A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

February 1, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 1, 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 Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that the meeting was in-person and was also being streamed live; additionally, individuals could participate virtually. He said that the invocation would be given by Mr. Choice Edwards, with the Central Florida Freethought Community, and that a veteran would lead them in the Pledge of Allegiance. He explained that Chief Stephen Davis had joined the County in the current year as the Division Chief for the Office of Fire Rescue, and that he was a United States (U.S.) Army Veteran who had worked in the emergency medical services as a medic for nearly 21 years. He added that Chief Davis served in the U.S Army as an Infantry Medic out of Vilseck, Germany with the 1st Infantry Division 2/2 Infantry, and that he was later assigned to Ft. Irwin, California as a Flight Medic with the United States Army Air Ambulance Detachment (USAAAD). He commented that Chief Davis had earned the most prestigious award in the U.S. Army medical community, the Expert Field Medical Badge (EFMB), while serving his assignment in Germany, and that he was later promoted to Sergeant (E-5) where he led a team of flight medics in Ft. Irwin. He remarked that Chief Davis had flown many medevac missions surrounding the National Training Center (NTC) and southern California in the Mojave Desert, and that this initial experience in the emergency medical services inspired Chief Davis to follow his dream of becoming a firefighter. He relayed that Chief Davis held a Master’s Degree in Fire Emergency Services with a Graduate Certificate in Emergency Disaster Management from the University of Florida, and that he came to Lake County from Orange County Fire Rescue, where he oversaw six fire stations with over 60 personnel in the busiest battalion in Central Florida. He said that Chief Davis had served his community in the Special Operations as lead Dive Instructor, Rescue Swimmer, and Truck officer, and that he had also completed and held a Critical Care Paramedic certificate from the University of Florida and was an active member of the advanced life support (ALS) competition team. He stated that Chief Davis had held the position of Paramedic Preceptor Coordinator and assisted over 200 firefighters in achieving their goals of becoming a National Registered Paramedic, and that he was a husband of 16 years and a father of two young boys. He also indicated that Chief Davis coached soccer for both of his boys on the Strykers Soccer Club in the City of Apopka, and he thanked him for his service.

Mr. Edwards gave the Invocation and Chief Davis 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

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager, said that there were no updates to the agenda.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Teresa “Lynn” Moore, a resident near Emeralda Marsh, said that she was not notified of a variance for a peat mine. She relayed concerns for noises from dump trucks, for a roadway being made across the marsh, and for development.

Commr. Parks said that the County could find out what was occurring with this.

Ms. Moore commented that she had asked an individual with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) about who would receive money for this project, relaying her understanding that it would be approximately $3 million, and added they had responded that it was their division; furthermore, she relayed her understanding that the funding did not have to be put back into Lake County.

Commr. Parks asked if staff could meet with Ms. Moore at the current time to answer some questions.

Ms. Amber Reisman, a resident near Emeralda Marsh, expressed concerns for a nearby peat mine and for the mine nearly completing the dike which was to drain the section behind her house, and she asked if this could be stopped before it was drained. She opined that the lands being mined were contaminated with pesticides and fertilizers, and she expressed concern about pollution of their wells, air quality, wildlife species, and fish kills. She relayed her understanding that this project was expected to take 10 years for the initial lease with an add-on for another 10 years, opining that the wetlands took thousands of years to regenerate.

Commr. Parks encouraged her to meet with staff and see what the mine was required to do.

Commr. Campione asked if Ms. Reisman was hosting a meeting on the current night with the SJRWMD.

Ms. Reisman confirmed this, and said that they had met previously and that there were more questions than answers. She opined that it was not known what would happen when the marsh was affected by the peat mine, and that draining the first section was a trial. She added that it was also indicated that they would not know what it would take to restore it until it was drained and complete; therefore, this was why she was requesting for it to be stopped before it occurred.

Commr. Campione noted that this meeting was in her district, Commission District 4, and that she would attend; additionally, she could bring back that information to the Board.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Ms. Cari Branco, Assistant County Manager, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. She said that staff received a request on the previous day from an applicant to postpone the hearing for Tab 6, and staff requested that the Board move Tab 6, Trout Lake Master PUD, to the regular agenda to hear the postponement only. She added that there was also an update for Tab 4, Roger’s Place, noting that staff had received a request from the applicant on the previous day to amend Section 1.C.7 to include a provision to donate an easement right of way to allow for a walkway or a path. She stated that a copy of the change had been provided to the Board, noting that this change could be approved as part of the Board’s motion to approve the consent agenda if the item was not otherwise pulled for discussion. She recalled that the six cases were also presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and had been approved unanimously.

The Chairman opened the public hearing for the request to postpone Tab 6.

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 vote of 5-0, the Board approved the postponement of Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-2, Trout Lake Master PUD, until the applicant desired to bring the item back.

The Chairman opened the public hearing for the Rezoning Consent Agenda.

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

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the errata sheet for Tab 4, noting that it provided the possibility of a sidewalk in the future along the east side of the development, which could connect future residential growth to commercial growth on State Road (SR) 50.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 5, approving Tab 4 with the provided errata sheet, as follows:

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2022-6

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-29-3

Warren Life Estate

Rezone approximately 7.73 +/- acres from Urban Residential District (R-6) to Agriculture (A) for agriculture uses (plant and tree nursery).

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2022-7

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-39-3

At Home Care ALF

Amend Community Facility District (CFD) Ordinance #2016-23 to convert the existing caretaker’s residence into an Assisted Living Facility.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2022-8

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-34-4

Deneault-Fox Rezoning

Request to rezone 0.17 +/- acres from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Rural Residential (R-1) zoning district to accommodate the existing residential use.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2022-9

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-35-2

Roger’s Place

Rezone 9.8 acres from Planned Industrial District (MP) to Planned Commercial District (CP) to allow the property to be developed with commercial uses.

Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2022-10

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-37-3

North Lake Church

Amend Community Facility District (CFD) Ordinance #68-90 to remove 5 +/- acres from the CFD ordinance and establish a new ordinance to rezone the subject 5 +/- acres of property from CFD to Agriculture (A) zoning district to facilitate a minor lot split.

regular agenda

wireless antennas, towers and equipment facilities

Commr. Parks recalled that from the previous Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, there were some questions regarding what the Board could or could not do regarding cell towers.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, said that this item was to provide an overview of the local and federal regulations pertaining to cell tower placement and appearance. She said that under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, no State or local government could regulate the entry of or the rates charged by a commercial or private mobile service, but that a State could regulate other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services. She added that States and local governments had the ability to make decisions regarding the placement, construction and modification of cell towers; however, there were limitations on local zoning authority. She commented that limits on local zoning authority included the following: cannot discriminate among providers of functionally the same service; cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of cell service; must act on any request to place, construct, or modify a cell tower within a reasonable amount of time; and any decision to deny a request for tower must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the record. She explained that the substantial evidence standard included the following: local government must have a reason, backed up by substantial evidence, to deny a tower placement; must be some facts or evidence introduced into the record to indicate the proposed tower is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), Code of Ordinances, Land Development Regulations (LDR), or with the general character and aesthetics of the surrounding property; and testimony from residents of “not in my backyard,” “I don’t want to look at it,” or “will lower property values” was not sufficient to meet the standard. She stated that under the County’s zoning code, camouflaged towers were permitted in all zoning districts; and all other tower types required a conditional use permit (CUP) in all other zoning districts except for Community Facility District (CFD), where they were permitted uses. She relayed that camouflaged towers were designed to blend in with the existing built or natural environment, and were exempt from the fencing and landscaping requirements; additionally, considerations for determining whether a tower is camouflaged included the logic of design, height in relation to nearby structures, scale in relation to the size and proportions of nearby structures, structure material and color, and compatibility with surrounding uses. She listed the following structural design requirements for all towers: must be designed so that in the event that it collapses, it does so within the property lines of the lot it is located on; must be constructed and maintained according to industry and professional engineering standards; applicants for new towers were encouraged to reserve space for emergency communication devices; and camouflaged towers. She remarked that for setbacks, equipment facility and guyed support structures would meet a setback of 25 feet from property lines or the zoning district setback, whichever is greater. She added that towers shall be centered within the boundaries of the parent parcel on which they are to be located, set back a minimum of 100 feet from the property line, measured and reported using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, and have additional setbacks. She showed a chart from the code regarding setback requirements, noting that lattice towers were at 1,320 feet and that camouflaged towers were at 100 feet. She mentioned that they also had separation between tower requirements, and she displayed a chart from the code; furthermore, camouflaged towers and amateur radio station operations received only from antennas were exempt from these separation requirements. She then listed the following other requirements of the code: for fencing, there must be a chain link fence at least six feet tall; landscaping to mitigate the visual impact; for illumination, the tower shall not be artificially lit unless required for safety or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and for finished color, towers not requiring FAA painting/marking shall have a galvanized finish or be painted in a neutral color. She said that for towers which were not camouflaged and required a conditional use, the requirements were that they were generally compatible with the use characteristics of a zoning district, but required individual review of their location, design, intensity, configuration and public facility impact in order to determine the appropriateness of the use in the district. She displayed the following additional requirements which were the same criteria that the Board saw for other CUPs: consistency with the Comp Plan and code; effect on adjacent properties; adequacy of public facilities: and adequacy of fire protection. She said that there were some additional conditional use requirements contained in the County’s communication code, including that the Board shall consider whether the tower will have a substantial adverse aesthetic impact on neighboring residential lands, and compatibility of a camouflaged tower in a given area; additionally, determination must be based on relevant and competent evidence, documentation and testimony received at the public hearing from staff, the applicant, and any party in support or opposition. She remarked that the Board must use the following criteria as well: the amount of the tower that can be viewed from surrounding residential zones; landscaping, existing character of the surrounding area, and any other visual options proposed by the applicant; the tower may be placed, designed or camouflaged to assist with mitigating the overall aesthetic impact; the degree to which tower is designed and located in order to be compatible with the nature and character of land uses; the Board may impose more restrictive conditions to a CUP or CFD request in order to achieve the desired protection with respect to aesthetic impact and harmony and compatibility with the surrounding community; and the determination to impose more restrictive conditions shall be based on substantial competent evidence. She explained that substantial competent evidence included items such as photos; a balloon test; expert testimony; or documented evidence of decreased property values of similarly situated properties, noting that someone with expertise in this area would have to testify and provide this evidence. She then indicated that items which were not competent substantial evidence included petitions or generalized concerns from residents.

Commr. Parks asked if staff working on a code change could address some of the concerns that the Board had heard at some of the previous meetings, and if the change would come before the Board.

Ms. Marsh thought that the complaint at the previous BCC meeting had more to do with the towers which were permitted uses, noting that the BCC could make them all conditional uses so that they would come before the Board. She thought that the County’s setbacks were set up so that 125 percent of the height of the tower required a setback, relaying her understanding that this was an old code and that with the way towers were engineered currently, the County did not need this type of setback. She commented that it was a matter of what the Board wanted to see.

Commr. Parks thought that residents tended to ask if the County thought about something, or why was it in the code. He said that he wanted to have all of this addressed as much as possible.

Commr. Campione inquired about how many towers had been permitted as a permitted use as opposed to coming through a conditional use process. She also asked how many towers had been approved with a variance as part of the conditional use.

Ms. Marsh said that staff could bring this information back with a revised code, and that it could also be sent to the Board prior to that. She thought that the majority of the County’s variances were done from their requirement that the tower must be centered on the property, and she indicated her understanding that Lake County was one of the only jurisdictions that had a centering requirement.

Commr. Campione added that it could be helpful to see what other communities were doing with regards to setbacks in particular zoning districts.

Commr. Blake inquired that for previous BCC meetings, if anyone presented evidence of decreased property values as a result of a tower.

Ms. Marsh indicated an understanding that in the past two years, they had three cases and that two of them were variance requests, noting that one of them came before the Board and was denied; however, it was appealed to federal court and the County lost on appeal. She recalled general testimony of the tower impacting property values, and that there may have been a Board of Adjustment meeting where a realtor discussed it, but she did not recall them specifically entering any documentary evidence into the file.

Commr. Campione inquired if the opposition would have to hire someone to perform a balloon test, or if the tower companies did this to show that it would not have the anticipated effect.

Ms. Marsh said that she had seen tower companies do this if they knew that they would have opposition, but she assumed that the opposition would be able to do this as well; however, they would have to have permission to enter the property to float the balloon and take pictures from surrounding areas. She added that tower companies would also bring the Board diagrams where they showed the neighboring towers, commenting that there was a radius where their signal would transfer.

Commr. Parks asked about microtowers with 5G.

Mr. Greg Holcomb, Director for the Office of Public Safety Support, replied that the thought was lowering the height of the tower but increasing the density, commenting that they were starting to appear more in communities around Lake County. He added that they were generally seen in the heavier communities, noting that as density increased with people, capacity also needed to increase with broadband coverage and similar items. He added that these towers were generally 80 to 100 feet tall and were permitted at the staff level.

Commr. Parks said that this was an ongoing discussion and that the Board would receive more information, noting that they could see the proposed code change from staff at a future meeting.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

FOUR CORNERS MEETING

Commr. Shields said that he and Ms. Barker had attended a Four Corners meeting with the other Counties there, noting that they had defined what Four Corners was for the four counties. He added that they had another meeting scheduled in the next few months.

ORANGE COUNTY SALES TAX FOR ROADS

Commr. Shields relayed that Orange County was getting ready to add another penny sales tax for roads, commenting that the revenue this would generate exceeded the entire Lake County budget.

EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING

Commr. Shields indicated that he and Commissioner Parks attended a recent East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) meeting and that it was great, noting that they received an update regarding legislation.

WATER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Commr. Shields stated that he had his first meeting with the Water Safety Advisory Committee.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

ELDER AFFAIRS COORDINATING COUNCIL MEETING

Commr. Smith said that he attended a recent Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting and that he would provide an update at the following BCC meeting.

BIKE RIDE FOR LAKE TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Commr. Smith commented that he met a person who was doing a bike ride, and that all proceeds would go to scholarships for Lake Technical College (Lake Tech). He asked how to promote this, opining that it was a worthy cause.

Ms. Barker said that they could work with the Office of Communications to promote this.

commissioner campione –district 4

INFORMATION REGARDING PEAT MINE

Commr. Campione stated that she would bring information back from a meeting regarding the peat mine discussed earlier in the current BCC meeting. She thought that the impacted homes abutted County Road (CR) 452 as one headed north toward the Ocala National Forest, near the Marion County line.

LAKE YALE HYDRILLA TREATMENT

Commr. Campione remarked that Lake Yale was currently receiving hydrilla treatment. She explained that it was being done so that there would still be hydrilla on the lake, noting that hydrilla improved the water quality; however, there was a question of how to balance this. She stated that they wanted to use one carp per two acres and that the carp were sterile, commenting that this was a pilot to see if this small amount of carp could regulate the hydrilla.

Commr. Parks said that there could possibly be technology at some point to remove the muck quicker and more efficiently at a lower cost. He added that they could possibly also do what was being done in Lake Apopka where they were digging lower areas for it to settle in and removing it over time.

Commr. Campione stated that the project that the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) had approved at one point was to perform alum treatment on the lake to make the organic material settle instead of going back up into the water table. She mentioned that there were some issues with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regarding if they would be able to do this, and she hoped that they could explore this as a possibility because it had worked in other places and could potentially be the only viable solution for a lake of this size.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

TEAMFL ANNUAL MEETING

Commr. Parks commented that he helped lead the Transportation and Expressway Authority Membership of Florida (TEAMFL) annual meeting, noting that they represented all of the tolling agencies in the state including Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise. He said that there was a great turnout, and that there was nearly $900 million of road projects from Florida’s Turnpike and the Central Florida Expressway Authority alone coming to Lake County over the following five years. He thought that Lake County had a great relationship with Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, indicating that they had said that they liked working with County staff.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:49 a.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK