LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

OCTOBER 25, 1994

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met on Tuesday, October 25, 1994, at 8:50 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 G. Cadwell; and Don Bailey. School Board members present were: Judy Pearson (Patricia Hart was not present due to a prior commitment). Others present were: Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser; Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Hanson reconvened the Value Adjustment Board Meeting.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the purpose of this meeting was to approve the Certified Tax Roll and by doing so the Board would need to sign three documents, the first being a Notice of Tax Impact summary achieved from action taken by the Value Adjustment Board for 1994; the second indicating Real Property in Lake County, totaling $4,102,421,986.00, which reflects a reduction from the 1993 tax roll of $4,447,264.00; and the third indicating Tangible Personal Property in Lake County, totaling $768,042,074.00, which reflects a reduction from the 1993 tax roll of $898.00.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Certified Tax Roll for Lake County for 1993, and authorized proper signatures on same.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting recessed at 8:55 a.m.



CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:





JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



MF\BOARDMIN\10-25-94\10-27-94



A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OCTOBER 25, 1994

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 25, 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 G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Don Bailey. Commissioners not present: G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Frank T. Gaylord, County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Pete Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Hanson discussed with the Board any changes or revisions that needed to be made to today's agenda. There being none, the Board continued with the scheduled agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ROAD VACATIONS

Petition No. 731 - Jim Stivender, Jr., Lake County Public Services - Lake Jem Area



Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. 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 unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 731 by Jim Stivender, Jr., Lake County Public Services, to vacate portion of CR 448, Lake Gem Villa, Lake Jem Villa Properties, Sec. 13, Twp. 20, Rge. 26, Lake Jem Area - Commissioner District 3, as advertised.



Petition No. 758 - Rogers Investment Co. - Clermont Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. He explained that he had a copy of the proposed plat that utilizes all three of the access points as part of the Bornstein's development. Mr. Stivender stated that a letter in opposition to the request had been received from Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney who represents Mr. David Bornstein. He explained that staff was recommending denial of the road closing, because of the inter-connection between all of the subdivisions in this area, and because of how this proposed subdivision actually inter-connects all three of them and only has one access point to the east.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that he was representing Rogers Investment Company, Inc., the developer of Lake Ridge Club, and Lake Ridge Homeowners' Association. He informed the Board that Mr. Jerrold (Jerry) Owings, who is on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association, was present on behalf of the Association. Mr. Richey stated that he was also representing the applicants who are proposing to close Sunshine Drive. Mr. Richey recalled the public hearing that was held on the original Bornstein tract (Spring Valley), and the discussion about hooking the Bornstein tract into the Spring Valley tract, and the concerns raised by the Lake Ridge Club people, and the Anderson Hill people, with regards to the inter-connects that went to the Bornstein tract and subsequently would hook into the Spring Valley tract. Mr. Richey stated that it was based on that opposition that this application to vacate those two access points was filed to keep access coming from Lakeshore Drive in and around and up through Lake Ridge Club. He noted that, when Lake Ridge Club was platted, Amberhill, Anderson Hills, and the other subdivisions were already there. The property that these

inter-connect to (the Bornstein undeveloped tract) already had access out through the first stage of that project. Mr. Richey stated that, subsequent to that time, the Board had adopted levels of service on inter-connects. He further stated that both subdivisions, Anderson Hills and Lake Ridge Club, were concerned that both of the roads were going to be used as an inter-connect between the various developments. He explained that these subdivisions are not with street lights or sidewalks, and the roads are used in the closed communities for walking, exercising and child play. To have traffic flowing through them would harm those existing subdivisions.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that, if there are others present that are proponents, she would prefer to hear the entire case, on behalf of the applicant, before presenting the opposition.

Mr. Jerrold Owings, Lake Ridge Club, appeared before the Board representing the Homeowner's Association, and as an individual resident. Mr. Owings reiterated comments made by Mr. Richey and noted that there are no sidewalks and no street lights. He discussed the connection to the Bornstein property, which would be where the majority of the traffic of people would be commuting. He explained that he has had a lot of input from the neighbors, in terms of the dangers involved with the additional traffic, and stated that the people foresee a hazard.

Ms. Robin Carroll appeared before the Board and stated that she and her family are residents of Lake Ridge Club. She explained that her family was attracted to this development, because it was a safe area to raise their child. Ms. Carroll explained the location of their home and stated that this was where most of the people would be going through the subdivision. She stated that she could not foresee Hilltop Road being opened up as a major thoroughfare for that community. Ms. Carroll stated that she would like to see the community remain as safe as possible, and would like the Board to take this into consideration and approve the request.

Mr. Bill Gems, resident of Lake Ridge Club, appeared before the Board and explained that the residents are concerned about an increase in crime, if Hilltop Road was left open.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board representing Mr. David Bornstein, the owner of the property adjacent to both of the road closings. Ms. Bonifay recalled the Spring Valley case and the issues regarding access, and clarified that one of the things that was required, because it was part of the County's own access management ordinance, which the Board has consistently enforced, was that Mr. Bornstein be allowed to have an inter-connect to the Spring Valley project. Ms. Bonifay explained that, with the two roads being vacated, Mr. Bornstein would have a landlocked piece of property. Ms. Bonifay reviewed a larger map she submitted for reference purposes only. She explained that, because Lake Ridge Club was not required to pay for amenities, which other subdivisions are being required to pay through Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs) and Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs), it seems as though Lake Ridge Club wants the surrounding developers to be penalized, and for the County to ignore its own policy of access management. Ms. Bonifay stated that, if anything, Mr. Bornstein should be concerned that the traffic from Lake Ridge Club would be using his property as access to U.S. Highway 27. She was of the understanding that the inter-connections were determined based on the volume of traffic, not on the level of service. Ms. Bonifay stated that comparing the Trails to Montverde issue to this issue would not be analogous, because the Trails to Monverde is a very low density, large acre tract, and there was a concern that a huge surrounding tract was being proposed to be connected. She stated that, although the Spring Valley development was approved several months ago, her client has been unable to work out an agreement with the owner/developer, as

to road access and what they want in terms of a financial contribution. She reiterated that the Bornstein tract would be getting the majority of the traffic from Lake Ridge Club traveling east to get to the commercial area.

Mr. David Bornstein appeared before the Board and explained that his family has owned the property adjacent to Amberhill, approximately 80 acres, since the early 1930's. He stated that he was in the process of going through preliminary engineering to develop the property for a single-family residential use in a similar manner to the Spring Valley PUD. Mr. Bornstein stated that Amberhill has always been a good neighbor to both Anderson Hills, and to Lake Ridge Club, and he wanted it to remain that way. He stated that his concern involves the traffic flow. Right now Amberhill has one road that leads to Lakeshore. Mr. Bornstein was hopeful that he would be able to work something out with the developers of the Spring Valley PUD, to provide access to U.S. Highway 27. He stated that the better traffic flow and dispersion, the better for all concerned.

Mr. Richey explained that, prior to the development of the Goodman tract (Spring Valley), the PUD stated that, if the parties could not come to an agreement, it would be brought back to the Board for the Board to decide under what terms and conditions the inter-connect would be placed. He suggested that Ms. Bonifay was right when saying that the Lake Ridge Club residents would, in fact, be driving through the Bornstein tract, along with the Anderson Hill residents, but Lake Ridge Club does not want to have the opportunity for people to drive through their neighborhood, because it would not make for good neighbors, and therefore they want the roads closed. Mr. Richey stated that this request would be consistent with other vacations the Board has approved, because there have been problems with neighborhoods not wanting other large tracts to hook into them.



Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board and stated that, because all of the opposition appears to be from Lake Ridge Club, she would offer an alternative of not opposing the closure to Lake Ridge Club, which would be Hilltop Drive, but because Sunshine Drive would be the only north-south access to her client's property, she would request that the Board vote against the closure of Sunshine Drive.

Ms. Julia Juhl appeared before the Board and stated that she lives on the end of Sunshine Drive where the traffic would be going through the subdivision. She explained that she has two young children. Last September she was burglarized, and the people came through the road that the applicant was requesting to be closed. Ms. Juhl stated that she and her husband are in favor of the road being closed, because it would be easier to control crime, through the Neighborhood Watch.

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

Mr. Stivender discussed, from the County's standpoint, the concern with all of the access points onto Lakeshore Drive. From Lakeshore Drive all of the way down to CR 561 to the south has continued to be developed in the same size properties. The traffic count has continued to increase. He discussed problems with restricting access points, if an accident should occur, or some emergency needed immediate attention. Mr. Stivender discussed the issue of access management and stated that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was looking for the County to be responsible for an alternate transportation network not utilizing U.S. Highway 27 as the regular local on-off roadway. He stated that the inter-connects are logical, because traffic would not go onto major highways.

Discussion occurred regarding the alternative suggestion made above by Ms. Bonifay, to close only Hilltop Drive, and the concerns

that Mr. Stivender had with this option. Mr. Stivender explained that he feels the alternates should be left as long as possible, and if they develop, that would be fine, but if the developments change and the designs change where they would not be practical, and then they could be vacated after the fact.

Commr. Bailey explained that there has been many times when the Board has taken the side of the community, and closed roads to protect the integrity of the community. Commr. Bailey stated that he would be comfortable closing Hilltop Drive, because he does not believe it would create the problems addressed by Mr. Stivender. He stated that this would be a workable solution and protects the integrity of the community. He further stated that he could not close the other road (Sunshine Drive) today, because he foresees a problem with long range planning.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, if Commr. Bailey made a motion to close only Hilltop Drive, he would support it, because Mr. Bornstein would still have access to his property.

Commr. Gerber recommended that the Homeowners' Association talk to Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management, and Ms. Cindy Heffler, Assessment Customer Service Coordinator, about an MSBU for the Lake Ridge Club for sidewalks and street lights. She stated that she agrees with staff that access management is in the Comprehensive Plan, and that this is not a waiver situation. In the event that Mr. Bornstein comes back with a plan, and the access can be changed, she would not have problem closing it. Commr. Gerber stated that she would not support closing either of these roads today.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 758 by Rogers Investment Company, to only vacate Hilltop Drive - Lake Ridge Club, Sec. 6, Twp. 23, Rge. 26, Clermont Area, Commissioner District 2, as advertised.



The motion was carried by a 3-1 vote, with Commr. Gerber voting "no". Commr. Swartz was not present for the meeting.

Mr. Stivender explained that the Board could always approve to close less than what had been advertised for the public hearing.

Commr. Bailey noted, for the record, that his motion was to only take action on Hilltop Drive. No action was taken on the closing of Sunshine Drive.

Petition No. 765 - Beatrice B. Ettinger and Homer N. Allen

Clermont Area



Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. He noted that a letter had been received from the City of Clermont requesting that the County proceed with the vacation.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

It was noted that Mr. Dennis Benbow was present representing the applicant.

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 unanimously, the Board approved Road vacation Petition No. 765 by Beatrice B. Ettinger and Homer N. Allen, to vacate road and tracts, Lake Highlands Co., Sec. 29, Twp. 22, Rge. 26, Clermont Area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.

Petition No. 767 - James & Marie Mackey - Groveland Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that the County saw no reason to keep the road open, because of access to the north and south.

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

It was noted that the applicants were 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. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 767 by James and Marie Mackey, to vacate easements, Groveland Farms Plat, Sec. 20, Twp. 23, Rge. 25, Groveland Area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.

Petition No. 768 - Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Services



Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender explained that the County had acquired right-of-way, and had surface treated the road. The road was shifted to the south a little bit, and the property owner wanted a clear title to the road that no longer existed.

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

Mr. Charlie Rydzewski appeared before the Board and explained that his daddy bought the property in question back in the 1940's. He stated that the County, at this time, does not have a clear title, because he and his brother have not signed off on it. They are waiting on the vacation portion of it. Mr. Rydzewski noted that the road was in the City of Mascotte. He discussed the congested traffic, and stated that no road signs have been placed in this area. He stated that he would like the Board to delay a decision on this issue, so that he can have his surveyor go over the right-of-way portion on the vacation versus what the County has provided to him. Mr. Rydzewski questioned who would be maintaining the road, since the road was in the city limits of Mascotte, and road and traffic signs need to be put up. He stated that he would also like to rename the road in his dad's honor.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board postponed, until December 6, 1994, Road Vacation Petition No. 768 by Jim Stivender, Jr., Public

Services, to vacate American Legion Rd. (#2-1711), Sec. 14, Twp. 22, Rge. 24, Mascotte Area - Commissioner District 2.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

PETITION #69-86E-2 Amendment to Res. #1994-153 John A. Pringle

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, appeared before the Board and requested a postponement of Tab 10, Case #69-86E-2, John A. Pringle, Royal Highlands, until November 15, 1994, at 9:30 a.m.

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

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the postponement of Case #69-86E-2, John A. Pringle, Royal Highlands, until November 15, 1994, at 9:30 a.m.

The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following staff members: Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation; Sharon Farrell, Planner III; Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management; Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services; Gary DeBoe, Construction Contract Manager; Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning & Development; and Walter Wood, Water Resources Branch Supervisor.

PETITION #41-94-5 AR to RA Clarence E. Holmes

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from AR (Agricultural Residential) to RA (Ranchette) for the placement of a manufactured home.

PETITION #40-94-3 A & HM to CFD Lake County Board of County Commissioners

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs explained that this was a request to rezone the Astatula Landfill and surrounding properties that have been added to the original landfill. He noted a letter in the backup material from Mr. David H. Ricci, Baltimore, Maryland, in opposition to the request, and a letter from the City of Tavares inquiring about how the CR 448 Extension and the recreation park would be affected by the rezoning. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was responding to the letter from the City, and that all proper notices were given to the property owners, as questioned in the letter from Mr. Ricci.

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

Ms. Carla Door appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Door stated that she had been out of town and was unable to attend the zoning meetings, and she would like answers to some questions. She stated that her property abuts the property in question, and she objected to the odor, vermin, and contamination of underground water. When she bought the property, she was of the understanding that the existing landfill was being closed.

Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management, addressed the Board and requested that this case be postponed, until the end of the agenda, so that he could address Ms. Door's concerns.

It was noted that there was no further opposition in the audience.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board postponed Case #40-94-3, Lake County

Board of County Commissioners, until the end of the rezoning agenda.

PETITION #38-94-1 R-6 to CP H. L. & Patricia Samuelson

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff feels rezoning the property to CP zoning with C-1 and C-2 uses and limiting it to office uses would meet the commercial locational criteria. It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses for a veterinary clinic, with the exception of those uses deleted in the Resolution.

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

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Beliveau stated that he was representing the applicants who are selling the property to the Gundersons. Mr. Beliveau requested clarification from the Board on the fact that staff maintains that this request meets professional office criteria, but does not meet commercial criteria. He stated that the policy does not state office infill, or commercial infill, and only states infill. He further stated that he had no problem with the recommendation, and had submitted a letter outlining the uses being requested.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, clarified that the Resolution needed to be changed to track the uses stated in the letter from Mr. Beliveau, to be specified as office uses.

Mr. Stubbs addressed Policy 1-1.14 of the Comprehensive Plan and explained why staff felt that the request met the general guidelines for commercial. He stated that staff did not feel that office uses had to meet every specific intent of the commercial locational criteria. He further stated that this was a set of regulations that needed to be drafted very quickly, because this was something that staff addressed on an interpretive mode at every meeting.

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 for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) & C-2 (Community Commercial) uses for a veterinary clinic, with the exception of those uses deleted in the Resolution, and as amended to reflect the office use; and to reflect the modification submitted by Land Planning Group.

PETITION #36-94-3 RP & CUP #843A-4 Glen Pawlowski, Rep.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs noted that CUP#843A-4 has basically expired, therefore, staff would need remove it. He informed the Board that a letter had been received from the City of Mount Dora putting the applicant on notice as to the utilities available in the area. Mr. Stubbs stated that there were also letters from Mr. Glen Pawlowski, the applicant, and Central Florida Mail Service signed by Dean and Betty Highberger, in support of the request.

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

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Pawlowski was present to answer any questions, as well as the applicant's consultant on health care issues. Ms. Bonifay presented a drawing of the proposed facility, for illustrative purposes only.

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.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for

rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) & CUP#843A-4 to CFD for an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) to include 180 beds.

PETITION #83-85A-2 Amend MP Ord. #38-85 Brian J. Schmidt

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. He noted that a letter had been received from the City of Minneola stating no objections to the rezoning.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that he would like to hear the concerns from those present in the audience.

Mr. Hubert Ray Clem appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Clem stated that he resides across the road from the boat shop, and he works long hours. He questioned whether the County was going to set certain hours of operation for the boat business.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Brian Schmidt, the applicant, to present testimony. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Schmidt testified as to how the business would be operated, and the standard hours for business. Mr. Schmidt stated that he would be concerned with restricted hours, because of the boat sales.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that the hours would pertain to the boat repair hours, not to the boat sales hours.

Discussion occurred regarding the hours that could be established, in order that the applicant be able to operate his business.

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

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning for an amendment to MP Ordinance #38-85 for boat repair

services, sales, storage and accessory uses, with the following hours of operation being limited to the following: Monday through Saturday for the boat repair business only; limiting the hours to 7:30 a.m. until 8 p.m., and with no repairs on Sunday.

PETITION #40-94-3 A & HM to CFD Lake County Board of County

Commissioners (Continued)

Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and stated that he discussed the request with Ms. Carla Door, and she was quite satisfied that the County was going to be a good neighbor.

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

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) & HM (Heavy Industrial) to CFD (Community Facility District) for future expansion of the landfill facility and related uses.

PETITION #177A-85-4 R-6 to CP Cecil & Dyanne Bodiford

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs clarified the setbacks in the Resolution, by reading the following into the record: 28 feet from Highway 46 right-of-way, and 26 feet from County Road (CR) 437. He recommended that these setbacks be continued through the adjacent property for the expansion. Mr. Stubbs clarified that the setbacks would be ten feet side and rear, which would be standard for commercial.

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

Mr. Charles Forman, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board to address the request. Mr. Forman stated that, pursuant to staff's request, the rezoning was

advertised for the whole piece of property, which he feels would not be appropriate. He stated that the applicant was proposing to buy an additional parcel (Parcel B), which was delineated on the boundary location survey. At this time, Mr. Forman submitted the survey as part of the record. He stated that Parcel B would be the only property that was subject to the rezoning request, although the entire legal description was included in the application.

Mr. Stubbs responded to the advertising of the entire legal description and stated that the applicant was tying into the existing convenience store, which would involve amending the CP Ordinance to include the land. He stated that this would be standard practice, but that he understood Mr. Forman's point.

Mr. Forman stated that his client fully agrees with the proposal from staff, to limit the setback from Highway 46 to 28 feet, and the setback from CR 437 to 26 feet. However, he does not agree with some of the other recommendations including the Transportation Improvements indicated under sub-section E. on Page 2 of the Resolution. Mr. Forman stated that this section involves the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide up to 40 feet from the centerline of CR 437, which would be on the east side of the property. He stated that it was his understanding that the present right-of-way width from the centerline was 30 feet, and the County was requesting a ten foot dedication from an existing facility, as well as the new property. Mr. Forman stated that he did not feel that the proposed dedication was related, and there was nothing in the record that related to any potential use, or increase, or changed use to this property that would justify this requirement. He further stated that staff was recommending that the zoning be conditioned on a dedication of up to 50 feet from the centerline of State Road (SR), or Highway 46. He stated that this was currently 30 feet from centerline right-of-way, which would result in an additional 20 foot dedication. None of the frontage was involved in the piece of property that was being acquired.

Mr. Forman explained that his client would lose their drainage retention area that currently exists and is permitted along State Road 46, and they would probably lose their well that is currently permitted and exists in the southeast corner of the property. He stated that the exaction is justified, or appropriate, and requested that the Board make the decision not to require this as a condition of this rezoning.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that the applicant's attorney presented some interesting legal issues, and the Board may want to continue the case, until those issues can be resolved.

Commr. Hanson addressed Mr. Hoban's comments and stated that she did not feel that the Board would be going back on something that had already been approved.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he agreed with Mr. Hoban that there were some areas that needed to be addressed, and he would be in favor of postponing the request, in order to address the issues with the applicants. He stated that he does not want to see the Board do something today that would affect the general policy.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Attorney, explained that the Board does not have an existing policy related to the acquisition of right-of-way.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel it would be right for the applicants to go back and acquire the additional right-of-way for State Road 46, but on County Road 437, it would be right. She stated that the whole project was not being brought back for review for zoning, to be able to exact the right-of-way, but an additional piece was being added to make it a better project. She stated that the Board could postpone the request, but her position would be the same.

Mr. Forman empathized with the Board and stated that he understood the Board had planning goals to meet, however, the applicant had rights, and in looking at this particular case for

either parcel, Tract A or Tract B, there was no exactness in the record and nothing had been established, so that there was any basis related to the use of this property that would warrant exaction, or taking of this property for the roads rights-of-way.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Griffey addressed the transportation and access management issues, which come from two sections in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Mr. Griffey stated that, when the site comes in for review, it would have to be considered by staff as a complete site, and it would have to be reviewed for compliance with the Access Management Ordinance. He explained that the right-of-way dedication, in the Code, would also have to be considered.

Mr. Hoban explained that the right-of-way issue, as well as access management, were issues addressed for almost all of the rezoning issues that come before the Board.

Mr. Forman explained that he had provided Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, a legal memorandum, and a discussion had taken place with Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services. He explained that there was already an existing use generating the traffic flow, as well as a use, and he feels this would be a very clear example of where the County's ordinance should not be applied. Mr. Forman stated that his clients would not agree to dedicate right-of-way for the alluded extension proposed at this site, which would be the drainage retention area and parking extension.

Mr. Don Davis, Real Estate Manager, Miller Enterprises, Inc., appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Davis discussed the process that had been used over the years for the dedication of land when coming through for site plan approval. He explained that, over the past few years, it has come to the point where it has become unfair to take donated land without compensation. Mr. Davis stated that he would stand firm on this particular project, because it was not fair to take land without fair compensation.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would not have a problem with granting the change in rezoning on the south portion with the right-of-way dedication, or the parties could continue to try and negotiate the issue.

Commr. Bailey explained that he felt the Chairman was offering a fair compromise.

Mr. Forman stated that, if the Board follows the recommendations, in addition to the Transportation Improvements, then it would come down to access management, concurrency review, and development review approval, which he feels are not technically a part of a rezoning. He stated that, if the attorneys feel as though they need more time to review the request, he would like to propose to his client that an agreement has been made to continue the matter, and he could discuss it with them, and review any recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court directly on this point. Mr. Forman implied that it was difficult to address site plan review issues as part of the zoning process. He stated that his client, as a matter of constitutional principle both State and Federal, does not want to give up land that is not related to anything that it is doing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone for 30 days, until November 29, 1994, the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) for the expansion of an existing convenience store for drainfield/retention area.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.



REZONING - CONTINUED

PETITION #39-94-2 A to CP Lykes Brothers Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. He informed the Board of a letter received from the City of Minneola encouraging the property owners to consider voluntary annexation into the city limits. He noted that there was also a letter from Mr. Daryl M. Carter in support of the request.

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

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and noted that Mr. Derrill McAteer, a representative from Lykes Brothers, was available to answer questions of the Board. Ms. Bonifay explained that the request was a reuse of an existing site, which she reviewed through a site plan made available to the Board. She stated that the only changes to be made to the site would be cosmetic in nature, which would include interior renovation. In terms of the zoning, she requested that all of the requirements for construction site plans, and the submittal requirements, be reviewed administratively instead of by the Technical Review Committee (TRC), as a change of use.

Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. It was noted, once again, that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. 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) with C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, and for

the rezoning to go through the administrative process, and not through the technical review process.

The motion was carried by a 3-0 vote. Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote, and Commr. Swartz was not present for the meeting.

PETITION MSP#94/10/2-2 Mining Site Plan Joseph W. Reiner

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. He stated that Mr. Walter Wood, Environmental Management, was present and could respond to any questions regarding the mining activity.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

Mr. Richard Langley appeared before the Board and requested clarification of the modifications made to the Land Use Plan.

Commr. Gerber questioned Page 1 of the Resolution, 2. Terms: E. and F. regarding the mining activities not adversely impacting the groundwater level, and a Ground and Surface Water Monitoring Plan being submitted prior to the commencement of mining operations.

Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Wicks explained that this project would be permitted with five agencies. He discussed the hydrologic monitoring and water quality monitoring that would be done for the life of the mine, and presented, in further detail, the process that would be used.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed Page 3 of the Resolution, 2. Terms: M., and requested that "of $290.00" be deleted. Mr. Hoban addressed Page 4, Other Conditions, U. Cessation of Activity, and stated that this entire section also needed to be deleted.



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.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for mining site plan for extraction and processing of peat and potting soil, with the changes made to the Resolution, as presented above by Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney.

PETITION #20-92A-2 Amendment to PUD Ord. #11-92

Rex V. McPherson, II, et al

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. He stated that staff recommended approval and had no real objections to the residential portion; however, the commercial locational criteria was an issue. Mr. Stubbs explained that staff had anticipated the internal road to serve as a collector roadway. He noted that it does serve as a collector roadway internally, but would only be classified in the Lake County Road Classification System as a local road. Based upon this, staff had no objection and had recommended that language be inserted within the Resolution to state that commercial development up to 50,000 square feet may be considered appropriate at such time as the locational criteria of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan was met. Mr. Stubbs stated that he revised the staff report, which he distributed at this time. In addition, Environmental Management had some language that was omitted, and should not have been omitted, which was given to the applicant at the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting, and he felt there would be no objection to putting the language back in the Resolution. At this time, Mr. Stubbs directed the Board's attention to Page 2 of the Resolution where the additional language was inserted in B. Commercial, and to Page 11, items 1-7. Mr. Stubbs explained that Environmental Management had requested items 1-7 be inserted in the Resolution, but if the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) take care of the issues, they do not need to be included.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that, when items are placed in the Resolution for a PUD, the items are usually for exceptional things that are set out in the Lake County Code, and the Code would have to be re-stated into the rezoning Resolution. He stated that there were several of the items presented by Environmental Management that would not need to be in the Resolution.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that he had objected all along to the inclusion of items already addressed by the Lake County Code, and the LDRs. Mr. Richey discussed the origination of the Lake Louisa PUD, and the amount of opposition it had created. He stated that the major opposition had to do with the 65 acres that were being deleted that were to provide an inter-connect for U.S. 27 through the project, and down to Lake Louisa Road. He stated that the amendment today, the deletion of the 65 acres, would be reducing the commercial from 100,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet, with the provision that it had to meet the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this was a 675 home development with 100,000 square feet of commercial on septic tanks. The proposal today would convert the septic tank development into a central water and sewer development, with the utilities being provided jointly between the City of Clermont, and whoever the other utility provider would be. He explained that this would be the same duplication of services as in the Spring Valley project. Mr. Richey stated that there was a ten (10) acre out parcel in addition to the 65 acres, and it was not included in the zoning case today, because the applicant was in the process of negotiating to purchase the property. Mr. Richey explained that,

at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, he pointed out that the building criteria on the site plan was what should be included in the Resolution, and it currently was not being reflected in it. Also there was a typographical error, which was corrected and filed with staff after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He requested that the Board approve the project and adopt the Resolution, which adopts the information on the site plan, as submitted to the staff, for the purpose of including it in the Resolution. Mr. Richey informed the Board that a representative of Centex Homes, and a representative from Bowyer-Singleton & Associates, were present to answer questions. He also informed the Board that the roads would be private and would not be in the maintenance system, although the applicant may provide for street lighting, which would be through a MSBU at some future date. Mr. Richey noted that some of the neighbors were present in the audience.

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

Mr. Hoban suggested that the Board make its decision subject to the County Attorney's approval that there would be no duplication of provisions; anything new and different needed to remain in the Resolution.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance #11-92 to decrease the acreage of the total site to 400 acres; reduce the commercial acreage to 4.5 acres and increase the total number of homesites to 730, subject to the County Attorney's final review and approval.

Commr. Cadwell commended Mr. Stubbs and staff for the way the zoning package had been put together for the Board's review.



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Attorney, informed the Board that Tab 6 was information that Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Information Services, had previously discussed with the Board. Mr. Thorburn had been working with the State of Florida, and was to form a basis for some new legislation coming forward, which would incorporate both the satellite program and the telephone into something consistent with cable permitting for Lake County.

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

Information Services/Ordinances

Request for approval to advertise for Public Hearing on November 15, 1994 on the proposed Lake County Telecommunications Systems Permit Ordinance.



Planning and Development/Resolutions/Grants



Request for approval and execution of Resolution amending the handicapped accessibility-related Evaluation and Transition Plan titled "Lake County Facilities Director, ADA Compliancy Plan" to comply with the Community Development Block Grant Program.



Planning and Development/Grants



Request for approval and execution of request for a six month extension of completion period for Community Development Block Grant (No. 94DB-19-06-45-01-N17).



ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/GRANTS

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the execution of a request for a six month extension of completion period for Community Development Block Grant (No. 94DB-19-06-45-01-N17).

OTHER BUSINESS - REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY/LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, appeared before the Board and gave an updated report on the issue with Phoenix Construction Services, Inc. Mr. Gaylord stated that, in accordance with the

Board's direction, an agreement was negotiated to require a bond from Phoenix. He stated that Phoenix was amenable and willing to post a bond, but he found that the bonding company was not willing to post the bond for Phoenix. In discussions with the bonding company, the company gave Phoenix the highest recommendation and informed him that they have been doing business with Phoenix for the past eight years. Mr. Gaylord stated that, if the Board signs the contract with Phoenix and does not have the bonding company signing off on it, then it created a new arrangement between the County and Phoenix, and probably eliminated the bonding company from the liability. Mr. Gaylord recommended authorization for the execution, by the Chairman, of a Partial Settlement Agreement with Phoenix, which incorporates all the terms and conditions except for the requirement of the bond, for the purpose of abating the existing lawsuit, and the dismissal of the lawsuit upon its completion. Mr. Gaylord stated that Phoenix has signed off on the agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign the Partial Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Phoenix Construction Services, Inc., as stated above by Mr. Gaylord, County Attorney.

Commr. Cadwell brought to the attention of the Board a County-City Manager meeting held several weeks ago, and stated that, after the meeting, several of the City Attorneys expressed their delight in the County Attorney's Office, and the amount of cooperation and information they had received from the office. Commr. Cadwell expressed his appreciation to Mr. Gaylord, Mr. Hoban, and Mr. Duncan.

PARKS AND RECREATION

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that Friday, October 28, 1994, would be the groundbreaking ceremony for Carroll Fulmer Trucking Company at the Industrial Park.



ANIMAL SHELTER

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that on November 1, 1994, at 1 p.m., the groundbreaking for the Animal Shelter would take place.

ORDINANCES

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Proclamation denoting October as Lake County Family History Month.

COUNTY EMPLOYEES/PARKS AND RECREATION

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that the County Employee Picnic held last Sunday at Hickory Point was a success. He extended his appreciation to Ms. Kelly Soucy, Purchasing Manager, and the Purchasing Department, as well as Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.



RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\10-25-94\11-1-94