Submitted February 13, 2007

Thank you for allowing me to speak to the LPA on the ninth. I am, however, more confused than ever.

I am old, I have seen some things... and it appears we are coming full circle. Years ago, we tried to stop urban sprawl and we did it by growing towns and cities from the center out. Now, it appears, when the last lot is sold in Howey, the next guy that wants the benefits of living in a city, has to buy at least 3 acres. If he doesn't show up for a few years, he will have to buy 5 acres, because all the 3 acre pieces will be gone. He will be perhaps miles from the city he wants to live in.

To perserve the rural lifestyle, I want to absorb as many people as possible on proper sized lots in the city. It is clear to me, that the immediate land adjacent to towns should be zoned for city use, SF4, for example. That would promote a developer buying the larger parcel, and continuing to build the city from the center out.

Worse, once a few 5 acres parcels have been randomly bought in an area, and houses built, the chance of a planned area community is forever gone. You can absorb 4,000 homes in 1200 acres, in a master planned community, as part of a town or you can absorb them over 20,000 acres. The people are coming. A man that takes a job at the local Chevrolet store, or bank, will want to live close to his work place. If all he can buy is a 5 acre piece, then that is what he will do.

That will not promote the rural lifestyle. I do not want 4,000, 5 acre ranches spread over 20,000 acres. I thought that is exactly what we do not want.

Have I missed something? Help me understand this.

Sincerely,

Richard Jeppesen
Rancher

Submitted January 23, 2007

Hi!  My name is Richard Jeppesen.  I own 250 acres of pasture right next to the town of Howey in the hills. Howey has advised they will allow SF4 zoning on this property if I will annex it into the town of Howey. It is the only direction Howey could ever expand to the West in the future. The LPA, apparently, wishes to leave it rural. I do not understand this “managed growth” idea. If you have say 4,000 residents moving into an area, the old idea was to keep them close together so as to limit road use, etc. Now, it appears instead of keeping 4,000 residents within a planned area development of say 1300 acres, this new idea promotes spreading the 4,000 Residents over 20,000 acres (1 unit per 5 acres).  The people are going to keep coming to Florida, our population is going to continue to grow.  It seems to me, managing growth this way is exactly what we do not want. I must not understand many things. May talk with you? I would like to schedule an appointment to discuss your ideas.

Please contact me either via e mail or call me when you have a chance.
Richard Jeppesen

Submitted January 8, 2007

Read an interesting article about City expansion in Lake County; "14 Cities to give input on planning." I live outside any City in Lake County. I am very, very concerned and quite opposed to "limitless" City expansion that is going on here. My BIGGEST concern is their unprofessionalism and lack of competence on planning issues. I STRONGLY URGE Lake County to try to slow this duplicate-governmental expansion if possible. Just a thought -- one way might be to require cities that expand to purchase, at current real value, all existing county roads (paved or unpaved); that might make hem pause, stop and think. Please do what you can. Thanks.

Louis Rossi

Submitted January 5, 2007

Dear Ms. Greaney:

I would like some information as to the zoning and FLU of the parcels in the attached picture. The parcels are located in the southwest corner of Limit Road and US 441. The attached picture is taken from your GIS. I own parcels with the following numbers:

1447160
1447127
1447178.

These properties are also known as Barbara's Restaurant. The FLUM is not very legible when you enlarge to view it, but I believe it is designated as residential, 7 du/ac.

The purpose of this email is request commercial zoning and FLU as part of the Comp Plan update. I understand I missed the deadline for staff review, however, I need to know the exact zoning and FLU before I can proceed intelligently. Please contact me at my work. I would also appreciate knowing the time of the January 18th meeting.

Sincerely,

Roland D. Magyar

Dear Council Members:

Please come and take a tour with me to discover the community of Ferndale.  Ferndale is a simple place that is characterized by its rural lifestyle and is recognized by its beautiful rolling hill topography.  Yes, Ferndale is home place to many, where among its residents; a country day can be filled with some of Florida’s finest wildlife, from bald eagles to red shoulder hawks and eastern bluebirds to the occasional foraging raccoon or possum.  In addition, Ferndale enjoys an agricultural influence with a three working tree farms and several areas with open pastures filled with cattle As you imagine this country setting, it is also important to note the historical influence of the area, which would take you through past cattle drives that originated from Jacksonville and then traveled through the lake Apopka basin, where cattle and horses were ferried across Lake Apopka to a campsite in Ferndale called Katie’s Landing.  So, imagine if you will, the men and cattle at rest before continuing the drive onward to the markets at the Port of Tampa.  I can imagine that this event, must have been filled by many Ferndale nights with campfire tales that saw the passing of times likened to those of a by gone era of Mark Twain and Huckleberry Finn.  Indeed, in those days, dirt roads for horse and buggy were the norm and the old train rails that connected Winter Garden and Apopka, would carry local residents to the markets for farm supplies and sustenance.  These are some of the elements which make up my beloved Ferndale community and support the important historical merit that define and shape Lake Counties past. 

Now, before you, the Friends of Ferndale is organized and is pursuing the preservation of this area and is here today to engage the LPA for requesting the support of establishing the Ferndale community boundaries.  It is felt that the establishment and recognition of these boundaries will provide for a clear and distinct path for establishing a launch point for a concerted future planning effort with the same goals as the LPA comprehensive plan and the needs and desires of the local community.  I would strongly encourage the proposed Ferndale boundaries be adopted as part of the counties comprehensive plan in an effort to capture the intent of preserving this area and for preserving forever a part of Lake Counties heritage and beauty.

Furthermore, I would like to request that the LPA council provide for close examination of the proposed JPA boundary for the town of Montverde, and to note that if adopted in its proposed form would encroach on the boundaries proposed by the Ferndale village community.  I strongly feel that the proposed Montverde JPA boundaries are in conflict with the intent of past actions of the LPA council in regards to the comprehensive plan and would be detrimental to future planning efforts for the area.     

Finally, I would further note that other organizations and planning elements involved below in conjunction with the proposed LPA comprehensive plan are all part of an ongoing effort for supporting the ideas of preservation for this area.

1. Friends of Ferndale
2. Green Mountain Scenic Byway Management Entity (CME)
3. Lake County Ferndale Preserve
4. The Proposed  Rural Overlay District
5. Green Mountain Scenic Byway Corridor Overlay District
6. Green Mountain Scenic Roadway Overlay District
7. Lake Apopka Protection Basin
8. Ferndale Community Enhancement Area Overlay District.

Thank You

Arland J Deese
Ferndale Resident

Francis,

Per our phone conversation regarding above, the ownership is under Richard E. Oswalt, the alt. key # is 378-6462, I have located the original Land Use Map as adopted in 1993. I believe the property was reflected correctly until the state ownership was changed to include the portion of our property we sold to DEP (northeastern most tip of State Park at Lk Louisa Rd. and U.S. 27). When the cross-hatched section was added to the map to show the new ownership, the small amount of ridge density (4/1) that we have left and even smaller portion of rural conservation (1/10) was inadvertantly removed. This was probably due to a plotting error because of the small area reflected on the map. It appears the area is now& shown as transition, which is incorrect. We have had no involvement in a LU Amendment or request for a change. I am coming to Tavares tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 14th) and would like to bring the original LU Map by to show you the property. Please call me (352 267-3363) at your earliest convenience to verify a time to meet tomorrow. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Mark A.Oswalt.

Mr. Sheahan,

I sent an email this morning and did not realize a meeting of the LPA was scheduled for this week. I finally finished my letter to the LPA and have sent it via US Mail with copies to both you and Ms King. Since it may not arrive in time I am attaching the document in MS Word format and would as that you include it for this weeks meeting should the paper copies fail to arrive in time.
Thank you for your help.

Bill Holler

Letter to LPA

My wife and I live east of 441/27 just off of Edwards Rd.  we have a whole community of folks that have homesteads that are rural in nature, some are only one home to one acre but many are 5,10,15,and even 60 acre parcels.  We located here because we wanted this type of lifestyle and the whole area represented that life style.  There are places for orchards, horses, farm animals and lots of green space for the native plants and animals to flourish and water to flow with very little contamination.

Please do your part to keep some greenbelt type areas in our County particularly where they already exist. 

The area east of 441 over to Lake Griffin needs to stay as it is rural, not covered up with concrete and asphalt.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ed & Linda Moore

Who will pay the landowners for the regulatory taking?

Many landowners out in the green swamp area will have their land values wiped out if this plan passes as is.

Landowners affected primarily are Orlando 2000, Kuter Ranch, ER Jahna Industries, Trust Corp, Quality Petroleum, Greenleaf Wood Products, Boyett Land, Florida Rock, Rinker Materials and Green Swamp Ranch. All of the aforementioned landowners will have their property values destroyed by this plan.

Is the ANY provision for compensation for the "regulatory taking", if no why not ? If yes, who, where, how will this be done?

What about previously nonconforming lots (grand-fathered) that are/were deemed build-able under the current comp plan? Will they become worthless also?

Please reply as these questions are actionable. It will be far easier to settle these issues now than to settle them later in court. The precedents go with the landowners. I expect everyone listed at the top of this question to fully defend their rights.

Respectfully Submitted,
MikeMilliken@AOL.com

Please delay sending the comprehensive plan until the two new commissioners take office in November, so that the true will of the citizens and taxpayers can be accurately reflected. I am not a " no growth" advocate , but I am a " smart and slow growth supporter".

Thank You.

Sincerely,
Georgette Kerkvliet
Clermont

Hello,

As an interested citizen I would like to follow the review and approval process for the new Lake County Comprehensive Plan. So I am making the following requests.

Would you please forward to me the actual and/or tentative schedules for any public workshops, hearings and or reviews regarding the new Comprehensive Plan.

Also would you please give me the names and scheduled meeting dates of whatever committees and/or boards that are responsible for any hearings, reviews, preliminary approvals and final approval of the new Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service to the community and for your consideration of my requests.

Sincerely,
George Wright
Groveland, FL

I understand there is a Commission hearing today including a change in an overlay, requested by Mr. Fabrizio. Such a change should not be made this late in the process. It should be denied.

Anthony E. Grigg

Urban sprawl, not so pretty, save a farm, build in the city.  Something to think and act on.  Many of us in Lake County enjoy our rural lifestyle.  We would like to see it protected.

Sincerely,
D. L. Morris
Northwest Lake county

Dear Fellow Citizens,

Please designate the rural area east of hwy.441 to Lake Griffin, the Ocklawaha River and the Marion County line as rural zoning. I wish to protect this area as a Greenbelt, and minimize the urban sprawl indiscriminate development would bring. I also do not desire a zoning plan that would facilitate annexation by municipalities like Lady Lake into our rural community. We depend on your actions to preserve the rural areas in which we live.

Thank You,
Bill and Trisha Peterson
Lady Lake

Please designate the rural area east of 441 to Lake Griffin, the Ocklawaha River, and the Marion County line as rural, and to do all that you can to protect our greenbelt from developers, and from annexation by the Town of Lady Lake.

Sincerely yours,
Sid & Lee Klein

Vote 2 save our greenbelt from developers east of 441 to Lake Griffin,Oklawaha River & Marion County line.More is not better.

Thank you,
Richard & Karen Cobb

Hello,
I am writing to request that you designate the area east of 441 to Lake Griffin, the Ocklawaha River, and the Marion County line as RURAL. Please protect the areas I ride my horse and enjoy wildlife in the greenbelt areas. I do not want this area to be annexed by the Town of Lady Lake. Please preserve our rural lifestyle!! Thank you for your time.

Leslie Kalwara
Lady Lake

LPA Members:

Please designate the rural area east of 441 to Lake Griffin, the Ocklawaha River, and the Marion County line as Rural Zoning.

I wish to protect this area as a Greenbelt, and minimize the urban sprawl indiscriminate development would bring.

I also DO NOT desire a zoning plan that would facilitate annexation by municipalities like Lady Lake into our rural community.

We depend on you actions to preserve the rural areas in which we live.

Thank you

LPA Members:

Please designate the rural area east of 441 to Lake Griffin, the Ocklawaha River, and the Marion County line as Rural Zoning.

I wish to protect this area as a Greenbelt, and minimize the urban sprawl indiscriminate development would bring.

I also DO NOT desire a zoning plan that would facilitate annexation by municipalities like Lady Lake into our rural community.

We depend on you actions to preserve the rural areas in which we live.

Thank you

Please designate the rural area between Highway 441, the Marion County line, the Ocklawaha River and North/Northwest of Lake Griffin as a rural, protected area. This countryside is rich in natural beauty with the river, lakes, uplands, wetlands, hills, ridges, trees, plants, and wildlife (including endangered species and species of concern). The area is best enjoyed on foot, by boat, or from the back of a horse. There are elevations so high that the eye can see unobstructed vistas for many miles.

A great deal of diversity exists, even within my 120 acres. This is one of the reasons it is so important. Though there are some pockets of development, including some that should never have been approved; it is still predominated by larger parcels of land. Other smaller rural pieces run together, forming a beautiful crazy quilt of agriculture that works for the diverse human and animal population that lives here.

In recent years there has been a trend here for people to expand their property, and many individuals have bought larger tracts for farms and to keep horses. These lands are water recharge areas that help protect our aquifer, lakes and river. Because it should be protected, St. John’s Water Management District has purchased uplands and wetlands in Marion County on the Lake County line. Across the water lies Emeralda Marsh Protection area.

The area is also rich in history, and the northern banks of Lake Griffin were supposed to be given additional archeological research and oversight before and during construction involving any future development exceptions. That seems to have been overlooked when Harbor Hills was granted 200 additional homes (in the area of their original 799 subdivision) approved in early 2005, by the BCC. Further north there is also an old ("Slighville") cemetery dating from the late 1800's, from which the grave markers were removed. This should not be forgotten in any future development plans.

Our area of Lake County urgently needs protection from the sewer and water lines menacing out from the Town of Lady Lake that will destroy one of the loveliest parts of Lake County.

As a retired REALTOR and past part owner of a Northern Virginia real estate office, I believe that growth proposals being advanced by the Town of Lady Lake will raise taxes for Town and County residents, and lower the quality of life for all residing within the Lady Lake and Weirsdale areas.

Finding locations for "affordable housing,” high and medium density, and mixed use is important, but putting high density directly next to agricultural land is a bad idea for many reasons.

Insuring safe conditions in public areas is a primary responsibility of government. Equestrian activities taking place here would be in conflict with high-density living and present a danger to children and other residents who do not know how to behave around horses and livestock. In turn, the new residents will pose a hazard to the horses and their riders.

Our agricultural roads cannot handle the great increase of traffic that would occur if higher density increases were approved here. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, told us he opposed the original Harbor Hills subdivision because the agricultural roads in the area were not built to handle suburban zoning. Very minimal improvements have been made to any of these roads over the years. They are hilly, winding with sharp curves, narrow, and mostly without shoulders. Improving some portions of Gray’s Airport Road, which is the worst, may not even be feasible.

A recent survey in Hillsborough County "shows that, in that County, agricultural uses receive 25 cents in services from the County for every dollar paid in property taxes (providing a 75 cent surplus); in contrast, the County spends $1.29 for every dollar contributed by residential uses. Similar studies done in other counties typically support the conclusion." Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the Town of Lady Lake no longer has a big reserve fund to fall back on, and is facing either tax increases or a cut to services.

The State of Florida is increasingly concerned about the loss of greenbelt areas and is considering numerous ways to preserve them. There are plans to spend a great deal of money in the future to help insure that rural and greenbelt areas continue to exist and function within the State. Maintenance of rural lands that are or could be available for agricultural uses is also important to the security of our area, State, and Nation.

Lake County needs to be pro-active in finding ways to protect our valuable rural greenbelt areas. After other local governments have squandered such lands by filling them with residential housing, they have later been forced to turn away really wonderful industry and better uses because they failed to preserve enough greenbelt space in their original plans. (Greenbelt space should NOT include golf courses, and in many areas too many golf course communities have been built only to find the homeowner’s associations cannot support their courses.)

The taxpaying citizens of our area do not want over-crowded schools, higher taxes, crime, or traffic. And the majority of them (as recent County surveys have shown) do not want to lose our rural greenbelt areas. In fact, preserving these lands is one of the top wishes of area residents, regardless of where they live. Many of the people living in the town of Lady Lake or the Villages are here in large part because of the natural beauty of the area, and many of them enjoy activities taking place in the countryside. The Villages has a "Horsin' Around Club" of nearly 200 members. Many residents of the Town and the Villages keep horses at boarding facilities in our rural area.

Florida reportedly has more horses per capita than any other State. The horse population count has Kentucky, California and Florida in contention as the top three states. Marion County, Florida, has more horses than any other County in the entire Country. And according to state agriculture leaders I've spoken to, Lake is second in equine population for Florida counties. Imagine the revenues this generates!

The Sunshine State Horse Council and other sources put the Florida share between 7 - 7.5 BILLION dollars, directly and indirectly, per year.

A large part of Ocala's economy is based upon equine activities, and the horse show HITS (Horses in the sun) brings in about a million dollars annually (this figure was mentioned in the Ocala newspaper last winter) just for that one series of shows. Increasingly, some of those revenues have found their way to Lake County as participants have discovered improvements to the facilities in this area. Ocala has continued to grow and expand industrially because of the quality lifestyle and natural beauty available in that area. These activities should be embraced, protected, and promoted by Lake County.

Austin Horse Park (and Carriage Museum) and the new Lady Lake Equestrian Center, which boasts the only covered arena located in our area, attract horses and visitors traveling here from great distances,

including other States and Countries, to take part in events. This helps support restaurants, hotels, and the sale of goods and services of many kinds.

Uncle Donald's Farm is also a terrific asset located in our special part of the County.

Wildlife corridors support a wealth of wildlife that coexists with the farms thanks to the greenbelt. Very little wildlife can be expected to survive on islands of space such as yards, parks, golf courses, or small "preserves" surrounded by housing.

Tourists come from around the world to visit the Orlando attractions, but when they come out into our countryside and onto the lakes and rivers, they find the "real Florida." Here they spend their "best ever" and "most fun days of our holiday." These visitors return frequently and tell their friends about where to find "old Florida." While here, these visitors spend plenty of money that fuels our local economy.

Growth that is too rapid causes a huge financial burden on the taxpayers. The idea that "We must grow or we will die" is a myth. Slower, smarter growth builds communities that work, and that can balance their budgets without destroying natural resources.

Special interests should not be allowed to override or threaten the health of our greenbelts. Future growth plans should be in harmony with our priceless assets rather than undermining them.

Let's encourage development that respects the safety and lifestyles of our residents. Recognizing the value of greenbelt areas is essential to the process. With forward thinking and a smart-growth plan that recognizes the highest and best use for each piece of property, the public will best be served.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

And thank you also for unselfishly giving so generously to work on the monumental task of constructing the new growth plan that will take our special part of Florida into the future.

Sincerely,

Harpo and Vicki A. Zaneis for the FRIENDS OF LAKE GRIFFIN

Letter and accompanying maps from Terrie Diesbourg

• Letter to the LPA
• Map 1
• Map 2

As a resident of Clermont I would only hope that the LPA has a vision of how important it is to have the Karlton project come to Clermont. I would only hope that this rare opportunity to have such a master planned community with many "benefits" to residents of South Lake is not missed by rhetoric and politics.

Don't let the 2,000 acre site be bought up and divided by amongst various developers who want to add just another "rooftop" only community which only add thousands of "rooftops" of potentially family households with school age children. What Karlton Master Plan Community proposes is homes (2,500 of 55+ and 2,500 family), 2 schools (elementary and middle schools) and would possibly contribute toward another High School, a 100 acre bio medical facility, a community college, a park, a parkway leading to S.R. 429, a 320 bed hospital and a 120 bed assisted living facility. What county in their right mind would turn this down? What Karlton proposes would greatly benefit all Lake County residents! I believe that Karlton may possibly be a CDD (community development district) community where everything is maintained and meticulous and pristine and that everyone who buys into this community is assessed for all infrastructure. I believe Karlton would brings hi-tech, high paying jobs to Lake and make our investments (homes and businesses) soar.

Ann Dupee's comment in the Orlando Sentinel is corrected when she states that the parkway that would connect Hwy- 27 to State Road 429 would greatly benefit Lake County and alleviate many traffic concerns off State Road 50.

It seems as though all the people that showed up to reject Karlton are NOT really concerned about a 4,000 family home community in Minneola which borders Clermont on the northside. I'm sure the 4,000 "Hills of Minneola" rooftop only family community will have more of an impact than Karlton ever would as Minneola has only one charter school...children from Minneola are currently attending Clermont's Middle and High Schools..if 4,000 family homes will be built, won't that have an impact on the Clermont schools? Won't 4,000 homes have an impact on traffic on Hwy 27 and S.R. 50, and a huge impact and burden on Clermont schools? There seems to be a double standard here. It is sad that the Karlton development with so much to offer has been put on the back burner while all these other massive "rooftop only" communities have gone through with no opposition. The people who rejected Karlton are not consistent with their concerns and base their decision on editorials from various newspapers, heresay and rumors instead of doing their own research.

Karlton could very easily go to Polk or Orange County and present their plan. Please don't let South Lake County miss out on this "once in a lifetime" opportunity, please have the wisdom and vision to see the benefits Karlton would generate.

Thank you. Mrs. Milena Foley

Please continue your efforts to send the State a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and map without omissions and flaws.  Your hard work all these months has been greatly appreciated and would be a waste, if now in it’s finally hour, parts are left undone because of a time line.

Sincerely,
Carol Peters
Eustis

Please do what you can to delay the sending of the comprehensive plan forward until the new commissioners take office in November. This gives more time for thought and consideration and also allows the incoming commissioners to vote on what they will live with going forward.  I am not a “ no growth”  advocate , but I am a “ smart and slow growth supporter”. Please consider what your citizens want and not what a few “self interest” people are pushing. Thank You.
Ed Gresham

It is my understanding that the LPA is to transmit the Comp Plan today.  I am not able to attend the meeting this morning, but I wanted you to have my comments.

In light of the results of the recent primary election and the plan for school concurrency, I am trusting that LPA members will not transmit this document if there are last-minute staff language changes made to either the Future Land Use Element or Future Land Use Map which have not been considered and discussed by the LPA.  If there are changes which have not been considered, the comp plan should remain in LPA hands until the LPA verifies that it is complete and correct.

I would like to see transmittal delayed until the new commissioners are seated, but understand that may not be a possibility.  In any case, I expect that the LPA will respect the wishes of Lake County residents who have clearly indicated their desire to retain a rural lifestyle.

Pam Jennelle
Eustis

Dear Member of the Land Planning Agency,

I was proud to be part of the majority that spoke out on Tuesday, September 5th during the primary elections when Catherine Hanson and Bob Poole were veritably ousted from the county commission.  I thought that I might be special as I even changed my party affiliation enabling me to cast my responsible and sensible vote in the primary.  Recently I discussed this with some colleagues only to find that they too had done the same and could name scores of friends and neighbors that had done so as well.  As the old adage goes, 'actions speak louder than words'. 

However, today I am speaking to you and asking for you to withhold the transference of the Comprehensive Plan to the DCA until the new commissioners take their offices in November.  They represent the pulse of the majority as was plainly demonstrated by the overwhelming defeat of the incumbent commissioners.

Please wait to send the comprehensive plan to the state level.  Allow the voices of the majority to be heard!

Respectfully,
Traci Anderson

Please  delay sending the new Comprehensive Plan to the State (DCA) until after the two new County Commissioners have taken office in November.

I live in this area and want the newly elected commissioners to help make this important decision regarding the future of this area. The current commissioners do not have the future of the area in mind---they are returning to the private sector where developers will be their best friends.

We need those who care about the future of our area making these decisions.

Thank you.

Joan M. Hill
Sorrento

Delay sending the comprehensive plan until the 2 new commissioners take office in November. So that the true will of the Citizens and Taxpayers can be accurately reflected. Don't turn Lake County into Orland for a few Developers greed. Coleen Harris

With regards to the Comprehensive Plan and any time remaining for the LPA to review and finalize prior to sending it on to the Board of Commissioners; I respectively request that any actions be tabled until the newly elected Commissioners have taken office.

Last Tuesday’s elections proclaimed loud and clear that the citizens of Lake County are sick and tired of straining their voices until they are hoarse trying to get the current commissioners to listen to their ‘constituents’. The people have finally been heard through their voice at the ballot box, that same voice should be heard through our chosen representatives.

No motions, actions, or decisions should be made by the OUTGOING personnel regarding these most important, long term documents. It has been made abundantly clear that these individuals are not who the public wants representing their interests.

Respectively submitted,
James and Kelly Boeder

Good morning,

I want to thank you for your dedication and hard work on the new Comp Plan for Lake County. I believe that the recent Primary Election has shown that the residents of Lake County feel the growth in our county needs to slow down and your works will be the guiding force for that growth. I know that each of you have carefully considered your recommendations and I urge you not to be pushed by Staff to submit the FLUE and FLUM to the Commissioners before you are sure it truly reflects the wishes of our residents.

Our new County Commissioners will take their places in November; if at all possible, I feel these documents should be reviewed by our NEW COMMISSIONERS, duly elected by our residents. The future of our county, especially Rural Lake County, is in you hands.

Thank you for your time and dedication.

Regards,
Sue
Susan L. Brooks

PLEASE DELAY SENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UNTIL THE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS TAKE OFFICE IN NOVEMBER, SO THAT THE TRUE WILL OF THE CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS CAN BE ACCURATELY REFLECTED!

THANK YOU,
P. E. SCHAD GROVELAND

Good morning:

As a concerned citizen and longtime resident of Lake County, I urge the Land Planning Agency to delay approval of the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Community Affairs until after the investiture of the newly elected commissioners. Since this plan will be the guiding document for the future of Lake County, the new commission should have the opportunity to review the plan to ensure it represents the will of the people. Having participated in the community meetings to develop this plan, I am concerned that there are loopholes that will permit development in ways that were not intended by the residents of this county.

Your consideration of this request is most appreciated.

Respectfully,
Kathleen Farner Thomas
Eustis, FL

Dear Board Member,

I cannot attend today's meeting in person but I am asking that the transmittal of the new Comp plan be delayed until the two new county commissioners are seated, so that they may approve the distributions they will have to live by, and reflect the will of the citizens of Lake who have with the recent election demanded slow growth and more open space.

Thank you,
Ed Gonzalez

Please delay sending the Comprehensive Plan until the two new commissioners take office in November, so that the true will of the citizens and taxpayrs can be accurately reflected!

Thank you,
Katheryn Rider
Sorrento,Fl.

LPA Memebrs:

I urge each of you to delay submitting your final plans for the new Comprehensive Plan until our two newly elected County Commissioners take office in November. Last Tuesday the citizens and taxpayers of our county spoke loud and clear about wanting change in Lake County. They do not want any loopholes that will allow developers to compromise our rural areas. We want the County Commission to approve a viable Comprehensive Plan that will not need to be amended any time soon. I ask you to consider the will of the voters in this very important decision and do what is right.

Thank you,
Robin Brubaker, Sorrento, FL.

Please do not send the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to the state at this time. As a lame duck committee, this decision would not reflect a will of the people. Please wait until the newly elected members are part of this committee so a decision will be based on desires expressed by voters for the future of our community. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Diane Dean
The Villages, Florida

Member of LPA,

I am writing you to urge you to delay the transmittal of the new CLP to the BOCC until such time as a new board is seated. That is less than two months away. This will provide the LPA additional time to finish its work and evaluate all changes that have been made by staff without public input.

Thank you
Bob Foley

Honorable LPA Members:

As a citizen of Lake County, I have a concern over the potential for a a premature transmittal of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to our present County Commission. Also, if it is possible that present staff is attempting to add language in the FLUE which has not been brought to the LPA nor discussed prior to Monday's transmittal meeting, this would be inherently unfair and dangerous. These documents will have far reaching effects on our quality of life, and I would hope that the LPA takes all the time necessary to get it right while you are still in control of it. If it leaves your control too soon, it may become tainted by the actions of officials who do not possess a voting record displaying a desire to preserve our rural quality of life. The public is trusting you to make decisions allowing for development in reasonable areas while protecting that which makes the most sense to preserve. I know you will see to it that the plan is fully studied and ready before staff or special interests find a way to remove it from your rightful domain.

Thank you for your efforts and your honorable community service.

Sincerely,
Sandi Weld

I have been VERY concerned over the excessive amount of growth that has occurred in rural Lake County. I believe much of the Future Land use was biased by an individual that had vested interest in excessive development.

I would be much more comfortable having the Land Planning comprehensive plan delayed until it can be reviewed by new commissioners in November; individuals that would not financially benefit, therefore eliminating bias.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email from a concerned resident of Lake County.

Sincerely,
Sandy Dziak

Urgent: Please delay sending the new Comprehensive Plan to the state(DCA)until after the two new County Commissioners have taken office in November. This is the only way the will of the public and the people will be truly reflected in a good Comprehensive Plan!

Sincerely,
Joyce Regep

To LPA Members:

I write to you tonight to urge you to take the time to make sure this Comp Plan is sound and that enough time is taken to review the weekly Staff changes to both the FLUE and the FLUM which in many cases would directly benefit developer interests. These two items are extremely crucial to a sound Comp Plan that doesn't allow the will of the developer lobby to prevail over that of the people. There are many important issues to consider before thought should be made for final transmittal to the BCC. Staff hasn't even provided a clear answer to the population studies so how can the map be completed?

I'd like to ask the LPA to acknowledge the will of the people in the primary last week. It would be a great disservice to Lake County to not allow the new Commissioners vote on a Comp Plan that they will administer and oversee. The last election was a mandate on stopping sprawl and overcrowding with a huge emphasis on strong protection of Rural Areas. Commissioner Hill even stated she thought this was a good idea to wait until the new Board is in place.

There is also concern that opportunities, through a rush to transmit the Comp Plan, will be afforded to provide loopholes for further sprawl and unchecked development. The "Special Area Plans" designation as it is is useless in due to it's vagueness and it's allowance to be literally written by the developer.

My last point in taking the time to get this thing right is that the "courtesy review" of the Wekiva Policy won't even be back until the 13th of October. It would be senseless to transmit the Comp Plan on the 3rd without seeing these comments. There is no rush.

Sincerely,
Chris Belflower

Dear LPA member,

Please delay sending the Comprehensive Plan to the State until the two new commissioners take office in November, so that the will of the people can be accurately reflected.

Thank you,
Gloria L. Moreau
Mount Dora

Keep Lake County Rural. That's why we live here and NOT in Orlando.

Delay sending your plan to the LCC.

thx
John Daly
Sorrento

Tomorrow is a very important meeting of the Land Planning Agency about our comprehensive plan. Right now it contains loopholes that will allow developers in the future to develop our rural areas. Last Tuesday, the citizens stated very loudly and clearly that they wanted the rural areas to remain rural. I am asking you , the LPA members, to delay submitting the plan until the two new commissioners have taken office in November.

Thank You In Advance for Your Consideration!

Jim and Mary Ella Timberlake

Dear LPA and Growth Management Foks,

It is very important to the citizens of Lake county that our agricultural and greenbelt areas are PROTECTED Please vote NO to the zoning of 2 1/2 holmes per acre out in the country. This is not compatible with preserving and protecting rural greenbelt areas. We appreciate you using our tax dollars wisely.

Thank you,
Benne and David Dougan
Lady lake Florida

Dear LPA Members:

Please take every opportunity to consider the desires of the citizens of Lake County in your review of the Comprehensive Plan transmittal. The citizens have sent a mandate to all of us who serve them to consider our actions with regard to keeping rural densities intact. As a member of the Mount Plymouth - Sorrento Planning and Advisory Committee I am taking the overwhelming results of the County Commissioner's race as a mandate for lower densities.

G. Curtis Duffield

As a member of a former advisory board on the comprehensive plan from several years ago, I would like to implore you to not take any final actions prior to the installation of the new commissioners.

In addition, if the plan is not ready it should not be submitted. I remember vividly being influenced by the Commissioners who devastated our work several years ago.

Ron Abbey,
Tavares

Dear Barbara,

The comprehensive plan, as you know, is vital to the future of Lake County. Last Tuesday the citizens told us loud and clear that they wanted rural lands to remain rural. There remain too many loopholes in the plan for developers to use at a later date to undo the citizens wishes. I urge you to delay submitting the plan until the two new commissioners are in office. After all, they will be the ones dealing with the plan.Thank you.

Sincerely,

Linda Stewart

Brian,

The online draft FLUM today appears to be the same one that was posted prior to Francis Franco's vacation and prior to our meeting on August 15.

Do you have an updated version with the changes which we discussed whenever I was in your office on August 15? Those being in the Lenholt Farm area of east Lake County along SR 44.

On August 15, you made a written note to yourself that the white "Undetermined Use/Not a Proposed Land Use Category Pending Recommendation" areas on and nearby Lenholt Farm will be colored back in Rural 1 du/5 acres, unchanged from the existing land use. Will that be done prior to Monday, August 28's, LPA meeting?

Also will the Pier 44 Marina on SR 44 at the St. John's River be fixed on the FLUM prior to Monday's meeting, to show it as other than Rural 1 du/5 acres, which staff has mistakenly designated it on the FLUM? We discussed that issue on August 15, too.

Peggy Belflower

Brian,

Thank you for your email.

I did not receive a copy of the updated FLUM. Could you either e-mail it to me or else describe or hyper-link me where to find it on the LPA's web site? It is a somewhat convoluted web site, in terms of there are nearly always several different pages to search, to try to locate any one item.

The update is not on the Board Agenda page nor under Agenda Documents nor on the Comp Plan 2025 site, which is where I initially looked before e-mailing to you about it. Thank you for your time. My questions are in the interest of saving time at the LPA meeting on Monday.

Peggy

Brian,

Absent the map, how did staff address the issue of parcels in the Rural areas? What is staff's ultimate conclusion?

Thank you.

This, too, might save some time on Monday at the meeting.

Peggy

Please do not allow the zoning of 2 1/2 homes per acre "out in the country". It is not compatible with preserving and protecting rural greenbelt areas. The growth is happening at a rapid rate, moderation is no longer part of Lake County's vocabulary. I see the rapid destruction of wildlife's habitat, right before my eyes. Consider your decision in this most delicate matter.

Sincerely, Joyce Regep

I am sending you this email because I feel strongly about keeping Lake County a RURAL COUNTY! There is a proposals for additional high density growth before you now.

Think very carefully about the precedent that you set when you approve, just one more housing development.

I moved to Lake County from Orange County because I wanted to live in an area where small towns are valued. I can look out my kitchen widow at my horses and the only thing that wakes me up in the morning is the sunshine. I do not hear loud stereos, thumping cars, and sirens responding to another home invasion or traffic accident.

I work in Orange County and drive one hour each day. The ride is worth it to live where I do. I work for the Orange County Sheriff's Office and each day see the problems that affect Orange County due to explosive population growth.

Grid locked roads, constant construction, road rage, schools filled to the max, the list goes on and on. Orange County now has all the problems of any big city... including shootings, home invasions. Of course this begs the questions, which came first crime or the growth in population.

It is not an easy issue to address. There seems to always be areas of cities that have poor people or an area with a high crime.

I give you one thought as you think about approving another sub divisions.....the national average for law enforcement officers are 3.5 to 1,000 residents. Orange County has 1.78 to 1,000. That does not even include the tourist population.

So while everyone was approving housing developing and so excited about the aspect of new growth and taxes.... they forgot about the infrastructure of law enforcement, roads and schools necessary to support these new houses.

Lake County has the opportunity to say NO!! to huge growth. Why not keep the areas rural and green. Approve low density housing of no more than 1 per acre, or better yet look for ways to approve small ranches of 5 acres or more.

The housing market is getting ready to swing down again. Why be in a rush to approve high density housing. A new development just went in on 452 where planted pines used to be. The development will adds at least 100 new homes. The market is already filled with homes waiting to be sold.

Please before you approve just another subdivision , think about where you are doing it to improve Lake County or just approving it to approve it. What will that new development bring, more traffic or is there something special about that community that Lake County needs.

Remember Clermont... used to be a rural area. Look at it now, rows and rows of houses. Stop the expansive growth while you still can. Do not make Lake County another Orange County!!

Thank You!

Tony and Georgene Rye Umatilla FL

Mr. Bennett and Mr. Sheahan,

RE: Stipulated Settlement Agreement Case#APP-03-020: Dept. of Community Affairs vs. Lake County Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Shakar's PUD development, located partly in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern is subject to the terms of the SSA reached between the DCA and Lake County in 2005 with the transmittal of amended ordinance 2003-84 reflecting the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (SSA).

Mr. Shakar fails to mention the SSA in his letter to you asking for permanent zoning on the proposed FLUM of 3 units per acre in what is now the Suburban Land Use Category and 1 unit per acre in the GSACSC. He is asking for these zoning's based on this PUD achieving the standards for the timeliness policy that is recommended to be eliminated in the new FLUE. At the present time both those land use categories have a density allowable of 1 unit per 5 acres, unless timeliness is met.

Mr. Shakar fails to mention that according to the SSA, upon approval of development of Phase III located in the GSACSC, the density and rezoning shall be tramsmitted and reviewed by the DCA. Presco Associates were well aware of the negotiations that took place during the appeal process between Lake County and DCA over the original Ordinance. The fact that Presco Associates planner has verified their timeliness study doesn't matter for the determination of timeliness as per the SSA. In all the attachments to the letter, the SSA is absent. Since that is the determing document on the timing of density of this development, it should be part of the review process for all requests involving this development.

I was one of 3 intervenors in the appeal and expect that Lake County will enforce the provisions of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

I would appreciate an answer from you regarding what future action the Planning Department plans in regard to Presco Associate's request for permanent zoning on this PUD. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Peggy Cox

I am strongly opposed to increasing density in rural areas to 2 1/2 homes/acre.

Please take the time to secure the future rural nature of Lake County for our children! This change will lead to overdevelopment, crowded roads and schools, and a loss of our beautiful rural environment.

There is enough development in the county without your decision to increase density.

Let some part of the county remain attractive and rural. It will become more attractive as land becomes more scarce.

Those of us who live here appreciate the land. Those who do not live here want to take advantage of more profit---then they will leave us with ruined living space.

Joan M. Hill

Sorrento

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please add our voice to the many others you have no doubt heard from recently who are in opposition to this category change for rural land use. We wish to make ourselves perfectly clear; we do not support any changes in the land use categories what would in any way multiply the number of dwelling units already zoned.

Please remember that a major desire (probably THE major desire, according to surveys) of our citizens, regardless of whether they live in the country or in town, is the preservation of our agricultural and greenbelt areas.

To include these "rural settlements" in the new Comprehensive Plan is a fraud and a slap in the face to all of us. Our rural and greenbelt lands bring in more taxes than required to provide services than any other zoning, unlike residential suburban in rural areas, which these "rural settlements" would open the door to. These lands also provide water recharge, wildlife corridors, and huge direct and indirect agricultural business revenues (equine industry alone $7 - 7 1/2 BILLION per year in Florida),

The zoning of 2 1/2 homes per acre "out in the country" is not compatible with preserving and protecting rural greenbelt areas.

Please strike down this suggested change in zoning, the only people that will gain from it is the developers.

James T. Boeder

Kelly J. Boeder

To Whom It May Concern:

With all due respect, would someone please tell me what is rural about a settlement of 2-1/2 homes per 1/2 acre?
It is crucial that we preserve and protect our rural areas which are our most precious assets. Please do not give in to the pressures for higher density.

Ralph and Virginia Esposito
Mount Dora, Florida

Martin P. Murphy
Mount Plymouth, Florida

Please eliminate the idea of 2 1/2 homes per acre and possible commercial for inclusion in our rural areas. This will virtually eliminate what is important to our water recarge areas, our economy, wildlife corridors, and quality of life. The residents of the area have made   known their wishes, and biologists and scientists have attested to how it is a bad idea. We need our rural areas in tact, and continous, not chopped up with development. We need our greenbelts for a healthy and prosperous life and for a prosperous economy.We look to you to protect what is truly the most important area of our future, these greenbelts. Please listen to us, as once it's developed there's no going back.
Thank you for all your hard work

Chris Crowhurst
Weirsdale

We have just moved to lake county one year ago. We moved from orange county where we were twice crowded out over the past 15 years. We moved as far out as we could and still have a not-to-horrendous commute to work in orange county, but in the past year alone the growth we have seen all around us from Mt. Dora to Sorrento has been astonishing. I was able to attend a few hours of last weeks planning meeting and was encouraged by the stand that I heard many of the members take against growth. Thank you for that, and please stand strong. I believe “If you DO NOT build it, they WILL NOT come”. We saved for many years to be able to buy 5 acres and move out here. If people want to live in lake county in the country, they should also have to buy 5 acres. If 1/1 or even ½ areas are made available, those WILL fill up. Listening to the people who said “just because you zone it 1/1 doesn’t mean it WILL fill up” is baloney. The point is WE DON’T WANT IT TO FILL UP so why even plan for it?

My grandson now goes to school at Seminole Springs elementary, 2nd grade. There are THIRTY (yes, 30) kids in his class! New subdivisions in the area and no new schools to support them…

We moved to lake county for the “country life”. Please don’t make us move somewhere else to keep that!

The zoning of 2 1/2 homes per acre "out in the country" is not compatible with preserving and protecting the rural greenbelt areas. Please don’t change the zoning in these areas.

Thank you,
Robert Wooten

Please do not allow zoning of 2 1/2 homes per acre "out in the country" that is not compatible with preserving and protecting rural greenbelt areas. Thank you for your service to the county.

Scott Taylor
Sorrento FL

We OBJECT to changes in the Lake County growth plan that would allow for more than one home per 5 acres in rural areas as it NOW exists. The County already has problems with traffic, school classroom space and water. Please don't make it worse by adding more development to our community.

Frank and Bernadette Liotine

Ms. Stricklin and Ms. King,

I'm not sure if you are aware of this resolution but the BCC explicitly
endorsed preservation and acquisition in the Wekiva-Ocala Corridor with
direct support of the CARL program. The Resolution adopted by the BCC is
1995-205.

This document was provided to me by the Department of State Lands.

It is attached for your review.

Sincerely,

Chris Belflower

I am writing to you representing the greater membership of Voter's Organization Involved in Children's Education. We are a non-profit organization protecting the rights of our children's education in Lake County. We currently have 400 members in our organization.

Our organization has actively participated in all county and city level meetings where zoning and land use decisions are made. We were part of the effort to help bring the pilot community program for school concurrency and Senate Bill 360 to Lake County.

It is our understanding that you will consider a change in the comprehensive land use map at your meeting on June 19th.
With a stroke of the pen and vote you have the opportunity to change the land use designation of the rural lands south of Hartwood Marsh Road and Us Hwy 27 in Clermont.

The citizens of South Lake loudly voiced their opinion at the LPA meeting held only a few short months ago in Clermont and overwhelming stated their desire for controlled growth. The growth in South Lake has happened too rapidly without the infrastructure in place to handle all of the residents and demands on the services that this growth brings. South Lake has grown by 115% in just five short years. This unbelievable and unprecedented growth has placed too much of a burden on not only our schools but on all of the other services in our area.

The majorities of the schools in South Lake are at 158% capacity or greater and will continue to grow in population even with school concurrency in place starting in 2008. There are over 28,000 vested properties that have been approved in our County that could pop out of the ground at any time. This number doesn't count the vested properties in the 14 municipalities. These vested properties are NOT subject to school concurrency. The school board does not have the financially capability to build all the necessary schools for the children resulting from the growth that has already occurred in South Lake and the new growth that will come in the future. Remember... these schools are not allowed to place NO VACANCY signs in their windows, they MUST accept the children regardless of the space issues.

We are not saying that growth is a bad thing, it can be positive, but at the present time our schools in South Lake are extremely overcapacity and need some relief from the continued growth in our area. This relief will never come if you approve this rural area for urban expansion because you will open the growth train for many more developments to follow. This land use change has far reaching implications for the South Lake school community.

There will come a time in the future that this RURAL area will be developed and the land use designation changed. However at this time, we are requesting that you the members of the Land Planning Agency protect these rural lands, by maintaining the rural land use designation. In doing so, you will assist all the services in South Lake by giving them a chance to adjust to the growth that is already here and the time to prepare for the other vested properties in the area that could be developed at any time.

The voters of South Lake at numerous meetings have expressed their desire to you and the Board of County Commission. It is now time that we entrust you to do the right thing for the citizens and the children of South Lake County.

Sincerely,
Tammy Phelps
VOICE www.lakevoice.org

To Jim Purvis & others,

I very much disagree with your stand on the Karlton issue. I was once against it but as I dug into the facts I have to say that the Karton Project is simply the best deal we will ever get on the future land use of that property. People need to do some research, ask the right questions of the correct people and re-evaluate their position.

We are honored to have Dorothy Fears living in Remington and she has done extensive research on this subject. I would only hope that our City and County officials would do some research and then use their heads. Everyone is speaking from the top of their heads without having done the research. We need to be responsible for the words we choose and use. We will cause serious damage by speaking out and not being brought up to date.

I have highlighted just a few of my thoughts in Blue (changed to italic and bold below).

Thanks
John Higgins

Dear members of the Lake County L.P.A:

It is with great disappointment that we, the residents of South Lake county, read in the newspapers only a few days ago that - ONCE AGAIN - there is an attempt to circumvent the wishes and desires of those of us that are most subject to your reconsideration of the zoning of rural lands south of Hartwood Marsh Road and Rt. 27.

Our quality of life is being QUICKLY (as opposed to the normal "insidious" process) squeezed from our very grasp!
All around us we are faced, daily, with:
1. Overburdened and progressively more dangerous major highways

The County and the State have plans to widen US 27 – to six lanes, State Route 50 – to six lanes and Hartwood Marsh to four lanes Plus the new North South Connector Citrus Tower Blvd from near Wal-mart North and reconnecting to US27. I do not see what you are seeing!

2. Continued demands on a water supply system that is nearing depletion, per St. Johns experts and others

This is way wrong and needs to be corrected. The Karlton Project has their own water that has been approved by the Lake Utilities and St John’s River Water Management. Since Neither Clermont nor Lake County wanted to invest in upgrading the water system a private company came in and did it. They have permissions to pull 4 million gallons per day from the aquifer. They were going to see it to the Karlton project and along with recycled water, ground run off and other water conserving methods – Karlton would not be impacting our water. To further this statement, if Karlton does not go in our water will be sold to Orange County for them to use. How can we be so blind to the facts?


3. Schools that are beyond the definition of "bulging"

Karlton was proving, free of charge an elementary school and a middle school. They intended to use 24% of one and 48% of the other as I recall. They also were going to provide the land for a High School and pay their fair share for their usage 17% . This would have done quite a bit in helping the school over crowding issue. What has any other development that has gone in done besides the standard impact fees?

4. Infrastructure support that is stretched to the limit, and beyond, evidenced by emergency response times, etc.

Karlton was also having Hospital built. Don’t you think that would help with emergency responce?

5. Urban sprawl, all around us, in it's finest examples known to this part of the state!

How can you call it Urban Sprawl when it is just 3 miles from Kings Ridge and just 4 miles from SR192? If Karlton does not build it then besides us loosing out water we will have smaller developments going in that do not need to submit a DRI and we will have nothing.

Dear member of the Lake County Land Planning Authority

We understand there will be a meeting on June 19 to review the Karlton project proposed by developers to be located off Highway 27 a few miles south of Clermont.

Please, for the benefit of all of us who live in Clermont and South Lake County, DO NOT approve this project at the present time. You are supposed to be representing the people in Lake County and not the wealthy developers. Growth cannot be stopped but it can be slowed so the schools, roads, water demands, and all the support agencies can catch up with the demands.

We could write a whole page on the subject but we think you are aware of the many problems we in Lake County are facing due to the uncontrolled growth.

You have the responsibility to act in the best interest of the people in Lake County so please act responsibly on Monday.

Respectfully,

Mr. and Mrs. Wendell Adell

Rather than retype in my STRONGER words, I am sending you my approval of what is said in the attached.

You are doing a TOTAL dis-service to your constituents, the area and Lake County if you allow this development to proceed at this time.

Five years from now just might be the time when we have some of our roads, water supply and school problems resolved.

Don Santee

Dear Members of the Lake County L.P.A:

I am a homeowner in Kings Ridge and want to go on record that I am opposed to the Karlton Project at this point in time. The facilities, services and overall infastructure of the county will not support a development of that magnitude.

Russell Kazda

As a Lake County resident of 23 years and a resident of Kings Ridge in Clermont, I wish to make known my thoughts as well as Jim Purvis. Due to County decisions already made without consideration for the City of Clermont or its' citizens, the surrounding area is already over run with ill planned an poorly developed land use. It is my hope that your membership would take into consideration how your decisions will effect the existing environment. It is absolutely not necessary to develop and build houses or buildings just because the land exists. Not one of these developers or contractors is concerned with individual impact, but with bottom line dollars profit. Which I might add is never at their expense.

I as you to turn down the Karlton project as an unnecessary project driven solely by huge profits going to far removed investors.

Proportionally, I see no added benefit to those lives already in place, but rather sacrifice of lifestyle already in progress.

Dear members of the Lake County L.P.A:

It is with great disappointment that we, the residents of South Lake county, read in the newspapers only a few days ago that - ONCE AGAIN - there is an attempt to circumvent the wishes and desires of those of us that are most subject to your reconsideration of the zoning of rural lands south of Hartwood Marsh Road and Rt. 27.

Our quality of life is being QUICKLY (as opposed to the normal "insidious" process) squeezed from our very grasp!
All around us we are faced, daily, with:

1. Overburdened and progressively more dangerous major highways
2. Continued demands on a water supply system that is nearing depletion, per St. Johns experts and others
3. Schools that are beyond the definition of "bulging"
4. Infrastructure support that is stretched to the limit, and beyond, evidenced by emergency response times, etc.
5. Urban sprawl, all around us, in it's finest examples known to this part of the state!
   

Now, comes before you an "end run" attempt to perpetuate ALL of the above issues, and more, with the simple stroke of a pen and a vote! You all attended what is purported to be one of (if not "the") most attended meetings your group has ever held when you convened in Clermont a short time ago. You heard the people - you listened - you commented - and yes, some gave the impression of wishing they had life to re-live on the subject of this area of the county - if only you could.

NOW - you HAVE that opportunity! Do not waste it. Do not forget the citizens who gave up their evening - their routines - their time with their families - so that YOU could get the message loud and clear of what THEY want in their "back yard".

How many times must these people do this? Once - twice - ten times? If need be, they will. But, these people RELY on you and the county commissioners to do THEIR job; which is REPRESENTING the wishes and vision of the MAJORITY.

Now, the ball has been dropped back into your laps - probably to remove the issue from the upcoming elections and put distance between this subject matter and the county commissioners. It is shameful that you are put in this position by the very persons who appoint you - but, perhaps, that is the very reason for the action!

However, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the VOTERS of Lake County - FIRST!

Please, grasp this golden opportunity to start representing the wishes of the voters and, at the same time, show some real direction in how our community develops and evolves over the next ten, twenty, and more years.

Growth is NOT a "dirty" word! It represents our very future in housing, education, jobs, and quality of life.

However, there is a vast difference between smart, concentric, needed and planned growth vs. SPRAWL.

The time will surely come when this part of Lake County (and many more areas, too) WILL be poised for growth and land use changes. However, this area in question is NOT at the threshold of growth - yet - by ANY means or measure.

Look at the region; look at the wishes of the area residents; look at the true needs of the region; look at the facts; and, look into your HEARTS!

Please, show leadership by examining and considering the immense direct and indirect impact such a change of land use would immediately bring to this completely rural area - overnight! To do otherwise is to condone true SPRAWL.

Anne Bulmer, Jim Purvis, Bill Petersen, Gerri Krystoszek, Stuart Lesser, Robert C. Borngesser, Bruce and Lynnette Hatch, Donna Wyrowski, Eugene and Kathleen Kapes, Roy Gordon, Anne Ryan Kauczka - as a private citizen and on behalf of the hundreds of persons in all of Lake County who have expressed their displeasure at the notion of development in this area, at this time.

To the Local Planning Agency,

With the submission of the Comp. Plan Amendments quickly approaching, I would hope that the recommendations of the Mt. Plymouth /Sorrento Advisory Committee would be included in the first transmittal.  This committee has worked diligently to comprise recommendations that will guide growth in East Lake County in a way that is fair to developers while protecting the rural character of our area.

The LPA has reviewed the Draft, dated March 9, 2006 and, at one point, approved of the recommendations.  The place for these recommendations is in the Comprehensive Use Plan, not the LDR, so that they will be enforceable, not just suggestions. We are at a crossroad, shall we take the path of giving our County Staff and BCC a vehicle that will allow them to protect our community from rampant growth or leave the avenues open for intense development in rural and sensitive areas within the WPSA?

The MPSAC was appointed by the BCC to develop these recommendations, as outline in the March 9, 2006 Draft. The work of this committee should not be diluted by being omitted from the Comprehensive Use Plan and placed in the LDR instead.

Respectfully submitted,

Dear Ms. Stricklin:

Seminole Audubon Society (SAS) is contacting you about the proposed high-density development of the Lenholt property in northeastern Lake County. It’s our understanding that Lake County has received a request to change the future land use of the Lenholt parcel from 1DU/5ac. (rural density) to higher, urban densities, with the associated infrastructure and potential commercial development. We are respectfully requesting that Lake County deny any request to upzone the Lenholt property, and, instead, maintain the established rural density of 1DU/5ac., consistent with the rural character of the area.

In addition to preserving the rural character of the area, maintaining the established zoning densities will best conserve existing wildlife corridors and the habitat connectivity essential to the Florida black bear and many other wetland and upland species in that area. Further, the 1,800 acre Lenholt property provides a critical link as part of the unique Wekiva-Ocala ecosystem and its location within the Wekiva-Ocala corridor makes this property pivotal in ensuring integrity of the entire Wekiva-Ocala system.

SAS understands the development pressures currently facing Lake County, including the desire of some property owners to maximize the development of their property, but this proposed increase in zoning densities would allow for high density development in the heart of the Wekiva-Ocala ecosystem, forever destroying one of central Florida’s ecological jewels.

Sincerely,

Faith B. Jones,
President Seminole Audubon Society
P.O. Box 2977
Sanford, Florida 32773
puffin_fj@yahoo.com

Dear Board of County Commissioners,

I am requesting that you deny the request to change the comprehension land use by the Karlton Corporation on May 30th, until such a time when an interlocal agreement is signed and agreed upon by the school board, county commission and the developer.

I have most recently attended all three of the town hall presentations and listened intently to the plans of the Karlton Corporation. As a parent in Lake County I am very concerned about the specific details for the school impacts in South Lake.  The Karlton representative at the town hall presentations verbally stated that the developer is willing to build an elementary and middle school for the Karlton development community. He spoke about the possibility of a Community Facility District or School Benefit District as a way to finance the school.  While I appreciate the fact that the developer has provided a 50 acre school site and has verbally promised to mitigate his fair share for the student impacts the development will have on the high school in South Lake, as of to date there is no binding contract by school board, the county commission, and the developer prior to transmittal hearing and the BCC vote on May 30th. In addition, the draft for school concurrency between the county, the 14 municipalities and the school board is not completed.  I most recently read that Lake County has requested an extension of the school concurrency draft for the pilot community. How can the board of county commission, the school board, and the developer successfully mitigate the school impact by the Karlton development if the terms for mitigation are not clearly defined and specifically stated prior to the change in land use by the Karlton development?

My question I pose to you as a board, why can't this hearing be placed on hold until the school board attorney, Mr. Steve Johnson has reviewed the details of the school plans and a formal presentation by the developer to the school board? This would allow all parties involved in the school vision time to buy into the process.  In my opinion, by approving the comprehensive land use change and transmitting the Karlton DRI to the Department of Community Affairs prior to an interlocal agreement between the developer, the county commission and the school board, the process is being circumvented.

I am deeply concerned about the long-term effects this development will have on the south lake school community.  Most of the schools in South Lake are at 158% capacity or greater and will continue to grow in student populations due to the vested properties already approved and not under construction. In my opinion, the school board is doing its best to keep up with the tremendous growth in our area; south lake has experienced a 114% population increase in just the past 5 years alone. The school board also has to contend with the insufficient state funding, and school impact fees that do not pay the way for new school construction while trying desperately to provide student stations for the children as new growth pops up out the ground in our county. I am not sure how the board will keep pace providing new student stations over the next 10 years even if school concurrency is in place, with all the additional growth that will most certainly come before the commission seeking land use change after the Karlton development is approved.  The long term effects of this development are far reaching as the children in South Lake County schools will continue to be educated in overcrowded schools, redistricting, double sessions, portables, and co-teaching classrooms as our community grows by 1,200 students proposed by this development and the additional students that will be generated from the surrounding areas once the Karlton development is approved. My two children Abbey and Grant will continue to remain in overcrowded schools with little relief due to the rapid and continued growth in our area.

My last point, the elected officials of Lake County can't seem to get a handle on the overcrowding situation in our south lake schools as to date. I ask you to yourself, how is this development going to benefit all of the children of Lake County schools in the long term?

As the elected officials of Lake County, the decision you make on May 30th, will in turn affect the education of thousands of children and families in south lake.  I realize the children of Lake County do not get to vote on issues that affect them, but please consider the children when you place your vote!

I am requesting that you place this transmittal hearing on hold or if that is not possible to vote no on the transmittal to the DCA of the Karlton corporation on May 30th, until a binding contract can be worked out between all parties concerning the school impacts.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my lengthy letter.

Dear LPA, 

I am a current resident in Lake County and was not able to attend the meeting at the Bragg Center April 18, 2006 at 4:30 pm as I work past that time.

I have a GREAT concern on C & D Landfills being allowed to be permitted in Lake County around homes and drinking wells. This should not be allowed and needs to be placed into the comprehensive plan to restrict this to ever occur again. As with the Debris that gets placed in these landfills will contaminate our Drinking water. Please place restriction.

Currently there is a landfill in Osceola County thousands and thousands of acres that Lake County can take all there garbage and C & D too. There should be no more Landfills allowed in Lake County.

Sincerely,

Amye -

The Citizens Coalition of Lake County, Inc. is formally requesting that the rural areas input be included in the upcoming public meetings in order to foster discussion and feedback and to ensure that citizen and citizen group input is diseminated to, and discussed with the public similar to and on equal footing with the developer/landowner input that is being diseminated and discussed in the meetings.

I believe it is an oversight or miscommunication which resulted from the March 16 LPA meeting in which the LPA members indicated that they did not need rural areas maps, because they already had them. This should not be construed to mean that the rural area information was not to be included in the public meetings.

I appreciate your understanding of this issue and the importance of the comprehensive plan process being inclusive of all stake holders. We look forward to having this oversight corrected and we look forward to open public discussions with the LPA in the upcoming meetings.

The email below was sent to LPA members last night and your email was inadvertantly left off.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 352-429-1083.

Sincerely,
Rob Kelly
President, Citizens Coalition of Lake County, Inc.

Ms. King -

Is it possible to receive some feedback from you regarding this issue and if any consideration has been given to include the rural area input in the public meetings?

I apologize for bothering you, however I have not received any response today and the meetings begin on Friday (tomorrow).

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Rob Kelly
President, Citizens Coalition of Lake County, Inc.

Response to Mr. Kelly's above comments/questions

Rob,

I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to your email of yesterday regarding the public participation tours for the Comprehensive Plan.  As you know, the Growth Management Department has made a broad and inclusive effort to involve the public in all stages of the Comprehensive Plan preparation.  We have received extensive input from a broad range of interests in these many forums.  In addition to being discussed at numerous public meetings, written materials have been posted to the County’s website, ensuring broad dissemination.  The Citizens Coalition rural area proposal, heard on the agenda of a Local Planning Agency (LPA) work session, has been posted to the County’s website as part of this practice. 

With regard to the Local Planning Agency Public Participation Tour during the month of April, the LPA will be receiving further public input and we hope that we will hear from all stakeholders.  The materials that will be presented to the public and reviewed by the LPA are the LPA draft of the Comprehensive Plan and the map series prepared by County staff for LPA review - existing land use, adopted future land use, zoning, municipal requests and land-owner requests.   We will not be presenting all of the extensive public input that we have received during the process.  However, all of the public input is available to the LPA during their discussions and continues to be available to the public.

As you requested, a copy of the rural lands map submitted by your group will be available at the upcoming meetings for the LPA’s consideration.  We sincerely thank you for your interest and participation in the Comprehensive Plan update.

Dear LPA Members -

This email is being sent to LPA members to request that the citizens groups input of the rural areas map/idea is included in the public meetings being held in April, beginning this Friday.

Throughout the progression of the LPA's work on the comprehensive plan, the Lake County citizen groups have been courteous and professional in providing balanced input to the LPA regarding the comprehensive plan. Throughout the process the LPA has indicated to the community that the input of all stake holders, including developers/landowners and citizens groups, would be accepted, discussed, and used as a tool to help in the design of the new future land use map.

You might imagine our surprise when it was indicated to us today that the rural areas maps are not being shared with the public at the upcoming public meetings because the LPA did not request them, and that the developer/landowner input is being shared with the public for feedback,

In reviewing the dialog of the March 16 meeting it is my understanding that the LPA was not given the rural areas map in addition to the other 5 maps because the LPA had already been given the rural areas map at a previous meeting. At no time was it indicated that the rural areas information would not be discussed or displayed right along with the developer/landowners map at the upcoming public meetings.

It behooves the LPA to include the input provided by citizen groups on at least an equal level with the developer/landowner requests. The overwhelming input received from the general public throughout the county over the last year indicates a huge preference by the citizens of Lake County to better direct growth and include increased protection of rural areas in the new comprehensive plan.

To share the developers/landowners input publicly and ask for feedback, but not publicly share the input of citizen groups, fosters a continued public perception that developers are more important than the citizens that live in Lake County and that citizens input is being discounted and “glossed” over while the process moves on without discussion or disclosure to the public.

It is only just and honest to share this input and equally discuss all options and ideas with the public.

I am respectfully requesting the LPA to LPA include the appropriate sections of the rural areas map in the upcoming meetings on equal footings with the developer/landowners maps. We would request that the LPA approach the rural areas map boundaries as general boundaries, as opposed to specific boundaries, for the purpose of discussion, feedback and the sharing of ideas.

Several LPA members have indicated that they would like to see all of the maps before discussing rural areas protection, in order to see what the natural alignment might be. The rural areas information must to be included in the process in order to enable the public and the LPA to analyze potential alignment and to promote discussion and feedback. The alternative is simply no discussion.

With the approval of the transmittal of the land use change for the Karlton DRI, the inventory of Lake County continues to increase well beyond that which is needed in 2025. The assumption is that Karlton will be a well-planned urban development that will provide benefits to the community. The LPA continues to plan for and approve large urban areas and the citizens of Lake County are asking the LPA to also plan for large rural areas in Lake County.

I am hopeful that the non-inclusion of the citizens group input was an oversight and I am respectfully requesting that the LPA members contact Staff and request that the citizens input be included in the meetings. If for some reason the time is short for printing maps for this week, we would be willing to bring copies of the maps to the meeting, if that would be helpful.

Thank you in advance,

Sincerely,
Robert Kelly
President, Citizens Coalition of Lake County, Inc.

Folks: Lots happening over the next couple of weeks:

The county's Local Planning Agency (LPA) will be holding a series of five public meetings to discuss -- and reportedly receive public feedback for consideration -- the soon-to-be-finalized Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

This is a work in progress and there has reportedly been quite a concerted effort by developers and their attorneys -- who see this as a long-term potential annuity -- to sway the LPA into recommending (to the Board of County Commissioners for ratification) a plan that is beneficially friendly to those who believe aggressive growth should continue unabated throughout the county. This Comprehensive Plan will dictate land use policy countywide through the year 2025.

LPA meeting schedules as follows:

Friday, April 7, 4:00 to 6:30pm; Venetian Gardens Community Building, 109 E. Dixie Ave., Leesburg

Tuesday, April 11, 4:00 to 6:30pm; Umatilla Community Center, 1 S. Central Ave., Umatilla

Thursday, April 13, 4:00 to 6:30pm; Clermont City Hall: 685 W. Montrose St., Clermont

Tuesday, April 18, 4:00 to 6:30pm; Lake Technical Center, Ken Bragg Campus, 12900 Lane Park Cutoff Rd., Tavares

Wednesday, April 19, 4:00 to 6:30pm: Eustis Community Center, 601 Northshore Dr., Eustis

We have not yet seen LPA meeting agendas, but are assuming all meetings will be identical in terms of agenda items, so there is no one meeting that is likely better to attend than others to discuss Yalaha, but the meetings on the 7th and 18th are closest to our community and will likely have more of "us" in attendance than the others.

This will probably be the last time we'll hear about the changes coming in the Comp Plan in such a forum, and the final opportunity we'll have to effect those changes before they go to the BCC for ratification. HIstoric Village designation, an issue of great importance to Yalaha, will surely be discussed.

Attendance is recommended!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Following the LPA meetings, on Thursday April 20 at 7:00pm we'll be holding a public Friends of Yalaha meeting to report and discuss what we've seen and heard from the LPA, and set a continuing course of action. This will be interesting and all Yalaha residents are encouraged to come down and hear what the counrty has in store for our community.

We'll also be discussing the Yalaha Community Center (on Yalaha Rd.) project, which is building steam and is just about ready for some real community involvement.

Our meeting will be held on the patio at the Yalaha Country Bakery, so bring a sweater. (Unfortunately for all the "sweets" lovers, the meeting will be held after bakery hours.)

A flyer announcing this meeting is attached to this email in Acrobat (.pdf) format. Please feel free to email to friends and neighbors or printout for distribution.

See you on the 20th, and hopefully sooner at one of the LPA public meetings!

Thank you.

For the Friends of Yalaha,
Mark Winwood (352.324.32419)
Debbie Herold (352.324.3662)

I would again like to thank the LPA members for allowing me to present the Lake County Rural Areas Plan last week on behalf of numerous citizen groups and citizens of Lake County.  I am hopeful that you found the information of value and that it will assist the LPA in developing Lake’s new Comprehensive Plan.

Per the meeting, I am forwarding the following information:

1. Attached is a copy of the comprehensive plan policies proposed for the land within each of the Rural Areas boundaries.  I have attached a pdf and a word file.
2. A new website www.ruralareasplan.com will be active on the afternoon of Monday 1/24/06 where Rural Areas Plan information and related material can be accessed.
3. A link to the Rural Areas Plan in pdf format will be posted on   www.ruralareasplan.com  when it is active on Monday.  The pdf file is 10 mb and I didn't want to send the whole document and potentially clog your mailbox.  You will be able to view it and/or download it from the site.  If you'd like me to email it to you, please let me know.
4. A link to the Pasco County presentation/summary of their Rural Areas will also be posted on  www.ruralareasplan.com on Monday.

I am pleased at the number of citizens that identified themselves as members of each of the supporting groups listed in the Lake County Rural Areas Plan presentation.  After viewing the presentation, two additional organizations – VOICE (Voters Interested In Children’s Education), and Florida Audubon also expressed support for the plan.  I believe there was a healthy cross section of supporting citizens including a builder, a teacher, a nursery/tree farm operator, business people, environmentalists, and landowners.

One concern that was expressed by a citrus farm owner was that he preferred not to have density lowered from that currently allowed on his property.  I have also received questions regarding the Plan's approach to existing DRI’s and developments.

The intent of the Rural Areas Plan is to not affect current density rights for landowners and it assumes that existing DRI’s and developments are not affected in any way.  Subsequent versions of the Rural Areas Map should probably show existing DRI’s and developments in the Rural Areas which were not included on the map that we received 18 hours before the presentation.

The boundaries of the plan were specifically chosen so as to not affect any current density rights. We also chose boundaries that provided room for cities to grow.  It is important to note that many areas bordering cities that are currently Rural 1du/5 acres were not included in the Rural Area Plan as we preferred instead for Lake’s planning staff to tackle those areas as possible transition areas to the Rural Areas.

Again, thank you for viewing the presentation and please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions or clarifications on the material.

Sincerely,

Dear Mr. Cadwell,

I personally wanted to thank you for the comment you made at yesterday's concurrency meeting. Your statement in reference to the Pilot Community Program and school concurrency as being one of the most important things that you will do as an elected official in office. In my opinion, it is in the spirit of the cooperation that everyone who is involved in the process will need to have to "get it done" and "get it done right!"

As an educator and a parent, I wanted you to know that I appreciate that comment and hope that all the government agencies including the 14 municipalities work cooperatively toward that end. It appeared to me during the meeting, that the cities feel left out of the concurrency process and are confused about their role in the Pilot Community.

I have taught in several Florida counties and moved to Lake County over 6 years ago with the hopes and dreams of my children receiving the best education in Central Florida. As you are aware, the schools in South Lake are extremely overcrowded and need some immediate answers to the overcrowding crisis they are facing. It is my belief that all the children of Lake County deserve the best quality education that we can provide. Planned measured growth has benefits to many, but the kind of growth that is approved without any consideration it has on schools is high and it is paid for by the lack of quality education for our children.

It is my hope that school concurrency will be a step in the right direction for our Lake County schools. It is about time our schools are given the same consideration that; roads, water, environmental concerns and sewage receive in the developmental review process.

I also want to thank all the elected officials who have made a commitment to the program and who will be working together as part of the Pilot Community in Lake County. The working draft for this program will take compromises and understanding of all issues with each of the governmental bodies. However, in the end, hopefully it is the children and the quality of education they will receive in Lake County who will benefit from school concurrency.

Sincerely,

Amye....

Having reviewed some of the documents for the revision of the Comp Plan that are now being discussed by the LPA, I would like to comment on them now and also hope to be able to come to an LPA meeting to do so in the near future.

Regarding the Future Land Use Element Goal, Objectives & Policies -
Objective FLU1.3 on the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern: The objective is inadequate, and incomplete. The paragraph needs to be rewritten. Saying that the County will do something "at a minimum" is not reassuring and allows anyone requesting changes to the Comp Plan in the future to use that as the "maximum" standard that is required.

The 4 listed minimum ordinance provisions do not even begin to address the required protection provisions of the Principles For Guiding Development that are required by Florida Statues and found in Chapter 28-26, F.A.C.

These protection provisions need to be listed as they are found in the Principles For Guiding Development. The land use designations need to be listed in the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan. If they are found on the FLU Map, why aren't all of them found in the text of the Future Lane Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan? I have been told that the existing objectives and policies will stay in place in the FLU, but I see no reference to that in this draft and this new defining objective - FLU1.3 is entirely unacceptable.

As a matter of record, the entire draft Future Land Use Element has broad statements saying that the County "shall" implement, enforce certain policies without giving any explanation of the policies or the methods that will be required to achieve those objectives. Anyone reading these Objectives in the future will not know the extent of requirements in each Land Use designation.

In the Draft Public Facilities Element - Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element; why is any reference to the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern(GSACSC) deleted? The purpose of the Critical designation is for protection of the quality and quantity of water entering and recharging the Floridan aquifer.

Minimizing the GSACSC in writing policies for protection of the groundwater aquifer and aquifer recharge is not acceptable. The purpose and standards for protecting the recharge and quality of the groundwater entering the aquifer include the purposes of the GSACSC and need to be part of our groundwater aquifer recharge element in some form.

In Policy NAT 1.6.4 - Golf Courses - the requirement that golf course developers meet the requirements of the Audubon International Signature Program is also unacceptable. Audubon International is in no way affliated or part of the National Audubon Society or any State Audubon or local Audubon chapters.

Audubon International's Signature Program is a certificate program that developers can buy that says they did certain things that are more environmentally friendly in constructing and maintaining the golf course. The public, for the most part, always believes that this is a program of the longstanding, recognizable Audubon Society and therefore must be a real environmentally protective program. As a long time member of the Audubon Society, I resent any government agency requiring this program in its' policies as it is always used by golf course developers to try and mislead the public into thinking that the longstanding National Audubon Society is the organization that promotes this certification program.

The standards in the Audubon International Signature Program are no more than Best Management Practices that most good Golf Management professionals practice and are promoted by large Golf Course Associations.

I would think that requiring Best Management Practices that are the standard for a national and/or State Golf course association would be much more effective in actually achieving environmentally sensitive designs and good maintenance practices on Golf Courses. As a rule, they are much more enforcable and subject to review and revision as regulations change and advances are made in golf course design and maintenance. Please consider deleting the reference to the Audubon International Certification program and use a the stronger standard of some golf course managment Best Management Practices.

Staff response to the comment above

Please understand that what you read of the Future Land Use Element is just the Goals and Objectives. Much of what you have mentioned below are in the Policies, which are forth coming. The intent was to keep the current Goals, Objectives and Policies in-tact, however, our consultants are communicating with Rebecca Jetton and we may want to clean-up the current language (as you indicated below). Staff has no intention of diluting the protection of the GSACSC.

You noted below mentioning the GSACSC in the Aquifer Recharge Element. I am going to mention that to the consultants and the Senior Planner in charge. We will definitely look into it.

Regarding the golf courses, I did not know that there was no affiliation. I will look into the BMPs.

Thank you for keeping your eye on the process and recognizing the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done.

Amye King, AICP
Planning Manager
Division of Comprehensive Planning
Lake County Growth Management
(352) 343-9632

Re: Monday 9/19/05 5PM BOCC meeting at Minneola City Hall to address the issue of rezoning of the Lowndes property for middle school and high school use.

WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT PUTTING THE SCHOOLS HERE ANYWAY?
We need schools now. This is for the children of South Lake County. Rezoning will enable easing of school over crowding in the near future. We already own the land and have plans. It's the quickest way to get new schools on line. "Not in my backyard" is the main objection, and we hear that everywhere else anyway. Growth is going to happen anyway, and we're just trying to stay ahead of it. We can't afford to build anywhere else, and all we need now to get this done is to get the property rezoned.

SO SAITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND OTHER SUPPORTERS OF REZONING.

The BIG DEAL is that this truly is a BIG,BIG,DEAL. There is enormously more at stake than the rezoning proponents profess. The consequences for this part of South Lake County are forever irreversible, if rezoning is approved.

The school issue is not a trivial question, but in a larger context, it is dwarfed by the growth issue.

This is a LANDMARK CASE. This case offers the BOCC a chance to set a benchmark against which future rezoning cases can be judged. This is an opportunity to resolutely draw the line as to where growth (sprawl) stops in this part of South Lake County. This is an opportunity for Commissioner Cadwell to show the Florida League of Counties and example of how Lake County got the 'development bear' (as he quips) to stop dancing.

The Concept is : Do not allow a growth epicenter to be placed anywhere near the desired boundary of growth (sprawl). Because surely, if you put an epicenter near a boundary, the development bear will not want to stop dancing. In one fell swoop, sprawl zooms in on an area. ---- In this case it would be over the bridge we go to 561A, then left to 561, right to 455. Then we do it again, and the development bear forages onward.

The Principle - Keep epicenters (middle school and high school complex in this case) located in areas that have already developed. More expensive initially - YES. But, even short term (5 years) growth problems are mitigated. Growth (sprawl) must now creep to the envisioned boundaries. The county comprehensive plan can actually be followed. Developers are now motivated in earnest to compromise and cooperate (read that - pedestrian and bike paths off the highway, green areas, small parks, et.al.) in order to slowly sprawl onward.

It is hard to imagine that the net dollar cost to the county - all expenses considered (school land acquisition and development costs, roads, utilities, etc. ) could add up to a higher total cost than through the way it is being done now.

The decision to not rezone this property can be the " shot" heard around the county. It can be a sledge hammer of a decision and a deterrent to rampant growth. A decision to not rezone can serve notice to the developers that the rules are different now. The county is going to be in charge of growth from now on. County elected officials are hereafter going to do what is best for the citizens of the county, regardless of who whines.

A decision to not rezone should be good for everyone. All parties involved can know what to expect, how to plan, and where to commit resources.

The children are huge winners. The school over crowding issue is now on a track to resolution. The School Board may not like the decision, but short term (5 years) they can look back and be thankful for the tough love that the BOCC showed.

I ask you to do the right thing for the children and the citizens of Lake County.

I ask you to let the record show that on Monday evening September 19,2005 - that the Lake County BOCC voted NO and rejected the School Board's rezoning request.

P.S. A final footnote.
The Turnpike is heavily used by South Lake County residents for their daily commute to the Orlando area and other points south. As the South Lake County population swells, the Turnpike congestion becomes more and more of an acute issue. A traffic nightmare is in the making. Do we have a handle on this one?

Let's face it. None of us want to see more traffic or overcrowded schools in our neighborhood. We all love open space. However, I cannot think of an area in the country where people are not allowed to have children, or where fences are erected so people from other areas cannot move into the area. The reality is this:

We need to accept the fact that our population is growing, and we need to accept that it is going to occur in our neighborhoods, whether we plan for it or not. If we don't, the growth will come anyway and we won't be prepared to handle it.

An analogy might be retirement. I don't like the fact that I'm going to get older, but I plan for it. Every year, I put the maximum in my 401(k) for the inevitable. Every year, we need to build homes for the growth that is occurring.

Destroying Families
There are many homeowners in expensive markets who have been opposing home construction, and then wonder why their children move to Phoenix or Texas. What is most amusing about this, however, is that we have found that many of these homeowners then end up moving to Phoenix or Texas to be near their grandchildren. The questions we need to ask homeowners and their government officials are:

Would we rather leave our children a $1 million home when we die, or see them while we are alive? We plan for our children's education. We plan for our retirement. Why don't we plan for our children's and grandchildren's housing needs?

If we think other people's children won't move to our neighborhood, we are wrong. If we expect the city next door to solve our housing needs, we are also mistaken. We all need to support more housing in our city and more infrastructure regionally, or we are going to be spending the next few decades in traffic and our grandchildren won't know who we are.

Strategic Planning for the Future
The best way to solve for rapidly appreciating home prices is to provide more housing close to the employment centers, and build the infrastructure needed for that housing. The housing can be luxury housing. It does not need to be government subsidized. We can solve the problem by building luxury homes because the people who move into luxury homes sell their existing home to someone else, who sells their home to someone else, and so on. Thus, an entry-level homeownership opportunity is created.

A luxury home can also be in a high-density environment. Luxury buyers don't necessarily want big homes with big yards. Consider the following:

• More than half of today's home buyers do not have children.
• Many older, affluent buyers do not want or need a yard.
• Time is a precious commodity and commuting is a waste of time.
• Commuting clogs the roads and requires more government dollars to pay for the roads and other infrastructure.

When those who want to preserve the quality of their neighborhoods accept the fact that they need to provide housing, everybody wins.