A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

december 22, 2020

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; and Leslie Campione.  Commissioner not present: Josh Blake.  Others present were: Jo-Anne Drury, Interim 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; Mary Burns, Accounting Director; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He said that they were meeting in person and that the meeting was being streamed live on the County’s website.  He added that the County was also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide input during the meeting but preferred not to attend in person.  He stated that Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, would explain how that process would work.  He commented that they would have the invocation, and then as had traditionally been done, they would have a veteran lead the Pledge of Allegiance.  He indicated that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Mr. David Langley, Assistant County Attorney.  He explained that Mr. Langley completed four years of active-duty service in the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, primarily stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas with the historic 1st Infantry Division. He said that while there, Mr. Langley advised commanders and soldiers as an administrative law attorney, legal assistance attorney, military magistrate, and prosecutor.  He relayed that Mr. Langley prosecuted multiple courts-martial, separation boards, was deployed for nine months near the demilitarized zone of North and South Korea, and advised on multiple large-scale international training operations.  He commented that for his active-duty service, he earned an Army Achievement Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, the Korean Defense Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. He commented that Mr. Langley continued to serve as a Captain in the United States Army Reserve as a JAG defense counsel for the 154th Legal Operations Detachment.  He thanked Mr. Langley for his service.

Pastor Brooks Braswell from First Baptist Church of Umatilla gave the Invocation, and Mr. Langley led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Ross explained that this meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through 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 participate in the meeting could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the Zoom Webinar using their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to let the County know that they wished to speak.  He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments.  He stated that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound, letting them know that their time was up.  He remarked that the County previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the current meeting.  He said that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, and any written comments submitted during this meeting would be shared with each Board member following the meeting.

Agenda update

Ms. Jo-Anne Drury, Interim County Manager, said that there were these three changes to the agenda since it was first published: for Tab 28, an ordinance from the City of Fruitland Park was added to the background; for Tab 29, a request to approve an accompanying resolution was added, and the resolution itself was added to the background; and Tab 33 was added for vacation rental agreements.

covid-19 update

Mr. Aaron Kissler, Administrator/Director/Health Officer for the Department of Health (DOH) in Lake County, displayed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) data and reported that there had been an increase in cases across the state and the nation, noting that the positivity rate was also increasing.  He said that the DOH had anticipated this following the Thanksgiving holidays and the increased time spent inside due to colder weather.  He indicated that it was also respiratory virus season, and that this was the natural path seen often with colds and the flu, noting that in the normal seasons, they generally saw a peak of the flu about February or March.  He indicated that the DOH had moved their testing site to Cooper Memorial Library and would be conducting holiday testing; additionally, they would be providing testing on the current day, the following day, and the following Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.  He said that the DOH was first encouraging people to check with their provider, but if they did not have access to testing, then the DOH was the provider of last resort.  He added that the DOH was getting into the vaccine phase as well, and that they had opened a location in the City of Leesburg that was running two days per week; furthermore, if they saw an increase in cases there, they would move back to the Lake-Sumter State College facility.  He relayed that they were trying to keep up with contact tracing and that their team was doing a good job of getting their percentage of cases contacted.  He also recommended for the public to conduct some of their own private contract tracing.  He commented that the DOH visited 260 churches in the county and passed out masks, along with performing education and promotion for masks.  He then said that there were probably over 5,000 vaccine doses in Lake County and that hospitals were doing a good job getting it out to their staffs.  He added that the DOH hoped to get some vaccines in the next week or two, and they would then begin doing their closed points of distribution (PODs).  He said that CVS Pharmacy and Walgreens would be getting the vaccine out to long-term care facilities for workers and residents, and the DOH and the Lake County Office of Emergency Management would be there to provide support, noting that the DOH had freezers.  He stated that the federal and state plans for different groups were online, and that the DOH had been meeting with the hospital workers.  He indicated that there had been an issue with vaccine hesitancy at the beginning, but it seemed to be waning.  He commented that the DOH would be receiving vaccines to support the long-term care facility effort, along with closed PODs for at risk groups, first responders, and healthcare workers who may not necessarily be associated with a hospital.  He hoped that vaccines would be coming through the pharmacies, commenting that the DOH would continue to support gaps as this rolled out.  He opined that the important part was to do it safely and to not stockpile vaccines; rather, it was to get it out to people as soon as possible.

Commr. Shields asked if retail employees were on the list for receiving the vaccine first.

Mr. Kissler said that they would be in the plan under “essential workers,” and that they were far up on the list because there were certain people who had to go to work every day. 

 Commr. Campione said that individuals from senior communities wanted to find out if they could have a location within the community to administer the vaccine, and she asked if those communities were being communicated with to let them know what steps they would have to go through to make this happen.

Mr. Kissler replied that the DOH was working with them and was still getting this part situated.  He said that the plan was to provide the upcoming vaccines through CVS Pharmacy and Walgreens for free.  He added that the DOH would also be setting up some PODs and would have some strike teams doing vaccinations in nursing homes and possibly in 55+ communities with high fatality rates.  He elaborated that once the DOH received enough vaccines, they could also potentially have some private PODs with groups that could administrate them. 

Commr. Campione remarked that the Moderna vaccine was rolled out to hospitals in the current week for staff.

Mr. Kissler confirmed this and said that some employees had gotten vaccines through their systems.  He said that the DOH had not had a delivery of the Pfizer vaccine to Lake County, but the systems had it trickle through.

Commr. Campione asked if they were looking at February or March 2021 for communities to have them.

Mr. Kissler said this sounded right but that it was tough to tell because there had been some inconsistencies with deliveries.  He indicated that the DOH was ready to go when vaccines were delivered.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Kissler for everything he was doing, and he urged everyone to be cautious with the spread of COVID-19.

Minutes approval

Commr. Smith indicated that he was not at this meeting, but that if Commissioner Parks and Commissioner Campione agreed with the minutes, then he was fine with that.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith, and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of September 25, 2020 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Commr. Parks said that this was everyone’s chance to ask questions or speak what was on their mind, with the exception of if it was something coming up in a public hearing or zoning agenda; furthermore, they would have an opportunity if they wanted to speak at that time.  He commented that he had three comment cards that were related to Tabs 11 and 26 and noted that they would be heard at that time.  He stated that if anyone had joined the meeting via Zoom Webinar using their phone, they could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and that anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to let the County know they wished to speak.  He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak and after that time, an alarm would sound, he would ask them to wrap it up, and that would be the end of their time.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, explained that Tab 11 was on the consent agenda, and asked if he wanted to hear from residents now or pull the item off the consent agenda.

Commr. Parks proposed to let them speak when the Board got to the consent agenda, and the Board could pull it at that time if needed. 

Mr. Ross indicated no one online had raised their hand. 

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 and 2, 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 Mount Dora Annexation Ordinance 2020-14

Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinance 2020-14 from the City of Mount Dora.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Parks reiterated that he had some comment cards for Tab 11.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. James Harris, a resident of Mission Avenue in the City of Tavares, said that he had purchased his home in 2014 and that at that time, there had been talks to get a dock replaced.  He commented that a variance was approved in 2016 because it was noncontiguous from the dock to a residential structure, and residents had attempted to perform an amended re-plat to satisfy some requirements of the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning.  He mentioned that they did not get all five of the residents to approve that, so they were forced to have a special magistrate in the current year.  He said that this item was what had passed, and that 40 percent of the dock was underwater due to Hurricane Irma.  He stated that the majority of the 14 households on that street hoped that the Board could understand their situation with the original developer and their attempt to rebuild the dock. 

Mr. Mark Lebamoff, a concerned citizen speaking on this issue, said that the special master recommendation to waive the re-plat requirement would result in obtaining the building permits to rebuild a community dock in the Mission Village homeowners association (HOA).  He explained that the property was one part of five neighboring docks and properties that were conveyed by the developer in the 1980s, and he indicated that the subdivision had 13 property owners, five of which had docks and/or property on Lake Dora.  He said if this request was approved, all five property owners would be unable to obtain permits for maintenance or reconstruction without a re-plat for the reason that this request for relief was being presented.  He opined that the property owners would not agree that the HOA refused to fund a re-plat now that the relief for such a requirement was not required.  He opined that the board of directors for the HOA had used this internal HOA issue to obtain the re-plat of parcel two of tract C.  He commented that eight non-property owners of the Lake Dora property wished for the five individuals to help finance a complete restoration of the derelict community dock, which he opined was purposefully not maintained by the HOA so that they could build a more expensive dock at the cost of property owners.  He also asked what would happen to the property dock owners when they needed to obtain permits if the Board granted this.  He expressed a concern that they would have to go through an extensive procedure, and he proposed that the Board could remove the note on the plat and include the variance for the entire parcel two of tract C, or send this issue back and make the HOA compromise for the eight non-property owners and five property owners. 

Ms. Marsh asked if he had attended the mediation. 

Mr. Lebamoff said that he was able to read the statements and that he was then taken to another room while the attorneys and the board of directors made a deal. 

Ms. Marsh stated that this was how mediation worked and that the parties separated so that each could talk freely to the mediator.  She relayed her understanding that when the mediation was complete, all the residents that attended were in agreement with this document.  She inquired if he agreed with it at the time it was finished and the mediation was over.

Mr. Lebamoff stated that he never agreed to the document and opined that at least four of the five property owners thought that this should not be a County issue.

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

Commr. Parks said that this item could be pulled from the consent agenda to the regular agenda and staff could present it. 

Commr. Campione thought it would be helpful if the Board had more explanation from the County’s perspective to help understand why they needed to get a special master, what they were unable to do unless there was an agreement, and how it affected the other property owners on the lake.  She added that how they distributed costs with an HOA was really not within the Board of County Commissioners’ (BCC’s) purview at all; however, being able to permit or replace a dock would be under their purview. 

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 23, pulling Tab 11 to the regular agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-226 designating January 18, 2021, as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Lake County.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final Judgment in Court Case No. 2020-CA-1435, Lake County vs. Gregory E. Moore, et al., for the needed right of way and grading, drainage and utility easement for the County Road 466A Road Project. The fiscal impact is $67,523.00 (expenditure). Commission District 5.

Request approval for a waiver of conflict for Gray Robinson regarding its representation of property owners in potential eminent domain discussions or actions related to the Wekiva Trail Extension Project, Segment 2. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Information Technology

Request approval of a contract with Cysiv, LLC (Dallas, TX) for cyber security monitoring services. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $48,849.12 (expenditure) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

AGENCY FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Request approval of a Director Level Partnership with the Orlando Economic Partnership. The fiscal impact is $50,000.00 (expenditure) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 budget.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Animal Services

Request approval of Contract 20-0532 with MedFIRST Healthcare Supply, Inc. (Minneola, FL), Miller Veterinary Holdings, LLC (Ocala, FL), and MWI Animal Health (Boise, ID) for veterinary pharmaceuticals and supplies. The annual fiscal impact is up to $130,000.00 (expenditure) and is within Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Fire Rescue

Request approval of a contract with CareerSource Central Florida (Orlando, FL) to provide customized training for current employees in the Offices of Emergency Medical Services and Fire Rescue, and approval of unanticipated revenue Resolution 2020-228 for the appropriation and expenditure of CareerSource funds to be received. The fiscal impact is $49,335.00 (expenditure/revenue - 100 percent to be reimbursed by Career Source Central Florida).

Request approval to:

1. Combine existing Office of Fire Rescue and Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) contracts with TargetSolutions Learning, LLC d/b/a Vector Solutions (Tampa, Florida) into one contract.

2. Authorize the Director of the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated fiscal impact over three years is $158,594.96 (expenditure) and is budgeted for the first year within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Facilities Management

Request approval of Contract 21-0412 with E.R. Reeves Corp d/b/a All Seasons Air Conditioning (Orlando, FL) for HVAC, Ice Machine, & Walk-In Cooler preventative maintenance and repair services. The annual fiscal impact is up $100,000.00 (expenditure) and is within Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Housing and Human Services

Request approval of an agreement with We Care of Lake County, Inc. (Mount Dora, FL) for operation of the Lake County We Care Program effective October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021. The fiscal impact is $116,975.00 (expenditure) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Parks and Trails

Request approval of Contract 20-0522 with Pro Way Paving Systems (Gibsonton, FL) for sealcoating, paving repairs and striping services on an as-needed basis. The fiscal impact is up to $45,000.00 (expenditure) and is within Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Public Works

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $161,377.53 for the construction of a turn lane on County Road 33 for the Woodbury subdivision in the City of Mascotte. The fiscal impact is $390.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 1.

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $210,920.28 for the construction of a sidewalk and turn lane on North Hancock Road for the Publix – Hills of Minneola Planned Unit Development in the City of Minneola. The fiscal impact is $780.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 2.

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $657,345.65 for the construction of a force main on Round Lake Road for the Timberwalk subdivision in the City of Mount Dora from Forestar (USA) Real Estate Group, Inc. The fiscal impact is $1,500.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 4.

Request approval of Resolution 2020-229 to advertise a public hearing to vacate unimproved right of way in the plats of Lake Highlands subdivision, located east of the future extension of Good Hearth Boulevard and west of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, in the Clermont area. The fiscal impact is $2,295.00 (revenue - vacation application fee). Commission District 2.

Request approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Leesburg for the transfer of jurisdiction from the County to the City of Hollow Lane from Sleepy Hollow Road to the entrance of Sleepy Hollow Athletic Complex (County Road 4523A), located within the city limits. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.

Transit Services

Request approval:

1. To apply to the Florida Department of Transportation under the Section 5310 Capital and Operating Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2022, and to accept and implement the grant, if awarded.

2. Of supporting Resolution 2020-230.

3. To acquire vehicles under the State’s bid list through the Transit Research Inspection Procurement Services (TRIPS) program.

The fiscal impact is $1,218,467.00 (revenue/expenditure - $744,629.00 grant funded and $473,838.00 in County funding), and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Request approval:

1. To apply for the Florida Department of Transportation Section 5311 Operating Grant for Fiscal Year 2022.

2. Of supporting Resolution 2020-231.

3. To accept and implement the grant, if awarded.

The fiscal impact is $673,351.00 (revenue/expenditure - $336,675.50 in grant funding and $336,675.50 in County funding), and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Request approval of the Office of Transit Services' new Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and approval for the Office of Transit Services' Director to execute the Annual Certification and Adoption of the plan. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval of an agreement with the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) for the continuation of the Link 55 fixed route bus service in South Lake County. The fiscal Impact is $306,885.00 (revenue/expenditure – 100 percent Federal Transit Administration grant funded) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 2.

Tab 11: Special Master Agreement

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, said that this agenda item was a result of the special master process, which was allowed by the Florida Statutes as well as the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs).  He displayed an image of the Mission Village subdivision, noting that it had platted access to Lake Dora.  He stated that years prior, a community boat dock had been installed on that platted lot, which he pointed out on the map.  He mentioned that over the years, this platted lot had been subdivided and deeded off to residential homeowners within Mission Village.  He said they had attempted to apply for a zoning permit to repair and expand that community boat dock, and Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning staff had identified the need to re-plat that lot to effectively show the existing current conditions of the lot lines there.  He stated that the issue was that some of the residential homeowners were not willing to partake in that re-plat, noting that the dock was in disrepair and needed to be removed and replaced for safety purposes; furthermore, the way forward was through the special master process.  He said that staff, along with the HOA representatives and some of the concerned homeowners went through the mediation process, and they came up with the settlement agreement that was before the Board for their consideration at the current meeting.  He commented that staff was requesting that the Board approve this settlement agreement.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that if people would not join in to re-plat, then they could not re-plat and fix the dock.

Mr. McClendon said this was correct.

Commr. Campione then said that because they needed to have 100 percent participation, this could not be done if everyone was not on board.  She commented that they took it to the special master and it was the special master’s decision, through negotiation, to recommend that it not have to be re-platted in order to issue a permit, and Mr. McClendon confirmed this.  Commissioner Campione then commented that the end result was those who did not want this to happen because they did not want to be assessed to pay for a dock would then have to pay their share if this went forward.

Ms. Marsh relayed that this was a civil issue between those homeowners and their HOA.  She explained that this dock had been a code enforcement issue for many years, and that it was dilapidated and unsafe.  She opined that it needed be totally removed, repaired or replaced.  She commented that her office had been involved with this property for several years and that they did receive a variance at some point; however, to plat it, they needed all of those other property owners to agree.  She said that they were somewhat stuck and could not get the building permit to repair the dock, nor could they get the adjacent property owners to join in the platting.  She stated that this was a statutory process established for property owners who were denied development permits so that they could get some type of relief from local rules and regulations.  She mentioned that this was what the HOA had done for purposes of being able to remove the dilapidated dock and put in a safe structure.

Commr. Campione asked about when it was mentioned that there were eight lot owners versus five that did not have an interest in the lakefront parcel.

Ms. Marsh replied that there was the plat where the lots on the opposite side of Lakeshore Drive could be seen, and the dock’s location was originally platted as a tract; furthermore, somewhere along the line, the owner of the tract subdivided it without coming through the County zoning process, and sold it off by metes and bounds.  She elaborated that because this was done, the County did not recognize this parcel because it never came through the zoning process to legally create the lot. 

Commr. Campione asked if there were other docks as part of those metes and bounds description, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this. 

Commr. Smith said that he was fine with the waiver of the community dock, but asked what would happen when the other docks started to go into disrepair. 

Ms. Marsh responded that if those other docks were legally permitted, then they could be repaired.

Commr. Campione inquired if they could have been legally permitted.

Mr. McClendon said that staff would have to research this when they applied for those permits. 

Commr. Campione asked if this agreement and the requirement for not having to re-plat would affect those other docks being able to be repaired or rebuilt.

Mr. McClendon said that staff would have to go back through the permit history of each individual dock.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that they were not the subject of this agreement.

Ms. Marsh replied that they were not the subject of this agreement, and that it was strictly this landowner applying for this parcel. 

Commr. Campione inquired that, should the only issue be having to re-plat, could the Board include them in this waiver.

Ms. Marsh said that the County could add another provision to this that would recognize the other lots for purposes of if they needed to come in and do repair or replacement on their existing docks; additionally, this could be added before it was signed by the Chairman.

Commr. Campione stated that this seemed like the one thing the Board could do to bring the community together, noting that the Board could not control how much the HOA spent on the community dock.  She said that the Board would hope that the HOA would be reasonable and fair, knowing that people with docks would still have to pay for the community dock.

Commr. Smith supported approving Tab 11 with the re-plat requirements for all docks removed.

Commr. Campione also expressed support for this and asked if the Board would need to include language to say in recognition of those lots where the existing docks were.

Ms. Marsh said that if the motion were to say to recognize the adjacent lots for purposes of repair or replacement of existing docks, then they would not have to re-plat.  She assumed that the residents had permits for their houses, so the County would recognize them anyway, but staff could make it broader if the Board wanted to recognize the lots for all purposes.

Commr. Campione opined that it would be easier this way.

Commr. Smith indicated that the Board wanted to make it fair for all the current dock owners. 

Commr. Campione said that the Board’s intent was to get this worked out for the neighborhood, noting that it was better for everyone if the old dock was fixed and then the people with docks could improve theirs. 

Commr. Parks agreed that it was a great solution. 

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a Special Master Agreement with Mission Village at Lake Dora HOA, Inc. for the replacement of a community boat dock, and payment for 50 percent of the total Special Master fees, with the modification to recognize the adjacent lots for all purposes. 

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. McClendon displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes.  He said that there were three cases on the agenda and that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of Tabs 1, 2 and 3.  He relayed that staff was requesting that the BCC accept that recommendation and approve those tabs. 

Commr. Parks noted that there was a comment card for Tab 1, and said that they could have the comment now.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Brady Sellars, a resident of Flatwoods Road, which was south of the proposed dog facility, commented that his family was present to oppose the case and that he, his father and his son all had land adjoining the subject property.  He relayed concerns for the following items: that the facility could become a commercialized grooming and boarding facility with high traffic; hours of operation; two acres of the parcel being on a 100 year floodplain; smell; noise; the types of dogs there; if there would be exotic animals; impacts on the wetland; traffic and noise studies; and vehicle turnouts close to his property line. 

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Parks proposed to pull Tab 1 from the consent agenda. 

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 2 and 3, pulling Tab 1 to the regular agenda, as follows:

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2020-76

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-33-5

Merrill Property Rezoning

Rezone approximately 2.78 +/- acres of property from Agriculture (A) to Rural Residential (R-1) zoning for residential development, to include waiver request to the central water and sewer utility connection requirement.

 

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2020-77

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-32-5

Perkins Property Rezoning

Rezone approximately 19.7 +/- acres of property from Rural Residential (R1) to Agriculture (A) zoning for residential and agriculture use.

 

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2020-75

Rezoning Case # CUP-20-05-1

Yorton Dog Breeding Kennel

Conditional use permit on approximately 9.04 +/- acres to allow a dog breeding facility/kennel within the Agriculture (A) zoning district.

 

yorton dog breeding kennel

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 1, Rezoning Case # CUP-20-05-1, Yorton Dog Breeding Kennel. He explained that it was located southwest of the intersection of Casteen Road and Flatwoods Road in the City of Leesburg area, within Commission District 1.  He noted that the tract size was nine acres, and that this was a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a dog breeding facility within the Agriculture zoning.  He stated that the future land use (FLU) designation on the property was identified as Rural, and he relayed that this was a CUP request for a kennel for up to 25 adult dogs, commenting that the Planning and Zoning Board had modified the proposed ordinance to limit it to this number and also to limit the facility to breeding only.  He elaborated that the use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and LDRs, commenting that the location of the kennel was over 200 feet from the nearest property line.  He displayed the concept plan and pointed out that the kennel was just west of the wetland area; additionally, it was meeting the wetland setbacks. He said that floodplain issues and traffic concerns would be addressed during the site plan process on the administrative side.  He concluded that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval with the conditions of 25 adult dogs maximum at one time and the limitation of breeding only.

Ms. Kristen Yorton, one of the applicants, explained that there would not be a lot of traffic in and out, and said that her son, who would be the primary caretaker, also had a for-hire pet transportation business; additionally, nearly all of his dogs were delivered.  She elaborated that people would not be coming to window shop, and that the dogs were primarily sold before they were born.  She added that they were planned breedings, that her son had been working on this for about five years, and that his passion was to better the breed through health testing and the planned breedings.

Commr. Campione asked about the type of breed.

Ms. Yorton replied that they were primarily English mastiffs with some Burnese mountain dogs, with there currently being only seven adult dogs.  She relayed that when they filled out the CUP application, it asked them for a maximum number, noting that if it grew, it would not exceed what they applied for.  She explained that they planned to build a climate controlled barn and that they would be good neighbors.  She commented that after the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, they had briefly spoken to the Sellars family to answer their questions.  She said that they had a closing set on this property that was contingent upon approval of this CUP.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that there would be no boarding.

Ms. Yorton confirmed this and added that her son would also train the dogs.  She opined that the dogs would be well cared for and that it was not like a puppy mill. 

Commr. Campione opined that it seemed like a high number of dogs.

Ms. Yorton said that they had to include a number and reiterated that currently, there were only seven adult dogs. 

Commr. Shields asked if she had addressed the noise concerns.

Ms. Yorton replied that the dogs would not be outside much other than to go out into the run and use the bathroom.  She added that they planned to probably build a hedge to control this, and that the dogs would not be out all night. 

Commr. Shields also asked if the floodplain issue was addressed.

Commr. Campione said that during the site plan process, they would not be allowed to put structures in the floodplain.  She reiterated her concern that the number of dogs was too high, noting that it was a new operation; furthermore, she thought the number should be what they had done in the past.

Ms. Yorton clarified that they were not looking to breed thousands of puppies and that they were planned breedings.

Commr. Campione inquired if she would be comfortable if it was tied to their family, and if the CUP would allow for breeding of other breeds.  She commented that she would be comfortable with something like 12 dogs, noting that two acres was not a lot of space.

Ms. Yorton said it was a nine acre property.

Commr. Campione asked Mr. McClendon about the floodplain, wetlands or other issues that would make part of the property unusable.

Mr. McClendon replied that they had not reached that part of the site plan process, and this was strictly the CUP.  He noted that applicants typically did not spend the money on a site plan when not knowing whether they would be able to move a project forward.  He stated that they would be required to meet all the rules and regulations such as staying outside of the floodplain unless the structure was elevated, and having a mandatory 55 foot setback from wetlands; additionally, everything he showed on the concept plan met or exceeded the County’s code currently.  He also said that a noise study would be required as part of the application, and if there were any impacts within that study, there were ways to mitigate it such as landscaping, hedges, berms, and noise deadening material for the structure.

Commr. Smith asked if these were show dogs, and Ms. Yorton confirmed this.  Commissioner Smith then inquired if they would have another person’s dog which did well in a show come in for breeding.

Ms. Yorton denied this and said they were all owned and registered American Kennel Club (AKC) animals.  She added that they would not be bringing in anyone else’s dogs.  She reiterated that they wanted to be good neighbors.

Commr. Campione said it seemed that the best way to be good neighbors was for everyone to have expectations and parameters so they knew what the rules were; additionally, if they were to expand in the future and wanted to have more dogs, then they would have a track record and the neighbors would be familiar with the impacts.  She said that she tended to support a smaller number and then if it worked, they could build from there.  She expressed concerns for what would happen when the next owner came in and what it could potentially be.  She opined that it would be a lot of breeding if there were 25 dogs allowed.

Commr. Smith asked if it would be reasonable to table this so that he could do more research.

Ms. Yorton relayed that she had a closing on the following day.   

Commr. Parks inquired if for Section B, Specific Conditions, would she be adverse to the Board including a line indicating that they could not have the dogs out at night between sunset and sunrise.

Ms. Yorton said that it was sometimes dark at 5:30 p.m. in the winter, and it would not be reasonable that the dogs could not go out and use the bathroom after this time.  She relayed that the last run for them to go out was usually between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and then they were inside until morning.

Commr. Parks asked if the Board could set a time like 9:00 p.m. to sunrise.

Ms. Yorton relayed that currently, the dogs were inside by 10:00 p.m. and that it was a quick in and out. 

Commr. Campione asked if she was opposed to the CUP applying only to her family as opposed to it running with the property.

Ms. Yorton thought that the CUP went with the property.  She said that they would be building something very substantial there and that they planned to take care of it for a long time.

Commr. Campione mentioned the potential of opening the door for other things that could happen there.  She expressed a concern for it being used by another owner, along with impacts to the surrounding neighbors.  She said that lessening the number of dogs helped significantly for noise and other impacts so that if the CUP was transferred to someone else, at least there would be a limit.  She stated that if all went well and they wanted to expand, and the neighbors were amicable with it, then this was something that could happen later.

Commr. Parks thought that this was a good approach and said that the applicant could ask for more dogs as they built up trust.  He was unsure if a timeframe could be included in the CUP that would allow the applicant to come back after a certain period of time for more dogs if there were no complaints or code issues. 

Ms. Marsh relayed that the Board had done this on occasion in the past.  She said that the Board could put a timeframe on it so that the applicant was required to come back if the Board wanted to lower the number of dogs; furthermore, the applicant could come back at any time and it would not be time specific. 

Commr. Smith asked to confirm that there were seven dogs currently.

Ms. Yorton confirmed that there were seven adult dogs, and there were three that were just under a year old that would be part of the breeding program; however, it would take another 18 months for them to reach maturity. 

Commr. Smith inquired if it had taken her five years to get there, and Ms. Yorton confirmed this.  Commissioner Smith then proposed that if the Board allowed 12 dogs with a two year limit, Ms. Yorton could come back in that time.  He asked if that was reasonable to her.

Ms. Yorton thought that this would probably be reasonable. 

Commr. Campione commented that the two years would be if the applicant wanted to ask for more dogs and that in that time, they would have a track record and the neighbors would know how they felt.  She added that there would not be a prohibition on transferring the property and there would be a limit of 12 dogs.  She also liked the idea of limiting it from 9:00 p.m. to sunrise for the dogs being outside. 

Commr. Parks asked to confirm that this case was in Commission District 1, and Mr. McClendon said this was correct.  Commissioner Parks opined that these seemed like some good conditions to add. 

Ms. Marsh asked if the maximum number of dogs would be 12 total dogs or adult dogs.

Commr. Smith stated that it would be breeding dogs.  He asked if a dog could have five puppies.

Ms. Yorton indicated that it could be more than that.

Ms. Marsh summarized that the conditions would include the following: a maximum of 12 adult dogs; the applicant could not request an increase in the number of adult dogs prior to a two year timeframe to establish a track record; and the dogs could not be outside between 9:00 p.m. and sunrise. 

Commr. Shields inquired if the Board could ask the neighbors about this.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Austin Sellars, a neighbor of the subject property and Mr. Brady Sellars’ son, noted that his family had cows that surrounded the proposed facility.  He expressed concerns for dogs barking at other animals and for noise.

Mr. Brady Sellars opined that this seemed to be more of a commercial request rather than agriculture.  He said that his family grazed cows on one to three acres, though the request was to put 25 dogs on nine acres.  He asked if it was a business.

Commr. Parks commented that this was why it was being considered for a CUP, which would include business activities. 

Mr. Brady Sellars asked if a fence could be added in case the facility changed the breed of dogs.

 Commr. Parks replied that this was something the Board could consider.

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

Ms. Yorton said that on the proposed map, the runs would be off the rear end of the property, noting that she had seen few cows there.  She elaborated that the runs would be up against a line of trees, and that they had a proposed fence.  She also stated that they had discussed putting in landscaping to help with noise and views. 

Commr. Shields expressed support for approving the request with the stated conditions.

Ms. Marsh reiterated the following conditions: limiting the number of adult dogs to 12; the applicant could not request an increase in the number of adult dogs prior to two years to establish a track record; and the dogs could not be outside between 9:00 p.m. and sunrise. 

Commr. Smith also expressed support for this.

Commr. Campione stated that she would rather see a site plan and know exactly where everything would be, and know that a noise study had been done.  She thought that buffers between agricultural uses and something like this was important, along with having a fence, shrubs, etc. 

Commr. Parks indicated that the applicant would still have to go through the site planning process and that these comments were noted for that process.

Mr. McClendon confirmed that the comments would be addressed.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a 3-1 vote, the Board approved rezoning case # CUP-20-05-1, Yorton Dog Breeding Kennel, with the following conditions: a maximum of 12 adult dogs; the applicant could not request an increase in the number of adult dogs prior to a two year timeframe to establish a track record; and the dogs could not be outside between 9:00 p.m. and sunrise. 

Commr. Campione voted no.

public hearing: vacate right of way on county road 455

Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, presented Tab 25, which was a public hearing for vacation petition #1255.  He explained that the applicants were Mr. Michael Scarabino and Ms. Ronda Scarabino, represented by Ms. Tina. M. Smith, Esq., with Meredith Nagel, Private Attorney (PA), Attorneys at Law.  He commented that the proposed vacation was on County Road (CR) 455 near the City of Minneola in Commission District 2, and he showed an image of the proposed vacation, noting that it was east of the roundabout on CR 561 and CR 455.  He also showed the property map, commenting that at some point, there was a discrepancy in the legal description and the metes and bounds, so there was a desire by the applicant to clear up title on the property.  He said what was agreed to with the property owner was that they would dedicate 50 feet from the center line of the road to clear up that aspect of title, and then the County would perform a vacation on any interest the County might have outside of that area.  He read the requested action for approval of a resolution to vacate any public interest that may exist in certain right of way on CR 455 and clear title.  He stated that the benefit to the public was the dedication of right of way of 50 feet from the center pavement of CR 455, and that there were no letters of support or opposition.  He mentioned that utilities were notified with no issues, and that certified notices had been sent to affected property owners; furthermore, it was advertised on October 27, 2020 and signs were posted.  He relayed that staff’s recommendation was approval of the request to vacate. 

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. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2020-232 to vacate any public interest that may exist in certain right of way on County Road 455 near Minneola.

public hearing: vacate right of way in silver lake estates

Mr. Schneider presented Tab 26, which was a public hearing for vacation petition #1256.  He explained that the applicant was KBC Radio Road, LLC, represented by Mr. Michael Good, the Manager for KBC Radio Road, LLC.  He commented that the proposed vacation was in the City of Leesburg area in Commission District 3, noting that it was located off Radio Road near the intersection of Morningside Drive.  He displayed a close up view of the location on an aerial image, pointing out the vacation and the property that was proposed to be developed.  He read the requested action for approval of a resolution to vacate the unimproved right of way in the plat of Silver Lake Estates, commenting that the purpose of the request was for future development of a subdivision known as Tyree Estates.  He indicated that there were no letters of support or objection, but that staff received calls from adjoining property owners, that those calls were responded to, and that there was no opposition or support from those property owners.  He explained that when the subdivision to the north was platted and dedicated, their half of existing right of way was vacated, and now the southern half of the right of way was being requested to be vacated.  He mentioned that utilities were notified with no issues, and that certified notices had been mailed to affected property owners; furthermore, the Board approved the advertisement of the request on November 17, 2020, it was advertised in the Daily Commercial, and signs were posted.  He relayed that staff recommended approval of the request. 

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Richard Stewart, a resident who lived along one of the right of ways that was being vacated, asked what this meant for those property owners.

Mr. Schneider explained that when the right of way was vacated, it vacated the public interest to travel on it, use it, build a road on it, etc.  He said that adjoining property owners’ lots would not be affected, and it would more than likely revert back to the property owner who made the request.  He reiterated that it would not have any impact on Mr. Stewart’s property as a lot owner. 

Ms. Marsh clarified that the County did not make any title determinations as to where that right of way goes and ultimately, that was a civil issue between the property owners; therefore, those property owners would have to get their own title search to figure out how that would be divided.

Mr. Stewart then asked if the subdivision had been approved.

Mr. Schneider relayed his understanding that they were going through the construction plan approval process, and he was unsure if it was completed just yet. 

Commr. Parks asked to confirm that Mr. Stewart would be notified if he lived adjacent to it.

Ms. Marsh commented that he would not be notified for a subdivision plan approval. 

Mr. Stewart inquired that if they got approval to build 60 houses on 20 acres, would he receive notification of this.

Ms. Marsh explained that the only document that would come back to the BCC was the final plat, and at that point typically the subdivision improvements could already be in place.  She said that there was not a notification process for adjoining property owners, though he could make a public records request if he wanted to see what had been submitted to the County for construction plans. 

Mr. Schneider commented that staff could get his name and number and then provide him information.

Commr. Campione noted that this was not a rezoning and that it did not come before the BCC.  She added that when it got to the part where they laid out the lots, they just had to meet the zoning requirements.

Mr. Stewart relayed his understanding that the previous owners of his home had been informed by the builder that this property could not be developed because of wetlands and similar issues. 

Commr. Campione recommended for him to meet with staff.  She stated that the property looked like it was heavily wooded, and indicated her understanding that the eastern part of the property went into the land that Commissioner Parks had been working to acquire for public conservation. 

Mr. Stewart expressed concerns for there being homes in his backyard. 

Commr. Parks said that there were entitlements on this property, and that the County had looked to have a win-win situation for the undeveloped property to be put in a state of protection. 

Mr. Good clarified that the project had already been approved for construction, and vacating the easement had been missed. 

Commr. Campione asked if there were wetlands on the property. 

Mr. Good commented that there were in the back of the property; however, this had been handled with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

Commr. Campione inquired if the wetlands were in conservation or if they were not being platted.

Mr. Good replied that there was a conservation easement back there, and it had been addressed through the planning process. 

Commr. Parks stated that they probably put the wetlands in a conservation easement, or they had wetland impacts mitigation.

Mr. Good also clarified that it would only be 50 lots.

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

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2020-233 to vacate unimproved rights of way in the plats of Silver Lake Estates, located on the east side of Radio Road at the intersection of Morningside Drive, in the Leesburg area.

public hearing: ordinance to remove restriction of air boats

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 AND REPEALING LAKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5-3, ENTITLED AIRBOATS AT LAKE YALE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Commr. Campione asked where this item originated.

Ms. Marsh explained that there was a similar ordinance in Alachua County prohibiting airboats on a lake there for the timeframes in their ordinance.  She said that it was challenged by an airboat owner, and the court there determined that the airboat regulation was preempted to the State, so out of an abundance of caution, staff was requesting to repeal Lake County’s restrictions on Lake Yale. 

Commr. Campione inquired if this was the only lake they had a restriction on.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said she was unaware of there being any complaints; additionally, she thought this had been in the code for many years.

Commr. Campione stated that there was an issue on the lake, and she thought that this was in place because the residents there had asked for it to be imposed so that there would be peace and quiet during the daytime.  She inquired if there was a way to go about this by involving the State to see whether they could impose a restriction.

Ms. Marsh replied that if the Board wanted to postpone it, staff could explore that option.

Commr. Campione opined that this would be prudent because this is what the residents there were used to, and if it was lifted, the residents could question why it was done.  She supported postponing it for at least one BCC meeting to see to what extent the County could get the State involved.  She commented that there could possibly be some hours of operation for airboats.

Ms. Marsh requested not to put a time certain on the postponement because she was unsure how quickly staff would be able to contact the State. She added that staff could also potentially reach out to Lake Yale. 

Commr. Campione asked if 60 days would be enough time, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this.

Commr. Parks inquired if she would want to include more outreach to people around the lake.

Commr. Campione questioned that if the Board was being told by legal that the County may eventually get sued if this is left in place, then should they wait to be sued and leave it intact, or do they get rid of it.  She said that in the meantime before they bring the issue up to the residents, she would like to know whether the State could put parameters in place; furthermore, when the County talked to the residents, they could say that the residents needed to reach out to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or whoever it was that they needed to talk to.

Ms. Marsh noted that there was a process that residents and the County could go through to put different types of boating restrictions on different areas.  She said that the County typically did this through the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), and then the LCWA worked with the State.  She relayed that it was difficult to get restrictions through the State and that they had stringent requirements such as boating accidents, etc. that had to be considered; however, staff would explore that and could bring that information back.

Commr. Campione opined that this would be helpful, noting that Lake Yale had many issues with water quality and hydrilla.  She said that residents there had been working with the LCWA and the FWC to try to get relief, and she expressed a concern that opening it to airboats could be an issue when residents were trying to get the lake under control.  She supported postponing this for 60 days to see what Ms. Marsh could find out.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board postponed the request for adoption and execution of an ordinance amending and repealing Lake County Code, Chapter 5, Section 5-3, entitled Airboats at Lake Yale, to remove the restriction of airboats on Lake Yale during certain times of the day, for 60 days. 

public hearing: fruitland park property fire protection mstu

Ms. Marsh commented that there were multiple points to this tab, and the first one was an ordinance.  She 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; INCLUDING THE CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK INTO THE LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR FIRE PROTECTION; INCLUDING THE CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK IN THE LAKE COUNTY FIRE ASSESSMENT; CREATING A NEW SECTION 20-1(23), LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ross said that there was one hand raised over Zoom Webinar.

Mr. David Serdar, a concerned citizen, expressed support for this item and made various other comments related to local government. 

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

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following items: to adopt and execute Ordinance 2020-74 for the inclusion of property within the City of Fruitland Park into the Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and Lake County Assessment for fire protection, and creating a new section of the Lake County Code; interlocal agreements with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector to levy and collect the MSTU and Fire Assessment; to adopt and execute Resolution 2020-234 expressing the intent of Lake County to use the uniform method of collection in Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for the levy, collection and enforcement of non-ad valorem assessments associated with Lake County; an interlocal agreement for fire protection and rescue services; and approval of unanticipated revenue Resolution 2020-235 for the appropriation and expenditure of related funds to be received.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:44 a.m. for 10 minutes.

employment agreement for mr. alan rosen as county manager

Commr. Parks proposed moving up Tab 32, for the County Manager contract, to be addressed at the current time, noting that Mr. Rosen and his wife were in attendance.  He said that they all went through a great process, and he expressed appreciation for staff thoroughly vetting and spending several months going through the submitted applications.  He recalled that they had a great interview several weeks prior, and that they were ready for Mr. Alan Rosen to start. 

Commr. Campione expressed support for the agreement, and indicated appreciation for staff and the Chairman for working on and negotiating this.  She thought that there were safeguards built into the contract that gave everyone an idea of the Board’s and Mr. Rosen’s expectations.  She relayed her excitement for Mr. Rosen coming on board, and added that Mr. Rosen was a good negotiator.

Commr. Parks opined that Mr. Rosen was very diligent, noting that he was open to incentives, finding efficiencies, and innovative ideas.  He believed that Mr. Rosen would also be very supportive of staff.

Commr. Campione welcomed Mr. Rosen’s family to Lake County.

Commr. Parks relayed that Mr. Rosen was already trying to get settled into the community and find a home.  He said that the County was here to help him through that process.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Employment Agreement between Lake County and Alan Rosen as County Manager.

REGULAR AGENDA

ownership transfer of south lake regional park

Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, presented an update on the South Lake Regional Park (SLRP).  He explained that the SLRP was located in south Lake County south of State Road (SR) 50, was adjacent to the City of Groveland, that the property size was 141 acres, that it was accessible only from Max Hooks Road, and that it was 1.5 miles south of the South Lake Trail.  He provided the following information about the history of the park: in March 2005, the BCC adopted its first Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and recommendations were made for active recreational opportunities throughout the county, including a regional park in south Lake County; in July 2010, staff was directed to begin the search for a regional park property in south  Lake County; meetings with the community, local government and stakeholders were held between 2011 and 2013 to find out the needs of south Lake County; in 2013, the BCC expressed interest in partnering with the City of  Clermont for the 141 acre Clermont property, which was a former spray field and was found to be suitable for active recreation; and in March 2014, the BCC accepted the transfer of the 141 acres from the City of Clermont and in exchange, the County granted $1.8 million to the City for the Lake Hiawatha Preserve conservation property, which was a major trailhead in the South Lake Trail system.  He also relayed the following information: between 2015 and 2016, the County continued conducting public meetings and engaging local governments, stakeholders, the community, and the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board; in 2016, the County came back to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board with the preferred master plan which was supported by the key stakeholders and the public; that board voted to support the community’s and stakeholders’ preferred master plan; in 2016, the City of Groveland adopted a resolution pledging cooperation and support for the park and road project; in December 2016, the BCC approved the South Lake Regional Park Master Plan; about a year later, the BCC approved the improvements to Max Hooks Road including a two lane curb and gutter and multi-use trail system; and on March 19, 2018, Commissioner Parks and staff provided an update to the Groveland City Council, noting that the City was interested in partnering with the County and accelerating the construction of the park and the improvements to Max Hooks Road.  He showed the approved master plan and Max Hooks Road improvements, remarking that the SLRP contained eight softball fields, four youth baseball fields, two adult baseball fields, eight multipurpose fields, two cricket fields, a multi-use trail, restroom and concession facilities, canoe and kayak launch facilities, a boardwalk, playground equipment, volleyball courts, pickleball courts, tennis courts, and support facilities.  He mentioned that the SLRP was consistent with the programs that the County offered in all of the parks, and he relayed the following benefits: addresses the need for sports facilities in south Lake County; promotes recreation, sports and tourism; protects and improves the quality of life; located near the National Training Center, the Coast to Coast Connector, and the South Lake Trail, which would eventually make a connection to this facility; access to major transportation corridors; and near hotels/short-term rentals.  He said that there was an economic impact of $6.6 million in a typical year, noting that they hosted 129 college softball teams throughout the United States in the past year at the Minneola Athletic Complex and that there was a need for additional space to keep up with the demand for active recreation.  He stated that youth sports travel was the fastest growing segment in tourism and had become a $7 billion market; furthermore, this was an area that the County could maximize by providing recreation.  He said that in April 2018, the County hosted the groundbreaking ceremony for the SLRP, and shortly after, the County began site preparation through a contract that the Board approved with Oelrich Construction.  He elaborated that the intent of the contract was to jumpstart the project and begin removal of the excess dirt, and that prior to this, the effort was to improve the road system that was not ready to adequately accept the flow of traffic from the excess dirt that would be hauled.  He displayed images of the road improvement before and after repairs were made, and he said that the process had been well received; additionally, the County had spent the past two years engaging the community and addressing concerns.  He relayed that the site had in excess of 1.4 million cubic yards of dirt and that they had removed at least 30 percent of it, which opened up the phase one area.  He showed a map with the phase one area, which was the area closest to SR 50; furthermore, this area was to receive the utilities that would come down Max Hooks Road.  He mentioned that the phase one area was ready for the next step of development, while activities would resume in the phase two area.  He then relayed the following highlights of the proposed interlocal agreement: the County would convey the property to the City of Groveland; the City intended to annex the SLRP into municipal boundaries; the County would assist in the development of the SLRP and Max Hooks Road by providing funding from the County’s share of the Infrastructure Sales Tax revenue; the funding arrangement was not intended to constitute a debt for the County, and would be subject to annual appropriations and approval by the BCC through the sales tax process; and the County would utilize the SLRP for special events, especially the college tournaments, noting that they would have the opportunity for at least six events throughout the year.  He indicated that in fiscal year (FY) 2021, the County had $1,550,000 budgeted and approved by the BCC to be in quarterly payments to the City of Groveland as part of the funding process in place.  He elaborated that the intent was to fund this project for a minimum of 11 years, and it could go as long as 15 years, but it was only as funding was made available by the BCC.  He then mentioned the following additional information: the City of Groveland’s responsibility was to complete the construction of this project and manage the operation on a daily basis, noting that the estimated cost to manage this project was $1 million on an annual basis once it was fully built out; this was savings that would come back to the County, as the County would not be responsible for that cost and operation, mentioning that the County would only be responsible for the development costs; there would be other opportunities to look for the grants and other partnerships to share the capital cost; and the City would allow the County to continue removing clay and excess dirt that may be needed for County projects.  He displayed the requested actions and said staff felt that the actions were in line with what the consensus was and what the recommendations were for the Parks and Trails Master Plan.  He requested approval of an interlocal agreement with the City of Groveland and accompanying resolution relating to the transfer and ownership, development and management of the South Lake Regional Park, and approval for the Chairman to execute all supporting documentation, in addition to approval to terminate Contract 18-0207 with Oelrich Construction, Inc. for construction management services.  He stated that the County wanted to have a clean slate as they moved forward with the City and there were opportunities for additional savings that could come to the County, including additional savings of $968,673.03 that would be saved from the current Oelrich Construction contract.  He remarked that the County was terminating the contract on good terms and that it was the best option moving forward to clean the slate for the City and any future contractors. 

Commr. Parks said that he was impressed with the job that Mr. Bonilla and his staff had done.  He stated that the SLRP was an amazing facility and that the County’s desire was to have a flagship park within each of their districts or the regions in the County that were rapidly growing.  He mentioned that on the previous night, he and Commissioner Shields were at the City of Groveland’s meeting and were able to speak in support of this.  He relayed that the City was enthusiastically in support of this partnership and that it was an innovative way in sharing the cost. 

Commr. Shields agreed that it was excellent work, that the process was great, and that it was driven to get done with the least amount of resources. 

Commr. Smith thanked Mr. Bonilla and the City of Groveland.  He said it was great to see a City and a County working together. 

Commr. Campione noted that she had been skeptical about the dirt removal, and that Commissioner Parks had said that if the County could possibly get the City of Groveland to take over the operation on an ongoing basis, it would be a win-win.  She relayed that she was thankful that Commissioner Parks and staff kept at it, and that the City was willing to participate in this way.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following items: an interlocal agreement with the City of Groveland relating to the transfer and ownership, development and management of the South Lake Regional Park, and approval for the Chairman to execute all supporting documentation; Resolution 2020-236 for the transfer of park property from Lake County to the City of Groveland; and to terminate Contract 18-0207 with Oelrich Construction, Inc. (Jonesville, FL) for construction management services.

appointments to the tourist development council

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to reappoint the following members to the Tourist Development Council, and approved potential ethical conflict waivers for each: Mr. Bud Beucher, Mission Inn Resort and Club, and Mr. Jim Gunderson, Lakeside Inn, for members who are owner/operators of hotels, motels or resorts; and Mr. Steve Bishop, Florida Region of USA Volleyball, for a resident involved in the tourism industry.

reports

county manager

THANKING THE BOARD

Ms. Drury thanked the Board for the opportunity to assist as the Interim County Manager.

COUNTY OFFICES CLOSED FOR HOLIDAYS

Ms. Drury reminded everyone that County Offices would be closed on December 25, 2020 and January 1, 2021, and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

COVID-19 RELIEF

Ms. Drury relayed that staff was following the process of the second round of COVID-19 relief, noting that both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives approved the proposed plan on the previous day with the President expected to approve it on the current day.  She said that staff would provide updates on this at the next meeting.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

APPRECIATION FOR COUNTY STAFF

Commr. Shields shared that he was progressing through his County orientation and expressed his appreciation for the entrepreneurial mindset, culture, and hard work within the County staff.  He added that he was seeing it with the animal shelter, the emergency services, the transit system, and everywhere he went where people were thinking of how to get items done.

Commr. Parks noted that the County had a great team that worked hard and helped find efficiencies.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

THANKING COUNTY DEPARTMENT LEADERS

Commr. Smith thanked all the County Department leaders who had spent time providing tours and information on their area.  He said that each tour was fantastic and that they had an entrepreneurial mindset to look for the most innovative and economic ways to get projects completed. 

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS

Commr. Smith wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. He hoped that everyone would stay safe and enjoy their families. 

commissioner campione

affordable housing advisory committee plan recommendations

Commr. Campione commented that Tab 31 was in regards to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC).  She noted that Mr. Greg Beliveau, Chairman for the AHAC, was in attendance, and she wondered about the possibility of convening a future workshop with The Lake 100 group who worked on a strategic plan for affordable and attainable housing, as well as the AHAC to look at ideas and what they had been able to accomplish so far.  She said that the process for the Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) and the AHAC had to be done by State law to update the LHAP, which was being presented today.  She asked if there were two or three meetings involving the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. 

Mr. Beliveau replied that it was three meetings in succession and that for the LHAP, they had to consider certain minimum requirements for categories of where funds would be expended.  He commented that they met those qualifications and that they also made recommendations for which items should be considered in the future to address issues such as homelessness.  He mentioned that another recommendation was to coordinate with the Cities, noting that there had been zero products to address housing issues and affordable housing in the County over the last two to three years.  He noted that some of this was in consideration that State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) funding had not been coming their way. 

Commr. Campione clarified that for the zero products, he was talking in the form of certain types of projects.  She said that many things were done as a result of SHIP funding for County residents that needed rehabilitation and replacements for their houses.

Mr. Beliveau commented that there were categories of rent assistance, mortgage assistance, etc. that were done.  He said that they had provided first time homebuyer’s assistance and similar items, but one of the products that the AHAC tried to find assistance for was to work on affordable housing; however, affordable housing was required to have central water and sewer.  He indicated that the County did not provide central water and sewer and that because of this, most affordable housing had to go to municipalities.  He stated that putting the stress on the County to provide that type of housing was a misdirected component because the County did not provide the densities, intensities and utilities for that kind of product.  He said that the AHAC was recommending a forum to bring the cities together to try and open up some of the SHIP efforts, because that was where the utilities and densities were.  He mentioned that they were hopeful that the SHIP funds would be fully expended in the next budget year by the State and they would hopefully receive over $2 million.  He reiterated that those products would not be coming to the County because it was not what they provided; however, the Cities’ Comp Plans did provide incentive policies and bonuses. 

Commr. Campione mentioned that every three years, the LHAP had to be updated because the County was the recipient of SHIP funding, and this was why she thought it might be helpful to workshop it with The Lake 100 and the AHAC.  She thought that if the County was going to accomplish affordable housing in the right locations, they had to be working with the Cities.  She recalled that the County had addressed accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and were doing an impact fee study to see to what extent they could help with impact fee relief, etc.  She noted that doing an affordable housing project in most cases would have to be inside the city limits.  She reviewed items covered in the report including expedited permitting for affordable housing projects, which the County was already doing, and modification of impact fees, which the County had in place currently.  She elaborated that the County allowed for a 100 percent impact fee waiver for a single-family home if the end-user qualified as under the very-low, low, or moderate-income levels established under the SHIP program, and that the County had also created a deferral program for ADUs whereby educational impact fees could be deferred until the property was sold at a future date.  She said that in addition to these programs, the code established an infill waiver program in which lots located in specified plats or within a certain distance of a city center may qualify for a waiver of educational impact fees, and that the County had retained Tindale Oliver to conduct an impact fee study to determine if homes under a specified size would be appropriate to receive a no-fee status.  She mentioned that the County had provided many infill waivers, and said that it could help if they could get the Cities onboard to provide waivers for water and sewer impact fees for an infill situation.  She mentioned that the item of flexible densities was reviewed but that because the County was not a utility provider, they did not have the ability to do much in that area.  She commented that for reservation of infrastructure capacity, this was an item that they thought the Cities could potentially take advantage of for affordable projects, and that parking and setback requirements would come into play for a planned unit development (PUD) type zoning.  She added that flexible lot configurations were also taken care of in the County’s PUD process, and that public land inventory was being done currently; furthermore, when the County had extra parcels, they were offering them to affordable housing groups.  She said that there was not a recommendation for support of development near transportation hubs, and she opined that this would make sense for the Cities to concentrate densities in locations where they had a transportation line. 

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Beliveau and Commissioner Campione, noting that it had not been anything different than what the County had been hearing over the past year about what they needed to do. 

Commr. Campione thanked Ms. Danielle Stroud, with Habitat for Humanity, and an individual with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for participating.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee incentive plan recommendations.

LAKE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY MEETING

Commr. Campione mentioned that she had attended a LCWA meeting the previous week and shared that there was some discussion regarding Lake Joanna and the water quality report that the County had partnered with the LCWA to conduct over the past year.  She indicated that there was also a discussion and overview that Mr. Ron Hart, with the LCWA, put together regarding Lake Loch Leven and historic water levels, along with alterations through the years including the construction of CR 44B through the area.  She said that the Lake County Public Works Department had looked at options for trying to address some of the water quality issues, and it seemed that most of the problems were the result of overland flow and developments; furthermore, there was no treatment because it was a straight shot from those areas along CR 44B and rainfall was going straight into Lake Joanna.  She thought that the County had some opportunities to do efficient stormwater treatment and then potentially partner with the LCWA.  She proposed possibly asking them to do the heavy lifting on this if the County was going to get the kind of project they needed to impact the lake.  She mentioned that the County had the ability, with the cooperation of at least one private property owner, to put a baffle system in to provide some treatment; however, there was not any place for the water to be held, so when there was a big event, it would bypass that and get in the lake.  She commented that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had some land where they were going to build a pond near CR 44B, but there was not sufficient land for the County to have a pond unless they worked something out with FDOT or found another location.  She noted that there were some retention areas along the east side of the road that had not been cleaned out recently and were under the jurisdiction of those HOAs, so the County could possibly engage them.  She thought that the City of Mount Dora Public Works Director had reached out to the LCWA Director and indicated that they could possibly get involved and help.  She asked if it was amicable with the Board if she served as a liaison on this issue. 

Commr. Parks stated that the County’s relationship with the LCWA was important and that Commissioner Campione being a liaison on this project was great.  He commented that he and Commissioner Shields were wanting to work with the LCWA on the Clermont Chain of Lakes and eventually tracking where some sources of nutrient loading were coming from. 

Commr. Campione thought it would be great if all of the Commissioners stayed engaged in any variety of projects that impacted the County or their districts.  She mentioned that the County and the LCWA had worked together but had not taken it to the next level where they were focused on the things that could have the biggest impact on the water quality of their lakes and water bodies.

Commr. Smith said that he had been working with the LCWA and State representatives on the issues with Lake Apopka coming into Lake Beauclair.  He stated that they had to do something about their natural resources because this was a great economic impact to the county.

Commr. Campione noted that the new County Manager seemed to be creative and that this may be a time when the County could consider its funding sources.  She mentioned that there was only so much funding for water quality issues, and many times they needed a match when partnering with the LCWA.  She expressed a concern for running out of opportunities to be able to match to receive grants, and she thought that this could be a good item to have on their list for the Board retreat. 

Commr. Parks agreed that the upcoming Board retreat would be the perfect time to do this. 

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Commr. Campione wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

COLD WEATHER SHELTERING

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for upcoming cold weather and the need for sheltering.  

Mr. John Molenda, Deputy County Manager, indicated that the County was monitoring this and that they had opened cold weather shelters twice this year already.  He mentioned that they had the churches in place, and that they typically liked to have it structured but then wait to have it begin because the weather could change.  He stated that the County was prepared and ready to go, and they would make sure a message went out. 

commissioner parks – chairman and district 2

voluntary collection agreements for tourist development tax

Ms. Marsh recalled that earlier in the year, staff had brought forward an ordinance looking at establishing a registration process for those individuals that wanted to use their properties through Airbnb and similar platforms.  She said before that ordinance came to the Board for a final public hearing, Airbnb and HomeAway reached out to the County to request some discussion before the Board passed an ordinance; furthermore, the County was willing to do this because these entities had sued other Counties over similar ordinances.  She relayed that the Lake County Tax Collector had worked with those two entities, and the County now had a voluntary collection agreement that they had signed; additionally, staff was just looking for Board approval of this.  She believed that the agreement with HomeAway could begin on February 1, 2021, and that Airbnb would start collecting on March 1, 2021.  She said that they would collect that revenue and then turn it over to the Tax Collector.

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Marsh, Mr. David Jordan, Lake County Tax Collector, and Mr. Jordan’s team.  He opined that this was pragmatic and that the County was avoiding potential lawsuits.  He asked about the percent of this industry that these entities comprised.

Ms. Marsh said that it was a fairly high percent and that HomeAway was also an Expedia group, noting that this included Vrbo and several other small platforms that they had purchased.  She believed this would cover a majority of those hosting platforms. 

Commr. Parks thanked them for working with the County on this.  He clarified that it was not a new tax; rather, it was a way to make sure that people were paying the existing tax for tourist development. 

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved execution of two Voluntary Collection Agreements for Lake County Tourist Development Tax between with the Lake County Tax Collector, HomeAway.com, Inc. and Airbnb, Inc., and approval for the County Attorney to finalize the language with each provider and the Tax Collector.

MINNEOLA HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM FUNDING

Commr. Parks shared that the Minneola High School football team had participated in the State Championship game, and expressed concerns for the budget needed to pay for the trip.  He commented that at this point, a team had many extra games, so this team had to travel and go beyond their 10 game schedule.  He said that their budget was exceeded and that the City of Minneola had agreed to pay $5,000 of a total amount of around $15,000, along with the school district paying somewhere around $5,000.  He expressed support for the County possibly being able to share in that cost, noting that the team made it to the finals but lost to Miami Central High School, which he opined was a powerhouse in football.  He believed that Minneola High School and the coach represented Lake County very well, and he thought that this could be done internally.  He proposed finding out what their costs were and to cap it at no more than $5,000 while also recognizing that the County may be starting a precedent.  He said he wanted to make it clear that the County would come up with a policy for perhaps $2,500 if a sports team reached a state championship, commenting that the County would participate in the state championship only because the team was representing Lake County.  He asked if this could be done by consensus.

Ms. Marsh stated that it would be consensus only because it was not on the agenda, but it would be something under the County Manager’s authority; therefore, the Board would not need to vote on it.

BOARD RETREAT

Commr. Parks proposed holding a Board retreat the third week of January 2021.  He commented that Mr. Rosen’s contract would not start until February 8, 2021; however, he had agreed to be part of the discussions.  He mentioned that housing could continue to be discussed at the retreat, and that Commissioners Shields and Smith had also brought up goals.  He commented that Ms. Drury was going to try to find some dates that would work for the Board within the third week of January 2021, and it would give the Board a good time to be informal and put their visions out.  He noted that it would be a public meeting and that the agenda could be simple, commenting that Commissioners could submit their goals to be placed on the agenda.  He relayed that the Board would get a chance to discuss what they wanted to accomplish or what they thought the County should do, and that staff and Mr. Hart could also participate. 

Commr. Campione wondered whether the Board would be better served if they broke some items into categories, and she said that Mr. Rosen had also mentioned strategic planning.  She noted that the County had a mission statement and a strategic plan published in their budget each year that they had not looked at in a long time.  She thought this could be a good item to discuss at the retreat, and she expressed a concern that the Board would be overwhelmed with many issues.  She also wondered if it would be better to have Mr. Rosen organize and structure it.

Commr. Shields wondered if the Commissioners could put together their priority lists and provide it ahead of time to be distilled to formulate an agenda and have the right staff in the room.

Commr. Parks asked if he was proposing to have an agenda formulated by the next BCC meeting.

Commr. Campione said that she liked the idea of sending a memorandum to the Interim County Manager with the Commissioners’ personal priorities, and let the Interim County Manager organize them in the way that made the most sense. 

Commr. Parks commented that strategic planning was a large topic and that there could be some follow up from the retreat that could be several months later. He said that his intent was to start on some of this early.

Commr. Shields mentioned that for the Four Corners meeting they had, there were many items and that this was just one piece of many.  He said that some of it was problem solving and that some was the question if it was a priority for the Commission.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the Board would provide Ms. Drury with individual topics, and then she would help shape an agenda.  He noted that the Board had one more meeting before the retreat and that they could discuss it there as well.

Ms. Marsh commented that the next BCC meeting was on January 12, 2021, so if the Board was looking to still have a workshop on the week of January 18, 2021, staff needed to publish an agenda by January 15, 2021. 

Ms. Drury said that staff would work on a date and a location, and bring back a proposed agenda to the next BCC meeting.

Commr. Smith indicated that he would not be available on January 22 or 23, 2021.

Ms. Marsh remarked that if this meeting was done off campus, they would most likely not have the ability to use Zoom Webinar; therefore, they would have to locate a facility large enough for attendees to social distance. 

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS

Commr. Parks wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.  He said that it was a blessing for him to be a part of this Board.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK