I am just a common citizen who did not get a chance to speak at tonights comp plan meeting in Minneola. I guess I felt it would be impolite to stand up and ramble on out of turn as some others did, but have a point to make and believe that you are in a position to take my comment and pass it on appropriately .Website posting is not necessary for my ego; only the end result is what matters.

First let me say that I am going to be blunt , but in no way mean any disrespect by my tone. I have great respect for your boss Gregg Welstead and for your team .

Point 1 )Did you happen to notice all of the worker bees in the audience .You dont suppose that the VP of Banyan homes and another asked all of their subcontractors who wouldn't want to be fired to show up tonight do you?No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really? The point they wanted to make was that we need to keep approving thousands of homes per year to keep these peoples jobs, where as the truth is that the work pace right now is simply crazy for them and slowing down would actually , bring them back to a regular steady enjoyable workpace. I am certain you caught that coersion and I did not feel it necessary to call all of the rural business owners of the equestrian community and all of the hundreds of tree nurseries and farmers to the table to emplore you just the opposite for their jobs.

point 2) we all moved out here for a reason and want to see what we moved out here for preserved or protected by this comp plan. Whether you want high density/ zero lot line housing or a home on 20 acres, we just want to see our wishes protected. However you dont here the majority of people worrying about destroying the quality of their Urban lifestyle being taken from them in order to put up nicer 2 acre ranchettes do you?Rather it is the people who majorly contribute to the tax base with nicer homes on large lots acreage who want to see these rural zonings protected and extended. Which brings me to your job of transportation and inter govt dealingsand JPA's.

point #3) Why do you guys have these meetings of public input( other than that its required) and why do you work so hard only to have all of this work thrown out the window when a city annexes and does not have to stick with the guidelines of the countys comp plan.For Example: Take an area like N grassy Lake Rd in the county( just N of Minneola. A road where currently the residents all have 5 acre tracks and rural lifestyle and expected that lifestyle to be protected by the county.Then, the city of Minneola annexes in a large 853 home and townhome high density subdivision right next door, without any transitioning.Is that fair to the current rural residents who will be driven from their way of life?I know of someone who just bought there on N Grassy to move down here and build their dreamhome after seeing the beautiful hills and all the other rural zoned 5 acre home tracts existing. Its just natural that one would assume keeping density consistent with the nature of homes around it., at least for the length of the street! But Minneola did just that, with no transitioning and will eventually destroy the rural lifestyle of those people.

----point #4) To help with this we need 2 THINGS:::::::a land use category called RURAL PRESERVATION .to help protect existing rural areas that lie close to current city boundaries and should not allow any higher density as is is not condusive to the surrounding densities and lifestyle that you encounter when an entire road or street exists like this. yet is not falling into or protected by any other land category to fall into. Urban higher density towards center of cities with rural boundaries and zonings on the fringes, between different cities.is great ides., But when cities such as Minneola show a proposed JPA extending to Howey in the Hills; what happens to areas such as Sullivan rd???????.Existing Rural, mostly zoned agriculture properties of peoples dreamhomes with several horse farms and ranches dictating lifestyle will then lie in the future center of some cities if the proposed JPA's become reality. For this there must be a category such as rural preservation. Where people can pay a higher price for land if they want to in order to have their piece of country closer in to the city.In Orlando there are several large areas as such, sandwiched between, with buffers and transitions .Also , this hilly area between Grassy lake and Howey/ sugarloaf is on of the best water re charge areas around, so it makes sense to have 2-5 acres ranchettes with low density in areas such as these for environmental concerns. The higher priced ranchettes and homes will contribute to the tax base as well , rather than be a tax burden.- --------------------the 2nd thing you need is to emplore cities to adopt the same comp plan in these area so that people who invested in one thing with the county are ensured the same if the area is to become city in the future.

In closing----- a fine example of the need for this language of Rural Preservation to protect the many current rural residents lying close to annexation and city boundaries is the following:An article by Micki Blackburn Realty says in an ad" 14 acres, overlooking Lake Shepard, (Sullivan Rd)georgous home, lush landscaping $1,200,000. Potential development if annexed into the city of Minneola! How can that be possible to slap up a dense development on the middle of a small narrow rural road, where you have the person across the street to the South with 5 acre tracts zoned agriculture, to the West with 5 acres tract zoned R-1, and to the East a 8 acre tract also zoned agriculture with a tree nursery and horse training barn .All of these people plus the others surrounding have paid a premium to build their rural dreamhomes and have this kind of lifestyle and expect both their lifestyle and investment to be protected by the county that serves them. By the way, Tindall Oliver in the revised summary from the Minneola Ridge traffic study stated in the summary that they suggest using other East- West allignments other than Sullivan rd in future due to the negative impacts upon residents and the verticle rise hills of the road which make it unique yet dangerous for any amount of incresed traffic.Cul de sac was suggested.

Your comp plan if adopting Rural Preservation land use will protect this, but only if it is required that the nearby city adhere to it as well. If not, then all of this energy is wasted on citizen imput and becomes bull unless you, through inter govt agreements get the cities to adhere to what you set. Please remember Sullivan and Grassy Lake Roads in your rural area comp plan and know that the current approved Founders Ridge in Minneola may not be able to meet their contract requirments, and so that areas hundreds of acres could be re figured.

Thanks so much

I was able to attend the meeting last evening at Eustis High School and per your request am posting my comments here for the web site. I appreciate the forum and I appreciate how the “town hall meetings” were held. As was stated several times during the meeting last night this is not the County government’s comp plan but the comp plan for the citizens of the county. I believe the planning team is working diligently to represent and accommodate the wishes of the citizenry. I myself am a citizen, residing in Yalaha and working in Eustis. I am raising my daughter here and so it is heartening to know we have a voice. That being said most citizens are amateurs when it comes to growth planning. Consideration of growth is often emotional rather than based on fact when left to the citizens to make decisions. Sometimes those emotions can be heightened by the media. Sometimes those emotions are driven by personal circumstance. That is why it is imperative that fact and reason as well as long term consideration of the decisions we shall soon make are balanced with the consideration of the business community.

Planning Horizon 2025 includes in addition to its data compilation and analysis formulating citizen concerns into a mission and vision. But Senate Bills 360, 444 and 362 requires that concurrency be the focus of how the comprehensive plan is formulated. Not on the emotional appeal of the constituency. That turns smart growth into smart politics. I agree that the availability of roads, schools and water must be a central focus in how we approach planning but there needs to be a better way to obtain the revenues necessary to achieve this. I am confident that the planning team will take into consideration all factors but I want to focus on one primary part of the vision and mission expressed last night. Slide number six of the presentation contained the comment that “There was a Countywide No More Growth Sentiment.” Yet the following are bullet points from addressing citizens concerns relative to Economic Growth:

* Broaden Economic Base to match successful neighboring counties.
* Attract Industries that pay wages that keep up with the cost of living.
* Create additional incentives to expand existing businesses while also focusing on attracting new businesses.
* Partner with public and private sector professional organizations to help identify new and emerging opportunities for economic growth in the county.

My company employs 205 citizens of Lake County in our corporate headquarters in Eustis. We have 87 trade partners with a combined employee base of over 3,000 Lake County citizens. We partner with over a dozen professionals (architect, engineers and surveyors) here in the county and work with numerous attorneys, banks, financial institutions and other businesses. The 87 trade partners we use purchase the materials they use to do their jobs, the vehicles they use to get to their jobs and the tools they need to perform their work from businesses in the community. These same individuals house their families, frequent the retail businesses, do their banking and purchase their services here in the communities that they live in. We are but one of hundreds of employers who directly and indirectly employ tens of thousands in the county to carry out the work of one of the leading industries in the county.

Considering that the state and other sources have continued to decline to fund vocational training and considering that the high school graduation rate is only slightly higher than 50% county wide, where do you expect the employees to come from that will staff these alternate businesses you intend to attract? And if there is not a labor base to support those businesses, then those businesses will be forced to a) import their labor which equates to growth or b) not relocate to Lake County which means you will not have effectively offered alternate solutions for displaced labor. If anti-growth sentiment translates into a true reduction of growth then jobs will be lost in the industry segments that are supported by growth. In the absence of a replacement industry those individuals will be forced to migrate to where appropriate jobs are located further eroding the labor pool. Anti-growth advocates continue to support increasing impact fees for new residents. The burden of supporting the requirement for concurrency is placed on new residents, who do not always add additional burden on the resources. This is especially true of active adult communities that place a smaller burden on county resources than any other demographic. Increasing impact fees decreases the affordability of housing because the costs are passed on to the buyer. When those numbers become unrealistic and with the buyer faced with buying a new home or an existing home the shift can easily occur to an existing home that carries no impact fees.[Steve Warren]  Despite the fact that the Real Estate community would probably oppose this suggestion, I believe that in order to spread the burden of the impact fees more equitably, we should consider resale homes as a source for impact fee revenue.  Perhaps the impact fees on resale homes could be a two tiered system whereby the buyer moving intra-county would have a lower impact fee then an out of county in-migrating buyer. People purchasing resale homes tax our infrastructure the same as new home buyers.Further aggravating the problem will be the inability of our teachers, police officers, firefighters, service sector employees, government workers, and labor sources to afford housing. This decreases yet again revenues dependent on impact fees. With an aging population, the inventory of existing homes will continue to turn over to new residents that will have an equal to or greater impact on the resources available and yet will not share the same burden in contributing to the revenues necessary to support them.

What we need is smart growth, not anti-growth. We need a system that equitably collects revenues from all citizens that use public services and county infra-structure. We need to encourage and welcome upscale development. We need to welcome new citizens that will positively contribute to our tax bases and support the businesses and services available. Lake County is a beautiful place to live. That is why I chose to live and work here. I want to see it remain a beautiful place to live. But we need to remember our history. We started as a rural county, as all did in Florida. When the Citrus Industry declined through attrition and freezes, it was development that sustained us. With no viable or sensible alternative, anti-growth sentiment is simply not well thought out and the negative economic ramifications to the citizens of our county are far great than the average person can envision. Working together with responsible businessmen and women within the community to ensure that balance is considered and broader economic scope reviewed will ensure that we truly have the right comprehensive plan for the long term.

I have not heard a peep from the Republican-dominated county government since then about issuing the bond that will make this popular mandate possible. I'm suspicious that the pro-(Over) development crowd that seems to easily push its agenda through the County Commission finds this referendum stifling and contrary to their perceived goals, and has thus pressured our local governments into setting the resolution aside "for further study."

If anybody knows what progress has been taken in regards to the realization of this referendum please notify me. The maintenance of a decent quality of life in Lake County depends on all interested parties working together to ensure that this referendum is given top priority by our elected officials, and not simply ignored until it is forgotten.

Whereas the taxpayers voted to save vast amounts of forests, hill country and wetlands, the Republican-controlled county government has set its sights on helping their developer allies in paving over everything in their path from Orlando to Clermont. Southern Lake County is in peril of becoming a low-cost suburbanite bedroom community of Orlando, unless we step forward and demand that the people's voice be heard. Democrats must be in the forefront of public disapproval of relentless over-development that will leave Lake County poorer in the long run. Unless Democrats are seen as a countervailing force for positive change there will be no real alternative opinion to energize the public, because the well-funded Republican leadership and their developer allies will have nothing to stop them from doing their will unrestricted.

The first step in mobilizing is having a strategy, then implementing it using tactics such as public protest, editorializing and financing ads in the local newspapers that remind the people that Lake County Democrats care about their county and country. Its time for action.

I am reviewing the Town of Lady Lake's proposed comprehensive plan
amendments per our firm's contract with FDOT District 5, and need additional
information regarding the County's "Urban" future land use designation. Two
of the amendment sites (Lady Lake Apts. east of CR 25 at Fennell Blvd. and
the Hendry property west of US 441, north of Lake Ella Road) are currently
designated as Lake County Urban. I need to determine how much development
could occur on these sites without the amendment. Comp. Plan Policy 1-1.6
allows commercial uses in the Urban designation; could these sites be
developed entirely non-residential? If so, at what FAR? Thanks for your
assistance.

But not sure why?

Couldn’t answer many of them, since I’m not sure if we are voting or just commenting on opinion.

It should be a poll, very specifics instead of generalities

I THINK THE INTERNET IS BEST USED FOR SIMPLE STRONG ANGLES OF SELCTIONS instead of open ended…… questions….. I mean

Thank you for making the survey available! I thought it was well done.

I have some specific concerns/suggestions applicable to my neighborhood --
in particular the Skeen Elementary property.

It looks like a minimum security prison over there with all of the fencing.
Please take it down or at the very least leave the gates open for access to
the fields and lots when school is not in session. The drainage area
(previously a farm) would be ideal for a walking trail. It would also be
nice to see some playground equipment.

Thank you for making yourselves available!

What type of data are you looking for is it public domain as soon as we post it?

Thanks again for the thoughtfulness

Ps I want to have the same city opinion page before end of year too!

Thank you for taking my question.

We understand that the owner of this parcel of land has applied to Lake County to have it rezoned from agricultural to CP (planned commercial) for the purpose of constructing self-storage units and a strip mall on it. In our opinion, this will seriously affect the residential setting of the neighborhood, increase traffic density and result in further commercial development to the detriment of the Yalaha community.

If Lake County is serious about its long term planning, a key issue will be how to control the encroachment of crass commercialism into the rural domestic settings of many of the neighborhoods. This has become a major problem in other urban areas and is now threatening us here.

We ask you to look into the matter and to consider the opinions of the neighbors who will be directly affected by this proposed action.

Yours truly,

We have lived in Clermont for 20 years, all of which has been right in the city. We had saved up for years knowing someday we wanted to start looking for a nice quiet rural area to settle in and get away from the noise and have some place to spread out a little instead of being on top of our neighbors. Now that we are getting close to being "empty nesters," we decided now was the time.

After searching for what seemed like forever we found what we thought would be our dream home on Sullivan Road in Minneola. The neighborhood is beautiful with the hills, open spaces, peace and quiet we had been looking for. We sank our life savings and countless hours of labor into remodeling the house to exactly the way we wanted it. You can imagine our shock and disbelief when we realized our dream home could conceivably be our worst nightmare with a major 4-lane road planned right through our front yard!!!! We are devastated to say the least.

I don't know if any of the planners have ever been on Sullivan Road, but I can tell you that it is little more than a paved cattle trail with very hilly terrain and several houses close to the road, including a brand new one being built right now. I can't even imagine how such a major road could ever be built in this area without costing tens of millions of dollars to do so. Is it really worth it to both destroy our neighborhood and cost the tax payers of Lake County millions of dollars??

I believe it would be cheaper, safer and much more practical to find a more direct route from the proposed turnpike interchange to highway 27 by building a new road or use a better road in a less developed area and where more of our hills wouldn't have to be leveled and destroyed.

Please reconsider destroying Sullivan Road and keep it the way we all moved there for. Thank you!

I have read through the comments on the Lake County Web Site. Many of us are going through the same thing here in Lake County. The developers have taken over. Their wishes and demands are being met, and the rest of Lake County citizens are looked at as little pot holes to be filled in and covered up. Arrangements that have been made with developers, city council, county officials, attorneys, school board will drastically change this lovely area that rural residents came her for. No longer will residents who have horses be able to safely ride to the trails. Bicycle enthusiastis, walkers, runners, pets, children will be in danger from the traffic this plan will create. Tax payors will be burdened. It will bring more students to provide classrooms for. A school that before completed will be overpopulated. The school is located in an inappropriate area. A sewage treatment plant being built right next to it, there are huge power lines, dangerous roads. All these things right smack in an area that has been zoned for 1-5+ residential property. Developers plan to putting 3-4 houses on a postage stamp piece of property. What happened to citizen property rights? Water quality, wildlife, quality of rural life- WHY are we being pushed aside for outside developers?
This area should be kept zoned for 1-5+ acre residential. Paths and trails should be accomodated for. Enviromental pockets should be figured in for buffers between housing developments. A school should be built, but in the appropriate area to accomodate the present demand.
I am truly concerned about the direction our County, City, and School Officials are taking. This does not have to happen, there are other ways to deal with growth. Tax Payors and residents need a voice, need support from their local, county, and state goverment.

Why?

Thanks

This lends credence to my concern that Lake BCC will again fail to act or ignore anything created regarding the above, as has been done with the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report).

Seems as though growth, which we should have activated the EAR for, started about 15 years ago when I first came to Florida as a snowbird. About that time the people that caused the growth which threatens our environment (ie, water supply), roads, schools and other infrastructure items, changed from being old fogies with tight fists & golf clubs, to FAMILIES.
They (the families) are the seventh generation that we need an ACTION Plan for. So too is IMPLEMENTATION!

I'd like to think "Better late than never" re the intent of action by the BCC on whatever is developed from the public information/input meetings and all your efforts. I will stay tuned!

Some of the items I would like to see included in the new plan revolve around the concept of “Smart Growth”. However, coming from MD where the plan originated, I know the problems you are going to face in trying to implement its components, especially those involving infrastructure. As a matter of fact your existing and promised infrastructure has already determined much of your growth pattern. However, you can still opt to use:

- more “clustering” in new developments,

- leave at least 15% open space in those developments, and I don’t just mean a sedimentation pond

- new electrical utilities should be underground

- no development should be allowed in the 100 year flood plain

- junior and senior highs should be built next to each other and share some facilities

- solar energy should be used on all new public buildings to set an example for the public

- tax breaks should be given to private and commercially owned “environmentally friendly” structures that employ alternative energy sources

- there should be at least a 15 foot buffer near water bodies where fertilizers, pesticides/ herbicides can not be used

- new waterfront developments should be required to add a swale and berm between the dwelling and the water

- all citizens are responsible for maintaining water depth and invasive weed control in their own private canals, water front

- as many mobile home parks as possible should be put on public sewers and water ASAP

- there is too much duplication of government services creating wasteful “turf wars” between govt. agencies, so there should be more consolidation on the county level

- we need more government interagency committies and partnerships

- more public meetings, and better advertising for them

- a non- profit, private land trust should manage all public lands not in the park and rec system

- BNR sewer plants should replace older facilities

- the trash to energy facility should be retrofitted to burn downed trees following hurricanes

- the county should purchase and operate its own aquatic weed harvesters and dredges

- there should be dump stations at major boat ramps for portable boat potties

- we need more recycling centers throughout the non-incorporated parts of the county

- septic tank drain fields must be at least 100 feet from the water

- cisterns should be required, and built under or next to new dwellings to catch rain water, which can be used for irrigation

- new golf courses must follow the guideline recommended by Audubon

- new land developments and new government owned land must use Zoysia or Bahia grass

These are just a few of the things being done in other parts of the US. If they are workable in other places, they should be useable in Lake County.

Along with my husband, I live on County Road 450 just 1.7 miles south of the of the site which was approved by the Lake County Commissioners in October 2003 for the Marion County Sand Mine Expansion in Lake County which is now the object of a Circuit Court Suit, Case #2003 CA 3911.

We urge that the utmost care be taken in writing the new Comprehensive Plan with the clarity to avoid situations like the current one with the Marion County Sand Mine Expansion in our area. We feel the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is clear in Policy 7-13.1, 7-13.4, 6E-1.3 and 6E1.13 etc, that mining is not what the vision is or should be for our area. It seems though, the present Comprehensive Plan is ambiguous enough to lend itself to the current situation along with an issue regarding the St John's Water Management Floridian Aquifer Recharge Map.

In addition to the above, and the certainty that from a personal standpoint, we do not want a sand mine in our back yard, there are other factors that should apply to mining being prohibited in an area such as ours. For instance, the proximity to the Sawgrass Island Preserve and Lake Ella and Lake Holly among others, to the mining operation. Also, what we see as the inevitability of more sand trucks traveling our already dangerous county road and, reportedly, the fact that in order for some residents to get to their homes, they will have travel on a road through the mining operation with the Marion County Sand Mine on one side and the Lake County Expansion Mine on the other.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns and applaud efforts to make the Comprehensive Plan 2025 a plan for a balance future.

I regret that I am unable to attend the PIM (Public Input Meeting) at Spring Creek Elementary this evening. Please include the following in the record of the meeting as a record of this Northeast Laker's comments:

While the overall thrust of content appears to act to ameliorate the abysmal lack of affordable housing for the very low and low income people in Lake County, the devil is in the details, as always!

First off I note with regret what is NOT included...school impact or economic development components. Two crucial elements impacting low and very low income folk...for whom the intent is to expand housing.

I do commend the intent expressed to preserve and recycle historic buildings.

I am concerned, however, with the use of the word MODERATE (income) throughout the proposed revisions. This word gives the green light to developers to expand sprawl and consequently will negatively impact school crowding & transportation/roads, as most of the homes being built in Lake County ARE for moderate income folk (compared to the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts or gated communities).

Of special concern also is section HOU 1.3-2: Impact fee WAIVERS! Waivers should not granted unless alternative funding exists to cover the loss of dollars for infrastructure support.

And section HOU 1.9 "Density Reduction" which would reduce lot size and open space requirements...props the lid on the Pandora's box that reflects the growth in Lake County we are all so concerned about. "Open Space" is vanishing in Lake County...it is the asset we spend at our peril.

I went ballistic when I read HOU 2.2-2 "Developers may, however, make a donation of equal or greater value... and HOU 2.3+: the "fast track" permitting process.

Much of the language implies Code Enforcement or County staff will implement the many good things in the proposed revisions. Has any one ever collected the $3 MILLION in delinquent fines outstanding some years ago to hire help for them to do so?

It IS good that an effort is being made to rethink the Comp. Plan....again! This time here's hoping inputs are input and that the thing FLYS (is implemented, before we lose state funding for lack of same)!

Regards

I understand that there are some who would like to restrict growth and even stop it all together. I sympathize with their concerns, but can they really stop people from coming to Lake County?

Population is growing and there is increasing migration to Central Florida. The university of Pennsylvania Urban Planning Department recently conducted a study for My Region (www.myregion.org) projecting that the Central Florida Region will grow to nearly 7.5 Million people by 2050; an astounding 146% growth. Dr. Allen Overman, professor at the University of Florida used the Belgian mathematician Pierre Verhulst’s Sigmoid Model to project that Florida’s population will reach 44 Million by 2050. This is a relatively conservative projection when you compare it to the 100 Million projected by using Thomas Malthus’ model from Essay on the Principle of Population (Overman. A. R. and H. J. Pirrozoli 1995 Florida Population Trends: State and Counties)

If the anti growth groups have there way, low density will be mandated by the new comprehensive plan. Population growth combined with low density leads to sprawl, the loss of open space, and the destruction of Lake County’s greatest natural assets. The very opposite results desired by the anti growth movement.

If people are coming and development is inevitable, shouldn’t our goal be to ensure that high quality development comes to Lake County?

There are excellent practices in land use, land planning and land development today. The Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org), the Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org), My Region and other groups have promoted the adoption of best practices in the Central Florida area. There are many developers who want to build integrated communities based on lifestyle, quality of life and the environment. These developers share the community’s goal of balance, cohesion harmony and smart, quality growth. One practice growing in acceptance is to use open space, conservation areas and high quality landscaping as amenities and marquee features of new developments (www.magicoflandscaping.com). Another practice is to base community design on alternative transportation modes and encourage pedestrian oriented communities based on walkability principles (http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/planning/livbro.html)

These practices and others are only possible is the governing agencies support and allow them. Without the proper zoning and density it is not possible to build these types of developments. The mix use zoning is the only land use the county has that will allow great communities to be built like Celebration Florida, Traditions in St Lucie, Southwood in Tallahassee, Victoria Park in Deland, Baldwin Park and other examples of great community development.

People are coming to Lake County, no one can stop them. The choice we have is to either allow great developments to come to Lake County or to continue to promote sprawl, track homes, the loss of open space, Le Corbusier style automobile centered land planning, postwar Levitttown style community planning, and more of the same problems on a larger scale.

Do not shy away from using the Mix Use Zoning and allowing Higher Density in order to preserve the natural features of our county that we all love so much.

My family has lived here for 24 years; we have owned land, created hundreds of jobs, withstood freezes, hail storms, and hurricanes and we intend to stay here at least until 2025 to witness the results of the new comprehensive plan.

Thank you for reading my email.

To the County Commissioners:
I just filled out the survey for Lake County regarding where it should go in the future. We moved out to Clermont in 1994 from Orange County. We loved the rolling hills and the peaceful atmosphere. It was a quiet community with a lot of open land. There were cattle all around and orange groves. They have now been replaced by bulldozers and rooftops. I do not want to see this area become a "Little Orlando", which it is starting to look like. I do not want to see high density development being built, which means more people and more cars. And just where do you think these children are going to go to school.

We are already at maximum capacity at our schools and I just see more developments being built. This is unfair to the students, the teachers and the families. Do not put all the blame for this on the School Board, for you all are the ones who have not found a developer you couldn't say No to.

We do not wish to be annexed into the city. We like living in the unincorporated area of the city. Annexing would mean more taxes and more regulations put on the homeowner and that is not why we moved out here to Clermont.

We are not against growth, but this has been out of control with no thought of the effects it has on the land, people and resources. Clermont is called the Gem of the Hills, which is becoming less and less as the developers get their hands on the land.

We applaud the city of Clermont on their adoption of the growth resolution and hope the other cities will follow. How about putting the kids in this county first before the developers.

The growth in the past 2 years has been appalling to say the least, it is not progress, not growth but only putting money in the pockets of the few at the expense of the many people who live here.

The beautiful rolling hills and valleys that this area is known for is too quickly being raped by construction. Box houses on zero lot lines are down right ugly to the residents, but $$$$ signs are seen by the builders.

I cannot imagine one person who lives here wanting those houses being built unless they are in real estate, contracting or politics and the only reason then would be for big money. Not just Clermont, but Bella Collina. Beautiful Colony! NOT!

Just what we need another golf course community. It makes me want to throw up everytime I drive by.

What a disappointment to a once beautiful place.

When we started to look for propery we picked Lake Count for its rural setting, the rolling hills, and lack of congestion. Now 5 years later, Clermont is taking the top of the hills and filling in the bottoms, allowing dense building growth that out paces the resources. They are annexing closer and closer to me.

I purchased a 5 acre lot in Avalon Estates, all around was other 5+ acre tracks or orange groves. In my trusting nature, I was not told Lake County already had plans to 4 lane Hartwood Marsh Rd. I knew the orange groves would someday be gone but it just made sense to me that the land would be developed the same way as its neighbors. All the lots in Avalon Estates sold along time ago and we get asked all the time if anything is for sale. There is a great market for this size growth.

I feel I have no representation for protection from Lake County, like Clermont all they want is the increased tax revenue and to be BIGGER.

You ask the citizens of Lake County to respond to your survey regarding overdevelopment in Lake County and on Monday in the Lake Sentinel, you advertise nine Notices of Change of Land Use that will permit overdevelopment on hundreds, possibly thousand of acres in the County.

Your theory that you are redoing the Comprehensive Plan to avoid overdevelopment without preparing for the additional need of Schools, the Fire Dept., Emergency Medical facilities, expansion of roads is thwarted before you start. Are you going to restrict development on these pieces of property of a manageable number of homes per acre? Or, once again permit the sprawl that we have been plagued with for the past seven years. Before any more property is designated for sprawl complete the restructuring of the Comprehensive Plan. Try to listen to the residents of Lake County who registered their desire to stop sprawl at the Planning Meetings on the restructuring of the Comprehensive Plan held by the County last Fall.

I completed your survey, and appreciate that you have established such a tool to allow the residents to communicate our concerns. However, I feel that all of these plans that the Lake County Govt., Commissioners and the City of Minneola have agreed to are heading on a course for a negative affect on our quality of life. I am not against growth because it is inevitable, but we need to control it.

Sullivan road is not the only access to the new high school site. If someone would take the time to actually come out and research this area, it would be apparent that it would be more cost effective if another route would be used. With the development of this new school there will be more traffic down our rural grove road which can be avoided by routing traffic down Grassy Lake, or off of 561A (road running north of Sullivan) to Grassy Lake. There is already a light at 27 and 561A. Can you imagine thousands of kids trying to get to school via bus or car down our road? It will be a traffic jam all the way back to 27, with the increase of more accidents on 27. The best solution would be to Cul-de-sac our road at Seminole Trail, which is right before the school property starts. There would still be enough room for emergency vehicles to turn around, etc. This would minimize the traffic on our road and we could continue to ride our horses and enjoy our rural life, and not worry about speeding cars, etc.

Now there is news that the City of Minneola wants to run a sewer line down our road. (I would like to know if Lake County has given them the authority to do so, since we are in unincorporated lake county and fall under county ordinances). There are residents that have private wells within 75 feet of the road. It seems to me that it would be very costly to have to jump from side to side on our road to run a sewer line? There are other alternate routes you can run the sewer line off from 27 besides our road, but it seems no ones has bothered to research this. I’m sure if this was affecting the City Manager of Minneola’s home, she would vote against it, as would any of the Commissioners.

When you log on to the Lake County Government’s website, their introduction to outsiders is a brief history of Clermont, and it describes the topographic landscape, agriculture, lakes, trails, etc. By building track homes that are basically on zero lot lines it is tarnishing the very reason we believe individuals want to come to Lake County. Instead of bringing in developers who want to put as many homes on a piece of land as possible, we need to establish “communities” where people will feel they are in another world, away from all the chaos of urban life. A place where they feel is their own private get away. By building homes ranging from $280,000 and up and on at least ¾ of an acre, we will not only bring more tax revenue in for the area for schools, roads, etc., we will be able to retain what brings people to unincorporated lake county in the first place. I, and my neighbors, will also be able to retain the value of our homes that we have worked so hard for.

I appreciate your time. We will do everything possible to ensure that our quiet rural life will not be overrun by urban sprawl. We need to keep some areas rural in Lake County and we want our area to be one of them.

Thank you.

My husband and I live on Marion County Road in Lake County and have lived here for 31 years. We bought our property wanting to be in the country. I had horses in the beginning and loved riding all through the countryside. There are still lots of horse farms and riders that are still trying to enjoy our area and it is getting harder to find safe places to ride because of growth and the increasing traffic. We want to keep the rural areas rural. We also need to preserve the greenbelt areas, and wildlife corridors, protect the aquifer and our wetlands, lakes and rivers. This is more important than we can even imagine. Please help us to accomplish this. Anything you can do will be appreciated by more people than you will ever know. Thank you so much for your help.

I would like to encourage you to consider keeping the portion of the New Comprehensive Plan covering our rural areas, specifically the Marion County Road properties, the same as the existing plan. We moved to this area specifically because of the protective nature of the current plan, realizing it limits expansion and protects both our environment and keeps our taxes low.

It is understandable that the County will grow; the question is how we will allow growth to proceed. Keeping rural areas protected actually provides the County with a greater ROI than adding housing. There is considerable data to support this position; however, simply looking at the major costs to the County, namely schooling, and the income the County makes from the "typical" single family house, there is clearly an imbalance. Acreage has little impact on County costs and does generate income vis a vis property taxes, hence a greater return to the County. Growth should be encouraged in areas where roads and facilities are nearby, and where negative impact on rural communities will be minimized. Growth of industry should include "green" industries to minimize impact on our environment while adding positively to the tax base.

Please consider these issues as you develop the New Plan.

Dear Mrs. King,

My husband and I moved to rural Lake Co. in Lady Lake 5 years ago. We loved the country nature of this area and have never cared for cities. Since then we have become increasing upset by the many housing developments in pristine areas. The continuing sprawl with the additional traffic problems, increased taxes, noise and pollution are not at all what we wish to see in rural Lake Co. These developments belong near higher density areas.

R 27\441 is a nightmare with the snowbirds now that the Villages has absorbed 3 counties. More of the same will only make everyone's lifestyle poorer!

We must be stewards of this precious land that we dwell upon. I believe we need to leave the area as natural as possible. We need the Green Belt. We must preserve the waterways, the wildlife, beautiful hills and ridges. We must not let development take priority. If we continue with how it is now, there will be nothing but rooftops, cars and crime. Please help with curbing the developers and the people that don't care.