A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
January 4, 2022
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 4, 2022 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; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, 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; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting. He said that the invocation would be given by Pastor Michael Watkins, with Friendship CME Church in the City of Tavares, and he then provided information about the veteran who would lead the Pledge of Allegiance. He said that Mr. Chuck Rossi, Service Desk Administrator for the IT Department, had served a total of 24 years in the United States (U.S.) Air Force, enlisting three times, until he retired in 2016 as a Technical Sergeant. He commented that Mr. Rossi had served from 1976 to 1980 at Eglin Air Force Base in the 20th Surveillance Squadron, and again from 1980 to 1984 with the New York Air National Guard in the 105th Tactical Fighter Group, supporting computer operations during both enlistments. He mentioned that Mr. Rossi’s final enlistment came after the 9/11 attacks when he served from 2001 to 2016 at the Stewart New York 105th Airlift Wing supporting C-5 Galaxy aircraft radar and radio systems, and that during this time, he was deployed overseas twice to Europe in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with the 494th Air Expeditionary Group. He then thanked Mr. Rossi for his service
Pastor Watkins then gave the invocation and Mr. Rossi led the Pledge of Allegiance.
virtual meeting instructions
Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that the current meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who 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 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 webinar via their phone could press *9 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 read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they 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 meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.
Agenda update
Commr. Parks requested that Tabs 3 and 4 be moved up to be heard after the approval of the minutes, noting that there were individuals in attendance to support the human trafficking ordinance and the local provider participation fund ordinance.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of December 21, 2021 (Regular Meeting – Excerpt of Redistricting Resolution Tab) as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 2022-1 Human Trafficking
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, 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 ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 3, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED HUMAN TRAFFICKING; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Parks invited Mr. Tomas Lares, a representative of United Abolitionists, to speak.
Mr. Lares commented that there had been anti-human trafficking efforts in Lake County since 2013, and that Major Todd English, with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), had been instrumental in this effort. He mentioned that the ordinance for the signage was an addition to their new campaign called Zero Tolerance, adding that representatives from Our Father’s House and the Lake County Human Trafficking Task Force were also in attendance. He remarked that he had been involved in the fight against human trafficking in Central Florida since 2004, and that criminals were coming to this area because there was a demand. He said that they had been proactive in raising awareness in the community that sex and labor trafficking would not be tolerated in Lake County, opining that it would serve as a deterrent to criminals.
Commr. Parks opined that Mr. Lares had done great work in Central Florida addressing this issue. He opined that this issue was more prevalent in large metropolitan areas, but that it still existed in Lake County. He said that the codes should be updated, and that the County should do everything possible in working with the LCSO. He opined that this issue would continue to grow, and that Lake County should not stand for it.
Mr. Lares said that he would like to see all first responders trained similar to law enforcement, including Emergency Medical Services (EMS), fire rescue, and code enforcement. He acknowledged that Corporal Alan Wilkett was also in attendance, and that he was on the board of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody’s statewide council on human trafficking. He said that he had promoted an ordinance addressing this issue in Pasco County, and that efforts were now being made in many Counties to address this issue.
Captain Cliff McMennamy, with the LCSO, said that any time law enforcement was given a tool to help keep the county safe, they would embrace it, and he thanked Mr. Lares and the Board.
Commr. Parks mentioned that this was just another tool, and that the County would continue to make changes to the codes on a regular basis.
Commr. Campione was in favor of this and any other tool the Board could provide to help in the work that Mr. Lares and others did. She opined that it was difficult work, and said that she appreciated all they did to keep people safe and to address this issue.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption and execution of Ordinance 2022-1 amending Article IX, Chapter 3, Lake County Code, entitled Human Trafficking, to require additional signage within designated facilities.
PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 2022-2 Local Provider Participation Fund
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; CREATING ARTICLE IV, CHAPTER 13, LAKE COUNTY CODE, TO BE ENTITLED LOCAL PROVIDER PARTICIPATION FUND; AUTHORIZING CREATION OF THE FUND UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1(F) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; SPECIFYING THE METHOD OF SETTING AND COMPUTING ANNUAL NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE DEPOSITED INTO THE FUND; SPECIFYING AUTHORIZED USES FOR THE FUND PROCEEDS; 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. Campione asked that the Board be given updates on the results of this ordinance and if it was meeting the objectives that hospitals were seeking.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption and execution of Ordinance 2022-2 creating Article IV, Chapter 13, Lake County Code, entitled Local Provider Participation Fund.
citizen question and comment period
Ms. Pat Duncan, a resident of the City of Eustis, expressed appreciation to the Board for introducing new ways of planning for Lake County, particularly with the Thrill Hill Road area project, and she commented that she was grateful for the Board’s help in protecting and maintaining the best of Lake County.
Ms. Lee Conger, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns about keeping Lake County beautiful, and opined that developers did not need to be at odds with those who wanted to protect rural areas. She opined that there were ways to get the density that developers required and protect green space, but that it would require the County to be aggressive and committed. She opined that the County should add this type of language to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) and Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), and that developers could use conservation growth methods rather than creating a sprawl of rooftops. She opined that it should be done quickly and efficiently, and that it should be used in negotiations with the Cities.
Commr. Parks commented that staff had the ability to make changes to the subdivision codes and to bring them to the Board to vote on, and that if the staff needed help, they could have Mr. Randall Arendt, a nationally acclaimed planner, assist them with that.
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager, mentioned that staff had a meeting planned for the current afternoon with Mr. Arendt, and that the County was in the process of moving forward.
Commr. Campione opined that there was a misunderstanding about how the County’s transportation review worked and how funding of transportation improvements occurred. She mentioned that the County did not build roads for developers, and that projects creating collector roads required a large contribution by the developer. She opined that developments should be appropriate for the location based on the road conditions at the time, and that sometimes a requested change to a land use was not appropriate because of a lack of infrastructure. She also opined that the taxpayers of Lake County did not want to build that infrastructure for the developers. She mentioned that working with the Cities would require collaboration and desire on the part of the city residents and the elected officials, opining that the residents had more influence over their elected officials than the County did. She mentioned that the County could show options and ways to address growth differently in Lake County, but that it had to be accepted by the community. She opined that there was much work to do to see what tools were available, how they could be implemented, and how they could preserve property rights. She suggested using a hybrid of the designs by Mr. Arendt, and that it would have to be tailored to the county’s current situation. She remarked that there were places where development was appropriate and other places where it was not because of density, and that it was not the County’s responsibility to build the roads to make it appropriate.
Commr. Parks opined that there was a lot of work to be done to collaborate with the Cities.
Commr. Campione commented that a new ordinance would not fix everything, and that the County could start with small, manageable items. She mentioned that the developer of the Whispering Hills subdivision offered a 75 foot wide perimeter buffer around the project, and that it created some space between the subdivision and the rural uses already there. She remarked that those types of things were the tools that Cities could use to facilitate communities that had something for everyone, such as rural lifestyles and higher densities. She opined that depending on the design, developers should only be approved if they could create a transition or a coexistence between different land uses.
Commr. Shields mentioned that there were several different cities with different land uses and planning standards that bordered each other, and that he would like to see them working together.
Commr. Campione opined that it would help the Cities, and that common expectations among Cities would help developers know what to expect. She mentioned that the Cities would not miss out on development because of high expectations, opining that development would come to Lake County regardless of restrictions. She said that she would like to leave Lake County better than she found it, opining that it would take everyone working together.
Commr. Parks said that it would require being smart in the approach, using constraints, and working with developers. He opined that there was a better vision for Lake County as a whole, but that there were elected officials in the Cities that had a different vision, adding that the County had to try to work together with them.
Commr. Campione remarked that the goal was to use teamwork, and that it would require a strategic approach.
Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, commented on the joint meeting between the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the City of Leesburg held the previous week, and hoped that the County would continue to work with the City. She requested that the Board would allow public comments from representatives of civic organizations and community groups in the joint meeting with the BCC and municipalities that would take place the following February, opining that it would be beneficial to have the input of other stakeholders.
Commr. Parks commented that he did not know how public comment could be handled in that meeting, opining that it could possibly take too much time. He also said that he did not want the City attendees to feel defensive as in previous meetings.
Ms. Shelley said that at the Basin Management Action Plan meetings, there were many stakeholders there, and that everyone was always respectful. She suggested that it would be helpful to have a variety of stakeholders represented to gain a different perspective because they were the ones affected by those decisions. She then thanked Commissioner Campione for her contribution at the joint meeting with the City of Leesburg in the prior week, opining that she handled it well.
Commr. Parks commented that he was sorry he could not attend that meeting, but agreed that Commissioner Campione had done well.
Commr. Campione mentioned that it would have been nice to have the County’s overview of municipal corporation roles and how the County budget was used for Constitutional Officers and a variety of services. She commented that the County might consider doing more outreach with citizens and elected counterparts to raise awareness of the services provided and budgets provided to the Constitutional Officers. She remarked that she would like to change the way that the transportation review was done for projects being considered by the Cities to ensure that the larger picture was included in the decision to approve developments in certain locations. She said that a transportation review would point out what the deficiencies were, what impact fees could be used for, and what improvements could be made, noting that it could help Cities make better decisions.
Mr. John Bruninga, a member of the Lake County Conservation Council, commented on the joint meeting between the BCC and the City of Leesburg from the previous week. He opined that the Board was not unified in their representation, and he thanked Commissioner Campione for her contribution.
Commr. Parks commented that there was some good that came out of that meeting, including a design change that was previously mentioned, and that he would review that during the discussion for Tab 5.
Ms. Pam Roustio, a resident of Lake County, commented on the joint meeting between the BCC and the City of Leesburg on the previous Thursday, and she thanked Commissioner Campione for her leadership during the conversations. She commented that the proposal regarding smart growth was well presented, and that the Mr. Randall Arendt model was interesting, adding that she would like to see this type of growth implemented. She expressed concern about the City of Leesburg’s vote to build nearly 3,000 units at a City council meeting on the previous evening, and opined that the residents wanted to help the County keep the rural areas rural.
Mr. Reggie Thomas, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, commented on the joint meeting with the City of Leesburg on the previous Thursday, and he expressed concern about the annexation of communities. He opined that there were members of local government who would gain financially from the growth of this county, and that residents should pay attention. He opined that people moving into these new subdivisions, such as Whispering Hills and Hodges Reserve, could possibly find that some items were overlooked, and that it could cause issues that the County would have to address.
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 mentioned that there was an agenda update that the Board received a memo for on the current morning, noting that Tabs 1 and 2 were being rearranged. He commented that the Property Rights Element case would be heard first to avoid any confusion with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) when these amendments were transmitted to the State. He added that there was a modification to one of the policies in Tab 3 to adjust the capacity allocation and the residential land use allocation tables, and that was to ensure the existing entitlements there currently were not affected, reduced, taken, or removed from the U.S. Highway 27 district. He remarked that all three cases had been seen by the Board previously in October 2021, and that the Property Rights Element adopted that specific policy as required by legislation that passed the previous summer.
Commr. Shields commented that he had received an email from a constituent regarding Tab 3, and he asked to have it pulled from the consent agenda.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a resident of Lake County, noticed that on Tab 3, the required ratio of jobs to houses in the Wellness Way area had dropped from 1.5 to 1.26, and opined that it would eventually drop to zero and turn it into a residential area. He opined that there was an effort to ignore the job center concept that had been discussed in a prior BCC meeting, and that it was reduced because there were more people working from home and fewer people driving to a place of work. He proposed that the County could develop a program to emphasize manufacturing and work at home professions. He mentioned that this could reduce some traffic, and that it would provide future opportunities for younger generations. He concluded that if the County developed infrastructure and training for higher level, work-at-home jobs, it could offset some of the issues that Lake County had.
Commr. Parks commented that the actual space requirement for job centers had not changed, and that it had to be provided by anybody who was coming through Wellness Way. He explained that there was a change that was made based on some new economic data, but that it did not mean that a developer could convert some of that commerce center space into housing.
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.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 2 pulling Tab 3 to the regular agenda as follows:
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2022-3
Rezoning Case # CP-21-07
Property Rights Element
Amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to relocate Chapter X, entitled ‘Definitions & Acronyms’ to Chapter XI and rename Chapter X ‘Property Rights Elements’ and establish its associated goal, objective and policies to ensure property rights are considered in the decision-making processes.
Tab 2.
Rezoning Case # FLU-21-06-4
CSD Groves (Transmittal)
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 78 +/- acres from Regional Office to Urban Low Density to facilitate the development of a single-family residential subdivision.
rezoning regular agenda
Tab 3.
Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2
Wellness Way Area Plan Amendments (Transmittal)
Amend “GOAL I-8 WELLNESS WAY AREA PLAN” and subsequent objectives and policies.
Wellness Way Area Plan
amendments
Mr. McClendon mentioned that there had been some updates to the Wellness Way policies, noting that the Wellness Way Area Plan had been created from about two years of work between the City of Clermont and Lake County. He stated that the County had contracted with Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, LLC, and GAI Consultants, who provided an implementation plan after meeting with the 29 landowners and stakeholders throughout the previous two years, noting that some of the economic numbers had shifted since that time. He said that the County now knew more about the alignments for the County Road (CR) 455 extension and the new expressway that would connect State Road (SR) 429 and U.S. Highway 27, and that there was a better understanding about where development should occur and what type of development would occur in those specific areas. He commented that these amendments adjusted some of the internal policies, removing the processes from the actual Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), and that those processes would be adopted into the LDR as part of the overall remedial amendments. He remarked that some of the jobs to housing ratios shifted because of the work-from-home individuals, but it did not change the overall densities, adding that the open space requirement remained the same and could be utilized as wellness space or open space.
Commr. Shields said he had received a correspondence from Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a resident of Lake County, that had asked if public lands could be used to satisfy the 30 percent open space requirements for Wellness Way, and if so, would those public lands be in addition to the requirement to maintain 30 percent of a Wellness Way development as open space or used to satisfy that requirement. He said that she continued by opining that developers were getting a lot of County support, and that they should have to meet their own open space requirements. He mentioned that she had opined that creating trails and a vegetative corridor connecting wetlands and providing connectivity for wildlife could be a good use of the land required for open space but not if the wetlands, which were required to be saved and could not legally be developed, were used to meet the open space requirement. He commented that she had expressed concern that the open space was a smaller percentage of developable land than was being suggested in the Rural Lands Plan, opining that the open space should be as useful in preserving environmental functions as possible. He said that she had indicated concern that the support and flexibility given to Wellness Way would set a precedent for the rest of the county.
Mr. McClendon remarked that the open space policies were not being modified as part of these amendments, and that the open space was separated into two separate categories which included areas for recreation, such as trails, and natural preserve areas, such as wetlands and water bodies.
Commr. Campione inquired if the City of Clermont was implementing the Wellness Way plan the way it was adopted as they moved forward with annexations.
Commr. Parks indicated that they were, and that 40 percent of Wellness Way could become part of the City of Clermont through annexation, noting that they would have to adhere to the same standards.
Commr. Campione mentioned that it was part of the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA), and Commissioner Parks agreed.
Mr. McClendon commented that the City of Clermont was moving forward with the same remedial amendments, and that they had already adopted their property rights element, reiterating that this was a joint project between the City and the County.
Commr. Parks remarked that it was one of the two highest growth areas in the county.
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. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2, Wellness Way Area Plan Amendments.
regular agenda
City of Leesburg Annexations
Commr. Parks commented that this item was placed on the agenda to summarize and clarify what was going on with the Whispering Hills subdivision. He said that he had not been able to attend the previous meeting with the City of Leesburg, and because of technology issues, he had not been able to hear some of the content. He mentioned that he had not realized it had been contentious, and he opined that Commissioner Campione had done well considering the situation. He relayed his understanding that the County did not have a legal way to object to the City of Leesburg’s decision, and he stated that the County had sent the City a letter listing concerns, which would give the County standing in the future. He pointed out that there would be a joint planning meeting with all the Cities on February 7, 2022, and that if the County had objected or threatened to sue, the City of Leesburg might not want to participate, noting that the goal was to work together.
Ms. Marsh stated that Ms. Barker had attended the meeting on the previous night since the Board had asked Ms. Marsh not to attend and object to the annexation. She mentioned that the letter was submitted which included all of the County’s rural policies and concerns raised, such as the two lane rural roads, the potential for an enclave if operating or annexing directly under the statute versus the ISBA, and the potential challenge on it not meeting an urban in character designation. She commented that there was only one case that had come forward regarding the annexation statute where a County had tried to object to an annexation based on the urban in character reason, and that County had not been successful. She said that the statute indicated that the land did not have to be currently developed to be urban in character, and that if it was adjacent to a municipality and it was going to be developed, then that qualified it as being urban in character. She stated that the City had approved both developments, and that there were 30 days in which to file an appeal, adding that she would need direction that current day because of the small timeframe. She said that if the Board chose to challenge it, the County would abate the appellate proceeding because it would have to go through an intergovernmental dispute resolution act, which required joint public meetings between the two bodies. She mentioned that if there was an impasse at the end of the proceeding, the County could proceed with litigation assuming the Board chose that option, adding that Ms. Barker could give them more information.
Commr. Parks said that he would like to hear more. He pointed out that some good had come out of the meeting from the prior week, and that some changes had been made for the prior night’s meeting. He expressed concerns about growth, and mentioned that the Board was doing everything it could. He mentioned that the County had recently approved an agreement with The Villages for roads within the City of Leesburg, and that the County was not trying to stop the City of Leesburg from growing.
Ms. Barker stated that she had attended the meeting the previous night concerning the Whispering Hills subdivision, and that there were a couple of changes made during the meeting as concessions from the developer, such as the buffers going from 50 feet to 75 feet and a maximum number of age restricted units within the community, noting that the annexation and rezoning had passed unanimously. She said that the Hodges Reserve developer had made no concessions, and that they had not worked with the residents in the area, as did the Whispering Hills developer who had made changes to their design and concept plan based on input from the residents. She mentioned that some of the Leesburg City Commissioners had concerns with the number of units and size of the lots in the Hodges Reserve subdivision, which resulted in some concessions for the size of the lots. She commented that some of the residents had concerns about buffers, and that the developers had agreed to install a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) fence along adjacent residences. She relayed her understanding that this project had not been approved by the City of Leesburg’s planning and zoning department, but once the Whispering Hills project had been approved, the Hodges Reserve subdivision became contiguous. She said that the City’s planning and zoning department approved Hodges Reserve with some recommended changes, and that the developer was not aware of those changes until right before the meeting, adding that it had passed on a 3-2 vote. She commented that Lakefront TV had streamed the meeting live, and that access to the video would be available.
Commr. Campione opined that there had been confusion over the staff report for Hodges Reserve, and that the City Commissioners thought it was still being recommended for denial; however, since it became contiguous with the annexation of Whispering Hills, it became feasible. She commented that the residents presented their points well but became emotional over the approval of Hodges Reserve, especially after all of the effort that had gone into making Whispering Hills more acceptable. She opined that the Hodges Reserve project was passed because it was contiguous, and that there was no discussion about there being an appropriate land use or density.
Commr. Shields commented that the County could choose to initiate litigation with the City, opining that it would not be successful because there was no legal standing. He suggested that the County could formulate a better plan to go forward with, and he opined that everyone wanted the same thing but had different ideas of how to get there.
Commr. Smith hoped that the February 7, 2022 BCC meeting would help the County and the Cities to work cohesively, opining that the municipalities needed to have the same vision for all of Lake County.
Commr. Campione opined that there was no consideration of the efficient delivery of services, of being orderly and compact, or of the appropriateness of the location being on a rural road. She commented that there were tools available for determining the appropriateness of a project, but she opined that there was no will or understanding that those tools were available.
Commr. Parks pointed out that the General Fund would be used for maintaining and resurfacing roads, but that there could be a large impact on this country road, adding that it would have to be addressed going forward. He mentioned that since the City had made the decision to annex and approve that development, the County would have to work with them. He commented that the County’s list of priority projects and road projects was established and on the record, noting that a developer could contribute to and offset that.
Commr. Campione urged any local government making decisions about land use to not discount objections from residents, and that there were often legitimate objections that, if considered, would either result in something being denied, modified, or changed, adding that there were valid issues being raised and real solutions that could be offered.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Scott Sattler, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, thanked the Board for what they were working to accomplish, and opined that unification was important, adding that residents and municipalities should come together. He expressed concern about the road situation not being addressed, opining that it would result in a safety issue. He commented that this road had several new developments on it, and he requested a collaborative, comprehensive traffic review. He mentioned that it was the developer’s responsibility to pay for those services, but he wondered how extensive the reports were and what the value of the traffic report was. He said that the issue was not growth but common sense and comprehensive planning, opining that the City of Leesburg did not have that.
Ms. Shelley said that she wanted to address the situation with the rural protection areas (RPA), adding that there were individuals with established standing that were keeping their options open. She thanked the BCC for sending the letter to the City of Leesburg, and commented that it was submitted into the record at the City meeting the previous evening. She stated that the RPA was mentioned in the Whispering Hills presentation, but opined that there was only a partial compliance that needed to be remedied. She opined that the integrity of the RPA could not be protected, and that the transitionary areas were being lost. She suggested that a workshop be done on the ISBAs, noting that it included a significant portion of the County. She expressed concern about land in the ISBAs being annexed, opining that this area was becoming like the City of Orlando.
Commr. Parks proposed that an update on the ISBAs be added to the agenda at a future BCC meeting, and Ms. Barker indicated that it could be done.
Dr. Ron Robinson, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, expressed concern about the lack of legal protection for the RPAs, and he asked the Board to stand up for those living in these areas.
Ms. Kim Cronin, a resident of Lake County, opined that the City of Leesburg did not listen to the residents at the meeting on the previous night. She mentioned that she had moved to Lake County in 1988 because of the rural atmosphere and had watched it grow, opining that it was time to save what was left. She said that she did not understand what had happened at the meeting the previous evening, and opined that they were dependent on the County to represent them, noting that they could vote for the County Commissioners but not the Leesburg City Commissioners.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the City of Leesburg had used the Florida Statutes to annex the Whispering Hills and Hodges Reserve subdivisions and not the ISBA.
Mr. Jochim showed a map of all the developments currently in Lake County from the Concurrency Group at the Lake County School Board, and he commented that it showed all of the developments in Lake County. He opined that the rural property owners’ rights should be protected from having high density subdivisions next to them, and he expressed concerns about the traffic. He mentioned that the Whispering Hills developers worked with the residents and made concessions, but the Hodges Reserve developers did not, opining that there needed to be legislation.
Ms. Tara Tedrow, an attorney representing Whispering Hills, indicated concern that the County would consider a lawsuit as a political stance, opining that it would be without merit and cost taxpayers money. She mentioned that even though Whispering Hills was annexed and was no longer subject to the RPA, they did meet the intent of many of those policies. She commented that out of 642 acres of developable land, 330 acres were for permanent recreation and open space, which mirrored what was under the Rural Transition FLU category. She said that there were 203 acres of wetlands, and that they had preservation and dedication of permanent conservation areas that were part of the project. She pointed out that there were some areas that were altered as a result of direct feedback from residents, such as removing access onto Number 2 Road, the reduction of the number of lots, the increase in the size of the lots, the inclusion of a golf course, and more buffers. She mentioned that included in the plans were miles of equestrian trails, two equestrian facilities, a petting zoo, a community garden, and a farmer’s market, and that the community would be built around the idea that the topography and nature would be the selling point and the focal point of the development. She opined that they had done a thoughtful job of trying to meet many of the County’s policies, adding that she had not seen the letter the County had sent to the City of Leesburg. She expressed appreciation for the positive feedback at the current meeting, and commented that this project would be a good transition to the high density across U.S. Highway 27. She encouraged residents living around the project to talk to them about any questions, and said that there would be ongoing dialogue with the County for permits and transportation and design issues.
Commr. Campione said that the letter sent to the City of Leesburg outlined the issues, and she hoped Ms. Tedrow could read that. She thanked Ms. Tedrow for working with the residents, and opined that it was unfortunate that the Hodges Reserve project had been approved, as it had many issues.
Commr. Smith reiterated that Whispering Hills had tried to listen to the residents and had made concessions.
Ms. Roustio expressed concern about the rural areas being developed by the City of Leesburg, and opined that there would be other developers like those of the Hodges Reserve project, adding that she and her neighbors would oppose them.
Ms. Jackie Mizak, a resident of Lake County, indicated concern about the Hodges Reserve project as her property was adjacent to the development, opining that unincorporated residents were not given a voice. She commented that she was grateful for the way the Whispering Hills developers had made concessions, and opined that she and her neighbors were not given any options for changes to be made to the Hodges Reserve. She said that the 25 foot buffers surrounding the Hodges Reserve project were denied, and that they had offered to install a PVC fence instead. She asked that the County would be their voice, and opined that this development would be a difficulty for this area. She expressed concern about traffic and safety issues, and she asked the Board to do something about these issues.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
reports
county attorney
Lake County Water Authority
Ms. Marsh commented that at the September 2021 BCC meeting, the Board had discussed proposed legislation that had been brought forward from Representative Keith Truenow to change the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) from an independent to a dependent special district, and that the legislation had been filed on the previous day. She mentioned that there had been a workshop with Representative Truenow in October 2021, which included public input and LCWA statistics, and that there had not been any changes to the legislation from what had been reviewed. She asked if this item should be brought back at a future BCC meeting for discussion, or if the Board would like to let the item go through the process at the State.
Commr. Smith said that it should be allowed to go through the process at the State, and that they could make changes.
Commr. Blake commented that he would like to see it go through the State process and see what changes were made before the Board discussed it.
Commr. Parks agreed.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – district 1
Happy New Year
Commr. Shields wished everyone a Happy New Year.
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
Happy Holidays
Commr. Smith hoped that everyone had a wonderful Christmas and a happy and safe New Year, and said that he was excited about new ideas and new ways of doing business that could be incorporated in Lake County for 2022. He opined that the County could advance in a positive direction and be more productive in an economically feasible way.
commissioner campione –district 4
Transportation Review Process
Commr. Campione commented that she wanted to look for ways to reform the County’s transportation review process on road impacts, noting that the detailed staff reports from the Public Works Department had been instrumental in the modification of a development off of Number 2 Road. She mentioned that this could be used to evaluate the appropriateness of the intensity and density of a land use, and that it should not be limited to determining impact fees.
Commr. Shields asked if that would be like a color-coded map.
Commr. Campione remarked that roads were designated for certain functions, and that levels of service were based on concurrency. She wondered if it could be coded based on the appropriateness of use based on intensity and by the number of trips it could handle, and she proposed looking at how the levels of service were designated. She relayed her understanding that there were different engineering tools for that, opining that there could be a way to change the way levels of service were designated. She said that traffic reports done by traffic consultants used standards, and that they could tell how many trips per day would be generated, which hours would be peak hours, and how it would impact the intersections. She commented that if there were deficiencies, developers could not be required by law to fix all of those deficiencies in order to get their permit. She mentioned that there was a difference between obtaining a site plan for a land use that was already a permitted use and changing a zoning that increased the intensity of a use, opining that it should be considered in the traffic review. She opined that it was going to become more difficult as more projects were being reviewed by the Cities, and that these projects could impact the County road system. She opined that pointing out these issues to the Cities when they were changing the uses would be helpful.
Commr. Parks recalled the discussion from a previous BCC meeting about the way planning and zoning reports were presented to the Board and the information included, opining that this issue was similar.
Commr. Campione remarked that when site plans came in from the Cities, the Public Works Department did an analysis, and the Board had no input, opining that the review process needed to be reformed. She expressed concern that when the Cities received those reviews in their staff reports, they could assume that any County road issues would be remedied by the County, and she said that she would like to see a change in how those issues were addressed. She recalled that there was an issue with the construction of a service station at the intersection of Fish Camp Road and CR 44, opining that the information detailing the substandard nature and width of Fish Camp Road would have been helpful when the City of Leesburg had been evaluating what zoning and what site plan was appropriate for that property. She suggested three things that could be done differently, such as the zoning review when changing the land use, the review provided to Cities when they were doing land changes or site plans, and the overall coordination with the Cities over road impacts.
Commr. Parks opined that it was important to provide the review to the Cities, and that it would lead them to ask the County those kinds of questions.
Commr. Campione commented that the review was presented in a technical way, and opined that it should have a section about how this information could be used for purposes of the design of the site plan in the land use decision.
Ms. Marsh remarked that the Board was routinely emailed notices of annexation, Comp Plan changes, and rezoning from the Cities, but that it could be missed in the large amount of emails received by the Board. She inquired if it would be helpful to present them on an agenda, such as the first of the month BCC meeting zoning agenda. She also asked if the Board would like to see each of those items listed or an overview of what was being proposed instead of receiving emails.
Commr. Campione replied that if the Cities were willing to listen and have a dialogue, it could be helpful.
Commr. Smith thought that the email was fine, and that if he saw any issues, he could call a municipality and talk to a City Commissioner.
Commr. Blake mentioned that when he received those emails, if there was an issue, he would also receive emails from neighboring constituents.
Commr. Shields suggested that the emails could also include some of the data from the staff review.
Commr. Campione opined that when residents expressed concerns to the Board about what the Cities were changing, the opportunity to have that first discussion could have already passed. She opined that if the staff provided information from the staff review, it could help.
Commr. Smith mentioned that there was a joint meeting with the municipalities in February 2022, and that the goal was to all work together. He suggested that the Board could wait to see how the municipalities responded before working on a new process.
Commr. Campione opined that working on the transportation analysis and receiving that earlier on in the process could help. She reiterated that the Board received emails that informed them of annexations which included maps, and added that she did not know how to improve on this process.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5
Happy New Year
Commr. Blake wished everyone a Happy New Year, and hoped that this would be the year that everything improved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:09 a.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK