The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, May 25, 1993, at 3:00 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, Chief Deputy, Finance & Audit Department; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

LANDFILLS

Commr. Swartz, Chairman, opened the meeting stating that the purpose of the meeting was to get a report from staff and the County's consultants, who had been requested to negotiate some additional conditions and considerations with the following three (3) haulers: Industrial Waste Service, Inc. (IWS)/AAA, South Lake Refuse Service, Inc., and Town & Country Refuse, a Division of Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, who the County has been negotiating with in order to find a way to reduce residential and commercial collection rates in the unincorporated areas of the County.

Ms. Diane Martin, Resource Development Group, appeared before the Board and gave a brief overview of negotiations that had taken place with the three haulers, the areas that the Board is looking at, and what additional considerations had been discussed since the Board last met.

Commr. Swartz informed those present what had transpired with the haulers, up to this point in time, noting that the Board had directed staff and the consultants to negotiate an arrangement with the haulers whereby they would be able to hold the rates that were given in the negotiations, which he noted were $8.25 per month, for collection and recycling.

Ms. Martin stated that there is a very fine balance in negotiations that has to be maintained between assumptions that were made when the rates were set, changes that have happened subsequent to that, and what the trade off is of assumptions versus dollars. As far as negotiations with the third hauler, Town & Country, is concerned, she stated that they requested to keep all of their existing commercial contracts, regardless of where they are located, in or outside their franchise area, for the term of that contract, and through any renewals that they were able to obtain, and that they wanted the petition or waiver process to be for any reason, period.

Ms. Martin stated that Town & Country was asked what rate change there would be, if the County stood with the terms and conditions that were presented, to which they responded that there would probably be an increase of $4.00 per month, over the negotiated rate. She stated that Town & Country was then asked, if the County persisted in saying that the rates would stay unchanged and the terms would be as presented, what their position would be and they responded that they had not been authorized to walk away from the contract negotiations, so they would probably sign the contract, but then file suit.

Commr. Bailey questioned whether residents could still go the competition route, if they were not happy with the level of service that their franchise hauler gave them, to which Ms. Martin replied that the franchise agreement has extremely high qualitative requirements, noting that there are hefty penalties, in some cases, for missed pickups, unfinished routes, etc. She stated that a big emphasis behind the franchise agreement is assuring that the residents receive the quality of service they deserve. She stated that the quality has got to be there, or the hauler is going to be fined, and the Board has an option to default the contract.

Commr. Bailey questioned the fact that where a mobile home community had a three year agreement whether that agreement would continue to be in effect for that three years, or whether there was anything that the Board could do to terminate that agreement, to which Ms. Martin responded that the franchise agreement sets only maximum rates and would not prevent any hauler from rewriting an existing contract at the same rate that it is currently written. She stated, for example, that if a hauler is doing the service for $100 a month and the new approved rate is $150 per month, there is nothing in the contract that states that the hauler cannot rewrite that contract for the balance of the three years, or for another three years, for the current rate, if he is a franchised hauler.

Commr. Bailey questioned the fact that if there is an existing contract whether the balance of the contract would be terminated, to which Ms. Lustgarten responded that it would depend upon the franchise area.

Commr. Bailey then questioned the fact that if the resident had the same franchise area, whether the contract would still be in existence, to which Ms. Lustgarten responded that that is something that would have to be worked out between the hauler and the customer.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that all the franchises come up for renewal October 1, 1993, so, at that time, the County will be starting a new relationship with the haulers and the haulers with their customers.

Mr. Basil Hart, South Lake Refuse, appeared before the Board stating that his firm is in agreement with the contract, as it was explained this date. He stated that they were originally concerned about the exemptions, however, their concerns have since been satisfied.

Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Hart regarding the fact that without any revision of the lines whether South Lake Refuse would be able to enter into a contract with the County that would hold the rate that they have given staff for residential and commercial collection, with a waiver provision, as described this date, to which Mr. Hart responded that they would.

Mr. Lewis Stone, Attorney, representing IWS/AAA, appeared before the Board stating that they were willing to sign the contract, under the terms that were discussed this date. He discussed the level of service question and IWS/AAA's understanding of same. He stated that there are very stringent requirements in the contract that will make every hauler a good hauler, noting that one does not get to be a bad hauler for very long and remain a contractor in Lake County. He stated that the contract is not exactly the way that they would wish it to be but that they would proceed on with it.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, Attorney, representing Town & Country, appeared before the Board stating that, when Ms. Martin pointed out that Town & Country responded to a question about what they would do to keep their rates, she left out the part that stated, effective October 1, 1993, their rates would change to the new county rates. He stated that, when they talked about keeping their contracts, they were not talking about keeping customers that were paying more, but just to keep the contractual relationship. He stated that another correction would be concerning the question by Commr. Bailey that if a commercial customer was not happy with their service whether they would be able to change, noting that the proposal before the Board this date does not allow that, however, Ms. Martin had answered that it did. He stated that Town & Country believes that they provide the best service in Lake County and they believe that that is the reason why they have built the customer base that they have, over the years, and what the County proposal does is confiscate that customer base from them.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposed choice for commercial customers and mobile home parks is no choice at all, as it requires the hauler to get a permit for each customer and requires each customer to, in writing, apply for an exemption. He stated that when the haulers compete, the contract does not make the terms of the competition equal, not only concerning the issue of last right of first refusal, but also concerning the fact that the haulers are not allowed to offer contracts longer than one year outside their franchise area.

Mr. Minkoff stated that all of the existing contracts and relationships are automatically canceled, as of October 1, 1993, and this proposal totally eliminates the right of commercial customers to choose their hauler on the basis of perceived quality and value that they are getting. Further, the proposal now includes entities that were always exempt, noting that, until a week ago, homeowners associations, cooperatives, condominiums, etc. were never a part of this agreement, however, now they are, which he noted means that three-fourths of the residential customers that the County is allocating in the map to Town & Country are subject to being taken out.

Mr. Minkoff stated they believe that the customer, particularly commercial customers, commercial residential, and those associations and homeowners groups that pay a single bill should have the right to choose which hauler they want, without administrative processes, petitions, and hearings and without supposedly having to specify exactly what it is, service wise, that they want. He stated that they feel Town & Country's customers are being confiscated to pay for the County's program.

Mr. Kyle Adams, Town & Country, appeared before the Board and responded to a question by Commr. Swartz concerning which customers (commercial or residential) Town & Country feels are being confiscated, as alluded to by Mr. Minkoff. He then discussed the fact that his company was requested to provide staff with a map delineating their service area, which he noted is countywide, and that said map had to be worked out with the other two haulers, which he feels has everything to gain and little to lose.

Commr. Hanson questioned Mr. Adams as to how he arrived at the $4.00 per month increase and the reason for said increase, to which he responded. She then questioned whether he would switch places with the other two haulers, to which he responded that he would still lose market share, which goes to support their overhead and all the other functions of their company, if he were to switch places with them. He stated that Town & Country does not object to the rules that they are to operate under, but noted that some customers have them as their hauler because of their style of collection.

Mr. Minkoff, Attorney, interjected that Town & Country is the only one with a complete choice, who gives the customer a low rate.

Commr. Swartz clarified the fact that Town & Country was saying that if they could not have total commercial, a total opted out provision, or $4.00 per month more for residential, regardless of any considerations, that they would not walk away from the table, but would sign the contract and then take the County to court, to which Mr. Adams responded, stating that they were being told that negotiations took place when there were no such negotiations. He stated that they were also told that they would be excluded from the process, if they did not accept what the consultant offered, and that the other two haulers would be awarded their service area.

Commr. Swartz stated the Board felt that, through negotiations, if they could not get commercial and residential franchise agreements that they felt provided rates for the consumers that were fair and proper, that they had always indicated that, as a final option, that they might go out to bid. He stated that it should not have been a total surprise to Mr. Adams that that would be a consideration.

Commr. Swartz questioned what Mr. Adams' position would be if the Board decided not to go to an open commercial market, or an opted out provision in the contract, to which Mr. Adams responded that he would be forced to enter into the agreement.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there had been talk about gains and losses and net impact, but what the Board had to look at was the fact that they were going to have to make a decision that was best for the residents of Lake County and that he feels 80% to 90% of the residents of Lake County are going to receive a lower garbage rate because of the negotiations.

Mr. Minkoff, Attorney, stated that the best deal on the table was the one that Town & Country had offered, not the one that the two haulers or the negotiators offered.

Mr. Larry Corman, an employee of Forester Haven at Lake Jem, appeared before the Board stating that his company has done business with Town & Country for approximately 15 years and they did not like the Board telling them which hauler to use. He questioned who was going to control the rates, once the contract was approved, to which Commr. Swartz responded, stating that the rates would be maximum rates and could only rise based on a Refuse Rate Index (RRI), which he noted is common within the industry, that looks at increases, and will only allow a rate to increase each year to the extent of that maximum rate.

Commr. Bailey questioned who was going to keep track of the rate index, to which he was informed that it would be staff.

Commr. Swartz stated that, at the present time, Lake County has a very large range, in terms of what people pay for disposal. He discussed phone calls that he had received from various individuals in the County indicating what they are paying for disposal, noting that it ranges from $1.00 per month to $7.30 per month. He stated that the Solid Waste Committee's recommendation was that each residential dwelling unit pay the same and that their best estimate, based on the total number of residential dwelling units and this year's solid waste disposal budget, is approximately $48.00 per year, or $4.00 per month. He stated that those people on the high side will save a little, those on the low side will have to pay a few dollars more, and some that are in the middle might see a difference, up or down, of $1.00.

Mr. Teddy Homjak, Operations Manager, Woodland Heritage Mobile Home Community, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the increase in the collection rate would be a yearly increase, to which he was informed that it would be. He stated that his company operates on a CPI (Consumer Price Index) and the solid waste collection is the only way that they can increase the rent of their residents. He stated that this was going to take away revenue, as far as his company is concerned, in operating their community.

Commr. Swartz stated that he had requested staff to come back to the Board at the next solid waste meeting with an evaluation of how the RRI compares with the CPI.

Ms. Martin interjected that the RRI usually tracks somewhat lower than the CPI, noting that that has been the case in seven out of the last ten years.

Mr. Homjak then briefly discussed the solid waste issue, noting that he feels it needs to be done.

Mr. Bob Newman, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that his concern was about the County's disposal fees. He stated that the whole garbage issue, since he has been following it, has been based on tonnage, or quantity of garbage, and he did not think that it was fair for him to be charged the same fee, for mobile homes in his park that sit empty most of the year, as he is charged for his house.

Commr. Swartz stated that the most misunderstood aspect of the disposal system in Lake County is the cost involved, noting that this year it has cost the County approximately $10 million, which is the cost of the incinerator, the cost of the landfill, the cost of closing the landfills, and the cost of the County's hazardous waste program and battery program. He stated that said cost does not include collection, it is the cost of the County dealing with the solid waste that arrives at its facilities. He stated that it does not matter how many tons the County has, the cost is still the same, $10 million.

Commr. Hanson stated that the proposal is to drop the cost down from $74 per year to $48, which is based on bringing everybody in and everybody paying the same amount.

Mr. Dick Negley, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he works for Aspen Enterprises, which owns and operates various mobile home and RV parks around the State of Florida. He stated that his company owns the Chain Of Lakes Mobile Home Park, on Lake Eustis, and that they are one of the few parks in Lake County that has their own garbage collection crew that picks up the garbage and transports it to the incinerator. He stated that there are 304 occupied homes in the park, some of which are occupied only during the summer and some only during the winter. He informed the Board how much garbage his park has delivered to the incinerator over the last twelve months, noting that it comes out to approximately 1/2 ton per home, over a 365 day period, which comes out to $28.46 per home in tipping fees.

Mr. Negley stated that his firm operates in 8 counties in the State of Florida and that Lake County is not doing too badly as far as the collection aspect of it is concerned. He stated that Lake County is giving the residents the right to competitive bid, but most counties will not, therefore, feels that the Board is handling that issue fairly. Concerning the issue of disposal, he feels that if the County charged $4 per month, per resident, in lieu of the tipping fee, it would cost the residents of his park an additional $18 per year, over what they paid last year. He distributed to the Board, for their review, a handout containing the figures which he compiled and discussed, regarding the collection issue.

Mr. L. G. Simpson, one of the owners of Riley's Mobile Home Park, appeared before the Board stating that he and his sister own the park and that they are presently paying $7,000 per year for collection, but, from the figures given this date, feels that they will be paying between $20-25,000 per year. He stated that his park contains 120 units, with an average rate of $90 per month. He noted that they presently utilize four dumpsters, which vary in size from the summer months to the winter months.

Commr. Swartz informed Mr. Simpson that he would not be paying $20-25,000 per year, as he had calculated. He stated that Mr. Simpson would be paying a per dumpster rate, based on the rates that the County has negotiated, or lower and that, of the rates that the County has reviewed, there are very few exceptions where the County has not negotiated a better dumpster rate than what the individual is presently paying.

A brief discussion occurred regarding whether or not Mr. Simpson would be able to keep his present hauler (Town & Country), at which time Mr. Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management Division, stated that Mr. Simpson could shop for a rate with any of the three haulers in the County, just as he presently can. However, staff is requesting that, once he obtains a rate that he feels is the best rate and the level of service that meets his needs, he return to the franchise hauler in his area, give them the rate that he obtained, and see if that hauler might want to meet or beat that rate.

Mr. Simpson's sister (Mrs. George Johnson) stated (from the audience) that she was very upset about having to change from Town & Country to another hauler.

Ms. Tina Herlong, representing the Lake Square Mall, appeared before the Board stating that it is important to her company to be allowed to do business with whom they want, when they want. She questioned whether she was going to have to negotiate with haulers every year for a better rate, or level of service, to which Commr. Swartz responded that that was an issue that would still have to be dealt with. He stated that it was the Board's intent to provide, annually, the ability to change haulers, if one wishes to, and if one wants to enter into a contract that is longer than one year, he feels that the County will find a way to provide for that.

Ms. Martin interjected that there are some administrative issues that she feels needs to be addressed.

Ms. Herlong then questioned the fact that if she keeps her present hauler (Town & Country) but, by some chance becomes dissatisfied with them because they are not meeting her company's needs, for whatever reason, or, they are working for a better deal, to try and cut costs for their tenants, whether she could, at that point, opt out and negotiate for a three or five year contract with someone else, to which the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, responded that it would depend on the contract.

Commr. Swartz stated that if Ms. Herlong decided to seek bids, or negotiate with the other two haulers, and they gave her a price that was better than what she had with Town & Country, she would have to give them the opportunity to match that better price and level of service and, if Town & Country matched them, she would have to stay with them, however, if they did not match them, she would be able to switch to another franchise hauler.

Mr. Jim Cinelli, representing Tomoka Recycling, Ormond Beach, a family owned business, appeared before the Board stating that they have worked in the general vicinity of Volusia, Flagler, and Putnam counties for the past 14 years. He stated that approximately one and a half years ago his family acquired a license to operate in Lake County and questioned where they now stand, with all the changes that have taken place. He questioned why they were totally eliminated from all the negotiations, to which Commr. Swartz responded that the decision of the Board was to negotiate with the haulers who met certain criteria, one being that they currently provide residential and commercial collection. He stated that his present position would be what the Board finally determines, but if they proceed with the arrangement whereby they have exclusive franchise areas for residential and commercial collection, it would be limited to those haulers who have those franchise areas.

Mr. Cinelli stated that he hoped the Board would reconsider their position on the commercial refuse service and keep it under the free enterprise system. He stated that it has worked in the surrounding counties and has worked for the past 14 years that he has been in the business. He stated that people can obtain a better rate by keeping it a free enterprise system.

Mr. Newman questioned (from the audience) whether a disposal fee was being charged to every city resident in the County, to which Commr. Swartz responded that it was not. He stated that city residents are being charged, based on a tipping fee, noting that the County does not have the ability, in the incorporated area, to charge through a special assessment, unless the city requests that it be done. He stated that what Mr. Newman would find is that the cities are probably working on an average of in excess of one ton per household, per year, whereas, the County is operating on an average of about .75, or less, tons per household, per year. Therefore, on a per unit basis, the person in the unincorporated area is paying less than the person in the city. He stated that if the Board required everyone to pay the same, it would drive the cost to the unincorporated resident up.

Mr. Dan Gordon, Manager of the Hawthorne at Leesburg Mobile Home Park, appeared before the Board stating that he feels the whole idea of collection costs being kept separate from disposal and recycling is very confusing to the public, at large, and that he is not for a fixed fee, because he feels that the retirement community is going to suffer the most, particularly those in mobile home parks, because they are going to end up paying more. He stated that he feels local government should not interfere with the commercial accounts, noting that, if a business makes a decision to hire a hauler and it does not work out, then that is not the County's problem, it is the problem of that business. He stated that he does not want to have to come back to the County and give reasons why he does not like a particular hauler, noting that he feels that is ridiculous.

Mr. Al Smith, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he owns a travel trailer park and feels that everyone has a different agenda and the Board needs to address each person's agenda. He stated that he feels the County needs to keep the three franchises for residential, but feels that the commercial end of it should be kept under the free market enterprise.

Mr. Teddy Homjak reappeared before the Board and questioned whether the solid waste costs was going to be passed on to the residents themselves, or to the land owners, to which Commr. Swartz responded, stating that the Board has two ways that it could be done, one being to stay with the tipping fee and let it be charged as it is presently charged - individually or collectively - and the other through a special assessment.

Mr. Homjak stated that when the County passed the fire and emergency services tax to the property owners it was a great burden to the park owners and, if the Board adds this to it, the County may be putting people out of business, to which Commr. Swartz responded that the Board understands that is a consideration and is not just a consideration from the park owners, but from the residents of the park, as well. He stated that this is the reason the Board has two options.

Mr. Homjak stated that the residents are willing to pay their fair share, they just do not know how to go about it.

Mr. Minkoff, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and gave a scenario of what could happen with a hauler trying to generate new business each year and that business' hauler always matching the lower rate that is offered by the second hauler, noting that this could happen several times, and questioned how many years the second hauler would have to keep coming back and negotiating, when they know that they are not going to get the business. He stated that the second hauler is not going to go into another area and cut the prices way down, knowing that they are not going to get the business anyway. He stated that there is no free market with what the Board has set up.

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

Commr. Swartz stated that the problem the Board is faced with is that, in order to get rate relief for the people who cannot collectively negotiate, the Board has tried to provide a system whereby those who have benefitted from collectively negotiating can still do it. He stated that it does not give absolute freedom and he feels that if the Board stated that they were going to do that, the other two haulers would state that they cannot hold their price and the Board would be back at square one again. He stated that there is nothing easy when one deals with solid waste collection or disposal. He stated that it is a system of trying to make tradeoffs, noting that the proposal that the Board had before them at the last workshop meeting was unacceptable, because it was clear that it would have driven the rates up, and the Board understood that.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt if the third hauler (Town & Country) was not interested in the contract then the Board needed to redraw the lines using the two haulers that were interested and if Town & Country was interested in the contract then the Board would continue to work with all three haulers.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether the Board would, periodically, be looking at the lines as the market share changes, or whether they would always remain the same, to which she was informed that the Board would have the option to do either.

Commr. Gerber stated that she felt it was important to keep the commercial in because the right of first refusal was a bargaining tool that allowed the other two haulers to keep their rates low.

Commr. Bailey stated that he was not happy with the proposal, but would support it, and hoped that, if the Board sees the system is not working, they will admit they made a mistake and go back to the complete free market system.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt if this proposal does not drive the prices down then the Board will definitely need to go back and reexamine the issue, because lower prices is the whole driving force behind the issue. She stated that the Board is still leaving the voluntary collection in place for those people in the unincorporated areas, so it is not mandatory for all areas of the County.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board needed to get the final "bugs" worked out of the contract, deal with some of the issues, and set out clearly what the administrative procedure is so that everyone can see it, before moving forward, including the Board. He stated that the Board wants to see the RRI (Refuse Rate Index) and how it has compared over the last ten years with the CPI (Consumer Price Index). He stated that he felt the Board needed to give staff direction to complete their negotiations with the three haulers; however, if there is any resistance on behalf of one of the haulers, then a clause is to be inserted in the franchise agreement that makes it clear that the Board does not expect and will not accept a lawsuit the day after the hauler signs the agreement. He stated that, if the hauler does not feel comfortable with that, the Board needs to do as Commr. Cadwell suggested, which is instruct staff to negotiate with the other two haulers.

Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted the citizens to understand that the Board is dealing with two separate issues, but that the two merge - one is collection and the other is disposal. He stated that there is no doubt in his mind that, for those people in the unincorporated areas who are contracting individually for their service, in almost 100% of the cases, are going to see a significant reduction in the collection portion of their bill, because they are presently paying between $17.50 and $19.50 per month. He stated that many of the business people, based on information that he has seen, in terms of rates, will see a significant reduction in their dumpster costs. He stated that the other side of the equation is disposal and that the Board, at some point, possibly June 1 or June 8, 1993, is going to have to address that issue.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board directed the County's negotiating team to complete their negotiations with the three haulers, based on the proposal that was presented this date, and, once the contract is completed, if any hauler fails to agree with it, then staff is authorized to negotiate with the remaining two haulers for the balance of the territory.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

________________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/5-25-93/6-17-93/boardmin

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 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; Neil Kelly, Chief Deputy, Administrative Services Department; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

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

MINUTES

Action regarding the Minutes of April 27, 1993 (Regular Meeting) was postponed until the Board Meeting of June 1, 1993.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

Bonds - Contractor

Request for approval of Contractor Bonds, New and Name Change, as follows:

New

4174-93 Terence Quigley d/b/a Terry's Electric, Inc.

5213-93 Windward Construction (General Contractor)

5214-93 Roy Bissonnette d/b/a Wayne Home Builders, Inc.

5218-93 James A. Canepa (Roofing Contractor)

Name Change

5216-93 Thomas B. Reeves d/b/a Reeves Electric, Inc. to

Grover Maynard d/b/a Reeves Electric, Inc.

Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges

Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for Dennis Raymond Hutto and Jim Hutto, in the amount of $50.00, Case No.

82-766-CJ.

Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Subdivisions

Request for approval of Satisfaction of Assessment Liens (6), for the following subdivisions:

Mt. Plymouth Subdivision

Michael E. Seman $ 594.88

Charles Moore 486.58

Charles Moore 615.42

Astor Forest Campsites

Natale and Norina Porto 1,498.61

Robert S. and Sharon L. Myers 1,547.83

Ocala Forest Campsites

Alice M. Ward 1,734.56

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.

Municipalities/Resolutions

Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution No. 93-105, adopted by the Lady Lake Town Commission on April 19, 1993, authorizing John B. Lynch, Jr., Town Manager, to file an application for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance, under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or otherwise available, from the President's Disaster Relief Fund.

Assessments/State Agencies

Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice to Show Cause, from State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, regarding assessment of Administrative Fine, after elevator inspection on February 19, 1993 - Case No. 322.

Audits/Education/Reports

Request to acknowledge receipt of Report No. 12057 - Audit of the Lake County District School Board, for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1992.

Accounts Allowed/Reports

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending April 30, 1993, in the amount of $130,674.98. Same period last year: $156,094.07.

PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCES/COMMUNITY SERVICES

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the purpose of this hearing was to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1992-11, Establishing an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the above stated ordinance was drafted in anticipation of the need to amend the County's existing ordinance (No. 1992-11) creating the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. However, since that time, the plan has been approved and there is no longer a need to address the ordinance or the resolution pertaining to it, therefore, they should be withdrawn.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request from the County Attorney, that the ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1992-11, Establishing an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the resolution amending Resolution No. 1992-217, Appointing members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, be withdrawn.

PUBLIC HEARING

GRANTS/PLANNING DEPARTMENT

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Mark Knight, Principal Planner, Planning Department, appeared before the Board stating that the Planning Department was applying to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a grant, under the Neighborhood Revitalization category, for both the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area and the Eustis area, in the amount of $492,668.00, under the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and that Mr. Scott, a planner from his office would explain the grant.

Mr. Mel Scott, Planner, Planning Department, distributed a handout containing a table and maps summarizing the scope of Lake County's application for the grant, which he reviewed with the Board, noting changes that will be made to three small neighborhoods in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area and a change that will be made in the Eustis area. He stated that he tried to put together the most sound application that he could based on affecting the most people with the least amount of money.

It was noted that the second Public Hearing pertaining to this grant will be held on June 8, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

No action was needed or taken at this time.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 715 DON MONN EUSTIS AREA

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant's representative was present in the audience.

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. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of Road Vacation Petition No. 715, by Mr. Don Monn, represented by Ms. Bonnie Roof, to vacate easement, Section 26, Township 18, Range 27, Eustis area, Commissioner District 4, with a stipulation that appropriate easements be accepted as part of the vacation process, as noted by Mr. Stivender.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 719 EARL H. THIELE, PRESIDENT

THE PLANTATION AT LEESBURG OKAHUMPKA AREA

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Don McIntosh, Don McIntosh Associates, Inc., Winter Park, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that his firm has been the engineering representative for The Plantation at Leesburg for approximately four years. He stated that sometime in 1988 there were some informal jurisdictional determinations made by several agencies associated with the Development of Regional Impact application that was processed through the Regional Planning Council and Lake County. He stated that, at that time, in a number of areas within The Plantation at Leesburg there were wetlands and through the development order issued by the County, with a specific recommendation coming from the Regional Planning Council, there was a requirement, that was not time specific, for the developer to record easements over those areas that were deemed to be wetlands. Mr. McIntosh stated that the easements were recorded, consistent with the requirement of the Development Order, and, as the development proceeded, his firm prepared final engineering plans for portions of the development, which they reviewed with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Regulations, and the St. Johns River Water Management District, and were able to identify the present upland/wetland limits, which he pointed out on a diagram on display. He stated that the permits for construction have been issued by all the necessary agencies and he was before the Board to clear up the conservation easement.

Mr. McIntosh stated that the wetland limits are not consistent with those limits shown on the conservation easement, which he noted is as dedicated, in fact, contains uplands and that it was never the intent of the Development Order condition, or any of the

agencies, to identify uplands and have them be dedicated as conservation easements. He requested the Board to approve vacation of the easement in question.

Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, Inc., representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and answered a question from Commr. Swartz regarding whether this conservation easement was set aside, as a requirement of the Development Order, due to wetlands being impacted elsewhere on the property, or whether it was just delineating the wetland area that was thought to be in existence, to which Mr. Adams responded that it was just delineating the wetland area that was thought to be in existence.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that she was representing Mr. and Mrs. Newquist, adjacent property owners, who were opposed to this request.

After a brief discussion, Ms. Bonifay requested that the case be continued for 30 days, unless she was furnished with information that would resolve any concerns that Mr. and Mrs. Newquist have. She stated that, upon being retained by Mr. and Mrs. Newquist, she requested a complete copy of the road vacation file, however, none of the information attached to the road vacation petition before the Board this date was included in said file. She stated that the information would have been helpful to her in answering questions that she had about the case. She stated that all that was made available to her was the map and the diagram on display, which she noted made it difficult to determine where one's property was located in The Plantation and exactly what impact the easement vacation would have on one's property.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she was told approximately 6 acres was being vacated, however, discovered this date that it was actually 12 acres that was being vacated. She stated that she found it odd, in reviewing the Planning Department's file, that the Board had approved a preliminary plat and a final plat on land that was actually in a conservation easement, noting that it had been signed off on and, in fact, construction had commenced on units in the area.

Ms. Bonifay stated that when Mr. and Mrs. Newquist purchased their property there was a large area behind them that they considered to be wetlands and that there was no way for her to assess, from the information that had been presented to her, what the impact on their property will be, thus, the reason for her request for a 30 day continuance. She stated that none of the exhibits discussed this date were in the file or provided to her staff upon request. She then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.

Mr. Fred Lawson, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request, stating that when he purchased his property he was told by the realtor that nothing would be constructed behind his property, due to the fact that it was wetlands. He requested that the case be postponed, in order to enable those individuals involved to work something out with the developer.

Mr. McIntosh reappeared before the Board stating that he would try to allay any concerns that the adjacent property owners had, noting that he had some graphics that would show them the limits of the wetlands, as well as the location of the additional units planned for the development. He stated (for the record) that the application that was submitted was complete with graphics, legal descriptions, and surveys and he did not know why it was difficult for Ms. Bonifay to obtain copies of same. He also noted that the notice that was sent out was consistent with the County's guidelines. He reiterated the fact that the purpose of the conservation easement was to outline and preserve wetlands and that the area in question is not wetlands, as evidenced sufficiently, he felt, by all the agencies involved, as well as County staff.

Discussion occurred regarding the possibility of postponing this case for 30 days, at which time Mr. McIntosh noted that such a delay would have a significant impact on the applicant.

Further discussion occurred, at which time the Chairman suggested that the applicant and his representatives meet with Ms. Bonifay and her clients and see if their concerns can be allayed by the graphics that Mr. McIntosh stated he had and would be willing to show them.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to temporarily postpone this case (Road Vacation Petition No. 719) until later in the meeting, in order to allow the applicant, his representatives, Ms. Bonifay, and her clients, Mr. and Mrs. Newquist, to meet and try to come to some sort of an agreement concerning this case.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, requested withdrawal of Case No. 13-93-2/3 from the Rezoning Agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the withdrawal of Case No. 13-93-2/3, Stonebridge Country Club/J. Eggebrecht Development & W. Jobbins, from the Rezoning Agenda, as requested by staff.

PETITION NO. 20-93-5 AMEND PFD ORD. NO. 37-88 TO DELETE LAND AND REZONE FROM PFD TO R-2 ALTOONA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC.

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

At this time, Mr. Stubbs and Mr. John Brock, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant's representative was present in the audience.

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 upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend PFD Ordinance No. 37-88, to delete land and rezone from PFD (Public Facility District) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for construction of a single family residence, with a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Rea Way, as requested by Public Services.

PETITION NO. 24-93-5 A TO R-3 PAUL BRYAN

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request, noting that staff recommended approval to R-2 (Estate Residential).

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant's representative was present in the audience.

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. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the construction of a single family residential subdivision.

PETITION NO. 25-93-5 R-1 TO CFD FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO.

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

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. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning

from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), to add a regulation and measurement station to an existing non-conforming use (instrument building).

PETITION NO. 23-93-3 A TO R-8 JOHNNIE S. WARREN

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

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 Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-8 (Mixed Residential), for the construction of one (1) single family residence, subject to a Developer's Agreement limiting the density to no more than three (3) dwelling units per acre, to remain consistent with the Urban Expansion Land Use Plan Category, and with a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Bloomfield Road, as requested by Public Services.

PETITION NO. 19-93-3 R-1-7 TO CFD CECIL BERRY

SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

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-1-7 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility

District), for the continued use of an electrical distribution substation, with a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Dead River Road, as requested by Public Services.

PETITION NO. 28-93-2 AMENDMENT TO MP ORD. NO. 54-90 TO ALLOW ALL LM USES VIOLA GUTHRIE

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request, noting that staff was requesting additional buffering on the north property line along the road and on the east property line abutting the single family residential structures which exist within the area and that Public Services was requesting the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 40 feet from the centerline of C-565A.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Linda Beal, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that the property in question is to be used for the South Lake Animal Shelter.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time it was noted that the heavy automotive truck service condition was being deleted from the LM district, due to the fact that, if said use was put on the property in question, the road that would have to be used to access said business is not suitable to handle such traffic.

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 MP Ordinance No. 54-90, to allow all LM (Light Manufacturing) uses except that of heavy automotive truck service, to allow the establishment of LM (Light Manufacturing) uses for

future use, with the condition that additional buffering be provided on the north property line along the road and on the east property line abutting the single family residential structures which exist within the area and that additional right-of-way be dedicated to provide for 40 feet from the centerline of C-565A, as requested by Public Services.

PETITION CUP NO. 93/4/2-2 CUP IN A SELWAY FARMS, INC.

JOHN G. SELLERS, III

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the request.

Mr. John Hayden, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he did not understand why staff was requesting the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Rumford Road, noting that the right-of-way is off of Jackson Court, not Rumford Road.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He explained why he was requesting the 33 feet of additional right-of-way along Rumford Road, noting that it was the County's standard practice, for any rezoning case where the property fronts on a road that has insufficient right-of-way, to request the dedication, to bring the road up to the County's minimum standards, which he noted is 33 feet from the centerline of the road.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the property fronts on Rumford Road (a county maintained road), to which Mr. Hayden responded that it did.

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. 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 six (6) mobile homes, including three existing units, for agricultural housing and a condition that the applicant provide vegetative buffering; however, a condition that additional right-of-way be dedicated to provide for 33 feet from the centerline of Rumford Road was deleted.

PETITION NO. 22-93-5 A TO AR RAYMOND & BETTY RICHARDSON

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

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that Mr. Lent, an adjacent property owner, was present in the audience and was concerned that approval of this request might affect access to his property. He stated, however, that he had assured Mr. Lent that it would not.

Mr. Larry Lent appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he had no objections to Mr. Richardson building as many houses as he wanted to on the property in question - the only thing that he wanted was some assurance that he, as well as his three tenants, would be able to enter and exit his property. He noted that they are presently accessing his property by way of Wildwood Street, which he has legal access to. He submitted (for the record) Exhibit A (Plat of Survey) and Exhibit B (handout showing types of homes in his development).

Mr. Stubbs explained the process that the applicant would have to go through, in order to obtain a lot split, with regard to the road, noting that it takes approximately one month to go through the process. He stated that staff makes sure that the applicant

and other property owners have legal access to their properties, before the County finalizes the lot split.

Mr. Lent stated that he was concerned about the right-of-way, noting that when he wanted to put another house on his property, he was told that he would have to wait until the roads were updated before he could do so.

Commr. Swartz stated that Wildwood Street is not a county maintained road and the requirement that the applicant will have to meet is the same requirement that Mr. Lent would have to meet, which is a public dedication requirement of an easement or

right-of-way.

Discussion occurred, at which time the County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, noted that there is a lot split requirement for maintenance and that a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant will have to be filed that Wildwood Street will be maintained.

Mr. Lent stated that he would take care of the maintenance on that portion of the road in front of his property, but, wants assurance that the portion of the road in front of Mr. Richardson's property will be maintained, noting that he and his tenants' vehicles will get stuck if that portion of Wildwood Street is not maintained.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County is not going to be able to assure Mr. Lent that Wildwood Street, or any of the other non-county maintained roads, will be maintained. He stated that, if they are maintained, it will be up to the people who live along the roads to do so.

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. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning

from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for the construction of a single-family residence.

PETITION NO. 29-93-4 A TO PUD STETSON UNIVERSITY

CROWS BLUFF VILLAGE

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

Commr. Swartz stated that the co-counsel for this project had requested an opinion from the County Attorney regarding whether or not he would have a conflict of interest in this case, or whether or not he would fall under Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and that he would like for the County Attorney to respond to same before opening the public hearing.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she had received a letter from Mr. Frank Gaylord, with the firm of Gaylord & Gaylord, P.A., concerning the matter at hand and that she had distributed a copy of same to each of the Board members (for the record), as part of County Exhibit A. She stated that the members of the Board of County Commissioners, even though sitting in a quasi-judicial setting, are not subject to the Canons of the Canon Code of Judicial Conduct, therefore, would not be subject to the provisions governed by same. She stated that they would be subject to Chapter 112, which she noted is the Ethics Code, in relation to public officials, noting that the only basis for there being a voting conflict is if a vote is cast under their official capacity upon any measure which would inure to any of the member's special private gain, or which would inure to the special private gain of any principal by whom they are retained, to the parent organization, a subsidiary of a corporation by which they have been retained, or to the special private gain of a relative or business associate of the public officer. She stated that, based on those provisions, Commr. Swartz did not have a conflict of interest in this case.

Mr. Frank Gaylord, Gaylord & Gaylord, the co-counsel with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, on this case, appeared before the Board and called the County Attorney's attention to the Jennings and Snyder cases, at which time he read into the Minutes a statement pertaining to constitutional compulsions which lead to the establishment of rules regarding disqualification of judges and that it applies equally toward every tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. He stated that this Board sits in a quasi-judicial capacity and is governed by the Canon Code of Judicial Conduct and not by sitting in a legislative role.

Discussion continued, at which time Mr. Gaylord read into the Minutes a portion of the Commentary, under Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which pertains to the issue of public confidence in the judiciary being eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, read the remainder of the Commentary into the Minutes, as well as the contents of Canon 2, since that is the issue that was actually being discussed. She reiterated the fact that she did not feel that Commr. Swartz had a conflict of interest in this case.

Mr. Gaylord, Attorney, stated that the actual conflict of interest being discussed was the fact that Commr. Swartz is an alumnus of Stetson University and also sits as a Chairperson, for the Lake County district, on the Stetson University Alumni Board. He stated that the quandary that Stetson University finds itself in is that, because of the relationship between Commr. Swartz and the university, should Commr. Swartz vote in favor of this project (Stetson University - Crows Bluff Village), it could be perceived that he voted in favor of it because he is associated with the university and that the only way to get out of the dilemma would be to vote against the project. He stated that, in any event, the university, as the applicant, loses and it is felt that that is an improper position to put the university in.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would rely on the County Attorney's opinion that he does not fall under Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and noted that he would have no difficulty, whatsoever, in exercising his consideration and vote on this project, in an impartial way, based on what he views as the merits of the case. He stated that he appreciated the concern expressed by the university, however, would hope that they would expect him to do what he thought was right, regardless of his relationship with the university's alumni board. He stated that he intended to conduct the meeting and cast his vote.

It was noted that the individuals involved in Road Vacation Petition No. 719 were ready to come back before the Board, therefore, a request was made to temporarily postpone this case until later in the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to temporarily postpone Rezoning Case No. 29-93-4, Crows Bluff Village, and to reconsider Road Vacation Petition No. 719, The Plantation at Leesburg.

ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 719 EARL H. THIELE, PRESIDENT

THE PLANTATION AT LEESBURG OKAHUMPKA AREA (CONT'D.)

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the Board that there was a question of proper notice and that staff would be checking into the matter and that there was also a problem with an agreement concerning the developable areas of the property, which Ms. Bonifay would explain.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing an adjacent property owner, reappeared before the Board stating that once she, her clients, and staff were able to sit down and discuss this case and see the graphics, their concerns were allayed. She stated that she had a letter from the developer of the project (Lakewood Development Company, Inc.) stating that they would be bound by the areas that are depicted on the current construction plans, tying that to the fact that there will be no development other than

stormwater retention in Tracts A, B, C, and D, as shown on Page 2 of 9 of the construction plans, dated August 5, 1992, revised February 12, 1993, prepared by Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc., under Job No. 92088-0053, for Pod Q, Heron Run.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she would be sending Mr. Stivender a formal request that, if there is any deviation or modification of said construction plans, when the final plat is filed, she is to be noticed of said meeting, in order to be in attendance, and that Mr. McIntosh indicated he would provide her with a copy of the plat, at the time that it is prepared and scheduled to come before the Board. She stated that these things allayed her clients' concerns that there will be no development in those conservation easements, except for stormwater retention.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 719, by Earl H. Thiele, President, The Plantation at Leesburg, to vacate easement, Section 26, Township 20, Range 24, Okahumpka area, Commissioner District 2, with the condition stipulated in the letter from the developer of the project (Lakewood Development Company, Inc.), as noted, which was submitted for the record.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 7:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 10 minute recess.

PETITION NO. 29-93-4 A TO PUD STETSON UNIVERSITY

CROWS BLUFF VILLAGE (CONT'D.)

Mr. Frank Gaylord, Attorney, representing the petitioner, reappeared before the Board and noted (for the record) that, based upon the County Attorney's advice, the Canon Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to this particular proceeding, therefore,

Commr. Swartz would continue as Chairman over this proceeding and would participate in the discussion and vote.

Discussion occurred, at which time Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she had rendered an opinion that the Canon Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to the Board of County Commissioners and this particular quasi-judicial hearing.

Mr. Gaylord then questioned Commr. Gerber about a Trip Generation Calculation Chart (County Exhibit A) that she had distributed at the April 27, 1993 Rezoning Meeting, concerning Case No. 65-92-4, St. Johns Reserve, and questioned whether she had communicated with anyone concerning this particular hearing (Crows Bluff Village), to which she responded that she had, noting that she had communicated with the head of the Volusia County Planning & Growth Management Department to make him aware of this meeting and that that was the extent of their conversation.

Discussion continued, at which time Mr. Gaylord reiterated the fact that he felt Commr. Swartz should dismiss himself from this case.

Upon the request of Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, and Commr. Swartz, the following individuals were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:

Mr. Greg Beliveau

Mr. Steve Adams

Mr. Mark Whitaker

Mr. Dave Dunlap

Mr. Tim Green

Mr. Jim Barker

Mr. Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, Attorney, stating that at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting some changes were made in the Master Plan of this project, at which time he distributed to the Board and submitted (for the record) Exhibit A (revised preliminary plan of the Crows Bluff Village project). He gave an overview of the project, which he noted is 899.12 acres in size and contains 590 residential units. He stated that the Board should have received a copy of the PUD submittal, a copy of the environmental assessment requested by Environmental Services, and a copy of the revised preliminary traffic analysis that was prepared for the Technical Review Committee.

Mr. Beliveau stated that this project will contain 5,000 square feet of commercial, as well as other amenities, such as a club house with golf course, an equestrian center with equestrian trails, a church, etc. He stated that the project will contain an MSTU/MSBU, to address any future fire/EMS/sheriff requirements, and that there will also be central water and sewer on the site. He stated that, at the previous Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, there was some discussion regarding the utilization of septic tanks and wells on the estate and ranchette sites, as "temporary wastewater service"; however, due to the fact that the applicant decided to utilize central systems (water, wastewater, and collection), when they are available, the development does not need the variance that was originally requested for the project. Mr. Beliveau then distributed Exhibit B (letter from Land Planning Group, Inc. to Mr. Jim Barker, Environmental Services, concerning the matter of the septic tanks and wells); Exhibit C (letter from Environmental Services to Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., in response to the matter of septic tanks and wells); and Exhibit D (Evaluation of Compliance with Lake County Comprehensive Plan: St. Johns Reserve and Crows Bluff PUD - Rural Village), which he reviewed with the Board and answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding same.

Mr. Beliveau submitted (for the record) Exhibit E (chart illustrating the graphic representation explaining what the land use categories are), which he reviewed with the Board, along with an aerial map of the property in question (which was not introduced into the record, due to its size) and answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding same.

Mr. Beliveau stated that the property in question is currently used as a permitted sod farm and that the applicant will continue the sod farm operation during the PUD process.

A brief discussion occurred regarding whether this project and the St. Johns Reserve project would have qualified for the DRI process, if they had been brought before the Board at the same time, to which Mr. Beliveau responded that they would not have qualified, and noted the reason why.

Mr. Beliveau then answered questions from Mr. Richey, Attorney, concerning the issue of the DRI.

Mr. Richey submitted for the record Exhibit F (DRI Analysis), which he reviewed with the Board.

A brief discussion occurred regarding how Lake County and Volusia County trades students and the fact that there is an agreement between the two counties regarding same.

Commr. Hanson brought up the issue of "sustainability for communities", noting that that is a buzz word now and questioned what type of agriculture could be continued, or promoted, on the property in question, to which Mr. Beliveau responded that the site is going to have a continuation of the sod farm operation that he alluded to earlier. He stated that it is an activity that has been approved, permitted, and is ongoing and that it is going to be continued throughout the life of the project.

Commr. Hanson noted that that will eventually phase out and questioned whether the site would still be allowed for farming, to which Mr. Beliveau responded that it would not, indicating the reason why.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, interjected that 57 large tracts (5 acres or less) located on the northern portion of the development will be utilized for rural lifestyles.

A brief discussion occurred regarding where the commercial area will be located and the time frame involved for hooking up to the central sewer system.

Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and discussed an environmental assessment that was done on the property in question, as requested by Mr. Richey, Attorney, at which time he reviewed an aerial map (on display), indicating uplands and wetlands. He then answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding the issue of open space and the fact that the project exceeds Lake County's requirement for open space, under the Land Development Regulations, noting that the area which has been set aside for a golf course was not included in said calculations.

Discussion occurred regarding a herbicide/insecticide management plan for the development and the fact that the development complies with Section 6.09, Groundwater Aquifer Recharge, of the Land Development Regulations.

Mr. Tim Green, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and discussed the development of the land use plan that was submitted to the Board (for the record) as Exhibit A, as requested by Mr. Richey, Attorney. He noted that the commercial area is being internalized, with 50 foot buffers and access off of the main boulevard, with no direct access to the SR 42 realignment.

Discussion occurred regarding the issue of the commercial area and where it is located and the fact that there are some conflicts in the policies regarding same. Mr. Richey noted that one of the policies talks in terms of serving the area of the rural village and beyond, and one of the policies talks in terms of serving the people who reside in the rural village, to which Commr. Swartz interjected that the development could do both by moving the commercial area to an intersection within the rural village.

Mr. Green then reviewed the remaining areas of the development with the Board.

Mr. Mark Whitaker, Stetson University, appeared before the Board stating that he was present this date representing the President of Stetson University, the Board of Trustees, and 237 alumni of the university. He discussed how the Crows Bluff

development came about and the fact that Stetson University is very proud of the development, as they feel that it represents a model example of a rural village. He stated that it has taken 13 years to get the project to the point where it is today and requested the Board to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Dave Dunlop, BRW, Inc., Orlando, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, Attorney, and answered questions from him regarding the transportation analysis that was submitted (for the record) as County Exhibit A, by Commr. Gerber, at the Rezoning Meeting of April 27, 1993, pertaining to the St. Johns Reserve development and transportation concerns that Commr. Gerber had regarding same. He stated that, in his research, he determined that there would 1,035 trips per day, on SR 44, from the Crows Bluff development, the St. Johns Reserve development, and from proposed new development, which is under the 1,230 figure that was determined to be the capacity for SR 44, therefore, concludes that there is sufficient capacity on the existing system.

Mr. Vernon Hall, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that his property is located at the intersection of Crows Bluff Road and SR 42 and requested that the Board deny this project, because he feels that it is not environmentally sound. He stated that he feels stormwater runoff from the development will ruin River Forest, the wetlands, and the St. Johns River.

Discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time Commr. Swartz assured Mr. Hall that any permits the development gets will deal with the issue of stormwater runoff.

Mr. Hall discussed the issue of traffic flow and problems that it is going to cause, as well as problems that are going to be encountered from hunters and dirt bikers in the area. He then answered questions from Mr. Richey, Attorney, regarding his property and the fact that he has a well and septic tank and would

not be interested in connecting to central water and sewer, if it was extended to his property.

Ms. Marie Francolino, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was in favor of the project, because she feels that east Lake County needs to be built up, and requested the Board to approve the project.

Ms. Mary Ann Troiano, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was in favor of the project and loves the idea of Crows Bluff being her neighbor. She stated that Stetson University stands for class, in Deland, and does not feel that they would do anything to harm Lake County. She requested the Board to approve the project.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, referred to Item K. Agricultural Buffer, on Page 13 of the PUD and noted that he would like to make it clear that that paragraph pertains to buffering outside the project, because the development anticipates continuation of its current agricultural uses and also anticipates some agricultural uses on some of the larger tracts located within the development. He noted that on Page 1, in Paragraph B. Commercial (3), SR 44 should be changed to SR 42

Mr. Richey stated that a lot of policies were added that were not discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and that the developer intends to comply with all of said policies. He stated that he feels the developer has complied with the rural village concept and that they will deal with the commercial issue and with Commr. Hanson's concern regarding a church. He stated that they will also provide a public facility service and that they have an MSTU/MSBU to provide the development's share of fire, EMS, and Sheriff's services. He stated that this development has dealt with everything that the St. Johns Reserve development dealt with

and has probably gone beyond the requirements of open space and low density.

Discussion occurred regarding whether or not this development encroaches on the 100 year flood plain, at which time Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Services, stated that it does encroach on the 100 year flood plain, however, the way that the LDRs are laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, it provides that, if one does encroach or impact the capacity of the 100 year flood plain, they have to provide compensatory storage in other areas.

Mr. Barker reviewed the development plan with the Board, indicating those areas of the 100 year flood plain that will be encroached upon by this development.

Mr. Adams interjected that, on this site, there are three different versions of the 100 year flood plain - a USGS version, a FEMA version, and another one that was done as a special study. He stated that the version before the Board this date was the best representation of those three versions.

Discussion continued, at which time Mr. Richey stated that this development is going to comply with what the Comprehensive Plan says.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was going to approve this development, however, requested that the commercial area be internalized, rather than be located on the outskirts of the development, as it is presently shown.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with internalizing the commercial and would not make it a requirement, but felt that it would be better planning to have the church in the center, along with the fire station, etc., noting that she felt that would be the true concept of a rural village. She stated that the development falls within the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and, in fact, exceeds the requirements. She stated that she feels this is a project that the County can be very proud of.

Commr. Bailey stated that he would support the development because he feels that it allows the County some flexibility in what he considers the rural part of the County.

Commr. Swartz noted changes which needed to be made, as follows:

On Page 13, under Paragraph K. Agricultural Buffer, language should be inserted to indicate that the buffer will be required for properties that are adjacent and external - not for properties within the development.

On Page 1, under Paragraph B. Commercial 3., SR 44 should be changed to SR 42.

Commr. Swartz stated that it should be indicated that an MSBU (Municipal Services Benefit Unit) is what the County is requesting, not an MSTU (Municipal Services Taxing Unit), for fire, EMS, and Sheriff's services. He stated that, in the language on Page 16, regarding same, it should state that, during that review, any necessary facilities regarding public services and public safety would also be considered.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of internalizing the commercial area, at which time Commr. Hanson noted that she would not request that it be internalized and would leave it where it is presently located, on the site plan, because it ties into the commercial on the other side of the development. She stated that they may consider it better for the village to have it internal, but, if it stays outside the development, it still has a relationship to the commercial on the other side of the development.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, requested the Board to give the applicant the option to have some commercial at SR 42, at the entrance of the development, and to have the potential of putting no more than 5,000 square feet of commercial at the clubhouse.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, 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 A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and to place one (1) mobile home on site for a caretaker's residence, for the development of 590 residential units, an educational site, 5,000 square foot retail and personal services, commercial area, 5,000 square foot clubhouse, and 18 hole golf course; and a waiver to Chapter 6, Subsections 6.12.01(A) and 6.12.01(B), Public Facilities Element, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, with changes noted above concerning the agricultural buffer; changing SR 44 to SR 42; changing the provision of MSTU to MSBU; and allowing the 5,000 square feet of commercial to be divided between the clubhouse and the current site set forth on the site plan.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 9:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

PETITION NO. 189-90-3 REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

PUD ORDINANCE NO. 74-90 GLENBROOK

Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request, noting that it was based on a request that was made by the Board of County Commissioners in 1991.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, Condev Land Fund II Limited, appeared before the Board stating that this development falls under the threshold for development of regional impact, so it came through as a PUD. She then brought the Board up-to-date as to what had transpired, up to this point, regarding the case.

Commr. Swartz noted that, in order to review how the project had changed from the time that it was originally before the Board

to the present time, he requested staff to provide to all the Board members a copy of the preliminary development plan that had originally come before the Board. He stated that this plan is very similar to the original plan and that it does not do what he had requested the Board to require it to do, at the Board Meeting of December 18, 1990, as noted in the Minutes of that meeting (excerpt attached). He reminded the Board that one of the things they had instructed staff to do, leading into the amendment process, was to look at the commercial corridor that is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and consider it for any revision that the Board should deem appropriate. He stated that he was disappointed in this site plan and could not approve it any more than he could the original plan that was brought before the Board over two years ago.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the plan was consistent with the County's current Comprehensive Plan and consistent with all the aspects of a PUD. She stated that, in reviewing the Minutes (December 18, 1990) that Commr. Swartz referred to, it was difficult to determine what the Board's direction was, other than the fact that they did not like what they saw. She stated that the applicant tried to design this plan to the current standards that the County has today and still be responsive to where people want to live and what the market place dictates.

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

A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve the revised preliminary development plan, as presented this date.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson compared this development to the Walker Heights development (located to the south) and stated that she would like to see an internal clubhouse or some type of community building located between the two developments.

A brief discussion occurred regarding rear access roads and interconnect roads within the development.

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

Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".

COUNTY MANAGER'S AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/REPORTS

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to increase the scope of work and encumber the funds (estimated to be $8,100) to erect a new pole barn for the Solid & Hazardous Waste Division, as requested by Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities & Capital Improvements.

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Mr. A. Michael O'Reilly and Ms. Rachel Holtzclaw as the District 5 representatives on the Charter Government Study Committee, as requested by Commr. Cadwell.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Mr. Duane Gorgas, Mayor, City of Howey-in-the-Hills, as the League of Cities representative on the Fire & Emergency Services Study Committee, as requested by Commr. Cadwell.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Mr. Rex Taylor, City Manager, City of Leesburg, and Mr. Robert Moore, City Council Chairman, City of Tavares, as the League of Cities representatives on the Charter Government Study Committee, as requested by Commr. Cadwell.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Mr. Arthur M. (Mac) Elder and Mr. Jim Hoskinson, as the District 2 representatives on the Charter Government Study Committee, as requested by Commr. Bailey.

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Commr. Swartz brought up the issue of the old Lot of Record Ordinance and questioned whether the Board wanted to include language that states, if one is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is on a county maintained road, and meets the requirements that are in place, that one could pull a building permit.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County should go beyond that and allow it on those dedicated roads that are not county maintained, based on the requirements that the Board put in the Land Development Regulations, noting that for those people to have to aggregate up to five acres is ridiculous in an urban node.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, to which Commr. Hanson responded that that would be questionable, because it is within the Wekiva Basin. She stated that it is in the urban node, therefore, would be consistent with that use, however, how it fits in with the Wekiva amendment, might be a different story.

Commr. Swartz requested staff to look into the matter and bring some alternatives back to the Board at a later date.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

________________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/5-25-93/6-7-93/boardmin