way Area Plan (WWAP). He explained that the PD&E study was the second step, that it would be focused on in this meeting, and that it was where the location and conceptual design of road improvements were identified and where environmental and social impacts were assessed. He provided this information for the purpose and need of this project: sustain the projected traffic due to growth while preserving the character of the existing communities and the environment; the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) identified the need for an additional north-south corridor; to improve traffic safety and capacity of the regional roadway network; the WWAP identified the area as having significant economic development opportunities; and to enhance emergency evacuation and safety. He displayed a map of the study area and noted that CR 455 phase one had been constructed, with phase two being currently under design. He pointed out the study area which began at Hartwood Marsh Road and extended south to Schofield Road and beyond to connect with the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) connector roadway. He remarked that their study team was coordinated with numerous agencies and stakeholders including property owners, the BCC, Water Conserv II, and CFX, among others. He said that there had been several opportunities for the public to provide input on this project and that several public meetings had been held dating from October 2018 through this day. He indicated that at the conclusion of this presentation, the general public could make oral statements and that if they did not wish to speak, they could provide written comments to the study team. He commented that the existing land use within the study area was agricultural, residential, Conserv II, and industrial. He explained that level of service (LOS) was how traffic engineers referred to traffic flow, and he displayed examples of free flow traffic LOS A, to LOS F which was gridlock; furthermore, LOS A through D was acceptable for county and local roads and LOS A through C was acceptable on U.S. 27. He stated that for existing traffic from 2018, their organization obtained the traffic model from the CFX connector project that proceeded this project, and he displayed this traffic model which was their base for the project; additionally, they added numerous developments south of Wellness Way to the CR 455 traffic model and it was the most up to date model in the area. He mentioned that their traffic analysis of the existing LOS was shown as C for most of the road networks except for the segment of Hartwood Marsh Road between U.S. 27 and Hancock Road. He showed a map of future traffic conditions in 2045 and said that for the no-build alternative, they saw unacceptable levels of service along Hancock Road north of Hartwood Marsh Road, along Hartwood Marsh Road between U.S. 27 and CR 455, and along U.S. 27 between Hartwood Marsh Road and the CFX connector. He elaborated that they showed the need for a north-south collector road somewhere within the study area which could solve many of the congestion issues. He showed an image of a proposed typical section of four lanes for the year 2045 and indicated that it would have two travel lanes and on-street bike lanes in each direction. He also indicated that the north and southbound traffic would be separated by a 22 foot raised median and that a shared use path was shown along the west side of the roadway, with a five foot wide sidewalk along the east side; furthermore, an eight foot privacy wall was shown along the west side where CR 455 was adjacent to the Hartwood Reserve Homeowners Association (HOA). He displayed the evaluation of the build alternatives with the colors purple, green, yellow, blue and pink. He felt that the purple alternative made the best use of the Hartwood Marsh Road existing right of way and once it departed the existing right of way, it would be just east of the Hartwood Reserve HOA and west of the Flat Lake community. He said that the other alternatives traversed through the active mine and split the residential community south of the mine, with the exception of the green alternative which traversed the mine but did not split the community as drastically as the others. He displayed a matrix that they used to evaluate potential right of way relocations, natural, social and physical impacts, and construction costs. He relayed that an unavoidable consequence of a project such as this was the necessary relocation of businesses and families and that on this project, they identified three relocations associated with the green alternative but only one residential relocation associated with the purple alignment; however, this was only if the typical section presented previously was not reduced in width and if the ultimate four lane section was built between Hartwood Marsh Road and Wellness Way. He noted that any right of way acquisition would be conducted in accordance with Section 339.09, Florida Statutes, and the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970.

Mr. Darbonne then commented that they weighted the evaluation factors for each alternative, and that the purple alternative was ranked highest and was their recommended alternative. He showed the construction segments along the purple alternative as segments A, B and C, which would be constructed in that order, noting how this alternative avoided wetlands and permitted or planned recharge areas by Conserv II. He explained that in accordance with Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” referenced in the FDOT PD&E manual, wetlands were avoided where they could be avoided. He added that the Flat Lake crossing was via a proposed bridge which was an effective and acceptable method to minimize wetland impacts while preserving the lake’s existing hydrologic areas. He commented that the cultural and historical research was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environment Policy Act of 1969, and Chapter 267, Florida Statutes. He also indicated that they found no adverse effects to any cultural historical resources on the project, though they recommended that additional surveys be required during the design phase for areas that were previously not disturbed. He stated that they identified potential contamination sites along the study area; however, there were no high risk sites. He elaborated that they found two medium risk groundwater contamination sites but noted no hazardous substances or other environmental conditions within the study area; furthermore, he pointed out that additional investigation would be required during the design phase of this project. He commented that for threatened and endangered species, mitigation for the federally threatened sand skink was likely needed; additionally, they found no essential fish habitat within the study area, and additional surveys would be required to verify the presence or absence of sand skinks. He mentioned that for air quality, the project was located in an area designated as being in attainment for all of the national ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act; therefore, the Clean Air Act conformity requirements did not apply. He added that greenhouse gas impacts from this project would be insignificant within the context of the affected environment and that because of this, local air quality impacts were not a determining factor in the alternative selection. He then stated that they conducted data collection for traffic noise using the FDOT model and that the need of a noise abatement wall was determined along the southbound CR 455 adjacent to the Hartwood Reserve subdivision; however, the decibel levels only exceeded the FDOT standards in the year 2045 and they proposed an eight foot high wall which would abate the higher levels that would be present at that time. He showed the two CR 455 preferred alternative roundabout locations and said that they were both intersecting Hartwood Marsh Road. He elaborated that the northern roundabout was located between the Heritage Hills HOA and the Duke Energy transmission line, while the southern roundabout was in the general proximity of the Hartwood Marsh Road and Fox Hole Road area. He commented that at the northern end of the study, the proposed CR 455 alignment would correct the existing deficient horizontal geometrics along this segment of Hartwood Marsh Road, and the existing alignment of Hartwood Marsh road had led to numerous crashes and some fatalities. He mentioned that the northern roundabout was planned to be located just south of the existing Hartwood Marsh Road, which would facilitate construction while maintaining traffic on Hartwood Marsh Road and ultimately permit a shared use path to be located on the existing Hartwood Marsh Road; furthermore, this could reduce construction costs, and they also located this segment of CR 455 slightly south of the existing Hartwood Marsh Road which could help with noise abatement. He added that there was a directional median opening provided for the Heritage Hills HOA, which would provide safe ingress and egress for the residents. He stated that for CR 455 segment A, which began at Hartwood Marsh Road, they recommended that a full four lane section with the shared use path be constructed, and he mentioned that only the mine’s property owner would be impacted in this area due to a shifting of the roadway. He also indicated that they avoided two impacts to residential property owners. He said that for the southern roundabout, they avoided relocations and minimized right of way impacts to adjacent residential properties; in addition, they provided a landscape buffer along the Hartwood Reserve HOA and the residential area which would lessen the visual impact of the roadway to the residents. He remarked that for CR 455 segment C, which started from the southern roundabout to the proposed Wellness Way area, they recommended the construction of two lanes and a shared use path initially, which would delay the need for the one relocation attributed to the purple alternative. He elaborated that during the design phase, the typical section could be reduced in width where it was adjacent to the residential area, which could eliminate the need for the one relocation. He commented that for segment B, which was from the proposed Wellness Way to Schofield Road, they would connect with the proposed Wellness Way and extend south as a two lane roadway initially with a shared use path to Schofield Road. He said that in 2045, this segment, like the others, would require a four lane roadway. He noted that the exact alignment in this section was still open for input from property owners, and he said that for the intersection of Schofield Road and the CFX connector, they did not know exactly where CFX was designing their interchange so this item was still in question. He displayed two landscape concepts that could be used to lessen the visual impact of the roadway from adjacent properties, and said that the landscaping design would conform to the WWAP standards currently under development. He then listed these project benefits: context sensitive design that was being designed for the Wellness Way area was the criteria that they would use for this roadway; the opportunities for possible joint use ponds and to coordinate with other FDOT, County and City projects; improved traffic safety; a continuous north/south corridor; an alternate emergency evacuation route; and pedestrian and bicycle amenities with trail connections. He also relayed his understanding that it had been proven that properties adjacent to amenities such as this increased in value. He listed the preferred cost estimate with roadway construction at almost $56 million, engineering design at about $3.3 million, construction engineering and inspection at roughly $5.5 million, and a total cost not including right of way at $64,670,000 in today’s dollars. He said that the draft study documents were made available for review beginning on January 7, 2020, and would remain on display until February 7, 2020. He commented that the next step was to incorporate input into the decision making process at this public hearing, and that oral and written comments at this meeting and other comments received during the comment period would be incorporated into the study. He elaborated that after the comment period, the draft documents would be updated and sent to the Lake County Public Works Department. He commented that the recording of this meeting and the Board’s comments would be made part of the public hearing record, and the reports, displays and informational material provided at the hearing would be made part of the project decision making process. He said that they were currently at the project hearing stage of the project and that within the next 10 days, they would begin inserting the information presented at this meeting and any comments submitted would be part of their record for the study.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Robert Meijer, a resident whose property would be directly impacted by the purple alternative, felt that the discussion of one displacement was inaccurate. He said that having a four lane road approximately 20 feet from his home would be a direct impact and would disrupt his family. He thought that this would impact the overall community and would force his family to be displaced. He asked the Board to consider this information and that his family was one of many that would be impacted. He also urged the Board to consider the impact to his family as it concerned early acquisition, and he expressed concern for the stress being placed on families. He asked for the County to be honest and generous in this process.

Mr. Ray Flannery, a resident on Hartwood Marsh Road, relayed his understanding that slide 18 of the presentation had his property marked as industrial and residential but that this should be agricultural. He commented that slide 21 showed that with a no build alternative, the concern would be Hancock Road, which he felt would be a significant issue until it was addressed. He opined that the CR 455 project was being supported to help the building south of Wellness Way and to prolong Hancock Road repairs or expansion. He described another roundabout in the area where a subdivision would be developed, and he relayed his understanding that many property owners associated with the decision making had not been asked about the project. He mentioned accidents on a curved section of Hartwood Marsh Road, and he indicated his understanding that there had been a previously approved PD&E study to straighten the road but that it was not completed. He asked the Board that if they accepted the purple alternative, to ensure that the small property owners who were being directly affected had input and knowledge about the project.

Mr. Vincente Rivera, a resident on Hartwood Marsh Road, said that in 2006, his family was informed that Hartwood Marsh Road would be expanded but that this had not occurred. He expressed concerns for his family’s medical issues due to this project, and he expressed support for the no build option. He was worried about the impacts to families, and he indicated that the purple alternative would run through his backyard. He stated that they would have no access to their property in these plans but that there were three access points currently. He questioned where children would be picked up for school, and he believed that the expansion of Hancock Road would relieve the traffic situation on Hartwood Marsh Road. He felt that trucks moving material were aggressive and that the expansion of Hartwood Marsh Road should have already been completed.

Mr. Daniel White, a resident on Fox Hole Road, expressed concern for the residents on the west side of his property, and he relayed his understanding that two individuals who would be impacted had recent medical issues. He was worried for the stress being placed on residents, and he questioned why this was being done. He thought that Hancock Road was the real issue and was being ignored; furthermore, he felt that if it was not fixed, the roads to the east would be an issue. He agreed that a north/south corridor was needed but opined that it did not have to be through the residents’ properties. He opposed the project but thought that segments A and C were the only portions that residents were concerned with.

Ms. Katie Herrera, a resident on Quiet Lane, said that segment C would affect her the most and disagreed that it was needed. She relayed her understanding that this area was Water Conserv II and that there were other items that could help with the road. She said that if the road was approved, she encouraged the Board to ensure that the residents had buffers with vegetation and assistance with light and noise pollution, along with visual impacts. She also advocated for not having streetlights and for keeping it as a two lane road. She supported the road being as far west as possible and for it having no connection to Phil C. Peters Road. She noted that there was a rural community there and that it was a water recharge area.

Ms. Mary Waldrup, a resident on Hartwood Marsh Road, felt that her way of life would be directly impacted by this project, and she expressed interest in early acquisition and being approached for input on where the road could go. She expressed concern for a possible roundabout being in her front yard.

Commr. Campione asked if she was north of the road and if she had a for sale sign on her property.

Ms. Waldrup clarified that she was on the corner of Fox Hole Road and Hartwood Marsh Road. She noted that it showed that they would be taking a sliver of her property. She commented that the for sale sign was down the road, and she mentioned that she would also be impacted by having to reconfigure driveways and wells. She hoped that the Board could get the residents out of limbo, and she claimed that she had also experienced a medical issue.

Ms. Nancy Hensley, a resident on Peaceful Valley Drive, said that she had a 40 acre farm in her back yard and that the proposed road would go between her home, her farm, and Hartwood Reserve. She relayed that the residents at Hartwood Reserve would have a wall but that the sound impacts were not mentioned for residents with farms. She felt that the road would impact her family’s future, and she opined that the road was being built to mainly benefit Wellness Way. She relayed her understanding that the road was needed to develop Wellness Way but that this would require taking something from her and her neighbors. She urged the Board to consider the people that would be impacted and to be generous and compassionate.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Campione asked about the original PD&E study that went through the mine.

Mr. Schneider explained that Hartwood Marsh Road was originally considered as an east/west major roadway and the thought was that it would be four lanes from U.S. 27 through Lake County, through Orange County, and through the City of Winter Garden. He said that there was opposition to the road being four lanes in Orange County and that the road stayed two lanes with multiple roundabouts built on the Orange County side. He elaborated that since this time 15 or 20 years ago, what used to be citrus groves south of Hartwood Marsh Road had changed and the area was now the adopted WWAP. He remarked that the traffic model was updated to consider the CFX connector and the projected land uses, and it projected the needs on these roadways. He explained that before the PD&E study, there was the adoption of the Lake-Sumter MPO long range plan and the WWAP, which both included this roadway. He related that the other roads in the WWAP would be developer-built, and he said that as part of the PD&E study, there were a number of meetings with homeowners. He commented that the previous PD&E study that went through the mine did not consider the issues to be dealt with to get through the mine; furthermore, when Heritage Hills was built, they found some poor soil conditions. He elaborated that it would be difficult to place a road over it and that there would have to be a bridge or a surcharge of the soil. He related that the need was for a north/south road corridor and that after working with homeowners, they developed the idea of heading east to Orange County with two lanes, bringing the road further south from SR 50 down to Hartwood Marsh Road with a roundabout, placing another roundabout near a sharp curve trying to calm some truck traffic with speeds, and using the roadway design for traffic calming. He indicated that segment C was considered as a two lane roadway which had to come through Conserv II. He explained that segment C would be the third segment looked at as a roadway improvement further to the south, and segment B would connect the CFX expressway north to Wellness Way. He thought that segments A and B were more important in the next 10 years to start design and look for funding, and segment C was the third part of the north/south alignment. He reiterated that it was a $60 million construction project and commented that a large part of it had to be developer driven through the Wellness Way area where the developers would donate the land and stormwater ponds, while the County could help with impact fee credits. He mentioned they may seek some additional funding from FDOT to the north, and he clarified that they were not suggesting that they would have the funding for the entire project within the next five years. He explained that it typically took eight years from a PD&E study to begin construction and that some segments may occur sooner than others.

Commr. Breeden asked about the possibility of implementing some early acquisition for the homesteads that would be directly affected.

Mr. Schneider indicated that funding could be an issue and that once it was identified, the County would be considering the homes directly impacted by the roadway. He added that it would then be a willingness on both parties to come to terms.

Commr. Parks expressed concern for a lack of planning that led to this type of situation. He noted that about 1,100 people per month were moving to Central Florida, and believed that the County had to move forward with acquisition as soon as possible to give the residents some certainty. He indicated a concern for segment C and thought that if the BCC approved this, then they would have to make assurances that it would be one lane and use the furthest route west, along with being landscaped. He referred to the slide about landscaping and expressed support for the image on the right to protect Flat Lake, Fox Hole Road and Quiet Lane. He agreed that Hancock Road should have been addressed and that one of the conditions for him was that the County immediately work to list it as an FDOT widening project. He said that he had spoken to Clermont City Councilmembers and that Councilmember Jim Purvis was initiating an effort to support this at the council level. He relayed his understanding that widening Hancock Road could be done first and could delay the construction of CR 455 segment C another 10 years; however, he thought that the road would eventually need to be constructed with how the county was growing. He remarked that there was a County initiated effort to voluntarily change the land use to a special area for Quiet Lane and the Flat Lake community, and he said that this would be required for his support.

Commr. Breeden agreed with Commissioner Parks and said that she had met with some residents at Mr. White’s home. She thought that some changes were made with their input, and she supported building the road or planning for it, noting that it could take a considerable amount of time. She opined that it needed to be planned now before more development came into the area because this could affect the County’s ability to make plans. She expressed support for the purple alternative and indicated interest in modifying the southern roundabout, along with early acquisition so that directly impacted residents would not have to wait for years to plan.

Commr. Blake indicated a concern for voting for the item after hearing the residents’ perspectives. He opposed this use of eminent domain to benefit future traffic patterns and development, and said that he could not support it.

Commr. Sullivan stated that he had met with some residents and thought that the County had attempted to mitigate any impacts. He opined that part of these impacts were fixes that should have occurred in the past, including Hancock Road. He agreed with early acquisition and that Hancock Road should be addressed first, though he mentioned that this plan could change. He supported moving forward with the PD&E study and related that early acquisition would be driven by funding. He thought that the County needed to go back to the Lake-Sumter MPO and prioritize the most important roads and include them in the five year FDOT program. He said that one item not included in the plan was the cost of right of way acquisition, and he was unsure of how this would be funded. He said that while this was a long range plan, he believed that there was time to address early acquisition; furthermore, he expressed support for having compassion for the residents.

Commr. Breeden stated that she was willing to put the first primary interest on addressing Hancock Road.

Commr. Campione expressed a concern for the use of eminent domain when a person’s home was being directly impacted. She thought that there was a way to address this, and she questioned the width of the buffers around the sand mine and if there could be work along the edges. She said that she was in favor of addressing Hancock Road but noted that there would be a considerable amount of funding involved. She was unsure how to balance this with early acquisition, and she suggested that if there was commitment to this, then before moving forward the Board would need to hear some numbers and understand funding sources to determine if this could occur.

Commr. Breeden felt that this would be unneeded if the Board did not move forward with approval of the plan. She thought that the Board needed to make a decision and that due to impacts, it could become more challenging if they waited longer.

Commr. Parks opined that everyone had benefited from eminent domain and that roads had to be widened. He stated that residents would be compensated for this and that while he was concerned about it, he felt that the cost could be significantly higher if eminent domain was not used.

Commr. Campione thought that there needed to be a mechanism to address road widening and realignments. She indicated a concern for purchasing a property if there was not yet a plan to do this.

Commr. Breeden relayed her understanding that the Board would be adopting the alignment but not the final design. She also recalled that Mr. Schneider had stated that he was still considering the roundabout.

Commr. Campione suggested that adopting the alignment would be their plan to move forward with it.

Mr. Schneider confirmed that they could modify the roundabout but indicated that the alignment had been adopted in the WWAP and showed a line, which may have to be adjusted as well.

Commr. Campione inquired if the WWAP showed the purple alternative.

Mr. Schneider replied that it showed a line over a residential area but that this was where the current line was for adoption.

Mr. Meijer relayed his understanding that the traffic pattern studies did not consider the CFX expressway. He thought that if the County was going to expand Hancock Road to four lanes from U.S. 27 to where it would connect north of the sand mine, then it would alleviate a significant amount of pressure. He suggested that everything fed into SR 50 to the south or the north and that if there was a four lane east/west expressway from U.S. 27 to SR 429, then this could address traffic patterns. He also noted that Hancock Road would be extended south of Hartwood Marsh Road and opined that these items could be a solution without putting the subject road through. He also indicated an understanding that this was the recommended path and that there would be a design phase which would then decide where the road would be. He questioned if this item was already decided if the road could not be moved due to Wellness Way.

Commr. Parks asked if he was referring to moving the roundabout closest to his property to the west.

Mr. Meijer replied that this was correct, that he had horses, and that he could not afford less land than he had. He did not think that the conversation had occurred regarding property owners who wanted to stay in the area and how the plan could be adapted to residents who wanted to discuss early acquisition.

Commr. Campione expressed interest in exploring this option, and she thought the idea was interesting if they did not connect north to south in that location and if there was no segment C.

Mr. Schneider explained that segment C was predominately through Conserv II property, and he pointed out the segments on a map. He commented that the area was fully developed west to Hancock Road and that there was no other option for north and south heading west toward SR 50 until Hancock Road; furthermore, the south connection was currently under negotiation and he hoped that it would be brought to the Board soon for the first segment of bringing Hancock Road further south. He commented that in the Flat Lake area and to the east, there were five acre parcels and there was a concern for splitting the communities in the area. He felt that the only logical solution left bordered Hartwood Reserve and impacted some properties directly, though there could be some minor modifications to the location of the roundabout. He did not think there was a better alternative for the preferred alignment if segment C was desired.

Commr. Parks asked if they could defer on segment C and develop segments A and B while recognizing that they could work with residents to move the roundabout to a better location.

Commr. Campione questioned why a roundabout would be needed then and if they could instead round the road where a pond was shown.

Mr. Schneider indicated that a roundabout could be placed in a different area to help with the curvature and traffic safety issues.

Commr. Campione inquired if the Board could postpone the vote today and consider how to modify this so that the Board could adopt a modified version.

Commr. Parks thought that some issues such as landscaping and early acquisition needed to be clear. He expressed interest in working on segments A and B only for now.

Commr. Campione said that if it was being considered how to move the roundabout to reduce its impact, then they could have segment C intact if this was possible; however, if this could not be done, then it would not make sense to have a roundabout if segment C was developed.

Commr. Parks questioned how many landowners would be affected for segment C.

Mr. Darbonne clarified that they had not broken down the segments, and he displayed the numbers for the alternatives evaluation.

Mr. Schneider thought that it was the five landowners listed on the purple alternative because it was the only location where there were residences.

Mr. Cole asked if the Board would want for the consultant, staff and homeowners to meet to bring a back a variation of the request.

Commr. Campione felt that this would be important to determine details.

Commr. Breeden cautioned against eliminating segment C for future planning.

Commr. Parks indicated an interest in this looking at segments A and B only but understanding that some planning had gone into segment C. He also supported giving residents in segment C certainty that they were pursuing segments A and B first along with Hancock Road.

Mr. Cole added that there had been numerous public meetings and significant public input but relayed his understanding that some individuals present did not have an opportunity to provide feedback. He felt that this could be an opportunity to obtain additional input and see if there were other options. He believed that a significant amount of people were satisfied with the route currently but wondered if something could be done to further satisfy the residents.

Commr. Parks asked if this would be the aim in coming back in a short period of time.

Mr. Cole confirmed this and said that it could take about a month due to requiring design work from the consultant. He thought that something could likely be modified.

Mr. Darbonne indicated that they had modified this and that during their alternatives meeting, they impacted two properties to the north of the southern roundabout; however, they had shifted the route to the west which eliminated those impacts. He relayed his understanding that the Board had no issue with the purple alternative but that there was a concern for the exact location of the roundabout.

Mr. Cole stated that they recognized the importance of expediting this as quickly as possible for the residents and the Board, and staff would bring it back as soon as they could.

Commr. Parks inquired if this could include a resolution with regards to Hancock Road, and he thought that the County would have something from the City of Clermont by then pertaining to this item. He said that he did not want to move forward until this occurred.

Commr. Campione supported keeping everyone involved in this discussion informed so that input could be received. Mr. Cole asked the residents in attendance to make sure their contact information was provided to Mr. Schneider.

Mr. Rivera asked about Hartwood Marsh Road and thought that having four lanes would alleviate issues.

Commr. Campione explained that it had previously been planned to go through the middle of the mining property but that Orange County did not want it to become a major east/west connector. She felt that it would have to move a significant number of cars to alleviate traffic in other areas.

Mr. Schneider said that the traffic model was updated from 20 years prior which accounted for new traffic patterns and land use changes. He commented that with the CFX expressway to the south, the need was more north/south than east/west.

Mr. Rivera asked to confirm that there was no Hartwood Marsh Road expansion.

Commr. Parks relayed that there were segments of Hartwood Marsh Road that would be four lanes, and Commissioner Breeden added that it was not part of this north/south study. Commissioner Parks explained that for Hartwood Marsh Road west to U.S. 27, the City of Clermont and the County had required that right of way be donated for the widening of the road segment that was currently rated F. He relayed his understanding that most of Hartwood Marsh Road would be four lanes.

Mr. Schneider clarified that Hartwood Marsh Road east of CR 455 toward Orange County would stay two lanes but was projected to be four lanes west toward U.S. 27.

Commr. Campione summarized that this item could possibly come back in 30 or 45 days and could be scheduled early in the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board postponed the request for approval of the recommended build alternative of the County Road 455 alignment as presented in the Project Development and Environment Study to a future BCC meeting.

regular agenda

ordinance for business taxes

Mr. Cole asked for Tab 26 to be addressed ahead of Tab 25.

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Executive Director for Administrative Services, said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide a recommendation to eliminate the business tax receipts (BTRs). She provided the following background information about this item: at the December 2019 BCC meeting, Mr. David Jordan, Lake County Tax Collector, provided an overview of the Lake County BTRs; BTR rates were currently based on 37 classifications; the revenue was collected by the Tax Collector and was then provided to the County and municipalities; and the Board directed staff to provide a recommendation to simplify the collection process and ultimately phase out the BTRs. She then listed the proposed ordinance revisions: consolidate all 37 classifications into a single category; the rates would be $30 for all businesses in the current fiscal year, $15 for all businesses in FY 2021, and the BTRs would be completely phased out in FY 2022; and the fiscal impact for the County was estimated to be about a $130,000 reduction in General Fund revenue, along with a combined reduction of $61,836 for all of the municipalities. She read the requested action for approval to advertise an ordinance amending Article IV, Chapter 13, Lake County Code, entitled Business Taxes, to consolidate the 37 classifications into a single category and to phase out the tax by the end of FY 2022 through a one-third reduction in FY 2020, a one-third reduction in FY 2021 and elimination in FY 2022.

Commr. Campione said that the next time the BCC heard this matter would be a public hearing for an ordinance adoption. She recognized that Commissioner Blake had previously brought up the possibility of eliminating the BTRs to give businesses a way to lower taxes and to support prosperity and business in Lake County. She also recognized Mr. Jordan for conducting the logistical work and bringing forward the idea to address the ordinance and eliminate the tax. She felt that the current BCC was pro-business and supported low taxes to provide relief to the residents and businesses of Lake County.

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Jordan for bringing this item up and offering an alternative for phasing it out.

Commr. Blake recalled that he had brought this item forward originally due to some conversations with Mr. Bob McKee, former Lake County Tax Collector, and Mr. Jordan. He also commended the efficiency in Mr. Jordan’s office.

Commr. Breeden recalled that she had also previously spoken to Mr. Jordan about this but felt that now was the correct time.

Commr. Campione expressed that it was satisfying to start this process and see it through to eliminate the tax and simplify the process for businesses.

Ms. Barker commented that the public hearing would be on February 11, 2020.

Commr. Campione indicated that she would be absent for that meeting but that she supported the item.

Mr. Jordan complimented the Board and felt that working with them was a tribute to the community. He relayed that the other Constitutional Officers echoed the same compliments, and he thought that there was a greater benefit for the constituency from the civil nature of how they cooperated together. He thanked County staff and also the Board for their kind words.

Commr. Campione noted that the County had reached out to the Cities to ensure that they would be aware of the coming impacts and to receive their input. She said that the County had not heard back from them, but relayed her understanding that everyone was amicable and was kept informed.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to advertise an ordinance amending Article IV, Chapter 13, Lake County Code, entitled Business Taxes, to consolidate the 37 industry classifications into a single category and to phase out the tax by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 through a one-third reduction in FY 2020, a one-third reduction in FY 2021 and elimination in FY 2022.

public hearing: amended fiscal year 2020 budget

Ms. Barker introduced Mr. Brian Jaruszewski, the new Director for the Office of Management and Budget, who had come from Pinnelas County.

Mr. Jaruszewski presented the public hearing for the mid-year budget adjustment and said that this item included the resolution adopting the amendment and supplemental budget, along with schedule one which was the summary by fund of the changes, and schedule two which included the details of the budget amendment. He indicated that the mid-year budget amendment adjusted the beginning fund balance of the FY 2020 revised budget, along with incorporating unanticipated changes to revenues or expenditures that were experienced throughout the year. He commented that the current revised budget was currently at $476.01 million and that the sum total of the mid-year changes was $43.99 million; furthermore, the supplemental budget would be approximately $520 million. He stated that as of the time of adopting the FY 2020 budget in September 2019, the General Fund reserves were $15.4 million which represented about 9.8 percent of operating expenses. He related that this was broken into the categories of operational reserves at $13.7 million and Board priorities reserves at roughly $1.7 million. He explained that after the mid-year adjustment, there would be a decrease in the General fund reserves to $14.7 million, with a decrease to $13.2 million for operational reserves and $1.5 million for Board priorities reserves; additionally, the $14.7 million total represented 9.4 percent of operating expenses due to a 0.4 percent decrease. He remarked that there had been conversations about modifying the long range target to be closer to 16 percent of operating expenses as opposed to the current seven to twelve percent, and he anticipated that staff would be coming to the Board for an adjustment to the current policy to reflect the 16 percent. He then provided this summary of changes for the General Fund revenue: an increase of $350,000 related to the Waterman Village Industrial Development Revenue (IDR) bond fee; an increase of $35,000 for additional credit card convenience fees; an increase of $10,000 for anticipated animal shelter retail sales; and a decrease of approximately $138,000 related to the property valuations as of October 1, 2019 which incorporated any changes resulting from the Value Adjustment Board (VAB). He also listed these General Fund expenditures adjustments: a $200,000 increase for a homelessness initiative which would be impacting the Board priorities portion of the General Fund reserve and represented the implementation of an initiative equating to one position for a homeless liaison, along with the balance of the funding covering the sponsorship to stably house eight to ten individuals from the four largest cities and provide wraparound services to ensure their sustainability; an $88,000 increase for a Medicaid cost share adjustment related to health services; a $130,000 increase for the Lake County Supervisor of Elections for facility and re-budgeted costs, noting that $25,000 was for a planned expansion of the current leased facility, while the remaining $105,000 was related to the re-budgeting of annual operating costs; for judicial services, an $80,000 increase for a multimedia coordinator position and related information technology (IT) costs; a $300,000 increase for the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller for building improvements, commenting that there had been a distribution of excess fees at the end of FY 2019 for approximately $800,000 and this $300,000 represented spending a portion of that; a $950,000 increase for the Lake County Property Appraiser for a new mass appraisal system, noting that the total estimated cost was roughly $1.5 million and the $950,000 represented the portion that would be expended in FY 2020 and the balance of this amount would occur in FY 2021; a $100,000 increase for the Stormwater Management, Parks and Roads Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Fund for tree mitigation; a $700,000 increase for the implementation of a Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) grant for the fire/rescue fund; and an $800,000 decrease for the Fleet Management Fund for operational realignment. He added that there was a bank refinancing for the animal shelter and public safety radios, and this adjustment pertained to the sales tax revenue fund due to the projects being funded by sales tax revenues. He also said that an adjustment for bank loan financing for road resurfacing totaled $10 million. He summarized that after the mid-year adjustments, the General Fund reserves reflected a decrease of approximately $740,000 comprised of $540,000 for operational reserves and $200,000 for Board priorities reserves. He commented that in September 2019, there was approximately $400,000 of unanticipated costs that were incurred as a result of Hurricane Dorian, and that these costs were not recoverable through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) because they did not meet the threshold for recovery. He also stated that this $400,000 did not include the roughly $200,000 of costs that were incurred by the school system that had not yet been recognized but would likely be visible for the April 2020 mid-year adjustment.

Commr. Sullivan mentioned the bank loan refinancing where the County lowered the interest rate.

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.

Commr. Parks welcomed Mr. Jaruszewski and cautioned that the reserves were down. He felt that they should be at 20 percent of operating expenses and continue to support the Constitutional Officers’ plans for the next five years. He noted several County activities that cost money and opined that it was easier to have the funding to be able to reduce the millage rate significantly if a recession occurred, rather than reducing the County’s level of service.

Mr. Jaruszewski agreed and noted that 16 percent of the operating budget was a recommendation from the Government Finance Officers Association for county reserves.

Commr. Campione thought that this was a good target, and she mentioned that LifeStream Behavioral Center had asked for additional funding with regard to the South Lake Baker Act facility which was both a mental health and law enforcement issue.

Commr. Parks recalled that in September 2019, the BCC had discussed roads and being able to use some General Fund money for this. He indicated an interest in using some of the Board priorities fund for an urgent road project.

Mr. Cole complimented Mr. Jaruszewski and stated that when the Board adopted the FY 2020 budget, they discussed these priorities: a millage reduction, which was accomplished; additional funding for the LCSO, which was also accomplished; additional funding for road resurfacing, which was accomplished through the $10 million sales tax loan in the previous year; additional funding for operational reserves; partnership funding for a homeless shelter; and funding for LifeStream Behavioral Center to support construction of its South Lake services complex. He elaborated that LifeStream expected to be finished with the complex in May 2020, and their original request was for $500,000. He commented that currently, there was $1.5 million that the Board had designated within the General Fund for the items that the Board had discussed using it for at a later date. He mentioned that it was staff’s current plan to leave the $1.5 million in place until the Board provided direction on how they wished to expend it.

Commr. Campione thought that it was prudent to leave the funding intact and not to use it for an ongoing operating expense that could create an issue in the next budget cycle. She said that if other needs for funding arose, then the County would have the funds available to have flexibility. She commented that the concept of the homelessness initiative was to launch it as a pilot and see if they could create an impact that directly addressed moving people from the street into housing, as opposed to a bridge situation. She added that The Salvation Army could present a shelter concept, and she felt that having funding would allow flexibility for this. She relayed that for the homelessness initiative, she was trying to reach out to law enforcement agencies and the Lake County Sheriff and work on issues that could be associated with homelessness. She expressed an interest in working with law enforcement agencies to make a connection with people and then help them become connected to social services to move them toward housing.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved an amended budget for Fiscal Year 2020 to include a reconciliation of beginning fund balance and other adjustments, and Resolution 2020-13 adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2020.

Commr. Blake voted no.

reports

county attorney

vacation rental ordinance

Ms. Marsh recalled that when Mr. David Jordan, Lake County Tax Collector, had spoken at a previous BCC meeting about the business tax receipt, he had also discussed a vacation rental registration ordinance. She elaborated that staff was working on this item and was planning on bringing it back to the Board; however, a bill had been filed in this legislative session that would essentially do the same thing on a state level. She explained that the bill was specific in that it would preempt the Counties from having their own regulation in that area. She remarked that staff would monitor the bill, that it was moving through committee, and that it was currently in its second committee and had one more committee to go through. She stated that if the bill appeared to be stalling, then staff could bring their ordinance back to the Board. She expressed a concern for bringing the BCC an ordinance that they may have to repeal in a few months.

county manager

fruitland park and mascotte fire services

Mr. Cole recalled that at the January 14, 2020 BCC meeting, he had reported that the Cities of Mascotte and Fruitland Park had contacted County staff to discuss merging their fire services with the County’s fire service. He remarked that he and Mr. John Molenda, Deputy County Manager, had met with the Fruitland Park City Manager on the previous day, and began drafting an agreement for their consideration and ultimately the consideration of both elected bodies. He added that he and Mr. Molenda would participate in a workshop with the Mascotte City Council on February 4, 2020 to discuss their fire services; furthermore, he would continue to keep the Board informed.

commissioners reports

commissioner sullivan – district 1

keep lake beautiful meeting

Commr. Sullivan commented that he had attended his first Keep Lake Beautiful meeting, that it was a working committee, and that they had made some progress on items that the Board could see in the future. He felt that it was all very positive.

commissioner parks – district 2

elder affairs coordinating council series of meetings

Commr. Parks said that the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council met on Tuesday, January 21, 2020 and was launching a series of nine meetings that would focus on aspects of being an elder friendly community. He noted that it was a program that mirrored the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and that the council had requested to let the Board know about this and to formally ask if the Lake County Office of Communications could help promote the meetings and encourage residents to attend them. He also recognized the work of the council for supporting veterans and the elderly.

housing summit

Commr. Parks stated that there was a housing for all group in South Lake who had requested that the BCC conduct a countywide forum to address accessory dwelling units (ADUs), waivers of impact fees, and tiny homes. He asked if Commissioner Campione could possibly send out an invitation to have another countywide summit to try and get the Cities involved.

Commr. Campione asked if this would be in conjunction with the housing for all efforts.

Commr. Parks thought that this topic could occupy a substantial amount of time in a forum, in addition to what Commissioner Campione had brought to the Board at the previous BCC meeting. He relayed his understanding that some individuals in South Lake were interested in ADUs.

Mr. Cole thought that Mr. Steve Smith, Founder of New Beginnings of Central Florida, had set a meeting date for February 20, 2020. He said that Commissioner Campione was planning to attend, and he remarked that the County was working on setting up a meeting discussed at the previous BCC meeting for Commissioner Campione and the city managers of the Cities of Clermont, Leesburg, Mount Dora and Eustis, along with their law enforcement officials.

Commr. Parks stated that could be the meeting he had previously referred to, and he asked where it would be held.

Mr. Cole replied that it would be held in South Lake.

Commr. Campione related that she could talk to Mr. Smith about the possibility of having time to discuss the homeless initiative concept that the County was considering. She said that Mr. Smith’s focus had been on how to make housing more affordable and how to accommodate workforce housing, along with other housing needs. She expressed interest in being able to relay what the County was working on and their next steps. She inquired if Commissioner Parks could possibly serve as a liaison to Mr. Smith’s group and keep them connected with the BCC.

Commr. Parks responded that he would not mind doing this and that he could give a monthly update on this. He suggested advertising the meeting in South Lake in case he and Commissioner Campione attended.

Commr. Sullivan felt that this was a complicated issue involving homelessness to workforce housing including transitional housing, a shelter, etc., and that there could be a better program to address it.

Commr. Campione commented that Lake 100 had a subcommittee that she was sitting on and that similar discussions were occurring. She thought that more collaboration could lead to good ideas and enacting them in the community. She noted that for each concept there were pros and cons, along with issues of balancing it with the concerns of existing property owners for items such as higher densities.

firefighters charity event

Commr. Parks thanked the firefighters who had invited him to the firefighters charity event in the past week. He noted that other Commissioners were there and that he was a judge in several contests.

resolution in support of sadowski trust fund

Commr. Campione expressed interest in communities across the state and many individuals possibly supporting a Constitutional amendment stating that the State Legislature could not take from the Sadowski Trust Fund and that the fund was set up for a specific purpose. She supported recognizing that the legislature was taking funding that was set up for a purpose that could address needs throughout the state.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Resolution 2020-14 in support of the Sadowski Trust Fund.

Commr. Breeden was absent for the vote.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

taste of north lake county event

Commr. Blake congratulated the Umatilla Chamber of Commerce for the Taste of North Lake County event on the previous night, and he mentioned that he participated as a chef in the event.

commissioner campione – CHAIRMAN AND district 4

trip to Tallahassee

Commr. Campione reported that she, Mr. Ron Russo, Deputy County Manager, Mr. Cole, Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity, and Ms. Marsh recently went to the City of Tallahassee. She said that they had been able to meet with most of their legislative delegation and that it was positive. She mentioned that Ms. Marsh had met with Representative Anthony Sabatini about the issue regarding the Right to Farm Act and false farming activities in Lake County, which were essentially mining activities that were having impacts on roads and adjoining neighbors. She commented that the County’s lobbyist was also there and that they had some other phone calls and meetings with the Florida Department of Agriculture since that time regarding the Right to Farm Act issues. She hoped to find a solution that would be less than legislation but could still address the issue, and she noted that the County was still working on it.

Mr. Cole felt that there was a sense from their legislators that they were willing to advocate on the County’s behalf. He indicated that the County was working diligently to get their requests attached to bills.

Commr. Campione thought that the County’s previous presentations were helpful and that she tried to line up the most important priorities based on the legislators’ initiatives and priorities.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m.

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK