City of Leesburg Resolution

• Leesburg Resolution (154 KB)

Letter received from the St. Johns River Water Management District on September 12, 2006

• Subject: Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment DCA Amendment #06-W (1.22 MB)

Letter received from the City of Leesburg on September 11, 2006

• RE: Proposed changes to Lake County Comprehensive Plan (236 KB)

Comments by Robert Shakar of Presco Real Estate Group

• Presco Associates, LLC property abutting CR 561 and 565B (470 KB)

Comments by John Kingman Keating, Keating & Schlitt, P.A.

Wayne,

I met with Alton Roane and Mike Stearman on Friday and they indicated you discussed our properties (among other things). They acknowledged Eustis would like to see a commercial use at that intersection. Can you confirm for me the FLUM designation you are recommending for our properties? I am attaching my previous e-mail with correspondence for your reference.

On another note, upon reviewing the WPPA ordinance it appears to be in large part extremely broad, overreaching and vague. Many of the provisions do not make good sense for properties, like ours, which are within a JPA and likely candidates for ultimate annexation, near major roadway intersections and that will use municipal utilities. In fact, the WPPA ordinance development regulations (such 50% open space, open space in one contiguous tract, swales instead of curbs and gutters, etc.) that may make sense further out - perhaps in the Wekiva Transitional District or Wekiva Traditional Rural District (see Policy 1-25.2) - don't make sense on our properties which are on major highways, slated for commercial type development or next to 5 unit per acre land within Eustis. Again, all of our properties are within the Eustis JPA.

In short, "one size does not fit all" and there should be exemptions from these stringent regulations for differently situated lands. The WPPA specifically contemplates that the regulations promulgated pursuant to it should apply on a site specific basis and that landowners should be able to prove that their land's hydrologic or environmental conditions don't necessitate the same type of regulations that may be correct for more rural or environmentally sensitive land.

Please note that none of the Keating/Olsen lands are in the Wekiva Springshed Basin (though they are within the political boundaries of the WSA), but drain west and are in the Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin (as confirmed in writing by the SJRWMD). We have scientific studies that confirms they are not "most effective" recharge areas. Shouldn't they have less restrictive development regulations than those in the Wekiva Transitional District or Wekiva Traditional Rural District? Fifty percent open space and swales (as opposed to curbs and gutters) are not appropriate for our land with its planned urban land uses.

I would urge you and the BCC to allow proper comment and deliberation on the WPPA ordinance now that it is before the BCC and not rush to pass it wholesale. There is no solid data and analysis supporting this ordinance. We believe the WPPA ordinance provisions run counter to the following requirement in the WPPA (Section 369.321(3)):

(3) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plans to establish land use strategies that optimize open space and promote a pattern of development on a jurisdiction-wide basis that protects the most effective recharge areas, karst features, and sensitive natural habitats including Longleaf Pine, Sand Hill, Sand Pine, and Xeric Oak Scrub. Such strategies shall recognize property rights and the varying circumstances within the Wekiva Study Area, including rural and urban land use patterns. Local comprehensive plans shall map, using best available data from the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, recharge areas and sensitive upland habitats for this purpose. ...

Again, our properties are not in a "most effective recharge area" and will be developed within the Eustis JPA (with the residential parcels having a density of 5 units per acre). Lake County is required to recognize property rights and the varying circumstances within the Wekiva Study Area, including rural and urban land use patterns.

In our view the Lake County WPPA ordinance as drafted and submitted by the LPA does not comply these specific mandates of the WPPA.

Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you and/or Amye in more detail.

Thanks,

John
John Kingman Keating, Esquire
KEATING & SCHLITT, P.A.

Comments by Charles Lee, Audubon of Florida

I wanted to indicate on behalf of Audubon of Florida that we strongly endorse Keith Schue's recommendations.

The only addition I would make is with regard to the partial credit proposed for golf courses.

I think it is very important that ANY open space credited, even that credited in part to golf course acreage (under Keith's recommendation) ALSO be encumbered by a perpetual conservation easement. In the case of golf course acreage, the easement should restrict the future use of the land to golf course purposes, or to conservation or PASSIVE recreation (not ball fields or tennis courts).

Golf courses are under heavy pressure to convert to development throughout Central Florida, because we are essentially overbuilt and golf courses (even those integrated with developments) are only marginal from an economic standpoint. Any part of a golf course accepted as open space (hopefully restricted as in Keith's suggestions) should be protected by a perpetual easement.

Charles Lee
Audubon of Florida

Comments by Charles Pattison, 1000 Friends of Florida

Dear Ms. Stricklin:

1000 Friends of Florida would like to voice our concern regarding current discussions relating to the density and intensity of the Lenholt property in northeast Lake County.  It is our understanding that the prospective developer, Newland Communities, is seeking a change in future land use that could accommodate potentially thousands of homes, a commercial center, a hotel, and supporting urban infrastructure.

The 1,800-acre Lenholt property is situated in northern Lake County along the St. Johns River, and serves to link critical habitat for the Florida Black Bear and many other wetland and upland dependent species from the Ocala National Forest to middle St. Johns River and Wekiva River Basin systems.  Lake County’s Future Land Use Map appropriately permits a density of no more than one home per 5 acres on most of the property – essentially recognizing its rural location and natural suitability limitations.

As can be seen from the graphics presented (below), limitations to development on the Lenholt property are tied to its landscape value as a parcel along the St. Johns River corridor within a rural area of the county, bridging two biologically rich landscapes--the Ocala National Forest and Wekiva Basin.  Its position in the Central Florida landscape provides a critical “missing link” between protected public conservation lands that border the property.  Its specific location within the larger Wekiva-Ocala corridor makes the Lenholt tract both unique and pivotal to ensuring integrity of the entire Wekiva-Ocala system. This fact is recognized by citizens, the environmental community, and state and regional resource managers.

The Lenholt property is a key parcel within the Wekiva-Ocala Greenway Project, now part of the Florida Forever program, and is essential to success of an acquisition effort and public investment spanning two decades and multiple administrations. More so than any other single parcel of land within the project area, a change in land use that could allow for substantial development of the Lenholt tract would have a profound and permanent negative impact upon the viability of the entire Wekiva-Ocala ecosystem.

Lake County occupies a critical position in Central Florida’s ecological landscape.  From the Green Swamp to the southwest, the Wekiva Basin to the east and the Ocala National Forest to the north, Lake County both contains and bridges essential ecosystem features of the state.  Due to this essential linkage position between the Ocala National Forest and Wekiva Basin ecosystem, it is very clear that the Lenholt connector is not an area appropriate for focusing substantial new growth.

1000 Friends of Florida asks that you recognize the Wekiva-Ocala connector including the Lenholt tract as a unique part of the county that should remain rural, and that you work diligently to direct future development away from this area. We urge you to retain the very low density rural future land use of the Lenholt tract and encourage the landowner to work with the state and/or St. Johns River Water Management District to preserve this essential landscape linkage in totality. 

I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these concerns further, please contact me at (850) 222-6277 (ext. 103) at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Charles Pattison, AICP
Executive Director, 1000 Friends of Florida

Picture Attachments (1.09 MB)

• Yalaha's Historic Village Designation: A Planning Profile

Comments by Phil Gornicki, Florida Forestry Association

Dear Ms. Suffron:

The following comments are offered on behalf of the Florida Forestry Association. Our Association currently represents approximately 1800 members of Florida¹s forestry community, ranging from owners of small tracts of forested lands to the largest forest products companies and many others involved in the forestry profession.

In reviewing Lake County¹s draft revisions to its comprehensive plan, I was disappointed to see the proposed policy in the Future Land Use Element (policy 5.1.21, Page FLU 47) regarding silviculture in the Wekiva River Protection Area. Our concern centers on the proposed requirement for the submittal of a silviculture wetland harvesting"notice of Intent" for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This "notice of intent", at a minimum, would require a description of the land to be harvested, a harvesting plan, a time schedule for harvesting, etc. Considering the nature of these criteria along with the approval process, I believe this notice would be more properly called a "permit". Such a requirement would certainly lead to delays and added costs for landowners involved in bona fide silvicultural harvesting. Following is the draft language to which I am referring

* 5.1.21 SILVICULTURE IN WEKIVA RIVER PROTECTION AREA
Silviculture is recognized as a legitimate and productive use of lands within the Wekiva River Protection Area.
A. All areas currently in use for the production of pine trees, or other trees not found in wetlands, may continue to be used in the same manner.
B. Before harvesting cypress, or other species of trees found in wetland areas, for all parcels of land one (1) acre or more, cumulative over a one (1) year period from date of initial harvesting, a notice of intent must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. At a minimum, the notice of intent shall include a description of the land to be harvested, including the area, location, vegetation, surface hydrological condition and a time schedule for the harvesting activity.
C. A harvesting plan shall be presented demonstrating the suitability of the timber for harvesting. Such a plan may be prepared directly by the applicant, the Florida Division of Forestry, or a consultant.
D. The harvesting plan shall conform to the most current Best Management Practices recommended by the Florida Division of Forestry.

The main interest of the the Florida Forestry Association is in maintaining a regulatory environment for silvicultural activities that encourages landowners to keep lands in the forestry land use. We become concerned when regulations threaten to become so burdensome as to represent a disincentive to keeping land in silviculture. This is especially a danger in an area such as Lake County where developmental pressures are so great and alternatives to tree-growing so lucrative and attractive. Since silvicultural lands provide the County with open green space its residents desire, as well as various forest products we all use on a daily basis, I would offer the opinion that Lake County would ultimately benefit most by providing sufficient latitude to those engaged in silvicultural pursuits.

The ability of landowners to successfully maintain bona fide farm operations (including silviculture) in the face of local regulatory pressures has become such an important issue that the Florida Legislature has recently adopted new laws to limit the adoption of local regulations impacting those practices. For this reason I am providing you citations for both the The Florida Right to Farm Act amendment (Section 823.14 (6), Florida Statutes) and the Agricultural Lands and Practices Act (Section 163.3162, Florida Statutes) . These statutes were adopted by the Legislature to prevent the duplication of regulation of bona fide agricultural operations addressed by Best Management Practices (such as harvesting in wetlands).

That being said, the Florida Forestry Association is actually very supportive of environmental standards for silvicultural operations. For this reason we have been active partners in the development and implementation of the Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs) of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry . Please be aware that since 1979, Florida¹s forestry community has been utilizing BMPs to provide environmental protection during forestry operations. The Silviculture BMPs were carefully crafted by a Technical Advisory Committee of diverse composition that includes representatives of Florida's environmental organizations, natural resource agencies and the university system, as well as various other members of the state's forestry community . This committee continues to meet biennially to evaluate the status and progress of BMP implementation and effectiveness. The committee develops revisions to the BMPs when specific issues that require attention are identified.

In keeping with our Association¹s support for the use of silviculture BMPs, and our desire to strike an all-important balance between environmental protection and economic viability, the following is the type of local regulatory policy language we typically support:

"Tree removal on lands classified as bona fide agricultural land for ad valorem taxation purposes pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, is exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance. However, all silviculture activities shall comply with "Silviculture Best Management Practices" developed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry".

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I look forward to hearing back from you on this issue, and would appreciate being added to any e-mail list of individuals wishing to be updated with meeting announcements, etc. regarding your comp. plan revision process. I am continuing my review of the proposed comp plan revisions, and will contact you regarding any other questions or concerns that may arise.

Sincerely,

Phil Gornicki
Forester-Environmental Issues
850/222-5646

Comments by Rob English, Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce President.

Dear Commissioner Hill:

The Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to ensuring that Lake County has a vibrant business environment. As such, the Chamber is committed to working with the County and the municipalities in Lake County to make this possible.

The Chamber’s Economic Development Committee recently reviewed the draft Lake County Economic Development Element and received a presentation by Greg Mihalic, the Economic Development and Tourism Director for Lake County. Additionally, many of the committee members have attended and participated in the various public hearings that have been held in regard to the County’s Comprehensive Plan update.

The committee understands that the proposed revisions to the Economic Development Element are intended to ensure compliance with State requirements. However, the proposed revisions to the element remove specific timeframes for completing a variety of objectives. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the members of the Economic Development Committee, we respectively make the following recommendations:

1. Since the Economic Development Element is not designed to provide an economic vision for the next twenty years, we recommend that a separate document should be prepared that clearly defines this vision. This vision document will assist the various chambers and economic development organizations working within the County to work in concert with the desire of the County Commission.

2. Goals and objectives in the vision document and the comprehensive plan should be prioritized with time frames and assigned to specific County departments. This is necessary to ensure that the vision and goals are implemented and completed in a reasonable time period.

On behalf of all of the Leesburg Area Chamber members, we commend the Lake County Board of County Commissioners for its continued commitment to economic development and commit to working with the Board to ensure a strong business environment for the future. We would appreciate the opportunity to present this request to the County Commission at the next available County Commission meeting.

Sincerely,

Rob English
President

Comments by Robert Johnson with Commerce Park Investments concerning the Comprehensive Plan process

I want to start by applauding the County staff for its efforts to schedule a variety of public hearings
throughout the County and working with the Local Planning Agency to prepare the draft
comprehensive plan. While there has been much discussion on how the County should manage
growth, there has not been much discussion on a variety of issues that impact the development of
the plan and its long term viability as a quality planning tool for our future. The County has the
opportunity to establish a bold vision for our future through the comprehensive plan and establish
concrete goals that can make Lake County a community that is acknowledged for its preservation
of its natural beauty, establishment of high wage job opportunities and the creation of quality
schools. I believe the following issues are critical to the Comprehensive Plan development process
and the establishment of a bold vision for Lake County:

1. The Industrial Development Authority, Local Planning Agency and the County Commission
   hold most of their public meetings related to the Comprehensive Plan during the day. This
   does not promote engagement by the citizenry or the business community into the process.All meetings related to the revision of the Comprehensive Plan should be held in the evenings.
2. Currently, the County has relied on County public workshops and municipal staff to obtain
   feedback from the municipalities. The municipal elected officials are the leadership of the
   14 cities in Lake County and need to be directly engaged to ensure adequate involvement
   by the cities in the process.
3. Accurately define and fully articulate the cost of each change in service being proposed
   within the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should clearly separate and articulate the
   estimated cost associated with growth and the natural cost increases that occur for
   delivering services (include external mandates and increasing level of services for existing
   development based on citizen demand). While not all cost increases are growth related, it
   is important that we estimate these costs so that a plan can be establish to ensure that
   growth, when properly measured, does pay its fair share.
4. The Comprehensive Plan should not include unfunded mandates. Either we can afford the
   level of service and amenities proposed in the Plan based on valid revenue projections, or
   we raise taxes or we remove the mandate from the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The Future Land Use Element deserves the utmost attention and scrutiny by the public and
   staff. Experts in the field of land use demand projections should be utilized to determine
   the land use needs in the various areas of the county based on the level of growth that is
   occurring in that area of the County and its ability to properly sustain new growth.
6. The Comprehensive Plan should clearly articulate the actual level of growth the County can
   sustain in the coming years and the level that is being proposed by the Comprehensive
   Plan.
7. The initiatives proposed in the Comprehensive Plan will impact the economic viability of the
   County and the quality of life of its citizens. Currently, Lake County ranks among the
   lowest in the region for housing affordability, household income, work commute times,
   cultural opportunities and school graduation rates. I believe it is important that we establish
   benchmark measures for key quality of life indicators and use these indicators to assess
   our progress over time in improving our status as a great place to live, work and enjoy.
8. Do not allow deadlines to drive the process. Make sure the plan is drafted accurately and
   is defensible before it is recommended for adoption.
   

If you would like to discuss my comments further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Comments by Steve Flanagan with Crosland

Good Morning,

Horizon 2025 is predicated upon estimated population growth in Lake County of approximately 200,000 people through the year 2025. Two elements in that estimate stand out: 1). that population will increase at a decreasing rate in the out years, and 2). that the distribution of the County’s population will remain static at 59% in the unincorporated County and 41% in the Cities. Given the build out of adjacent Counties in the Orlando metro area, the population projections may turn out to be as understated for 2025 as the 1993 projections were overstated for 2005. As to population distribution, one of the Goals of Horizon 2025 is to encourage higher density growth in the cities and their adjacent JPA’s, in order to maintain more rural densities in the unincorporated areas. If that Goal succeeds, the incremental population growth should occur more in the cities than in the unincorporated areas.

Assuming, for sake of discussion, that an increase of 200,000 people over 20 years is the right population growth number, Lake County is faced with some critical choices as to how it accommodates, responds to and plans for that growth, which could amount to 70,000 households over that period. One of those choices is this: How much of Lake County’s remaining developable land area is it appropriate and desirable to consume over the course of this 20 year planning horizon? The mathematics of average residential density (ADR) and acreage consumption is both simple compelling:

In a market economy, consumers demand choices; the housing market is no different. While a home on 5 acres will appeal to some, others will prefer a more urban environment closer to services. Horizon 2025 seems to strive to allow that market balance, but, based upon the citizen comments on your website, seems to be at risk of being hijacked by a vocal minority of citizens seemingly opposed to growth – and to efforts to plan for growth. Which of the acreage consumption patterns above is more productive of “urban sprawl”?

From an economic standpoint, as recently pointed out in a University of Pennsylvania study, there are economies afforded by concentrating growth near existing infrastructure; and homes served by central utilities are very likely more environmentally friendly than septic systems. If growth is concentrated enough, the addition of parks, schools, employment centers and retail services to the urban mix will use infrastructure more efficiently, and might even result in people walking or biking to work, school, recreation or shopping!

Expanding density within Lake County’s cities is not inconsistent with and will actually foster the goal of maintaining a rural lifestyle in unincorporated areas. I would urge you to maintain a balanced perspective on growth, and how to plan for and accommodate it, as you complete this incredibly important work.

Comments by Duane Booth with Farner Barley

Amye,
thanks for inviting me today,
here is an email I sent to rob back in June, he said he lost it so here is a copy for you
thoughts after the meeting :
I like the idea of defining availability of 500ft for sewer and 1000ft for water, or make it a 1000ft for each. I do not want to create a situation if a property is in a 180 district or JPA and utilities are available that the city says no and the development rights of that property are held hostage when they could go to another utility or create there own. growth is coming and will continue to come, these people seem to be thinking they can control growth with utilities, water, lot sizes, open space etc., I guess I see it too simple, set the allowable density in the comp plan, if a developer is in a 4 unit per acre area and utilities are not available then he has the choice to create utilities, extend utilities further at his expense or develop at a lower density. it is simply economics on the developers part. Also, if we do not have a lower price range for housing, where is the ordinary blue collar worker going to live? not everyone can afford a 300000 and up house.
have more thoughts but my fingers are tired.

Comments by Richard Joyce with Akerman Senterfitt

Amye and Greg: Thanks so much for the opportunity to discuss the ED element of the Comp Plan at the Howey meeting on Tuesday night. We appreciate staff's effort in providing the IDA with a draft for purposes of discussion as we address that component of the Plan. We certainly agree with your recommendation contained in that draft that the County, Municipal and Business leaders collaborate to establish Target Areas of Commerce. I was pleased that you agreed that we need to meet on this now prior to adopting a future Land Use Map and do appreciate the urgency therefore with which we must proceed.

It is my personal opinion that the IDA and the business community should take the lead in this effort. In other words, we should make proposals to you and then discuss the pros and cons. It is my further opinion, however, that there is no one on the IDA with the requisite expertise or time to make these recommendations w/o further outside assistance. I am going to propose at the meeting on the 18th that the County provide the funds to engage an expert to address these issues. Candidly it strikes me as odd that we have engaged experts to assist the County Impact fee Committee and not to assist in the Comp Plan effort. Impact fees can be tweaked as necessary. The Comp Plan, on the other hand, must go through a tedious amendment process. And if the ballot initiative is successful next year to require all comp plan amendments to be approved by a vote of the public, then we will be casting in stone a rather rigid document. In other words, we'd better get it right this time and not simply rely on a bunch of local business people (or residents for that matter).

Obviously this will take time. It is hoped that based on your acknowledgement that the issue needs to be addressed in anticipation of rather than following publication of the Future Land Use Map, that you will bear with us as we move as expeditiously as prudence dictates and not be pressured to put the cart before the horse.

We are meeting on the 18th. You are of course invited to attend. Thanks for your help. All the best