A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

august 11, 2020

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 11, 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 Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Campione remarked that Mr. Spencer Kostus, with the Office of Emergency Management, would be leading the Pledge of Allegiance and had served in the United States Army 82^nd Airborne Division as an Airborne Infantry Noncommissioned Officer from 2004 to 2009, and was deployed to Iraq from 2006 to 2007 to support the troop search during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She said that after his active service, Mr. Kostus became a paramedic and worked with the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), noting that he currently served Lake County as Operations Coordinator in the Office of Emergency Management. She thanked Mr. Kostus for his service and for leading the pledge.

Pastor Morgan Flagler with the First Baptist Church of Tavares gave the invocation and Mr. Kostus then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Commr. Campione mentioned that this meeting was a hybrid meeting which was a combination of an in-person meeting and one which allowed individuals to participate virtually. She asked for Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, to explain how citizens who were listening remotely could participate.

Mr. Ross explained that this meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through a Zoom Webinar for members of the public who were unable to attend in person but wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to speak during the Citizen Question and Comment Period of the meeting could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 on their phones to virtually raise their hand and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would then identify the person or their phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and allow the citizen to speak for their three minute timeframe. He added that anyone wishing to provide written comments could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments presented before 5:00 p.m. the previous day were shared with the Commission prior to this meeting, and that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, stated that the since the agenda had been published the previous week, the following changes had been made: on Tab 30, staff revised the attachment in order to move one of the projects to a more appropriate category; for Tabs 37 and 43, staff added an attachment which was distributed to the Board the previous week; and Tab 44 had been added as an addendum to the Consent Agenda; additionally, he requested for Tabs 34 and 38 to be removed from the day’s agenda and rescheduled at a later date.

covid-19 update

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, provided an update on the County’s response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) concerns and reported that the Emergency Operations Center remained at a Level 2 activation, and the Lake County Citizens Information Line (CIL) was open Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 352-253-9999, noting that it was closed on the weekends but had recording information which would provide testing locations and the Florida Department of Health (DOH) local COVID-19 hotline at 352-742-4830. He then shared these statistics from the Florida DOH’s website regarding COVID-19 cases within Lake County: there were 5,177 total positive tests, noting that three weeks prior there were 3,391 cases; total number tested was 65,358, while three weeks ago it was 46,618; within the last three weeks, 18,740 tests had been conducted with 1,786 testing positive, which equated to a positivity rate of 9.53 percent in that three week period of time; the total percentage of positive test results was 7.92 percent; and 68 deaths had been reported as of this date with 36 deaths reported three weeks prior. He mentioned that Lake County’s positivity rate was the second lowest when compared to surrounding counties, with Sumter County being the lowest. He indicated that the age distribution of cases had changed from what they were originally seeing in March through May 2020, noting that it was currently affecting a younger age with the age group most affected being those who were 25-34 years old. He reported that the second most affected age group was individuals 35-44 years old, the third most affected age group was 45-54, and the fourth age bracket was the ages of 15-24; furthermore, the median age for COVID-19 positive cases was 41. He stated that when monitoring hospitals, his office referred to the information provided by the Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA). He indicated that the three main hospitals in Lake County had bed capacity, had no unmet needs, and had the ability to increase intensive care unit (ICU) beds if necessary. He stated that since April 27, 2020, the County had issued 734,941 pieces of personal protective equipment (PPE), noting that this also included assisting the Supervisor of Elections with cleaning materials which he needed for the primary election. He said in regards to cases within the county’s long-term care facilities, there were 26 facilities with positive cases, 60 staff that were positive, 78 residents who were positive, 41 residents who had been transferred out of the facility, a total of 179 staff and residents who were positive, and 11 deaths with 10 being residents and one staff. He then reported on group homes which were licensed by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, noting that there were 14 facilities in total with cases, six staff and eight residents were positive, five residents had been transferred out, and no deaths reported. He then shared COVID-19 testing locations throughout the county. He commented on the County’s facemask distribution which began on July 7, 2020. He reported that 7,327 masks were given out the first week, 6,001 masks the second week, 4,178 masks the third week, 6,236 masks the fourth week, 4,817 masks in week five, and 324 masks were distributed so far for the current week; additionally, the County had provided 53 boxes, which was equivalent to 26,500 masks, directly to groups such as Chambers of Commerce and Constitutional Offices with 55,383 total masks distributed to date. He also acknowledged that Lake Support and Emergency Recovery (LASER) had assisted 61 businesses, churches and agencies with 57,562 cloth masks, 1,300 procedure masks, four gallons of hand sanitizer, 224 bottles of hand sanitizer, and 15 boxes of gloves. He mentioned that Lake County Schools had partnered with Adult Medicine of Lake County to provide rapid COVID-19 testing for teachers, staff and students before the start of school on August 24, 2020; furthermore, the DOH was working with Lake County Schools to provide educational materials to students and families with information on how to prevent the spread of COVID-19. He concluded with an update regarding hurricane season, noting that this year’s forecast had been updated to extremely active. He remarked that the updated outlook called for 19-25 named storms, with 7-11 being hurricanes and 3-6 being major hurricanes. He relayed that the County had monitored Hurricane Isaias and provided 2,240 sandbags to residents.

Commr. Campione shared that emergency management meetings with surrounding counties were taking place weekly to discuss COVID-19 issues, policy considerations, and hospital capacity, noting that Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and medical directors of the major hospitals were also on the call to report on what they were experiencing. She mentioned that the previous week, Lake County had relayed in these meetings what they were doing with the school district in regards to the rapid testing. She noted that this rapid testing would give a better snapshot of true positivity rates within the general population.

Mr. Aaron Kissler, Administrator/Director/Health Officer for the Florida Department of Health in Lake County, shared information on the DOH website regarding COVID-19 and how Lake County compared to what was happening around the State of Florida. He reported that the number of COVID-19 cases had decreased since he last reported; however, there had been 32 deaths since that time, noting that certain preexisting conditions, such as obesity, lung disease, and age were contributing factors, which were similar to what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had been noting. He then shared information on DOH testing locations, and thanked the locations which were allowing the DOH to utilize their area for testing, noting that the DOH remained the largest testing provider. He opined that Lake County’s per capita rate was fantastic as far as what they were performing currently, and the positivity rate continued to decline. He said they had doubled the capacity of their contact tracing, and encouraged residents to be cooperative with the DOH epidemiologists during their contact tracing procedures; furthermore, he stressed the importance of the public continuing to follow the CDC guidelines and to remain home when sick. He said the mask distribution with the County and other partners was going well, and reported that over 300,000 masks had come through their warehouse. He emphasized that wearing masks, social distancing, avoiding close spaces, and hand washing were key elements in stopping the spread of the disease. He relayed that his department continued to monitor cases in long-term care facilities, and were reviewing ways to safely shelter the special needs population during the COVID-19 pandemic as part of their hurricane preparedness. He summarized that the COVID-19 cases and positivity rate continued to decline in Lake County; furthermore, he stressed the importance of the public continuing to follow the measures mentioned which could stop the spread of the disease.

Commr. Campione asked about the outbreak at the state corrections facility near the City of Minneola the previous week.

Mr. Kissler replied that his office was still receiving information on that, but noted that currently around 100 cases from the past week were from this facility. He said that the DOH was continuing to work with the institution regarding this.

Commr. Campione mentioned that in regards to the contact tracing and the need for people to disclose who they had been in contact with, she emphasized that this reporting was anonymous and that the epidemiologists would not disclose who had been the source of infection.

Mr. Kissler confirmed that when his office calls a contact, they do not identify who had been exposed but merely that there had been an exposure. He thanked the Chairman for her efforts to connect the DOH with partners, which he noted had assisted with the ability for processes to function better.

Commr. Campione asked for Mr. Kissler to request that the State DOH add to their website information regarding the active positive rate which she noted would give a better perspective of the current cases. She said that this additional information, along with the cumulative numbers already on the website, would help the public better understand what was truly happening in the state. She also asked that there be a notation made on the website for any institutional outbreaks which she noted would help explain some of the spikes happening; furthermore, she requested that the DOH review the accumulation of data coming in from outside agencies that is sometimes delayed since often it appears on the website on one day when the data was across several days.

Mr. Kissler responded that it was announced the previous evening that the DOH website would soon be displaying a two week timeframe for cases. He also said he would make the other requests to the DOH.

Ms. Jo-Anne Drury, Deputy County Manager, reported on the approximate $2 million in funding recently earmarked for rental, mortgage and utility assistance. She recapped that approximately $400,000 was coming from regular State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funds, about $300,000 from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) fund, and around $1.36 million from the SHIP-CARES Act grant. She indicated that the $1.36 million SHIP-CARES Act housing assistance program had launched the previous day, noting that 2,569 people had pre-registered over the weekend, 305 individuals had completed applications, and about 1,400 applications were started but still in draft mode. She mentioned that the temporary call center had opened, and then shared their phone number and hours of operation. She indicated that on their first day, they received over 440 calls; additionally, the Office of Housing and Human Services had received hundreds of emails requesting assistance with the application and several citizens came into the office to utilize the self-service station. She shared that a paper application was also available which could be picked up at the Office of Housing and Human Services, although she noted that this process would be slower than the online application and would delay an individual in getting into the queue for assistance since this program was a first come, first serve basis. She remarked that the review process would begin by the end of the current week. She provided some additional information regarding the application process, and complimented staff from multiple departments for their great teamwork in getting this program launched. She mentioned that staff had recently received information from the grantor which stated that assistance with utilities was only allowed if the household was also being assisted with rent or mortgage, noting that the grantor’s overall goal was eviction and foreclosure prevention first. She relayed that households had to have past due balances in order to be assisted; therefore, if households were current with their rent or mortgage, then they were not eligible for assistance from this particular program at this time. She indicated that additional SHIP-CARES Act funding might be available in October 2020.

Commr. Campione mentioned that some residents had opined via social media that it was unfair to those who had done all they could to stay current with their bills, including borrowing money, charging on their credit card, and etc., to not be eligible. She hoped that could be addressed once the process continued. She said this could be something the County could consider when discussing the additional $48 million in funding, although she noted that the Cities were also looking for assistance to offset their additional expenses. She said that this housing program helped unincorporated as well as city residents.

Commr. Sullivan said that he agreed, noting that he had also received emails from residents who had done everything they could to meet their obligations and had concerns that they were not eligible. He proposed reaching out to individuals in this situation with the second tier of funding.

Mr. Cole relayed that as part of the Agency for Economic Prosperity’s presentation, staff would present opportunities as well as suggest funding amounts for various areas including these thoughts to assist residents directly.

Commr. Parks commented that he wanted to make sure the mortgage holders and landlords were the ones receiving the payments.

Commr. Campione confirmed that was how the program was currently set up to go straight to them.

Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity, presented information on the Lake County CARES Act funding which included an update on the Lake CARES Small Business Assistance Grant Program, a CARES Act funding overview for the full $64 million allocation, and a proposed CARES Act funding category breakdown for the $48 million, which was the additional 75 percent. He relayed that pre-registration and sign-up for the Lake CARES Small Business Assistance Grant Program was live on the www.reopenlake.com website, with August 17, 2020 as the target date to begin accepting applications. He indicated that the eligibility requirements and required documentation were also posted on the website, that staff would be sending email messaging to their network and to those who had signed up for notifications on the Submittable platform, and that his office was coordinating with the Office of Communications for messaging. He reported that over 500 people had signed up for notifications so far, and that the call center being utilized for the housing assistance program would also be used for business assistance calls as well. He also provided an overview of the CARES Act funding for the full $64 million allocation to Lake County, noting that the County was directly allocated 25 percent of this $64 million total, and had received this $16 million in funding. He recapped that the Board was utilizing approximately $1.6 million of the initial funds to support the Lake County School Board with COVID-19 related expenses; furthermore, the remaining funds from the $16 million were dedicated towards the Lake CARES Small Business Assistance Grant Program, with a commitment to fully fund the program with future funding. He recalled that the remaining $48 million of the Lake County CARES Act funding was previously only accessible through reimbursement after the original direct allocation of 25 percent was expended; however, the State of Florida and the Florida Association of Counties had informed Lake County that additional access to the $48 million may be expanded, noting that they were proposing that Counties could submit spending plans that outlined their commitments to specific programs and spending amounts which would allow them to gain access to the additional 75 percent of CARES Act funding quicker and more efficiently. He then discussed potential CARES Act funding categories that could be considered for the $48 million of funding, such as business assistance, resident assistance, workforce and education assistance, public safety, City, County and Constitutional Officer assistance, and contingency funds. He recalled that the Board had identified early and remained strongly committed to the business assistance category, and that the Lake CARES Small Business Assistance Grant Program was created because of this. He explained that the commitment was to provide $16 million in funding with $12 million going to for-profit businesses, $3.5 million for nonprofits, and $500,000 for administrative costs; furthermore, about $14.3 million would be from the initial $16 million allocation, due to the $1.6 million going to the school board, with $1.6 million from the $48 million allocation or another dedicated source. He added that additional funding could be allocated to this program and the program could be expanded, noting that this potential expansion had been discussed by the working group which would assist if this did take place. He recalled that resident assistance was discussed previously in the meeting by Ms. Drury and included $2 million allocated from regular SHIP, CARES Act SHIP, and CDBG funds for rental, mortgage and utility assistance; additionally, applications had begun to be accepted on August 10, 2020, with the possibility to expand or create new programs. He mentioned that there was the opportunity to assist or create new workforce training programs as part of these CARES Act funds, and that the $1.6 million allocated to the school board was within this category but that other education assistance or needs could also be determined. He relayed that funding for public safety could possibly include a range of opportunities such as the following: the countywide emergency communications microwave system, which was the County’s 18 tower radio communications system used by all emergency personnel, first responders, the 911 center and the hospitals; increased testing availability; hurricane preparedness and expansion of safety measures brought about by COVID-19; and personal protective equipment and other safety related material. He remarked that in regards to City, County, and Constitutional Officer assistance, these funds were allowed to be utilized to assist these entities with COVID-19 related costs. He shared that the County and municipalities had met to discuss costs they had already incurred as well as those projected. He relayed that the consensus at that meeting was to provide funding directly to municipalities in order to expedite access of funding with another meeting taking place on August 13, 2020. He mentioned that for contingency funds, staff was recommending that the Board dedicate a portion of funding that could be utilized on unforeseen issues, set a cutoff date for these dedicated funds, and put a plan in place to spend or allocate the remaining contingency funds after a predetermined cutoff date but prior to the December 30, 2020 deadline. He then displayed a chart depicting proposed funding amounts for each category just mentioned for Board discussion and consideration.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she had reviewed the business assistance application online, and noted that when the parameters for the business assistance were orginally set, the working group wanted to not include any businesses other than the nonessential businesses affected by the Safer-at-Home Executive Orders. She recalled that the Board had discussed if this might be too limiting and that those businesses might have also applied and received Payroll Protection Program (PPP) funding as well. She indicated that if 500 people had already applied for the business assistance program, and this was multiplied by the $5,000 funding amount, then it would equate to $2.5 million. She wondered if there could be a way to create a waiting list for those who did not meet the requirements so that the Board could better understand how many businesses might be interested.

Mr. Matulka said that was a good point, noting that the online platform automatically saved applications which would allow staff to message applicants if the program eligibility requirements were later expanded. He stated that staff could keep track of that and report numbers to the Board and the working group to keep everyone informed. He reiterated that their goal was to remain as adaptable as possible in order to get assistance out as soon as possible.

Commr. Campione encouraged making businesses aware that the program might be expanded to include those who did not currently meet the requirements.

Commr. Breeden inquired if there were representatives within the working group from the businesses who might not qualify for this round of funding.

Mr. Matulka responded that the only representatives who were initially part of the working group who were not eligible were the banking and financial institutions. He indicated that as discussed at a previous BCC meeting, they would add some of these representatives, such as realtors, to the working group when they met again to discuss the possible expansion of the criteria.

Commr. Parks relayed that he had looked for something positive to come out of the negative aspects of COVID-19, and said that workforce training could be a potential opportunity, noting that this would be after getting businesses stabilized first while reassessing the rental, mortgage, and utility assistance. He proposed partnering with Lake Technical College and allocating around $20 million towards workforce training.

Commr. Breeden stated that she liked the theory behind that idea; however, she expressed concerns with the ability to be able to quickly develop an effective program for this since the County had to expend the funding by the end of the year.

Commr. Parks understood that, but hoped that the flexibility for using the funding would continue to evolve; furthermore, he noted a program could be created in that four month period.

Commr. Blake inquired if Commissioner Parks was desiring to fund scholarships for existing programs or to create a workforce program from scratch, and Commissioner Parks replied it was both.

Commr. Campione opined that it made sense to assist with scholarships for someone who was attempting to get retrained in order to pay their bills. She wondered if the next potential federal round of funding might be a better place to consider this type of program as she noted that the intent for this funding was to provide immediate relief to individuals who could not currently pay their bills. She understood the desire to look long-term, but said many were struggling with short-term needs. She said that while she was a supporter of workforce training and the programs at Lake Technical College, she cautioned addressing workforce training with that much funding at this point.

Commr. Parks believed that Lake Technical College had programs already crafted that could be ready to be implemented, and that he realized $20 million may not be the right amount. He also understood that Cities needed funding as well.

Commr. Sullivan agreed that he liked the idea of workforce training, but wondered which of the other categories could be reduced to address this. He said that one category he would consider reducing might be the City, County and Constitutional Officers because he noted that the $15 million proposed allocation for this category equated to almost one-fourth of the $64 million. He expressed concerns for putting this much funding into these governmental categories. He opined that since the business community was having to tighten its belt, then government should too. He opined that even though property values might go down, unemployment may stay up, and sales tax revenues would be down, the government still had a source of income. He realized that the County had additional expenses related to COVID-19, and opined that these funding proposals were uncertain at this time. He shared that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) was suspending their infrastructure program for future projects until there was a better understanding of revenue. He remarked that in the short-term, the County needed to keep their economy strong; additionally, he noted that if unemployment rates continued to decrease, then that was a great indication of this. He relayed that within his district, many citizens work within the tourism industry, and opined that if they were unable to help with resident assistance, then the workforce training and long-term considerations would be nonexistent anyway. He appreciated the proposed categories and funding amounts for the Board to consider; furthermore, since the State was now possibly considering allowing access to the reimbursable funding if the County had a plan, he encouraged having a plan ready so they could react quickly.

Commr. Breeden asked what direction staff needed from the Board.

Mr. Cole responded that staff would need direction on the proposed funding categories and possible funding amounts, noting that they could provide this at their next meeting in order to give the Board time to review this information. He relayed that the goal was to submit a spending plan to the State so that the County would not have to spend County funds first in order to get reimbursed. He expressed an understanding that the County could do individual spend plans for different components and not necessarily for the entire $48 million. He stressed the desire to have a plan in a timely manner in order to be able to spend the funding by the deadline.

Commr. Breeden noted that if the business assistance was successful, it might also help with people staying employed. She preferred to have jobs coming from businesses which were struggling and have the education assistance at a later time. She relayed that she had spoken to the City of Leesburg and indicated that they had ideas for programs which could also assist businesses; therefore, she said that funding in that category might not simply go towards COVID-19 expenses.

Commr. Campione opined that might make it tricky if the County was operating an overarching business program but individual Cities were also doing programs. She wondered if they would distinguish businesses inside the city limits. She said this category should focus on what Cities have had to expend in regards to PPE, overtime, and whatever they might have experienced in managing their operation.

Mr. Cole relayed that there was a conference call the previous week with all the Cities, noting there was about a third participating with another meeting happening this week. He shared that there was a variety of requests for funding, with some focused on businesses. He gave an example that if a City did receive funding which they might use on businesses, then perhaps it could get embedded into the County’s program so that the City did not have to create the infrastructure already done by the County. He said that other Cities were focused on the infrastructure that they were having to put into place to protect their staff and the public, such as plexiglass barriers, etc.

Commr. Parks asked if there had been any discussion with Lake Technical College regarding workforce training.

Mr. Matulka replied that he had not talked with them regarding any specific programs, but that he would reach out to Dr. Diane Culpepper, Executive Director for Lake Technical College, to discuss.

Commr. Campione reminded the Board that Lake Technical College was part of the CareerSource program and that Dr. Culpepper sat on that board. She believed that they were receiving funding which could be used for education and retraining, and opined this might be a more appropriate place for funding to go through to Lake Technical College.

Commr. Parks asked for staff to find out if Lake Technical College was receiving funding through this and to ask specifically if there were programs that were possibly ready to be used. He agreed not to diminish funding to business assistance as he opined that business stabilization was the first priority.

Commr. Breeden opined she would support more funding for businesses.

Commr. Campione proposed waiting to see how quickly the funding might get utilized. She reiterated her desire to find a way to support residents directly. She opined that helping residents would also assist businesses because it would be assisting employees. She expressed support for leaving resident assistance at the proposed $13 million amount, and relayed that Orange County allocated $1,000 to any resident who had been impacted by COVID-19, noting that this County did not have many parameters around this funding. She understood that Lake County had received a different amount of funding and needed to be restrictive in making decisions and determining eligibility; however, she gave an example that giving $500 could potentially assist 26,000 people, and allocating $1,000 could serve 13,000. She was not certain what eligibility requirements could be established for legal reasons, although she said that one parameter for resident assistance could possibly be that funding go to residents who had been displaced because the business they worked for was not considered essential.

Mr. Cole summarized that the Board seemed generally pleased with the categories proposed, and that they desired for the funding amounts to remain flexible. He indicated that staff would present more detail around these categories for the Board’s August 25, 2020 meeting in order to have Board discussion and for staff to be able to prepare spend plans for the State.

Commr. Breeden proposed taking the $3 million for workforce training and adding it to resident assistance.

Commr. Campione opined it should be left with workforce training at this point until they were able to see how much the funding for the school board was able to assist and if they might have additional needs. She also wanted to get input from Dr. Culpepper on what training could potentially be accomplished and how impactful it might be.

Commr. Breeden noted there was $4 million proposed for contingency funds.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of June 2, 2020 (Regular Meeting).

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:30 a.m. for fifteen minutes.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Clark Morris, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for traffic safety in Lake County and mentioned that he had written a letter to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) regarding this, which he submitted copies of this letter to the Board. He opined that law enforcement was unable to address all the issues relating to traffic enforcement due to a shortage of officers, and he encouraged the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to assist with providing funding to the LCSO in order to attract and hire more deputies.

Mr. Vincent Niemiec, a Lake County resident, inquired about a parcel of land in the City of Clermont area, which was potentially going to be developed as an assisted living facility, noting that this piece of land already had three large buildings on it that included a church and a school. He asked if this land owner would need to obtain permission from the County in order to access County roads in the area. He said that this development was near the intersection of Hartwood Marsh Road and Hancock Road, and he opined that these roads were rated an “F” level of service and could not handle any additional traffic that might come from this facility. He then displayed a map of this parcel of land and development.

Commr. Campione inquired if this was within the City of Clermont area, and she asked for Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, to provide some information and connect with Mr. Niemiec to answer his questions.

Mr. Schneider responded that staff had just begun to receive information on this towards the end of the previous week. He indicated that this area was already annexed into the City of Clermont, and he then showed on the map where the church would access Hancock Road, noting that there was already an agreement for the design and construction of the Hancock Road extension. He indicated that there had been issues and concerns in that area, and that the County would be evaluating what type of access they would allow on Hartwood Marsh Road at that location.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification that the developer was requesting to access Hancock Road once it was extended and would not be able to make a direct access to Hartwood Marsh Road.

Mr. Niemiec indicated that the developer already had access to this road because they built the access, and that all exits and entry points for this church facility would be leading to Hartwood Marsh Road. He expressed concerns for this.

Mr. Schneider indicated that staff had reviewed this earlier, and that he did not believe a traffic study had been submitted yet. He remarked that staff would need to consider total impacts but had not received all the data yet.

Commr. Campione summarized that the County was waiting for a traffic study to be submitted and that they would have input since it was a County maintained road.

Mr. Niemiec expressed an understanding that this developer had already broken ground and had access to the road.

Commr. Campione asked if they had a site plan approved by the City of Clermont.

Commr. Parks said that the City approved the right turn in and out off of Hartwood Marsh Road, which was prior to the construction on the assisted living facility.

Mr. Schneider thought the County was waiting on the site plan. He indicated that properties within the city limits could be improved and access a County road. He said that once the County reviewed the site plan proposal and traffic information, then they would impose certain requirements for improving County roads.

Commr. Campione asked if the assisted living facility was already approved, and Commissioner Parks indicated that it was going before the City of Clermont Council on August 25, 2020.

Commr. Parks proposed that Mr. Schneider discuss with the City of Clermont the long term plans for Hartwood Marsh Road and County Road (CR) 455.

Ms. Samii Yakovetic, a City of Clermont resident, expressed concerns for the lack of concurrency management in the areas of Hartwood Marsh Road and Hancock Road. She opined that these roads had not undergone road improvement upgrades that were necessary to ensure the safety of residents in the area. She asked for the BCC to consider a moratorium on high density development in this corridor.

Commr. Campione encouraged the citizens to present these concerns to the City of Clermont, and expressed that the County would do their best to work with the City and the residents.

Mr. Rob Coufal, a Lake County citizen, expressed concerns for comments made by President Donald Trump regarding wearing facemasks, as well as online comments made by Commissioner Campione. He opined that politicians were using COVID-19 for political gain.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, 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 8, 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.

City of Eustis Ordinances

Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinance 20-14, corresponding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 20-15, and corresponding Design District Amendment Ordinance 20-16 from the City of Eustis.

State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity final order DEO-20-027

Request to acknowledge receipt of the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity’s final order DEO-20-027 pursuant to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, approving land development regulations adopted by Lake County, Florida, Ordinance No. 2020-12.

Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District Proposed Budget

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 2020/2021 in accordance with Section 190.008(2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Proposed Budget

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 2020/2021 in accordance with Section 190.008(2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Proposed Budget

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 2020/2021 in accordance with Section 190.008(2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Financial Audit Report

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Annual Financial Audit Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, and Section 189.418, Florida Statutes.

Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Financial Audit Report

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Annual Financial Audit Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, and Section 189.418, Florida Statutes.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

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 28, plus 44, as follows below:

PROCLAMATIONS

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-114 designating September 8, 2020, as Orlando Cat Café Day in Lake County, per Commissioner Parks.

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-137 conveying heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to Mary Harding Galbreath for her many contributions to the Lake County community, per Commissioner Blake.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval to hold a Closed Session of the Board of County Commissioners on August 25, 2020, to discuss Lake County vs. Christopher Douglas Leifer, et al. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Request approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2020-138 to accept $1,308,961.00 in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and State of Florida for the reimbursement of expenditures related to Hurricane Irma, with the funding to be allocated as follows:

1. $281,937.00 to the Office of Fleet Management to purchase replacement vehicle lifts and provide retroactive payment of an increase in internal per hour fleet labor charges that was to have been implemented October 1, 2019, per the attached memorandum.

2. $1,027,024.00 to General Fund Reserves.

The fiscal impact is $1,308,961.00 (revenue/expenditure).

Procurement Services

Request approval to declare items as surplus and authorization to remove them from the County’s official fixed asset inventory records. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.

AGENCY FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Request approval of a Release of Restrictive Covenants for Lot 1, Christopher C. Ford Central Park Phase III, (Alt Key 3871807 - Republic Drive, Groveland). There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval:

1. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County's bids to host the 2021 B.A.S.S. Open Series Fishing Tournament, the 2021 Fishing League Worldwide (FLW) Toyota Series Fishing Tournament, and the 2021 Major League Fishing (MLF) Bass Pro Tour.

2. For the Chairman to execute the agreement with B.A.S.S., LLC, MLFLW, LLC and MLF, LLC, if selected as tournament host location.

The fiscal impact is not to exceed $185,000.00 (expenditure - TDT funding). Commission District 3.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Request approval to amend the Medical Director and Associate Medical Director Services Agreement with The University of Florida Board of Trustees (University) to permit the University to assign Associate Medical Director(s) instead of referencing a specific physician(s). This also applies to any other assigned University-employed physician (including Fellows), as employees/agents of the University. There is no fiscal impact.

Public Safety

Request approval of an amendment to the Smart911 System and Services Agreement with Rave Wireless, Inc. extending the agreement by 5 years. The fiscal impact is $51,300.00 (expenditure) annually over a 5-year term.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Facilities Management

Request approval of a budget transfer from Facilities Management Administration and Non-Departmental funds for utility expenditures. The fiscal impact is $171,500.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of Contract 20-0448 with Randall Mechanical (Apopka, FL) for maintenance of backflow prevention assemblies and fire hydrants. The fiscal impact is $30,000.00 (expenditure).

Housing and Human Services

Request approval to submit registration of interest for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) grant and, if approved by VASH, authorize submitting a grant application, and authorization for the County Manager to execute any documents required during the grant application process. The fiscal impact is anticipated to be $133,560.00 per year if the requested 15 VASH vouchers are received.

Request approval of the 2020-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 5-Year Consolidated Plan and the 2020 Annual Action Plan, and authorization for the Chairman to execute all documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Resolution 2020-145. The fiscal impact is $1,338,110.00 (revenue).

Request approval of the Substantial Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2019 Annual Action Plan and 2018 Annual Action Plan, approval of related Resolution 2020-139 and Resolution 2020-140, and authorization for the Chairman to execute any documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval of the Lake County Mental Health Transportation Plan in accordance with Section 394.462, Florida Statutes. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval to advertise the re-allocation of $300,000.00 of Community Development Block Grant - CARES Act (CDBG-CV) funds to mortgage and rental assistance, and non-congregate sheltering of homeless individuals. There is no fiscal impact.

Request ratification of a Non-Congregate Sheltering Agreement with Lake Yale Baptist Conference Center Inc., executed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners on July 22, 2020, under the authority of Resolution 2020-106, and authorization for the Chairman to execute future amendments to adjust the contract to reflect other funding sources that may become available. The fiscal impact (expenditure) will not exceed $100,000.00 and would be eligible for reimbursement through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

Request approval to apply for the Emergency Solutions Grant COVID-19 through the Mid-Florida Homeless Coalition, Inc., and authorization for the County Manager to execute any documents required during the grant application process. The potential fiscal impact (revenue) is up to $840,000.00.

Library Services

Request approval to accept donation of a bookmobile from the Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library. The fiscal impact is $75.25 (expenditure - title transfer fee) to receive the vehicle valued about $60,000.00.

Parks and Trails

Request approval of Contract 20-0415 with Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. (Coleman, FL) for Athletic Field Painting and Marking Services, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $70,000.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of Contract 20-0427 with Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc. (Ocala, FL) for Bermuda sod, new installation and replacement, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $100,000.00 (expenditure).

Public Works

Request approval to execute a license agreement and supporting Resolution 2020-141 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for a connection to FDOT’s Intelligent Transportation System at the intersection of the Florida Turnpike and Hancock Road in Minneola. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Request approval and execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Clermont for the transfer of jurisdiction of public right of way for the development of the AdventHealth Park Campus. The fiscal impact is $35.50 (expenditure - recording fees). Commission District 2.

Request approval for the Chairman to execute Resolution 2020-142 amending the County Transportation Trust Fund to receive $4,175.00 in unanticipated revenue for fiscal year 2020 from the City of Mount Dora for a change order issued for the water line portion of the County's Sylvan Point Drive Drainage Improvement Project. The fiscal impact is $4,175.00 (revenue/expenditure). Commission District 4.

Request approval of a Haul Permit application submitted by CF FROG GRO, LLC (New York, NY) for hauling activity associated with the DFL8 – Groveland Last Mile project located in the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park near the Groveland. The fiscal impact is $20,100.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission Districts 1 and 3.

Transit Services

Request approval to purchase transit support vehicles through the Florida Department of Management Services Contract for Federal Transit Administration Grant Agreement numbers FL-90-X834-00 and FL 90-X876-00, and Florida Department of Transportation Section 5339 Grant Agreement Number G0994. The fiscal impact is $246,106.00 (expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Request approval of:

1. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307 Grant for the purchase of various planning, capital, operating, and security assistance through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020.

2. Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2020-143 recognizing additional revenue from the FTA 5307 Grant through the CARES Act of 2020.

The fiscal impact is $9,639,686.00 (revenue/expense – 100 percent grant funded).

presentations

homelessness workshop

Commr. Campione recapped that the Board was focused on this topic in the fall of 2019, then the COVID-19 pandemic hit; therefore, it was now being addressed again. She mentioned that even as the County was working on their response to COVID-19, one of the topics that arose related to homelessness.

Ms. Drury introduced Mr. Kelvin Coachman as the new Director for the Office of Housing and Human Services. She commented that Mr. Coachman had extensive experience in social services with a particular emphasis on homelessness, was a Navy Veteran, and also worked for The Salvation Army for over five years. She said the County was pleased to have him join their team. She then recalled that during the budget workshops, the Board had asked for staff to prepare a workshop on homelessness, noting that this presentation would provide an update on Lake County’s homelessness initiatives. She mentioned that Ms. Stephanie Glass, with the Office of Housing and Human Services, along with other various speakers, would be presenting information on the background and history of what the County had done so far in regards to homelessness, current statistics, best practices, the City of Sarasota model, law enforcement response, homeless shelter update, and next steps.

Ms. Glass shared the following background regarding homelessness initiatives which the County had taken to date: a homelessness workshop on June 25, 2019 during which Mr. Sandy Lichterman, with The Salvation Army, presented a vision for a homeless shelter; a homelessness leadership meeting at The Salvation Army on July 25, 2019 which included various stakeholders; an update from The Salvation Army to the BCC regarding possible locations for the shelter on August 13, 2019; Lieutenant Chris Doborwicz, with The Salvation Army, presented a system of care proposal to the City and County manager’s meeting on September 5, 2019; Lieutenant Doborwicz provided an update on the progress to create a homeless shelter to the BCC on October 8, 2019; an affordable housing and homeless shelter workshop took place on December 3, 2019 in which staff presented to the BCC on existing regulations for accessory dwelling units and cottage homes as well as plans for a meeting with municipal leaders on the homelessness coordination; at a BCC meeting on January 20, 2020, the Chairman presented a communitywide homelessness mitigation plan and the Board approved $200,000 in funding for a housing and homelessness liaison position and the Housing First Initiative; a municipal leadership meeting happened on February 20, 2020, at which the Chairman presented the communitywide homelessness mitigation plan to the City leaders and the City of Sarasota representatives presented their model; a meeting took place on February 26, 2020 with the City of Clermont police department regarding the City’s current model and plans for their homeless outreach; and the homelessness and housing liaison recruitment began in June 2020, noting that it was currently in the selection process. She then introduced Ms. Barbara Wheeler, Executive Director of Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, who would be reporting on current statistics. She explained that the point-in-time (PIT) count was a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January; furthermore, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that Continuums of Care (CoC) conduct an annual count of people experiencing homelessness on a single night, noting that Lake County’s PIT took place on January 28, 2020.

Ms. Wheeler remarked that the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition was the lead agency for Lake County as well as three other counties, noting that performing the PIT count was one of their responsibilities as the lead agency. She reiterated that this was a federal requirement in order to continue to receive HUD funding for continuum of care. She explained that the PIT count may not be completely accurate since they are required to find and count every homeless person within a 24-hour period, and often times homeless individuals that do not want to be counted will make themselves unavailable. She explained that her organization considered both a count of households and of persons because when attempting to get people back into housing, many times they must consider how many households there are that need to be housed. She reported that for Lake County, only 43 households were sheltered, with the remaining 166 unsheltered. She indicated that the only emergency shelters in Lake County were the Haven of Lake and Sumter Counties which served the needs of domestic violence victims, the Christian Care Center Samaritan Inn for homeless families, Forward Paths Foundation for youth sheltering, and New Beginnings of Central Florida. She referenced that the PIT count of persons for Lake County was 295, and then showed a graph depicting the PIT count for Lake County from 2015 to 2020. She explained that her organization used a by-name list of homeless which reflected every homeless person that they were in contact with within the county, and she showed a graph with these numbers from January through July 2020. She commented that her organization attempts to stay in contact with these individuals to understand if they are still homeless or have moved into housing; however, due to COVID-19 and the higher number of incoming phone calls to their organization, they had not been as capable of following up with individuals to see if their situations had changed or if they had moved into housing. She pointed out the number of veterans on the by-name list, and indicated that her organization was attempting to end homelessness for veterans and to get them into housing in all four of the counties they covered. She remarked that her organization had outreach teams which were working in the community and hoped to be able to utilize some of the CARES Act funding in order to better expand the outreach. She explained the inflow and outflow of homeless, and reported that for June 2020, Lake County had 36 new people coming into homelessness with only five identified who went into permanent housing. She opined that with that many coming into homelessness with so little going out, the numbers of homeless would increase. She also noted that for June 2020, no veterans came into homelessness and none went into housing; however, four new veterans were identified as homeless for July 2020 with one being housed. She opined that CARES Act funding that helped residents also assisted landlords and banks; additionally, she indicated that State of Florida Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) funding could be utilized to rehouse people, especially those who may have recently become homeless. She expressed concerns that the funding her organization was receiving to rehouse people would not be enough to end homelessness in Lake County.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification of the inflow and outflow chart and if May and June 2020 numbers were reflective of COVID-19.

Ms. Wheeler replied that was correct, and emphasized that this was reflective of new people coming into homelessness in a particular month.

Commr. Campione opined that these individuals were not necessarily chronically homeless, but became homeless due to COVID-19, and Ms. Wheeler agreed. Commissioner Campione emphasized that the Board’s discussion on homelessness in the fall of 2019 was focused on chronic homeless individuals and moving them into housing; however, she remarked this was a completely different issue that needed to be addressed, and Ms. Wheeler confirmed that it was.

Ms. Glass then introduced Ms. Amanda Rosado, Ending Homelessness Team Director with Florida Housing Coalition, who would be presenting virtually and sharing current best practices. She stated the following regarding the Florida Housing Coalition: their mission is to bring together housing advocates and resources so that all Floridians have a quality, affordable home and a suitable living environment; they provide training, technical assistance, and consulting to communities; they are recognized as the State of Florida’s authority on homelessness; and Ms. Rosado had participated in the City of Sarasota plan which would be discussed later in the meeting.

Ms. Rosado thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak, and explained that the Florida Housing Coalition was a statewide nonprofit coalition and that she worked specifically on initiatives to prevent and end homelessness through technical assistance and training. She mentioned that she would be presenting a high level overview of the housing crisis response system, what that meant for Lake County, and how the system could be improved to ensure that people experiencing homelessness were permanently housed. She opined that this was critical because people experiencing homelessness were at a very high risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 for many different reasons. She relayed that a question she has often been asked was if the CARES Act funding was to respond to COVID-19, then how would someone experiencing homelessness fall into that category. She said that while this funding was for individuals who had lost their income due to unemployment, she opined that homelessness should not be left out of the public health response. She then displayed a graphic depicting the components of an effective housing crisis response system, noting that it was the makeup of all the different providers, housing, and services available to assist people experiencing homelessness or significant housing instability. She remarked that at the center of this graphic was continuum of care which is a collective of groups and organizations, including local government, that are working to prevent and end homelessness. She commented that the components around the CoC were considered the vital components that every community needed in order to have a coordinated, effective response to homelessness, and included outreach and coordinated entry, prevention and diversion, emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing. She said that while each component was important, it was vital to consider the right size of the component, noting that her organization often assisted with determining this. She then displayed a flow chart depicting the inflow, active homeless, and outflow as well as the makeup of each group. She elaborated that those inflowing into homelessness are usually made up of newly identified individuals who have never been in homelessness, those who are returning back from a housing program, and those who had returned from being inactive, which meant that they had fallen out of the homeless service system but were currently returning. She noted that the outflow from the system is comprised of those who move into housing or those who simply become inactive because they are no longer receiving services. She stated that the goal was to slow down the inflow and increase outflow, and that the mechanism for this is the continuum of care. She reiterated that Mid Florida Homeless Coalition was the lead agency to coordinate this continuum of care, that they receive HUD funding and State funding to utilize to prevent and end homelessness, that they coordinate local collaborative efforts, and that they should be involved in any decisions being made. She said it was key to understand that nonprofits were not judged individually, but that HUD looked at a system performance and reviewed across the continuum of care at every agency in the county’s system. She indicated that HUD considers items such as the average length of time people remain homeless, the percentage exiting into permanent housing, how many people are returning back into homelessness, and if housing programs are successful. She opined that everyone needed to work together and that permanent housing had to be the main focus. She remarked that a robust approach was needed in order to address homelessness and that a community should increase permanent housing solutions, have a communitywide approach, and provide leadership. She indicated that one of the largest sources of funding for ending homelessness came through the Emergency Solutions Grant. She remarked that local government strategies and investment were key to increasing permanent housing opportunities; furthermore, it was not just about funding projects but about having a coordinated plan and goals that everyone agrees on and are working towards. She opined that shelters and transitional housing programs could be built; however, if there was not a simultaneous effort to ultimately get people into permanent housing, then the efforts would merely be warehousing individuals. She opined there were not enough options within Lake County, whether crisis or permanent; therefore, she encouraged having important conversations regarding all funding sources available in order to maximize and leverage funding sources to meet the needs of residents, businesses, and people experiencing homelessness. She then displayed information regarding CARES Act funding sources and eligible uses to address homelessness. She stated that when taking a communitywide approach, it was important to consider who was involved in the decision making process and to include a wide representation, such as healthcare, law enforcement, local government, service providers, housing developers, landlords, low-income renters, and people disproportionately impacted. She shared that that one of HUD’s caution statements is that short-term solutions have long-term consequences, which she opined meant that it was important to prioritize so that the needs of all the community members were being met. She concluded with discussing leadership, and shared that in the areas where her organization had assisted, those which had true leadership that championed the work, stayed the course, followed the evidence, and had equity for all were the most successful.

Ms. Glass then introduced Mr. Kevin Stiff, Coordinator of Homelessness Response with the City of Sarasota, and Mr. Joe Polzak, Assistant General Counsel with the City of Sarasota’s Sheriff’s Office, to provide an overview of the progress being made to end homelessness in the City of Sarasota area. She mentioned that they would be discussing crisis intervention trained officers, uniform response by law enforcement, the use of bridge beds and hot beds, and how case management was key to solving homelessness.

Commr. Campione noted that these individuals had made a presentation to the municipal group prior to COVID-19. She said that the group was impressed with their practical knowledge and experience because they had taken a very difficult situation in the City of Sarasota and made a great impact on their homeless numbers.

Mr. Stiff opined that as long as organizations were discussing homelessness, then there was the opportunity to make a difference. He then shared his background and experience, noting that his experience had given him a unique perspective. He relayed that in 2014, he was placed in charge of developing a plan for the City of Sarasota’s response as a government to homelessness as it related to long-term chronic homelessness. He opined that responding as a government was different then how other organizations might respond because the government had other liabilities and challenges other than simply housing a homeless person.

Mr. Polzak shared his background, and noted that while he had previously served as Assistant General Counsel with the City of Sarasota’s Sheriff’s Office, he currently represented the City and a few other law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Florida. He said that he was a part of the 2014 homelessness response that Mr. Stiff had mentioned; additionally, he agreed that as a government, there were opportunities as well as obligations, and that part of his role was to ensure the highest standards were being met when they implemented their program.

Mr. Stiff opined that the solution to homelessness is not solving homelessness; rather, making sure a path is available for individuals who are ready and willing to move towards housing and to help them get on that path. He relayed that when they started this process in 2014, there was a large population who did not know the path or had given up on the path to end homelessness. He indicated that as they began to develop this plan and considered which partners would be a part of it, while they might have had different approaches, they all agreed that the goal was to have less homeless individuals and they started to look at what they could do to obtain this. He relayed that they started doing outreach in the community, paired case managers with police officers, and sent them out to make sure that every homeless person in the city knew the path to ending homelessness. He said that they were not trying to end homelessness, but attempting to provide an opportunity for long-term or chronic homeless individuals to end their homelessness and to make sure their system, or continuum of care, had identified them as someone who wanted to end homelessness.

Mr. Polzak stated that law enforcement is at the front lines of any social crisis occurring and are the first responders, with a mission to protect and serve the community while responding to calls for service, managing complaints that relate to public spaces and providing public order. He opined that law enforcement officers were a very effective tool, and that they were responding to calls and complaints and were able to address them in an effective way and also drive success and change throughout the social service and justice system. He opined that government can and should act, and remarked there was precedent in the law for legitimate, substantial and compelling interests at different levels for the government to engage in this type of public outreach program. He noted that case law was continuing to evolve on a national level, and emphasized that government programs must meet standards and address concerns that the courts have identified.

Mr. Stiff said that in 2014, they started two homeless outreach teams, they had a law enforcement response, and they were giving other options to homeless individuals besides taking them to jail. He indicated that as they progressed and provided a bridge to services, it was not really enough, and they needed to understand what was on the other side; therefore, they began to develop partnerships with The Salvation Army, continuum of care, and other rapid rehousing and permanent housing partners. He relayed their goal was to respond as an entire government and not merely just the police department, noting that they made sure that every department understood how to respond to homelessness, what they could or could not do, what services were offered, and what enforcement could happen if individuals refused opportunities to do something legally. He stressed the importance of leadership and having someone drive the process. He said that it was important to determine how to address within the system the chronic homeless person found on the street, who constantly has issues and for which an organization continually receives calls about. He relayed that some might say those individuals do not want to be housed; however, he remarked that it was more about many of them being tired of trying to work with the system. He opined it was up to government to change the system and make sure those individuals understood that the system had changed. He shared that their organization developed what they called bridge beds, which was funding of beds, since it took 90 days to get someone into housing. He remarked that everything within their system had changed since 2014, and he reported that for the four years prior to the beginning of their program, 75 people went into housing but 70 percent of them failed and went back into homelessness; however, from 2015 through 2018, 877 people entered into emergency sheltering and exited into housing with 80 percent of them remaining in housing.

Mr. Polzak stressed that the mission, message and management of a system was critical. He indicated that part of their system was taking ownership of their shelter program and designing a program that was effective at moving people through the system, not just warehousing them, but moving them to housing.

Mr. Stiff reported that 36 percent of individuals who went into a hot bed did exit into housing, with 43 percent having positive outcomes, which meant they might have gone to another program or job but not necessarily into a house. He stated that the Sarasota County Fire Rescue had a 29 percent decrease in calls since 2016, and a 41 percent decrease in 2019.

Mr. Polzak then displayed a PIT count survey comparison chart and noted that the City of Sarasota’s count was around 1,100 homeless individuals in 2014, dropped to the 600 range in 2016, then to the 300s in 2019, with additional decreases continuing; furthermore, from 2014 to 2019 there was over a 70 percent reduction in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness. He stressed that a system which was geared to produce outcomes was critical, and that this system needed to end homelessness for the chronic and long-term homeless on the street.

Mr. Stiff emphasized that while there were individuals that might be homeless who did not fall into the chronic category, there were already groups who addressed these individuals. He opined there was always a need, they could not help everyone, and they did not fill their beds with individuals who might self-resolve or fit into another category. He stressed that their mission was for long-term and chronic homeless individuals, and that their system was set up to identify these individuals.

Mr. Polzak explained that one of the differences in their system was that they had a local code which they created and actively enforced, noting that many cities had abandoned this. He commented that they achieved the maintenance of the rule of law and public order while at the same time protecting the human and civil rights of everyone that law enforcement came in contact with, including the protected and vulnerable class of people experiencing homelessness.

Commr. Parks thanked them for sharing, and inquired when the codes changed.

Mr. Polzak responded that when they started in 2014, they had an existing lodging outdoors ordinance. He said they built a better enforcement program around that which was an advanced ordinance; additionally, they added some additional ordinances regulating public spaces and other areas of public health and safety concerns throughout the development of the program.

Mr. Stiff added that they had their lodging outdoors ordinance challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) around 2013, they settled a cross lawsuit in 2016, and the outcome direction was if they kept doing what they had been, then they would be fine. He indicated that they had been sued for situations prior to their program, but once their system was in place, they were fine.

Mr. Polzak opined that the construction of a county’s code was critical to withstand a challenge; however, how the code is enforced is also important.

Mr. Stiff added that they did that through training.

Commr. Campione inquired if the hot bed system was what helped them.

Mr. Polzak replied that for the lodging ordinance it was critical to provide an alternative.

Commr. Campione clarified that there had to be a place to offer individuals to go, and then through this process, individuals could get into the program to obtain rapid rehousing. She asked how they connected with other services such as mental health or substance abuse.

Mr. Stiff responded that it was through partnerships with facilities that offer those services, noting that the continuum of care did not work with the mental health aspect. He remarked that they also held case management meetings every week to discuss all clients in their bridge beds, hot beds or The Salvation Army overnight beds.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification that bridge beds were for individuals during the 90 day period while they were attempting to get into rapid rehousing or waiting for funding for permanent housing. She inquired if the hot beds and The Salvation Army beds were the same or different.

Mr. Stiff explained that they had overnight shelter beds which The Salvation Army had always provided for free to anyone that law enforcement might bring to them, noting that it was really just a mat on the floor. He said the hot bed was a bed with storage, a shower, and a restroom. He elaborated that individuals are offered The Salvation Army mat for 24 hours and are not required to talk to a case manager nor do any other action. He relayed that after the 24 hours, they convert the person to three days of comfort and four days of change, at which point the individual must meet with a case manager to discuss what they want to do, how they plan to end their homelessness, whether it would be self-resolved or through another funding source, do they wish to get a job, etc. He reiterated that they give the individual three days of comfort to relax, detox if needed, and determine their plan; furthermore, at the end of the three days of comfort, they have to meet with the case manager to discuss their plan to end homelessness and they have four days to work through that plan with the case manager. He stated at the end of the seven days, if there is not a plan to end their homelessness, then they have to leave. He added that some may stay longer if their plan requires additional time, but that it is not a free ride without working towards their plan. He said their program is a housing first program. He indicated that he agreed with shelters that were small and housing focused and that people needed to continue to move towards housing or go to a place that is not as convenient.

Mr. Polzak added that The Salvation Army was a good partner for this because they are compatible in their mission and they operate as a triage for various services in order to help individuals achieve self-sufficiency which is the ultimate goal. He opined the system should be designed to help people achieve their full potential.

Ms. Glass remarked that Chief Charles Broadway, with the City of Clermont Police Department, had been proactive with programming and ways to address the public and the community. She then introduced Captain Michael McMaster and Officer Phillip Pollen, with the Clermont Police Department, to discuss their homeless outreach and Mobile Crisis Response Team, noting that their program had a mental health counselor available to respond to behavioral health calls and referrals, and that this counselor was co-located at the police department to help navigate the system of social services.

Captain McMaster mentioned that he oversaw their Administrative Services Division and that part of this division was the Community Services Unit which consisted of the Mobile Crisis Response Team. He relayed that these officers target areas of concern and that one of the issues recently had been homelessness; additionally, he shared that these officers interacted with the homeless individuals to determine how many there were, who they were, where they were staying, and to document all this information. He then asked for Officer Pollen to present information on this program.

Officer Pollen thanked the BCC for the opportunity to speak and also Chief Broadway for the chance to work with the community. He commented that the City did not necessarily have a set program but that he would be sharing the procedures they had been following. He indicated that he had previously heard the information shared earlier by the representatives from the City of Sarasota, and he said that he liked their approach of having a goal to make sure homelessness was rare, brief and nonrecurring. He relayed that the Clermont Police Department had placed an emphasis on quality of life and reduction of fear within the community with a mission to enhance the quality of life within the City by working cooperatively with the community to enforce law, prevent crime, and reduce fear. He indicated that the core values of the department included courage, honor, integrity, professionalism and service above self and were at the forefront of how their officers conducted themselves. He remarked that the tools they needed were already in place, and that communication and the centralization of resources was key; furthermore, he relayed that the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition had assisted them with organizing resources and working with the community. He opined that it might be easy to say that homeless individuals should reach out for help; however, it was important to recognize the many obstacles facing these individuals on a daily basis. He said that besides the fact that many homeless lack the ability to provide the basic necessities for living, many face mental illness, drug addiction, criminal records, social stigma, and lack of motivation due to the decreased social support. He remarked that homeless individuals often fall through the cracks and that it was society’s job to catch them and to help them move forward in the right direction. He opined it was important to think about the reasoning behind homelessness, and said that empowerment and positive interaction each step of the way was very important and what they attempted to do in the City of Clermont. He then shared four points which he opined were important and included communication, tracking, long-term focus on permanent housing, and resources, noting that they should all happen concurrently. He stated that it was important to have open communication with these individuals once they were identified, and this could be accomplished through communicating with other homeless individuals and through patrol contact, noting that law enforcement is often the first and only contact that a homeless person might have with society. He indicated that the next step was to build rapport by getting to know the person in a non-law enforcement manner, noting that it might take multiple attempts to meet them; furthermore, it was important to get to the root cause of the issue whether financial, substance abuse, criminal or an issue where someone has simply given up. He said that the next step was tracking. He explained that officers with the Mobile Crisis Response Unit were partnered with a licensed mental health counselor from LifeStream Behavioral Center, and they would go out to address and identify individuals who were actively in crisis in order to identify behaviors which might be contributing to homelessness. He indicated that his department had different reporting mechanisms that got reviewed regularly and their goal was to try to prevent homelessness by identifying and addressing issues before a person becomes homeless. He relayed that their road patrol was in constant communication with the Community Services Division in order to refer individuals, and that they had a map of homeless camps throughout the city, noting that there was city owned, county owned, and privately owned pieces of property involved with each requiring different rules for engagement. He commented that the City of Clermont approached homelessness as a crisis situation rather than a nuisance issue; additionally, punitive enforcement was discouraged when making contact with people in crisis which was why city ordinances, citations, trespass warnings and arrests were a last resort for them. He concluded with discussing resources which were extremely important, including the continuum of care, and were a safety net for individuals. He reported that they had multiple levels of resources that were available to assist and help prevent homeless individuals from falling through the cracks in the system. He opined it was important to validate individuals and to understand why they are homeless, and indicated that this was accomplished through partnerships with multiple services such as the police system, LifeStream Behavioral Center, The Salvation Army, food providers, religious institutions, the Department of Motor Vehicles for identification purposes, 501(c)(3) organizations, government, United Way, Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), and specialty shelters. He concluded by sharing a success story of a homeless family in their city that was identified and placed in a job and housing.

The Commissioners thanked them for what they were doing within Lake County.

Ms. Glass then introduced Lieutenant Chris Doborwicz, Corps Officer with The Salvation Army, who would provide an update on The Salvation Army’s plan for a homeless shelter and provision of services for homeless residents.

Lieutenant Doborwicz thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak, and provided a brief recap on their efforts prior to COVID-19. He relayed that in 2019, The Salvation Army researched the possibility of introducing an emergency shelter into the system of care as part of their response to homelessness; however, after many conversations with partnering lead agencies as well as Lake County Government, it was decided in January 2020 that prior to investing roughly $1.2 million into the annual operations of a shelter, there were a few items that needed to be addressed first with some strategies needing to be realigned moving forward. He summarized that they had discussed the importance of building and implementing a communitywide homelessness mitigation plan which utilized a housing first philosophy, referencing Commissioner Campione’s mitigation plan which she had previously presented to the BCC. He relayed that The Salvation Army continued to serve the community the best way they could over the last six months, that their staff and volunteers continued to help as safely as possible, and they tried to prioritize the basic necessities as well as emotional and spiritual needs. He was pleased to report that despite the limitations and challenges brought on by COVID-19, The Salvation Army had spent time updating some of their programs and services that reflected the methodology and philosophy of service as outlined in the County’s proposed mitigation plan; additionally, they had been conducting staff training and aligning to those goals with a deeper integration with partnering agencies as their number one priority in order to respond to the direction the community was heading. He added that they were also building an infrastructure that would allow them to be able to expand and scale some of their homelessness and housing initiatives, such as repurposing their old church and office in the City of Leesburg in order to meet the demands for increased office space for housing case managers. He noted that in order to further advance the mission as a continuum of care, they needed to continue to network across the various platforms to ensure that law enforcement, affordable housing, healthcare, mental health and other services were all on the same page with the same goal in mind. He also said that they should continue to look for possible funding. He knew there was still much work to get accomplished and that COVID-19 had widened the scope even further and made it more challenging to attempt to get focused on what they were doing at the beginning of the year; however, he opined that if they continued to move forward with a communitywide plan, then they could affectively mitigate and reduce homelessness within the community.

Ms. Glass thanked all the speakers and shared that the next steps were to fill the homelessness and housing liaison position, meet with the remaining municipality leaders, prepare a countywide homelessness strategic plan, and implement that strategic plan.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation to the speakers and for their presentations on the continuum of care, noting that it was very helpful in understanding the big picture.

Commr. Parks said he liked the Sarasota model and hoped the County would be able to go in that direction.

Commr. Campione commented that it gave a framework and emphasized a continuum of care. She recapped that it was important to have all of the partners involved in order to solidify what the strategic plan was and to then review how available funding might be able to assist with permanent housing needs. She remarked that one item from the Sarasota plan that Lake County did not have was the concept of hot beds or bridge beds. She said this might be the missing piece and maybe the County could coordinate with The Salvation Army on this. She added that another missing piece was enough funding for the permanent housing solutions.

Commr. Parks asked about the long-term considerations and what the County needed to consider per year in order to accomplish this and stay consistent with the mission and focus. He said maybe the hot beds might fall into place with The Salvation Army, and perhaps something in South Lake might work, such as with the Hope Center.

Commr. Campione asked if the Hope Center was doing overnight beds.

Commr. Parks replied that they were not currently, but that they had the continuum of care focus.

Ms. Glass responded that what had been planned in the past was about $10,000 to $12,000 per household for a year of rental assistance which would also provide the case management services as well, noting that the commitment would depend on the number of families the Board would like to assist.

Commr. Campione said that would be one component of funding for the County to help with some permanent housing units, noting that she was unsure what The Salvation Army might commit to funding.

Lieutenant Doborwicz commented that part of the success for Sarasota seemed to be that they utilized what was already in existence for emergency shelter. He said what was important for the continuum of care in Lake County was to decide if they were going to tackle this challenge with a shelter involved or not, noting that this needed to be a community based decision. He indicated that The Salvation Army was interested in playing that part based on their long standing history of doing so, but it needed to be factored in with all the other elements within the continuum of care.

Commr. Campione said that Sarasota had many outdoor lodging issues; however, she opined that Lake County’s situation was slightly different, noting that many of the county’s homeless were on private property, with some chronic homeless individuals within the downtown districts. She was not sure if Lake County needed the same model as Sarasota, but possibly something similar. She reiterated that Lake County’s missing link was the bridge housing because some may want to be on the path to permanent housing but it was not available yet in the county. She said the more the County built relationships with landlords who were willing to house people heading into permanent housing, the more realistic this plan might be. She said they needed to decide how many individuals they wanted to assist each year and determine what that would cost.

Ms. Wheeler relayed that the HUD notice of funding opportunities was about to be sent out for the HUD permanent housing, which was part of what Sarasota was mentioning. She said that Lake County needed to be prepared to apply for that funding again for this year, and that the biggest challenge with the program when the County had it in the past was the case management. She said it was important to address that so that this year’s application was a strong one. She opined that permanent supportive housing for the continuum of care was a high priority, but the grant application had to score well, noting that case management made the difference in whether that program would work. She anticipated that HUD would have this out within a month and she wanted Lake County to apply for that funding.

Commr. Campione clarified that Ms. Wheeler was indicating that the County might be able to get HUD funding, but in order to, they needed to invest or find a way to fund some case management or partner with another entity that would provide the case managers. She added that maybe The Salvation Army might be able to assist with this since they have case managers, and maybe the County could contract with them for this.

Commr. Breeden thought that the previous year, the County did fund one additional position to help with this.

Commr. Campione said the County did not score well for the HUD grant.

Ms. Wheeler indicated that Lake County’s application scored at the bottom so HUD decided not to fund that program. She stated this was a new year and a new opportunity and that it was important to have a good application from the County so that it got scored high and got funded.

Commr. Campione inquired what level of funding might be available through the HUD grant if they did score well.

Ms. Wheeler replied it could be about $100,000 which was about 10 households. She indicated that one case manager handling 10 households was a good amount since these were individuals who were chronically homeless with possible mental health disorders.

Commr. Campione asked what they would need in regards to case managers in order to score better and if there was a certain number needed.

Ms. Wheeler indicated there was not a certain number, but it was important that it be housing case management where they go out and talk to people.

Commr. Campione said it was like a life coach who was making sure individuals were doing what they needed to remain stable and not backslide into homelessness. She asked if there was enough within the $200,000 set aside to address this.

Ms. Glass replied that staff did include enough in that part to cover some case management; furthermore, within the grant application they were submitting to Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, they were retooling one of their CDBG positions which would provide that additional housing case management.

Commr. Campione recapped that it was specifically housing case management, and that if the County received HUD funding, then they might be able to assist up to ten families per year which would be in addition to the funding that the Coalition receives and goes to Lake County.

Commr. Parks opined for this to work, then all the Cities needed to be a part of it for both the codes and the plan itself. He asked when the County would know what the Cities might contribute.

Commr. Campione said that they were unable to have a follow up meeting with the Cities. She said that from this meeting’s presentations, they knew more about ways to actually bring the countywide plan together, noting that the county’s bigger cities were already doing components of it. She gave an example that if a City wanted to fund a certain number of units per year, then maybe they could give funding to provide the housing case management. She said they were getting closer to what it might look like. She remarked that for the ordinance, there might need to be certain components in place first, noting that a lodging ordinance could not be done if there were not places to put people.

Ms. Glass commended the Chairman for taking leadership for this since it helped to establish a consistent way for each City and the County to operate. She noted that based on the first meeting with the municipalities, that everyone seemed to be supportive of this; furthermore, there were working groups that could move forward with decisions.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 12:50 p.m. for 45 minutes.

blackwater creek wetlands mitigation

Mr. Schneider presented information on the Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC’s application for a permit to haul material from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) property, as well as staff’s recommendation. He then provided the following background: on June 5, 2018, residents appeared before the Board with concerns about renewal mining proposed on the SJRWMD property located north of CR 44A and accessed by Hart Ranch Road; on July 10, 2018, the Board approved a 10 ton weight limit on Hart Ranch Road and on Lake Norris Road (north of Lester Way), and the SJRWMD indicated to the County at this meeting that keeping the remaining sand on the site was a viable option; on January 29, 2019, the proposed development agreement to allow Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC to haul material from the SJRWMD property was discussed and requested to be brought back to the Board at a later date; on February 26, 2019, the development agreement with Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LCC to allow for hauling of material on Hart Ranch Road was presented to the Board and denied by a 5-0 vote; and on June 16, 2020, Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC submitted an application for a haul permit to use Lake Norris Road as the access to its site. He explained that a haul permit is required when transporting earth material totaling 200 cubic yards or greater from a single source on the County Road System; additionally, Board approval is required for transporting 10,000 cubic yards or greater, which is equivalent to 555 dump truck loads, noting that a staff administered permit is performed for anything below 10,000 cubic yards. He elaborated that criteria that is considered included available right of way, pavement and shoulder condition, availability of other routes for transporting material, functional classification of the roadway, traffic volumes, and safety of residents and road users; furthermore, additional items that may be required were detailed engineering evaluation of pavement conditions, performance bonds, and the number of days for the hauling process to be completed as well as the days of the week for hauling. He indicated that the Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC had applied for a haul permit to haul 2.8 million cubic yards of sand material from the SJRWMD property to be delivered to the Wekiva Parkway Section 7A project in Seminole County, to access the site from Lake Norris Road, and that it would be approximately 155,555 dump truck loads at 200 truckloads or 400 round trips per day. He then displayed a map showing the SJRWMD property, the excavation and mining area, and the proposed access location at the north end of Lake Norris Road near the bridge over Blackwater Creek. He also displayed a map of the requested haul route which was to go south on Lake Norris Road, west on CR 44A, south on CR 437, east on State Road (SR) 44, south on CR 46A, following the older CR 46A alignment, and then east into Seminole County. He added that sections of CR 44A and CR 437 currently had Class 8 truck restrictions, which were semi-trucks and not necessarily dump trucks, and that there was a posted 10 ton weight limit on Hart Ranch Road and Lake Norris Road. He stated that staff reviewed the conditions of the haul route roads and reported the following: Lake Norris Road was a 20 foot width road with a current poor condition pavement rating of five out of ten, was structurally deficient with a minimal clay base and asphalt overlay, may handle residential traffic and typical truck trips related to garbage and such, but the pavement would structurally fail with the proposed truck haul trips from the Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation site; CR 44A and CR 437 were in need of rehabilitation and possible reconstruction due to significant truck loadings occurring and further degradation would result in full reclamation of the existing pavement; and CR 46A was last resurfaced in 2006, but significant truck loading the last few years was creating unforeseen stress on the existing pavement which would shorten the pavement life. He concluded by stating that staff’s recommendation was denial of the Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC haul permit application.

Commr. Campione commented that this was not a public hearing; however, since it was a unique situation which the public had expressed interest in, and since there were citizens present in the meeting wishing to speak, she would allow the applicant to speak as well as the citizens.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, attorney representing Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC, thanked Mr. Schneider for the background history of the project which had been before the Board several times prior. He relayed that Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC had a contract with the SJRWMD to remove approximately 2.8 million yards of stockpiled sand from the County approved Eustis Sand Mine which was currently on property owned by the SJRWMD. He said that since the BCC had denied the request to haul material on Hart Ranch Road, the applicant was back requesting to haul on Lake Norris Road, noting that Lake County had given permission to use this road but then revoked it in 2018 at a staff level before the weight limits were established on the road. He opined that this was the only way out of the property and the only contractual way to haul it out from the SJRWMD property, noting that under the fifth amendment it had to be hauled out on Lake Norris Road. He indicated that the SJRWMD governing board approved a sixth amendment which stated that their executive director, Dr. Ann Shortelle, had the authority to execute a sixth amendment with Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC in order to allow them to haul it either way with whatever conditions Dr. Shortelle deemed appropriate, noting that to date, she had not exercised this authority and there was no written sixth amendment; therefore, the only contractual way to haul it was out Lake Norris Road. He commented that in regards to the staff report, the road maintenance issues could be worked out through an agreement similar to one that was proposed for Hart Ranch Road over a year ago. He requested a vote on the permit today.

Commr. Campione indicated that the background regarding this item went back further than even what was presented, and opined that this was an unusual scenario. She reiterated that Mr. Schneider was reviewing this from a technical engineer standpoint based upon the criteria utilized to determine whether a haul permit should be granted, noting that he indicated that Lake Norris Road would crumble, CR 44A would become worse, and CR 437 and CR 46A would have issues. She opined that Mr. Schneider presented a clear case for denial. She relayed that she had done some research on this, and that it appeared to be an expansion of this item to actual mining activity. She recalled that back in the 1980s when the Eustis Sand Mine was on this property, it was around the time that Mr. Hart purchased his property and the road went from being the Eustis Sand Mine Company Road to Hart Ranch Road. She indicated that in 1996, the State of Florida bought the conservation area by the lake where the Blackwater Creek is located, then in 2002, the SJRWMD purchased the old sand mine which was adjacent to the conservation area and sand mining ceased, noting that everyone was under the impression sand mining would end. She said that some hauling began to happen, there was an agreement with the SJRWMD to be able to haul for up to ten years, there were issues during this time and the neighbors were having to endure this happening, they came to the end of the ten years and everyone thought the hauling was finished, and then in 2012, a request was made for another five years of mining. She opined that the goal posts continued to move for the community. She said that in 2018 when it became apparent that the SJRWMD could no longer say that Hart Ranch Road was an acceptable way to get in and out due to all the issues, then the mitigation company proposed the concept of using Lake Norris Road and creating a new two-lane road and a new bridge through the original 1996 State purchased conservation area. She indicated that the mitigation company went to the SJRWMD and told them they would make $1.4 million if they let the mitigation company build the road, fix the bridge and haul the sand out using this route. She indicated that at that time, there was no discussion regarding the impacts to the conservation area nor to the number of people who used that for recreation purposes, nor were there conversations regarding the impact to the creek and the property. She also said it was interesting that the mitigation company had informed the SJRWMD that there was 1.7 million cubic yards of sand that they would be taking off the property; however, this haul permit showed that they were asking for 2.8 million cubic yards of sand. She wondered where the extra sand was coming from and said that this sounded like mining activity. She opined that this changed the nature of this; furthermore, if the County was looking at this as a mining application, then what they would be considering, in addition to the road impacts, would be how would the sand be hauled in and out, what would be the environmental impacts, how would the conservation area be impacted, etc. She said the Board had the grounds to deny this simply based on the technical review. She said that unlike a mining case where the County might deny and the company might not make money, this was very different since they had the opportunity to use credits for mitigation; additionally, they could sell roughly 150 credits for mitigation that were valued at about $100,000 each which made it an operation that could potentially make over $15 million, noting that she thought they had already sold 14 of the credits. She opined this was a profitable endeavor, and that they did not need to take sand off the property in order to make money. She recalled that in the 2018 meeting, staff had relayed that the restoration of the old sand mine property could happen without taking any sand off the property as the sand could be moved to other places on the property; therefore, she remarked that if the Board denied this application, this would not prevent them from engaging in restoration activity. She reiterated that the purpose behind the 2002 purchase of the property was for restoration and to create mitigation that would help offsite impacts in other locations in the basin. She said that if the sand deposits were left on site and moved around as necessary in order to fully mitigate, then it would fulfill all the purposes and protect the 1996 plan. She opined again that this was not simply a request to move sand off a piece of property, but included all this additional history she just mentioned.

The Chairman then opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Gary Rickard, a native Lake County resident, appreciated the Board’s concern for the area in which he lived off of Lake Norris Road. He relayed that his community had endured sand trucks off of Lester Way since the beginning of this year. He opined that these truckers had no regard for speed limits or safety due to their making more money the more they hauled. He indicated that the entrance out of this property onto Lake Norris Road was near a curve which he opined could be unsafe for entry. He expressed concerns for the safety of black bears in this area, and opined that this hauling request would have a negative effect on the environment in the area.

Mr. Scott Atkins, a resident from the affected area, mentioned that he had been before the Board when this topic was previously presented and that his concerns remained the same. He indicated concerns that flooding often happened on Lake Norris Road, that the road was not adequate according to the Lake County Public Works Department, and that this type of use for this road did not meet the definition for a conservation area. He shared concerns with other truck traffic in the area and their negative effects on the roads and the environment, and he asked for the Board to deny this request to move sand from the conservation area out onto Lake Norris Road.

Ms. Julia Tzobanakis, a Lake County citizen, shared some background information from the SJRWMD’s land management plan for the Lake Norris Conservation Area. She indicated that there had been several amendments to the agreement between the SJRWMD and the Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC and that their failure to meet the timeframe would cause the SJRWMD’s approval of the master plan to become null and void. She expressed concerns with the SJRWMD’s continual extension of the timeline and the effects on the taxpayers, and urged the BCC to deny this request.

Ms. Marie Anderson, a neighbor in the area, opined that the relationship the community had with the SJRWMD was not based on truth and integrity, and that the SJRWMD made many promises that they did not keep. She thanked the Board for researching the issues.

Mr. Paul Renick, a resident in the area, reiterated several pieces of background history that had already been presented in the meeting. He opined that the mitigation company could sell some of the credits and that the sand did not need to be hauled off the property. He opined that this haul permit would damage the property and negate the purposes of mitigation. He opined this hauling would negatively affect the roads, the safety in the area, and the quality of life in the area. He asked the Board to say no to this request.

Ms. Elaine Renick, a resident in the area, agreed with what had already been said by the other neighbors. She opined that this property belonged to the taxpayers and that the SJRWMD was merely the stewards of the property. She opined that this request would destroy one part of the conservation area when attempting to mitigate another. She relayed that this was an active wildlife corridor, and opined this would destroy that as well as the mature trees in the conservation area. She said that this was a protected area and did not feel this request would protect it.

Ms. Karen Elliott, with the Rafiki Foundation, mentioned that her organization had purchased 57 acres on Hart Ranch Road back in 2007. She indicated that they were told the sand mining would be completed by 2012. She expressed concerns for the safety of her employees and volunteers as they drove on the roads in the area, the disruption to the access to Lake Norris, and the effects to the tranquility in the area. She asked for the Board to unanimously deny this request.

Mr. Tom Birdstressor, a concerned citizen, remarked that most of what he wanted to share had already been stated. He opined that this sand hauling needed to be stopped, that it should not happen on Hart Ranch Road nor Lake Norris Road, and that the sand could be moved within the property for mitigation. He thanked the Board for their support in this matter.

The Chairman opened the floor for those participating virtually to speak and Mr. Ross reiterated the instructions for how to raise one’s hand to speak.

Ms. Pamela Higgins, a local resident, expressed concerns for endangered species in that area and that sand removal might affect these animals.

Ms. Vickie Morelle, a City of Eustis resident between Hart Ranch Road and Lake Norris Road, agreed with the concerns of negative effects to the environment, but also emphasized how this could potentially cause safety issues for humans due to increased traffic in the area. She asked the BCC to vote no to this item.

Ms. Prue Maxin, a resident of Black Bear Reserve, thanked the BCC for listening to the community’s concerns. She mentioned that when she had worked for the Department of Environmental Protection Division of State Lands, she dealt with people who acquired land for recreation and conservation use and indicated that the Blackwater Creek was discussed as far back as 1993 and was considered vital to the health of the entire area. She agreed with the concerns for traffic safety in that area.

Ms. Tonya Denmen, a resident of Black Bear Reserve, said that she utilized Lake Norris Road, and she asked the Board to deny this request due to the intense truck traffic in the area and the negative effects this would have to the quality of life.

Mr. Brandon Kilmartin, a resident of Cross Tie Ranch, expressed concerns for the early operating hours of dump trucks, their speed on the road, and the loud noise they create. He opined that no one in the area wants this activity. He indicated that everyone wanted their quiet, peaceful community to remain as is.

The Chairman brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Commr. Campione read a letter from Mr. Robert Hart regarding his property and the history of the sand mine and the area. She relayed that the County had several pending litigation issues currently with unauthorized hauling and mining situations in the northeast section of the county. She reiterated that what was presented for this item was a haul permit with staff recommendation for denial.

Commr. Breeden recalled that the Board voted against this the last time it was brought to them, noting that this was a different road. She mentioned that the Lake County Public Works Department did not often recommend denial based on roads, which she opined meant that the road truly did not meet the criteria. She said she agreed with the public works recommendation to deny this haul permit.

Commr. Parks said he agreed as well to deny it. He stated that the Florida Wildlife Corridor Foundation in conjunction with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory was mapping wildlife corridors across the state, noting that this area was a primary corridor for species. He relayed that he would take under advisement how decisions would affect these corridors and what measures might be put into place to protect them; furthermore, he did not believe there were any measures in place to protect corridors with this item. He noted this supported his decision to deny this request, and he understood everyone’s concerns.

Commr. Blake thanked those who spoke, and indicated he was fine with staff’s recommendation.

Commr. Sullivan said there were too many issues with this item and would support denial.

Commr. Campione asked for the SJRWMD to review the discussion from 2018, and to consider the fact that there was no representation regarding the unique characteristics of the Lake Norris Conservation Area, as well as the fact it was purchased for the main purpose of the wildlife corridor and the protection of the water quality of Lake Norris and Blackwater Creek. She opined this was not addressed back then and was not a part of the consideration, noting that she was unsure if this was intentional or not. She did not understand why this was not considered if there was going to be a road built through an area that was meant to be a wildlife corridor; additionally, to then allow a mitigation company to haul sand on that road in order to build a parkway that was intended to protect the black bear seemed to be completely counterproductive. She also expressed concerns that someone at that 2018 meeting had said that Lake Norris Road was capable of handling this truck traffic, and she opined that no one examined the road. She asked the SJRWMD to reconsider this request to remove the sand, which she opined did not need to be done.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied the Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC permit application to haul sand material on Lake Norris Road, CR 44A, CR 437, and CR 46A to the Wekiva Parkway project.

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 explained that this rezoning agenda was originally scheduled for July 21, 2020; however, it was postponed until this meeting. He indicated that there were four cases on the consent agenda, and that staff requested for the BCC to approve those cases as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 4, as follows:

Tab. 1. Ordinance No. 2020-39

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-15-2

Clermont Self-Storage Rezoning

Rezone 5.36 +/acres from Agriculture (A) and Rural Residential (R-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), to accommodate a mixed-use development office and light industrial uses, to include waiver request to the PUD minimum acreage requirement.

Tab. 2. Ordinance No. 2020-40

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-13-3

Markey Property Rezoning

Rezone approximately 0.184 +/-acres from Community Facility District (CFD) to Agriculture (A).

Tab. 3. Ordinance No. 2020-41

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-14-1

FFWCC Property Rezoning

Rezone property from Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance #1992-15 to Community Facility District (CFD) to reflect the current use of the property.

Tab. 4. Ordinance No. 2020-42

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-16-1

Broome Property Rezoning

Rezone property from Urban Residential (R-6) and Community Facility District (CFD) to Rural Residential (R-1) to facilitate residential development.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 5.

Rezoning Case # CUP-19-13-1

FL-186 Groveland CR 565 – Gulfstream Towers CUP

Conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a 199-foot monopole communications tower on Agriculture (A) zoned property.

Tab 6. Ordinance No. 2020-43

Rezoning Case # CUP-19-09-5

Raptor Air Soft CUP

Approval for a conditional use permit (CUP) on approximately 58-acres of a 162+/-acre property to allow a recreational air soft-gun facility within the Agriculture zoning district.

fl-186 groveland gulfstream towers cup

Mr. McClendon explained that Rezoning Tab 5, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-13-1, FL-186 Groveland CR 565 – Gulfstream Towers, LLC, was being brought back before the Board from the June 16, 2020 BCC meeting since there was no final decision made on this item at that previous meeting, noting that there was a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which did not carry. He indicated that staff was asking the Board for a final action on this case, whether to approve or deny the CUP. He noted that the applicant was present at the meeting if the Board desired to open up the case for a public hearing; otherwise, it would merely be Board discussion.

Commr. Campione inquired if all the record and comments from the previous hearing went into the overall record.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, replied that they did. She proposed that the Board base whatever motion made at this meeting on that previous record only and not to reopen it, noting that if the Board chose to reopen it, they had to allow the applicant and the public to speak again. She clarified and reminded the Board that at the last meeting the Board heard testimony regarding the health effects of towers, and she stated that the Board was prohibited from considering that in their decision since it was regulated by federal law. She remarked that the other comments that were made were generalized comments on aesthetics, which she said was another item they were not allowed to consider. She indicated that if the Board had actual evidence of an aesthetic impact, such as a balloon test or realtor who testified as an expert, then those would be more tangible items the Board could consider; however, generalized “I do not like it” or “I do not want to look at it” type of statements were not something the Board could consider in their deliberations. She reiterated her recommendation for the Board to base whatever motion they might make on what they had already heard, but they did have the option, if they chose to reopen it, they would reopen it to both parties.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification regarding the comment on aesthetics. She relayed that the Board had heard from people who lived in the area and they talked about the direct impacts on them from their perspective of where they lived and their home. She said that was not generalized; rather, someone telling them their opinion and giving information on how it would affect their property and the rural nature of the area.

Ms. Marsh responded that if they were actually giving the Board factual information, such as they lived a certain amount away from the property and would see the base of the tower for example, then the Board could weigh that as being a fact-based statement versus a generalized “I do not like it, I do not want to see it, we are in a rural area.”

Commr. Campione indicated that the Commissioners had the information from that meeting, and they recalled the discussion and testimony from that meeting. She said that it would not be reopened for additional comments.

Commr. Parks made a motion for denial based off of comments presented at the last hearing, and Commissioner Blake seconded the motion.

Ms. Marsh specified that if the motion for denial passed, then she would have to do a written order; therefore, she indicated that if the Board could give specific reasons, that would be helpful in writing the order.

Commr. Parks explained that his motion was based on facts presented by residents pertaining to their location and their perspective of the proposed monopole, as well as what he had mentioned in the previous hearing regarding siting as he was not convinced there was enough siting analysis performed on the location.

Commr. Campione clarified that he meant this was in regards to whether it was actually necessary in light of other towers in the vicinity, and if this would be the best location if they were trying to minimize the extent of towers in that area.

Commr. Parks confirmed that was correct, and added that it included whether this was the best location even if there was not another site nearby.

Commr. Campione asked Ms. Marsh if each Commissioner needed to give their reasons or if it simply needed to be in the motion.

Ms. Marsh commented that she would pull into an order any discussion the Board had prior to the vote.

Commr. Campione remarked that based on the information and testimony that she heard the day of the hearing, as well as the information and evaluation presented through the Planning and Zoning Board, she came to the conclusion that there were in fact negative impacts on immediately adjacent property. She recalled that the height of the tower was high enough that it would require lighting on it, and she opined that would create visual impacts that would be detrimental to the values of the property and the use and enjoyment of the property in the surrounding area. She said she agreed with some of the comments made at the last meeting about whether it had been fully analyzed if this was an appropriate location from a separation distance, noting that if they were going to minimize the number of towers, then was this the right spot for a tower or were there better locations that would provide coverage while minimizing the impacts of towers in that general area.

Commr. Sullivan shared that he had talked with numerous individuals who lived up and down that corridor since it was within his district. He mentioned that previously he had some cell phone issues while in that area; however, he indicated that while recently in that area, he did not find that to be the case as before. He added that the residents informed him that they did not have cell coverage issues either; therefore, he agreed with Commissioner Parks’ concerns of whether this was the right location for another tower.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied Tab 5, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-13-1, FL-186 Groveland CR 565 – Gulfstream Towers, LLC.

raptor air soft cup

Mr. McClendon presented Rezoning Tab 6, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-09-5, Raptor Air Soft CUP. He explained that the case was located along Fullerville Road in the City of DeLand area, within Commission District 5, and that the tract size of the parent parcel was 162 acres; however, the CUP would be placed over approximately 58 acres of that parent parcel. He said that the requested action was the approval of a conditional use permit on the approximate 58 acres to allow a recreational airsoft gun facility within the Agriculture zoning district. He displayed a map which indicated that the future land use (FLU) designation of the property was Rural and the subject property was zoned as Agriculture. He commented that the CUP application was in response to a code enforcement violation, and that there was an order to cease operations of this facility which was issued on August 8, 2018, noting that operations did not cease until just a few weeks prior. He shared these staff analysis items: the proposed use was consistent with the Rural FLU designation; while the Agriculture zoning did not outright permit airsoft gun facilities, staff compared this use to a hunting and fishing resort which would require a CUP, noting that this same linkage had been used in the past in the same manner of a paint ball gun facility which is very similar in nature to an airsoft facility; based on the submitted concept plan, the facility was comprised of two activity fields which were broken down into further eight or so active play areas; the concept plan identified 102 parking spaces, a staging area, and a large landscape buffer; the proposed hours of operation were 10:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays only; and the applicant had requested two special events a year which would operate outside the normal timeframe. He then displayed a graphic of the concept plan, noting that a majority of the activities would be occurring on the southwestern portion of the property. He indicated that the hours of operation and landscape buffer were intended to reduce any adverse effects to neighboring properties, the location and orientation of the play fields also acted as a buffer to the nearest residential dwellings, and should the CUP be approved, staff had prepared an ordinance with several conditions to help mitigate any other potential impacts that this use might have; however, the applicant was requesting to remove the public works transportation condition which would require improvements to Fullerville Road up to CR 42. He reported that two residents had filed notice to appear requests at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and had also filed ones for this BCC meeting as well; furthermore, they gave testimony and evidence pertaining to the use which was occurring on site. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended denial, and that his office had received petitions both in support and in opposition of this request through the previous evening. He concluded with the formal recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board which was to find the request inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), incompatible with the adjacent land uses, and to deny the requested CUP. He relayed that the two notices of appearance were from Ms. Rebecca Murphy and Mr. Cecil Gray, and explained that they should be allotted the same amount of time to present as the applicant.

Mr. Zach Broome, attorney representing the applicant, indicated that since this was a conditional use permit, then as such it was a judicial matter and the Commission relied on fact based testimony and evidence; furthermore, even though the Planning and Zoning Board was recommending denial, the staff found the application consistent with the Comp Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He said that with a CUP, as indicated by staff, there was no explicit proviso for airsoft under the code; however, it was a conditional use under what could be perceived as hunting facilities or outdoor recreational facilities. He opined this was consistent with the Comp Plan since there was a policy and objective of having outdoor recreation in rural areas, which airsoft was. He said that in regards to the four criteria for the Comp Plan of consistency with the Comp Plan and local code, the effect on adjacent properties, adequacy of public facilities and adequacy of fire protection, staff found this to be in compliance. He mentioned that the applicant had three witnesses who would testify and present evidence that they met these four criteria, and included Mr. Tim Green, a planner who would present evidence to show they were in compliance, Mr. Michael Wojuniak, an engineer who would discuss how the site plan would meet the criteria of the Comp Plan and LDRs, and Ms. Alcira Samson, who ran the site and would talk about how the airsoft game was played. He recalled that staff had compared airsoft to paintball, and opined that in regards to airsoft effects on neighboring properties, this was less than a traditional hunting or shooting range since it was not live ammunition being fired. He explained that airsoft was an electronically fired weapon that essentially emits a small noise when the trigger is pulled; additionally, he said the criteria of the levels of airsoft competition were from 25 feet to maxing out at 100 feet for projectiles. He remarked that the playing fields were centrally located on the property, but one issue or use that was perceived as potentially detrimental to neighboring properties was an access road that bordered another property that Raptor Airsoft did utilize to transport players to and from the game. He indicated that they had already taken that under consideration, and that both the planner and the engineer would speak about how they planned to move this access road to be more centrally located on the property. He remarked that the landscaping buffer was significant at 70 feet from the playing areas to the property line. He reiterated that the projectiles would not go beyond 100 feet and opined that there was no effect to neighboring properties. He noted that there was one issue with Fullerville Road which was currently a clay, dirt road, and that the applicant was requesting a waiver for the condition to pave approximately a mile and a half of road due to the infrequency and low levels of use, noting that the applicant already maintained the surface. He summarized that they would be presenting information to show that they were in compliance, that they had included provisions to mitigate impacts on the neighbors, and that the CUP should be granted. He then asked for the witnesses for the applicant to speak.

Mr. Green, President of Green Consulting Group, relayed that he was a certified land planner and a registered land architect since 1982, and would be presenting on behalf of Raptor Airsoft. He reiterated that the CUP request was for only 58 acres of the 162 acres owned by the applicant, that the FLU was Rural, the zoning was Agriculture, and outdoor recreational uses were allowed with the CUP. He commented that the buffer was a 70 foot natural buffer, that the only place where there was not a buffer was the existing road which was going to be moved, and that 70 feet was larger than any landscape buffer in the LDRs. He then displayed a map and identified the applicant’s residence, the CUP site, state owned land surrounding the property, the road utilized for transport, and the neighbor’s residence. He also showed the conceptual site plan, and pointed out the entrance, the parking area, the transport routes to the playing fields, the location of the fields, and the emergency access. He reported that the playing fields were not used simultaneously so there was no transportation of guests through an active playing field. He then displayed a map which depicted the existing homes which might be affected, and the distances to each home from the playing fields. He opined that changing the roadway to be more internal to the site would mitigate one of the concerns. He opined that the conditions set forth in the staff report were something that did not currently exist with this piece of property, that the owner was accepting these conditions, and that this allowed the Board to have control over the operational time of day, number of days, number of participants, lighting, emergency access, parking, open space, noise, and etc. He remarked this request was for an allowed use under the Comp Plan and as a CUP was consistent with the LDRs.

Commr. Campione inquired how many days a week were typical for operations, and how many participants would be on the property at one time.

Mr. Green replied it operated two days a week on Saturdays and Sunday, and that there would be around 30 to 40 participants, noting that the operator would answer that more fully later.

Mr. Wojuniak, engineer for the applicant, stated he had been working with this project a little over two years. He relayed that he had been discussing this with County staff and addressed the neighbors’ concerns regarding a shared driveway that was on the west side of the property which was adjacent to Ms. Rebecca Murphy and shared by her and Mr. Juan Adriatico. He indicated that they moved the driveway down 750 feet on the conceptual site plan to create a separation so that guests coming to the site would not share the driveway with Ms. Murphy; additionally, he identified a defined parking area so that guests would not park along the western roadway. He commented that the concept plan also defined specific field locations. He said that in regards to the noise concerns, he had performed noise studies and measured with a noise meter. He explained that they would add some trees to the 70 foot natural buffer with landscape which would help lessen the noise. He indicated that if they were able to obtain approval of the CUP, then he would perform site plan permitting next, noting that this would include environmental, stormwater, and everything required per the LDRs. He explained that traffic was generally a Monday through Friday issue but this operation operated Saturday and Sunday for limited hours; additionally, it would only bring it about 40 to 50 guests onto Fullerville Road, noting that the trip generation would be less since people may travel in groups within the vehicles. He indicated that Fullerville Road was partially County maintained and was maintained every eight to ten weeks; furthermore, he indicated that in between the County maintenance, Mr. Adriatico helped to maintain the road. He emphasized the desire to have the opportunity to get to the site plan portion so they could get the operation moving forward.

Commr. Parks asked if natural buffer meant native plants and expressed a desire for this to be clear in the ordinance, and Mr. Wojuniak said that was correct, and that they would fill in any gaps with xeriscape landscaping.

Commr. Breeden inquired about the south property line on the map and if there was an adequate buffer in that area.

Mr. Wojuniak responded that he merely followed a tree line when drawing the plan, that it was not intended to go to the property line, and he believed the actual landscape buffer requirement was 25 feet, which he noted they were within that requirement. He added that this bordered state owned land, and that there was a fence to separate Mr. Adriatico’s property.

Commr. Breeden then asked where the 70 foot buffer was located, and emphasized the desire to make sure there was adequate buffering.

Mr. Wojuniak replied it was along the western property line which was Ms. Murphy’s property; furthermore, he could shift lines as needed to meet the Board’s requests.

Ms. Samson, co-owner of Raptor Airsoft Field and Shop, reported that every Saturday and Sunday their facility had 30 to 40 people; additionally, they hired four referees to oversee the games, noting that they chronograph the guns before each game to measure the output. She explained that the guns can have an output of 1.5 which shoots 20 to 50 feet engagement, 2.5 which shoots 50 to 100 feet engagement, and 3.5 which can shoot a 100 feet engagement. She indicated that the referees were very strict to make players play within their limits, or they make them sit out of the game or ban them from playing. She commented that these were toy guns which replicated real guns but used plastic, biodegradable BBs. She remarked that most of their guests were families and veterans, noting that they used their airsoft business to minister to veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Commr. Campione asked how long it took for a biodegradable BB to degrade.

Ms. Samson replied she was unsure, but indicated they washed away with the rain.

Commr. Breeden inquired if they used plastic BBs or biodegradable BBs.

Ms. Samson responded that they were biodegradable, plastic BBs, noting that they were not metal. She added that was the type of BB their facility sold, and that they planned to make it stricter at their facility so that clients only purchased their biodegradable BBs.

Commr. Campione opined that the only way to guarantee that type of ammunition was being used was to check everyone’s ammunition.

Ms. Samson replied that it was difficult to check everyone’s ammunition; however, if that was a condition that needed to be added, then they would do that.

Commr. Campione inquired how many BBs were shot at one time, and how loud the guns were.

Ms. Samson responded that the number of BBs shot depended on the game and if it was automatic or semi-automatic; additionally, she said the gunshot was not very loud since they used plastic BBs. She reiterated that the referees were very strict and enforced the rules. She commented that they required safety gear and that they utilized engagement distances to keep players safe. She explained that the games lasted 15 to 20 minutes in the hot season, but possibly 45 minutes in the winter season when cooler.

Commr. Blake relayed that the gun made a mechanical sound, noting that when the gun is fired, there was the explosion and the crack of the sound barrier being broken.

Ms. Samson said they were automatic electrical guns or AEGs which used a battery.

Commr. Breeden inquired about the road maintenance and if the County was requiring the road to be surfaced.

Mr. Wojuniak responded that as part of the land development code, the County would generally want the road to be improved to asphalt for the mile and a half down to CR 42.

Commr. Breeden asked Mr. Schneider if the County had a regular maintenance schedule for this type of road.

Mr. Schneider replied that Fullerville Road was a County maintained clay road, and that they typically graded the roads every two weeks.

Commr. Breeden wondered if there was maintenance needed between the normal County maintenance schedules, could there be a requirement for the applicant to provide this maintenance.

Mr. Schneider responded that he was not certain of what the applicant was currently doing on the road nor was he aware of an agreement for them to maintain the road; however, he would look into this. He explained that increased traffic on a clay road could cause ripples. He expressed an understanding that the applicant had been using the road for quite some time, but that he had not heard of any issues to date.

Mr. Wojuniak then noted that a biodegradable BB typically degrades in 60 to 90 days.

Commr. Campione asked if biodegradable plastic was different than biodegradable.

Mr. Wojuniak replied that biodegradable plastic was how it was worded; however, a true plastic BB would be different.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Marsh indicated that there were two persons who had filed a notice of appearance so they should be heard from first.

Mr. McClendon recalled that the two notices of appearance were Ms. Rebecca Murphy and Mr. Cecil Gray.

Mr. Cecil Gray, a resident who had filed a notice of appearance, indicated that this was the eighth time he had to leave work to appear and oppose this facility, noting that there were other neighbors who wanted to speak but were unable to be out of work again. He opined that Fullerville Road represented the purpose and intent of the Agriculture zoning district, and that the LDRs and the Comp Plan did not permit a commercial airsoft gun range. He mentioned that on February 17, 2018 due to live gunfire, explosions and heavy traffic, he had entered the Raptor Airsoft property and counted over 150 vehicles, and that he had reported this to the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement on February 22, 2018. He expressed concerns that this traffic also deteriorated the road, and that the applicant’s road requirement waiver indicated that Mr. Adriatico already maintained the road; however, he stated that he did not recall seeing Mr. Adriatico perform any maintenance there. He also expressed concerns for a private citizen altering the road to address stormwater runoff or safety, and he said that it should be maintained by the County. He opined that the road was once used by individuals for walking and horse riding, though he expressed concerns that these activities were too hazardous to participate in on a weekend due to the Raptor Airsoft customers speeding on the road. He indicated that he had a flyer that he received from a parks counter in the City of DeLand which advertised the operation and proved this was a commercial business open to the public, which he opined was not compatible with the existing character of the agriculture properties. He opined that the density of 102 parking spaces on 58 acres was not comparable to a hunting outing or an agricultural activity, noting that if more than one person came in a vehicle, this could mean more people on the property. He indicated an understanding that an agritourist law only applied as long as the activity related directly to agriculture production; therefore, he opined that it did not apply to a commercial gun range. He relayed an understanding that only the acreage used for agricultural operations could be classified as agriculture. He indicated that since early 2018, Mr. Adriatico had been noticed multiple times by the Office of Code Enforcement and the Special Master’s office that this commercial business was in violation of the Lake County Code, and to come into compliance or cease the operation. He relayed his understanding that Mr. Adriatico had disregarded these notices and grew this business while knowing that he was in violation, and he questioned if Mr. Adriatico should be rewarded for this with a CUP. He said that Mr. Adriatico had requested the Agriculture zoning in February 2019, and opined that he was now requesting changes that contradicted this zoning. He indicated an understanding that the LDRs and the 2030 Comp Plan stated to keep the country as country.

Ms. Rebecca Murphy, a resident who had also filed a notice of appearance, said that she owned property on Fullerville Road. She stated that since August 2018, she had consistently contacted Lake County regarding the noise, traffic, development and intensity of the commercial operation in question today. She relayed her understanding that on November 11, 2018, an order from the Lake County Code Enforcement Special Master was given to Mr. Adriatico to cease operations of a commercial airsoft venue. She noted that Mr. Adriatico’s actions and continued violations of Lake County’s LDRs had substantially affected her, and that she and her neighbors had to endure the effects of this for over two years. She opined that this CUP must be denied, indicating that the applicant had stated in a previous Planning and Zoning Board rezoning hearing on February 6, 2019, that the purpose of the rezoning was for agricultural uses. She said that she and other neighbors had testified at that meeting that the owner wanted to rezone the property for the specific purpose of the operation of the commercial Raptor Airsoft business, and she indicated that they were told that their concerns would not be considered in the rezoning process. She indicated an understanding that Mr. Steve Greene, Chief Planner for the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning, had stated that the purpose of the rezoning was to downsize the zoning from Rural Residential (R-1) to Agriculture for the owner’s personal enjoyment of airsoft. She read an excerpt of the February 6 , 2019 Planning and Zoning Board meeting minutes which indicated that Mr. Greg Thompson, a concerned citizen and former resident of Fullerville Road, had noted that Mr. Greene’s opening statement had indicated that the purpose of the request was for the owner’s personal enjoyment of airsoft, and Mr. Greene had confirmed this. She continued relaying her understanding that Mr. Thompson had then asked if Mr. Greene had evaluated Raptor Airsoft for its consistency with the Comp Plan, and that Mr. Greene had remarked that he evaluated it as a private use of one’s own property and that the owner was seeking to downsize the property from R-1 to Agriculture such that it would reflect consistency with the future land use (FLU); furthermore, she opined that Mr. Greene had added that rural activity allowed agricultural uses. She indicated that on August 1, 2019, a CUP application was submitted for a commercial operation of an airsoft business, which she opined was not an agricultural use. She noted that the minutes of the previous rezoning public hearing dated February 6, 2019, accurately reflected the testimony, and were applicable to the consideration of this CUP. She requested that the previous testimony as outlined in the minutes, be made part of the discussion regarding this CUP, and be made part of the official record. She indicated an understanding that at the beginning of Mr. Adriatico’s process, the County issued a letter stating that it had reviewed the rezoning application, set it for a public hearing, and then specifically listed informational comments from the Office of Planning and Zoning. She stated that item number two of these comments stated that pursuant to LDRs Section 3.00.2, for the purpose and intent of districts, the purpose of the Agriculture district was to provide a method whereby parcels of land which were most suited to agriculture usage may be classified and preserved for this purpose. She relayed her understanding that agriculture was a significant industry in the county; therefore, it was the intent of the district to provide long term means for preventing further encroachment upon agricultural enterprises, and to encourage agricultural pursuits by preserving good soils and agricultural areas from subdivision development, or commercial and industrial construction. She said that number three stated that pursuant to the 2030 Comp Plan, the Rural FLU category was intended to protect rural lifestyles represented by single family homes on large lots, and to accommodate agriculture pursuits. She indicated an understanding that the staff report for the rezoning stated that the property owners desired to continue agriculture uses on the property consistent with the Rural FLU category, and that the request would result in development similar to nearby Agriculture zoning and adjacent non-intensive agricultural uses. She noted that this was not being proposed in the current CUP, and she also said that the proposed airsoft operation was a commercial operation and business and did not pertain to agricultural pursuits. She then relayed an understanding of the following information: Mr. Thompson had filed the original complaint in March 2018 which indicated that Mr. Adriatico was operating a commercial airsoft business on his property; she had repeatedly communicated with the County regarding the noise, intensity and traffic surrounding Mr. Adriatico’s airsoft operations, with over 30 emails with attachments, pictures and other documents since August 2018 until the current time; Mr. Adriatico had been found in violation of the LDRs and was ordered by the Special Master to cease operation effective November 11, 2018 or otherwise be subject to a $100 per day fine, which she indicated he had not ceased; Mr. Adriatico had not stipulated to any agreement regarding compliance; County planning staff had communicated with Mr. Adriatico that in order to be in compliance, he would need to rezone the property to Agriculture and then apply for a CUP; Mr. Adriatico’s rezoning application had been accepted on November 27, 2018, which indicated that he had proposed agricultural uses and Raptor Airsoft; and the rezoning was approved by the BCC on February 26, 2019. She indicated that the proposed uses stated on that rezoning application were that it was an existing residence and the remaining portion of the property was used for tree production, cattle ranching, farming, fish production, hunting, fishing and Raptor Airsoft. She noted that Mr. Greene had been asked about the meaning of Raptor Airsoft, and that he had considered it to be a private use of one’s private property; furthermore, she opined that Mr. Greene had indicated that the owner was allowed to have recreational uses on their property. She indicated an understanding that the rezoning application stated that one of the current uses was Raptor Airsoft, and she noted that this use was the subject of the code enforcement action which was considered a violation. She relayed her understanding that Mr. Greene had stated that staff had no knowledge of the violation other than hearsay, and she indicated that the current CUP proposed the full commercial operation of Raptor Airsoft, which she noted had been determined by staff and approved by the County to be for the private and personal enjoyment of the owner. She opined that the proposed conditional use would have an undue adverse effect on nearby property, and she asked the Board to review the emails sent by herself and other residents of the Fullerville Road community. She indicated an understanding that the letters of support from the June 3, 2020 hearing were all from clientele and not residents, and she shared that she had 800 feet of developed pasture land that adjoined Mr. Adriatico’s property. She opined that his established and functional field number one was on this fence line, and that he transported his clientele along the length of the fence to get to field number two; additionally, this road was also labeled as his emergency access road in exhibit B. She indicated that there was no buffer and that she was unable to use this acreage of her property due to concerns for what may happen to her livestock. She opined that she had been informed by Mr. Adriatico that the 800 feet which divided their properties was solely her responsibility, and she was worried that if the fence was breached, then her livestock would not be returned to her. She indicated that this had happened previously and that Mr. Adriatico had locked her cattle on his property, that she had called the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, that when the sheriff arrived on site he gave permission for her property manager to cross the fence to retrieve the cattle, and Mr. Adriatico insisted that she be arrested for trespassing. She relayed concerns for her animals getting spooked due to explosions and sounds from the subject property, and she was also worried for clients driving fast on Fullerville Road. She indicated concerns for road safety with the increase in weekend traffic, and whether the road could not be used for activities due to the traffic and noise. She remarked that attachment one in the staff report stated that Mr. Adriatico maintained Fullerville Road, and she opined that this was untrue. She expressed an understanding that at the July 1, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Adriatico had stated that he had placed several loads of clay on this road. She indicated that there was clay dumped near his entrance which she remarked was necessary to fill the ruts made by the logging trucks which Mr. Adriatico had utilized to haul the trees after clearing his land. She opined that due to the additional clay, the road drainage was altered and that every time it rained, her driveway and gate were buried, which caused her to have to shovel the clay out in order to get in and out of her property. She indicated that she had purchased equipment in 2005 and that it was used by her father to help maintain the road between the County’s scheduled maintenances; additionally, she opined that she had not seen Mr. Adriatico improve the road. She opined that the proposed conditional use was not compatible with the existing or planned character of the neighborhood in which it was located, and she provided examples of rural character per the Comp Plan. She indicated her understanding that commercial uses in rural areas were limited in scale and scope, though she noted that the airsoft business generated people from different areas. She opined that the intense amount of traffic each weekend was at a scale large enough to damage the substructure of Fullerville Road, and to degrade the character of the community. She indicated that the staff report noted that there were 102 existing parking spaces, and she expressed concerns that this was a considerable amount of potential traffic each weekend. She relayed an understanding that the staff report indicated that there were two activity fields, though the Raptor Airsoft website indicated that there were six fields. She opined that this use was dissimilar to a hunting and fishing resort, and she noted that staff did not mention that this area was in the Wekiva-Ocala Rural Protection Area. She indicated that as part of the protection area framework, Objective 5.1 stated that Lake County shall exercise extraordinary care to uphold the long term integrity of rural protection areas, and shall recognize the primacy in FLU decisions. She then indicated that Objective 5.2 addressed the Wekiva-Ocala Rural Protection Area, and opined that this rural protection area was intended to preserve rural density, character and lifestyles, and to protect the ecological integrity of public and private lands associated with the Ocala National Forest, the Wekiva-Ocala Greenway, and the St. Johns River. She relayed her understanding that within the Wekiva-Ocala Rural Protection Area, private land use was largely characterized by agrarian and equestrian oriented activities that represented a valuable part of the history, culture and lifestyle of rural Lake County. She then indicated an understanding that Policy 5.2.2 stated that Lake County shall limit the FLU within the Wekiva-Ocala Rural Protection Area to the Rural FLU category, the Conservation FLU category, and the Public Benefit FLU series. She expressed concerns that the commercial operation of Raptor Airsoft was not compatible with the adjacent properties, nor was it consistent with the land use plan objectives. She opined that no reasonable steps had been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed conditional use on the immediate vicinity through design, landscape and screening. She expressed a concern that no reasonable steps had been taken to reduce the traffic and noise, opining that Saturdays and Sundays were most people’s free time from work. She indicated that nothing had been changed or enhanced for the community since the inception of this commercial operation. She did not think that the clay road could accommodate the amount of traffic generated by the operation, and she was worried that the cost for maintenance could increase. She questioned why the rural community should have to change the character of the road and the community because of increased traffic and disturbances due to Mr. Adriatico’s business. She relayed her understanding that Mr. Adriatico did not appeal the Special Master’s order, opining that he therefore admitted to the charges and agreed to the terms of the order. She opined that Mr. Adriatico disregarded the Special Master’s orders and remained in continued violation status, and that he should not be entitled to equitable recovery through a CUP process. She expressed concerns that providing a CUP would be a reward for undesirable behavior, and she questioned if Mr. Adriatico would obey any imposed conditions of approval due to having not obeyed a County order. She opined that this currently operational proposed business did not fall into the approved uses outlined by County regulations, the LDRs, nor the Comp Plan; furthermore, it was an airsoft gun range which was not permissible in an Agriculture zoned district as clearly stated in the staff analysis, and it was not comparable to a hunting and fishing resort. She asked that the CUP be denied for these reasons.

Mr. Mel Rollins, who assisted Ms. Murphy with presenting images, said that he was a 20 year retired Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, a weapons expert, and a National Rifle Association (NRA) instructor. He opined that one airsoft gun might not make much noise; however, 40 to 60 people using guns would be quite loud. He added that people came and went all day from this property with multiple games taking place throughout the day.

Ms. Murphy also presented images of the following items: Mr. Adriatico’s access road from her fence line, which was where the transports drove from the entrance of the subject property to the fields; the fence line from her gate, which included her field and the emergency access road; the emergency access road, relaying an understanding that there was no buffer; an image of her fence which was her responsibility to maintain; the wind barrier that was mentioned in exhibit B of the Board’s packet; fencing that she said was processed for an airsoft facility; Fullerville Road; signs for Raptor Airsoft; an image from Raptor Airsoft’s website which advertised over 100 acres, the charge per person, and a cash register as well as an advertisement for a special event; cars waiting outside the gate which blocked her ability to get to her driveway; her gate entrance with clay flooding that she said she had to dig out after a rainstorm; campers using the facility; and pictures of the facility being used after operation was supposed to have ceased.

Ms. Betsy Foress, representing airsoft players, explained that this was a sport based on integrity and honesty, and that they played on fields which were regulated and zoned properly, that they built team spirit, and that this sport taught comradery. She commented that she had been in this industry since 1988 and had worked for many national companies as well as owned her own business. She opined that the airsoft community did not want to be negatively represented by what Raptor Airsoft was doing. She indicated that biodegradable BBs degraded in 365 days, not 60 to 90 days; furthermore, she said the type of BB used could not be regulated unless the players were made to empty their guns. She also expressed concerns for illegal dumping happening on this property next to the wetlands in the area. She expressed concerns that there was nothing to regulate the owner from playing on all of the acres on his property. She urged the Board that if they did approve this request, to please add regulations and guidelines.

Mr. Cooper Schmitt, also representing the airsoft community, stated that he had been playing airsoft for 10 years. He opined that airsoft rifles shot farther than 100 feet, and noted that they can go to as far as 300 feet even through brush. He indicated that BBs would take longer than 365 days to degrade; additionally, he had visited Raptor Airsoft and relayed that there was no mandate to utilized biodegradable BBs. He indicated that airsoft electric guns were rather quiet; however, there were other types of airsoft guns that were more powerful and louder. He opined that the 70 foot buffer was not large enough for the distance the guns can shoot.

Mr. Mark Sierens, with Players Wanted Airsoft YouTube channel, expressed concerns that the road leading to Raptor Airsoft was not suitable for certain vehicles, such as the school bus that he drove and a tank which used the road for a special event. He indicated that referees who worked at this facility had reported hundreds of people on a regular game day, and that there were over 350 players on the special event day, noting that he was one of the vendors at that event. He expressed concerns for trash from the events being burnt or buried on the property; furthermore, he explained that the guns had a minimum engagement distance of 100 feet for sniper rifles, with many of the guns shooting 200 feet at roughly 350 feet per second. He also relayed that biodegradable BBs were not being sold at the special event, and that they were being shot over the fence line into the national forest. He agreed with comments made earlier in the meeting that the noise level for 30 to 40 people would carry and be loud. He indicated that the airsoft community had signed a petition asking the BCC to not grant any special permits to Raptor Airsoft and to not allow them to reopen.

Mr. Joseph Harrod, an airsoft player, shared that he plays airsoft with his son all over the State of Florida; however, the Raptor Airsoft location was the closest. He agreed that there were sometimes large events, but that most of the time it was merely a handful of players. He opined that this was not a dangerous event, that this facility brought money into the county, that personal hunting was loud too, and that it was a fun sport. He asked for the Board to keep the facility open.

Mr. Ross indicated there were people who were participating virtually that wished to speak, and he reiterated the procedure for how to do this.

Mr. Bill Rodriquez, a recreation and parks professional, mentioned that he was a father, an Army veteran, and a retired national parks ranger. He shared that he patronized Raptor Airsoft, and opined that it provided a great opportunity for kids to be outside, to learn life lessons, and to learn teamwork. He indicated that management controlled the approved behaviors on this property and that there was no alcohol, drugs, cheating, or disrespect. He encouraged the neighbors to discuss concerns directly with the Raptor Airsoft owners, as he opined they worked hard to protect the neighbors.

Mr. Andrew Muera, a concerned citizen, indicated that most airsoft guns would shoot around 100 to 150 feet. He explained that he had been a client of Raptor Airsoft, and opined that most of the noise came from the grenades and CO2 guns which he opined could barely be heard in the safe zone due to the amount of trees and shrubs in the area. He opined that the busiest time was in the fall and winter, but that most of the time there were 20 to 30 vehicles at a maximum. He opined that airsoft play was good practice for real gun use, and taught fundamentals and safe practices.

Mr. Javier Cartaya, an airsoft player for five years, mentioned that even the cheapest airsoft gun reached out to 200 feet. He relayed that he had been to the Raptor Airsoft field two times for special events, and indicated there were 200 to 300 players at the events; additionally, he opined the events did not have enough referees. He opined that Raptor Airsoft was not managed properly, and expressed concerns that the noise was loud enough to disrupt neighbors attempting to enjoy their weekend.

A gentleman who was identified as Assault and Battery Airsoft, shared that he represented the airsoft community as a whole. He agreed that airsoft replicas were loud when many together; however, he reiterated that this item was about zoning and he wanted to discuss safety issues and the field. He expressed concerns that the large events at this location utilized the entire land and not merely the 58 acres. He indicated that there were barbed wires, craters nearly 20 feet deep, and trash dumping at this location.

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

Mr. Broome addressed some of the concerns which were raised by citizens, and reiterated that this was a CUP application. He remarked that the transport road had already been moved on the site plan to the interior of the property so that the entire boundary line would have the vegetative buffer. He said in regards to the comments made about special events, County staff had put within the ordinance that special events were limited to 300 people with no more than two per year; additionally, page two of the ordinance addressed the noise concerns and prohibited noise amplification equipment.

Commr. Campione asked if that included tannerite and explosives at special events.

Mr. Broome responded that he did not believe that tannerite would constitute amplification equipment; however, item two of the ordinance also said a noise assessment must be submitted for review to staff of the airsoft gun facility operations consistent with the LDR. He said this would cover items such as bull horns, air cannons, and etc. He mentioned that in regards to the zoning, Mr. Adriatico had an R-1 zoning with the right to build over 100 homes on that property, and he voluntarily downzoned it to an Agriculture use; furthermore, these types of outdoor recreational facilities were appropriate in an Agriculture zoning. He added that the rural land use as set forth in the Comp Plan talked specifically about things that would be commercial such as agriculture related activities. He opined that the issues raised at this meeting should not prohibit the approval of the CUP. He pointed out that the standard for a CUP was that once the applicant had established that there was evidence to support the granting of the CUP, then the burden shifted to establish substantial evidence that they were not entitled to granting of the CUP, noting that in this case, County staff indicated that the applicant had met the criteria. He opined that nothing presented during the notices of appearance or the public comment would change that position. He said in regards to the commercial activity, that was the reason the applicant was seeking a CUP; furthermore, comments regarding code violations were not relevant to this application and code violations were generally the reason why people sought permits. He emphasized that vegetation questions would be a part of the site planning, and that landscape buffers would come at that stage, noting that staff had addressed many of these concerns within the ordinance. He opined that if staff thought the road could not handle the traffic capacity, then it would have been in the staff report, which he indicated it was not. He also clarified that a code enforcement magistrate simply finds violations and did not order a cease and desist; however, the applicant had voluntarily ceased operations as the application was before the Commission. He summarized that the applicant believed the standards for meeting the CUP had been met, that he had presented fact based evidence, that staff recommendation was that they were in compliance with the LDRs and the Comp Plan, and that nothing during public comment changed that presumption. He then asked Mr. Green and Mr. Wojuniak to present facts relating to the buffering and road conditions.

Mr. Green clarified that this was not a request for a commercial gun range. He said that as far as the comments saying it was not compatible, the County had regulations which regulated buffers, compatibility, setbacks, etc. throughout the county to address the many different uses, noting that the applicant had offered a minimum 70 foot vegetative buffer around the playing fields. He commented that this property was not within the Wekiva Basin. He reiterated that this CUP was for only 58 acres of the 162 acres, and that camping might have happened in the past but was not a part of this ordinance. He indicated that dumpsters would be a part of the site plan process and would be maintained on a regular basis. He opined that staff had done a great job reviewing this and found it in compliance with the LDRs and the Comp Plan, and that the applicant had the right to ask for this special use on this site with conditions.

Commr. Parks inquired if the applicant would agree for the vegetation to be native plants, and Mr. Green said that was fine.

Mr. Wojuniak stated he had been on the property multiple times, and indicated that it was not easy to travel from the 58 acres designated for the CUP area to circumnavigate the entire property; additionally, the play area was specifically identified. He reiterated that the formalized plan would be performed during the site plan process, and that he would work with staff regarding environmental issues such as stormwater, traffic, garbage, and the buffer.

Commr. Parks asked if they would be willing to add some signage that said no parking along Fullerville Road, and Mr. Wojuniak agreed to this, noting that they could even have the gate open so that those arriving early could enter the property.

Commr. Breeden expressed concern for the clay buildup near the neighbor’s gate, and wondered if some type of erosion control plan or pavement should be included in order to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Wojuniak replied that an erosion control plan would be a part of the site plan; additionally, moving the driveway down would assist with this. He explained that particular area in front of Ms. Murphy’s gate was currently being used as the main entry; however, by moving the driveway down, that clay would be removed and graded forward so there would not be an opportunity for clay to accumulate in front of that gate.

Commr. Campione asked for the map of the houses in relation to the playing fields to be displayed in order to better understand the location of the road.

Mr. Wojuniak showed the current location of the gate and where it had been moved to. He also identified other items on the map.

Commr. Campione inquired if the transporting of players could be done internally so as not to go along Ms. Murphy’s property.

Mr. Wojuniak then showed on the map how players could be transported more internally on the property to be farther away from the western border.

Commr. Campione confirmed that a site plan would address issues such as dumpsters and trash. She also asked where the staging and food locations would be on the site.

Mr. Wojuniak showed that he had proposed a small retention pond east of the parking area, with the office on the west side of the parking, noting that he would place a dumpster near the parking since that was where most individuals congregated or staged. He explained that for events, people parked and then moved to a staging area where referees provided rules of the game, and then went to the playing fields. He then identified these areas on the map.

Commr. Campione asked why the playing fields were not moved more centrally on the applicant’s property and away from the Murphy’s property as most of the activity was close to the neighbor’s property.

Commr. Blake asked if field two had less noise as it seemed to have more of a vegetative barrier.

Mr. Rollins, a concerned citizen, opined that the fields were on higher ground and that the noise went down to the neighbor’s house. He indicated there were a few trees but most were so low that the noise came above the trees since the applicant’s property was about 40 feet higher than the neighbor’s.

Commr. Parks inquired why the field was not pushed more to the east and the internal part of the applicant’s property.

Mr. Wojuniak responded that it was based on the natural topography of the land. He reiterated that it was 58 acres out of 162 acres, and relayed it was difficult to draw a boundary line due to the large piece of property.

Commr. Breeden asked where the restroom facilities were located, and Mr. Wojuniak mentioned that they would be somewhere near the parking lot area.

Commr. Blake inquired why the special events would be 72 hours as he opined that was quite a long period of time. He asked what days they would occur on.

Mr. Wojuniak replied that was the normal timeline for venues such as this and would most likely start on a Friday afternoon and end on Sunday morning, noting that it probably would not be a full 72 hours.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns that an event might run all day Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. Wojuniak relayed his understanding that for special events, an additional permit application had to be submitted; therefore, the County could place restrictions for the event to end by noon on Sunday. He reiterated it was only twice per year.

Commr. Campione opined that she was not in favor of big explosions and loud noises even if only twice per year as she opined it was disruptive to the rural setting.

Commr. Sullivan indicated that was one of his concerns as well, and encouraged having restrictions on this type of flashbang activity.

Mr. Wojuniak said they did not have an issue with this type of restriction.

Commr. Campione also said that having an NRA certified person for control purposes would be helpful especially if the purpose of the facility was to promote proper gun safety and use.

Mr. Broome indicated that he had just spoken to the applicant and relayed that if this concern for noise from explosives was an issue, then they would agree to limiting or eliminating explosive devices. He said in regards to the NRA, he reiterated that these guns were not live ammunition, and that there were referees on site to enforce appropriate behavior.

Commr. Campione inquired about what would happen at special events.

Mr. Broome responded that the 72 hour window was to allow time for vendors to set up since many came from out of state.

Commr. Parks asked about biodegradable BBs, and Mr. Wojuniak said they were willing to add that.

Commr. Blake asked for the hours of operation on Sundays to change to noon to 5:00 p.m., and for the facility to close one Sunday a month. He explained that his reasoning for starting at noon on Sundays was that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals were watching church online at home on Sunday mornings.

Commr. Campione agreed that knowing there was one Sunday a month with no activity would be nice as then surrounding neighbors could plan to use their property for special family events on that particular Sunday.

Mr. Broome relayed that he would get with the applicant on this request; however, he expressed concerns since they were not operating at all during the week, closing one Sunday a month meant it would reduce their days of operation from eight to seven a month.

Commr. Parks asked for an erosion control plan to be required, specific to the issues at the gate, as well as language in the CUP to be included in the site planning process.

Commr. Campione proposed for staff to include those provisions.

Mr. Wojuniak indicated that they would go beyond the fence and that part of the erosion control plan would discuss cleanup on the road and a grading plan to address runoff and stormwater.

Mr. Broome relayed that he had spoken with the applicant regarding Sunday operation. He relayed that in the summertime, they tried to take breaks between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. and preferred to have the start time remain at 10:00 a.m.; however, they would agree to leave the last Sunday of the month for no activity.

Commr. Campione recapped that other issues the Board had discussed were biodegradable BBs, and she said that the ordinance should say that a mechanism needed to be in place to ensure this was happening, such as unloading what was in the guns with someone supervising that; additionally, the Board discussed having no explosions, the last Sunday of the month being a free day, any structures such as a dumpster or restrooms needed to be oriented as far away from the adjoining residential property as possible, and buffers being native vegetation.

Commr. Parks added the signage for parking so that no parking would be on Fullerville Road.

Commr. Breeden wondered if a condition should be included such that if the operator did not follow the CUP guidelines, then at some point it could be revoked, noting that the Board had added this to a previous application.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the ordinance stated it would be taken to code enforcement; however, she said that could sometimes be a tedious process which might take more time. She remarked there should be a more direct way to address revocation if there were multiple violations.

Mr. Broome referenced page three, item E, of the ordinance, and noted there was a comment that the special master could enforce the terms and recommend revocation.

Commr. Blake proposed having this item come back before the Board in a year to ensure that the rules were being followed.

Commr. Campione agreed with it coming back to the BCC in a year so that if there were ongoing issues or problems that had not been anticipated, then the Board would have the ability to address them.

Mr. Broome noted the Board could implement any conditions they deemed appropriate since it was a CUP. He pointed out that the applicant had already taken corrective measures to address concerns; therefore, he did not think addressing other concerns would be an issue.

Commr. Blake asked for the buffer alongside the Murphys’ property to be at least 100 feet with a vegetative buffer, instead of 70 feet.

Mr. Broome stated that his only concern was that the road in that location was being left open for Lake County emergency services, noting that it would not be used by the public.

Commr. Sullivan said the road could be inside the buffer.

Commr. Campione agreed that the road could be inside the buffer; however, if it was utilized by customers or for events, then it would be a violation.

Commr. Parks proposed to state it could be used for emergency access only.

Mr. Broome thought that would work.

Commr. Campione recapped that the road would only be used for emergency access purposes and could be included in the buffer.

Commr. Sullivan desired to address the agriculture element and not allow the flashbang technology so that the neighbor’s livestock would not be affected.

Commr. Campione inquired if the number of people allowed was designated.

Mr. Broome thought it was limited to 300 people on special events.

Commr. Campione asked about the number allowed for regular business days.

Commr. Blake recalled that the applicant had said 50 people was a busy day; therefore, they could cap it at 50 for non-special, regular days.

Mr. Broome relayed he could consult with the applicant as they might want a slightly larger amount than 50 people in order to have some buffer.

Commr. Blake opined that balancing the property rights of both the neighbors and the applicant was one of the more difficult tasks the Commission had to do, and that it was important to find a compromise that took into account both viewpoints.

Commr. Campione noted the cap should be 50 people, noting that she was having difficulty voting in favor of this so she was attempting to accommodate conditions.

Commr. Parks remarked that if they set the cap at 50 people, they could address it again when it came back in a year.

Commr. Campione recalled that the applicant had said it was normal to have 30 to 40, and that 50 people was a busy day.

Mr. Broome relayed that he was more concerned with going slightly over 50 as he did not want code enforcement involved if they had 57 people, for example.

Ms. Marsh asked for clarification on the one year timeline and if the Board desired for it to actually expire one year from the date it was signed and the applicant would have to reapply and come back to the Board in order to extend it, or at the one year mark the applicant would come back to be reviewed. She recalled that the Commission had done this with the Hanson Ski CUP several years prior, and they had to come back every two years. She indicated that she needed to know how the Board wanted her to word this condition, and summarized that it could either expire and the applicant reapplies to extend it or the applicant has to come back to have it reviewed but could continue to operate while they go through the review process.

Commr. Blake stated he preferred for it to be reviewed.

Commr. Campione said reviewed but depending on the review, a determination could be made whether there needed to be an ongoing review or whether it should be permanent.

Ms. Marsh asked if they wanted it to be the applicant’s responsibility to apply to have it reviewed at the one year timeframe.

Commr. Campione thought they meant it would stay intact.

Commr. Parks asked to clarify that it would automatically be reviewed in a year from the signing date.

Commr. Campione replied that it did not automatically terminate.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that was correct; however, in order to have it be reviewed, they would need to apply or did the Board want staff to bring it back every year.

Commr. Blake opined it should be just the one year and staff initiated.

Commr. Campione added that once it was brought back, then a decision would be made if that needed to be an ongoing condition or whether things had been worked out and it did not need to happen, or if it had not been worked out. She agreed with staff bringing it back in a year.

Commr. Breeden wondered if it should say for review and possible amendment instead of just review.

Commr. Campione said it should say review, amendment, revocation, and etc.

Commr. Parks asked if they would be notified, and Commissioner Campione said everyone would be notified.

Mr. Cole indicated that the Board needed to take a quick break in order for the recording equipment to be reset.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 5:27 p.m. for five minutes.

raptor air soft cup continued

Ms. Marsh clarified that for the one year condition, it would be a staff initiated review to come back to the Board one year from the date the site plan was approved, and language in the CUP that they could not operate until they had site plan approval. She commented that there were a few items that staff needed clarified before the Board made their motion. She stated that currently the CUP was written that the applicant needed to pave all of the road; therefore, she needed to know if that was something the Board was interested in having them do, noting that this was typical for a commercial use but they may want to do something different in this scenario. She also needed to clarify the special event language in the CUP because it said they could have two special events, not exceeding 300 people, but that did not trigger the special event application process in the County Code; therefore, if the Board still wanted them to apply for a special event permit, then she needed to add that language.

Commr. Campione noted the permit process would address issues such as safety and emergency medical services (EMS); therefore, she said they should be required to go through the permit process.

Commr. Blake asked for clarification on the permit process.

Ms. Marsh responded that it went through the Office of Emergency Management, and they make sure there is a plan so that roads were not blocked, that fire and police are on board, etc.

Commr. Campione added that it would include public health, such as restrooms, and Ms. Marsh confirmed that as well as sanitary facilities.

Commr. Blake agreed for it to go through the permit process.

Commr. Sullivan relayed that it would include traffic control and if sheriffs were needed.

Ms. Marsh then asked for direction on the road issue.

Commr. Campione inquired where the road pavement would be required.

Ms. Marsh replied that it would be paving the entire road, all the way up to the crossroad.

Mr. Broome indicated that the amount of paving would be 1.5 miles on an unimproved road according to the engineer. He reiterated that the applicant was requesting a waiver on this condition since they opined it was an extensive amount of paving when considering the amount of use being anticipated.

Commr. Blake said it also would change the character of the area since it was a dirt road in the forest. He indicated he was fine with granting the waiver on this condition.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for the ongoing grading and the cost to the County. She proposed that in return for not requiring paving, that there be some assistance with that.

Commr. Blake opined that since it would only be seven days of operation a month, it was not as big of a concern as it might be if this was a traditional commercial use.

Commr. Breeden noted that some months had five Saturdays so it could be more, although she realized this may not be impactful.

Commr. Campione asked what made a clay road get in poor condition as she thought it was mostly the weather and not necessarily the number of trips. She inquired if it was more weather related or was it also triggered by wear and tear.

Mr. Schneider indicated that a lot of what happens with clay maintained roads was weather related, noting that if it was dry, it could get ripples in it and if it is wet, it gets slippery. He relayed that the material was mostly sand, even though called clay, and that the wrong material could cause mud or slippery areas, such as what got under Ms. Murphy’s fence. He remarked that he was not certain that the County placed that mentioned material in that location, but that he would get with Ms. Murphy regarding this. He explained that the County typically grades a clay maintained road every two weeks, and noted that this road was in good condition; therefore, he did not see a reason to increase the grading. He elaborated that the reason the condition of paving was in the CUP was because the County Code said a commercial site had to have paved access. He thought they could manage the road if the waiver was granted.

Commr. Blake reiterated this could be addressed at the year review.

Ms. Marsh summarized the Board’s conditions as follows: erosion control plan especially as it pertained to the Murphy’s gate, noting that Mr. Schneider would work with this neighbor; no explosive, flashbang devices, or tannerite; biodegradable BBs only allowed on the property regardless of whether they were sold or brought in; no activity on the last Sunday of every month; dumpsters, restroom facilities, and etc. would be as far away from the property line as feasible; they would put “no parking” signs on the roadway to ensure people were not staging there while waiting for the facility to open; a 100 foot buffer on the Murphy property, noting that the road could be included in that buffer but needed to be designated on the site plan as emergency vehicle access only; no more than 50 people on the property during regular operating days; one year from site plan approval, staff would initiate a review to come back through the public hearing process so the Board could address any concerns or add any additional conditions if necessary; and they would not operate until their site plan was approved.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that 50 people meant 50 customers, and Ms. Marsh confirmed that was correct.

Mr. Broome asked for clarification that if a mom brought her child to play, then only the child would be counted in the 50 people. He said it should only be players counted.

Ms. Marsh said that would be up to the decision of the Board whether it would be players or people; however, she cautioned that the more specific it was, the more difficult it would be for code enforcement to count if they received a complaint.

Commr. Blake said it should be 50 players.

Commr. Parks requested for it to be native plants as well.

Ms. Marsh indicated that native plants were already included under subsection F, which stated a 70 foot wide native vegetative buffer would be required for the CUP activity areas.

Commr. Campione requested that once a site plan was formulated and submitted to staff and reviewed, that the parties who participated in this public hearing would have the opportunity to see the site plan.

Ms. Marsh asked if the Commissioners wanted it to be sent to them before it was finally approved or for them to get a copy once it was approved.

Commr. Campione replied that once the plan that meets all the conditions was submitted, then they should let them and the Board see it.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the site plan, before it was finally approved by staff, would be submitted to the Commissioners and to the adjoining property owners to allow time for review, not to exceed ten days.

Commr. Campione agreed to this, and encouraged the parties to review and send back comments within the ten days.

Ms. Murphy asked who would enforce this and Commissioner Campione replied it would be the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement. Ms. Murphy then expressed concerns that Mr. Adriatico would not allow code enforcement on the property.

Commr. Campione indicated that with an approved site plan for a commercial use, they had to allow code enforcement on the property.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that was correct, and she said that language stating they had to allow unannounced visits during regular business hours by code enforcement staff could be added to make it clearer, noting that she believed this had been done with other CUPs. She clarified that Ms. Murphy would have to contact code enforcement if there were issues or if she thought there was a violation as staff would not randomly come to the property every weekend to check if they were in compliance, noting that they were on call over the weekends. She relayed that the director for the Office of Code Enforcement could provide the contact number to Ms. Murphy.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 6, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-09-5, Raptor Air Soft CUP, with the Board modifications as summarized by the County Attorney.

infrastructure sales tax projects

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Executive Director for Administrative Services, presented the proposed 5-year project plan for the Infrastructure Sales Tax in preparation for the public hearing on August 25, 2020. She provided these background details: the extension of the Infrastructure Sales Tax was approved by the voters in November 2015; the term of the current levy was from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2032 or 15 years; the revenue collected was distributed evenly among the County, the School Board, and all of the municipalities; and the referendum included the categories of public safety, quality of life, public works, and other public infrastructure. She showed a graph of revenue projections from fiscal year (FY) 2020 through FY 2025 which depicted both original projections that were anticipated the previous year and revised projections due to the reduction in revenue from COVID-19 effects. She indicated that there was a reduction of about $1.7 million for FY 2020, approximately $1.4 million in FY 2021, and so forth for each year, noting that at the end of the 5-year plan in FY 2025 there was an estimated three percent increase over the FY 2024 projections. She reported that the original projections were $87.6 million through FY 2024; however, they were currently anticipating $82.95 million, which was a decrease of approximately $4.5 million over the five years. She then displayed a chart depicting the funding allocation for each project category based on the new projections in revenue, and reported that for FY 2021, public safety was $4.26 million, quality of life was $4.8 million, public works was $2.25 million, other public infrastructure was $2.04 million, and debt service related to the construction of the new animal shelter, the purchase of public safety radios, and road resurfacing projects was $2.25 million. She explained that while she was providing the funding amounts and project plan for five years, the focus was on the project plan for FY 2021 which would come for approval at the August 25, 2020 BCC meeting. She indicated that the public safety category included funding for sheriff vehicles, fire station renovations, fire apparatus, vehicles and equipment, and some funding for self-contained breathing apparatus over the next three years in case the Office of Fire Rescue did not receive the grant they had applied for, noting that if they did receive the grant, this funding would be reallocated. She added that funding had also been designated over the next four years, starting in FY 2022, for public safety radios replacements in FY 2029. She indicated that funding for quality of life projects included: East Lake Sports and Community Complex, Phase I; parking, path system, lighting, and pickleball courts at North Lake Community Park; an internal road, path system, and nature center improvements at PEAR Park; renovation and rehabilitation of trails at South Lake and Hancock Trails; a canoe launch, pavilions, and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) retrofits as necessary at Lake Idamere Park; field lighting and tennis/basketball courts at the Minneola Athletic Complex; continuation of Phase I construction at the South Lake Regional Park; boardwalk, fishing pier, and observation tower at Ferndale Preserve; various other park, public land and trail improvements throughout Lake County; Ellis Island and Pine Forest Park; County library renovations; and a small amount to start the Fairgrounds and Event Center relocation. She clarified that the Northwest Lake Community Park was funded at $50,000 instead of the incorrect amount of $450,000 which was depicted on the slide, noting that staff was proposing that this additional $450,000 be included in the trails for project, development and environment (PD&E) and feasibility studies. She also referenced that the project for the Green Mountain Connector Trail was on the project list although funding had not yet been identified; furthermore, she indicated that as long as it was on the project list and approved, then funding could be put towards the project if additional funding became available. She commented that the public works project list included road resurfacing and improvements, intersection improvements, and sidewalk new construction and ADA retrofits. She explained that there were other projects included on this list that either did not have funding until later years, or that funding had not yet been identified but staff was requesting for approval of the project list, noting that the trails PD&E and feasibility studies were listed at the bottom with the proposal for the $450,000 mentioned previously to go towards this project. She remarked that the other public infrastructure category included funding for information technology enhancements, capital building renovations, some fleet equipment, and the final year for the courthouse renovations which had been phased over several years. She indicated that the debt service category, as mentioned previously, included road resurfacing projects, the animal shelter construction, and the purchase of the public safety radios, noting that about $510,000 in revenue came from the Cities for the public safety radios for an approximated debt service for the County of $2.25 million. She concluded with the next steps, and mentioned that on August 25 would be the public hearing for the FY 2021 Infrastructure Sales Tax Project Plan, on September 15 would be the first budget public hearing to incorporate any changes from the August 25 BCC meeting, and on September 29 would be the final budget public hearing.

Commr. Parks inquired if anything had changed on the funding allocation charts for the 5-year.

Ms. Barker responded that a majority of the funding was remaining the same per project; however, staff had to make cuts in the current fiscal year as well as the new fiscal year in order to address the revenue reductions. She gave an example that the Office of Parks and Trails made a reduction for the North Lake Community Park, and the Public Works Department made some adjustments for intersection improvements. She relayed that she would provide a specific list to the Board of which projects were reduced and by how much.

Mr. Cole said that staff would provide a list to the Board so that they could compare what was projected last year and what was changed. He indicated that staff approached it by taking each bucket, except for debt service, and figured out what the percentage of that area was of the total, and what the reduction needed to be, and then a percentage was attached to each category so that they were not reducing any area any more than what it was already supposed to receive.

Commr. Campione liked that staff was able to put some funding for trails, and hoped that revenues might be better than projected so that they could fund as many of the PD&E studies as possible.

Commr. Sullivan mentioned that some municipalities had offered to assist with trails.

Mr. Cole relayed that Mr. Schneider was reviewing the information regarding trails and what could possibly be performed in-house, what the actual distances were, what the funding was, and etc., noting that he would report to the Board in October 2020 with the hopes the County would have a better understanding of revenues at that time.

public hearings

2020 library impact fee awards

Mr. George Taylor, Director for the Office of Library Services, presented on the Library Impact Fee Awards. He explained that library impact fees were used for growth-related capital improvements, were collected in most municipalities and all unincorporated areas, and were collected on residential construction at $191 per single-family unit, $146 per multi-family unit, and $152 per mobile home unit. He elaborated that library impact fees were awarded on County Policy LCC-63 which contained the application and review process, the application deadline, the public hearing requirements, and the eligibility, which was currently all County and municipal libraries in the Lake County Library System. He commented that there was currently $715,642.59 available for the 2020 impact fee awards, that there were two applications submitted, that the City of Minneola requested $250,000 which included $125,800 for construction and $124,200 for furnishings, and that the County Office of Library Services requested $350,000 for the design and construction of the new East Lake County Library at the East Lake Sports and Community Complex. He explained that for the application process, the County Attorney reviewed per policy, the member library directors reviewed and provided input, the County Library staff made recommendations to the Library Advisory Board, and on June 25, 2020, the Library Advisory Board voted to recommend approval of both applications to the Board of County Commissioners.

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 opined that the funding for the City of Minneola continued the good relationship building the County has had with the City for many years, noting that the Minneola Athletic Complex, the previous library impact fee awarded in 2018, and the economic development outreach with the City of Minneola were examples of this.

Mr. Cole pointed out that there would still need to be additional funding for the East Lake County Library, and relayed that Mr. Taylor would apply for some additional impact fees and was looking for a possible state grant. He indicated the desire for the design and engineering to be in FY 2022, the construction in FY 2023, and the library opening in FY 2024.

Commr. Campione encouraged everyone to drive by the East Lake Sports and Community Complex to view what was being constructed.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to award and execute an agreement with the City of Minneola for $250,000 in Library Impact Fees, approved a two-year extension of the 2018 Interlocal Agreement with the City of Minneola, and approved to award $350,000 in Library Impact Fees to Lake County for the East Lake County Library.

ordinance 2020-36 purpose of variances

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 14.15.01, ENTITLED PURPOSE OF VARIANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Parks opined that this ordinance was more service oriented to residents as it kept them from having to come back to the Commission to amend a PUD and allowed them to go directly through the variance process. He thanked Ms. Marsh for working with him on some issues regarding this in South Lake.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2020-36, amending Lake County Land Development Regulations, Section 14.15.01, entitled Purpose of Variances, to allow the Board of Adjustments to grant variances to properties within Planned Unit Development.

ordinance 2020- 37 floodplain management

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 THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; CHAPTER II, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; SECTION 9.07.00, REGARDING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT; SECTION 14.07.00, REGARDING SUBDIVISIONS; SECTION 14.09.01, REGARDING SITE PLANS; SECTION 14.20.00, REGARDING SITE IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITIES, AND LIMITATIONS; PROVIDING CRITERIA FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2020-37, amending Section 9.07.00, Land Development Regulations, regarding Floodplain Management.

ordinance 2020-38 telecommunications systems permit

regulations

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; REPEALING CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE IX, ENTITLED TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PERMIT REGULATIONS, IN ITS ENTIRETY; RESERVING THE ARTICLE FOR FUTURE USE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2020-38, repealing Lake County Code Chapter 13, Article IX, entitled Telecommunications Systems Permit Regulations.

regular agenda

county manager discussion

Commr. Campione thanked Mr. Cole for his memorandum and for his generous offer to telecommute if needed. She opined it was helpful to narrow options and to put this process into a timeline.

Commr. Blake expressed appreciation as well, noting that much of the Board’s discussion centered on continuity during a very uncertain time. He supported option four on Mr. Cole’s memorandum.

Commr. Parks said he appreciated Mr. Cole’s information and also supported option four as he opined it would be great to have Mr. Cole help for a few additional months and be able to assist with the transition.

Mr. Cole thanked the Board for their comments, and opined this was a difficult decision based on some commitments he had made; however, he knew the Board was looking for some options and that was the reason he presented his memorandum.

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Cole for providing options as she thought it would help the county get through this transition period easier.

Commr. Sullivan agreed with the other Commissioners’ comments.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Option 4 on the County Manager’s memorandum which approved Mr. Jeff Cole extending his retirement date from September 30, 2020 to December 18, 2020, telecommuting during the months of October through December 2020, and beginning a recruitment process as described in the memorandum.

Mr. Cole indicated that he would submit another letter with his new retirement date of December 18, 2020; additionally, staff would begin the next day with the recruitment process which was part of option four, noting that the components of this would be presented for approval at the Board’s August 25, 2020 meeting.

other business

women’s hall of fame committee

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reappoint the following members to the Women’s Hall of Fame Selection Committee: District 1 - Phyllis Smith; District 2 - Mary Butts Kelly; District 3 - Debbie Stivender; District 4 - Tracy Belton; and District 5 - Jean M. Martin.

water safety advisory committee appointments

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint the following members to the Water Safety Advisory Committee:

1. Ginny Harrison as the representative with expertise or experience in swim instruction.

2. Nancy Pruitt as the representative with expertise or experience in public education.

3. John Taylor as the representative with expertise in Coast Guard Auxiliary or other boating safety experience.

4. Aaron Kissler as the representative from the Department of Health.

5. Joelle Aboytes as the representative from the Department of Children and Families.

6. Jonathan Carey as the representative from Lake Emergency Medical Services.

parks, recreation and trails advisory board

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reappoint Mr. Michael Stephens as the at-large member to the Lake County Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board, and approved Mr. Ben Gugliotti as the Lake County Water Authority’s representative.

commissioners reports

commissioner parks – district 2

florida association of counties policy proposals

Commr. Parks explained that each year there was the opportunity to present to the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) possible legislative changes that a County might desire. He relayed that his proposal was for changes to Section 125.0104(5), Florida Statutes, for the use of funds from the tourist development tax (TDT). He proposed changing this statute to allow TDT to be utilized towards the PD&E studies, noting that FAC would vet this among other Counties’ requests.

Commr. Sullivan opined this was a good suggestion. He mentioned that the Marion County trails attracted about two million visitors to their county each year.

Commr. Parks said that since the Board was passionate about trails, they needed to consider other sources for funding since the penny sales tax and reserves funding might be limited.

Commr. Campione asked if the word trails was in this proposal.

Ms. Marsh explained that the word trails was not used in this statute; rather, it said nature centers.

Commr. Campione encouraged adding the word trails especially since the Board had previous discussions regarding whether TDT could be used for trails.

Ms. Marsh indicated that on page two, subsection (b) of this statute, it mentioned that revenues could be used to acquire, construct, etc. zoological parks, fishing piers, or nature centers, noting that she could take the same language she put in paragraph one and add it to this section. She proposed adding trails to this section; however, she relayed that there were Attorney Generals’ (AGs) opinions that trails and walking paths fell under nature centers.

Commr. Parks inquired if there was a certain population for this.

Ms. Marsh replied it was less than 750,000. She reiterated that they could take the same proposed language in red on page one, section 1, and add it to section (b) on page two. She stated she could also try to add trails to be clear.

Commr. Parks said he preferred to add trails.

Commr. Campione proposed also putting PD&E in that subsection.

Ms. Marsh relayed she could do that.

Commr. Sullivan said this did not change the other part of the funding which related to 40 percent being used for marketing.

Commr. Campione opined that this could be an option but would still be vetted by the FAC.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for additional language regarding trails and PD&E studies to be included with the proposed amendments to Section 125.0104(5), Florida Statutes, and to be submitted to the Florida Association of Counties as part of their policy proposals for the 2021 Legislative Session.

hope center

Commr. Parks encouraged the Commissioners to visit the Hope Center which was started a few months prior by the Real Life Christian Church in the City of Clermont. He indicated it was the full continuum of care and that the only thing they did not have was the 24-hour beds as discussed previously in the meeting.

Commr. Campione asked if it was operational.

Commr. Parks replied that it was, and noted that they provide the full continuum of care with triage and counseling.

Commr. Campione opined this would be a location that individuals who wanted to move towards permanent housing could go to, noting that if the County was able to receive the HUD grant funding then it could be used for a person in this situation.

commissioner blake – district 5

proclamation 2020-137 recognizing mary harding galbreath

Commr. Blake mentioned that Proclamation 2020-137 on the Consent Agenda acknowledged Ms. Mary Harding Galbreath, who had recently celebrated her 101st birthday. He relayed that in March of this year, individuals from the Lake County Historical Society had made him aware that she was celebrating her 101^st birthday, and that they had planned to do something to honor her but were unable to due to the pandemic. He then read the proclamation.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK