A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

APRIL 27, 1993

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 27, 1993, at 6:00 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Finance Director; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MINUTES

Action regarding the Minutes of March 23, 1993 (Regular Meeting) was postponed until the Board Meeting of May 4, 1993.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Bonds - Contractor



Request for approval of the following Contractor Bonds - New and Cancellation:



New



4071-93 Arnoldo Zapatero d/b/a A & Z Air Cond. & Heating

4856-93 Scudder & Company, Inc. (General)

4894-93 Eddie Pinder d/b/a Pinder Masonry

5198-93 James E. Schott (Electrical)

5199-93 Ronald L. Bradbury Plumbing Co., Inc.

5200-93 Batterbee Roofing

5201-93 John C. Abner (Electrical)

5202-93 Richard J. Thomas d/b/a Thomas Plumbing

5203-93 Musselwhite Electric, Inc.

5204-93 Richard C. Bass (Plumbing)

5205-93 L B Electric, Inc.

5206-93 James R. Burwell d/b/a Burwell Electric

5207-93 Daniel M. Beard (Pool Service & Repairs)

5208-93 Tim D. Fox Construction, Inc. (General Residential)

5209-93 William L. Blackwelder (Electrical Sign)

5210-93 James R. Gysbers (Roofing)

5211-93 Ray's Construction & Roofing

5212-93 Harbin Heating & Air Conditioning



Cancellation



4978-92 Richard P. Kofke d/b/a Kofke Plumbing





Assessments/Municipalities/Subdivisions



Request for approval of Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for the following subdivisions:



Highland Lakes Subdivision



Marshall H. Gaard $ 250.67

Marshall H. Gaard 240.13

Marshall H. Gaard 235.23

Marshall H. Gaard 242.73



Mt. Plymouth Subdivision



Richard M. Haines 645.32



Astor Forest Campsites



Joseph L. Graves and Louise G. Parker 1,464.51

Peggy Bullinger 1,609.33

Marjorie Gendel, Life Estate and

Fred L. and Victor M. Gender 1,695.18

George J. and Victoria Boyte

c/o June Trepaso 1,056.29

Frank A. and Lorra Patterson 1,714.87

Duke Albert Gladden 1,196.89

J. Y. and Carolyn Monroe 1,338.41

Eldridge O. Simpson 729.40

Bobby L. and Colene Booth 1,523.11

Bobby L. and Colene Booth 1,523.11

Bobby L. and Colene Booth 1,523.11

William Grant Toms 1,705.64

John L. and Conni Eisentrout 1,709.07

John L. and Conni Eisentrout 1,411.15



Haines Creek Heights



Mark Daigneau 1,538.01



Mt. Plymouth II



Robert and Sandra Sellers 700.98



Ocala Forest Campsites



Laura Cathy Transue 1,290.39



Suburban Shores Subdivision



Carlos J. Rodriguez 1,588.49



St. Johns Waterfront Estates



Ansel N. and Marian Dreggors 1,300.16



Accounts Allowed



Request to acknowledge receipt of the list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Clerical Support Division of the Clerk's Office.



Utilities



Request to acknowledge receipt of a notice from the Florida Public Service Commission regarding cancellation by the Florida Public Service Commission of Certificate Nos. 519-W and 452-S, held by Sunbelt Utilities, Inc., in Sumter County, and amendment of Certificate Nos. 280-W and 227-S, to consolidate territory in Lake/Sumter Counties.



PUBLIC HEARING

LAWS & LEGISLATION/ORDINANCES

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that the State of Florida has adopted legislation which pre-empts the field of regulation of late night businesses and convenience stores, so there is no need for said legislation to continue in the County's Code, therefore, she requested that the existing ordinance be repealed.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1993-7, repealing Chapter 13, Late Night Businesses, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE VI, LAKE COUNTY CODE, SECTIONS 13-160, 13-161 AND 13-162, LATE-NIGHT BUSINESSES, STORES OR OPERATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

PUBLIC HEARING

BUILDING DEPARTMENT/CODE COMPLIANCE

LAWS & LEGISLATION/ORDINANCES

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that the ordinance updates the various technical codes that apply to Lake County. She requested that the following addition to the ordinance be approved: On Page 5, Line 6, insert 1993 Edition, after Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction, and noted that a number (No. 1993-75) would be assigned to the resolution alluded to on Page 5, Line 5, and inserted in the blank provided, before submittal to the State. She stated that said resolution pertains to provisions regarding fire prevention standards that were previously in this Code, which will go before the Board for adoption on May 4, 1993. She stated that said standards are being moved, to be associated with the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), noting that, when the LDRs were adopted, the County also approved a resolution which adopted Road Design Standards, Stormwater Management Standards, and Fire Standards.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1993-8, amending Chapter 6, Building and Construction, as amended, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6, LAKE COUNTY CODE, BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION; ARTICLE II, TECHNICAL CODES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6-21, ADOPTION, BY PROVIDING FOR REVISED BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE SAFETY CODES, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS THERETO; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6-22, AMENDMENTS, ETC., TO TECHNICAL CODES; PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

PUBLIC HEARING

LAWS & LEGISLATION/ORDINANCES/OUTDOOR RECREATION

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that the purpose of the ordinance was to authorize a grant program so that the Tourist Development Council can give grants to local entities; to authorize the use of the name Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau as a promotional name for the Lake County Tourist Development Council; and to clarify the fact that the Tourist Development Council is comprised of nine members, as required by State Statute - three in each category. She requested that the effective date of the ordinance be May 1, 1993.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson noted that the grants will be funded from monies raised by the bed tax in Lake County and that they will be for those activities within the County that actually promote tourism and the bed tax.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1993-9, amending Chapter 13, Tourist Development Tax, as amended, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ARTICLE III, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-47, USE OF FUNDS, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR A GRANT PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-48, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE NAME "LAKE COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU" FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES; PROVIDING CLARIFICATION THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CONSISTS OF NINE (9) MEMBERS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

PUBLIC HEARING

RESOLUTIONS/OUTDOOR RECREATION

The Chairman explained this request and opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution No. 1993-68, establishing the Lake County Tourist Development Council Tourism Grant Program, for the promotion of Lake County as a tourist destination, and authorized proper signatures on same.

PUBLIC HEARING

MUNICIPALITIES/RESOLUTIONS/STATE AGENCIES

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that the Board had previously adopted a resolution pertaining to the subject matter, however, the attached legal was incorrect. She stated that the resolution before the Board this date repeals the prior resolution, noting that staff had met with the applicants, in relation to the legal description, and the matter has been finalized, based on information provided to staff. She stated that certain replats of property have been deleted and that the legal only deals with Royal Trails Subdivision, Unit I. The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Keith Williamson, Chairman and member of the Board of Directors of the Bird Sanctuary Committee and Vice President of the Royal Trails Property Owners' Association, appeared before the Board stating that the Bird Sanctuary Committee had worked on this issue for some time. He stated that Royal Trails is a planned development, consisting of 35 homes, at present; however, hunting can legally take place within the subdivision, with no recourse from the homeowners. He discussed concerns that the homeowners have regarding same. He submitted (for the record) a map of the subdivision in question, indicating where the present 35 homes are located, as well as a map indicating the area where hunting is allowed. He stated that he had spoken with the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission and was told that the purpose of a bird sanctuary is to protect developed areas, which he noted his association is trying to do.

Ms. Rene Briggs, Treasurer of the Royal Trails Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Board stating that the Association is not objecting to hunting, if the hunters stay within Unit II, which she noted is the area that is leased and does not contain homes. She stated that, at the present time, the hunters do not stay in the section that is leased, they hunt within the subdivision.

Mr. Mack Godwin, President of the Blackwater and Yankee Lake Club Association, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request. He stated that his association has been leasing property in the area in question (which they patrol and maintain) for 18 years and that they pay a large amount of money to do so. He stated that his association tries to maintain a buffer of at least 600 feet from the paved roads in the subdivision. He agreed that there are some problems associated with hunting within the subdivision, such as poaching, illegal hunting, littering, etc., however, his association does not tolerate it and is trying to deal with it. He stated that the main problem deals with the paved road areas, at which time he noted that the roads which are shown on the plat that was submitted (for the record) are not paved roads. He stated that they are platted roads that have never been improved and are not maintained by the County. He stated that some of the roads that are listed in the legal do not yet exist. He distributed a map indicating the legal description of the property which his association leases for hunting, for the Board's review.

The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, noted that, based on information provided to her office, the Volchko and Kittredge properties (areas leased for hunting) were not included in the legal description of the map that Mr. Godwin distributed to the Board. She stated that staff prepared the legal outlining the area of the bird sanctuary (attached to the resolution as Exhibit A) based on information that was submitted to her office and noted that she would need to see the lease which Mr. Godwin alluded to, containing the legal description of the approximate 3,000 acres that his Association leases, as that property should be deleted from the legal attached to the resolution.

Ms. Doris Batch, a resident of the Royal Trails Subdivision, appeared before the Board stating that she was in favor of the resolution establishing a bird sanctuary in Royal Trails Subdivision, Unit I.

Mr. Williamson reappeared before the Board stating that the Royal Trails Homeowners' Association feels hunting should not be allowed in Royal Trails, Unit I; however, they had no choice but to accept it and the Association is now just trying to establish some boundaries between the homeowners and the hunters. He stated that he is not sure whether the Association can do anything, legally, at a later date; however, they have to move as quickly as possible on the resolution because it has to be submitted to the State by April 30, 1993.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the problem was with hunters belonging to the Blackwater and Yankee Lake Club Association, but with hunters coming into the area without leasing rights, therefore, requested Mr. Godwin to help the homeowners of Royal Trails in any way he could.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution No. 1993-69, requesting the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission to establish a bird sanctuary in Royal Trails Subdivision, Unit I, excluding the legals involving the Volchko and Kittredge leased properties, and authorized proper signatures on same.



PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 693 - LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICES

GROVELAND AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 693 (Resolution No. 1993-70), by Jim Stivender, Jr., on behalf of the Lake County Public Services Department, to vacate old alignment of O'Brien Road and South O'Brien Road, Sections 21 and 28, Township 21, Range 25, Groveland area, Commissioner District 2.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 711 - WILLIAM GOLDEN

LEESBURG AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.

It was noted that the petitioner was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 711 (Resolution No. 1993-71), by William Golden, President of Shangri-La by the Lake, represented by Springstead Engineering, Inc., to vacate drainage easement, Shangri-La Estates, Section 6, Township 19, Range 26, Leesburg area, Commissioner District 5.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 712 - RONALD MOSS - UMATILLA AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the portion of Umatilla Road that was being requested to be vacated was on the County's maintenance program, to which he was informed that it was.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ronald Moss, Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the portion of Umatilla Road that he is requesting be vacated has no bearing on anyone's ingress or egress, however, would change the north end of Umatilla Road, which could affect truck traffic.

Commr. Gerber questioned what Mr. Moss had planned for the property (30 acre tract) in question, if the vacation were approved, to which he responded that he planned to build one home on the site, noting that he had no plans to develop the property, as he is against any future development in Lake County.

Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Services, submitted (for the record) a letter from Golden Gem Growers, Inc. and a petition from adjacent property owners, in opposition to the request.

Mr. James Altman, the owner of a parcel of property contiguous to the property in question, appeared before the Board and submitted a letter and petition, in opposition to the request, noting the reasons for said opposition.

Mr. Adam Altman, a local resident who lives in the area of the property in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that there are four to five families that use Umatilla Road on a daily basis, going to and from work, that would be affected by the road being closed. He stated that the road has been in place for over 40 years, has been county maintained for over 20 years, and felt that it should remain as is.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there he felt the best part of Umatilla Road would be vacated, as far as the quality of the road is concerned, if this request were approved, therefore, would be opposed to it.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board denied Road Vacation Petition No. 712, by Ronald Moss, to vacate a portion of Umatilla Road, Dream Lake Poultry Ranches, Section 5, Township 18, Range 26, Umatilla area, Commissioner District 5.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 713 - PAUL ANDERSON

LADY LAKE AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 713, by Paul Anderson, President of Lady Lake Cemetery Association, to vacate portion of McClendon Street, Town of Lady Lake Plat, Section 20, Township 18, Range 24, Lady Lake area, Commissioner District 5.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 714 - BAY LAKE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH - GROVELAND AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 714, by Ray Kirkland, Pastor, Bay Lake Missionary Baptist Church, to vacate easement, Plat of Groveland Farms, Sections 15 and 16, Township 23, Range 24, Groveland area, Commissioner District 2.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 716 - DALE LADD - CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Commr. Bailey informed the Board that he had received a telephone call from Mr. Jason Stringfellow, stating that he was representing himself, as well as Mr. Judson Stringfellow, Ms. Vicki Keogh, Mr. Eric Hurttgam, Mr. Tom Felt, Mr. Gary Nelson, Cumberland Homes, the Waterford Development, and Mr. Richard Thacker, who were in opposition to the request, and were requesting a 30 day postponement, as they were not given proper notice of this hearing - no signs were posted and they were not properly notified.

Commr. Bailey noted a concern he had as to whether staff had given ample notification. He stated, however, that if the opposition had anything to do with land use, or the types of homes proposed for the area, that was something that would be addressed during the process that the applicant would have to go through.

Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Services, stated that his office had mailed out over 40 registered letters and had received return receipts on all but three, which he noted were returned as undeliverable, for various reasons.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that the issue is whether or not the vacation effects access of any adjacent property owners.

Commr. Bailey questioned whether it would, to which Mr. Stivender replied that it would not.

Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Services, stated that another concern adjacent property owners have is the issue of rights-of-way; however, he noted that the State governs that issue and it will be dealt with by the State.

Further discussion occurred regarding the issue of access, at which time Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Services, noted that there is a county road on the north side of the property in question, a plat on the south side, a lake on the west side, and a county road on the east side; therefore, no other property owner is involved.

Mr. Dale Ladd, Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that he is developing the property in question and has already constructed $5,000 worth of roads in the development. He stated that he has gone through the preliminary plat process and is presently in the process of obtaining final plat approval. Upon being questioned about the roads, he noted that there was some confusion as to whether or not said roads existed; however, it was confirmed that they do.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 716, by Dale Ladd, to vacate tracts and rights-of-way, Map of Clermont Farms, Section 1, Township 23, Range 25, Clermont area, Commissioner District 2.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 7:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.



PETITION NO. 9-93-2 A TO AR SUABI RAMNARIAN

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this case.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Bonnie Roof, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. She stated that the applicant would like to go forward with the rezoning to AR (Agricultural Residential), in order to keep the property in question consistent with the AR zoning on the abutting properties to the southwest and east. She stated that the applicant would be interested in entering into a Developer's Agreement on said tracts, which she noted are Tracts 7, 8 and 13, with a stipulation that, if they had a buyer of one of the five acre tracts and wanted to do a family lot split, that they would be allowed to do so.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that the agricultural zoning is consistent, but, by changing the zoning to AR, the Board would be issuing a Development Order that is inconsistent with the land use designation on the property.

Ms. Roof stated that she had spoken with staff and was told that, with a Developer's Agreement, it would be acceptable to rezone the property to AR, noting that the Board had approved such cases in the past.

Commr. Swartz stated that the difference between this case and the cases that Ms. Roof alluded to was that the density that was requested in those cases was compatible with the land use map, however, this request is not. He questioned whether the County should even be accepting rezoning requests in the suburban areas, when staff knows that they do not meet the timeliness criteria. He questioned how staff intended to keep track of those cases where a rezoning is involved and the applicant cannot pull a building permit, to which Mr. Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, replied that it would be very difficult to do so.

Ms. Roof stated that, if the Board did not intend to approve the request, the applicant would like a refund on his filing fee, as he had gone forward in good faith and, due to the land use map being changed, it is no longer possible for him to go forward with his initial plans.

A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue, at which time it was noted that the request was consistent with the land use map as of January, 1993. It was noted that the Board voted to change the map a week before this case was scheduled to be heard.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Bailey stated a concern he had that the timeliness criteria was not going to allow any kind of development and hoped that, somehow, the Board would readdress the issue, with a common sense approach, and request a change in the policy.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff be directed to review this case and come back with a recommendation of whether or not this filing fee, or any other filing fee, should be refunded.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), to create 2-1/2 acre residential parcels, and requested staff to look at individual cases, for possible refunds, if they so merit, and come back to the Board with a recommendation regarding same.

PETITION NO. 14-93-5 A TO C-2 LULA MAE GRIFFIN

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this case, and suggested that the Board might want to rezone the property to CP (Planned Commercial), with uses that are compatible with a rural village designation.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. John Hudish, representing the applicant (his mother-in-law) appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. He stated that he did not understand staff recommending a CP zoning, because the surrounding properties are zoned C-2, and he did not know whether it would be beneficial to his mother-in-law to agree to a CP or a C-2 zoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that, what is in existence now, that was not in existence when the previous rezonings were done, is that the area in question has been designated a rural village and there are policies within the Comprehensive Plan that require a rural village commercial to meet certain criteria. He stated that he felt, since there is no specific use provided for said area, at the present time, it would be difficult for the Board to zone it for anything other than CP, with a use that is consistent with a rural village. Otherwise, the applicant would have to wait until she has a use for said property.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, stated that staff was recommending that said property be zoned CP (Planned Commercial) with community commercial type uses (general retail only), to be consistent with the rural village designation. He stated that the applicant would then have to do a site plan or go before the Technical Review Committee.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CP (Planned Commercial), with uses consistent with a rural village, for future commercial uses.



PETITION NO. 181A-88-4 AMENDMENT TO CP ORD. NO. 106-88

LOUISE V. LIVINGSTON, TRUST

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request, stating that staff requested that additional rights-of-way be provided.

Commr. Swartz referred to a letter which the Board had received from the City of Eustis, concerning a requirement for landscaping and buffering, and questioned whether it had been done, to which Mr. Stubbs responded that the applicant had initially put in landscaping and buffering, however, overflow runoff from adjacent properties had drowned or washed away most of it. He stated that the applicant had a disagreement with the City of Eustis, over its stormwater management program, at which time he donated land for said purpose, in order to keep his landscaping alive and intact.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether the applicant had any type of disposal system in place, to which Mr. Stubbs responded that when the applicant comes before the County for site plan review, he will have to meet Environmental Management requirements, regarding same.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. James Livingston, Trustee for the Louise Livingston Trust, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. He stated that the property in question is located directly behind Stoler Chemical, in Eustis, and has met every condition set forth by the previous Board of County Commissioners. He stated that there would be no bus conversions on the property in question, as his liability insurance will not allow it. He stated that the buses (approximately 5 to 6 per year) will only be stored on the property, for later conversion to RVs, at a separate location. He noted that additional landscaping would be put in along Clay Boulevard, after the stormwater problem with the City of Eustis is solved.

Upon being questioned as to how people will access the rear parcel, Mr. Livingston stated that they would access it from Pine Grove Way.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant had been requested to put in additional buffering on the north and west sides of the property in question.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for amendment to CP Ordinance No. 106-88, to add a taxidermy business and bus storage (with no conversions allowed) to the existing land uses under the approved CP Ordinance No. 106-88, with necessary landscaping and access.

PETITION NO. 11-93-3 R-6 TO CP W/C-1 & C-2 USES

MARGARET E. DOWIS, REPRESENTATIVE/ATTORNEY

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

Commr. Swartz stated he would assume that this case, because of the nature of the development (which is non-existent) and the fact that it is across the road from what has been a frontage road, would require installation of a portion of a frontage road, to later be connected to frontage roads on the front side of the property, to which Mr. Stubbs reaffirmed that it would.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, interjected that the requirements necessary for the property to be in compliance with Access Management would be the dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way and the installation of a frontage road, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that the applicant may not be left with enough land to be able to do so, as the property in question is rather small (1/2 acre).

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Frank Ellis, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Ellis would have a problem with the rezoning, if the Board rezoned the property in question to CP, but with the uses that are consistent with the City of Eustis' MCI (Mixed Commercial Industrial) designation, noting that said designation provides for the development of light manufacturing, distribution, corporate office, and related commercial and industrial facilities, in select high profile locations and in well-planned environments, however, does not allow shopping centers, automotive-oriented commercial uses, freestanding retailers, and the like, to which Mr. Ellis responded that the owner of a landscaping business in Eustis, known as The Yard Stop, wishes to enter into a contract with him, subject to the outcome of this meeting, to put his landscaping business on the site.

Mr. Ellis further stated that the property in question is a small parcel that would become the size of a lot, if a portion of it is chopped off for a frontage road, to which Commr. Swartz responded that the only alternative Mr. Ellis would have would be to meet with surrounding land owners and see if they would want to work with him in providing a connecting road that would run behind the business, rather than a frontage road, noting that the Access Management requirement will have to be met.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, upon being questioned by Commr. Hanson regarding the matter, noted various ways in which Mr. Ellis could meet the Access Management requirement of a 50 foot right-of-way dedication and installation of a future frontage road.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) & C-2 (Community Commercial) uses that are consistent with the City of Eustis' MCI (Mixed Commercial Industrial) designation, for future commercial uses.

PETITION CUP NO. 93/3/1-2 CUP IN A C. AGNEW THOMPSON

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Albert Thompson, brother of the applicant, representing same, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Upon being questioned as to what type of agricultural activity is presently on the site, he responded that it is a citrus grove. He also noted that the caretaker's residence will not be permanent - only temporary, while some maintenance problems are corrected.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for CUP in A (Agricultural), for the placement of a mobile home, for a caretaker's residence, to be located behind the house on the site.

PETITION NO. 16-93-2 R-1 TO R-3 PREBEN AND DARLA M. OLESEN

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commissioner and approved a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for the development of single-family residences.

PETITION NO. 12-93-2 A TO R-1 LARRY BAIR

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request. He stated that staff recommended denial of the R-1 (Rural Residential) request and that the property be zoned to AR (Agricultural Residential), however, noted that, if the Board rezoned the property to AR, as recommended, although it is consistent with suburban, the timeliness criteria will not allow the applicant to obtain a building permit, for an additional residence to be constructed on the site, until the surrounding area develops to the proper density.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board, by their actions this date, would be giving direction to staff, either explicitly or implicitly, and he felt that when an individual comes to the County with a case such as this one, that staff needs to inform them that it does not meet the timeliness criteria. He stated that he feels the County is going to be creating administrative nightmares, if it starts approving rezoning requests that one cannot pull building permits on.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, due to the circumstances involved, the County should consider refunding the applicant's filing fee.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Rural Residential), to divide a parcel of property, for the purpose of constructing one (1) additional single-family residence, with direction that staff review the case and come back to the Board with a recommendation concerning whether or not to refund the filing fee.

PETITION NO. 45A-81-1 AMENDMENT TO CP ORD. NO. 12-83

GARRETT AND FLORENCE BRILL

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to CP Ordinance No. 12-83, rezoning to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses, to delete locksmith use and add uses which are consistent with the type of commercial uses presently located in the area in question.

PETITION NO. 15-93-3 R-1-15 & R-1 TO A

L. CHRISTOPHER BLANTON

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the applicant had met with adjacent property owners and that letters from same had been submitted (for the record) supporting the request.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1-15 (Residential Estates) and R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agricultural), to add said property to existing agricultural property, for agricultural related use.

PETITION CUP NO. 87A/2/3-1 AMENDMENT TO CUP NO. 87A/2/3-1

J. F. AND DURA WILLIAMS

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to CUP No. 87/2/3-1, to sell firewood, recycle wood for use as mulch/firewood, and to allow burning to sterilize seed beds.

PETITION CUP NO. 87A/3/1-1 AMENDMENT TO CUP NO. 87/3/1-1

CARL A. WHITE

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that Mr. and Mrs. Worthy Law (in opposition to the request) were concerned that there were going to be 50 additional cages added to the CUP, because the notice that was mailed to the public, concerning the matter, did not make it clear that there was no CUP for an aviary, at the present time. He stated that he had met with Mr. and Mrs. Law and explained that the applicant was taking the existing facility and putting it under a CUP, but with a substantial amount of protection to them. He also stated that the applicant had reviewed the CUP and accepted the conditions associated with it.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to CUP No. 87/3/1-1, with conditions as stipulated, to add a 50 cage aviary, for breeding exotic birds, to the existing use of wholesale birdseed.

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 8:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

PETITION NO. 65-92-3 A TO PUD & VARIANCE OF SECTION 9.04.03(3) OF LDRS WILLIAM SCHROEDER/ST. JOHN RESERVE-PUD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request, noting that it had been postponed for over six months.

It was noted that this project complies with the current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) contained in the Comprehensive Plan and that the utilities for the project will be coming from the Crows Bluff development.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and requested that Mr. Greg Beliveau, Mr. Tim Green, Mr. Steve Adams (The Land Planning Group, Inc.), Mr. Ted Pope (East Lake Utilities), Mr. Paul Bouldin (Developer), and Mr. Bob Lochrane (Lochrane Engineering - Orlando) be sworn in.

The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, requested that Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, be sworn in, as well.

At this time, the seven gentlemen noted above were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, asked that a request for variances, on Page 14 of the proposed PUD, be withdrawn, based on the changes in the LDRs and the fact the County's policies now allow the Engineering Department to deal with rights-of-way. He requested that Mr. Beliveau give an overview of the proposed project, review the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs, and provide specific detail on how the project in question was developed, under the past and present Comprehensive Plan, as it pertains to rural villages.

Mr. Beliveau appeared before the Board and reviewed an aerial map and plat showing the location and size of the proposed project (St. Johns Reserve), within the rural village known as Crows Bluff, which he noted consists of approximately 1,000 acres. He submitted (for the record) the following exhibits, on behalf of the applicant: Exhibit A (Evaluation of Compliance with Lake County Comprehensive Plan: St. Johns Reserve and Crows Bluff PUD - Rural Village) and Exhibits B, C and D (aerial maps of the project in question).

Mr. Beliveau stated that the County's Comprehensive Plan has some inconsistencies in its definition of "per acre" and "gross acre", at which time he reviewed Exhibit A (Evaluation of Compliance with Lake County Comprehensive Plan), noting that, under Policy 1-11.4: Designation of Rural Villages, it states that development within designated rural villages shall not exceed two dwelling units per acre, however, does not have a qualifier as to what is defined as "per acre". He stated that, with the way it is written, the St. Johns Reserve project could contain 310 units. He stated, however, that the County has other policies which define it as "gross acres", which he noted does have a definition. He stated that, in researching, they found that the LDRs gave them two options: two units per acre in the uplands and one unit per five acres in the wetlands; however, if the project has central water, it allows three units per acre in the uplands and one unit per five acres in the wetlands. He stated that they did the project with 205 units, which he noted is below the 234 units allowed in the LDRs and below the number allowed under the two units per acre, as defined in Policy 1-11.4: Designation of Rural Villages.

Mr. Beliveau stated that, during the review process for this development, there was discussion with staff concerning density and commercial districts. He stated that in Policy 1-11.4, alluded to above, it stipulates a 50,000 square foot maximum commercial authorization. He stated that they questioned staff as to whether this meant 50,000 square feet per PUD application, or 50,000 square feet for the entire rural village, and were told that it meant 50,000 square feet for the entire rural village; therefore, they came to the conclusion that the two units per acre, noted in the policy, would be for the entire rural village. He stated that, if that were the case, it would mean that the Crows Bluff rural village could contain over 1,764 dwelling units.

Mr. Beliveau stated that, due to the fact that they are allowed to trade commercial back and forth between PUDs, they questioned staff as to whether they could also transfer density and were told that they could; therefore, the project in question has 162 stand alone dwelling units and 43 units coming from the Crows Bluff PUD, across the street, for a total of 205 units. He stated that, if it would make the Board feel more comfortable, they would be willing to have an option in the PUD that would state, if the project is approved, that the maximum density allowed for the project would be 162 units and, once the Crows Bluff PUD is approved, they will transfer 43 units from it, to accommodate the St. Johns Reserve PUD's entry of 205 units.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board was not reviewing the Crows Bluff PUD, they were reviewing the St. Johns Reserve PUD, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding the two projects and how they are tied together by the issues of traffic capacity and utilities.

Commr. Swartz then questioned why the two projects were not being reviewed together, noting that if they are tied together, as indicated by Mr. Beliveau, they should be reviewed together.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, interjected that there is a possibility that the Crows Bluff PUD may not be approved, and, if it is not, then nothing will be transferred. He stated that the St. Johns Reserve project can stand on its on, as it meets all the criteria of a rural village and all the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, feels that it deserves to be approved, or at least considered, by the Board. He stated that they were simply trying to show what the overall umbrella of the rural village allows and what they are proposing for the project.

Mr. Beliveau then discussed the following public services and how the St. Johns Reserve PUD has complied with each: Roadways, Recreation, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, Fire, Police/Sheriff, and Emergency Services. He stated that potable water and sanitary sewer will be provided by East Lake Utilities, or another central provider, noting that an agreement had been submitted to the County's Environmental Management division for the development of a private partnership, to provide a subregional/regional utility system for the area.

Mr. Beliveau stated that they are also providing an MSTU/MSBU for fire, police/sheriff, and emergency services. He stated that the development does not have any level of service deficiencies on either services or infrastructure. He then discussed Item B, in Policy 1-11.13: Performance Criteria within Rural Villages; Item B., in Policy 1-11.15: Commercial Uses within Rural Villages; Items 1, 2 and 3, in Policy 1-11A.1: Standards for Nonresidential Development in Rural Villages; and Items 1 through 7, in

Policy 1-11A.2: Criteria for Approving Development in Rural Villages. He stated that the development also complies with Lake County's Conservation Element, which deals with dwelling designations and buffers around the wetlands.

At this time, Mr. Richey, Attorney, submitted (for the record), on behalf of the applicant, Exhibit E (handout concerning new language for MSTUs and MSBUs), noting that it states that, prior to final platting, the County and developer will provide for the creation of an MSTU/MSBU, to provide for the operation and maintenance of common areas, common recreational facilities, street lighting, and other common facilities, and, in addition, provide for the proportionate share of the development's costs for fire, EMS, and Sheriff's services. He stated that, to his knowledge, a development has never been required to provide an MSTU/MSBU for fire, EMS, and Sheriff's services and that they feel like said requirement deals with this particular project carrying its fair share costs. He stated that, in talking with the Sheriff's Department, they do not know what said costs will be until they actually generate some trips to the development, however, the applicant feels that he is in a position to deal with it.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, requested Mr. Steve Adams, Principal Biologist, Land Planning Group, Inc., to appear before the Board and discuss environmental protection issues, concerning the project in question. Mr. Adams presented (for the record), on behalf of the applicant, Exhibit F (Preliminary Plan of St. Johns Reserve), which he reviewed with the Board, indicating the location and the number of acres of wetlands on the site, which he noted had been verified with the regulatory agencies. He also discussed the upland area, buffers, and water retention areas, at which time he answered questions from the Board regarding same.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, requested Mr. Tim Green, Landscape Architect, Land Planning Group, Inc., to appear before the Board and discuss the landscaping for the St. Johns Reserve project. Mr. Green reviewed the Preliminary Plan which was on display, at which time he discussed the Department of Transportation's impacts to the site and answered questions from the Board regarding the development.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, pointed out sections of the PUD that he felt should be addressed by the Board, being:

On Page 3, Paragraph B. Commercial - It needs to have a provision that states that commercial shall be limited to 5,000 square feet, for Phase I.

On Page 6, Paragraph III - Open Space and Buffer Requirements (B) - It requires a 50 foot native upland buffer adjacent to the riverain wetlands system and a 15 foot native upland buffer adjacent to the isolated wetlands system; however, on Page 7, Paragraph B. Wetlands (3), the 15 foot native upland buffer language has been left out and needs to be inserted.

On Page 12, Paragraph VI - Transportation Improvements (2) (a) - The paragraph should state that CR 42 will be realigned and the entrance to the development shall realign with the proposed intersection of CR 42 and SR 44 and the language pertaining to the 1,800 feet should be deleted.

On Page 14, Paragraph X - Public Services Department Comments - Engineering - The language contained in Paragraphs a, b, and c duplicates language contained in Paragraph VI - Transportation Improvements, on Page 12, therefore, needs to be deleted.

On Page 9, Paragraph 8 - The language referring to 10% and 90% of wetlands is language that was contained in the old Code and has been done away with, therefore, should be deleted. He stated that the language needs to comply with the new Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as they exist.

Commr. Swartz interjected that the language needs to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that he did not feel the LDRs for that area were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the commercial area and the fact that it will be internalized, with residential being along the road, at which time it was noted that the developer is going to berm the property.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Gerber submitted (for the record), as County Exhibit A, a trip generation calculation chart for a development the size of the one in question (a 205 unit occupied mobile home park), which she reviewed with the Board, noting that her concern is that the amount of commercial that is being allowed for the development is not going to service the people that will be living in the development. She stated that she had discussed the matter with the Volusia County Planning Department, to get an idea about the level of service on SR 44, going into Volusia County, and was informed that the maximum capacity that they are going to do, at Level C, is 8,600 vehicles. She noted that the calculations were figured for two way volume, for an average workday, as well as Saturday and Sunday. She stated that there are already problems with traffic on SR 44 being slow and vehicles having difficulty passing one another, due to the road only having two lanes, and that she has a problem with feeding Volusia County as much traffic as the calculations indicate, coming from Lake County.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, noted a concern that he had that the traffic engineer who compiled the figures contained in the calculations was not present for cross-examination, in order to understand the basis and validity of the figures which were compiled. He felt that said information should be given limited credibility.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the handout.

Mr. Mark Knight, Principal Planner, Planning Department, appeared before the Board and discussed a review that was done in regard to transportation concurrency. Mr. Knight stated that staff did not do a full concurrency review because it was not requested, however, staff did do some preliminary traffic analysis and placed a level of service on it that they felt would be able to support that type of development, being Level B.

Commr. Swartz stated how he felt about the concept of a rural village and how it is defined in the Comprehensive Plan, noting that, when the Board developed the language in the Comprehensive Plan and, thus, the LDRs, it was based on rural villages around existing small communities in the County. He stated that this project deals with a totally different rural village, that was not contemplated at the time that said language was being developed. He stated that he does not oppose development within a rural village that he feels will be consistent with what the concept of a rural village is, at which time he read into the Minutes the interpretation of "residential density", as it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, where he takes the greatest exception to the project in question is, the County cramming 5,000 square foot lots into one area. He stated that a rural village was contemplated as a rural village with 1/2 acre lots.

Commr. Hanson stated that she has a different concept of a rural village than the concept that Commr. Swartz has, noting that, when the Board first went to a presentation that DCA put on regarding alternatives for the villages to be put in rural areas, the concept was a highly dense village, not 1/2 acre or one acre lots, but highly dense, where one could have a large grouping of people in a small area and the rest of the area would still be used for agriculture. She stated that she does not believe 5,000 square feet is unreasonable, because of the central sewer system, and feels that the advantage of having a PUD, rather than straight zoning, is to be able to achieve the higher density. She stated that when one talks about breaking down the different designations, one of the incentives to go with a PUD, is that there is a lot more regulation than there would be with straight zoning. Regarding the issue of internalizing commercial, she stated that she did not have a problem with internalizing it, however, feels that, if the County makes it too internal, they will not be accommodating the rest of the rural village.

Further discussion occurred regarding the project, at which time several of the commissioners noted concerns they had with it.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and variance of Section 9.04.03(3) of the Land Development Regulations, as requested by the applicant, for construction of manufactured homes (162 units, with the possibility of transferring 42 units, if and when the Crows Bluff development is approved), commercial site, lodge, clubhouse/restaurant, recreational amenities and utilities, with the inclusion of a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU), the recommendation by Commr. Cadwell that the commercial area be internalized, and corrections in various sections of the PUD noted by Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant.

Under discussion Commr. Swartz pointed out an inconsistency in the language contained in Paragraph IV - Street Lights, Sidewalks and Bicycle Pathway Requirements, on Page 11 of the PUD, with the language contained in the section on PARKS AND RECREATION, on Page 15. It was clarified that the County would abide by the LDRs; therefore, the language that is inconsistent in Paragraph IV, on Page 11, would be struck. He then referred to the section in the Comprehensive Plan where it indicates the maximum number of lots (250) that can be platted in the course of a year and the number of building permits (200) that can be issued, noting that, if the 205 lots that will be platted in this development are approved, the County will have used up all but 45 of the allowable lots, for a rural village, in one year.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.

Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".

PETITION NO. 82-92-2 A TO PUD KARST INC.

C/O TITAN PROPERTIES, INC.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bob Whidden, Rj Whidden and Associates, Inc. (planners for this project), representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and submitted (for the record) Exhibit A (a booklet pertaining to the Karst development). He stated that they concurred with staff's recommendation, however, a few more adjustments needed to be made, due to the fact they were stalled in the process while the Comprehensive Plan was being dealt with by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated that it gave his firm an opportunity to do some homework; therefore, they changed the project somewhat from what was originally proposed. He stated that some of the statistics from the original staff report managed to linger in this report, at which time he noted the following corrections:

On Page 8 of the staff's report, under Phase 4, the language should state Up to a 10,000 square foot commercial building rather than A 5,000 square foot commercial building, and that in Paragraph 2, on the same page, the word unit should be changed to lot and the word detached should be deleted.

On Page 9, under Paragraph III - Open Space/Buffer Requirements, Paragraph 1, the wording approximately 42% should be deleted and the wording at least 40% be inserted. In the following sentence, the wording 35% (0.8 acres) should be deleted and the wording 40% (0.4 acres) should be inserted. In Paragraph 2, on the same page, the wording A 4.9 acre should be deleted and the following language inserted: Open space shall buffer residential development , as shown on the plan.

Mr. Whidden stated that, other than the changes he alluded to, the applicant concurs with all the conditions.

The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, clarified the fact that the ridge limits commercial development to 5,000 square feet.

There being no one present in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the same language that was included in the previous PUD, concerning the issue of an MSTU/MSBU, be inserted in Paragraph VII, on Page 10, of the staff's report, so that the Board can look at whether or not there are any additional costs for services, noting that the nearest fire station to this development is outside the 12 minute response time and that the closest Sheriff's substation is in Clermont.

The County Attorney clarified the language that would be inserted.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), as amended, as noted, for the development of a residential PUD (Planned Unit Development).

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

APPEAL OF VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION/STONEBRIDGE

Due to the late hour, Commr. Swartz questioned the attorney representing the applicant, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, as to whether her client would be willing to postpone this case until a later date.

Ms. Bonifay responded that, due to the time constraints that this Board has enacted, and due to the way that land use plan amendments and other issues are being handled, that, even though her client feels that the late hour may prejudice the case, he feels that he has no other option but to go forward.

The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, interjected that the Board has the ability to ask for a continuance, which she noted is provided for in the quasi-judicial rules.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, stated that one of the recommendations she has received repeatedly from the County Manager and staff is that one of her alternatives would be to seek a land use plan amendment, however, since this Board would not meet again until the end of May, her client would once again be put in a position to where he would have two or three days to try to file a land use plan amendment, if he chose to do so. She stated that, since the applicant has been caught in this situation repeatedly, he feels that he needs to move ahead, or he will be pushed back to January of 1994.

Commr. Swartz questioned what the schedule was for land use plan amendments, in the next phase, to which he was informed that the deadline date for filing same would be Friday, June 4, 1993, noting that there is a six month window which closes on that date.

Commr. Swartz questioned the fact that, if the applicant chose to postpone this case, this date, and continue it, in order to have the full advantage of staff's overview, whether the Board had latitude to provide additional time for the filing of an amendment, to which the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, interjected that the Board had adopted a schedule and a resolution pertaining to same and that they had the ability to amend it.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in order to provide the applicant with the ability to file a land use plan amendment, with an extension of time, that should this case be postponed and the outcome be such that the applicant would need to file an amendment, whether the Board would be receptive to doing so, to which they responded that they would.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that the time frame for this particular hearing is not set by statute, so the hearing on vested rights determination could be heard before the next zoning meeting, which she noted is scheduled for May 25, 1993.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in order to preserve the applicant's rights and not prejudice the case, the Board would be willing to postpone the case to a date prior to the rezoning meeting scheduled for May 25, 1993, and to provide the applicant with additional time to file a land use plan amendment, should that be his desire.

After speaking briefly with the applicant, Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, indicated that her client would like to set the postponement to a date certain, so that they would know where they are, in terms of a land use plan amendment.

Commr. Swartz requested staff to do whatever is necessary to amend the resolution and that, since there would be a delay of two or three weeks, from this date, requested the Board to allow additional time for the applicant to apply for a land use plan amendment, consistent with the delay.

It was clarified that the vested rights determination would be made at the Board Meeting scheduled for May 18, 1993, and that that time frame would be added to the June 4, 1993 deadline date for filing a land use plan amendment.

Further discussion occurred regarding the case.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reschedule and readvertise Item No. 14 (Appeal of Vested Rights Determination/Stonebridge), on the Rezoning Agenda, to a time certain of 3:30 p.m., on May 18, 1993.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to continue Item No. 15 (Case No. 13-93-2/3 - Stonebridge Country Club/J. Eggebrecht Development & W. Jobbins), on the Rezoning Agenda, to the Board Meeting scheduled for May 25, 1993, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S AGENDA

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

It was noted that action regarding Addendum No. 1, County Manager's Agenda, would be postponed until the Board Meeting of

May 4, 1993.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

LAWS & LEGISLATION/ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/PLANNING/ZONING

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, brought the Board up-to-date concerning two items, in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. First, she informed the Board that the County was required to file a status report by April 15, 1993, which she noted the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) did, advising the Administrative Hearing Officer that the County had adopted the remedial amendment and that staff had requested a continuance for the next status report, which she noted was granted and is due July 20, 1993. She stated that the Administrative Hearing process continues to be in abeyance, at the present time.

Secondly, she stated that the Board had been given a copy of the Statement of Intent to Find the Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance and noted that DCA raised three (3) issues, in relation to the County's amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, implementing a settlement agreement, noting that one dealt with the 1320 Rule; the second dealt with language that had been introductory in the County's Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Exhibit B, which indicated that only the densities in the Green Swamp would be permitted and that they could not be altered, noting that all additional requirements of the Comprehensive Plan would apply, as well; and the third dealt with language in relation to stormwater management.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she had been in touch with DCA and that a tentative conference call had been scheduled for Monday, May 3, 1993, which she noted would include all the intervenors. She stated that there are several options available on how to proceed, at this point in time. She stated that, since there were only three issues raised, staff could proceed and attempt to negotiate those issues and come to some resolution, but, noted that the major issue is the 1320 Rule. She stated that part of DCA's concern were the conditions that were discussed and read into the Minutes at the Board Meeting of April 20, 1993, in relation to common ownership and the effective date of the ordinance enacting the amendments of the adjacency issue. She stated that they also raised an issue of not permitting commercial uses to intrude.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that staff could address the issue of the language regarding the 1320 Rule with DCA and see if they can come to some accommodation. She stated that a second option would be to delete the 1320 Rule and deal with it as an amendment in the next amendment process, which she noted would have resolution in relation to the rest of the Settlement Agreement. She stated that a third option would be to go to an Administrative Hearing on the new Notice of Intent Not to Find the Comprehensive Plan in Compliance, however, would advise against doing so, as she feels that negotiations are probably more appropriate in coming to a closure on this particular issue. She stated that, if the County is able to negotiate with DCA, the County will again have to adopt a Stipulated Settlement Agreement, which will amend the prior Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and the County will then have to amend its Comprehensive Plan to reflect whatever changes are included in that Stipulated Settlement Agreement. She requested direction from the Board as to how they would like for her to proceed with DCA.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt there had been some misunderstanding, on the part of the press, as to what actually happened in this case. She stated that the 1320 Rule was not something that was slipped into the Comprehensive Plan at the last minute, as was indicated by the press - it had been in the Comprehensive Plan all along. She stated that DCA's concern was that it not be in the Wekiva, in public land, or in the Green Swamp. She stated that the first two areas were already taken care of, so the concern was with the Green Swamp, and when the Board took away the designations that were in the Green Swamp, that took care of that concern, except for 13 landowners that were very close of surrounding the urban area in Clermont, so they could only transfer out of those areas and could only intrude from those areas. She stated that she felt some education needed to be done, on the part of the press, so that they understand exactly what has happened. She stated that DCA had no concern for this rule in the rest of the County - they only had a concern about the three areas that she alluded to. She stated that now, when the Board thought they had a final settlement, DCA has kicked up their heels again, and the Board is faced with another problem concerning the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and that she feels it is due, in part, to the perception that the press has given them about the Board.

Commr. Bailey concurred with Commr. Hanson in that he felt the press gave DCA the impression that the Board had slipped the 1320 Rule into the Comprehensive Plan, when they had not. He stated that the 1320 Rule was always in the Comprehensive Plan and that it concerned him that a lot of the counties in the State had the 1320 Rule in their Comprehensive Plans and it did not seem to be a problem with DCA, until the last minute.

Commr. Swartz stated that what the County did was change language so that it had the effect of changing what would be allowed in the Green Swamp.

Commr. Hanson interjected that the Board decreased the density in the Green Swamp, rather than increased it, and felt that the rest of the County should not be penalized, because of the 1320 Rule. She stated that, if it took putting those stipulations that were put in the Land Development Regulations into the Comprehensive Plan, she did not have a problem with doing so, however, noted that she did not feel the County should have to do it.

Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned whether the Board wanted to try to maintain the 1320 Rule, in some fashion, for the rest of the County, noting that there is no question that it is not allowed in the Wekiva or in the Green Swamp.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County Attorney felt the Board could work something out with DCA and still maintain the 1320 Rule in some parts of the County, to which she responded that she felt the matter was still negotiable, at this point in time; however, noted that DCA will want the County to address all three of the issues that they raised.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the Board should drop the 1320 Rule altogether and tell DCA to forget it. He stated that he would rather see the Board try to work something out, but he also did not want to spend more time and money in a futile attempt to bang heads with DCA.

The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, was directed to go ahead with the conference call scheduled for Monday, May 3, 1993, and see if she could accomplish any of the issues alluded to this date, at which time she stated that she would report back to the Board with her findings at the Board Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1993.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.



________________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/4-27-93/5-11-93/boardmin