A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FEBRUARY 22, 1994

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton C. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Don Bailey. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

Commr. Hanson questioned the Board members as to whether there were any revisions to be made to the agenda for the meeting today. There being none, the Chairman announced that the Board would proceed with the scheduled public hearings.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

ROAD VACATIONS

Petition No. 748 - Charles E. Bradshaw, Jr. - Lake Louisa Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender described the location of the property and explained that all of the property is owned by Mr. Bradshaw, except for the small portion in the northwest corner, which is owned by the State of Florida when it bought Lake Louisa State Park; however, the plat was never vacated. Mr. Stivender requested that these lots be included in the closing, and he noted that a letter had been received from Mr. William Howell, Environmental Administrator, Flordia Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), requesting that these lots be vacated from this portion of the plat. Mr. Stivender explained that there is no road platted into the subdivision that has upland access, because the roads zigzag across the lakes and swamps. He discussed the legal access to the Lykes Brothers' lots. Mr. Stivender stated that there is definitely wetlands on the access, but it is no worse than what the Mr. and Mrs. Fox had before. He stated that Mrs. Fox, who owns ten (10) acres, has indicated that she has no objection to the vacation, however, she wants access on upland soils, and wants to work something out with the State of Florida.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Hatcher, Attorney representing Mr. Bradshaw, appeared before the Board and stated that it was his understanding that the action by the County would not take away any access that was there now. The vacation would only close off some platted roadways, which are not on the ground right now, and are not being used. The applicant purposely left all the way over to the northwestern corner of the Fox parcel, and the road right-of-way that extends along the south of Section 5 and straight up and out to Highway 27, basically for Mr. and Mrs. Fox. He stated that, after consulting with Mr. and Mrs. Fox about a week ago, they indicated no real concerns.

Mr. Stivender explained that the applicant will be leaving a platted road, which is the legal access, and that the prescriptive easement meandering through the lots is a separate item, and is in existence with or without the action taken by the Board today.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that it is not really a prescriptive easement, until a Judge makes this determination, and he questioned whether the Foxes will be landlocked legally. Mr. Stivender stated that a paper access will be left, and therefore, they would not be landlocked.

Commr. Bailey expressed a concern with the government extracting something from the private landowner, and questioned whether this would take something away from Mrs. Fox that she could have used to bargain with the State to get right-of-way.

Commr. Hanson suggested postponing the request to allow the State to work with Mrs. Fox, in order to give her legal access.



Mr. Hatcher stated that Mrs. Fox will have legal access, which will be no better and no worse that what she has today. He stated that leaving the right-of-way around the edge of the property did not cause the State a problem.

Commr. Bailey explained that, even though Mr. Bradshaw is working with the State to acquire the public ownership, he still has a problem, because Mrs. Fox will not be able to get through the wetlands. It was noted that Mrs. Fox does not live on the ten (10) acres. Commr. Bailey stated that he does not want to close anyone off from any option to use their property, and that he feels very strongly about private property rights.

Commr. Swartz discussed this request being a sale and vacation based on a sale to the State. He expressed his reluctance to vacate, until this issue is cleared up with the State. The letter from Mrs. Fox indicated that she wanted to be given some assurance of access that can be easily traveled and does not require special off road vehicles, or boats to go through lakes or swamps to get to her property. Commr. Swartz stated that this is a reasonable request, and that the Board needs to postpone the request, if the Board cannot get assurance of this. He stated that he does not have the assurance that the State, once it gains control of this, will not force her to go through a very costly process of getting prescriptive rights, and now would be the time for the Board to make sure the access is real and not just possibly there.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Bradshaw could post his property and not allow access across it, except where the road rights-of-way are now. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Bradshaw is allowed to post his property, as stated.

Mr. Hatcher pointed out that Mrs. Fox has legal access even if the road rights-of-way are vacated, not only out to Highway 27, but also to the bottom of the plat. He stated that she really does not have any rights to any existing trails running through the groves. Mr. Hatcher stated that this is the last action needed in order to let the sale to the State go forward, and he is working within a 30 day time frame.

Commr. Swartz suggested asking Mr. Bradshaw's representative to meet with the State and the Public Services staff, in order to find some assurance of access for Mrs. Fox, and place this item back on the first available agenda.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Bailey stated that the Board is looking for some commitment from the State that it is sensitive to helping Mrs. Fox.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Petition No. 748, Charles E. Bradshaw, Jr., until March 1, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

ZONING

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed the memorandum dated February 9, 1994, that he received from Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, which referred to the County Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the First 1994 Calendar Year Amendment Schedule. The memorandum indicated that the Five Year Schedule for Capital Improvements for Recreation had not been reviewed by the Land Planning Agency (LPA), and this will affect items #12 through #15 on the rezoning agenda. Mr. Wahl stated that staff met with the applicants' representatives on Friday, and received from them requests related to those items. Based on the requests, staff is recommending that theses items, and the Transmittal Hearing, be tabled to March 29, 1994. Mr. Wahl stated that he also received a request from Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, to continue LUPA#93-7-2-2, Thomas Karr, until the second Transmittal Hearing for the year 1994.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.



Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing LUPA#94-1-1-2 Charles Bradshaw, and LUPA#93-7-4-2 J. D. Eggebrecht, appeared before the Board and clarified that she had submitted a request for continuance for thirty (30) days, until March 29, 1994, for both of these cases.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing LUPA#93-7-2-2 Thomas Karr, appeared before the Board and clarified that he has requested that this case be continued until the second Transmittal Hearing, not until March 29, 1994, and wanted to make the distinction between his request and Ms. Bonifay's request.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to continue the Transmittal Hearing, First Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for 1994, and LUPA#94-1-1-2 Charles Bradshaw (agenda item #12), and LUPA#93-7-4-2 J. D. Eggebrecht (agenda item #14), until March 29, 1994.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to place LUPA#93-7-2-2 Thomas Karr into the second submittal of Land Use Plan Amendments for 1994.

The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following staff members: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division; Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development; Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management; Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering; and Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development.

PETITION CUP#89A/2/6-5 Amend CUP Lake County Boys Ranch

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, informed the Board that a request for withdrawal had been received from the Law Office of Cecelia Bonifay.



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to withdraw the request to amend the existing CUP currently being utilized as a boys home, as requested.

PETITION CUP#93/12/2-4 CUP in A Ronald M. Smith

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff has recommended approval of the request, as conditioned. He discussed the review process used by staff when a request was being made for a caretaker's residence.

Commr. Swartz stated that the intention of the caretaker's residence was not designed to provide for second dwelling units. He stated that the Board may want to establish some criteria that would apply to what would make it a caretaker's residence.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that no present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Ms. Beverly Smith, applicant, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Smith explained that she and her husband own the chicken farm and their residence is located on the farm. She stated that the caretakers will have the duties of running the farm when they are not there.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

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 the request for CUP in A (Agricultural), for the placement of a mobile home on site for a caretaker's residence for a chicken farm, as conditioned.

PETITION CUP#94/1/2-5 CUP in R-1 J. Kramer Austin

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff recommended approval with conditions, as presented in the backup material.

Discussion occurred regarding the R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning, with it being noted that the only reason that this request was before the Board was because of the five acre requirement in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that Ms. Bonnie Roof, representative for the applicant, was present in the audience. There being no one present to speak opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in R-1 (Rural Residential), for a fernery, as conditioned.

PETITION #3-94-2 R-1-7 to RA James L. O'Berry

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that the applicant got a variance from the lot split standards some time ago.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience, and no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Mr. James O'Berry, applicant, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. O'Berry explained that the property used to be citrus, and that there was currently manufactured housing on two sides of the property.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

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 the request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to RA (Ranchette), for the placement of manufactured homes.



PETITION #4-94-4 A to CP Dennis E. Hayes

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs directed the Board's attention to the memorandum dated February 17, 1994, from Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, which consisted of revised comments. He stated that a letter of concern was received from the City of Eustis. Mr. Stubbs stated that the recommendation was to approve CP (Planned Commercial) for mini warehouses, and staff was limiting the CP for this specific use.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Harold Coffman appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Coffman stated that it appears the property would have to be annexed into the City of Eustis, because of the location of the water and sewer with the City. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, but not based on any stipulation with the City. Mr. Coffman stated that his preference would be to stay in the County, but if the request was not approved, he would be obligated to annex into the City. Mr. Coffman noted that there was a well on the property, and that he would be going to the County first to try an get a building permit.

Mr. Carl Minear appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Minear stated that he was the adjacent property owner and was concerned about the buildings being built within ten (10) feet of the property line. He further stated that he was concerned about having all of the trees removed from the property. His other concern involved the increase in traffic.

Discussion occurred regarding buffering, and Mr. Stubbs stated that landscaping will have to be shown, in accordance with the County's landscaping regulations.



Mr. Minear stated that he was concerned about the location of the fencing that would be constructed, in relation to the property line, because it would go right down a row of mature trees behind his property.

It was noted that the requirements in the County's tree ordinance would have to be observed.

There being no further opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz stated that, after reviewing the map from the City of Eustis, it appeared that the property was within several different zoning classifications for the City's future land use in this area, none of which provide for mini warehouses.

Mr. Stubbs discussed the mandatory requirements for hookup for services with a city and stated that an agreement would have to be worked out by the applicant with the city. Mr. Stubbs requested that, if the Board approved the request, an amendment be made to the conditions to save as many tress, shrubs, or hedges for buffering on the property.

Commr. Hanson stated that this request was in her district and she had no problem approving the request, as conditioned, and with staff's recommendations, and the recommendation made by Mr. Stubbs.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CP (Planned Commercial), for mini-warehouses, with all recommendations.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the Planning staff's initial review was probably correct. He stated that, if approved, the Board would be rezoning a parcel within the joint planning area with the City of Eustis, which was contrary to their future land use areas. He further stated that the Board would be approving at this location, with much the same criteria, what the Board refused to approve last month for mini-warehouses, and therefore, he would vote against the request.

Commr. Gerber concurred with Commr. Swartz and stated that the Board did not approve a request for mini-warehouses on State Road 44, and that she could not support this request, which was right next to an existing residential community.

Commr. Hanson stated that this case was different in location and surroundings.

Commr. Bailey concurred with Commr. Hanson and stated that he would support the request, because the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve it. He stated that, if the case went to the City of Eustis, it would be either residential, which would create noise and traffic, or office buildings, which would create even more traffic than the mini-warehouses. He further stated that the key would be to buffer the property correctly, and the applicant needed to be sensitive as to how the fencing was done, and to protect the native vegetation as much as possible. Commr. Bailey stated that he does not feel this request would have any more intense use as some of the other things that would be allowed there. Therefore, he would support the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that there was one significant difference in the two requests. The zoning, which is now being recommended for approval, was inconsistent with the future land use zoning that the City has in its joint planning area.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "no".

Mr. Stubbs clarified the following language that was approved to be included in the conditions: Additional buffering on the western and northern property lines adjacent to existing single family residential.

PETITION #1-94-1 Amend CP Ord. #12-92 W. Emory Shelfer

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff has reviewed the request and was requesting that paint and automotive body work of EMS vehicles on the site be added to the conditions. Staff believes that, instead of an amendment to CP, rezoning to MP and listing the commercial uses within the C-1 and C-2 districts would be a more appropriate rezoning for the site. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff has a verbal commitment from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) allowing commercial uses in the employment center and industrial zoning classifications.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, addressed the Board and stated he has received a verbal confirmation from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that all but one issue will be found in compliance on the Comprehensive Plan submittal and therefore, commercial uses would be allowed for employment centers.

Mr. Stubbs stated that Public Services was requesting that the applicant comply with the Access Management Ordinance.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that, in March, 1992, the property was petitioned to be rezoned from CP to M-1. At that time, the Board approved CP with C-1 and C-2 uses and specifically deleted taverns and bars; paint, body and fender shops; commercial kennels and or veterinary clinics; theaters and drive ins, with the provision that, if additional buildings were put on site, the applicant would come back through the process. Since that time, the facility has been rented to Emergency Medical Services (EMS), who are refurbishing and maintaining their ambulances there, and he now represents them. Mr. Richey stated that he has filed a request to include the addition of the paint and automotive body work being incidental to the EMS ambulance repair. Another building will be added and a site plan has been filed with the County, which will allow for those activities to take place. The recommendation was to rezone to MP with the same conditions and site plan for the CP zoning with the addition as stated, but the only uses that the applicant wants approved are the specific uses approved before, with the simple addition to do the refurbishing of the ambulances that may require some paint and body work. He stated that he did meet with the neighbors to address the request. Mr. Richey requested that the Board limit the request to the C-1 and C-2 uses even if it is zoned MP, for ambulances only.

There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

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 the request to amend CP Ord. #12-92, to rezone to MP (Planned Industrial) with the same conditions and site plan for the CP zoning and, with the addition of the paint and automotive body work being incidental to the EMS ambulance repair.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten (10) minute recess.

PETITION CUP#94/1/1-2 CUP in A George Welker-Southern

Naturals Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. The recommendation was to approve the request as conditioned and which was included in the backup. Mr. Stubbs stated that he did receive telephone calls in opposition to the request.

Commr. Bailey stated that he visited the property and found that there was not a 3,000 square foot building on the property at the current time, but that one was being proposed.

Mr. George Welker, applicant, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Welker explained that this was a very small agricultural business for moss that would be moved from Haines City, Polk County. The site was purchased and discussion took place with the neighbors to address their concerns about the roadway.



Commr. Bailey discussed the area where the business was being proposed and stated that this should be residential, or commercial in agriculture. He addressed the notification system used by the County and stated that this does not include many people in the area and stated that he has a problem with the system.

Mr. Welker explained that he spoke with the neighbors at Bamboo Way, and they have no problems with the request. He further explained that, if he had known what he knows today 6-12 months ago, he would not be here today, if he had built the nursery first.

Commr. Bailey stated that he was concerned and did not want to see any other commercial use that would disrupt the whole area.

There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz stated that the cause for concern was valid. He stated that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Code for use in agriculture really are designed for agricultural operations for agriculture products which are on the land, and if he had a nursery there, it would be acceptable. He further stated that the applicant was starting out with a commercial endeavor in an area that had recently had lot splits.

It was noted that there is a 50 foot dedicated easement.

Commr. Swartz stated that he is concerned that, once the structure was built, there woulf be a change in uses, which the Board would have to look at in the future. He stated that he could not support something that was essentially a commercial operation in agriculture.

Commr. Bailey stated that this was a very rural area, which is mostly agriculture. He stated that he would be more comfortable knowing that all of the neighbors know about the request.

After further discussion, as to the notification and communication with the neighbors, it was noted that Commr. Gerber and Commr. Bailey would support the request.



Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for an agricultural packing business, as conditioned.

Under discussion, Mr. Stubbs explained the conditions and stated that staff wanted to make sure that, if the applicants had any heavy trucks going into the business, they would not degrade the road, and that the existing road would be maintained, and they would pay any proportionate share towards any County maintained road which they may degrade.

Commr. Bailey stated this should be made a part of the a conditions. Mr. Welker indicated that he understood the condition for the road maintenance.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for approval, to include the above stated condition. The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

PETITION #82-93-2 A to R-4 Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that staff had GIS overheads for review. He stated that staff had recommended approval of the request subject to a Developer's Agreement limiting the density to no more than four (4) dwelling units per acre and providing for open space, recreation, and $127.00 per lot for fire service fee. He further stated that Public Services was requesting that the applicant provide access to the adjacent properties. Mr. Gregg explained the location of Greater Groves and Citrus Valley in relation to the property in question, which have RVs, mobile homes and campsites.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and explained that there was a PUD to the north, which was Sawgrass, and it was under construction for 170 lots and has subdivision approval pending sewer and water.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, informed the Board that the Citrus Valley PUD allows 8.7 units per acre for RVs, in addition to mobile homes. Mr. Richey stated that the Developer's Agreement has been drafted pursuant to the guidelines of the County Attorney's Office. He stated that the Agreement provides for a MSBU, which says that, at platting, the County may require to do a MSBU as provided for by State law, which gives the County the option of providing MSBU coverage for whatever the County may require at platting. Because this is straight zoning, a provision was included to set aside ten percent (10%) of the site for open space, as provided for in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

Mr. Richey called Mr. Greg Beliveau to testify as to the point system that an individual has to go through, once his zoning is approved, and to testify that the applicant has proposed over and above this system.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Beliveau presented testimony regarding his evaluation of the 190 acres, which was based on the determination of maximal density of provision in urban and urban expansion, and suburban in the Lake County LDRs. Mr. Beliveau explained the steps that someone would have to take to set up a system to obtain the maximum density allowed in the land use categories. This would require following certain steps, including using the matrix system, which has items that may be discretionary. Mr. Beliveau indicated that, once the zoning is approved, an individual would proceed through certain "tests".

Mr. Richey questioned whether R-4 was the highest density that the applicant could seek. Mr. Beliveau testified to other options that would be available to the applicant and to the point that, because the applicant was requesting a zoning of R-4, it would not mean that there would be four (4) units per acre. The developer would have to go through the matrix system, and based on what he was willing to provide and what was in the area, a determination would be made to determine the density up to four (4) units per acre.

Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Stubbs who provided testimony that there are commercial uses proposed in the Sawgrass PUD, which was one reason why staff reviewed the request before the Board for a single use and not a PUD.

Mr. Richey stated that he had no further questions and that he had reviewed the Developer's Agreement, as proposed by the County Attorney's Office, and found it to be acceptable, and would abide by the conditions.

Commr. Hanson stated that her only concern, in the actual development plans, would be to have it developed in a community like fashion as much as possible.

Mr. Richey explained that the property will be meeting the access management standards, because everything will be internalized within the development and will meet the LDRs in regards to platting, and he would not anticipate this being a problem.

Mr. Mark Knight presented the GIS overheads that included information on Septic Tank Limitations, Land Use for 1990, and the Wetlands.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Discussion occurred regarding the MSBUs that would be enacted by the Board and adopted annually. It was noted that this would be done prior to a plat being approved or recorded. Mr. Wahl, County Manager, stated that discussion had occurred regarding that, at the time of platting, the language would be put into place before anything goes on the ground.



Commr. Swartz stated that it was his understanding that the Board had decided to have an agenda item brought back to it, in order to decide how it wanted to handle the MSBU process, because it has just been described as though staff was going to make the decision, whereas the ordinances that have been approved, whether it be straight zoning through Developer's Agreements, or they be PUD ordinances, have language in there that says the Board will. He stated that any of these, before they go through the platting process, need to be brought back to the Board to decide if it wants to put into place, through the language that is in there, those MSBUs. He further stated that he had requested that a discussion item be placed on the agenda, so that the Board could finalize language, and in fact, to establish policy, if it wanted to require those developments and those moving into them to pay additional fees to pay for the fire and sheriff's costs.

Mr. Pete Wahl informed the Board that this item is anticipated to come before the Board some time in March.

Commr. Swartz requested that, prior to any platting of any of the projects that have been approved with language that goes from quite specific to quite general, any decision would come back prior to the March schedule. He stated that he believes these large rezonings should go through the PUD process, if for no other reason because they require open space and recreation requirements that seem to exceed what they have voluntarily agreed to. He further stated that it is through the PUD process that you can insure what has been expressed, and that was the creation of a community in this area, which was a series of developments that are stripping Highway 27 from the Polk-Osceola County line northward as quickly as possible. Commr. Swartz stated that he opposes this and the development, for these reasons.



Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), for single-family residential development, per staff recommendations.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would have agreed with Commr. Swartz several years ago, because the Board did make acreage limitations on straight zoning for subdivisions, but now that the LDRs are in place, and the requirements for subdivisions to get the density they need, they are coming under very similar criteria as the PUDs. She stated that people want the sense of a community, not just a subdivision, and in the plans presented, there will be several communities.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would support the request, but only because Sawgrass is already established, there is already an impact being made, and the property is high and dry.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

PETITION #71-93-5 RM to R-4 David Wall - President

Ideal Development Company

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant has requested a conversion from mobile homes to site built constructed homes on the same piece of property and has requested a vested rights determination, in order to convert this over with a Developer's Agreement. The request has been reviewed by staff, and with the County Attorney, and it has been determined that this transition would not be more detrimental to the area, or be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, or the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that the facts have been reviewed to determine what type of vesting the applicant would have for concurrency purposes. He stated that the applicant definitely has consistency. He further stated that the applicant has a preliminary plat and construction plans to build lots that are 12,500 square feet per lot, and even though he is currently in rural, he is still allowed to build at that density, which is what he was being vested for. The applicant could then come in and change the zoning to put in a mobile home, or conventional house.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant had originally requested R-4 zoning and, in talking with the County Attorney's Office and Planning staff, he would be willing to go to agriculture, as long as he would receive a positive vested rights determination.

It was noted that, if it were not for the variable vested rights determination, this would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that one-third of the property has been built, and the rest of the property has a preliminary plat and construction drawings that have been approved and provides for 12,500 square foot lots. The applicant's goal in the beginning was to change, on the last 30 acres, from mobile homes to conventional homes. Through discussions with the County Attorney's Office and staff, it was determined that the applicant could zone the property to R-4, which would allow for the housing and provide, in a Developer's Agreement, if the applicant lost his vested rights, the County would have the right to rezone the property back to agriculture, or the applicant could zone it agriculture today, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, providing for the vesting, which allows the 12,500 square foot lots. The Developer's Agreement indicates that the applicant would zone the property to agriculture to provide for conventional construction on the vested preliminary plat. Mr. Richey noted that the water systems and drainage systems have already been done for the last part of the plat, so under common law vesting, there would be no changes.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, if the property was going to be zoned to agriculture, this would be consistent with the Land Use Map as it exists, and the units are vested. The Board needs to make sure that the Developer's Agreement includes language to make it clear that non-conforming uses are not being created.

It was noted that the proper language would be included and the vested rights letter would be tied into the Developer's Agreement, with the specifics referencing the vested rights letter.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

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 the request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to A (Agriculture), based upon the Developer's Agreement, and the vested rights determination for density and intensity.

PETITION MSP#94/1/1-2 Mining Site Plan in A Adams & Adams

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of the Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, would be presenting the staff's view of the request, and an overview of the Staff Report as presented by Environmental Management.

Mr. Barker addressed the Board and explained that staff has met with the applicants over the past several months and all issues of concern have been addressed and resolved. The applicant has met with the adjacent property owners and resolved all prior issues.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Adams and Mr. Chuck Drake appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, called Mr. Steve Adams to provide testimony as to the information supplied in the Mining Site Plan Application Turnpike Sand Plant Lake County (LPG #462/4), which Mr. Richey submitted, as evidence, and which was entered and marked as the Applicant's Exhibit 1 (composite).

Mr. Adams testified as to the location of the property in question, which totals approximately 340 acres. Mr. Adams noted that there are approximately 315 acres of burned out orange groves; approximately 20 acres of wetlands; approximately 2 1/2 acres of pine mesic oak; and approximately 2 acres of roadways. Mr. Adams continued his testimony on the mining activity, which would take place on 164 acres of mine area for fourteen years, and include a ten (10) acre initial tailings area, and a 23 acre plant site. Mr. Adams provided testimony on the detailed environmental assessment of the property, both from a flora and fauna point of view. Mr. Adams addressed the endangered species survey, which indicated that there were no gopher tortoises, or other protected animal species on the site. Mr. Adams stated that there would be a one acre isolated wetland area impacted from the initial tailings area, and approximately eight acres of wetlands would be created. Mr. Adams reviewed the mining site plan being proposed, and described the vegetative buffer and berm that would be extended, to address the concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners. Mr. Adams testified as to the PUD to the south called Monterey, which he was involved in, and stated that there was no conflict with residents in this area. It was noted that there was a letter from the developer in the backup material, which indicated no opposition to the development based on the proposed conditions. Mr. Adams addressed the wetlands in the northwest corner of the property and stated that it would be monitored to determine whether there would be any adverse affects on it, due to the mining operation. He further stated that there would be no activity north of Bridges Road. Mr. Adams discussed the 88 acre pit area that would be left after the mining; the original topography of the site; and the topography of the site after the mining takes place. He also discussed the traffic that would be generated from the mining operation.

Mr. James Lowry appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Lowry stated that he was the owner of the 142 acres just east and adjacent to the property in question. He stated that he could not understand how his property could be of any value, if there was a big hole in the ground next to him. He further stated that he had not been approached by anyone involved with the request, but he did send a letter to the Board opposing any mining. Mr. Lowry stated that his property was not currently being used for agriculture, and that he was trying to preserve his property for his children and grandchildren.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Chuck Drake, Hydrologist, to present testimony in behalf of the applicant. It was noted that he had previously been administered the oath.

Mr. Drake testified as to the number of borings and drillings that had been done on the property in question; the location of the sand; and the proposed depth of the mine. Mr. Drake explained that there are two hills, one on the north end, and one on the south end of the property, which rise to approximately 140 feet. Mr. Drake proceeded to explain how the mining operation would affect the site, in terms of the different aquifers, surficial and Floridan. It was noted that the negative gradient indicates that the flow is away from the Palatlakaha River. Mr. Drake testified that, in regards to the marsh to the south and the wetlands to the west, and the marsh and wetlands and property to the east, from a hydrological point of view and based on the analysis, these properties would not be adversely affected by the operation.

Commr. Swartz questioned where the water goes that is falling essentially in and around the site, as a result of the confined layer. Mr. Drake responded that the shallow ground water was falling from the southwest corner to the northeast, and he addressed Figure 1, Location Map, in Exhibit 1, and explained the topography of the site in relation to the overall water flow.

Commr. Swartz addressed Exhibit 1, Section 3, Hydrogeology, Page 3-1, which described the flow of water on the site as going against the "rule of thumb" where the water table would generally follow the ground surface. In this case, it was noted that the shape of the water table did not follow the land surface. He then addressed Page 3-2, which indicated the following: "The gradient flowing away from the river indicates that the river is acting as a losing stream, providing water to the surficial aquifer."

Mr. Drake addressed the Section entitled Figures, Figure 6, in Exhibit 1, and explained the Water Table Elevations, November 28, 1993.

Commr. Swartz addressed the following statement on Page 3-2: "It is probable that the direction of groundwater flow depends mostly on rainfall. During the wet season, when rainfall is higher and more frequent, water probably tends to flow toward the river." Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Drake felt that taking 1.6 million gallons a day would have any negative impact on the surficial aquifer, or the deeper aquifer, or any of the surface waterbodies. Mr. Drake responded no, primarily because of the thickness of the clay unit, which is approximately 35 feet thick, and other geological cross sections indicating a unit could be up to 50 feet thick. Mr. Drake clarified that the pump would not be on 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the life of the mine, and testified as to the amount of water that would actually be leaving the site, as a result of this.

Commr. Swartz explained that people are distressed over the fact that the lakes are drying up and that they no longer exist, and this may have resulted from the pumping going on, for some of the developments that have occurred in this area. He stated that he was very concerned with what was being done in this area, with regard to the water. He stated that some of the wells are pumping from the Floridan aquifer and yet the surficial lakes are disappearing.

Mr. Drake presented his defense on the issues presented by Commr. Swartz and stated that there was not a direct impact on pumping a Floridan well, but there would be an impact if you were pumping from the surficial aquifer.

Commr. Swartz discussed the recharge capability of the site, which was listed as high recharge on the map in the data inventory analysis.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Adams to testify as to the operation of the mine.

Mr. Adams addressed the noise issue and stated that it would be fairly minimal, other than truck traffic. He testified that the concerns expressed by those individuals in the northern area were addressed.

Mr. Richey submitted, as evidence, the TWP 21S-RNG 24E Northeast Quarter map, which has the property that is subject to the mining site plan, which was marked and entered by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "2".

Mr. Lowry appeared before the Board and stated that he was concerned that 14 years from now there would be a big hole in the ground, and he wanted to know what affect the mining would have on the surrounding properties, and what the reclamation process would be. He stated that he has two lakes on his property, and he does not want to see the conditions ruin his property.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Adams to clarify the reclamation process and to discuss the existing topography of the site and what would be left of the site after the reclamation.

Mr. Adams testified that, after the mining, there would be a lake that would have gradual slopes going down to the lake, and there would be the reestablishment of eight acres of wetlands around the lake.

Mr. Richey discussed the Pringles' development plans to the south, and the reclamation bond that would have to be posted by the applicant.

Mr. Antonio Gomes appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Gomes testified that he is the northeast adjacent property owner. He stated that he attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and wanted to be reassured that the berm would be 15 feet high, and that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) would be monitoring the water level.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Adams to provide additional testimony as to the monitoring of the adjacent wetlands and the surficial aquifer, which he stated would be normal requirements of SJRWMD.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Barker to testify as to the monitoring of the wetlands and adjacent sites. Mr. Barker stated that the County would also be monitoring these as well. He further stated that the Environmental Protection Board would address any violations. Mr. Barker testified as to the low recharge condition of the site.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Barker stated that the project being proposed meets all of the standards in the County's mining ordinance. He explained the policies in the Comprehensive Plan relating to air quality, in relation to the mining operation, and stated that the new county-wide air quality monitoring program has not been developed, as of yet, by the County. Mr. Barker explained that there has been several expansions of mines in the County, but this was only the second new mine to be established, since the mining ordinance became effective.

Commr. Swartz addressed the Technical Staff Report that dealt with Florida Rock Industries, which resulted in a spill into some of the adjacent wetlands, and stated that he was concerned with the adjacency of this to the Palatlakaha River. He also addressed the issue of the SJRWMD's map, and there being no discussion or report of the recharge issue being addressed by the applicant, or by staff.

Mr. Barker explained that the map before the Board was the map that was adopted by the governing board, and assured Commr. Swartz that the recharge issue was addressed by staff.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for Mining Site Plan in A (Agricultural) for mining of sand, as conditioned, including the additional buffering for the mining of sand.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was not comfortable with a mine in this area and in such close actual proximity to the Palatlakaha with the potential for spills, which do occur. He stated that he was concerned that no one could tell him why the water was running out in this area. He further stated that he was particularly concerned about the possibility of a spill into the Palatlakaha River, and he would vote against the request.

Mr. Barker addressed the safeguards established in the mining ordinance, and stated that he felt confident that a spill would not be a problem.

Commr. Bailey stated that this was an entirely different location than Florida Rock Industries, and because of the public awareness, he did not see a problem with the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that her concern involved whether the County was going to allow mines at all, but if the rules are strict enough to handle such situations, then the applicant should be allowed to go forward.

Commr. Swartz stated that a spill could be a very large detriment to the Palatlakaha River, and he agreed that the County should look at proposed mines. He explained that this was in an area where there were already severe water problems, and this is not the site to approve a mine.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

PETITION #73-93-5 A to CFD Russell Minx

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services Division, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that staff has recommended denial of the request based upon the fact that it does not meet the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-4 on the request, and therefore, no recommendation was made to the Board. The Division of Planning also recommended denial for the reasons indicated on Pages 3-4 in the backup material, which included the following: Page 5 - Policy 5-5.2: "Community Residential Facilities (7 to 14 residents) shall be approved as multiple-family development, and shall be allowed only in land use categories where multiple-family developments are a permitted use." Mr. Stubbs stated that the suburban land use category may permit multi-family development; however, this parcel would be inconsistent to the Land Use Plan Map, and would only be permitted with a PUD type zoning. A PUD is consistent in suburban, but RP (Residential Professional), and those types of multi-family uses are not permitted, and therefore, the recommendation is for denial.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the letter dated January 14, 1994, which was received by Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, from Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, which addressed an issue from the Planning and Zoning Commission on whether certain portions of the recently enacted ELMS Legislation would null and void certain portions of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. The letter states that the ELMS Legislation does not null and void the portion of the Comprehensive Plan referring to the regulation of the community residential homes, and it is the County Attorney's Office position that Ms. Campione is correct. It was noted that the policy in question was on the top of Page 5, Policy 5-5.2, in the backup material, and a portion of it was stated above.

Mr. Russell Minx, applicant, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Minx stated that he had no legal representation at this time. Mr. Minx informed the Board that he is the owner and administrator of an ACLF (adult congregate living facility) that he is currently operating in Umatilla, Florida.

Mr. Minx submitted the following as evidence, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk:

Applicant's Exhibit "A", copies of two letters from the Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services (HRS), one from James Godwin, Program Administrator, Aging and Adult Services, and one from Judith L. Tolliver, Adult Protective Investigator Supervisor,

Applicant's Exhibit "B", a copy of the Guidelines for Community Residential Homes developed by the Office of Program Policy Development (April 1990)

Applicant's Exhibit "C", a copy of Page 957, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes

Applicant's Exhibit "D", a copy of Pages 27-28, 10A-5.023 Physical Plant Standards, Florida Administrative Code

Applicant's Exhibit "E", a copy of Pages 3205-3206, Y.

Land Development Regulations



Mr. Minx read into the record highlighted sections of his exhibits, and presented testimony as to the atmosphere designed by his family for residents at the facility; the location of their facility; and the ailments and needs of the residents housed in their facility.

Mr. Minx submitted, as evidence, an original petition, with 190 names, requesting that the Board grant the rezoning, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "F".

Mr. Minx testified that the site has already been established as an ACLF and has been approved by HRS. He discussed the other facilities in Lake County and noted that Lakeview Terrace is the only other facility near the one in question, and he addressed its requirements for private pay. Mr. Minx referred to Exhibit "B", Page 18, Section 419.001(11), Florida Statutes, which indicates the following: "Nothing in this section requires any local government to adopt a new ordinance if it has in place an ordinance governing the placement of community residential homes that meet the criteria of this section. State law on community residential homes controls over local ordinances, but nothing in this section prohibits a local government from adopting more liberal standards for siting such homes."

COMMISSIONERS

At 1 p.m., Commr. Hanson turned the Chairmanship over to Commr. Cadwell, Vice Chairman.

PETITION #73-93-5 A to CFD Russell Minx (Continued)

Mr. Minx continued his testimony and stated that, after the information given today, the Board will be able to permit either a rezoning to CFD, or at least a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to facilitate 12 residents.

Commr. Gerber questioned what improvements have been made to the present facility to be able to take in twice as many people.

Mr. Minx explained that the facility has 2,200 square feet and that he originally added on to the house and had a whole new septic system put in to accommodate the number of people that would be there. He stated that he is currently licensed for six people, and there are five family members including himself in the facility. He stated that part of the facility is a manufactured home, and the other part is a custom built home, and it is regulated under all of the HRS guidelines for fire protection, sewer and water.

COMMISSIONERS

At 1:05 p.m., Commr. Cadwell, Vice Chairman, returned the Chairmanship to Commr. Hanson.

PETITION #73-93-5 A to CFD Russell Minx (Continued)

Mr. Minx continued to explain that his family would be removed from the home, in order to accommodate the additional residents, if the request is approved. He explained that there would be someone there 24 hours a day, and that the residents can basically function in a normal manner. He stated that, at the present time, he has no employees, but one of his goals is to have a full time employee.

Ms. Leslie Campione cross-examined Mr. Minx on issues regarding the Administrative Code and the requirements of HRS and discussed the number of people who would be required to care for ten (10) people, and to work the equivalent of 24 hours.

Mr. Minx explained that there would have to be two (2) people during the day shift, but not during the night shift.

Ms. Campione stated that, by moving out the family, the applicant would be moving out the family type environment.

Mr. Minx explained the living accommodations, which included the residents living in one-half of the house, and his family living in the other one-half of the house.

Commr. Swartz stated that the crux of the issue relates to what State Statute may require, or not require, with regards to what is in the Comprehensive Plan, and what may be allowed as opposed to what would be required to be allowed.

Ms. Campione stated that it would be in the best interest of her clients, to explore testimony presented by the applicant, but in the interest of time, she would agree with Commr. Swartz. She continued her cross-examination of Mr. Minx, who testified as to his hours spent at the facility, and his wife being the primary caretaker.

Mr. David Ernstine, Professional Registered Nurse, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Ernstine testified that his mother is a resident at the facility in question. He presented a comparison of this facility, in relation to the facility in San Antonio, Texas, where his mother was before she was moved here. Mr. Ernstine stated that the Minxs provide exceptional and quality care for all of the people at the facility. He addressed issues including the food provided to the residents; routine medical care; routine trips to private doctors, and the acknowledgement and celebration of all holidays and birthdays.



Ms. Campione stated that she represents the group of people that live on East Thirteenth Street in Umatilla. She stated that she is not here today to argue the merits of an ACLF, or the need to get people out of nursing homes and into traditional family environments. The question is whether this particular rezoning can be done in this location. She stated that Policy 5-5.2, as referred to on Page 5 of the backup material from staff, does not permit ACLF, PFD, community residential facilities in suburban land use designation, unless they require a PUD and, if the area can meet the timeliness criteria for the density. She indicated that neither could be used in this case. Ms. Campione stated that the Board drafted this particular language in the Comprehensive Plan, because the County wanted these facilities in urban type areas, in addition to wanting these facilities to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Ms. Campione stated that the Comprehensive Plan tracks the language of Chapter 419 of the Florida Statutes. She addressed the split in numbers, from six residents to seven residents, and the decision made by the County to restrict these types of facilities in multi-family type areas, as indicated in Chapter 419. She stated that Chapter 419 goes on to state specifically that "a home that is located within a radius of 500 feet of an area of single-family zoning substantially alters the nature and character of the area." This provision is in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding residents, in this case, are single-family in agriculture.

Ms. Campione informed the Board that a spokesperson has been designated to give testimony for the record, and in order to preserve the record, testimony from the opposition should be taken. Ms. Campione clarified that she was not before the Board today to question the sincerity of Mr. Minx, but stated that, to expand the facility at this particular location would be problematic. She further stated that it would be difficult to provide care for this number of people in an area that is so far removed from emergency services, and even if those issues could be addressed, the Board would be changing the character of the neighborhood. She implied that the people who presently live in the area are not too happy about having this facility next door to them, but they have accepted it along with the problems.

Mr. Ervin L. Wiggins appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Wiggins testified that he lives across the street from the facility, and that he has no quams with what currently exists. Mr. Wiggins indicated that it would definitely cause problems, if the number of people were increased at the facility. The people in the neighborhood are satisfied with the current situation. He discussed the dirt road and the congestion that would be generated from the increase in traffic, and the problems that would evolve with the septic tanks, and testified that the neighborhood is not in favor of the increase in an agricultural and quiet residential neighborhood. They would like to see the neighborhood remain in its current condition.

Mr. Minx cross-examined Mr. Wiggins about his concerns stated above. Mr. Wiggins testified that there is a concern that, if a problem arises, Mr. Minx will not be available. He further testified that there would be problems with additional vehicles on the street.

Mr. Minx discussed emergency services and stated that the facility is 2 to 2 1/2 miles from the Altoona Fire Station, which has a response time of less than five minutes, and that ambulances have responded within eight minutes. He addressed the congestion on the road, and the number of visits made to the facility by family members, noting that the majority of them visit once a month, which would not constitute a problem with traffic. Mr. Minx explained that he would be responsible for the facility, along with his wife. He testified that he tried to discuss, with the neighbors, the issues that were expressed to the Board, and the main issue of concern was the CFD zoning.

Pastor David H. Harris appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Pastor Harris testified as to his encounters with the elderly from the facility.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Board had before them an issue that deals with the appropriateness of zoning, with regards to the Comprehensive Plan, and Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, and stated that the Board was not here today to deal with the issue of how the facility was being run.

Pastor Harris stated that the property is not zoned for the purpose it is being used.

There being no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Commr. Cadwell stated that no one was questioning the job that was being done by Mr. and Mrs. Minx, but that there was a question of land use. He stated that he has reviewed all pertinent information to try and assist the applicant, but every governmental agency that deals with this issue differentiates between the size of the homes, in relation to 1 to 6 (residents), and 7 to 14 (residents). Commr. Cadwell stated that the County cares about ACLFs, because they are allowed in the Comprehensive Plan, but the County does differentiate between the sizes. He further stated that this request is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and he will not be able to support it.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County's policies, in the Housing Element, basically track the State Statute with regard to group homes. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has found this portion of the Plan in compliance, and it does make a differentiation, as indicated by Commr. Cadwell. If Mr. Minx wanted to establish another residential home for six (6) or less residents under the requirements of the County, he could go into any residential zoning district and do this, without any approval from this Board. The only place in which anyone would be required further approval would be if the number went above six (6), in which case the County's policy, which is consistent with State Statute, allows the Board to look at consistency within the residential area. Commr. Swartz stated that he would support a motion made by Commr. Cadwell.

Commr. Gerber stated that she concurs with the statements made by Commr. Swartz on this issue.

Commr. Bailey stated that this request comes down to the land use. He stated that what the Minxs are doing is very admiral. Commr. Bailey further commented that, if the applicants move out of the facility, it would bother him to have the residents there by themselves. He stated that another facility could be established somewhere else, but he feels the family gives it the stability.

Commr. Hanson stated that she could not support the request, but she supports the concept. The Comprehensive Plan would have to be re-addressed, if the number of residents were to be changed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board denied the request for rezoning from (A) Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for an adult congregate living facility to house six (6) or more persons, based on the evidence presented by staff and both parties.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISIONS

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to release escrow in the amount of $159,058.90 for performance of improvements in Pennbrooke, Phase 1E.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed the report made by Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. regarding a continuing and very serious problem with the rat infestation at the leased property located at 101 East Maud Street, Tavares. The problem was first brought to the attention of County staff in July, 1993, and the County has spent a significant amount of money attempting to deal with the issue, and has not been successful in addressing the problem. Mr. Wahl stated that the landlord has not followed up with any appropriate action. He further stated that the Public Health Unit Director, per staff's request, visited the property last Friday afternoon, and even though staff has not received his written report, he talked to Dr. John C. Pellosie, Jr. this morning and he said that it was his opinion that the property was not fit for habitation or use at this time, because of the rat infestation. Mr. Wahl recommended that the lease be terminated for cause, and that the tenants be relocated. Mr. Wahl stated that Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities and Capital Improvements, has attempted to negotiate a substitute lease agreement for 201 West Main Street, Tavares, and if the Board approves this, staff needs approval to charge relocation costs not to exceed approximately $20,000.00 primarily for phone service, from the Contingency Account, and to direct the County Attorney to explore whether any of these costs can be recovered from the landlord.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to place the request, as stated above by Mr. Wahl, on the agenda as an emergency item.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize the County Manager and the County Attorney's Office to take the necessary actions to remove the County from the lease, and make the necessary reallocation requirements, and explore options for recovering the costs, as a result of the landlord's failure to provide as the lease requires, as stated above.

REPORTS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to authorize the forwarding of the three names of individuals from District #3 to the Governor for consideration for appointment to the Citizens' Commission for Children to replace Elaine S. Davis, as follows: D. Denise Joiner; Vivian Miller Mitchell; and Janis E. Smith.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that the Board was in the process of revising the ordinance to bring it down to the local level where the Commissioners would actually make the appointments. However, the Board was still waiting on the last appointments, and this may confuse the matter.

Commr. Swartz stated that there is an ordinance that calls for this committee as it is presently adopted, and there is a vacancy, and he would like to go ahead and send these names forward.

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

COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS

Commr. Cadwell reminded the Board of the Wednesday night League of Cities meeting.

Commr. Hanson reminded the Board of the State of the County meeting on Thursday, February 24, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. She requested that, if anyone had an item to be placed on the address, they submit it through the County Manager.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m.



CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\2-22-94\3-16-94