The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 29, 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: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Sue Michaelsen, Executive Secretary; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Watkins gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Hanson stated that all departmental matters would be heard later in the day, after the public hearings.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

Commr. Hanson addressed Tab 1, the first public hearing on the Transmittal Hearing - First Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and stated that the Board would like to postpone this item, until after the road vacations and rezoning items, so that it could be heard in conjunction with rezoning items 19-21.

The Chairman called for 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 postponed the Transmittal Hearing - First Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, until after the public hearings.

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 750 - Bill Higginbotham - Yalaha Area -

District 3

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender described the location of the property and stated that this was a dead end drive that goes to a canal. He stated that staff looked at the request from a potential public access issue and determined that there would be no use for it.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience. There being no one present who wished to speak in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 750 by Bill Higginbotham to vacate road (Lakesire Drive), Sun Eden Subdivision, Sec. 16, Twp. 20, Rge. 25, Yalaha Area, Commissioner District 3, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 751 - Dorothy Shipes - Lake Jem Area -

District 3

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender described the location of the property and stated that no one would be denied legal access by the vacation.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not present, nor a representative. There being no one present who wished to speak in opposition to the request, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 751 by Dorothy Shipes to vacate easement, Sec. 14, Twp. 20, Rge. 26, Lake Jem Area, Commissioner District 3, as advertised.

COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, introduced to the Board Mr. Bruce Duncan, who will be the Assistant County Attorney.

ROAD VACATIONS (Continued)

PETITION NO. 752 - Ron Bischoff, Vice President -

Selectlands, Inc. - District 3

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender described the location of the property and stated that this involved the old plat of Woodhaven Subdivision. A few years ago, the County vacated the entire plat except for two parcels that would not sell. One lot has since been bought, and the applicant will be vacating the lot on the north end along with the rights-of-way to the west and to the north to Lane Park cutoff, and with the additional lot, the applicant is dedicating a non-exclusive easement to the north directly to Lane Park.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the new non-exclusive easement, that is being dedicated, will be improved to at least the same standards as the previous easement.

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

Mr. Ted Wicks, representing Selectlands, Inc., appeared before the Board to address the questions presented by Commr. Swartz, and stated that the applicant has attempted, on several occasions, to purchase the last lot that is under individual ownership. The owner has expressed no interest in selling it, and there are no improvements on it at the present time. In order to protect the access to that lot, the applicant is proposing to provide the non-exclusive easement to that lot equal to what is there already, which will give the lot direct access back out to Lane Park cutoff. Mr. Wicks stated that, should the applicant develop in the future, and the lot remains under ownership, the applicant will provide improved access to that lot through the non-exclusive easement, or another agreement made at that time. Mr. Wicks requested that the Board act favorably on the request.

It was noted that the property owner of Lot 377 was notified, and staff had not received any correspondence.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

It was noted that the road vacation would be subject to the dedication of a new non-exclusive easement.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition 752 by Ron Bischoff, Vice President - Selectlands, inc., to vacate roads and lot, Woodhaven Subdivision, Sec. 6, Twp. 20, Rge. 26, Lane Park Area - Commissioner District 3, as advertised, and subject to proper documents for the new non-exclusive easement being signed and recorded, as necessary.

ZONING

PETITION #9-94-2 A to R-4 Jack R. Amon

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that there was an error in the advertising. A piece of property should have been advertised, and it was not, therefore, the request needed to be postponed until the next zoning meeting, April 26, 1994.

Ms. Cathy Allison, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant was not pleased about the error made in the advertising.

It was noted that there was no further public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Medium Estate Residential), for the construction of single family residential, for 30 days, until April 26, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION CUP#94/2/1-4 CUP in A Margit B. Ludwigsen

Richard Fyfe

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant was requesting a withdrawal of the petition.

Commr. Hanson stated that the request was in District 4, and that she would have to declare a conflict of interest and not vote. It was noted that the conflict was due to the adjacent property being listed for sale through her business.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved the withdrawal of the request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for the establishment of an indoor/outdoor training facility with indoor boarding kennel for 50 dogs and 5 cats; and for the placement of a caretaker's residence, as requested by the applicant.

The motion was carried by a 3-0 vote. Commr. Swartz was not present for the discussion or vote, and Commr. Hanson abstained from the discussion and vote, due to a conflict of interest.

The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following staff members: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services; Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management; Mr. Paul Bergmann, Sr. Director of Planning and Development; and Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III.

PETITION #2-94-2 R-1-7 to CFD Rufus L. Suggs

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff has recommended denial of the request based upon the fact the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be an incompatible use in this area of Lake County. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and denied it. Mr. Stubbs stated that there are 80 letters in opposition and petitions with a total of 562 signatures.

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

Ms. Marsha Reece appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Ms. Reece stated that she was the Managing General Partner for Reece Associates Ltd. Ms. Reece informed the Board that, since 1985 her company has been pursuing the construction permit to build Channel 27 a new television station that would serve this area and the surrounding County. Part of the agreement with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) was to build a television transmitting tower off of Suggs Road, with this area being determined as the most desirable for a number of factors. She stated that the FCC approved her request over 21 other applicants all vying for the same construction permit. Ms. Reece noted that a tower this size will not harm you physically; it will not harm you emotionally; and should not devalue your property. She further stated that the true harm is denying a fellow voter the right to use his property as he sees fit, a use that will not harm the environment, will not damage you physically, and it could even reduce sprawling development that this area seems to be destined for. She stated that she felt the public's concerns were based on misinformation. Ms. Reece extended her appreciation to staff for their gracious assistance, but that she would like to go on record and say that she was denied her right to effectively bring business to this area, because the County's own rules of due process were not extended to her organization. She stated that she should have been granted an extension, as requested last month, and she did not receive a final draft of the staff report five days prior to the zoning hearing. She further stated that the denial of her request for delay violated her rights; she protested; and she will go on record and say that the Board has not heard the last of this issue. Ms. Reece stressed that the County needed to inform people up front as to what is expected of them. She stated that she was never

advised of her need for a lawyer, until a couple months after she filed the rezoning request. Once she began looking for an attorney, she learned of documentation stating that, in Lake County, you go through a judicial hearing. She was given the impression that the zoning hearing was an informal fact finding meeting, and she was misinformed. She respectfully suggested that, when a person applies for a rezoning, all of the information is presented, including what is expected. This would include a copy of the procedures of conduct of these hearings, as well as procedures for the zoning, which she did receive.

Commr. Bailey addressed the issue of Ms. Reece being informed that she had to have an attorney to represent her case. He stated that, if the case is complicated, it may be advisable, but the process does not require that anyone have legal counsel. Clarification was made that this would be a quasi-judicial hearing.

Commr. Bailey expressed the concerns that he had with the procedures that the Board members have to follow for this type of a hearing.

Ms. Reece explained that she understands the concerns expressed by the residents, but that she has to go through a process with the FCC. She did not receive the construction permit until 1992. Ms. Reece further explained her position with the FCC and the procedures she will have to follow, once the decision is made by the Board today.

Commr. Bailey directed the Board's attention to Page 3 of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, and stated that he was concerned that the proper notification was not given to the residents.

Ms. Reece explained the process that she used in notifying the residents, which included getting the names and addresses from the Property Appraiser's Office.

Commr. Hanson stated that Ms. Reece had brought forward some areas that the County needs to improve on, and she extended her appreciation.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, questioned whether Ms. Reece was officially requesting a postponement of the request, and Ms. Reece's response was "no".

Mr. George Hovis, Attorney, Clermont, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Hovis questioned Ms. Reece on issues concerning the tower bringing business into Lake County.

Ms. Reece clarified that she did not have a lawyer representing her today, and it was not her intention to make this a big issue.

Mr. Hovis continued his questions as to what she expected up front from the County, and whether she posted the signs properly, or at all.

Ms. Reece refused to answer the questions, because she did not have adequate representation.

The Board discussed the direction it needed to take with the fact that Ms. Reece was not answering questions, due to not having adequate representation, and the fact that she was not requesting a postponement of the request.

Mr. Hoban clarified one of the points of procedures, which was the fact that an attorney is not required, and most applicants come through without one. He stated that the right of cross examination is allowed for people who have filed a Notice of Appearance, which Mr. Hovis has done. Mr. Hoban further stated that, when a question is asked, the applicant can give any response that she cares to. If that response is not responsive to the question, the Board can take that into its consideration in making an account and answer.

Mr. Hovis explained that there is a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission for denial of the request, and it is incumbent upon all of the individuals attending the meeting, and

incumbent upon him, on their behalf, and on the Board's behalf, to build a record. He then continued his cross examination of Ms. Reece, who testified that all of the property owners that were required to be notified were notified. Mr. Hovis discussed the configuration of the property, the benefits of the tower in regards to employment, and the notification to the County of the FCC's approval of the Suggs' property. Ms. Reece refrained from answering the majority of the questions.

Mr. Hovis began his presentation by stating that the site in question was selected in 1985, and the County was not notified until recently about the site. Mr. Hovis presented a list of subdivisions that the Board had approved since 1985, and gave the size of each one. He stated that all of the subdivisions lie within one-half (1/2) mile of the Suggs' property. Mr. Hovis discussed Lake Louisa Oaks, which has 36 lots, and stated that, according to the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector, in 1993, out of the 36 lots, 13 were assessed with homes on them. In 1993, for tax purposes, there was over one-third (1/3) of the subdivision built out. The assessed valuation in Lake Louisa Oaks was over 2 1/2 million dollars. Mr. Hovis stated that the Board voted on all of the subdivisions that he listed, and almost all of the subdivisions were built by non-professionals. Mr. Hovis expressed that he felt that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have done their jobs. Mr. Hovis submitted, as evidence, a letter from Ms. Marsha Reece to Mr. Jeff Webman, which was marked and entered by the Deputy Clerk as the Opponent's Exhibit "1". He requested that the application be denied, because it would be in the best interest of Lake County.

Ms. Carrie Bailey appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Bailey appeared in opposition to the request and stated that she lives on the property adjoining the property in question. She stated that she has not, as of this date, been notified by letter, or sign, there was a rezoning in

progress. Ms. Bailey stated that she and her husband built their home, and when they bought the land in 1987, it was a burned out orange grove. They planted over 200 trees, and they do not want to see their life savings and the future of their children destroyed, because of a tower. She stated that the tower would be an attractive nuisance for the teenagers in the area. Ms. Bailey stated that she was also concerned about the tower causing health problems, and, at this time, addressed the problem that had occurred in Satellite Beach, in relation to domes that were eventually removed, because of health problems incurred by the people in the area, even though they could not prove that the problems were related to the structures. Ms. Bailey discussed the storms that have destroyed similar structures and requested that the Board approve the denial, because the town does not need a tower of this magnitude.

Commr. Bailey stated, for the record, that he was not related to Ms. Carrie Bailey.

Mr. Ralph (Rocky) Pardington appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Pardington discussed the amount of time that it has taken to get the request to this point (6-7 years), and questioned when there was going to be an attorney available for the applicant who would be able to answer questions of concern.

Mr. John Ramboz appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Ramboz stated that he is a resident of Lake Louisa Oaks and that he would like to go record and say that he would not have purchased the property, nor invested in the building, had the tower been there, or had he even known that it had been proposed for the site. He stated that he has been a practicing electrical engineer for 35 years. He stated that, whenever there is any frequency source in the presence of other electronic devices, interference can be generated. Mr. Ramboz stated that, if problems do occur, he did not feel that talents in

Lake County exist where the County could afford to fix the problems. He discussed the height of the tower, approximately 1900 feet, and indicated that this could possibly be designated as an aviation hazard, and possibly a storm hazard. He stated that such large structures could not be tested in a laboratory and are designed with good faith. He also addressed the health hazard issue in terms of radiation, which may or may not exist. Mr. Ramboz stated for the record that he is strongly opposed to this as a property owner and on technical basis.

Mr. Steve Richey appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Richey stated that he was the Vice President of Roger Investment Company Inc., and also Vice President of Lakeridge Club Homeowners Association. He noted that, in the staff report, there was a negative recommendation, because the rezoning was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and in the petitioner's presentation of the case, there was no rebuttal to that negative comment by staff. He requested that the Board ask for some rebuttal to it. Since the case started, and the publicity has occurred, he has lost two lot sales in Lakeridge Club, because of the people's concerns. He stated that this would be factual basis to say that this is affecting property values. Mr. Richey suggested that there may be some area in Lake County where this request could be accommodated, but clearly not in an area where the County has, to the north, set aside the ability to develop residential communities. He requested that the Board vote no on this request, especially since it is in contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Rosa Wait appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Wait stated that she just moved into Lake County, at the end of January, from Orlando. She addressed the concern of this being a health hazard and questioned whether the County would be willing to take this risk. She stated that she would like some research, on the applicant's part, as to this

issue. She further stated that she would like to know that the applicant has also considered other alternatives. Ms. Wait stated that it was important that her family found such an area to build their home, and that the tower will be an eyesore and will cause development to decrease in the area. She stated that it will be detrimental to the growth of the County.

Ms. Reece commented that her organization did notice the change in the area and that she understands the concerns being expressed by the residents, but there is a process that she has to follow with the Federal Government.

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

Commr. Bailey stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended denial of the request, because it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, or the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that he traveled through the area in question, and it is a suburban rural community, and of a residential type that people want. Commr. Bailey stated that it may not have been this way when Ms. Reece began her request, but there is a lot of growth in the area. He stated that the request would not be compatible to the area, and therefore, he would vote to deny it.

Ms. Reece explained that she would be taking the staff recommendation and following along with technical assistance and looking for another piece of property. She further explained that there were problems with clearing the titles, as well as other technical problems, for not pursuing the request earlier.

Commr. Gerber stated that this area would not be an appropriate area for the tower. She informed the Board that there is a proposed House Bill dealing with the quasi-judicial procedures, which may relieve the Board of such procedures in the future.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the applicant was granted due process throughout the procedure.

Mr. Hoban reviewed the process that was taken by the applicant, and stated that she did receive due process. He stated that, if she had appeared at the Planning and Zoning hearing, she would have had the right to postpone the hearing, if she had so chosen, but because she did not show up, it was not postponed. The quasi-judicial rule states that, if the staff report is not available five days before the meeting, the applicant has the right to have a hearing postponed.

Mr. Stubbs responded to Mr. Hoban's comments by clarifying that the staff report was available to the public within the five days.

Mr. Hoban stated that he stood corrected, and the applicant had the right to ask for a postponement, and it would have been at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as to whether the postponement was granted or not, and that due process had been granted.

Commr. Swartz stated that, even though it is not a requirement, it would be helpful if staff prepared a copy with procedural information for applicants, so that, as long as Lake County continues in the quasi-judicial manner, this is supplied to the applicants. He suggested that staff review the language in the Comprehensive Plan in regards to public utilities, because what is being said today contradicts the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for compatibility, and if these types of things are trying to be moved into urban-urban expansion areas, yet they really need to go into areas that are really rural, staff needs to deal with these types of issues at the application stage. Commr. Swartz stated that he will support the District Commissioner's motion that he will make to deny the request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, based on the staff recommendation and the evidence presented today, he intends on supporting the denial.

Commr. Hanson stated that there are too many unanswered questions today, in addition to the other reasons given for denial.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied the request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the placement of a Television Broadcasting tower.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

REZONING (Continued)

PETITION #10-94-4 A to C-1 to CP Barbara Harris

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff has recommended approval of the rezoning to CP (Planned Commercial), and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the request. The conditions were incorporated into the attached resolution.

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

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CP (Planned Commercial), for the construction and operation of a day care facility.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote. Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION #6-94-5 A to CFD Mary Sue Gross

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff has recommended approval of the request, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission.

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

Discussion occurred regarding the notification that was given to the property owners. Mr. Stubbs stated that there were five persons notified of this request.

Ms. Victoria Bucher appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Bucher, Florida Power Corporation, addressed the Board and stated that she was representing the applicant, Mary Sue Gross, and Florida Power, the purchaser of the property. Ms. Bucher explained the location of the Lisbon substation, and stated that Florida Power has been unable to negotiate the purchase of the adjacent property to expand. Therefore, a new location was being proposed, and the current substation would be disbanded.

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

Commr. Bailey addressed the utility issue, and the notification process, which he suggested could be addressed at a later time.

Ms. Bucher explained that she personally posted the signs and sent letters, as required. She stated that only one of the five property owners responded.

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 rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for an electrical substation.

PETITION #12-94-4 CP to R-1 Thomas & Trampas Shannon

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended approval of the request. He stated that the request was reviewed by the Environmental Protection Board.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the County tree ordinance does not pertain to a silvicultural operation. He questioned whether staff reviewed this in light of the fact that, on two sides and to the north, the property is residential, and whether or not a full silvicultural operation can be conducted there without causing problems to a residential area.

Ms. Paula Blazer, Environmental Program Supervisor, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Blazer explained that this was a request that had arisen in resolution of a violation, and in order for the applicant to resolve the violation, he was given some conditions in a letter from Mr. Leo Vaughn, Code Compliance Manager. One of those conditions was to bring the property into compliance, if he was going to continue tree removal and harvesting on the property. The other option was to restore the property in its entirety, and he could keep the zoning. Ms. Blazer explained that, when Mr. Shannon originally asked for the rezoning on his property, his intentions were to remain agricultural, and he only wanted to rezone the front one-half of the abutting property as commercial, but because of the legal description, he had to rezone the entire piece of property. It was noted that this would be excluding the property along the highway, which would remain CP.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff reviewed how compatible this rezoning would be for a silvicultural operation, which would be confined by residential.

Ms. Blazer informed the Board that the trees have already been cut down, so the impact to the residential has already occurred.

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

Mr. Ted Wicks appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Wicks presented the background history on the property, and stated that, in 1982, the Shannons came to the County and petitioned for a CP zoning on a piece of agricultural land. The parent tract consisted of approximately 17 acres, and they thought they were requesting CP zoning on approximately five (5) acres on the front of the property, and leaving the balance of acreage as agricultural. At that time, there was a considerable stand of natural pine trees on the back tract, and after approximately 15 years of maturity, the applicants physically harvested the trees and sold them for timber. They were cited by the Code Compliance Division, and after discussions with this division and Environmental Services, they were given the option to perform a reclamation process, or rezone the property to legalize the harvesting of the trees. Any continued silvicultural operation would rely on the continued natural growth of any pine trees or seedlings on the property at the present time. It was noted that they do not intend to go in and intensify it into a nursery operation.

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

Commr. Swartz stated that he would not oppose rezoning the property to R-1, if it included whatever requirements would exist within the County Code to replant, based on a violation of both the tree ordinance and proper zoning for a silviculture activity. However, he could not see the Board allowing this to be rezoned and ignoring the fact that the trees have already been removed on improperly zoned property. He stated that he could not vote to rezone the property, unless the requirements for replanting were incorporated in the rezoning.

Mr. Wicks explained that the applicants could not have gotten a permit to harvest the pine trees on the CP zoned property, because of the interpretation of the current Code.

Commr. Swartz stated that the applicant could have gotten the proper zoning for a silviculture activity, but the trees have already been removed. Because it is now after the fact, the applicant is trying to rezone to an inconsistent land use on the existing zoning.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the County have some allowance for silviculture activities, with special conditions, in this type of zoning, because it is within an area that is residential.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board waives this and makes it an after the fact permit and grants the zoning, there would be no reason for anybody to come in and get a permit, because they would be better served by going in and cutting the trees down. After they are made aware of the violation, they can then come in and get it rezoned.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and explained that, under the CP zoning, the applicant would have to have a tree removal permit, which would usually be associated with a site plan. Mr. Barker explained that the applicant, in this case, had a silviculture activity, he always intended for it to be a silviculture activity, and he wanted to take advantage of the exemption criteria for the harvesting under the silviculture criteria. The applicant cannot have the exemption under the current regulations, unless it is agriculture, R-1-8, or R-1 zoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that he feels the applicant should be required to comply with the Code, as he was zoned CP, because he violated the Code by harvesting the trees without the proper zoning, or approval.

Discussion occurred regarding the applicant being required to replace the trees.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel that the rezoning would be the appropriate way to deal with what was a tree harvesting program in an inappropriate zone without any site review or approval.

Discussion occurred regarding a violation mechanism for fining the applicant. Mr. Barker stated that, in most cases, the County tries to obtain a compliance without going back and fining it as a strict violation.

Commr. Hanson discussed the possibility of a compromise, with the R-1 being an appropriate zoning for silvicultural uses, and perhaps requiring young saplings to be planted, which would grow rapidly with very little cost to the applicant. She stated that ASCS could assist with the funding, and the applicant could continue with the agricultural exemption.

Mr. Wicks stated that the applicant would not have a problem committing to ASCS for an approved seedling planting program. The problem was the reclamation requirement in the tree ordinance.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, if this Board feels there needs to be some reclamation and restoration based on the actions that occurred, the appropriate decision would be to postpone the rezoning and have staff work with the applicant to try and come back with a recommendation that would deal with the violation and be separate from the zoning.

Mr. Barker explained that, if the applicant had the proper zoning and was running a silviculture operation, he would have had to show the County that he had an ongoing silviculture operation, which would mean he had a management plan, a harvesting plan, and a replanting plan.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, under the Best Management Practices, the applicant could have cut the trees and replanted them. He stated the Board needs to require him to replant.

Commr. Swartz stated that this site is located in an urban expansion area, it is surrounded on approximately three sides with

residential, and the Board needs to decide if this is going to be an appropriate place for a silviculture activity. The site needs to be restored to the pre-cut situation, and then the zoning and silviculture operation can be considered.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County is encouraging people who have ten acres or more to plant pine trees to create buffers, but with the idea that they will be able to harvest the trees.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that Astor has sections of the Ocala Forest that cut in between Astor and Astor Park that may be only ten (10) or fifteen (15) acre parcels, where the communities have been split, so it is not uncommon to have a fifteen (15) acre parcel that is surrounded by residential units.

Commr. Swartz hoped that the County was encouraging silviculture activities where people have the appropriate zoning.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board needed to encourage the applicant and give him some incentive to keep the pine trees on his property rather than penalizing him so greatly that he abandons the land. It was noted that the applicant had cut the trees to pay his taxes.

Commr. Cadwell questioned, if the Board postponed the case for 30 days and directed staff to work with the applicant, would the Board be satisfied with anything less than total restoration of the land.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would not support a plan that put back seedlings to turn this into a silviculture operation, but he would not expect it to be put back with the same size mature trees that were there. He stated that a reasonable compromise, between putting back a significant number of larger trees as required under the tree ordinance, and perhaps additional planting of seedlings in combination, would be something that would be acceptable. He stated that the Board also needs to make the determination whether or not this is, in light of where it is located, a good site for a silviculture operation, because it is surrounded by residential.

Commr. Bailey stated that the Board needs to see some kind of plan for the replacement of trees, but he was concerned whether the applicant would be required to put in some kind of irrigation system, which could be very costly to him. He agreed that the staff should look at this again.

Mr. Wicks explained that the trees were cut to pay the taxes, and he never filed for an exemption on the property.

It was noted, for the record, that the applicant was present in the audience.

Mr. Hoban pointed out that, if the Board did want to postpone the request today and approve a silvicultural harvesting plan next month along with the rezoning, the Board could then see what would be required. Mr. Hoban explained that this could be done through a Consent Agreement, or an improved silviculture harvesting plan.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone for 30 days, until April 26, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for silvicultural uses.

PETITION CUP#94/2/2-2 CUP in A George & Kimberly Brown

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that there were two letters received in opposition to the request. He further stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended approval of the request.

It was noted that there are other mobile homes in the area, and that this request was determined to be no different than any other request for a mobile home for the infirm.

Commr. Gerber requested that staff include the doctor's letter in the backup material for the Board to review.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey 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 for the care of the infirm.

PETITION #7-94-2 A to CFD Lake County Board of

County Commissioners

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request.

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

Mr. Chuck Pula, Lake County Parks and Recreation Coordinator, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Pula informed the Board that Orange County will be contributing 50 percent of the costs ($50,000), and Lake County will be contributing the other 50 percent ($50,000), with all costs coming from the Boating Improvement Funds. He stated that this is the first joint cooperation project between counties using the State Boating Improvement Funds. Mr. Pula stated that, in regards to the legal description, research has been conducted on Lot 5, and the title company has indicated that Lot 5 belongs to Lake County. He stated that the County Attorney has requested that this be reviewed, because of the discrepancy over the issue, and he will be forwarding the information from the title company, once the ownership is verified, and Lot 5 will be made a part of the project.

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 A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), to construct a County park, boat ramp and parking lot.

PETITION #158-87A-2-1 Amend MP Ord. #76-87 Eugene Boyd

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, as amended.

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

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that the applicant is trying to utilize the existing building for C-1 and C-2 uses. He stated that the uses will basically be the same as the request he presented to the Board for Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

There being no further public comment, 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 MP Ordinance #76-87, to add industrial, C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, to include those uses listed in the proposed resolution, as well as adding C-1 and C-2 uses with the exception of obnoxious uses such as bars and taverns; and in addition, the inside of the existing building must be utilized.

PETITION #32-76A-3 Amend CP Ord. #13-76 Ronald Purvis

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. The staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, as amended. Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Ms. Debbie Stivender appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Stivender stated that she was representing the applicant. She directed the Board to the Resolution, and requested the following changes:

Page 2, 1. A. Terms: Delete: single family residence

Amend: flower gift shop to be operated from the residence" to "flower gift shop to be operated from the existing building".

Correct: "adn" to "and"

Add: convenience uses

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, 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 Ordinance #13-76, to include a flower gift shop with the existing beauty shop as well as professional office and retail convenience, and with the changes presented by Ms. Stivender to Page 2, 1. A., as stated above.

PETITION #213-86A-3 Amendment PFD Ord. #80-86

Baywood Forest Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant went through a pre-submittal conference with the Technical Review Committee (TRC). He referred to Page 2 of the Resolution, 1. Terms: A. Land Uses, and directed that the following sentence be deleted: "The units shall consist of four (4) home centers to house 16 individuals, and 5 duplexes to house additional residents, staff and visiting family members."

Mr. Stubbs submitted the Floor Plan, and the Site Plan, which were entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the County's "Exhibit 1" and Exhibit "2".

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

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. Mr. Al Plastorek, President of Baywood Forest, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Plastorek acknowledged that he understood all of the requirements placed on the request by staff.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for an amendment to PFD Ordinance #80-86, to incorporate the modified site plan and increase the maximum number of residents from 75 persons to 100, with the deletion of the second sentence on Page 2 of the Resolution, 1. Terms: A. Land Uses, as approved and recommended by staff.

PETITION #11-94-2 A to PUD Phycorp Land Developers Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request subject to conditions placed in the resolution and the waivers.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicants, appeared before the Board and stated that he would go through the matters that were resolved with those individuals from Highland Lakes. Mr. Richey informed the Board that he had two witnesses to call for testimony. At this time, Mr. Bobby Farner, Farner &

Barley, and Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Richey directed the Board's attention to the Land Use Map for Hilldale Estates, A Planned Unit Development, and the portions marked A and B. He explained that a 50 foot buffer of pine trees will be planted on the northern part of the property, and on the southern end of the property, a 50 foot buffer has been added on Parcel A, to be planted with pines, and on Parcel B, the map shows a buffer of pines, but not 50 feet wide. Mr. Richey stated that he will be submitting wording that will say the lot sizes and housing sizes of utilization of the property in Parcel A and Parcel B will be the same as what is setforth in the PUD for Highland Lakes. He stated that the density will be 1.67 units, which is identical to Highland Lakes. He further stated that the townhouse lots will be ten (10) feet bigger in the back, and additional buffers will be added. Mr. Richey stated that the property and houses that are contiguous to Highland Lakes will be the same. He stated that the property that is not contiguous to Highland Lakes could be developed into something other than retirement communities. The open areas will remain as they are now, or they could have lakes or a golf course type of configuration. There will be 799 residential units on 54 percent of the site. There will be eight (8) acres at the front of the site that will be commercial, and in the PUD it provides the right to build 50,000 square feet, and if it meets the necessary criteria for location, it has the right to go to 80,000 square feet based on this becoming a collector road based on the Comprehensive Plan, and of the 80,000 square feet, 12,000 can be professional offices. This is consistent and contiguous to the commercial already setforth in the Highland Lakes PUD.

Mr. Richey submitted, as evidence, the Land Use Map for Hilldale Estates, A Planned Unit Development, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "1". Mr. Richey submitted the proposed additional wording that he was

requesting, which was marked and entered as the Applicant's Exhibit "2".

Mr. Wayne Fawcett appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Fawcett informed the Board that he is an adjacent property owner to the area marked "A" on the Applicant's Exhibit "1". He explained that a number of homeowners did meet with Mr. Richey, and the alternate plan was discussed, which included the moving of the road. Mr. Fawcett felt that the consensus of the homeowners was that the plan presented this morning seemed to take care of most of their fears, and it has been enhanced with the added buffer zone. Mr. Fawcett expressed his appreciation to Mr. Richey and the Board.

Commr. Bailey stated that he had been concerned about the buffers, and he wanted to make sure how the plans were going to affect the community, including the pasture area.

Mr. Richey informed the Board that the County's backup material included an environmental assessment report and a traffic assessment report, and the applicant's filing for the PUD, which he requested the Board enter as evidence.

Mr. Adams appeared before the Board and responded to the questions from Commr. Swartz regarding the areas that were delineated by the approximate 100 year flood line, and the 41 percent open space requirement. Mr. Adams testified as to the setbacks of the property around the Palatlakaha River, which will be 50 feet from the edge.

Mr. Farner testified that, if an alteration is made for a golf course, 17 percent of the wetland areas will not be touched.

Mr. Adams testified that the project being proposed would be consistent with the utilization of the 100 year flood areas on the lands on the Highland Lakes project to the south.

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

Commr. Bailey stated that he was concerned with the impact the project would have on Highland Lakes, and that it appeared most of the concerns he had for the residents have been addressed, therefore, he would support the request.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether there would be any use of "gray" water for a future golf course.

Mr. Richey explained that surface waters, gray water, and deep wells will have to be considered and will depend on what is available. He discussed the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit, and stated that consideration will be given to the City of Leesburg, in terms of meeting the requirements.

Commr. Swartz stated that most of the development was satisfactory and was clearly within the types of densities that are called for in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he did have some problems, as follows: the Board was losing opportunities to create a road network that would ease road problems in the future. He further stated that problems would be created along Highway 48 and Highway 27 south, from a standpoint of not planning ahead on roadway connections. The Board was going to see the very problems that currently exist along Highway 441. In conjunction with this, it was also continuing to put commercial up and down the highway. Commr. Swartz stated that he could not support projects that were going to lead to the very problems that people see existing along one of the major corridors. He stated that he would vote against the request, because he was so concerned with what the traffic impacts, both commercial and road network, would be.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following variance, subject to final review and approval by Public Services, so that they would have the ability to do an administrative waiver, if necessary, on a case by case basis.:

.2) the maximum road length for a dead-end street where the

cul-de-sac may exceed 1320 ft. in cases where land features

prohibit a looped road system;

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

4) Recreation facility areas will be calculated on the entire

PUD and not on individual development tracts.

Mr. Stubbs directed the Board's attention to the Resolution, Page 7, 2., and recommended that the following language be added to the end of the sentence: "as amended".

Mr. Hoban explained that the staff recommendation can be acknowledged by the Board, and no action was necessary.

Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted to make sure that the language in the Resolution, Page 5, 3. Sidewalks, is not inconsistent with the language in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

Mr. Richey stated that he would have no problem with language clarifying that it will meet the requirements of Chapter 9.04.04.

Mr. Richey requested that the Board add into the motion the language he presented in the Applicant's Exhibit "2", with Mr. Hoban directing that the motion be subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the language submitted by Mr. Richey, as follows, subject to the County Attorney's approval:

1. Residential units in area A & B on the preliminary site shall

be compatible in lot size, building and residential utilization

as the contiguous residential units in the Highland Lakes PUD

to the south.

After discussion among the Board members and staff as to the actual motion on the floor, Commr. Bailey clarified that the motion was to add the additional language presented by Mr. Richey, and it was not a motion to approve the original request for rezoning with amendments.

Commr. Hanson called for the vote on the motion to add the additional language, as stated above, with the motion being carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD with waivers, and as amended, for the establishment of a residential community with commercial uses.

The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voting "no".

Commr. Gerber explained that she concurred with Commr. Swartz that the County could do better in the community building, and the Board was not going forward and trying to do this.

Commr. Hanson explained that she concurs with Commr. Bailey that, if the roads are made into thru roads, the community would be deteriorated.

PETITION #8-94-3 A to R-2 Dorothy C. Shipes

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff has recommended approval of the request, and there was a tie vote, 4-4, from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was noted that there were 39 signatures on one petition in opposition of the request, and 20 signatures on another petition in opposition to the request. Mr. Stubbs explained that the applicant was currently in the rural village land use category, and the County has a Land Use Plan Amendment on the agenda scheduled for this afternoon for a shift in the rural village, and to vote to send to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) the amendment for the movement of the entire rural village to the east. If the movement is approved, the property would then be in the rural land use. The applicant is hoping to get through the process and obtain some type of vesting on the property, so that she can continue on with the proposed development.

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

Mr. Phillip K. Beck, Attorney representing the Ocklawaha Trust and the applicant on Parcel 31, a ten acre (10) tract, appeared before the Board to make a presentation. He clarified that, if the rural village is shifted, which would be to a new location, this particular ten (10) acre parcel would be contiguous, and therefore, under the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), R-2 (Estate Residential) zoning would be permissible. Mr. Beck stated that the only law that needs to be dealt with today is the present zoning. Mr. Beck presented a brief history of the property in question, and submitted an overhead of a plat dated February, 1895, which was marked and entered by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "1". Mr. Beck reviewed another plat of the area in question, which he indicated would be copied for the records, and entered and marked as the Applicant's Exhibit "2". It was noted that Exhibit "2" was received by the Deputy Clerk and placed into the records.

Mr. Beck continued his presentation by stating that the applicant has been a big part of the Lake Jem area for almost 100 years. He explained the toll that has been taken over the years on the applicant's property, and stated that the applicant has had to turn towards land development, in order to meet financial obligations.

Mr. Beck stated that, under the present zoning, and under R-2 zoning, the applicant would be entitled to 20 units under the County Code. The applicant is requesting 13 units for the development (1.4 per acre) instead of 20 units under R-2 zoning. This would help to offset the costs of the improved road, and the applicant has accepted the suggestions from staff for a single paved access road into the property. Mr. Beck stated that staff has reviewed the application with the Standards of Review, as required in Section 14.03.05 of the LDRs, and has found that the

applicant meets all of the requirements. He reiterated that the applicant is here under the present law, and even if the property is shifted over, the applicant is still contiguous to the rural village and can apply for R-2 zoning, and not spot zoning, or finger zoning.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Knight explained that there are rural village Comprehensive Plan policies that say you can amend the rural villages, but you cannot create finger-like projections, or isolated pockets outside of the rural village. He stated that the 13.20 Rule does not apply to the rural village, and only applies to urban, urban expansion, and suburban.

Mr. Beck called Mr. John Sikes, Blount Sikes & Associates, Engineers in Orlando, to give testimony. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Sikes presented his professional background and stated that he was retained by the Ocklawaha Trust to assist the applicant in the land planning, the subdivision, and the engineering for this particular project. It was explained to him that this would be the first development in a series of developments. Mr. Sikes discussed the plans for the future roadways in the area and the relocation of those roads, and stated that the applicant was working with the County in providing the necessary dedication of rights-of-way and easements that are necessary to facilitate the traffic improvements. Mr. Sikes stated that the R-2 zoning appears to work nicely in the area, with the yield being 1.3 acres, with an average lot size being 33,500 square feet, even though the zoning allows up to two (2) units per acre.

Mr. Beck submitted, as evidence, the proposed development plan, Victoria Place, which addresses Tract 31, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "3".

Mr. Sikes testified that the plan was in compliance with all of the County requirements.

Mr. Beck submitted, as evidence, the Vicinity Lot and Tract Acreage, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "4".

Mr. Sikes testified as to the location of the property, as shown on the Applicant's Exhibit "4", and explained the other color coded areas of property. He explained that the reason for this Exhibit was to characterize the area, which he would characterize as transitional from agricultural to rural.

Mr. Beck referred to the following statement in the petition of opposition: "Such rezoning would destroy the distinctly rural character of our neighborhood where virtually every dwelling unit sits on at least five acres." Mr. Beck referred to Exhibit "4" and explained that the only five acre parcels were shown in red (5 acres or less), which would indicate that this statement would be incorrect.

Mr. Beck submitted, as evidence, the assessment map showing the present zoning in the area in question, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "5".

Mr. Sikes testified that RE zoning, which is now the equivalent of R-2 zoning, requires 1,500 square feet of development per lot, as contrasted to R-1 zoning, which is one (1) unit per acre and only requires 900 square feet of development, and agricultural zoning on five (5) acres only requires 850 square feet of development. Mr. Sikes testified that the new development being proposed will be 1,500 square feet per lot, which far exceeds the requirements of the present zoning, and would be a high value improvement to the area.

Mr. Beck addressed the comments made by the opposition at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and stated that the applicant would be implementing deed restrictions in all of the developments, and would be exceeding the County's requirements.

Mr. Sikes testified that he feels the applicant has exceeded each and every one of the Standards of Review, and concurs with the staff's recommendation for approval.

Mr. Beck called Ms. Dorothy Shipes, applicant, to give testimony. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Ms. Shipes appeared before the Board and explained that, as a past citrus grower, she is seeking another direction to utilize her land, in order to meet her obligations. She stated that, since she is one of the largest land owners in Lake Jem, which is the rural village, she realizes that whatever she does will affect the surrounding area, and she would not do anything to harm those occupants around her. She feels that whatever she does will benefit the area, and after receiving the signed objections to the request, she contacted the people and explained the proposed plan. Ms. Shipes found that approximately ten of those people who signed the original petition were not knowledgeable about the proposed plan.

Ms. Shipes presented through her attorney, Mr. Beck, the original petition of support of the project, with approximately 58 signatures, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "6". Mr. Beck noted that there were approximately ten names on the list that now support the project that were on the list that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in opposition to the request.

Mr. Rolon Reed, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that he is representing 80 residents of Lake County, who are in opposition to the request, and who feel that the proposed rezoning would destroy the rural character of their neighborhood.

Mr. Reed submitted, as evidence, the original petition in opposition to the rezoning, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Opponent's Exhibit "1".

Mr. Reed directed the Board's attention to Tab 21 of the zoning agenda, and stated that the request was a clever attempt to

profit from a mistake made by the County staff, in regards to Lake Jem, which has been flagged, and that the County was in the process of correcting it, but that the applicant was seeking to profit from the mistake before the correction can be completed.

Mr. Reed submitted a copy of the Current and Proposed Land Use for Lake Jem Area, Excluding Neighborhood Activity Center Identification map (which was displayed under Tab 21 of the zoning agenda), which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Opponent's Exhibit "2".

Mr. Reed referred to the Opponent's Exhibit "2", and stated that the rural village was cited too far to the west, as shown on the map, which resulted in land to the east of Lake Jem being excluded from the village boundary when it should have been included. It also resulted in the land west of Lake Jem being included in the village boundary when it should have been excluded. Mr. Reed stated that a Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendment has been prepared by staff (Tab 21). He noted that 95 percent of the property east of the lake that was left out of the village, that will go back into the village when it is corrected, is owned by the Shipes.

Mr. Reed referred to the Applicant's Exhibit "4" and stated that this was not a map showing existing land use or density, but was a map showing ownership.

Mr. Reed submitted, as evidence, the sales literature for Lake Jem Farms, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Opponent's Exhibit "3".

Mr. Reed explained that two of the lots have already been sold, which indicates that this is not a hardship case.

Mr. Reed addressed Section 14.03.03 A. 1. b. of the Lake Development Regulations (LDRs), which explains that the application shall include a statement describing any changed conditions that would justify the rezoning. Mr. Stubbs responded that the applicant's desire to put in a subdivision was the statement on the application, and that a graphic of the proposed subdivision was received.

Mr. Reed addressed Section 14.03.03 A. 1. c., which explains that the application shall contain a statement describing why there is a need for the proposed rezoning. Mr. Stubbs responded that this was not in the application.

Mr. Reed addressed Section 14.03.03 A. 1. e., which explains that the application is supposed to contain a statement outlining the extent to which the proposed rezoning is compatible with the existing land uses and will result in an orderly and logical development pattern. Mr. Stubbs responded that this was not in the application.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff makes all of the statements, and they area addressed in the Staff Report.

Mr. Reed stressed that the LDRs indicate that the statements would be made in the application.

Mr. Reed submitted, as evidence, a photograph of a For Sale sign, which was entered and marked as the Opponent's Exhibit "4". He requested an opportunity to cross-examine Mrs. Shipes.

Mr. Beck requested, for the record, that he be allowed to enter objections at this point in time.

Mr. Hoban explained that the Board does not follow the strict rules of evidence at the quisi-judicial hearings.

Mr. Beck responded that he was making a record for his own purposes. Therefore, the following objections were made by Mr. Beck, for the record: the photograph (Opponent's Exhibit 4) is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter, because it has to do with property other than what is before the Board for consideration today. Mr. Beck further entered an objection to counsel's line of questions earlier that he did not object to, in regards to the sufficiency of the application. He stated that, under the LDRs rules and regulations, staff has fifteen (15) days to let the applicant know, from the time the application is made,

whether there are any deficiencies in the application. There was no notification, and they have, therefore, found that the application was entirely sufficient, and therefore this issue is foreclosed. It was noted that these objections were entered for the record.

Mr. Hoban explained, for the record, that the Board does not follow the strict rules of evidence. He stated that it would be his recommendation that all objections be overruled.

Mr. Reed continued with his cross-examination of Ms. Shipes. Ms. Shipes presented testimony as to the location of the sign (Opponent's Exhibit 4) on the property shown in the Applicant's Exhibit 3, and as to the ownership of property and the information supplied on the sign.

Mr. Beck renewed his objection as to the relevance of these questions, and stated that they are not directed to Parcel 31, which is before the Board today. Mr. Beck implied that Mr. Reed was talking about 30 acres and the price of those 30 acres as a large block that has no relevance whatsoever to the matter before the Board today. He would object on the basis of relevance.

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that, if the only legitimate objection is one of relevance, and if the Chair determines something is not relevant, it should not be asked; if it is relevant it should be asked.

Mr. Reed explained that he has presented the photograph (Opponent's Exhibit 4) to suggest that there may be another reason why the applicant wants the rezoning right now, and that there is already a fixed sales price of $9,500.00 an acre, if the property is rezoned.

Mr. Beck clarified that the comments made by Mr. Reed have no relevance, and the applicant has every right to ask whatever price she wants for her property.

Commr. Hanson felt that a price for property has never been considered in the past during rezoning hearings, and therefore, this may not be relevant.

Mr. Reed suggested that the application has not been brought in aid of a development that is a reality, but was brought in aid of a sale, which, in view of the 80 people that signed the petition that he represents, would destroy the rural character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Beck moved to strike the last comment made by Mr. Reed, because it was his own personal speculation, and had nothing to do with the truth of the matter.

Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Reed can make general statements as often as he desires.

Mr. Reed stated that there is no development pressure in the neighborhood, and that this area is developed, and except for lake front property, virtually everyone has 5-15 acres. He requested that the Board not destroy the distinctly rural character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Donald Sheppard appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. He stated that he was here to represent himself and his wife. Mr. Sheppard stated that they have lived in the area for 1 1/2 years, and he was retired from a police department in Dade County. He explained the course that he and his wife took to find the property on which they live, and stated that he does not want to see Lake County make the same mistakes that were made in Dade County and Brevard County, in terms of over development. Mr. Sheppard felt that the application was an opportunity for the applicant to start developing, and once the development started, it would affect his quality of life. He recommended that the Board consider this carefully, because he was against irresponsible development.

Ms. Diane Deckinger appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. She stated that she concurs with

Mr. Sheppard, and that she was also concerned, once the development started, there would no longer be any wildlife in this area. She was concerned about the Board setting a precedence in this area, and would like the peace and tranquility to remain there. Ms. Deckinger stated that she also traveled the State to find the right place to live, and she was thrilled with Lake Jem, and therefore, she would like to see it developed carefully.

Mr. William J. Lee appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Lee stated that he is a native Floridian, and after serving 22 years in the service, and working at the Orlando Police Department and seeing high crime, he does not want to see this happen here and the place destroyed. He wants the peace and serenity of Lake Jem.

Mr. Ed Robbins appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Robbins stated that he moved from Orange County to get away from the traffic and riffraff, so he bought 30 acres in Lake Jem. He does not want to see a lot of houses being constructed in the area.

Ms. Eve Carter appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Carter stated that she was present in behalf of her husband, who is a farmer in Lake Jem, and her family. Ms. Carter explained the location of their property, which the rezoning would affect the most, and stated that they have owned approximately 16 acres since 1979. She further explained that she works in Orlando, but that she wanted her children to grow up in a better environment, so they live in an agricultural area. Ms. Carter stated that she does not want to see 40-50 houses from her own door.

Mr. Larry Samocki appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. He stated that he and his family moved from the city to the country to get away from crime and congestion, and were impressed by Lake Jem's quiet solitude and serenity. He further stated that he has a considerable investment

in his land and home, and he does not believe that placing a housing development in the vicinity would enhance the quality of life he was trying to give his family. Mr. Samocki read a letter from his daughter, Holly, which expressed her concerns with the request for development, and her opposition to the rezoning change.

Mr. Bobby Vest appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Vest stated that he was an adjacent property owner who moved to the area in question last year. He stated that he enjoys the rural atmosphere and requested that the property not be rezoned.

Mr. Beck appeared before the Board to present his rebuttal to the comments made. He discussed the exhibits that he supplied to the Board for consideration, and stated that the development would be an improvement to the area. He addressed his comments made earlier regarding the applicant being in a predicament to meet her obligations and needing to develop her property; the applicant trying to take advantage of the only zoning laws that apply today; and the parcel still being contiguous even if the property is shifted and would be entitled to R-2 zoning under the regulations. Mr. Beck stated that the applicant is trying to enhance Lake Jem and to improve the quality of life.

Mr. Hoban reminded the Board that the case law is explicit, and the decision must be made on the law as it exists today. A reason that the County may be moving the Comprehensive Plan Map in the future is explicitly not a valid reason for denying a zoning change; however, reasons such as lot size being incompatible to what is on the ground today is a perfectly acceptable reason, but there is a distinction, in that the case law is explicit on saying that the County cannot zone, or rezone, based on potential future Comprehensive Plan Map changes.

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

Commr. Swartz referred to the County's negotiations with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding the Comprehensive Plan and stated that all of the rural villages were reduced in size, with this particular one being divided down the middle, which caused real difficulties for people, including Ms. Shipes, Ocklawaha Trust, who were in the process of selling land that had been platted and was being developed in one acre tracts, and for people who had bought the land from them. He stated that he supports the concept of rural villages, and in the future, as the Board looks at rezonings within those rural villages, he will try to vote to support the lots and the nature of the developments that have already occurred. He stated that the fact that the Comprehensive Plan says that the inner rural villages can have up to two units per gross acre does not entitle anyone to have two units per gross acre. He further stated that it is possible, but it takes into account lots of other things. Commr. Swartz stated that the Comprehensive Plan talks about re-enforcing positive rural lifestyles. He stated that, in spite of the fact that there is a possibility that the rural village will shift, he does not believe that the proposed request for rezoning would be compatible with the properties within that area, and he would not support it. Commr. Swartz stated that he does not feel it will re-enforce the positive rural lifestyles that have generally been created in that area, and have been successful. He stated that, based on the fact that he does not feel it will re-enforce those positive lifestyles, as indicated in Policy 1-1B.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, and he does not feel it would be compatible with the rural village, whether it was included in the rural village or not. Commr. Swartz stated that, whether it is in this rural village, or other rural villages, as the Board considers rezonings in the future, he is going to look very carefully at trying to maintain the compatibility of the development patterns that have occurred. He stated that he did not feel that the people who spoke are against

growth, or other people moving into this area and other areas of Lake County, but they believe the circumstances that they came into and bought into should not be changed so dramatically as to alter what they were seeking. He stated that, at the appropriate time, he will make a motion to deny the request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, upon the advise of Mr. Hoban that the Board should not consider the issue of the rural village being moved, based on the evidence presented today, he would agree with the District Commissioner and support his motion for denial.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was familiar with the land uses in the area in question, and because of the singular purpose of those who want to live there, she felt that the request was incompatible with what was already on the ground.

Commr. Bailey stated that he has examined the property in question, and reviewed the community and the development patterns in the area, and he does support the rural village concept, but in this case, he feels you have to look at the prevailing densities and the compatibility. Therefore, he would be voting with Commr. Swartz's recommendation of denial.

Commr. Hanson stated that opposition has been expressed from the agricultural community as to other requests for rezoning in this area, and that this is a nice area for a rural village; however, the R-2 is too dense in the area, with the large amount of rural area that is there, and therefore, she would vote against the request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board denied the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for single-family residences.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the meeting would recess until 2:30 p.m.

REZONING - Continued

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, informed the Board that the following cases involved Conditional Use Permits that were done in 1992 and staff was waiting on agreements from Orange County and the City of Orlando. He stated that Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, has been working on the negotiations, and would be making a report.

Mr. Barker appeared before the Board and requested that agenda items 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 relating to the Conserv II Project be approved, due to negotiations being completed and Interlocal Agreements being fully executed.

At this time, the Board heard Agenda items 14-18.

PETITION CUP#92/9/1-2 CUP in A CRA-Mar Groves Inc. (Owner)

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

There being not one present who wished to speak before the Board, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved for participation in the Water Conserv II project for irrigation of citrus groves with reclaimed water, subject to the tri-party agreement among the City of Orlando, Orange County, and Lake County being executed prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and a correction of Pollution Control Board Rule 1-6 to the current Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION CUP#92/9/2-2 CUP in A Gary & Martha J. Hatley

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

There being no one present who wished to speak before the Board, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved for participation in the Water Conserv II project for irrigation of citrus groves with reclaimed water, subject to the tri-party agreement among the City of Orlando, Orange County, and Lake County being executed prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and a correction of Pollution Control Board Rule 1-6 to the current Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION CUP#92/9/3-2 CUP in A Catherine E. Ross Groves Inc.

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

There being no one present who wished to speak before the Board, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved for participation in the Water Conserv II project for irrigation of citrus groves with reclaimed water, subject to the tri-party agreement among the City of Orlando, Orange County, and Lake County being executed prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and a correction of Pollution Control Board Rule 1-6 to the current Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION CUP#92/9/4-2 CUP in A Paul E. Fabry

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

There being no one present who wished to speak before the Board, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved for participation in the Water Conserv II project for irrigation of citrus groves with reclaimed water, subject to the tri-party agreement among the City of Orlando, Orange County, and Lake County being executed prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and a correction of Pollution Control Board Rule 1-6 to the current Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION CUP#92/9/5-2 CUP in A Carl & Patricia H. Fabry

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

There being no one present who wished to speak before the Board, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved for participation in the Water Conserv II project for irrigation of citrus groves with reclaimed water, subject to the tri-party agreement among the City of Orlando, Orange County, and Lake County being executed prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and a correction of Pollution Control Board Rule 1-6 to the current Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION LUPA#94-1-1-2 Map Amendment Charles E. Bradshaw

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division, addressed the memorandum that the Board received dated March 10, 1994 regarding LUPA#94-1-1-2 for Charles Bradshaw. He reviewed the previous direction given to staff to work with the applicants on developing an alternative. Mr. Knight stated that the proposed

LUPA is a vested Development of Regional Impact (DRI), and the new Florida Turnpike interchange will be coming in very shortly, and there will be changes made in the area. For the initiation of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a letter is now in the file from both Leesburg and Southern States Utilities where they have committed to providing water and sewer service to the vested DRI on the north side of the property. He proposed that the east one-half (1/2) of Section 12 south of the Florida Turnpike, Section 13, Section 24, and the northwest one-half (1/2) of Section 25, Township 21, Range 24 be changed from Rural to Suburban on the Future Land Use Map of Lake County, which would be subject to the timeliness criteria, and therefore, in order to develop at a density greater than one dwelling unit per five acres, someone would have to meet the timeliness criteria in the suburban land use category. So other development would have to take place in the area, in order to make it timely. Based on the fact there is another applicant coming into this area, the Florida Turnpike is going to open up shortly, and water and sewer is anticipated coming into the area, staff has recommended that this go to a suburban land use category for that general area and be subject to the timeliness criteria. Mr. Knight informed the Board that the LDR Committee is currently focusing on working on concurrency management, and the timeliness criteria will be addressed in the LDR amendments at a later time.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that timeliness language was drafted by the County Attorney, and it will be for future LDR changes.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether any needs have been identified to indicate the County needs additional land area to provide allocations for future development. Mr. Knight responded that no special population studies, etc. have been done.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether there was any supporting documentation that shows that there are higher population projections that are even used in the current Comprehensive Plan,

and that inadequate land has been allocated under the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Knight indicated that there is no documentation at this time. Therefore, Commr. Swartz stated that it does not meet Policy 1-10.1 which requires the supporting documentation.

Mr. Knight explained that there are policies that direct the County to go forth and do small area studies to continue with ongoing planning activities. He stated that the change of economic conditions within the area changes the liability in the requests for development within the area.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that there was no opposition in the audience.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing a potential developer of the Bradshaw property, appeared before the Board and stated that, since the staff recommendation includes a larger area, she would like to have Mr. Steve Richey come forward to testify, because she thinks that part of this, in looking at the area and the changed conditions, both in terms of densities, intensities, special distribution of population, as well as economic conditions, has to do with the Monterey development and its status in the provision of utilities to that particular project.

Ms. Bonifay submitted, as evidence, a strategic location map prepared by Harling, Locklin & Associates, Inc., which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "1".

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Pringle Development Company, which owns the Monterey DRI, which is now known as Royal Highlands, appeared before the Board to address the request. Mr. Richey discussed the amendment to the Development Order for the Monterey DRI, which provided for an extension of the first phase of the project for 54 months. The Pringles purchased this piece of property, which had 507 acres and had a density of 4.75 units per acre. When he appeared before the Board on the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Order amendment, he represented to the Board

that he wanted to add additional lands to that property, so that the density could be spread out and not have the density as intense as it was proposed in the original Development Order. The Development Order spoke in terms of 1800 units, 1500 homes and 300 recreational vehicles sites. In order for his client to add additional land to his development and to spread the density out, he has to have a Land Use Map that allows for something other than the 1-5, and the suburban designation contiguous to him would then allow him to come back through the process and add. Mr. Richey stated that he was asking, as part of this Comprehensive Plan amendment, to add some additional suburban. He stated that his client has purchased an additional 271 acres, but it cannot be included in the development, until there is an amendment which moves it from the 1-5, into a designation which allows it to be incorporated into the development. Mr. Richey stated that there will still be a timeliness issue. He noted that the timeliness will include when the turnpike exchange will be available and when the utilities will be available. The property is located within two turnpike exchanges, and has been classified as urban by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) and turnpike authority. Mr. Richey stated that this ought to be basis for the Board to consider taking the property from 1-5 and moving it to suburban. He requested that the Board bring the suburban up the road, so that his client can utilize some of the density that he already has. Mr. Richey stated that he did not have a problem with the Board accepting what he has said as testimony for purposes of forwarding this on to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), because he feels that having more density and not land to put it on, is, in fact, a basis to amend the Comprehensive Plan, which he respectfully asked the Board to do.

Commr. Swartz discussed the issue of density that was approved in the extension to the Monterey DRI.

Mr. Richey explained that, within the 54 month extension, he was to come back with a better plan that was more environmentally sensitive, and to take the density that he already had and make it more compatible with the river and land around it. Therefore, he was attempting to do what he represented to the Board. It was noted that it will be less than the 1800 units on more land.

Ms. Bonifay submitted, as evidence, a aerial map, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit "2". She clarified that the property in Section 24 to the west, which was marked in yellow, was the only property to be included by Mr. Richey.

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Hugh Harling, Harling, Locklin & Associates, Inc., to give testimony. Mr. Harling appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Harling referred to the Applicant's Exhibit "2" and explained the location of the property in question, in relation to the Monterey development, and explained how all of the properties noted on the aerial map would tie into one another. Mr. Harling testified that he has been coordinating and cooperating with other developers on the utilities and transportation. He stated that Villa Nova Road will have to be widened for the entire length of the road system, and the applicant is prepared to donate to the County a public safety complex at the northeast corner of the property. He stated that the applicant is also prepared to set aside acreage that would be associated with a future school, and according to County Code, to develop a total quality of living area, there would be recreation to be associated with the schools, and the County's public safety. Mr. Harling stated that he met with the Villa City property owners association, which has 167 members, and approximatly 50 members who attended indicated that they were interested in a rural village for themselves. He has committed to a residential development with either concrete block type

construction, or timber construction. He respectfully requested that the Board consider the application favorably.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, after negotiating with the School Board just recently, it was determined that 15-20 acres would be needed for an elementary or middle school. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Roger Freeman would be the builder of the community. She stated that the plans being proposed integrate the existing developments. She indicated that, on the Land Use Map, on the east side of Villa City Road, was an already approved RV park, which was vested for a density of 6-8 units per acre. She stated that there was a lot of high density projects surrounding this, with both the DRI and RV park, and the two interchanges, as well as the commitment for utilities and services. She stated that she was willing to work with staff to lower the request from urban expansion to suburban, and requested that the Board approve the entire Land Use Plan, as presented and recommended by staff.

It was noted that there was no opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Bailey stated that looking at this, as far as planning, it appeared to be the right thing to do, but that he could understand some of the concerns expressed by Commr. Swartz.

Commr. Gerber indicated that it would be bad planning, because it goes against several of the Comprehensive Plan policies, as shown in the backup material.

Discussion occurred regarding the new interchange in relation to the County's industrial park.

Mr. Knight explained that the original request was urban expansion for the site proposed. Staff's recommendation was to go to a suburban land use category and do a larger area considering that there was already a vested DRI in the area, and the water and sewer and the interchange opening up.

Commr. Swartz stated that Monterey is the existing DRI that, because of actions of the Board, has received certain development rights, although it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The request is now to modify the Comprehensive Plan to provide for additional land to be allocated adjacent to a development that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although it has received some development rights. He stated that the Board needs to try and not allocate new land in areas like this, or otherwise, because, in the Comprehensive Plan there are areas of existing development patterns that, because of the designation of the Land Use Map, have impeded and inhibited the development of those. The Board should have identified those existing historical patterns that were on the ground and designated them on the Land Use Map, so that people could use their land and develop it, but instead the Board was looking at providing new land that has no supporting documentation whatsoever that indicates that the data inventory and analysis now does not include sufficient land, or population, or projections that are known to be unacceptable or below what is expected. Commr. Swartz explained that there are developments that are all over the County that are on paper, but are not figured into the land that has been allocated already in the Comprehensive Plan. He stressed that, under Policy 1-10.1, there is no supporting documentation, and until there is supporting documentation and it is made a part of the data inventory and analysis, this would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to approve this request, aside from the other issues.

Commr. Hanson explained that the request was not for additional population, but for fewer homes on greater lands, therefore, there was no demand for increased population, or homes, because the density would be reduced substantially to go on twice as much land. Therefore, it would be more compatible with the rural and surrounding areas.

Commr. Gerber stressed that, if this request was approved, this would open up the area for future development, which was not included in documented numbers in the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz stated that the additional lands that would be allocated would provide for additional acreage for residential development, and for additional population, and there was no justification, and no supporting documentation for this.

Mr. Richey addressed the Board and explained that there would still be 1800 units or less, and that no density would be taken from the new land.

Mr. Knight explained that staff did not feel that the request to change the land use from rural and suburban to urban expansion was an appropriate request, because staff realized that there was a DRI that was probably going to have water and sewer, and becuase of the interchange, and if staff had to redo the future Land Use Map from scratch, it would probably do something different in this area, as far as planning, because of the conditions of the area at that time.

Commr. Swartz questioned what supporting documentation would be sent to DCA, and Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, stated that he would be talking about the various properties that were vested in the area and the densities, as already heard, and how, in fact, this would be lowering the density over various existing tracts and spreading it out over the other tracts. Mr. Bergmann indicated that there was no supporting documentation to meet the needs.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there would be two turnpike interchanges two miles apart and a mile from the industrial park..

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved the request for a land use plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural and Suburban land use designations to Suburban land use designation.

The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "no".

PETITION LUPA#93/7/4-2 Map Amendment J. D. Eggebrecht

Development

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division, addressed the Board to discuss his memorandum dated March 23, 1994. Mr. Knight stated that the applicant has submitted a revised application for amendment. He informed the Board that his memorandum gives three options that staff has at this point in time. The applicant's representative would like to request that the Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) be postponed until the second 1994 amendment cycle, in order to provide for review as a rural village. He noted that the application has been received by staff, but has not been reviewed. Mr. Knight stated that staff is recommending that the request be postponed until the second 1994 amendment cycle, with the application submittal date being April 29, 1994, which would give staff approximately three weeks to review the application.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, was present in the audience.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the postponement of the request until the second 1994 amendment cycle.

Mr. Knight clarified that the request for amendment would be for the same piece of property, but it would be reviewed under a different land use category.

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

COUNTY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division, referred to his memorandum dated February 9, 1994, which addresses the County Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Attached was a memorandum from Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks & Recreation Coordinator. Mr. Knight stated that there was a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which unanimously approved the following two amendments to the Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements:

1. Acquisition and development of property in Phase I of the

South Lake Rail Trail (Orange County Line to Clermont).

2. Development of a county park on the recently purchased

property near the Astatula Landfill (Bowen property).

Mr. Mark Knight addressed the memorandum dated January 3, 1994, which contained the following proposed amendments:

1. Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to relocate the Lake

Jem Rural Village designation to more closely correspond with the historic Lake Jem area;

2. Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to remove the Institutional land use designation for Site K, a formerly

proposed landfill site that is no longer being considered

now that Astatula II has been opened;

3. Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to incorporate the most

recent annexations by the municipalities within Lake County.

Mr. Knight stated that attached were also amendments for the following:

Page I-23 Policy 1-2.5: Sinkholes

Page I-65 Policy 1A-2.8: Septic Tank Provisions

Page I-66 Policy 1A-2.8: Septic Tank Provisions

(Continued)

Page VII-9 Policy 7-2.14: Sinkholes, Stream to Sink

Basins and Lakes with Internal Drainage

Page VII-17 Policy 7-5A.1: Silviculture Activities

Policy 7-5A.2: Struck out

Policy 7-5A.3: Renumbered

Policy 7-5A.4: Struck out

Policy 7-5A.5: Struck out

Page VII-18 Continuation of Page VII-17

Page VII-23 Changing Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services from Affairs and

Division of Forestry

Page VII-34 Policy 7-17.3: Land Management to Enhance

Wildlife

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, explained Policy 7-6.3: Program for Natural Upland Plant Communities.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following additions to the five (5) year schedule of capital improvements for parks and recreation non-LOS projects: 1) acquisition and development of property in Phase I of the South Lake Rail Trail (Orange County

Line to Clermont); 2) development of a County park on the recently purchased property near the Astatula Landfill (Bowen property).

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to the Future Land Use Map to relocate the Lake Jem Rural Village, to more closely correspond with the historic Lake Jem area.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to the Future Land Use Map to remove Site K.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to the Future Land Use Map to incorporate the most recent annexations by the municipalities within Lake County.

Mr. Barker explained the reasons for having untreated stormwater going directly, or indirectly, into a sinkhole, as referred to in Policy 1-2.5: Sinkholes.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to Policy 1-2.5: Sinkholes, of the Future Land Use Element.

Discussion occurred regarding the amendment request to Policy 1A-2.8: Septic Tank Provisions, as found on page I-65 and I-66 of the Future Land Use Element. Commr. Swartz stated that the language being proposed is only for the existing lots of record. He stated that any new platted lots would be required to meet the greater standard, and the language does not indicate this. He stated that this language needed to be included.

Mr. Hoban suggested the following language: "legally existing as of the day of adoption."

Mr. Knight suggested that clarification be made with the following language: "or for existing lots."

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to Policy 1A-2.8: Septic Tank Provisions, with language being created to clarify that this only applies to existing legally created lots that were there at the date of adoption.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to Policy 1A-2.8: 5.: March, 1995.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendment to Page VII-9, Policy 7-2.14, which included clarification to the language, as presented by staff.

Mr. Knight addressed the changes made to the Lake County Conservation Element on Page VII-17, VII-18, VII-23, and VII-34 to reflect the acceptance of the new Best Management Practices.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the criteria of the language that has been struck through has been made a part of the new Best Management Practices.

Mr. Barker addressed the Board and stated that all of the items are covered in the new Best Management Practices. He stated that the intent and purpose of the Best Management Practices was to allow silviculture activities in wetlands, adjacent to wetlands and upland areas adjacent to wetlands, to allow them to conduct silviculture activities without altering wetlands, hydrology, or function.

Commr. Swartz requested a copy of the Best Management Practices (BMPs), of those areas of the BMPs that accomplish the policies that the Board is striking, to be highlighted by Mr. Barker, so that he will have it prior to the adoption.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendments to Page VII-17, Page VII-18, Page VII-23, and Page VII-34, of the Lake County Conservation Element, as presented by staff.

Mr. Knight requested a motion to submit all Land Use Plan Amendments that were approved for transmittal with supporting documentation, as submitted to the Board, to the Department of

Community Affairs (DCA) for review. He further stated that the Board needs to decide whether it will request DCA to review it, or that the Board submit it and not request that they review the packet. Mr. Knight explained that, if the Board requests that they review it, it will lock the County into a time frame.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved that, with any of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, it request review from the Department of Community Affairs.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved to transmit to DCA all of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and Land Use Plan Amendments to DCA, presented to the Board today, with supporting documentation.

The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

INSURANCE/HUMAN RESOURCES

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Cancellation of Accident and Specified Sickness Policy Number VFP8610-1666 and authorized the Chairman to sign the Cancellation Request/Policy Release.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize and execute a Resolution accepting #5-6557 Coyote Pass into the County Maintained Road System.

STATE AGENCIES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an agenda item to discuss the Consent Order prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the Astatula Ash

Monofill, and an addendum agenda item for the Chairman to execute the Consent Order. He stated that Mr. Ron Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management Services was present to respond to any questions, and also to provide the Board an update on the leachate reduction program.

Mr. Roche appeared before the Board and stated that the County is presently at the 80 elevation, and that approximately 2.6 million gallons have already been pumped. He stated that the County will probably meet the 3 million gallon level.

Commr. Swartz discussed the document providing for occurrences that are beyond the County's control, or similar occurrences beyond the control of the contractor, and Mr. Roche stated that DEP would not be very flexible in this particular area of the Consent Order. Mr. Roche also informed the Board that DEP has given the County another 120 days, which would be from the date that the document is signed. It was noted that the document has to be back to DEP by April 4, 1994.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved for the Chairman to sign the Consent Order, to be signed within the time frame indicated by the Department of Environmental Protection, but no sooner, to give the County the entire 120 days.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGETS

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the one year extension to the Agreement between Lake County and Hartman & Associates, Inc. for Test Drilling, Monitor Well Installation and Related Professional and Technical Services for the Ground Water Monitoring Program in Lake County, and approved to expend an additional estimated $143,153.00 from the Solid Waste Disposal Operations Budgets.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented the request for approval of the engagement of Public Financial Management (PFM); Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley; and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to proceed with negotiations regarding public/private partnership agreement for water/wastewater in South Lake County. Mr. Wahl stated that further estimates were obtained, and they have been reduced to $51,750.00; however, each has suggested that the Board keep the original $150,000.00 budgeted figure, with it being staff's intent to come back no later than the end of May with a recommendation to the Board. He stated that he did not feel that the County will come close to the $51,750.00.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved the engagement of PFM; Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley; and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to proceed with negotiations regarding public/private partnership agreement for water/wastewater in South Lake County.

The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY ATTORNEY

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, requested that the Board approve to reschedule the Agreement between Lake County and Frank T. Gaylord, P.A..

It was noted that no action was needed by the Board to reschedule the request made by Mr. Wahl.

MEETINGS/COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Gerber reminded the Board of the Town Hall Meeting that had been scheduled for April 14, 1994, at 7 p.m., at the Lake Square Mall.

RECREATION

Commr. Bailey informed the Board that a meeting was held regarding the triathlon, and he would be reporting on this issue at a later date.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Swartz addressed a letter that had been received from Mr. Fred Kurras, which the County Manager had indicated, through a memorandum, that he would be providing him with additional information, in regards to his questions concerning the County's purchase of the Eckerson property. Commr. Swartz requested that he be copied on all of the pertinent information, all of the appraisals, all of the correspondence in regards to the question raised by Mr. Kurras.

It was noted that all of the Commissioners would be supplied with copies of the information.

MEETINGS/COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Hanson reminded the Board of the Volunteer Appreciation Reception to be held tomorrow, March 30, 1994, from 3-5 p.m., at the Agricultural Center.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m.

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\3-29-94\4-18-94