A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DAVID BORNSTEIN REZONING CASE

JUNE 8, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, June 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium of South Lake High School, Groveland, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services; Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations; Paul Bergmann, Director, Planning and Development; Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development; Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman opened the meeting.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Good.

PUBLIC HEARING

REZONING

PETITION NO. 7-95-2 - REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-4 - DAVID BORNSTEIN

Commr. Good, the District Commissioner for this meeting, welcomed those individuals who were present in the audience and thanked them for coming. He stated that he felt the information given this date would be valuable to the Board in making a decision regarding this case.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed those present that the Board would be hearing the Rezoning case first and then the Road Vacation Petitions and requested that anyone wishing to give testimony to do so for the Rezoning case first and then for the Road Vacations.

At this time staff and all those present who wished to speak were sworn in by Ms. Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant was Mr. David Bornstein, represented by Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells. He stated that the request involved a 79 acre site and that the applicant had requested a rezoning from R-1 (Rural "Low Density" Residential) to R-4 (Medium Density "Suburban" Residential), to create a medium density residential subdivision. He stated that the request for rezoning was in the Urban Expansion Land Use Plan category, which permits up to four dwelling units per acre. He noted a correction on the front page of the Staff Report, being that the report indicates that the zoning to the East is R-1 (Rural Residential) and should be PUD (Planned Unit Development).

Mr. Stubbs stated that the application came in on November 1, 1995 and was scheduled for the January 4, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, however, the applicant requested a postponement, in order to work out some of the details with staff, relating to the Developer's Agreement. He stated that the request came back before the Planning and Zoning Commission in February, 1995, at which time they continued the case for 60 days, for a preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis to be conducted, by an independent agent, hired by the applicant. He stated that, at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, on May 3, 1995, the request was heard and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, without prejudice, by an 8-1 vote. He stated that the Board postponed it, at the last public hearing, to this date. He stated that, although staff was recommending denial of the request to R-4 (Medium Density Suburban Residential), a recommendation for rezoning to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), subject to a Developer's Agreement had been recommended, by staff.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the reason staff recommended R-3 was due to the fact that they felt the density within the R-3 category mirrored, or related more directly to, the adjacent subdivisions of Amberhill and Sunshine Hills. He referred to the last paragraph on Page 2 of the Staff Report, under Analysis, noting that it states, "However, the proposed development may be incompatible with the density of existing development in the area.", noting that said sentence is misleading, because the applicant submitted a preliminary plan for the layout of the subdivision in question and had agreed to include it in the Developer's Agreement. He stated that said plan would be compatible with the adjacent property. He stated that staff did not believe that the densities the applicant was proposing for the subdivision in question was incompatible with adjacent properties.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff reviewed this request against the point system in the Lake County Land Development Regulations and found that it achieved 55 points, which he noted would allow the project to go to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. He stated that staff did, however, look at the project as being adjacent to three subdivisions and found that that density was incompatible with what is presently next to the site in question.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff inserted in the Staff Report, on Page 3, transportation issues that they felt needed to be addressed. He stated that they may relate somewhat to the Road Vacation Petitions, scheduled to be heard this date. He stated that, based on staff's review, they recommended approval of the project in question. He stated that the applicant indicated to him, this date, that he may be offering a new submittal for a Preliminary Plan, for the subdivision in question, and that staff can review it, when it is submitted by the applicant. He stated that the applicant is proposing an amendment to the original Preliminary Plan, trying to make it even more compatible and less dense than the one they submitted previously.

Mr. Stubbs noted, for the record, that the County had received numerous letters and petitions and that, in the backup material, on Page 4 of the Staff Report, it notes that the County had received 6 petitions, with a total of 298 signatures, and 94 letters in opposition. He stated that the 94 letters received should be changed to 96, due to the fact that staff received two additional letters of opposition this date. He further noted, for the record, that on Page 4 of the Staff Report it indicates that the County received petitions regarding Road Vacation Petitions No. 779 and 780, as well as petitions for conducting a traffic study on Anderson Hill Road. He noted that the Traffic Impact Study and the Developer's Agreement, submitted by the applicant, was contained in the Board's backup material, for their perusal. He noted that the Developer's Agreement limits the density limitation to two dwelling units per acre and that dwelling units contiguous to Anderson Hill subdivision shall contain no less than 1,700 square feet of living area, exclusive of garages and open porches. He stated that they are offering, contiguous to Amberhill subdivision, to provide homes with no less than 1,500 square feet of living area, exclusive of garages and open porches and, in addition to that, are proposing, contiguous to Lake Ridge Club subdivision, single family residential structures to contain no less than 1,800 square feet of living area, exclusive of garages and open porches. He stated that, in the Developer's Agreement, it deals with setbacks that the applicant is proposing, as well as a fire service fee, water and wastewater connections, and the creation of an MSBU, as the County does in PUD submittals.

Mr. Stubbs noted that the City of Clermont stated, on record, at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, that they would be willing to offer connections for central water and sewer to the site in question. He stated that the Resolution, for adoption, was in the Board's backup material and noted that, if the project were to be approved this date and there were any amendments to said Resolution, that it would need to be done this date, at this hearing.

At this time, Mr. Stubbs submitted, for the record, the following exhibits:

County Exhibit A - Folder containing six (6) petitions, with 298 signatures, and 96 letters, in opposition to this request.



County Exhibit B - Folder containing petitions in favor of closing Sunshine Drive, Opal Lane, and Garnet Drive and petitions, with 73 signatures, in favor of conducting a traffic study on Anderson Hill Road.



Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board stating that the transportation issues had been the major portion of this request, at which time he read into the record the following statement, with regard to same:

It is recommended that the project have access to Sunshine Drive, Amber Avenue, Garnet Drive, and Spring Valley Road. This arrangement will provide the widest distribution of traffic. According to the traffic study for this project, this scenario would result in a total daily traffic volume of 899, 839, and 2,301 on Sunshine Drive, Amber Avenue, and Anderson Hill Road respectively. Sunshine Drive and Amber Avenue are local roads, which function as Neighborhood Collectors. This class of road is normally expected to accommodate a daily volume of 500 - 1,500 vehicles per day. Anderson Hill Road is a Feeder/Distributor class road, which is expected to accommodate a daily volume of 1,500 - 4,000 vehicles per day. The addition of this development would not increase traffic volumes on these existing roads beyond the acceptable levels, as adopted by Lake County.

Mr. Stivender answered questions from the Board regarding said statement.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., appeared before the Board stating that she was representing the applicant. She introduced Ms. Miranda Fitzgerald, Attorney, Lowndes, Drosdick, Kantor & Reed, out of Orlando, stating that she was Co-Counsel for this case. She informed the Board that she did not have a copy of the site plan that was before them this date, indicating the total number of units. She stated that there was an original site plan submitted that contained over 240 units and questioned whether that was the site plan before the Board.

It was determined that the Board had before them the original site plan, as well as the revised plan, which contains a total of 146 units.

Ms. Bonifay stated that her client had submitted two site plans, therefore, would not be submitting a third plan at this time. She noted that the plan under discussion this evening and the one that the applicant was proposing was the revised plan, containing 146 units, rather than the original 240 units.

At this time, Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit A - Lake County Procedures for Conduct of Quasi-Judicial Hearing, dated July 9, 1992.



Ms. Bonifay noted, for the record, that she had checked with the County and was informed that said Procedures had not been revised since July 9, 1992, therefore, said Procedures would be the ones that she and her staff would be using this date.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, with regard to the large number of individuals that stood and were sworn in, she would like for Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing various residents of the subdivisions in question, to submit, for the record, a list of her clients.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit A - List of individuals represented by Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, who are residents of Sunshine Hills and Amberhill subdivisions.



Mr. Norman Cummins, Attorney, Cummins, Mueller & Judson, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit B - Notice of Appearance, indicating that Mr. Norman Cummins would be acting as legal counsel for Lake Ridge Club Homeowners Association and Rogers Investment Company.



At this time, Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, cross-examined Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, about his educational background and his handling of this case.

Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that Mr. Stubbs was an expert in planning.

Ms. Bonifay continued to cross-examine Mr. Stubbs. She questioned his involvement in the development of Lake County's current Comprehensive Plan, dated March 2, 1993; whether he utilizes it and is called on to interpret it, apply it, and make judgments regarding it, on a daily basis; how it is implemented in Lake County; whether the Appendices, with regard to issues pertaining to stormwater, transportation, fire, etc., particularly transportation, were codified and made a part of the Comprehensive Plan; whether he was, or had been, involved in the development of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); whether he was involved in interpreting and applying the LDRs to various projects; whether he prepared the Staff Report that was included in the Board's backup material, regarding the Bornstein case, or whether it was prepared under his direction; whether he felt comfortable and qualified to answer any questions she might have regarding issues in the Staff Report; what size the project in question was; and whether it was in an area that was already fairly well developed.

Ms. Bonifay referred to the correction that Mr. Stubbs had made earlier, reiterating the fact that the Staff Report states that there is an R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning district to the east of the development in question, when, in fact, it is a PUD.

It was noted, for the record, that the map, on Page 2 of the Staff Report, was in error and should be corrected to reflect a PUD, rather than an R-1 zoning, as well.

Ms. Bonifay clarified that Mr. Stubbs had earlier testified that staff's original recommendation was to deny the R-4 zoning district, but would recommend that it be rezoned to R-3, and that the applicant had agreed to that and, in fact, had agreed to it throughout the hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs regarding the land use classification for the parcel in question. He stated that it was urban expansion, which calls for a medium residential density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, permitted as a maximum category.

Ms. Bonifay questioned what the highest density allowed for residential would be in Lake County.

Mr. Stubbs stated that it would be seven (7) dwelling units per acre.

Ms. Bonifay referred to Page 3 of the Staff Report, stating that it refers to a residential point system evaluation and requested Mr. Stubbs to explain how it works.

It was noted that said system was another "check" to prevent premature development and to promote in-fill and direct development into the appropriate areas of Lake County, by applying a development point rating system, in addition to just a general land use classification.

Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs regarding the issue of transportation and whether, from a general standpoint, the Planning Department looks at and renders, as a normal course of operation, recommendations on road vacation petitions, to look at what the net impact is, in terms of what it will do to access, and those sorts of factors.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff does, however, due to the fact that road vacations were not being addressed at this time, requested that discussion regarding same be limited, until such time as the road vacations are addressed, later in the meeting.

Ms. Bonifay clarified the fact that Planning and Development recommended that the roads be left open. She stated that other standards for review were included in the LDRs and questioned whether they were applied in every zoning case.

Mr. Stubbs stated that they were. He further elaborated on the matter.

Ms. Bonifay clarified that this was another "check", or way to more appropriately quantify what the impacts of the development are and make a determination. She then reviewed the Standards for Review, contained in Section 14.03.05 of the Lake County LDRs, questioning Mr. Stubbs regarding same.

Ms. Bonifay questioned whether the submission of a Developer's Agreement was a requirement of the LDRs on a straight rezoning.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff tries to work with the developers and offer it as part of the package for rezoning.

Ms. Bonifay clarified that staff encourages developers to regulate themselves and that the Developer's Agreement imposes certain conditions and restrictions on the development of the property that are binding on the developer and run with the land and that it is required that these be recorded and become part of the public record.

Ms. Bonifay noted that one of the reasons for the continuance of this case was to do a traffic study, or analysis, and questioned whether this was a requirement of a subdivision rezoning.

Mr. Stubbs stated that it was not usually required, however, if local roads are an issue, staff tries to work with the development community to provide the County with that analysis, so that staff can make a reasonable recommendation to the Board.

Ms. Bonifay noted, for the record, that the applicant conducted a traffic analysis and submitted it to both the Development Regulation Services Department and the Public Services Department and that it became part of the record. She questioned Mr. Stubbs regarding the fact that, although staff recommended approval of this project to R-3, whether, in his professional opinion, he thought this project was consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and compatible, at a density of R-3, with the Development Agreement that is in place and with the surrounding zoning.

Mr. Stubbs stated that he felt it was.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she had no further questions for Mr. Stubbs, at this time, however, reserved the right to recall him during the remainder of the meeting.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, requested that Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appear before the Board for cross-examination. She stated that he had recommended denial of the closure of the three roads (Sunshine Drive, Opal Lane, and Garnet Drive) in question and requested him to state the basis of that opinion and why he felt said roads should not be closed; whether he had conferred with the County Attorney's Office in making his determination, as to the legality of the issue at hand; whether Lake County had a long-standing policy to require interconnects; whether it has been not only the policy, but his practice in reviewing development proposals, in the Public Services Department, to require those interconnections; whether, in this particular case, all the roads that are now being requested for vacation were stubbed-out, meaning that the roads end contiguous to Mr. Bornstein's property, and whether they were part of the plats for those developments; what the importance of having a plat was and whether it was intended to put people on notice; and what the Public Records of Lake County would show, with regard to interconnecting roads, should she be interested in buying a piece of property in a particular subdivision.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she had no further questions for Mr. Stivender at this time, however, reserved the right to recall him during the remainder of the meeting.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing various individuals in opposition to this request, appeared before the Board and requested that Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, appear before the Board, for cross-examination.

Ms. Campione clarified the fact that Mr. Stubbs had stated earlier that he had reviewed the Spring Valley PUD and was involved in the approval process for same. She questioned whether said PUD had direct access to U.S. 27 and whether it had any other proposed access; whether it had a connection to the applicant's (Mr. Bornstein) property; whether the Amber Lake proposal, as submitted to Mr. Stubbs, showed an interconnect to the Spring Valley PUD; and whether other connections of the Amber Lake proposal would be to Sunshine Drive, Amber Avenue, and Garnet Drive. She clarified the fact that there was an interconnect to the east, that will take traffic to U.S. 27 and also to the west, down to Lakeshore Drive.

Ms. Campione reviewed the Standards of Review, contained on Pages 3 and 4 of the Staff Report, with Mr. Stubbs, in response to various questions that Ms. Bonifay had posed, regarding the following: whether there had been changed conditions that required the rezoning being requested, and what changes the current R-1 zoning on the property in question would mean, if the applicant wanted to develop the property, with the existing zoning. She clarified the fact that the property could be developed for residential purposes, as it is.

Ms. Campione continued reviewing the Standards of Review, stating that Ms. Bonifay had questioned whether and to what extent the proposed rezoning would adversely affect the property values in the area and that Mr. Stubbs had responded that he had not actually done an analysis of whether the subdivision, as planned and proposed, would have negative impacts on surrounding properties.

Ms. Campione clarified that Mr. Stubbs was present at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, in which the proposal in question was reviewed, and requested him to state the basis of said Board's recommendation of denial for this rezoning. She clarified the fact that, with the Planning and Zoning Commission making a determination that this project would have an adverse affect on property values, they were looking at the road network that was proposed in the Preliminary Site Plan that was submitted.

Ms. Campione further reviewed the Standards for Review stating that, with regard to whether or not and to what extent the proposed rezoning would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, questioned the fact that, in making a determination that it would be an orderly and logical development, whether Mr. Stubbs had taken into account the road networks that were proposed, or whether he was looking at the densities that were proposed. She questioned whether, when talking about the interconnections, he had taken into account the fact that they were not actually interconnecting to subdivisions, but were interconnecting Lakeshore Drive to U.S. 27.

Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Stivender, Director, Public Services, had stated earlier that there will be local roads that will now function as collector roads. She questioned whether Mr. Stubbs felt that that would change the character of Amberhill and Sunshine Hills subdivisions, in the sense that the local roads will now become collector type roads.

Mr. Stubbs stated that it could change the character of the roadways that have direct access, within those particular subdivisions.

Ms. Campione clarified that Mr. Stubbs had stated earlier that he was familiar with the LDRs, in that he helped draft them, and was familiar with the Comprehensive Plan, as well, due to the fact that he had been involved in the whole process, and questioned whether the local roads in question were designed as collector roads.

Mr. Stubbs stated that he did not believe they were, noting that he felt they were local roads, as they exist today, as far as the width of the pavement.

It was noted that Mr. Stubbs did not know if the roads in question had sidewalks, or curbs, and did not take any of those factors into account, in evaluating whether it would change the character of the neighborhood and possibly not result in orderly, logical development.

Ms. Campione continued reviewing the Standards for Review, questioning whether, or to what extent, the proposed rezoning would result in demands on public facilities and whether, or to what extent, the proposed rezoning would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, noting that she felt Mr. Stubbs had evaluated whether it exceeded the capacities and did not try to quantify whether there was a demand. She questioned whether he would concede that there is a demand on facilities, whenever increased density is added.

Mr. Stubbs stated that he would.

Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Stubbs had stated earlier that the revised plan, as submitted, was more in keeping with what he considered R-2 zoning around the property in question and questioned whether he was referring to densities, or actual lot sizes.

Mr. Stubbs stated that he was referring to lot sizes.

Ms. Campione questioned whether Mr. Stubbs was aware of the fact that Amberhill subdivision has a deed restriction that requires 22,000 square foot lots, i.e. half-acre lots, and clarified that that is what Mr. Stubbs saw, when he reviewed the project in question. She clarified that, in talking about 79 acres, with 146 homes, Mr. Stubbs was doing a density calculation, because what is on the plat is not one-half acre lots. She further clarified the fact that when Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs about the harmony with the purpose and intent of the Regulations and he stated that he was primarily looking at densities, he was not looking at the traffic patterns that were going to be created -the potential for a change in character of adjoining neighborhoods and as to whether that was in harmony with the Regulations, but whether the densities that were being proposed were in harmony with the Regulations.

Ms. Campione requested Mr. Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, to appear before the Board, for cross-examination. She clarified the fact that he had stated earlier that he was with the Public Services Department at the time that the Amberhill subdivision came through and the stub-outs were provided for and that he had recommended the stub-outs. She questioned whether, when he recommended the stub-outs, he anticipated they would be collector roads, or whether they would connect adjoining subdivisions.

Mr. Stivender stated that they were to be neighborhood collector roads to connect subdivisions.

Ms. Campione questioned whether Mr. Stivender foresaw that the stub-outs might provide a direct access from U.S. 27 to Lakeshore Drive, at the time that the plats were approved.

Mr. Stivender stated that he felt eventually they would, but did not anticipate that they would have to be widened and brought up to standards that could handle that type of traffic, through the subdivisions. He stated that that was the reason Anderson Hill Road was extended and widened to 24 feet ten years ago, noting that that was to be the access, not through the subdivisions.

Ms. Campione clarified the fact that it was the intent of the Public Services Department that Anderson Hill Road would serve as the connector between U.S. 27 and Lakeshore Drive, as far as the region in question was concerned. She clarified the fact that Sunshine Drive, Amber Avenue, and Garnet Drive did not have sidewalks or curbs and that Mr. Stivender had not sent anyone out to evaluate whether said roads were 20 feet in width, as required by the County. She clarified the fact that Mr. Stivender was wanting to provide multiple routes, so that the traffic could be dispersed more evenly. She further questioned Mr. Stivender about the issue of connector roads.

Ms. Campione stated that she did not have any further questions for Mr. Stivender, at this time, however, would like to reserve the right to cross-examine him further, if necessary.

Mr. Douglas Gibson (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, about Chapter I, Pages 13 and 14 of the LDRs, with regard to whether, with the interconnects and the potential of the Spring Valley project, it meets said requirements.

Mr. Stubbs stated that it did.

Mr. Gibson then questioned Mr. Stivender, Director, Public Services, about the issue of the interconnects.

Mr. Cummins, Attorney, representing Lake Ridge Club and Rogers Investment Company, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, about the proposed Developer's Agreement and the fact that the homes in the proposed development will have 1,800 square feet of living area, exclusive of open porches and garages, with respect to the lots adjacent to Lake Ridge Club. He questioned whether the proposed Developer's Agreement addressed the lots across the street from those lots adjacent to Lake Ridge Club.

Mr. Stubbs stated that said homes will have no less than 1,200 square feet of living area, exclusive of garages and open porches.

Mr. Cummins questioned whether Mr. Stubbs had taken into account the negative impact that the homes across the street from Lake Ridge Club might have on the value of property in said development, being they are only 1,200 square feet, rather than 1,500 square feet.

Mr. Stubbs stated that he did not.

Mr. Cummins questioned whether Mr. Stubbs was aware of the fact that the Lake Ridge Club development has a requirement that their homes be 1,800 square feet and that it would be fair to say that the proposed development should stay compatible with the homes in Lake Ridge Club, noting that it will reduce the value of the area substantially.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff does not see a 1,200 square foot home as being a negative, from a Planning and Zoning perspective.

Mr. Cummins questioned the 20 foot setbacks currently proposed for the development in question and whether Mr. Stubbs felt they should be 25 feet, rather than 20 feet, in order to be compatible with Lake Ridge Club.

Mr. Stubbs stated that a 20 foot setback was sufficient.

Mr. Mark Schneider (sworn in at beginning of meeting), a resident of Anderson Hills subdivision, appeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Stubbs about the proposed development. He clarified the fact that Mr. Stubbs had been present during the Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings and the Board Meetings on the Spring Valley PUD and that, to his knowledge, the Spring Valley proposal had a connection to Anderson Hill Road. He stated that he understood the connection to Anderson Hill Road had been taken out from the proposed plan, against the County staff's objection, by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board, and that Spring Valley PUD agreed to this, as well as the residents. He questioned whether the proposed interconnection between Mr. Bornstein's property and Sunshine Drive would reopen a connection to Anderson Hill Road.

Mr. Stubbs stated that it would, however, noted that it would be a fairly good distance down Anderson Hill Road.

Mr. Schneider questioned Mr. Stubbs about whether the setbacks adjoining Anderson Hills subdivision were set at 45 feet and whether or not they included a buffer on top of that. He questioned the minimum size of the homes on the lots in the proposed development and the current status of the Spring Valley PUD.

Ms. Bonifay requested Mr. Greg Beliveau (sworn in at beginning of meeting), Land Planning Group, Inc., to appear before the Board for questioning.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, noted, for the record, that Mr. Beliveau was considered by the County to be an expert in planning, Comprehensive Plans, LDRs, etc.

At this time, Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit B - Resume of Mr. Gregory Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc.



Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Beliveau about his experience in planning and what he had been asked to look at, in terms of the proposed subdivision. She clarified the fact that he would be looking at consistency and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, the LDRs, and other traffic management items that might be contained in either of those documents. She requested him to give those present a general location of the proposed site, at which

time she submitted, for the record, the following exhibit, which Mr. Beliveau reviewed:

Applicant's Composite Exhibit C - Poster size aerial photograph and map with overlays.



RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 8:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D.)

REZONING

PETITION NO. 7-95-2 - REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-4 - DAVID BORNSTEIN

At this time, Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit D - Amber Lakes Preliminary Site Plan (reduced version of the site plan, with phasing).



Mr. Beliveau reviewed the aerial map (Composite Exhibit C), on display, and answered questions from Ms. Bonifay regarding same.

At this time, Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit and questioned Mr. Beliveau regarding same:

Applicant's Exhibit E - Density Map (colored map highlighted with various projects indicated, surrounding the site in question) for Sunshine Hills, Anderson Hills, Amberhill, and Lake Ridge Club.



Ms. Bonifay clarified the fact that Mr. Beliveau, in his job as a professional planner, often created development plans for his clients and questioned what some of the characteristics and factors would be that he would look at, in terms of coming forward with a subdivision layout, or development plan, in looking at the surrounding areas; whether, in his professional opinion, the proposed development would be, from a planning standpoint, a logical transition between the Spring Valley development, that is the most eastern of the developments in question, across in a westward direction into the surrounding neighborhoods; whether the route would not be a direct route that would take one out of one's way to get from point A to point B; and whether he, in looking at the consistency and compatibility of the proposed development, with the surrounding development, reviewed it, in terms of the policies themselves and the Comprehensive Plan and/or LDRs.

At this time, Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit, and requested Mr. Beliveau to denote what policies he looked at, what the application was, and what his findings were, regarding same:

Applicant's Exhibit F - Report titled, Case No. 7-95-2, Analysis of Lake County's Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations, and Traffic Circulation Element.



Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Beliveau about the age of the developments and clarified that all the developments had come on line within the last eight to twelve years. She further clarified the fact that Mr. Beliveau had not found, in looking at said developments, any that contained a density of one dwelling unit per acre, in fact, found that they were in the two dwelling units per acre range.

It was noted that Mr. Beliveau found the Spring Valley development to be 2.4 dwelling units per acre and that it was the most recent development project to go through the County process, for approval.

Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Mr. Beliveau felt, in his professional opinion, the continuation of a one dwelling unit per acre zoning on Mr. Bornstein's (petitioner) property was a reasonable use for the property today, given the historical facts and the densities that were presented this date.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he felt the request before the Board was very consistent, noting that the R-1 zoning classification would have been consistent, if the developments along the perimeter of the property in question were in place, showing that transition is occurring and the character of the area has changed and that the County has a development trend that has already been initiated and has been, over a long period of time, it is not recent.

Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Beliveau about the Transportation Analysis, noting that he had indicated all the points of interconnect, at which time she questioned the County's general policy, with regard to interconnects and access management.

Mr. Beliveau briefly discussed said policy.

Ms. Bonifay further questioned Mr. Beliveau about the issue of the interconnects. She then questioned him about the issue of setbacks, noting that the Planning Department staff found the setbacks indicated in the Developer's Agreement to be reasonable. She clarified the fact that, if the developer increased the setbacks, it would leave a smaller area for development, which might dictate smaller homes, rather than larger homes.

Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Beliveau about whether the County, in his dealings over the years with the County, allowed zero lot line development.

Mr. Beliveau stated that, in some instances, they do, which he noted.

Mr. Beliveau then responded to a question from Ms. Bonifay, with regard to what the development in question has done, in terms of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the developer had gone beyond the normal application requirements.

It was noted that the County does not have a requirement that all development in Lake County, for residential subdivisions, be developed as a PUD (Planned Unit Development), therefore, the developer had elected to do so.

Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Mr. Beliveau found the project in question to be consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and consistent and compatible with the surrounding zoning.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he did.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she had no further questions for Mr. Beliveau, however, would like to reserve the right to recall him, for further questioning, if the need arose.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, appeared before the Board and questioned whether Mr. Beliveau had stated, in making his evaluation and doing his presentation this date, that he was looking at densities and compatibilities of the densities proposed for surrounding densities, versus the road network, as proposed and shown in the preliminary plat.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he had.

Ms. Campione questioned whether Mr. Beliveau, when normally conducting a review of this nature, looked at road networks, noting that it was an essential part of evaluating whether there were compatible uses adjoining each other.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he did.

Ms. Campione questioned whether Mr. Beliveau ever examined whether the road patterns, or road networks, that were proposed would require widening of roads, or improvements that might change the character of an adjoining neighborhood.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he did. He then further elaborated on the matter.

Ms. Campione referred to a handout (Applicant's Exhibit F) from Mr. Beliveau, noting that on the last page he indicates that the development in question is being implemented in a de facto fashion.

A brief discussion occurred regarding same and whether Mr. Beliveau would consider the Amberhill subdivision as a Neo-traditional layout, or a conventional layout.

Ms. Campione determined that Mr. Beliveau was calling it somewhere in between a Neo-traditional layout and a conventional layout, because of the stub-outs. She requested him to describe a conventional layout and questioned whether he would describe the Spring Valley PUD as a conventional layout.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he would, with stub-outs being required.

Discussion continued regarding the Neo-traditional design and whether or not it has multiple points of access and multiple points of destination.

Ms. Campione questioned whether, in Mr. Beliveau's opinion, the development in question met the point system that would allow 4.5 dwelling units per acre and whether he had evaluated the criteria that the Lake County staff used, to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Beliveau stated that he had.

Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Beliveau about the language contained in the LDRs, with regard to measuring a one-half acre distance between an arterial and a particular parcel of property. She questioned how said distance is measured.

Discussion occurred regarding same.

Ms. Campione established the fact that, when Mr. Beliveau did his density analysis, he based it on platted lots, only, and not on whether an individual had purchased two lots, or one and one-half lots, etc.

Ms. Campione referred to Page 1 of the handout from Mr. Beliveau (Applicant's Exhibit F) and questioned whether the Urban Expansion designation, under Table 3.00.03, allows the R-1 zoning district.

Mr. Beliveau stated that it does.

Mr. Douglas Gibson reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Beliveau about the Clermont utilities and what they are actually serving today; the fact that Mr. Beliveau had stated that 80% of the site is surrounded by other properties that are on line to be developed and what percent of existing developed property abuts same; the traffic issue and how it would affect the surrounding developments; the possibility of the applicant (Mr. Bornstein) constructing a road through the subdivision to Hwy. 27; and platted lots within an R-1 zoning district, with regard to density.

Mr. Mark Schneider reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Beliveau about a Neo-traditional scenario needed for neighborhood development, according to the Florida Department of Transportation Pedestrian Planning and Design Training Manual, noting that it states, "A dense network of highly connected streets. In traffic terms, dense network means multiple available routes for a given trip." He questioned whether all trips to the commercial center, whether they originate through Amberhill or Sunshine Hills subdivisions, under the proposed development, will be funneled onto one road going to the commercial center.

Mr. Beliveau stated that they will all wind up on the single road within Spring Valley subdivision. He further stated that Mr. Schneider was accurate in stating that there is one connection from Amberhill to Spring Valley and that it is a multiple route to that point and then it becomes a singular route.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Beliveau on the application of the density point system. She questioned whether it provided for a range of densities, based on the number of points that he received, and clarified the fact that, if central water and sewer were made available the next day by the City of Clermont, that it would increase the points. She further clarified that, if he lost points in one category and added them in another, he would still come out with a total that would allow over four units per acre. She clarified that the project in question had an abundance, or excess of points, and that, to develop the project at two units per acre, which is what is being proposed (1.8 dwelling units per acre), they could do so with fewer number of points.

Mr. Beliveau noted that they could do it with as few as 16 points, so, even if the figure of 25 were subtracted from the 55, for a 30 point total, the developer would still be well within the range allowed in the LDRs to develop the project at 1.8 dwelling units per acre.

Ms. Bonifay clarified the fact that the Neo-traditional layout is a planning term used to describe general types of development styles.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she had no further questions, at this time, on redirect of Mr. Beliveau.

Ms. Bonifay requested Mr. David Bornstein (sworn in at beginning of meeting), the developer, owner, and applicant of the property in question, to appear before the Board for questioning. She questioned his relationship to the property and how long he had been involved with said property, or with property in Lake County. She clarified the fact that said property (a 79 acre tract) was once planted in citrus and, when the citrus trees froze, it required him to look for some other use for the property. She then requested him to give a brief history of the property, in terms of the original plan of development and what was intended for said tract of land.

At this time, Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Composite Exhibit G - Amberhill Homeowner's Association Documents - Articles of Incorporation of Amberhill Homeowners Association, Inc.; the By-Laws of Amberhill Homeowners Association, Inc.; Amberhill Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions; and Exhibit A to the Declaration Architectural Review Board Planning Criteria.



Ms. Bonifay questioned, in terms of looking at the development of the 79 acre parcel, whether Mr. Bornstein had submitted a development plan that was more dense and intense.

Mr. Bornstein stated that he had, at which time Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit H - Original Amber Lake Preliminary Site Plan, dated October, 1994, and received by staff November 30, 1994.



Mr. Bornstein then, upon request of Ms. Bonifay, stated what he looked at, in coming up with the original plan, and how many lots it included, in relationship to the surrounding property and how he modified the plan, in hopes of making it more acceptable to surrounding property owners and what he felt they would feel would be more consistent; whether representatives of the City of Clermont had spoken to him directly regarding the availability of sewer to the site in question and whether they had indicated any kind of time frame, in terms of when he might anticipate that utilities would be available in the area in question; that, to overcome the residents' objection, originally, to a package treatment plant, he was going to go to septic tanks and whether he was now willing to tie into the City of Clermont, if, in fact, they make utilities available to the site, for both water and sewer; whether he had seen any other development proposals come in that would be densities of one dwelling unit per acre, in the area in question; whether he had monitored development in the area since his family first began the subdivision in question; whether he kept up with the types of development and whether or not they would have an adverse effect on him; and the fact that there would be a recreational component to the plan in question, even though it might not be specifically included in the Developer's Agreement.

Mr. Bornstein read a statement into the Minutes stating that he did not want people present at this meeting to think that he was avoiding the issue of traffic, which he noted was a significant issue. He stated that, if they were to arrive at some reasonable conclusion, regarding traffic patterns, the following questions would need to be answered: (1) how will traffic be distributed, with the various proposed interconnects; (2) can the roads handle the traffic; and (3) what is a fair solution to the problem. He stated that it was an issue that must be addressed in a comprehensive and rational manner, by the residents, County staff, and public officials.

Mr. Bornstein further elaborated on the matter, noting that he was attempting to balance the burden of increased traffic with what is fair and most equitable for all concerned - the residents and the interest of his family. He stated that he was attempting to be a good neighbor and to work with the residents to create plans for a neighborhood that will look good and that he can reasonably market and sell. He stated that he felt the plans, as they now exist, match his father's intent and wishes, and that, were he alive today, he would be making the exact same presentation. He requested the Board to allow him to develop his property, as planned.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned whether Mr. Bornstein had initially submitted a rezoning for the Spring Valley PUD.

Mr. Bornstein stated that he had not, nor was he a part of the initial application, as indicated by Ms. Campione. It was noted that his name being on the application was a mistake.

Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Bornstein about his decision to withdraw from the original PUD application and whether he had had meetings with the developers of Spring Valley, regarding the issue of the road network, and what the outcome of those meetings were; about the stub-outs and what they were intended for; about the deed restrictions on the property in question; and what his father's plans were, before his death, for the 79 acre parcel.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, reappeared before the Board, in response to a question by Commr. Swartz regarding Road Vacation Petition No. 746, stating that it was approved by the Board in January of 1994 and involved the Roper Trust and the Bornstein Trust. He stated that it totaled 220 acres and that it consisted of old plats, which date back to pre-World War II.

A brief discussion occurred regarding same.

Mr. Douglas Gibson reappeared before the Board stating that it was mentioned that Exhibit I, of Applicant's Composite Exhibit G (Amberhill Homeowners Association documents), the Articles of Incorporation of Amberhill Homeowners Association, included the 79 acres in question and questioned whether that was on file with the County. He stated that he was under the understanding that it only included the original 45 acres.

Mr. Bornstein stated that it was his understanding that it included more than the original 45 acres.

Mr. Gibson questioned Mr. Bornstein about Exhibit III, of Applicant's Composite Exhibit G, Amberhill Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, at which time it was indicated that there was no legal documentation of Exhibit III ever being a part of the Covenants and Restrictions of Amberhill subdivision. He questioned whether it was a necessity to connect into Spring Valley with the 79 acres in question.

Mr. Bornstein stated that, according to the Traffic Study that was conducted, to most equitably distribute traffic, it makes sense to do so.

Mr. Gibson questioned Mr. Bornstein about the level of service on the roads in question and whether it would be inadequate with the zoning proposal, if Mr. Bornstein did not connect into Spring Valley.

Mr. Bornstein stated that it would, therefore, noted that he would be willing to hold out and develop his property in phases.

Mr. Gibson questioned Mr. Bornstein about the location of the 1/4 acre lots and whether they were visible from the other neighborhoods and not located in the valley, as had been indicated. He questioned Mr. Bornstein about the Covenants and Restrictions of the Amberhill subdivision; whether there had ever been any additions to the original subdivision; whether it was true that the only way to change the Covenants and Restrictions would be by a majority vote of the owners of the lots; whether it was true that Mr. Bornstein had made a proposal, at the last homeowners association meeting, to change those Restrictions and what the outcome of said vote was; whether he had ever required a home to be larger than 1,500 square feet, as President of the Architectural Review Board; whether Mr. Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, had notified Mr. Bornstein that he would not, technically, have legal access by closing all the rights-of-ways; whether he owned any additional land that could be construed as contiguous properties; and whether there was any potential that it could be built out as part of the original 200 lots.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D.)

REZONING

PETITION NO. 7-95-2 - REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-4 - DAVID BORNSTEIN

Ms. Miranda Fitzgerald, Attorney, Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, appeared before the Board stating that she was Co-Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bornstein. She requested Mr. Holden to appear before the Board for questioning and submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit I - Resume of Mr. David Holden, Vice President, Engineers of Central Florida, Winter Haven.



Mr. Holden appeared before the Board and answered questions from Ms. Fitzgerald about his relationship and role with the development in question. She questioned whether he was involved with the original plan of 246 lots and whether he was involved when the plan was changed to 146 lots, at which time said plan (Applicant's Exhibit D) was displayed and reviewed. Mr. Holden pointed out to those present the 1/2 acre lots, the 1/3 acre lots, and the 1/4 acre lots on the new plan (146 lots).

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit J - Resolution No. 1994-110.

Ms. Fitzgerald noted that it had been recorded in the Public Records and was the Spring Valley PUD's Condition of Approval, as approved by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners. She stated that there had been some discussion about whether or not the internal roads within the 146 lot plan of Amberhill subdivision had curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; whether the roads that are internal within the proposed Amber Lakes subdivision are proposed for a similar design; and whether there is a requirement in the Spring Valley subdivision for either sidewalks, or curbs and gutters. She questioned the minimum lot size in the Spring Valley subdivision, as well as the minimum lot size in the 146 lot subdivision in question.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Composite Exhibit K - Preliminary Site Plan for Amber Lakes-Spring Valley subdivision.



Ms. Fitzgerald noted that it was a composite exhibit of the 146 lot subdivision, as well as Spring Valley, and how those two projects are currently proposed. She displayed and reviewed the site plan with the Board, at which time she questioned Mr. Holden regarding same.

Ms. Fitzgerald questioned Mr. Holden about step zoning and whether it was another term for transitional zoning; the densities in the Spring Valley subdivision versus those in the Amberhill subdivision and what function the Amber Lakes property serves, as the intervening property between the two properties; whether the Amber Lakes portion of the composite plan, as one moves from Amberhill, to Amber Lakes, to Spring Valley, would fall into the definition of either step zoning, or transitional zoning; how many units are within the Spring Valley PUD (546 units); and whether there was a commercial component in said PUD. She questioned whether Mr. Holden had any knowledge about environmental studies that have been done on the 79 acre parcel. He stated that he had and elaborated on the matter.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Composite Exhibit L - Wetland Delineation/Cursory Wildlife Survey (Biological survey for Amber Lakes and Spring Valley) from Terra Systems, Environmental Consultants, Inc.



Ms. Fitzgerald then questioned Mr. Holden regarding same. She directed the Board's attention to the fact that, in the report, it indicates that gopher tortoises, which there is a potential of on the site in question, are not endangered species, but a species of special concern, which she noted are the least protected of the protected species.

Ms. Fitzgerald questioned whether Mr. Holden was aware of any reason why the property in question would not be able to be developed, in accordance with the Lake County Code.

Mr. Holden stated that he was not. He then elaborated on the matter.

It was noted that the proposed plan meets the County's requirements, both under its Comprehensive Plan and under its Zoning Code.

Ms. Fitzgerald stated that she had no further questions for Mr. Holden, at this time, however, would like to reserve the right to recall him, for further questioning, should she need to.

Mr. Douglas Gibson reappeared before the Board and questioned when Mr. Holden started working on the project in question; what the design's intent was, with regard to the number of lots originally proposed for said project; how many lots are adjacent to Amberhill subdivision and how many of the lots are 1/2 acre; whether the curbs and gutters designed for the roads are a Miami curb and gutter system, or a regular curb and gutter system; the purpose of the curbs and gutters; whether he could disconnect the three connections to the existing neighborhoods, without any adverse effect on the proposed plan; whether the design criteria for Amber Lakes was the exact same criteria for Spring Valley, or whether there were significant differences between a PUD and a straight rezoning; the layout of the roads; the retention and recreation areas and the fact that they appeared to be located extremely close to the 100 year flood plain and whether there had been any engineering, as far as what could be done within said plain; whether it was more advantageous to use the requirements of an R-3 zoning, versus an R-2 zoning, as far as the minimum width of lots at the front property line; and the issue of the gopher tortoises (one or two), said to be found on the property.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit M - Resume for Mr. J. Anthony Luke, Assistant Director of Planning/Project Manager/Senior Engineer/Planner II, Transportation Consulting Group.



Ms. Fitzgerald requested Mr. Luke to appear before the Board and questioned him regarding his role, with regard to the 79 acre parcel in question. She then requested him to testify about his traffic study and the work that he had done, with regard to said project.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit N - List of Traffic Impact Study Components for the Amber Lakes development.



Mr. Luke reviewed Exhibit N, stating that the Lake County staff agreed with the study.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit O - Memorandum from the Department of Public Services to Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, from Mr. Donald Griffey, Engineering Director, Public Services, regarding the May 3, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, with regard to Rezoning Case No. 7-95-2, David Bornstein.



Ms. Fitzgerald noted that Mr. Luke had referred to said exhibit during his presentation, which states that the County's Public Services staff recommends that the project in question have access to Sunshine Drive, Amber Avenue, Garnet Drive, and Spring Valley Road, noting that said arrangement would provide the widest distribution of traffic.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibits:

Applicant's Exhibit P - Chart indicating Amber Lakes Daily Traffic Volumes Based on Existing Plus Buildout of Amber Lakes (Through Phase 3 Only) and Spring Valley.



Applicant's Exhibit Q - Chart indicating Amber Lakes Daily Traffic Volumes Based on Existing Plus Buildout of Amber Lakes and Spring Valley.



Ms. Fitzgerald stated that said exhibits were the phasing plan studies that Mr. Luke did, that generated the offer from Mr. Bornstein to phase the project in question, for traffic purposes.

Mr. Luke reviewed said studies with the Board and answered questions from Ms. Fitzgerald regarding same.

Ms. Fitzgerald referred to Page 8 of the Traffic Report, contained in the Staff Report, noting that, in the block dealing with the daily rates, it states "daily rates" and, in parenthesis following it, it states "per thousand square feet". She questioned Mr. Luke regarding same, at which time he noted that it was a scrivener's error and should be corrected to read "per dwelling unit", rather than "per thousand square feet".

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing a number of individuals opposed to the proposed development in question, reappeared before the Board and clarified that Mr. Luke's firm had prepared a Traffic Analysis for the Spring Valley PUD and that he was involved in said analysis. She further clarified that he had prepared the study in December of 1993 and that, in February of 1994, he had prepared a revised traffic study. She questioned whether Mr. Luke recalled, in the 1994 revised study, a comment that was made by the Public Services staff that Anderson Hill Road is not a collector road, as described in his Traffic Analysis, but is classified as a local road and that, as a result, the capacities in Table 2 of the analysis had incorrect Level of Service standard volumes and must be corrected.

Mr. Luke stated that he did not recall said comment.

Ms. Campione handed Mr. Luke a copy of same and questioned whether he now remembered said comment.

Mr. Luke stated that he did.

Ms. Campione then handed Mr. Luke a copy of a document for Spring Valley which refers to Table 2 of his report, in which the Public Services Department points out that the numbers he used as capacity for Anderson Hill Road, at Level of Service C, being 560 and, at Level of Service D, being 690, should be changed from 560 to 270, for Level of Service C, and from 690 to 530, for Level of Service D. She showed Mr. Luke a copy of his December 1993 report, which shows the 560 and 690 figures, so that he could see where he incorporated staff's request.

Mr. Luke stated that he could not account for why said numbers had changed, noting that he would have to research the matter.

Ms. Campione stated that the reason she was questioning Mr. Luke regarding same was due to the fact that there did not seem to be a reason why the Public Services' staff would have changed from 1994 to 1995 and that this, perhaps, was an oversight. She stated that she wondered whether this was something that he had brought up to them.

Further discussion occurred regarding said study, at which time Ms. Campione stated that, perhaps, it was an oversight and that the best thing to do might be to go over it and figure out why the County changed their position, in that regard.

Mr. Luke stated that he would disagree with the statement that it was an oversight, because he had gone over the methodology, in detail, with County staff, before he laid out the traffic patterns.

Ms. Campione stated that she would address the issue further with Public Services, because the capacity would make a big difference in the way that the numbers come out. She then referred to the Spring Valley and Amber Lakes traffic studies and questioned discrepancies between the two, with regard to projecting growth. She then addressed the fact that Mr. Luke had stated that he was familiar with Lake County's philosophy on interconnections and that he agreed with some things that Mr. Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, had stated regarding same.

Ms. Campione questioned whether Mr. Luke would agree with the fact that, when Amber Avenue, Sunshine Hills, and Garnet Drive were built, while they are being proposed as interconnections, they were built as local roads versus collectors, but would actually function as collectors, however, that is not how they were initially planned; that when he does a traffic study of this nature, he is attempting to find out whether there is adequate capacity on the roads; whether he looks at the issue of safety on the roads, for pedestrians; whether the roads that are being studied are in keeping with the character of the neighborhoods and where they are located, or whether he was just looking at the capacity of the roads; whether he was retrofitting a system that was not designed to function as it is being proposed; and whether he had stated that he did not design where the roads were going to interconnect, but took what the engineer did and then studied the various routes that could be used.

Mr. Mark Schneider reappeared before the Board and questioned whether Mr. Luke had recently visited the site in question; whether he had ever physically measured any of the roads in question; whether he found any of them to be under 20 feet; whether it was not stated in the LDRs that a collector road should be 20 feet, or greater, in width; whether he had stated that he used Hwy. 27 for traffic growth studies; and whether he had noticed what the County studies were for the past year on Anderson Hill Road and on Lakeshore Drive, as far as an increase between the yearly studies.

A brief discussion occurred regarding same, at which time Mr. Schneider questioned whether Mr. Luke was considering the Amber Lakes and Spring Valley traffic to be part of the background traffic.

Mr. Luke stated that the Amberhill and Spring Valley traffic, plus the growth (background traffic), was first considered and then the Amber Lakes traffic was added.

Mr. Douglas Gibson reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Luke about the daily traffic volumes; whether there was a potential that the developer could exceed the 1,500 daily traffic volume count; whether the Traffic Study took into account the fact that Clermont has a peak seasonal traffic rate, prior to March of each year, where it experiences a 50% increase in population, based on the "snowbirds"; whether he had, at any point, recommended to the Civil Engineer any traffic control measures for the Amber Lakes initiative; whether there was a variation in the standards used to make the study in question; whether he was stating that, of the commercial, residential, and anything else that is generated out of Spring Valley, including Amber Lakes, there would only be 11 cars going south on Lakeshore Drive; whether it was correct to say that, out of those 11 cars, nearly half of them are going to Amberhill; whether it was safe to say that there is at least twice as many homes south of the entrance to Amberhill; and whether, as the Traffic Engineer for both Spring Valley and Amber Lakes, the neighborhoods would be interconnected.

Mr. Gibson questioned Mr. Luke about the issue of Garnet Court versus Garnet Drive, noting that they were two different roads. He referred to Page 3 of Mr. Luke's report, noting that it states there are no existing plans to upgrade any of the intersections, or widen any of the roads, therefore, clarified the fact that there will be no road improvements, based on said report. He questioned Mr. Luke further regarding his report and whether or not he had intimate knowledge of the roads in the area in question, as he had indicated.

Mr. Norman Cummins, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Luke regarding whether the connector road that is planned between the Amber Lakes project and the Spring Valley project would be vital to reduce traffic in the area in question, as a result of the project in question; whether they should, rather than hold off on 26 lots, which is approximately 20% of the lots in the subdivision, pick out 30% to 40% of the lots and hold off on them, before they develop any further, until the connector road is constructed; whether he was familiar with the rapid growth that is occurring south and west of the area in question; whether he had taken said growth into account, when he was thinking about the traffic that would be impacted on Lakeshore Drive; and whether he had made a detailed study south and west of the area in question, or just a superficial study.

Ms. Fitzgerald, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Luke about the delay times between intersections that operate at Level of Service A and Level of Service F; how he does his work; the fact that he had a number of agencies that update capacities and traffic counts, on a periodic basis; what the purpose of a methodology meeting with staff would be, before doing a study; when dealing with traffic studies, due to the fact that some of the standards used in his methodologies may not be the methodologies adopted by that jurisdiction, whose counts he would typically use; whether one of the purposes of the methodology meetings with staff was to agree on what capacities, or counts, will be used, etc.; and how the issue of safety relates to the County standards, such as, if a developer came in and proposed to alter the County's transportation standards in a development, whether he would be able to do so.

Ms. Fitzgerald then requested Mr. Steven Ruoff, Managing Partner of Realvest Consulting Services and Vice President of Realvest Partners, Inc., to appear before the Board and questioned whether he conducted analysis of market conditions and what he had been asked to do, with regard to the 79 acre parcel in question.

Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit R - Resume of Mr. Steven Ruoff, Managing Partner of Realvest Consulting Services and Vice President of Realvest Partners, Inc.



Ms. Fitzgerald stated that Mr. Ruoff was an expert in the area of market analysis, particularly in relationship to the proposed project, the Amberhill subdivision, Anderson Hills subdivision, and the properties along Sunshine Drive. She questioned what Mr. Ruoff had been requested to do, with regard to the project in question and whether he had prepared a report, or chart, regarding same.

Ms. Fitzgerald then submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Applicant's Exhibit S - Chart titled Existing Subdivisions, which lists Minimum Lot Size, Total Lots, Improved Lots, Unimproved Lots, Earliest Sale Date, and Average Annual Absorption for Amberhill, Anderson Hills, Lake Ridge Club, Sunshine Hills, and Sunshine View subdivisions.



Ms. Fitzgerald questioned Mr. Ruoff about the chart in question and whether he had had an occasion to visit the property in question; whether, while driving through the subdivisions in the area, he had made any observations about the house sizes; whether he had an occasion to listen to the testimony regarding Spring Valley; whether he considered the mix of lot sizes and the type of development that Spring Valley is going to be, based on its approval, in any of the analysis that he did; whether he had an opinion about the proposed mix of intensity, or density, that is proposed for the Amber Lakes project and how it will interface with the subdivisions that are already developed and developing in the area in question; whether he had an opinion about the marketability, or value maintenance, of projects that are totally homogeneous in house size and lots, as opposed to a project or area that has a mix of lot or house sizes; and whether he had an opinion about how resales operate in an area that has a mix of house sizes and lot sizes.

Mr. Douglas Gibson reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Ruoff as to whether there was a factor for houses and neighborhoods where there are signs that say "Not a Through Street", as far as devaluation of property is concerned; whether his analysis was that the better the view, the more expensive the lot; whether there was a ceiling on the value of homes in adjoining neighborhoods; whether the restriction of the minimum house size in the neighborhoods make the land worth more, or less, in his opinion; and whether it was his opinion that, if one came in with a 1,200 square foot minimum house two lots away, on a contiguous street, from a house of over 4,000 square feet, that that would not effect the property value of that 4,000 square foot house.

Mr. Cummins, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned whether Mr. Ruoff would consider it detrimental to the salability of a lot requiring an 1,800 square foot house on it to have lots across the street only requiring 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Ruoff stated that it could be a problem.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 1:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a five minute recess.

PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D.)

REZONING

PETITION NO. 7-95-2 - REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-4 - DAVID BORNSTEIN

Mr. Steven Gibson (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board and noted some concerns he had about the proposed development. He stated that he lives on Sunshine Drive and was concerned about it becoming the main thoroughfare through the area in question, as a result of the proposed development. He stated that he was convinced that there would be more than 1,500 trips per day, by adding said development. He stated that the roads in the area have no sidewalks, or curbs, and he was concerned about the safety of the children and pets of the families who live in the area. He stated that he felt this concern needed to be addressed. He stated that he was also concerned about the reduction of property values, because of the increased traffic and higher density of homes. He recommended ways in which he felt the matter could be resolved.

Mr. Joe Godfrey (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he had recently completed construction of his home in Amberhill subdivision and was concerned about the fact that the roads in his subdivision would be connected to Hwy. 27, causing a safety hazard for the children in the area, as well as a reduction of property values. He then addressed the issue of the setbacks, which concerned him, at which time he noted that, if the developer increased the rear property line to 35 feet, it would still leave him with a 5,800 square foot area to build his homes, which he felt was more than adequate for any single family home.

Mr. Mark Schneider reappeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Composite Exhibit C - Supporting Documentation for Vacation of Sunshine Drive, Opal Lane, and Garnet Drive Rights-of-Ways, containing statements, charts, and maps regarding same.



Mr. Schneider then read a letter into the Minutes, which he



submitted, for the record, as follows:



Opposition's Exhibit D - Letter from Mr. Robert Beaver, P.E., a licensed Professional Civil Engineer employed as both a consultant and a facilities manager in the Central Florida area for over 17 years, stating that he had reviewed the documentation submitted by Mr. Schneider, as Opposition's Exhibit C, and found it to be consistent with applicable standards used to conduct traffic analysis and with the existing conditions on the roads in question.

The letter further stated that Mr. Beaver was a resident of the area affected by the proposed Amber Lakes development and had serious concerns regarding the effect of the increased traffic caused by the interconnection of Spring Valley commercial center through to Anderson Hill Road and Lakeshore Drive.



Mr. Schneider reviewed the documentation (Opposition's Exhibit C) that he submitted, in detail, with the Board.

Ms. Fitzgerald, Attorney, questioned Mr. Schneider about his title; whether he had any transportation engineering experience; whether, in the preparation of his report, he had discussed any of the concepts that he used in his report with any member of the County staff, prior to his drafting said report; whether he had any discussions with any member of the County staff that deal with transportation issues; whether they had an opportunity to review his report, prior to his testimony; whether he had received any feedback from the County staff members that they agreed with the comments in his report; whether he had made any effort to provide the report to the other parties involved in this case, in advance of this hearing; and when he completed his report.

Ms. Fitzgerald informed the Board, for informational purposes, that she would like to, at the appropriate time, recall

Mr. J. Anthony Luke, Assistant Director of Planning/Project Manager/Senior Engineer/Planner II, Transportation Consulting Group. for further questioning, due to the fact that he had reviewed Mr. Schneider's report and, if it is felt that they need to rebut any of the comments made regarding it, they would like to do so.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Schneider about whether the Traffic Study in question was the first one that he had ever read; whether, before Spring Valley came along, he had ever seen a traffic study; whether he found it difficult to understand; and, in trying to evaluate the study, whether he had conferred with anyone that had special expertise in this particular area.

Mr. Bruce Edmundson (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he was a homeowner in Amberhill subdivision and the reason he had purchased his home in said subdivision was due to the fact that he felt the roads were safe, there was no traffic, and it is quiet. He stated that he and his wife have small children and were concerned about their safety, noting that, due to the fact there are no sidewalks, or curbs, one has to walk, or ride, on the road. He stated that, if the proposed development is approved and his subdivision has traffic going through it, from Hwy. 27, the roads will no longer be safe and the whole neighborhood will change.

Ms. Barbara Thompson (sworn in at beginning of meeting), a resident of Amberhill subdivision, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit E - Four (4) pictures of children waiting at a bus stop in her neighborhood.



Ms. Thompson stated that she was concerned about the way that the rezoning and the vacation of Opal Lane, Garnet Drive, and Sunshine Drive will affect the safety of the residents of Amberhill, mainly the children, in addition to the devaluation of their properties and the integrity of their neighborhood. She stated that she has two children who have to walk, unsupervised, to and from the bus stop, along with the other children in the neighborhood, and then have to stand at the intersection to Amberhill, which is on Amber Avenue, while they wait for the bus. She was concerned about their safety, while waiting for the bus to pick them up, and requested the Board to not take that safety away from the residents of the subdivision. She stated that she was aware of the adjacent plan, but was not expecting 146 houses, nor was she expecting to have the streets open into Amber Lakes and onto Hwy. 27. She requested the Board to make a prudent decision.

Mr. Douglas Gibson reappeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, the following exhibits:

Opposition's Exhibit F - Twenty-three (23) pictures of various streets in Amberhill subdivision, showing the condition of the roads and the danger that the intersection of Anderson Hill Road and Lakeshore Drive currently presents to its residents.



Opposition's Composite Exhibit G - Compilation of a map showing the proposed road closures and proposed development; a copy of a portion of Section 1.02.30 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations; a copy of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Amberhill subdivision; a copy of a portion of the Minutes of the January 25, 1994 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, in which Road Vacation Petition No. 746 was addressed; Road Closing Resolution No. 1994-16, with regard to Road Vacation Petition No. 746; a copy of a portion of the Minutes of the October 25, 1994 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, in which Road Vacation Petition No. 758 was addressed; and Rezoning Resolution No. 1994-110, for the Spring Valley PUD.



Mr. Gibson stated that, at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, it was stated that this was a personal attack against the applicant, Mr. Bornstein, and he wanted to clear the record. He stated that it had nothing to do with the applicant himself, noting that the residents would be doing the same thing that they are doing, no matter who the applicant might be. He stated that the community did not have anything against Mr. Bornstein, personally, they just did not like what they feel is going to happen to their neighborhood. He stated that, with regard to the relationship with Amberhill, every one of the residents of same were required to sign a statement that said they read and understood the Covenants and Restrictions of Amberhill, when they purchased their lot, that it was a requirement for the sale.

Mr. Gibson stated that they were put on notice, at that time, that the potential was there for them to have 200 units in their neighborhood and that those 200 units would have to be the same as Amberhill. He stated that it was now clear that what they were talking about was the extension contained in the restrictions he alluded to and that the residents were now not only looking at the rezoning of a piece of property, but also at changing the entire character of the neighborhood, and they do not like it.

Mr. Gibson then addressed the issue of the property in question being landlocked, at which time he read into the Minutes the portion of the Minutes from the January 25, 1994 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, in which Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services stated, "...individual lot owners will technically not have legal access with this closing (Road Vacation Petition No. 746), but they have been noticed and are aware of this."

Mr. Gibson further stated that, in the same set of Minutes, Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicants in said case, stated the following, "...the individual lot owners are part of the petitioners who have joined into the petition and they understand that, when they vacate part of the overall petition, the individual parcels may not have access, but the joint application is to provide joint access to the entire parcel."

Mr. Gibson referred to various other documents contained in his handout (Opposition's Exhibit G) and reviewed same with the Board. He stated that the Board had three (3) options, being (1) to incorporate the development as it was originally proposed, in writing; (2) incorporate into Spring Valley, noting that they would welcome it, if Mr. Bornstein would give the residents an appropriate buffer for Amberhill and disconnect their subdivision from it; and (3) deny it.

Mr. Harold Scherr, Attorney, representing the owners of Spring Valley, appeared before the Board stating that his clients were not present this date in opposition, or in encouragement, of the petitioner's application for rezoning. He stated that there had been some references to some of the specifics of design layout engineering in Spring Valley and he wanted to clarify that all of it is conceptual. He stated that the PUD was approved for Spring Valley, but there has been no preliminary site plan proposed, therefore, anything at this point in time is conceptual. He stated that there had been some implication, in what had been stated this date, that there was some sort of agreement, or understanding, regarding the petitioner, Mr. Bornstein, and his clients, with regard to Spring Valley Road and the access to Hwy. 27.

Mr. Scherr stated that he wanted to clarify the point that there is no such agreement, nor is there any such road, other than what is on the PUD. He further elaborated on the matter. He read a letter into the Minutes, from his clients, in which they state that the only real concern they have, at this point in time, is the fact that they feel, since their subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 2, 1994, the internal road network of the subdivision proposed by Mr. Bornstein should match up with and connect to Spring Valley's existing road network. He stated that they further state that the road sub-out to the east, shown on the proposed Bornstein subdivision, does not appear to connect to the internal road system of their approved Spring Valley subdivision. He clarified, however, that since said letter was written, there had been some revision to that plan, noting that they had moved their sub-out north and feels that it does now line up.

Mr. Kurt Sterner (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he lived on Anderson Hill Road and was concerned that the quality of life was going to change quite a bit. He stated that he was also concerned about the number of developments proposed to go in, south of Lakeshore Drive. He stated that he and his wife have grandchildren and were concerned about their safety.

Ms. Joy Zubkin appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she lives in Anderson Hills and frequently visits friends in Amberhill and Lake Ridge Club subdivisions. She noted the value of some of the homes (ranging from $250,000 to $400,000) in Amberhill, which borders the Bornstein property, stating that there are a lot of homes being constructed in the area in question that are worth a lot of money and are not just little homes, as is being presented to the Board. Mr. Leon Moquin (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he lived in Amberhill and that, when he purchased his lot in 1988, he carefully chose the area, due to the fact that it was an established neighborhood. He stated that he had just recently (August of 1994) built a home on said lot in excess of $250,000, approximately 350 feet from the Amber Lakes subdivision. He stated that he felt Amberhill and Sunshine Hills should have the same quality of life and that Opal Lane, Garnet Drive, and Sunshine Drive should be closed. He stated that he did not feel a developer like Mr. Bornstein should infringe on the hundreds of people in the subdivisions around him and make pawns out of them.

Mr. Andrew Patrick (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he lived on Anderson Hill Road and felt that the residents in the area needed some relief. He stated that he felt another road should be constructed going west to east, or that an intersection light should be installed at the intersection of Anderson Hill Road and Lakeshore Drive.

Ms. Susana Gibson (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board and questioned, if one vacates a road whether it could later be unvacated.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that once vacated, always vacated.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating that she had earlier submitted a list of the individuals she was representing this date. She stated that many of the witnesses she planned to call had already come before the Board and addressed items of concern. She noted that she would be calling the remaining witnesses, for questioning, and would then be making a closing statement. She requested the following individuals to appear before the Board, for questioning: Mr. Chris Hardesty, Mr. Wayne Stone, and Mr. David Calfee.

Ms. Campione stated that the crux of her clients' case was the east/west connector concept, not the idea that the residents do not want Amber Lakes to connect where the stub-outs are, in the sense that, when they purchased their lots, they knew the stub-outs were in place, but they anticipated 1/2 acre lots, like they had in Amberhill, but that the problem is that they will be connecting to Spring Valley and then to Hwy. 27 and that is what the problem is. She stated that she would be presenting testimony regarding what that does to the roads in question and whether they were planned, initially, to take that type of traffic. She stated that she would be presenting testimony to show that what is in place, at the present time, is not capable of accommodating what is being proposed.

Mr. Chris Hardesty (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he lived on Sunshine Drive. He reviewed an aerial photograph of his home, when it was first built, as well as three (3) other photographs showing his home and water damage that it suffered, when it was flooded, due to subdivisions being constructed around him. He requested the Board to not let something like this happen again and deny the request before them.

Mr. Wayne Stone (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he, too, lived on Sunshine Drive. He showed various pictures, on a monitor, of his home and the road in question. He stated that the road, as it now stands, will not handle additional traffic, therefore, he did not see how 1,500 cars could travel on it, per day, without having problems. He stated that he expected the County Commission to protect their way of life and deny the request before them.

Mr. David Calfee (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he lived on Amber Avenue. He stated that he had heard a lot of testimony from a lot of experts and had three concerns that he wanted to share with the Board, being (1) the fact that tract homes would be built beside custom homes; (2) the issue of equity, noting that it was stated that the residents of Lake Ridge Club did not want additional traffic going through their neighborhood, but, the residents of his subdivision do not want additional traffic going through their neighborhood either; and (3) a concern of safety for his children. He stated that, with the proposal, as it stands, there will eventually be a shortcut in front of his home, which is a major concern to him. He stated that it appears to him that the home he built in an isolated neighborhood is going to wind up on a major thoroughfare and he did not feel that it was right. He stated that he felt the traffic and equity issues were major issues and that the residents were not getting what they signed up for.

Ms. Vicky Dison appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She addressed the issue of traffic that would be generated from the construction of heavy trucks and equipment that will have to go down Anderson Hill Road and Sunshine Drive, to get to the Bornstein property. She stated that she felt it would propose more danger than they have ever seen on Sunshine Drive, to date.

Mr. H. B. Wooley, Jr. (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he lived two blocks from Sunshine Drive and was concerned about the value of his home declining, as well as a concern about the quality of his life changing. He requested the Board to deny the request before them.

Ms. Maria Connell (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that there are a lot of children on Anderson Hill Road, during school days, and was concerned about the safety of the children, if the proposed development is approved.

Ms. Marguerite "Lynn" Lillard (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that she lives in Sunshine Hills and was very concerned about the safety of her two children, if the road in question is allowed to continue into Mr. Bornstein's property. She stated that she was concerned that the character of her neighborhood and the quality of life that they have achieved, to this point, in having the freedom of walking down the street to a neighbor's home will change, noting that the residents in the subdivision use the streets as sidewalks, but would no longer be able to do so. She stated that her children would no longer be able to ride their bikes, roller skate, roller blade, etc. on their roads. She discussed the traffic study that was conducted on Sunshine Drive, noting that almost half of the residents were not accounted for, therefore, did not know how the engineers could make an accurate statement about the amount of traffic on said road, when there is such a big difference.

Mr. Donald Thibout (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board and presented the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit H - Hand-drawn plat of his subdivision (Anderson Hill), showing the number of homes (13) that did not get included in the traffic study alluded to by Ms. Lillard.



Mr. Thibout addressed further concerns he had about the proposed development.

Ms. Melodie Brogdon (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that, before Amberhill subdivision was developed, Mr. Bornstein came to her, showed her his plans, and asked her to help him get them approved, by talking to the neighbors and not having any controversy over the proposed development. She stated that, in return for her help, he promised that he would never do anything that would be detrimental to her neighborhood, so she was sure that his intent was to not take the roads through their neighborhood, or to put in as many small homes behind them, as is being planned, because he always said he would be consistent with what they had in their neighborhood. She submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit I - Notarized letter from her mother, Ms. Barbara Benfield, co-owner of Jack-Benny's Barbecue, in Minneola, who was present during the conversation between her and Mr. Jerone Bornstein, about the proposed development.



Ms. Margaret Donelson (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that Anderson Hill Road has signs on it that say "No Trucks". She stated that the road is not made for trucks, therefore, the construction trucks should not be on the road.

Ms. Julia Juhl (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that she lives at the end of Sunshine Drive and was burglarized at the end of 1993 and that, if the roads in question are allowed to go through her neighborhood, they would no longer be able to keep track of what vehicles enter their neighborhood. She also questioned who would enforce people not stopping at the stop signs that will be erected in the neighborhood.

Mr. Guy Lillard (sworn in at beginning of meeting) appeared before the Board stating that he was impressed with the number of people who had remained in the audience at such a late hour (3:00 a.m.), because they care. He stated that the Board had heard about the things that should happen, however, the residents were trying to tell them about the things that can happen. He stated that today is the best that it is going to be on Lakeshore Drive, Anderson Hill, Sunshine Hill, and the other roads in Clermont and that tomorrow it is going to be a little worse. He stated that he was informed by County staff that Clermont is the hot spot in the County, noting that it is where the growth is, as it is a bedroom community for Orlando. He stated that the residents of his neighborhood are trying to preserve something that they have and may lose. He stated that something can be done about South Lake County, Clermont, and their subdivisions today and it starts with the Board, this date. He stated that he had spoken with Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, about the fact that Sunshine Hills is not mentioned anywhere in the Developer's Agreement, however, he feels that it should be a part of the Agreement.

Mr. Lillard stated that the residents would not be opposed to 1,800 square foot homes. He further stated that, on the second plat, 1/4 acre lots abut their subdivision, in areas where it abuts 2/3, 1/2, and 3/4 acre lots. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Bornstein at his office, in February of this year, and Mr. Bornstein informed him that the 1/4 acre lots were a mistake, that they should be 1/3 acre lots, and would have his engineers look into it. He stated that he was surprised to hear, this date, that they were still 1/4 acre lots and felt that something needed to be done about it.

Mr. Lillard referred to Page 7, Paragraph 7, Lines 26-31, of Resolution 1994-110, stating that there was to be no connection to Sunshine Drive; however, if all the interconnects are allowed to continue, there will be a connection. He suggested that the Board look at actual practice versus textbook and do something about solving the problem before them. He stated that the Board had the opportunity and suggested that they use it to the best interest, for the most people that it will effect, which are the residents. He submitted, for the record, the following exhibit, which he reviewed with the Board:

Opposition's Exhibit J - Pictures (14) of various areas of his subdivision.



Ms. Campione, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating that she had conferred with a real estate appraiser and consultant, Mr. Fred Kurras, MAI, from Mt. Dora; however, due to the fact that he had to go out-of-town, wrote a letter to her regarding the Amber Lakes and Spring Valley traffic studies and the value impact that would be created by a change in the collector/connector road design between U.S. 27 and Lakeshore Drive, in Clermont. She read a portion of the letter into the Minutes and submitted it, for the record, as follows:

Opposition's Exhibit K - Letter from Mr. J. Fred Kurras, MAI, Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant, Mt. Dora, Florida, regarding: Value Impact Created by Change in Collector/Connector Road Design Between US 27 and Lakeshore Drive, Clermont, Florida.



Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, objected to said letter, on the basis that it was hearsay. She stated that, if Ms. Campione wanted Mr. Kurras to be present, as a witness, she should have advised him, so that there would have been ample opportunity for cross-examination. She stated that she could not cross-examine his letter.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that the Board would take the letter for what it was worth.

Ms. Campione stated that, due to the number of people that showed up for this meeting and the number of letters and petitions received, it could not be denied that this hearing was not a quasi-judicial hearing and due process was not adhered to; therefore, this hearing would stand up, if, in fact, a decision made this date were challenged in court. She stated that the residents being effected submitted, this date, some very substantive testimony and that, while it is emotionally charged, felt that the Board could tell, from the testimony, that the things that were said were well thought out and that a lot of time was spent evaluating reports and studies, measuring widths of roads, taking pictures and trying to document the conditions that exist at the present time, project what might happen in the future, show that they have lots of problems now with Lakeshore Drive and Anderson Hill Road and that what they were trying to prove to the Board was that approving the rezoning before them and connecting the roads and creating a connector from Hwy. 27 to Lakeshore Drive, via their neighborhoods, was going to have some very real, very negative impacts on their daily lives and on their property values.

Ms. Campione stated that, when they bought their homes and moved to the neighborhood they had expectations, because there were stub-outs and they knew that there may be more homes in the future, but more homes, in the sense that the 79 acre tract being discussed this date may develop, but not that Hwy. 27 would eventually be connected through their neighborhood to Lakeshore Drive. She stated that, in order to approve the rezoning, the applicant has to show the Board that he can meet all the criteria for zoning changes set forth in the LDRs and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that several of the criteria cannot be met and that evidence was not presented to the Board to show that it could be met. She stated that the idea was that the rezoning would be in harmony with the intent of the LDRs and what the County is trying to accomplish through them. She stated that what the Board had before them was disturbing the character of the existing neighborhood and was not what was intended by the provisions of the LDRs and the requirements for interconnections, noting that the requirements for interconnections anticipate more of a planning procedure in which one master plans and provides the interconnections, but not to go back and try to retrofit and make something fit into a neighborhood where it just simply does not fit.

Ms. Campione stated that, in concept, the interconnections are good, but, in reality, when there is an already developed neighborhood and they try to change the roads into something that they are not, it is not in harmony with the intent of the LDRs. She stated that there are caveats in the LDRs, in the access management portion, which, while the LDRs promote and encourage interconnections, they also provide that, in instances where the neighborhood will be degraded, or is not consistent with the integrity of the neighborhood, that the interconnections are not necessarily mandated and have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Ms. Campione stated that there were several things that were brought out in cross-examination, concerning the traffic studies and issues that were raised that were not fully, or adequately, addressed - questions about the growth rates, capacities, diversionary trips that could be created, because people are being given another way to Hwy. 27 and Lakeshore Drive, and those types of things were not given full consideration in the traffic studies. She stated that the traffic studies did not say what impact the interconnections would have on pedestrian safety and that that was something the Board would have to look at. She stated that they did not feel the criteria could be met, for rezoning, noting that R-1 zoning was in place, at the present time.

Ms. Campione stated that, if the developer wanted to develop for residential purposes, that would be fine, but requested the Board to not increase the zoning where the impacts would become greater, because what they have now is a problem. She requested the Board to not exacerbate the problem and make it worse. She stated that there might be a solution, noting that they raised the possibility of allowing the roads to interconnect into the existing subdivisions, until such time as Spring Valley Road is in place, and, at that point, make it a condition of the zoning change that the roads be closed. She stated that the traffic coming from Sunshine Hills and Amberhill subdivisions is not so great that they will create significant impacts, if they do have to go around, to get to the commercial use, if they choose to go there, but, to design the entire system just so those two subdivisions can get to the commercial area does not make a lot of sense, because everyone else is going to be using the roads.

Mr. Norman Cummins, Attorney, reappeared before the Board, representing Lake Ridge Club and Rogers Investment Company, and submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit L - Letter from Cummins, Mueller & Judson, P.A., Attorneys At Law, to Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, regarding Lake Ridge Club, which states that the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners Association would not oppose the rezoning requested for the property of Mr. Bornstein, located near their development, provided the following was included in the Development Agreement:



1. Lots contiguous to Lake Ridge Club lots shall be at least 1/3 acre in size.



2. Lots contiguous to Lake Ridge Club lots shall contain no less than 1,800 square feet of living area, exclusive of garage and open porches. Also, any garage built on such lots shall be at least a two (2) car garage.



3. Lots in the proposed development across the street from lots contiguous to Lake Ridge Club lots shall contain no less than 1,500 square feet, exclusive of garage and open porches.



4. The rear set back line on lots contiguous to Lake Ridge Club lots shall be a minimum of 25 feet.



Mr. Cummins stated that it was his understanding that Items 1 and 2 had been agreed to and would be in the Development Agreement, however, did not know if Mr. Bornstein had agreed to Items 3 and 4.

Ms. Bonifay appeared before the Board and stated, for the record, that Mr. Bornstein had already included Items 1 and 2 in the Developer's Agreement and that he would agree to Item 4, regarding the rear setback line, but could not agree with Item 3.

A brief discussion occurred regarding Item 3, at which time Mr. Cummins noted that the average square foot house in Lake Ridge Club was approximately 2,500 square feet, up to approximately 5,000 square feet, and the houses in Amberhill averaged approximately 1,800 to 1,900 square feet, up to 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. He stated that he could not understand why the developer would not want to have 1,500 square foot houses across the street from 1,800 square foot houses, noting that he did not see a burden imposed upon the developer by going to a 1,500 square foot house, which is what Lake Ridge Club is requesting, for those lots across the street from the lots contiguous to their subdivision. He stated, for the record, that Lake Ridge Club is also concerned about the traffic on Lakeshore Drive, because of the explosion in growth in that particular area.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, recalled Mr. Anthony Luke, for further questioning. She questioned whether he had been accepted as an expert witness in traffic engineering; whether he had had an opportunity to review the study submitted earlier by Mr. Mark Schneider, professional geologist; and whether, in his professional judgment, it followed standard, or accepted, practices for traffic engineering studies, or traffic analysis.

Ms. Bonifay noted, for the record, that Ms. Campione had utilized, in her cross-examination of Mr. Luke, a study, which was a prior study that he had done of Spring Valley. She stated that, to her knowledge, that study was never introduced into evidence and would like to have it submitted, as evidence, at this time.

Ms. Campione submitted, for the record, the following exhibit:

Opposition's Exhibit M - Spring Valley P.U.D. Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Transportation Consulting Group, Winter Park, Florida, dated February, 1994.



Ms. Fitzgerald, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating that, in the face of the evidence heard this date, from the County's expert planners and staff and from the applicant's expert planners, the evidence is not overwhelming, in the sense of volume, but proves that the project before them complies with all the County regulations and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, in every respect, the existing zoning that is on the property in question. She stated that the one dwelling unit per acre density is no longer reasonable, given the changes and character of the area. She stated that nothing in that area today is developing at that intensity. She stated that, given the fact that the County has policies that have been dictated by the State of Florida that, where there is existing infrastructure is where new development should occur and where development should be intensified, to the extent that the infrastructure can handle it; otherwise, if it is developed at lower intensities, that is urban sprawl, noting that growth is forced into areas where there is insufficient infrastructure, or at least more costly infrastructure, noting that, to put that infrastructure into place costs more than if existing infrastructure is used, that has capacity available.

Ms. Fitzgerald referred to Applicant's Exhibit O, stating that it was a statement from the County Engineering Director, Mr. Donald Griffey, which states that the roads in question are sufficient, in their design, to handle the traffic that is being proposed by the applicant's subdivision. She stated that the Board had before them a project that meets all the tests that the County has adopted, for development, in Lake County. She stated that the other side of the interconnection issue is that the project in question has no access to Hwy. 27, other than through the stubbed-out streets that are the subject of the road vacation petitions. She stated that when the Board approved the Spring Valley PUD Resolution, it included language that that particular PUD would not have to propose an interconnect contiguous to Amber Lakes, until approval of the final plat of lands contiguous to the proposed interconnect to the west. Ms. Fitzgerald stated that they can develop from the eastern boundary of their property west and it could be sometime in the future before they would have to propose an interconnect through Spring Valley to Hwy. 27. She stated that there is no present right to cross that property to get to Hwy. 27. She stated that County staff, in looking at this request, recommended the interconnect and recommended that all the streets recommended for vacation remain dedicated to the public. She stated that, because of the policies that are in the County's Comprehensive Plan, if those streets were to be vacated, the County would have violated its Comprehensive Plan that requires interconnection of projects.

Ms. Fitzgerald made the following corrections to statements that had been made earlier:

1. There are no 1/4 acre perimeter lots proposed in the 146 lot plan. The commitment has been made that there will only be 1/3 acre lots around the entire perimeter of the property in question.



2. The County has much more stringent drainage requirements, not to mention the St. Johns River Water Management District's requirements that have come into effect since the subdivisions in question began developing in the early 1980s.



Ms. Fitzgerald requested that the Board approve the request before them and deny the road vacation petitions.

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

Commr. Swartz thanked those present for being so civil throughout this proceeding, especially given the length of the hearing. He reviewed the points that he felt related to the Comprehensive Plan and to his reasons for taking the position regarding this development that he would take. He addressed the interconnection policy; the intent of the developer; the commercial area and the fact that it would become a magnet for traffic weaving through subdivisions that was not intended to have happen; and the timing of the development, in reference to the road network that currently exists, or is available. He stated that he would not vote for the request before them this date, because it was not in the form that it should be in, to give the Board the opportunity to make sure that the development potential that Mr. Bornstein may have, within the rights that the Comprehensive Plan gives him, can be balanced with the transportation concerns that the residents have, that are valid. He stated that the real crux of the issue comes back to the potential connection of their subdivisions with a road that goes to Hwy. 27 and into a commercial area, which he felt would be violating the safety, health, and welfare issues of the residents that live in those areas, to put that type of traffic through their subdivisions, through roads that do not meet the current standards that are required today, for them to be some type of connector, or arterial roads.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt this request should come through as a PUD, rather than as a straight zoning, because the PUD ordinance would require a basic open space requirement that the straight zoning does not seem to require, even though the Comprehensive Plan states that it should. He further elaborated on the matter, stating that he did not want to see the Board approve a zoning this date, based on a Developer's Agreement that would be turned over to the County's Technical Review Committee, in the hope that they could work it out. He stated that the real issue is how to best distribute the traffic and that there was much more to it than just level of service.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the residents came to this meeting, not with wild statements, but with real concerns that were valid and that he felt it was up to the Board to try to answer their questions and find a way for the developer to work something out with the residents that they can live with and support. He stated that he felt, in order to do so, would be to see the developer go through the PUD process and set aside the necessary open space. He stated that, if the developer was going to try to find a way to connect through Spring Valley to Hwy. 27, he would not support interconnects and would vote to close those streets, because he did not believe that the traffic intermingling would be safe. He stated that he would vote against the rezoning and the road vacations and hope that they can find a better solution.

Commr. Hanson stated that she voted to close the road for Lake Ridge Club last year, because of her feeling of the integrity of the neighborhood, and would also vote to close the roads in question this date. She stated that she would vote to approve the rezoning request before them, if the access was there, but it is not, therefore, she would not vote in favor of the rezoning. She stated that she felt the application was fine and that, with that size of development and that particular configuration of property, a straight zoning was appropriate, without going through a PUD; however, it would be more desirable to have the whole plat together, with Spring Valley, in a PUD.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, while he was not convinced that densities substantially change the character of a community, he did feel that the transportation concerns were real and that the increase in trips would change the character of the community, therefore, would not vote for the rezoning. He stated that he would not vote for the closing of the streets, as well, because he feels it would cut off options for everybody. He stated that there may be something that could be worked out that the community could live with, however, noted that that matter would be addressed at a later date.

Commr. Gerber stated that, with regard to the issue of interconnects, she feels they should be done at the time that developments are platted, before houses are in place and neighbors and situations with school buses are an issue. She stated that it would make her very uncomfortable to not close the roads in question, knowing the condition they are in and what could happen, therefore, would vote to close them and would vote against the request for straight zoning, because she did not feel comfortable with a straight zoning situation.

Commr. Good stated that this situation probably illustrates a very good point, being that, when one closes off options, it creates problems and he felt that that is probably what has happened in this case. He further elaborated on the matter and stated that, having been to the site in question, on the roads in question, listening to traffic reports, and talking to the County's engineers, he realized that interconnects are the way that things have been done. He stated that they may work, but the initial infrastructure has to be put in place, so that that can happen; however, in this case, he did not see that that has happened. He stated that he did not think a straight zoning would resolve the problem in question. He stated that he felt there were provisions in the PUD process that could address the problem, but, more than anything else, felt that it was going to take the community working together, to resolve the problem.

Commr. Good stated that he felt a traffic study needed to be done, to look at what traffic will actually be traveling on Lakeshore Drive, and that there may be a need for more than one connector to Hwy. 27 that does not go through existing neighborhoods, but gives the opportunity to move traffic through the major roadways. He further elaborated on the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied, without prejudice, a request to rezone 79 acres in south Lake County, located from Hwy. 27 to Anderson Hill Road to Sunshine Drive, from R-1 (Rural "Low Density" Residential) to R-4 (Medium Density "Suburban" Residential), to create a medium density residential subdivision.

A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Swartz to deny, without prejudice, a request for approval of Road Vacation Petition No. 779, by Guy Lillard, to vacate road (Sunshine Drive), Sunshine Hills, Section 32, Township 22, Range 26, Clermont area - Commission District 2, and Road Vacation Petition No. 780, by Amberhill Homeowners Association, Inc., to vacate roads (Opal Lane and Garnet Drive), Amberhill Subdivision, Section 31, Township 22, Range 26, Clermont area - Commission District 2.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she was going to vote against the motion for denial. She further stated that she felt, for 150 people to show up for a meeting and stay until 4:00 a.m., they deserved to have the roads closed.

Commr. Swartz informed those present, for informational purposes, that the motions to deny, both in the case of the straight zoning and in the case of the road vacations, could be refiled, due to the fact that they were denied without prejudice. He stated that, if they were denied with prejudice, they could not be refiled for one year.

Commr. Good stated that he saw the action the Board was taking this date as a clear indication that the time spent at this meeting was not wasted. He stated that the residents may not have gotten their roads closed, but they had options that they were able to discuss with the Board and that County staff was now more knowledgeable about the situation. He stated that he did not want to deny the residents the right to bring the road closing requests back to the Board, if they feel that closing the roads is the only way to solve the problem. He stated that he, in no way, saw the action the Board was taking as saying to them that they asked for something that they did not get. He stated that he felt everyone involved could find a workable way to maintain the quality of life and, at the same time, move the traffic where it needs to be and provide housing for the County's citizens.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.

Commrs. Hanson and Gerber voted "No".

Mr. Guy Lillard informed the Board that, at the February 1995 Board Meeting, with regard to Road Vacation Petition No. 758, a $400.00 fee was filed for the vacation of Hilltop Road and Sunshine Drive. He stated that Hilltop was vacated, however, Sunshine Drive was not. He stated that, at that time, the Board asked the County staff to research the matter, because the residents were asking for a refund of the filing fee.

Commr. Gerber stated that staff would check into the matter and would be contacting the homeowners association regarding same. She thanked everyone for coming and staying throughout the night, with the Board.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned Friday morning, at 4:15 a.m.





_______________________________

RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/6-8-95/10-9-95/boardmin