A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 8, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, August 8, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Meeting Room, Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Commissioners not present were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; and Catherine C. Hanson. Staff members present were: Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities & Capital Improvements; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

COMMISSIONERS

It was noted that Commr. Good was serving in the capacity of Chairman, due to the absence of Commr. Gerber, and Commr. Hanson was not present for the meeting.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that there was a vacancy on the Board of Adjustments, because the County had hired Mr. Sanford Minkoff, who had been a member, as its County Attorney. He requested that the Board add to the agenda the appointment of an individual to the Board of Adjustments.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add the above item to the agenda, as requested by Commr. Swartz.

REZONING

The following staff members were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk: Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering; Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management; Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development; and Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, presented the Board with requests for postponements.

PETITION #177A-85-4 Miller Enterprises - Variance from LDRs

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, informed the Board that a verbal request for postponement had been received from Mr. Don Davis, Project Manager, Handy Way, until August 22, 1995. He explained that the petitioners wanted to have a full Board to consider the request for variance, which was the basis for their request.

Commr. Swartz indicated that, where there was some justifiable reason for postponement, and where there was not public who had come in anticipation of a public hearing, he would support postponements today, but he was not going to support a postponement just as a matter of an applicant wanting to see the full Board here. He stated that there was no requirement in law for a full Board to be in attendance, and there was a majority of the Board present that was able to act. He further stated that it would not be right, particularly in cases where there were members of the public who had come to this meeting, and perhaps a previous meeting, to postpone this meeting today.

Mr. Charles Foreman, Attorney representing the Handy Way Organization, Miller Brothers and Miller Enterprises, addressed the Board and stated that there were two issues involved with the request before the Board. He stated that the second issue was a request for a variance, and the first issue was an appeal as to the decision of the Technical Review Committee (TRC), after its review of their site plan. He stated that the basis for the appeal was the Board lacked jurisdiction to control a State right-of-way. He stated that these were very fundamental issues, and he would like the appeal addressed and hoped that it could be addressed first, at the appropriate meeting, and based on the outcome of that decision, it may or may not be necessary to go forward with a variance application. Because of the nature and the importance of the issues, not only for his clients, but for the County, too, he stated that it would be appropriate to try and have the whole Board present. Mr. Foreman stated for the record that this case had been pending since June, 1994, and his clients wanted the issues settled. He stated that he was scheduled on a two week jury trial docket with a case that would take approximately a week, which included August 22, 1995. If his case was called, which he would know the week before, he would like, if possible, for the Board to authorize the case to be scheduled for the September zoning meeting.

Commr. Good called for public comment on the request for postponement. It was noted that there was no public comment.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that staff felt the two issues were inter-related, and they were one of the same issue. He noted that this was the first time that this request had been placed on the Board's agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the postponement of Case #177A-85-4, Miller Enterprises, either to the August 22, 1995 meeting, or the next appropriate meeting given sufficient notice from the applicant.

PETITION #32-95-4 WLW Construction R-6 to CP

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated that the Board had before them a letter from Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, requesting a postponement to August 22, 1995, due to a scheduling conflict.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that she made the request for postponement at the request of Mr. Charles Whittle, who was the purchaser of the subject property, as well as the Baldrees, the owners of the property. She stated that Mr. Whittle, who was in the construction business, could not make it to this meeting. Since Mr. Whittle was the contractor and engineer who prepared the site plan for the project, Ms. Campione felt it was imperative that he be present at the meeting to answer questions about the proposed uses for the property, and since the Board would be meeting on August 22, 1995, she requested that the case be postponed until such time that he could attend. Ms. Campione noted that, in the past, there had been no type of opposition or interest in this case from the people in Sorrento, and therefore, she did not feel it would impose any inconvenience to anyone.

Commr. Good called for public comment on the request for postponement. It was noted that there was no public comment.

Commr. Swartz discussed the matter of Ms. Campione addressing the Board at an earlier date and stressing an urgency for this case to be heard.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the postponement of Case #32-95-4, WLW Construction, until August 22, 1995.

PETITION CUP#95/6/4-3 - Ben Benham & Barbara Shelley -

CUP in A

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated that the applicants were requesting a postponement, until the August 22, 1995 meeting, as indicated in the letter from Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, which was included in the backup material. Mr. Stubbs noted that Ms. Barbara Shelley, the applicant, was attempting to get additional information from the State of Florida on the subject of domestic septage recycling and land application.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicants, introduced Ms. Barbara Shelley, the applicant, and stated that she was the one who had put together the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. Ms. Campione stated that Ms. Shelley was trying to obtain additional information from the Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) that would be helpful to the Board, in addition to trying to secure a witness with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Ms. Campione stated that, at the last Board meeting when this was to be heard, and it was postponed because of the notice problems, there were no individuals in opposition, or people from the neighborhood, but she was not sure that would be the situation today. She stated that 90% of the case had been prepared and was ready to be presented today, in the event there were people here that the postponement would inconvenience. She further stated that they would like to have the other 10% of the case, because it would be helpful to the Board in making its decision, and if it was not an inconvenience to anyone, it would assist the applicant in presenting a more thorough case, if the request could be continued for two weeks.

Commr. Good called for public comment on the request for postponement. It was noted that there were several individuals present who wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board should not have postponements that go on and on, and that there should not be postponements when the public had taken time off to come and appear at hearings. Commr. Swartz stated that he would not support a postponement, and that the case should be heard, because the applicant had time to prepare for the case.

Commr. Swartz made a motion not to accept the applicant's request for postponement.

The motion died for the lack of a second.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board was being overly sensitive to the request for postponements today. If people were trying to postpone cases today, because they did not feel they had a chance of them passing, he could understand the Board taking this position, but he did not feel that this was being done in this particular case. He felt that the applicants in this case needed more witnesses and more people to help them get a fair hearing.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if he had not thought that the applicant had not had the time to accumulate whatever witnesses and information that were available, he might have accepted that concept, but it was postponed from three weeks ago, and there had been no request at that time to postpone the case, other than the advertising issue that the Board and staff had to address. He felt that they had proper notice, they knew when the hearing date was going to be, and he did not want to see the Board continue to postpone, when the public that had as much interest in this as others, had to keep coming back.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to postpone Case CUP#95/6/4-3, Ben Benham and Barbara Shelley.

The motion died for the lack of a second.

It was noted that the Board would be hearing Case CUP#95/6/4-3 today.

PETITION #16-95-4 - Robert & Ollivene Sullivan - A & LM to PUD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated that the Board had a letter, in its backup material, from Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. , requesting a postponement until the September 26, 1995 meeting, because she was still working with the City of Mount Dora on the water and sewer issues.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., addressed the Board and stated that he expected to have the utilities agreement with the City of Mount Dora finalized within the next 30-40 days, and he would rather come back to the Board with a signed agreement, so that all issues could be addressed.

Commr. Good called for public comment on the request for postponement. It was noted that there was no public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Case #16-95-4, Robert and Ollivene Sullivan, until September 26, 1995.

PETITION #35-95-4 - Kichul Kim - A to RP or CP

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated that staff was requesting that this case be postponed, so that it could be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional review. He stated that the applicant's representative spoke with staff last night, and there were some additional uses that were discussed for the site, which were not discussed at the Planning and Zoning meeting. He noted that this request was in the Wekiva River Protection Area and commercial uses were not allowed. It was noted that this was the first request for postponement, and it was being made by staff.

Commr. Good called for public comment on the request for postponement. It was noted that the applicant, nor a representative, was present, and there was no public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Case #35-95-4, Kichul Kim, until September 26, 1995.

PETITION CUP#95/6/2-3 - Hang Ju Chon, et al - CUP in A

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated that the Board had a letter, in its backup material, from Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., requesting a postponement until September 26, 1995. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant needed a better site plan, and staff, as well as the applicant, was making a request for the postponement.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., addressed the Board and stated that he mirrored Mr. Stubbs' concerns. Mr. Crawford stated that he had not expected the opposition that had appeared on this case, and he wanted to try and address the concerns, from a site plan standpoint, because he knew there were traffic concerns, and some additional concerns, that had arisen since the first hearing, and he wanted to come to the Board with a better plan.

Discussion occurred regarding the case, with it being noted that it had been heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 5, 1995, and some of issues included traffic, and the rezoning of partial tracts since they were not all needed for the well site.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that the Zoning Ordinance had to be filed with the State within ten days from the date the Board took action on the case. Mr. Stubbs explained that the applicant had acquired an attorney, since the time that the case was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He further explained that staff had communicated to Dr. Hang Ju Chon, before the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, that it needed a site plan from him, which staff had not yet received. Mr. Stubbs stated that, in working with the applicant, and in trying to accommodate him, the case was kept on the docket, but the Board may wish to set some type of policy where information would have to be supplied to staff by a certain date, in order for it to be scheduled for a hearing.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Board had said that, if staff was not prepared on an agenda item, it would not expect staff to put it on the agenda, especially if staff was not fully prepared to review it and make a knowledgeable recommendation.

Commr. Good called for public comment on the request for postponement. It was noted that there was no public comment.

It was noted that this was the first time that the case had appeared on the Board's zoning agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Case CUP#95/6/2-3, Hang Ju Chon, et al, until September 26, 1995.

REZONING - COUNTY POLICY

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the new procedures and stated that, based on the Florida Statute, staff had revised internally how the Zoning Ordinances would be handled. He stated that staff would be requesting that, if a Board member's packet was not complete in his book, staff would need an automatic continuance of the case, either to the next Board meeting, or the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and based on Commr. Swartz' earlier thoughts, it should most likely not even be placed in the book. The rationale behind this would be that, if the Board was going back to an ordinance format, everything must be sent to the Secretary of State within ten (10) days, or it becomes a null and void action of the Board, which would mean the staff and the Board would have to go through the entire process again. Mr. Hoban explained the current process where cases had been approved by the Board, but were being delayed, due to the appropriate information not being supplied to staff.

Commr. Swartz questioned why the same procedure would not apply to the Planning and Zoning Board, because they deserved the same opportunity to have the information.

Mr. Stubbs explained that the same procedure was applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and if staff knew there was a problem with a case, it would not be heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Stubbs stated that, even though a case was advertised, it would not be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, if there was a problem, and it would not be heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting either.

Commr. Swartz stated that his concerns go further than the correct information being in the books. He stated that it had to do with the fact that, once staff advertised and set a notice for public hearing, the public began to make plans to attend the meeting. If it was decided that the case would be postponed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, or the regular Board meeting, it would be a hardship on the public that very often had to take time off from work to come to the meetings. Prior to the cases being advertised, staff should make sure that it has the information, in order to be able to confidently go forward in the public hearing process.

Mr. Stubbs explained the advertising process that currently had to take place on each case and stated that the advertising requirements needed to be changed, which would require a Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendment to Chapter 14.

After some discussion of the change in Statute, Mr. Hoban explained that the amendment to the LDR was not directly statutorily driven, but would probably be an internally good thing for staff to do.

Mr. Hoban explained the policy procedures currently being used for the cases that go before the Board of Adjustments.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board generally agreed that it wanted to make sure that staff had provided backup to the Board, and to the Planning and Zoning Commission, that would be sufficient for them to make decisions, and therefore, the Board was encouraging staff to do this. Secondly, he assumed that the Board did not want to inconvenience the citizens who might take time off to hear the cases, and that the Board should try and have a policy that did not first put them on the agenda for advertising, which needed to be worked out at a staff level between the Planning Department and the County Attorney's Office, and if the Board agreed with this, it needed to move on with the issues before it today.

It was noted that the issue of a policy, which addressed the issues outlined by Commr. Swartz, would be placed on the Board's agenda for the August 15, 1995 meeting.

REZONING

The following staff members were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation; Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III/Supervisor, Development Regulation; and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering.

PETITION #25-95-4 - Mae Nelle O. Whaley - A to RM

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated that this case had been before the Board on June 27, 1995. The Board had requested staff to look at the case and determine whether the applicant needed to have a rezoning. He stated that a re-count was done of the mobile homes in the area, and it resulted in a worse situation. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone the parcel to R-8, Mobile or Mixed Residential, for the placement of a mobile home on the 1.75 acre piece of property, with a Developer's Agreement limiting the density to two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Stubbs noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of RM (Mobile Home Residential) zoning with the Developer's Agreement. He stated that the applicant only wanted to go to RM and had no desire to go to R-8, or to do a Developer's Agreement. Mr. Stubbs explained that RM would be limiting it to mobile homes, but staff saw that it was a mixed area, so generally, if staff saw an area in transition where there were mobile homes and single family, the applicant was given an option to go to single family homes.

Ms. Mae Nelle O. Whaley, applicant, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Ms. Whaley discussed the advertisement of the property and explained that she did not see much difference in this one, and the last two advertisements.

Mr. Stubbs explained that RM would permit a single wide mobile home with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and staff did not have a specific objection to it, and staff was trying to follow the direction of the Board over the years where, if there was a mixed area, staff tried to keep it as such, or give them the ability to go to a conventionally constructed home.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to RM (Mobile Home Residential), with a Developer's Agreement limiting the density to two dwelling units per acre, Case #25-95-4, Mae Nelle O. Whaley.

PETITION #30-95-5 - Southern States Utilities - RM to CFD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made to replace a tank on an existing utility site with a well and building, and to bring it into conformance with the proper zoning designation. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that Mr. Jim Boyd, representative for the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Board.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), Case #30-95-5, Southern States Utilities.

PETITION #31-95-5 - Southern States Utilities - C-2 to CFD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made to add a control building to an existing utility site. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that Mr. Jim Boyd, representative for the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Board.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from C-2 (Community Commercial) to CFD (Community Facility District), Case #31-95-5, Southern States Utilities.

PETITION #28-95-2 - Byron J. Rhodes - R-2 to R-1

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made to construct a single family residence and have horses on the property, which would not be permitted in R-2 zoning, but would be permitted in R-1 zoning. He stated, for the record, that staff had made the applicants fully aware of the setbacks within this district for the horse barn and had put them on notice, because the lot was very narrow. He further stated that staff was recommending approval of the request to R-1 zoning.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-2 (Estate Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential, Case #28-95-2, Byron J. Rhodes, with the conditions as outlined in the Ordinance.

PETITION #26-95-5 - Danny Brown & Robert Hague - R-6 to RM

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made for the placement of a mobile home on site. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended rezoning to R-8 (Mixed Residential) with a Developer's Agreement limiting the density to four dwelling units per acre. After discussing this request with the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff had no problem with the R-8 zoning. Mr. Stubbs discussed the Developer's Agreement, which reflected the names of Mr. Brown and Mr. Hague, and noted that they had already sold the site to Nicholas and Melina LaPorta. He stated that the Developer's Agreement had been changed to reflect the new names, and a revised Agreement had been prepared.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had discussed the issue of Developer's Agreements, in general, with the previous owners of the property, but no merits of this case was discussed, and nothing was heard that would prejudice his ability to make a decision.

It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reviewed the same document, which was before the Board, with the exception of the change made to the names.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Danny Brown was present in the audience, and he expressed that he had no problem with the R-8 zoning.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-8 (Mixed Residential) with a Developer's Agreement, as amended, which limits the density to four dwelling units per acre, and reflects the change in names, in Case #26-95-5, Danny Brown and Robert Hague.

REZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and stated, with the exceptions of Tabs 13 and 16, the cases seemed to be noncontroversial. He questioned whether the Board could move up Tabs 10, 11, and 14 on the agenda.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, indicated that she had no problem with the Board moving the noted cases up on the agenda.

PETITION #38-95-3 - Southern States Utilities - R-6 to CFD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made to install new water tanks; a new electrical control room; a new emergency generator and a new diesel fuel containment structure within a structure with a residential facade, in order to bring the existing utility site into conformance with the current Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, with the Ordinance indicating that the applicant would maintain existing setbacks, and that there would be no problem if it stated "maintain existing", but that the minimum setbacks established by staff for a CFD was usually 50 feet from the front property line and 25 feet on the sides and rear.

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

Mr. Jim Boyd, representative and engineer for the applicant, appeared before the Board to address the setback issue. He stated that it was his understanding that the applicant would meet setbacks within the existing zoning designation, which was R-6, but that the applicant would not be able to maintain those, because the applicant was adding to the actual structure.

Mr. Stubbs discussed the setbacks being proposed and stated that he did not see any reason why the applicant could not meet the 49 foot minimum from all property lines, the way that the applicant's plans were drawn.

Mr. Boyd stated that the 49 feet would be an adequate setback, and that the applicant would be able to meet all setback requirements.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-6 to CFD, with the conditions included in the Ordinance.

PETITION #37-95-3 - Russell J. & Helen Hults - R-6 to RM

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made for the placement of a mobile home on the property. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and there were no letters for or against it.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicants were present in the audience. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RM (Mobile Home Residential), Case #37-95-3, Russell J. and Helen Hults.

PETITION #39-95-3 - Trademore Industries Ltd. - A to CFD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made to establish a site for an electrical distribution substation. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and there were no letters for or against it.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that staff needed to strike D. on Page 2 of the Ordinance, with regards to transportation improvements, because it was not necessary at this time.

Mr. Stubbs stated that there were standard setbacks of 50 feet from the front property line and 25 feet from the sides and rear.

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

Mr. Louis Stone, Attorney representing Sumter Electric, appeared before the Board and questioned the setbacks established by staff.

Mr. Stubbs explained that, for CFD zoning, the setbacks were not included in the LDRs, and the setbacks he presented had been used as standard setbacks for years.

Mr. Cecil Berry was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Berry discussed the site plan and stated that the control house was approximately 15 feet from the property line. The adjacent owner, Florida Power, had an existing substation next to the property in question.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, since the property was located next to another substation, staff would not have an objection to the 15 feet on the west property line. He stated that the applicant could meet the other setback requirements on all other property lines.

Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the request, with landscape buffering to be determined by staff. He suggested that, whatever buffering was required, it be some type of native plants that would not require water, or permanent irrigation.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), with landscape buffering to be determined by staff, to establish a site for an electrical distribution substation, with the conditions in the backup, to include the variance on the west property line of 15 feet, and the deletion of the language in D. on Page 2 of the Ordinance.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:08 a.m., Commr. Good announced that the Board would take a five minute recess.

PETITION CUP#95/6/4-3 Ben Benham & Barbara Shelley CUP in A

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the request was made for spreading of treated domestic septage. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Ordinance, which was developed by the Environmental Management Division.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Division, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Barker explained that the size of the site was approximately 320 acres, with approximately 250 acres being usable. Since staff had been in the process of evaluating these types of sites, and where they would be most appropriate, it ran a GIS system copy where staff looked at the depth of the water table, which would be in the excess of 24 inches; recharge which would be less than eight inches; the approximate surrounding densities, which there would be low density preferably in agricultural property; and it would be at least 3,000 feet away from Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Mr. Barker stated that staff felt this would be a suitable site, because it had an access off of CR 48 directly onto the ranch. He further stated that the site had access, which meant it did not necessarily have to go past individual homes that were located on the access roadway. Mr. Barker reviewed the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and stated that additional setbacks were established. He stated that staff had asked that, before the operation took place, there be an operation plan submitted. Mr. Barker noted that this particular process in Lake County was much more restrictive than in other counties. He stated that, because of the number of septic tanks in Lake County, these types of sites were needed, and he recommended that the Board approve this site. He noted that Mr. Russ Melling, Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), was present to discuss the request.

Discussion occurred regarding the term "food establishment sludge", and Mr. Barker explained that the ratio of food establishment sludge would be no greater than 1 to 1, which would mean that there could be no more food establishment sludge than domestic septage.

Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted to know where the other permitted sites, as such, were located in Lake County.

Mr. Barker stated that there were approximately seven permitted sludge sites in Lake County. He stated that four of the sites were in the Green Swamp, and that there were problems with the sludge applications that were permitted CUPs in the Green Swamp; three sites ranged from Astatula to Umatilla; and there were approximately 33 total sites that had been used, or have asked if they could be used, or they were in the application process, that have not been permitted under CUPs. He stated that 12 of the sites were infrequently used, and some were not used at all, but were available for application.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and approved it 9-0 for the spreading of treated domestic septage. He stated that there was one petition with 36 signatures in opposition to the request. A letter in opposition had been received yesterday from Joann Sojourner. Mr. Stubbs noted that, on the front page of the staff report, it stated the following:

"The parcel contains lots split approvals, the owner shall be placed on notice that a unity of title for all properties shall be provided or an administrative hold on building permits for those lots shall be instated. Any use other than septage spreading shall not commence for a period of one year from the last application. Concurrently, the CUP would be revoked."



Mr. Hoban addressed the language noted by Mr. Stubbs in the staff report and stated it was the recommendation of the County Attorney's Office that the following language be included in the Ordinance, as follows:

Include: "a unity of title shall be provided"

Strike: "an administrative hold on building permits".



Mr. Hoban explained that a unity of title was a legal document that would get recorded in the public records so that, if anyone wanted to buy the property, or a lot within this great big piece of property, it stated that the property could not be subdivided, unless you had the consent of Lake County. The purpose of the document was so that Lake County could ensure, once operations had ceased, that it had waited the appropriate time line, one year, before it allowed building permits to property to be subdivided.

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

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing Barbara and Dave Shelley, owners of the Shelley's Septic Tanks, addressed the Board and stated that the Shelleys operate a lime stabilization plant located in Zellwood. She stated that approximately 80 percent of their business, which included installing, repairing, and pumping septic tanks, was done in Lake County.

Ms. Campione called Mr. Jim Barker to present testimony.

Mr. Barker addressed the Board and presented, for the record, his background, in terms of educational experience, how long he has worked for Lake County, and his function, at this time, in Lake County. Mr. Barker explained his experience in permitting sites, such as the one being considered today, and presented testimony as to the preparation of the CUP and staff report, including who had assisted him with the report. Mr. Barker verified the Operation Report prepared by Shelley's Septic Tanks, and whether the Board members had received the report to review. (It was noted by Mr. Stubbs that staff had distributed the reports to the Commissioners.) Mr. Barker explained what staff had required the Shelleys to provide in the report and stated that he had recommended that the Board approve the CUP with the conditions, as outlined. Mr. Barker further explained that, if there was a substantial odor problem, or a continuing odor problem, and it could be established that it was the result of the application, the County could impanel according to AP-40, which was an Environmental Protection Agency's publication, and establish an Odor Panel. Mr. Barker stated that there were some counties that would accept the Agricultural Use Plan from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the inspection program from HRS, as being sufficient for allowing this material to be placed on agriculture property. He stated that this was a much more restrictive process than what the surrounding counties had required, including Orange County. Mr. Barker stated that the requirements for the operation in question meet and exceed State and Federal requirements.

Ms. Campione called Mr. Greg Stubbs to present testimony.

Mr. Stubbs presented testimony as to his educational credentials and his position with Lake County.

Mr. Hoban stated that the County would stipulate that Mr. Stubbs would be an expert on planning issues.

Mr. Stubbs described the aerial map and the location of the homes, in relation to the site in question.

Ms. Campione presented the aerial map, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Applicant's Exhibit A-1.

Mr. Stubbs explained that Environmental Management had evaluated the site, as to its ability to receive the septage spreading operation, and also from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, with it being determined that it met the requirements of the Plan.

Discussion occurred regarding the land designation, with it being noted that the northern portion of the property in question was rural, and the southern portion was suburban.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the suburban land use plan category permits up to one dwelling unit per five acres in this area, because this area did not meet the timeliness criteria.

Ms. Campione called Mr. Russ Melling to present testimony, and he was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Hoban stated that the County would stipulate that Mr. Russ Melling was an expert on HRS rules and regulations, and septic tanks in general.

Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Melling was familiar with the application, and he had reviewed the CUP, the staff report, and had a considerable amount of experience in this process and Lake County's need for permitted sites for this particular use, and that he would be speaking to these issues.

Mr. Melling stated that the HRS Department felt very confident that this type of use would be low for pollution, and any disease potential was extremely low, and that land spreading would be the best possible way of disposing of sewage septage from septic tanks. He stated that the County desperately needed these types of sites, because the County was installing approximately 2,000 septic tanks each year, with there already being 45-50,000 in Lake County. Mr. Melling explained that the County's requirements far exceed the requirements of the surrounding counties. He stated that the safeguards were in place, and the site needed to be approved.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether there were any other methods for pre-treatment and treatment of domestic septage.

Mr. Melling explained that there were methods being anticipated, but none had been developed at this time.

Commr. Swartz stated that it was his understanding that there had been some municipal plants in the past that had taken domestic septage.

Mr. Melling explained that it was correct that some municipalities have taken domestic septage, but there was no way that any plants in the immediate area could meet the need of the County. He stated that the municipalities basically blend the septage with their other sewage, and they would take only so many thousands of gallons during the week versus the numbers that needed to be dealt with in Lake County, and therefore, this was not really an option.

Commr. Swartz addressed Page 9, 2l, which indicated that an application of food establishment sludge to the land shall be permitted, if such food establishment sludge had been properly treated.

Mr. Barker explained that domestic septage waste, as well as food establishment waste, ranged from 70-80% water, and the remaining 30% would be solids. He stated that staff spoke to each one of the municipalities that had a waste water treatment plant, including a couple of private ones, to ask them whether or not they would accept the material, and they all refused. He stated that staff also asked, if any of those with major effluent disposal fields, in Eustis or Leesburg, whether or not they would accept the waste, and they also said no. Mr. Barker explained that their primary problem was their detailed monitoring plans, and if they had a problem, they wanted to be able to identify that it came from the operation of their plants, and not from something that happened outside. It was noted that the nature of the treated septage was different from the nature of the treated effluent that was coming out of the other plants.

Commr. Good discussed the information that had been provided and questioned how many gallons of septage the 45-50,000 tanks produced a year. Commr. Good stated that, out of the 33 sludge sites in the County, twelve were being used infrequently, and seven were permitted. He questioned how many acres the permitted sites represented, and if the requirements for setbacks, in terms of gallons per acre of distribution, were consistent within the seven permitted sites to date.

Discussion occurred regarding the requirements for the site in question, which exceed State and Federal Regulations, and the CUP being reviewed on an annual basis. It was noted that the CUP also contained requirements for enforcement officers of the County, HRS, and DEP to access the site 24 hours a day for the purposes of reviewing.

Mr. Melling addressed the inspection frequency and stated that DEP did their inspection once per five years, unless they had complaints, and he would be looking at this site at a minimum of three to four times year.

Ms. Campione called Ms. Barbara Shelley to present testimony, and she was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Shelley stated that she was the Vice President of Shelley's Septic Tanks, which had been in business for ten years. Ms. Shelley testified that she was the responsible party who obtained the permits and handled the reviews by local and regional agencies. On this particular site, the permit came through Environmental Management. Ms. Shelley noted that she had made an application for the use of 40 acres on a 120 acre site in Eustis, but the application was withdrawn, due to a determination being made that it would be surrounded by areas that would have future growth in population. She described the process by which she obtained the permit for a lime stabilization plant, and the regulatory agencies that would be involved with the plant. Ms. Shelley stated that the majority of her business was in Lake County, and that the estimated number of septic systems in Lake County, to date, was 53,214. Ms. Shelley explained, in detail, the manifest tracking system that was used by her business.

Ms. Campione stated that she had a very informative and educational tape that was prepared by the State of Florida, which described the lime stabilization process, and the land application process itself. At this time, the 18 minute tape, entitled "Proper Treatment & Uses of Septage", from the Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Onsite Sewage Program, was shown to the Board. At the completion of the tape, Ms. Campione presented it to the Deputy Clerk, and it was entered and marked as Applicants Exhibit A-2.

Ms. Campione stated that she would conclude her case, at this time, and reserved the right for some rebuttal testimony, if necessary.

Mr. Barker informed the Board that the applicant was limited to 30,000 gallons per acre per year, and the nitrogen was limited to poundage as well.

Mr. Melling informed the Board that the County had eight septic tank haulers. He stated that he only licenses those haulers who have their home base in Lake County, and with their septic site in Lake County.

Ms. Shelley stated that her shop was approximately 1/4 mile from the Lake County line, and she was actually located in Orange County. She stated that 85% of her business was Lake County, with 85% of the pumping being done in Lake County.

Discussion occurred regarding the septic tank haulers in Lake County, and whether they haul to Shelley's Septic Tanks.

Ms. Linda Pillows was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Ms. Pillows stated that there were 320 acres of land that was rural, but was also adjacent to a residential area where she lived. She stated that all of the people in this area had wells, and there was no commercial water. If the Shelley's sprayed 40,000 gallons per acre per year, that would be over 10 million gallons a year of sewage that was being pumped into a area where wells were used for drinking water. She explained that there were many children in this area, and she was concerned that the heavy metals in the sewage would filter through the sand. Ms. Pillows stated that the St. Johns River Water Management District was behind her property. She questioned what the benefit would be to the property owners in the community of having this request approved, and she questioned whether approving something like this was actually safeguarding the health of those individuals in the community. She further questioned what the long term effects would be of having heavy metals in the water that the childen would drink. Ms. Pillows addressed the issue of hauling some of the substances, such as the grease, to a landfill site, and questioned whether it was the Astatula Landfill, because she was also close to the landfill. She was also concerned about another request being on the agenda for something similar in the same area. She questioned how often the PH was checked on the trucks, and how often they were going to be inspected, and whether there was going to be any other benefit to the property owner, other than free fertilizer. Ms. Pillows submitted a petition with 321 signatures of individuals who opposed the permit in question, and the Deputy Clerk entered and marked it as Exhibit OP-1.

Ms. Campione questioned Ms. Pillows, who testified how the signatures were obtained for the petition, and that the people in the area had septic tanks and wells.

Ms. Campione stated, for the record, that the arrangement was simply that the property owner would get fertilizer, and there would be no monetary exchange for the use of the property, other than having the benefit of the fertilizer.

Mr. Richard Newton was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Newton addressed a comment made by Ms. Shelley that her business was 1/4 of a mile from the Lake County line, and stated that it was actually four miles in one direction and 3 1/2 in the other. He wondered why they did not dump in Orange County instead of Lake County, because the people in the area in question moved to the country to be free and clear of such things.

Mr. Paul Netwal was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Netwal stated that he had some photographs to show, and a list of points to go over with the Board. Mr. Netwal stated that there was going to be a negative effect on everyone's property, because of the odor; there would be problems if anyone wanted to sell his property; the property owners did have a right to quality of life, and that would be put into jeopardy by having this in his backyard. At this time, he showed the Board pictures of his property, and described the water levels on the land. Mr. Netwal stated that he was concerned that the septage was going to be too close to the water, and it would seep into everybody's wells. The photographs were given to the Deputy Clerk and entered and marked as Exhibit OP-2 (composite - 2 photos).

Mr. Scott Sojourner was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Sojourner stated that he was present when the photographs were taken. He explained the location of the property in the photographs, in relation to the property in question.

Mr. Netwal questioned who made the annual reports and application reports and whether the truck drivers needed some form of training for dumping the septage. He also questioned the Odor Panel and its membership, and whether it was County regulated, and how often the CUP was going to be reviewed. Mr. Netwal stated that he would want the CUP reviewed every year, but he would prefer not to have the request approved, because he moved to the country to get out of the city, and he had made a substantial investment in buying a piece of property, and he wanted his property values protected.

Mr. Gary Pat Adams was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Adams stated that he has owned Lot 19 for 6 years, and the water runs south right through the middle of his property. He discussed the extra footage of property that he purchased for drainage and stated that the County would not have spent money to put the culvert underneath the highway for it to make the water run uphill. He stated that he had a well, and three children, and he moved to the country for the country.

Mr. Sojourner addressed the Board, once again, and presented the Board with a picture of him standing in water on the west side of the property in question. The photograph was entered and marked as Exhibit OP-3. Mr. Sojourner addressed the Facsimile sent to the Board from Ms. Jo Ann Sojourner.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12 noon, the Board announced that it would take a recess.

PETITION CUP#95/6/4-3 Ben Benham & Barbara Shelley CUP in A

(Continued)

The public hearing continued with Mr. Sojourner who was testifying in opposition to the request.

Mr. Sojourner discussed the Facsimile the Board had received from Ms. Jo Ann Sojourner, which stated the following reasons for the opposition:

1. Depreciation of value of our real estate, as well as the real estate for the entire community.

2. The odor this may cause.

3. The mosquitoes, flies, and rodents this may attract.

4. Possible contamination of water table.

5. Actual regulation of the Shelleys' application of septage.

6. The cost and difficulty of regulating the Shelleys compliance with existing and future environmental laws (According to the Daily Commercial the Shelleys have been previously cited for non-compliance and they are believed to have been "run out" of Eustis for such failure to comply).

7. The aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area.

8. The adverse economic impact on the town of Astatula.

9. Additional traffic congestion caused by the septic trucks making the deliveries.



The Facsimile from Ms. Jo Ann Sojourner was entered and marked as Exhibit OP-4 by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Ronnie Chandler was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Chandler stated that he had seven acres approximately one half mile from the property in question. He discussed having a problem with his drain field and his contact with the Shelleys, who told him they could not do the work, because they had no place to put the septage. He questioned 85% of the Shelley's business being in Lake County, because they had an Orange County base and had been there for years. He had questions regarding the regulation of the amount of sewage going onto the ground, and stated that he would buy fertilizer before he had sewage dumped on his property. Mr. Chandler stated that the amount of sewage going onto the ground would raise the nitrate level in the ground water, and everyone in this area was on a well system, and there was no potable water there. If the wells were contaminated, there would be no drinking water, and this could change their way of life and decrease the property values.

Commr. Swartz stated that everyone, including the people in the Town of Astatula, were on a septic system, and there was no waste water system. One of the alternatives that he felt would be a possibility, and it may have to become more of a consideration, would be to try and find other methods of treating effluent, or finding locations that did not conflict with other development patterns. Either one of those were very likely to drive the cost of septic tank disposal up. Commr. Swartz addressed the list of site owners and haulers, with the list being entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit LC-2. He stated that the County was enforcing special conditions for septic tanks in the Green Swamp, but it was very likely that, in coming years, there would be regulations for the balance of the County, even though they may not be as stringent as they were in the Green Swamp, but they would probably require periodic inspection and/or pumping for the rest of the County.

Mr. Tim Wood was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Wood stated that he was the owner of Lots 27 and 28, as shown on the aerial map. He stated that he talked to four well drillers, and not one of them agreed that this request should be approved for this site. Mr. Wood discussed the wet areas, the water runoff, and his concern for the ground water and stated that the property would lose its value with problems such as flies and stench. He felt that there were plenty of other places that this type of business could be located.

Mr. Steve Turner and his daughter, Holly, were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Miss Turner stated that she did not want dumping of sewage across the street from her house, because it might affect the water system; there could be a horrible smell; and her bus stop was across the street and it would be an embarrassing situation. She was concerned about the affect it would have on the animals, as well as the property owners, if they drank the water, and she did not want to have the odor problem. She was concerned that people in the area would start moving away, if the site was approved.

Mr. Turner stated that he was not allowed to have hogs or a chicken farm on his property, so why would he want to have the dump across the street from his property, and he was concerned about the wildlife in the area and human contact with something that close to home.

Ms. Linda Dennis was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Dennis stated that, even though there had been a lot of statistics presented about the issue, she was still concerned about the harmful effect it would have on the community. She questioned the need for a geophysical exam, and a topographical map, and requested an explanation of each.

Mr. Barker presented an explanation of the exams and maps that would be prepared for the site in question.

Ms. Dennis stated that she had talked with someone who had put in the majority of the wells on CR 48 in this area. She explained that he drilled a well 365 feet on the corner lot at Ranch Road and CR 48, and he hit nothing but sand. She noted that the gentleman could not be present today, because of other commitments. Ms. Dennis explained the condition of the roads after a rain and stated that the water filtered right through the sand, to the water level. She stated that Ranch Road met at CR 48, and that was the only access that the people had in Robins Heights Division. Ms. Dennis questioned whether she could be guaranteed that there would be nothing wrong with the land that would harm her family, and could she be guaranteed that her appraised value of her home would not go down. She had talked to some appraisers who had indicated that the property that immediately abuts the proposed site would definitely have a detrimental effect on the appraised value of the property. They did not know the effect it would have on the property that did not abut the property in question. Ms. Dennis stated that she also consulted with some attorneys who indicated to her that, if she put her property up for sale, she had to tell the future buyer. She questioned what the Board and staff could do to assure her that the appraisal she got last week would not go down, because of the sewage treatment site. She also questioned whether the Shelley's could be required to put up a bond, and whether the reviews could be posted before the review was done, so that she and other property owners could have their water sampled. Ms. Dennis stated that she did not want the request approved. She questioned whether the Shelley's were the only ones that could place the septage on the site, and if Orange County's restrictions were not as stringent, why were they coming to Lake County.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Board and staff were trying to keep track of all questions, so that they could be answered, and he suggested that, if there were others that had concerns that may be different than the ones the Board had already heard, they be brought to the Board at this time.

Ms. Dennis stated that the rezoning notice was not posted last week, and she had reported it.

Mr. Hoban explained that official notice was the one in the newspaper, and the posting of notices were for the convenience of the neighborhoods for awareness purposes, and it was not a legal requirement that they be posted all of the time.

Mr. Bob Warren was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Warren stated that he had the same concerns as everyone else, but he had some questions. He stated that there were 33 sites in the State with less than 12 of them being used. He questioned why the applicant did not consider one of the sites that had already been approved. He stated that his area of property was a growing area, and he was concerned about the growth.

Ms. June Blazek was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Blazek stated that she lived in Under Hill Hammock, Lot 20, and there were farms located in front of her property. She stated that six of the farms drained to the back of her property, and her property was approximately 20 feet below the level where they wanted to put the septage sludge. Ms. Blazek stated that there were pipes that ran water all of the time into the ponds, and she questioned where the water was coming from, if there was not a runoff from a higher level. She stated that she had fish, cattle, and wildlife, and that the ponds emptied back into Lake Apopka. She hoped that the Board would take all of this into consideration, because the water would eventually go into the ground. Ms. Blazek stated that the same thing happened in Mount Dora, with the fertilizer, and in time, everybody's wells were contaminated. She stated that, as a taxpayer, citizen and land owner, she hoped that the Board would take into consideration the people that lived in the area of the property in question.

Mr. Carroll Bud Ward was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Ward stated that he was the previous owner of the property in question, that he bought the property in 1959, and there had been tons and tons of cow manure put over this property, besides commercial fertilizer, and no complaints had ever been made until now. Mr. Ward stated that the average amount of sand on top of the morrow was 24 feet, and when any kind of water runs through ten feet of sand, it was pure enough to drink. He stated that there should be no worry about any septage getting under the road, and to the people on the other side. Mr. Ward explained that he sold the last of his cows in December, 1991, and that he sold his property to the Benhams who was currently running horses and cows on the property. Mr. Ward explained that the process being proposed would be good for the property and would make it look better than it did now.

Mr. Wood addressed the Board and stated that all of the runoff from the pasture described by Mr. Ward was going to go through the culvert and to the muck, which would then be on top of all of the surrounding property.

Mr. Ward stated that, when his property flooded, there had been no road. The road was raised between five and ten feet between the two properties, and the only place for the runoff was through the little canal.

Ms. Campione requested a rebuttal and called Mr. Melling to testify.

Mr. Melling explained that the there had been monitoring investigations of complaints by the State, but there had never been a documented case of polluting wells, or illnesses, related to septic sites. He explained that there seemed to be some confusion regarding septage and sludge, and that heavy metals were not an issue with septage.

Discussion occurred regarding the number of gallons of septage being pumped from septic tanks in Lake County, with Mr. Barker providing pertinent information to assist in calculating those figures.

Commr. Good informed those present that, after the Shelley's case, the Board would recess until 2:30 p.m.

Ms. Campione asked questions of Mr. Ward, who testified that he had a dairy farm for over 30 years, and ceased operation in 1991. He noted that the homes on the other side of CR 48 were built within the past ten years. Mr. Ward stated that he had obtained a State land application for his site, and he had never received any complaints, or concerns, about his operation.

Mr. Campione asked questions of Mr. Barker, who testified that the setbacks were designed to prevent runoff from the site in question to neighboring property owners. Mr. Barker discussed another condition, which stated that, during rainy periods of time when there was actually standing water, the applicant could not do any septage disposal. He stated that another condition could be made for berming, if at a later date, it was determined, from topographic information, it would be necessary to prevent runoff. Mr. Barker discussed the sites that had been permitted and had CUPs and stated that there were 13 sites that were open, with only 12 being inspected this year. He discussed the acreage established with each one and noted that, under the criteria used today, it would be difficult for some of these sites to get permits.

Ms. Campione questioned Ms. Shelley, who testified that she understood the concerns being expressed by the surrounding property owners, and that the majority of it came down to education. Ms. Shelley stated that there was no question that there was a need for this in Lake County, and that this was a problem that needed to be addressed. Mr. Shelley stated that the homes indicated on the aerial map were 500 feet away from the property in question, which met all setback requirements and were 200 feet more than the State requirements. She clarified that a person who drilled wells was not a qualified soil scientist, and if a well driller found a lot of sand, this would be in her favor, because it only took two feet of sand to filter out before it was clear water again. She noted that she had documentation to this effect. Ms. Shelley explained that an individual's septic system was only required to be 75 feet away from his own drinking water well. She explained the benefits of having such a recycling solution to the sewer problem that was being generated in the County by continued growth. Ms. Shelley discussed the issue of her business being cited by the City of Eustis for failure to comply and explained that no one knew at that time that a CUP was needed, and the problem was addressed immediately. She noted that she had a letter from Orange County who inspected her plant monthly, and it stated that there had never been any violations against her company. Ms. Shelley explained that she had been willing to meet all requirements and then some, to help solve the problem.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether there had ever been any attempt, either by Ms. Shelley, or on her behalf, to contact any of the other approved CUP facilities that had been approved by Lake County and were currently open to provide for both septic and sludge applications.

Ms. Shelley noted that she had not seen the list of companies until today, but that she has been contacted by other land owners in the Green Swamp area that wanted her to come to their site, but she was told by Environmental Management that this area would not be acceptable. She also noted that there was a liability concern in using a site that someone else was also using.

Discussion occurred regarding the logging and tracking system that would be used, in order to track any type of problem related to the sewage that was generated to Ms. Shelley's site.

Ms. Shelley explained that the municipalities called her company when they had problems, and her company has pumped for almost every town in Lake County.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not deny the fact that there was a need to find a place to either land spread the septage, or find some other method of dealing with it, and it may end up being a combination of what the Board decided today, as well as other methods.

Ms. Shelley stated that one of the alternatives that her company had considered was composting, even though it was very, very costly, which would be the way of the future, as far as recycling. She explained that the process being discussed, in no way compared to commercial fertilizers that people put on their own yards. Ms. Shelley noted that the screening process was currently being done at her plant, which was shown in the pictures contained in the Operation Report. She further noted that the trash from the screening was taken to King Road Landfill, and that she had no sites in Orange County, but she had two sites in Sumter County, and no pumping had been done in Sumter County.

Ms. Campione informed the Board that she was going to close her presentation at this time, but before she closed, she stated that the CUP before the Board was extremely comprehensive, and that the Board had testimony today that it had far exceeded State and Federal requirements. She stated that it went one step further to make sure that the health and welfare of the people that live around the area were being protected, and it was addressing their concerns. She stated that the testimony that had been presented indicated that there was no threat of ground water contamination, because of the physical features of the site, and there would be additional requirements, if there ever was a potential problem. She explained that staff had reviewed this particular site and had approved it as being an appropriate site for an agricultural use. Ms. Campione suggested that, to the extent that there was a problem with the property that actually fronted on CR 48, she would be agreeable to eliminating a portion of it, as to create even a larger buffer between the property in question, and the people that lived directly across the street. She stated that, at this time, she would like to propose this offer, as a possible solution to some of the concerns.

Commr. Cadwell questioned Mr. Barker about the total acreage that would be used for the application process minus setbacks and buffers, and about inspections that would be made and who would pay the fees.

Mr. Barker noted that the property would consist of less than 250 acres, because the wetlands and unapproved areas had been taken out, as well as property for the additional setbacks. Mr. Barker explained that they would pay an annual fee for the annual inspection, and this would be a combined program between HRS and staff. He stated that the property in question would be a suitable site for the application, and this would be confirmed in the operation plan, when staff got the site specific information.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the underground hydrology, and the direction of the effluent, would be known before staff received the hydrology study, or a more thorough operation plan was reviewed.

Mr. Barker stated that, in looking at the general information, the soils, the depth of the water table, the topography, and the surrounding hydrology, staff felt that this site was appropriate, or it would not have recommended approval. He noted that the underground flow was generally to the south and the southeast.

Commr. Swartz questioned how many times, in the last year, Mr. Barker, or one of his staff members had been to one of Mr. John Arnold's sites. (Mr. Arnold's sites were listed on Exhibit LC-2.)

Mr. Barker stated that staff did an annual inspection, and it tried to do semi-annual inspections. He noted that a semi-annual inspection had been done twice this year on Mr. Arnold's sites, and that staff would inspect based on complaints.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in reviewing the list (Exhibit LC-2), there were one or two haulers that were in Lake County, but there were a number of others that appeared to be hauling to Shelley's and, therefore, made up a part of the effluent that was taken in by Shelley's. He further noted that the Odor Panel would be one that would be driven by complaints, and that the CUP was good for five years and would be reviewed annually.

Mr. Melling explained that the Arnold's property was not an approved septage site, so he would not inspect it. If it was septage and sludge, it would be inspected by DEP and County staff. It was noted that the Arnold's property had been approved for sludge and septage.

Commr. Swartz noted that there were approximately 2,000 acres on the list (Exhibit LC-2), and the majority of the acreage had CUPs, with some acreage perhaps being reduced by setbacks, or other conditions. If the request before the Board was allowing 30,000 gallons per year per acre, there would be over 60 million gallons of available septage and sludge that could be put out. He stated that there was a substantial amount of other land available, and he did not know whether, as a County, it had looked sufficiently at making sure that the lands that were available were being utilized.

Mr. Barker noted that, out of the 13 sites shown on the chart, eight were in the Green Swamp, and the Green Swamp Comprehensive Plan policy stated that it would be against the law to apply in the Green Swamp.

Commr. Swartz explained that he had been concentrating on the John Arnold property, because it was probably the largest single parcel that had an approved CUP for sludge and septage waste.

It was noted by Mr. Stubbs that the Section, Township, and Range had not been advertised in the paper, but the correct legal description had been advertised.

Discussion occurred regarding the map in the Operation Report, which identified the setbacks based on the DEP Agricultural Use Plan, but did not include the additional setbacks, as established by staff. Discussion continued regarding the slope being no more than eight percent surrounding the wetland area, and the concept of the berm, and it not being mentioned in the CUP.

Mr. Barker explained that there was no mention of the berm in the CUP, because, until staff had the topographic details, it would not have the information to identify the location of the berm. He stated that, once the CUP was signed, the Operation Plan would be submitted, and staff would make specific determinations of berms, or other types of facilities that might be necessary. Mr. Barker clarified that staff increased the buffers, so that natural areas could be used without having to construct something, because anything constructed would have to be maintained.

It was noted that the site of the spraying excluded the wetlands in the southeast corner of the property plus 200 feet.

Mr. Hoban clarified that, if the Board wanted to make increased setbacks, the decision needed to be made now, so that the changes could be included in the CUP.

Discussion occurred regarding the screening process, and the materials that were being eliminated, and what would actually be spread on the property in question.

Commr. Good stated that everyone needed to take responsibility for the waste that was being generated. He explained that he was concerned, just as others in the audience, that city problems were being exported to the country. Commr. Good noted that the CUP stated very clearly that no toxic materials would be dumped. Commr. Good stated that the conditions that had been placed in the CUP had attempted to address the concerns that been raised by the people.

Mr. Barker clarified that, even though it was not identified in the CUP, as the Environmental Protection Office of the County, he could take complaints and investigate independently, and take them to the Environmental Protection Board, based on what he found in the field. He stated that it did not necessarily mean that the Odor Panel had to be brought together, because, if he, or one of his staff members, detected that there was an odor, or an odor problem with the site, he could bring it independently to the Environmental Protection Board.

Mr. Melling stated that HRS would issue an annual operating permit, which required two inspections a year, and he would respond to complaints. If there was a significant problem that had created a sanitary nuisance, he would act immediately, and he could obtain a court injunction, if necessary.

Commr. Good stated that he understood the problems that such a facility could create, but he was encouraged that much of the separation activities were occurring off of the site. He stated that this site, with the improvements that had been made with the additional restriction, was moving in the direction of recycling septage material that had been screened and lime stabilized, which was an improvement in the industry from where the County was 20 years ago. Commr. Good stated that he was leaning in the direction of being able to live with the facility, but he wanted everyone that lived around it to realize that this was exactly the operational plan that this facility could work. It did not have to be a dumping place for raw sewage, and that was not at all what was being proposed. He hoped that those present would get a copy of the CUP and look at the conditions that the applicant was being asked to adhere to, if the request was approved.

Commr. Swartz explained that he had reviewed the manifest list for Shelley's services and noted that approximately 19,000 gallons were being pumped per month. He noted that, in the application, the applicant would be allowed to put 30,000 gallons per acre per year. Therefore, he felt that the applicant could conceivably put 240,000 gallons on eight acres. He stated that, by estimating the use of 200 acres, it would provide, at 30,000 gallons per acre per year, a six million gallon capacity.

Mr. Barker explained that the amount of property would allow the full capacity, but the idea was that it could be spread much thinner, and at a much lower rate, on the site in question, and therefore, reduce any potential problems from it.

Commr. Swartz explained that, in trying to deal with the septage that comes from Lake County, he saw the County providing enough for six million gallons. The Shelley's operation contracted with many septic tank haulers, and on the list that was given, only a couple of those were picking up in Lake County. He noted that, on the list of approved CUPs, there were a number of other haulers that were also using other locations. Commr. Swartz questioned that, if this was going to be approved, why would it not be approved on a significantly smaller site to handle that which was being generated from Lake County. Commr. Swartz stated that, in this case, you would reduce the size of the allowable area that you could land apply it, and the setbacks would be significantly increased. He noted that, in estimating the August statistics for Shelley's services, they would only need 240,000 gallons, which would be 85% of their haulings. If there was any more than that being put on the facility, it was not coming from Lake County.

Mr. Barker stated that, if the Board wanted to limit the quantity, he was sure that staff could work with the Shelley's to reduce the size of the application area. Mr. Barker noted that staff had been looking for a site where the applicant would not have to meet the maximum capacity of 30,000 gallons, but would be able to apply it in a much lower application rate over a larger area, and therefore, reduce the amount of problems that could take place at the higher levels.

Mr. Hoban noted that the land could be sold to some other person, and the CUP would run with the land.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board approved the request, he felt that it would be prudent in reducing the size, because he felt the potential would be the creation of a location that would be accommodating 12 times more than what the Shelley's needed for their Lake County hauling. He stated that he had voted for at least four CUPs for the disposal of septic and sludge, and he understood the need for it, and the need from the cities and the people in the audience. Commr. Swartz felt that he may disagree with some of the audience's concerns, in terms of environmental fears, but he did feel the audience was right when it came to everything working just right. Commr. Swartz stated that he applauded and commended Ms. Shelley for her means of checks and balances for her facility, but he did not feel they were the checks and balances that would lend him piece of mind on property nearby. He stated that, as expressed by staff on numerous occasions, and most recently, during the budget time, the County did not have the adequate staff to really enforce and ensure compliance of CUPs. He believed that it would have some adverse effect on nearby property, not necessarily an environmental impact, but if people were trying to sell their property across the street from an existing septage field, it was not going to be conducive. Commr. Swartz stated that what was being proposed was not compatible with the existing nature of the neighborhoods that the Board had allowed over the years through the lot split process. He stated that he did not accept staff's opinion that it did not create any adverse effect, and he believed that it was not compatible with the existing and planned nature of the neighborhood. He noted that the request was in his district, and he felt there were other alternatives, including the applicant trying to work with the larger CUPs that were in existence.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, as long there were septic tanks, the County was going to have to allow for some type of areas to handle the residue. He stated that the County's permitting process was as stringent as anywhere in the State, and staff had indidicated that this was a suitable site. He further stated that he did not have problems with condensing the site, but he did feel that this would be a resolution that would answer some of the concerns of the neighborhood, but it would still allow the site. Commr. Cadwell explained that he understood what staff had been trying to do with the larger site, so that there would not be a concentrated effort on smaller sites, and stated that he would like to see the Board to do something to approve the site, even if it was scaled down to a smaller site to allow larger buffers.

Commr. Good stated that his major problem was with the application rate and the number of acres, because he felt it was too large, and he could not approve the CUP being that big, but in terms of meeting today's needs, he would be willing to support a lower application rate, or less acreage, however it could be addressed, which would mandate a greater buffer, and with hopes of internalizing the spread fields.

Mr. Hoban referred to Page 2, Lines 17-25, of the proposed CUP and noted that there was a larger buffer, from both the private property line, and public right-of-way, and it also specified the setbacks from wells.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if he understood what the Board was saying, and if the majority of the Board today was going to approve the request, the first suggestion he would make would be to eliminate Field 1; Field 2 yields 41 acres; Field 3 yields 27 acres. The balance around the racetrack would be 30-40 acres. He suggested that, if the Board wanted to approve it, with some more restricted acreage and/or disposal allowance and additional buffers, the place to start would be Field 1.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to approve CUP#95/6/4-3, with the elimination of Field 1 from the site plan.

Mr. Hoban questioned whether Commr. Cadwell would also recommend the County Attorney's proposal to add the unity of title language from the staff report, to the Ordinance.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would include in his motion the County Attorney's proposal, as presented by Mr. Hoban.

Commr. Good questioned whether the motion could also include decreasing Field 2 along the dirt road, which was the other wetland section.

Discussion occurred regarding the elimination of Field 1, which would prevent anything from touching CR 48, and would allow an additional 500 feet from the homes.

Commr. Swartz suggested placing a line that was tangent to the two "Rs" shown on the western border, as indicated on the site plan.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would include the suggestion made by Commr. Swartz in his motion.

There being no member of the Board to second the motion, Commr. Good passed the gavel to Commr. Swartz and seconded the motion for discussion.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the motion was to approve CUP#95/6/4-3, with the understanding that it included all of the conditions that were in the Ordinance, but it eliminated the land area considered a Field 1, which was the land area on the south of the property, and along the northwest side of CR 48 as it goes to the northeast, and it would eliminate the land along the eastern portion essentially on the line that was tangent of those two "Rs", and that it included the language regarding the unity of title, as requested by Mr. Hoban.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he had already given his reasons for not being able to support the motion, but he appreciated the Board reducing the area and providing some additional setback. He felt that the Board should be looking for additional sites, or better utilization, of the existing sites. As he had indicated earlier, and as he indicated was his reason for voting against the motion, it would have some undue adverse effect, and it was not compatible.

Commr. Good stated that he would be supporting the request, because the need was there, even though it may not be the popular choice, but he felt it was the right choice. He stated that it was trying to address a problem being faced by the County, and the need for disposal of septage, and also, in the review process, this particular application was reviewed by staff to fit with the land use codes and the Land Use Plan in designation for the properties. His decision was also founded on Commr. Cadwell's comments for the reduction of potential impacts, and the increase in setbacks from the County maintained road, by pulling this type of operation off of the highway, but still making it a realistic agricultural use of the property.

Commr. Swartz called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 2-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:35 p.m., the Commr. Good announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 3 p.m.

PETITION #36-95-2 - Ova Kelly, ETAL - A to CFD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that staff was recommending denial of the request. He noted the following policies to the Comprehensive Plan, which were reasons to base the decision for denial: Policy 1-1.6; Policy 1-1.15; Policy 1-5.5; Policy 1-12.1; and Policy 5-7.6. Mr. Stubbs directed the Board's attention to Page 3 of the staff report, and the Negatives pertaining to Neighborhood cohesiveness; Functionally integrated land uses; and Transportation. He explained that the site was located in an area along Johns Lake Road, which was basically an area of ranchettes. He stated that cases like churches, day care centers, etc., that could be classified as CFD, were bordering on commercial uses. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was trying to place them at intersections rather than putting them in the middle of a block, which was one of the primary reasons for the denial of this request, and it being considered as incompatible. Mr. Stubbs stated that a CFD was compatible with almost anywhere in the County, but staff would like to cite them in areas where, if they do grow, it would not cause as much of a traffic problem at the location, or at the intersection of Hancock Road and Johns Lake Road. He noted a letter received from the City of Leesburg regarding utilities, and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval for this location for the site.

Discussion occurred regarding the actual location of the site, which was behind a sand mine.

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

Reverend A. B. Collins was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Reverend Collins addressed the Board and testified that this was the best possible place for a church to get the most exposure and the least amount of traffic, but due to the fact that the church was small and its finances were small, it needed to be in an area where it could be a blessing to a community. He discussed the location of the property and stated that no one had objected at the last meeting. Reverend Collins discussed the plans developed by the engineer for a 32 x 80 foot building and noted that the pastorium was not part of the site plan.

Commr. Swartz stated that the request was parallel to a recent rezoning request for a church in a location very similar to what was being proposed, even though it was in a different area of the County. He stated that, while it might not be a problem in the beginning, being in between two mines, that area was going to continue to be mined, and he believed staff had analyzed it, and the recommendation was consistent with the Board's previous action on a similar case.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he had voted against the other request that came before the Board. He stated that, with one parcel being between the proposed location and the mine, it gave him a little more reason to try and find some way to approve the request.

Commr. Good stated that he had some safety concerns with it being that close to the mine, and with the structural integrity of the geology of the area.

Reverend Collins stated that he had already approached the City of Clermont, and it can give him water immediately, and he would be willing to sign an affidavit stating that, as soon as sewer services became available, the church would hook up to them, so there would be no problem with the water, or the sewer.

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

Commr. Cadwell reiterated his comments and stated that he had voted against the other church, because it was strictly a residential community. The sand mine, being where it was located, gave the Board a different nature to the community, and he did not see this as a detriment to this particular area, mainly because of the location of the mine.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the mine to the west of the property in question, addressed the Board and explained that the mining was complete, and reclamation was taking place on the site.

Commr. Good explained that he had concerns about the mine and the location of the church, and he would follow staff's recommendation, because he was not sure this would be compatible.

Commr. Good passed the gavel to Commr. Cadwell and made a motion to approve to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District, to establish a church facility.

Commr. Swartz seconded the District Commissioner's motion to deny the request.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that staff's recommendation presented the reasons why he supported the motion. It was consistent with the previous request. He stated that the staff recommendation outlined what made it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and he supported the motion for that reason.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion. The motion was carried by a 2-1 vote, with Commr. Cadwell voting "no".

PETITION #34-95-5 - Frank Skinner - A to R-1

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that the applicant was proposing to sub-divide the property into two tracts utilizing the existing lot split process. He stated that staff had no objection to rezoning the property to R-1. Due to the fact that a mobile home currently existed on the site, staff had recommended that the applicant be granted a CUP for care of the infirm. The applicant had made a request to be placed on the June agenda for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and subsequently withdrew that request and reapplied for rezoning. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was unaware, at that time, the existing residence was a manufactured home. As a condition of approval, the applicant and any successor shall adhere to those conditions as outlined in the proposed Ordinance. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the request, with the Ordinance being amended to include Section 3.11.04 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) regarding "non-conforming uses". Mr. Stubbs stated that there was a Physician's Affidavit in the backup regarding this issue, and a Plat of Survey. Mr. Stubbs noted that there was opposition in the audience today regarding the rezoning, the acreage, and having the ability to split the property in half.

Mr. Hoban stated that the Ordinance was prepared, in the backup, in making it abundantly clear to the applicant that the mobile home, if it burned down, or was removed, would have to be replaced with a conventional home.

Commr. Swartz questioned the appropriateness of a rezoning that created a non-conforming use.

Mr. Stubbs explained that staff had gone forward with the request, because it had come to staff in June, but was withdrawn, so it had never been presented to the Board, and since staff was uncertain with the request, it felt that, as long as the applicant was on notice that, if the mobile home burned, it would not be zoned for mobile homes, and could not be replaced with one, and it would be brought to the Board for consideration.

Mr. Hoban explained that initially the applicant had made a request for a CUP for the care of the infirm, so the Affidavit was submitted, which was immaterial at this time.

Mr. Stubbs noted that the sketch of the survey was submitted by the opposition, and not by the applicant.

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

Mr. Frank Skinner was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Skinner addressed the Board and explained that the request had been made, so that Ms. Victoria Langdale could build a house on the corner of the lot and take care of him in his old age and take care of his place. Mr. Skinner stated that two people were in opposition to the request, and both of them were his sisters. He explained how he had raised Ms. Langdale as his own child, and how he had considered her as part of his family. Mr. Skinner explained that he had a licensed surveyor to survey his property, and he told him not to survey the marsh, but to put the landmarks on the high and dry land. He stated that approximately four acres were surveyed, and they now had a fence around them. Mr. Skinner stated that he understood that, if the mobile home burned, it could not be replaced with a mobile home, and he would abide by all regulations. He referred to a letter he had received from the County regarding the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide 40 feet from the center line of Goose Prairie Road. Mr. Skinner requested that this be deleted, because there was no right-of-way on Goose Prairie Road from CR 452 to Lisbon.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Mr. Skinner's sisters, addressed the Board and discussed a hunnicutt from Official Book 7 of Lake County pertaining to the zoning of the property in question. Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Skinner about the location of his property, in relation to the surrounding property, which included the property owned by his sisters.

Mr. Skinner responded to Mr. Richey's questions by stating that he had withdrawn his request for a CUP earlier in the year, because Ms. Langdale was not a blood relative, and therefore, he did not meet the criteria of the CUP.

Mr. Richey discussed with Mr. Skinner the development of the adjacent properties and their densities, based on the hunnicutt and

he presented the Plat of Survey for Mr. Skinner to review, which was dated April 18, 1979. Mr. Richey explained that Mr. Skinner had talked about the fact that he had four acres of uplands, which the survey represented, and if the total tract was less than five acres, it would be very difficult to get four acres of uplands on this tract, no matter how you would divide it.

Ms. Victoria Langdale was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Langdale explained that the man who was going to build the house came to the property, which she noted was not quite an acre, and he told her that there was more than enough land to build the house. She stated that there was more land above the marsh than what was being shown on the hunnicutt.

Mr. Stubbs explained that, when the applicant comes through the lot split process, even if the Board rezoned the property, and there was not enough land to make one acre, the applicant would not get a lot split. He noted that there had not been a survey made at this time.

Mr. Richey noted that around Goose Prairie Road, the land was zoned agriculture, and there was no property zoned anything else in this area.

Mr. Stubbs explained that there was no lot that was less than a two acre tract, within the hunnicutt map, that was contiguous to the property, or in the neighborhood of the property in question. Mr. Stubbs noted that the information supplied indicated a four acre tract, which he could not see as being possible. He noted that there was nothing independent, or standing on its own, as being less than two acres on the hunnicutt in this area where the request was being made for the rezoning. Mr. Stubbs noted that one acre tracts were compatible to two acre tracts.

Mr. Richey submitted the Plat of Survey, as presented in the backup material, which was entered and marked as Opposition's Exhibit A. Mr. Richey submitted a copy of the Plat of Survey signed by A. E. Sessions on August 1, 1995 indicating the acreage that was not in the marsh, which was between 1.5 and 1.8 acres, which was entered and marked as the Opposition's Exhibit B.

Mr. Richey stated that, after reviewing the Plat of Survey, there were approximately two acres of usable land, based on Mr. Session's determination. He stated that there was nothing in this area, based on the hunnicutt, that was anywhere close to allowing under two acre lots, because they were all two acres or greater. Mr. Richey stated that the Board had never passed a zoning case and created a non-conforming use. He stated that it was incompatible with the neighborhood, because it was completely surrounded by agriculture property. Mr. Richey stated that the Board had never allowed anyone to go out, and in the midst of every rural area, create a one acre tract, as this was being proposed, and he suggested that it would be premature to do this, because there were some indigenous environmental factors that had to do with this prairie, and the uplands portion of the five acre tract. Mr. Richey stated that he had filed a Notice of Appearance, which sets forth who he represented.

Discussion occurred regarding the area in question being in a rural village.

Mr. Richey stated that he was troubled that a non-conforming use would be created, because this piece of property, which was surrounded by agriculture and agriculture zoning, even if it was in a rural village, would not be compatible to be rezoned to one dwelling unit per acre. He suggested that the indigenous environmental factor of the marsh would need to have some sensitivity by the Board, and he requested that the Board not rezone this piece of property. He further suggested that, at the most, the Board could rezone the five acres to AR, which would be compatible with the agriculture in the area.

Ms. Langdale addressed the Board and stated that her neighbor had very little property, and he had built a house on his property, and the piece of property that Mr. Skinner wanted to give to her was the size of his whole lot. She noted that the property was zoned agriculture, but Mr. Skinner was not growing anything on it.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had driven the area where the property in question was located, and there was very little question that the property was compatible with the whole neighborhood.

Commr. Swartz stated that, because Commr. Cadwell knew the area better than he knew it, he would yield to the District Commissioner's decision.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential) to split the parcel into two tracts utilizing the lot split process and establishing a homesite on the new parcel with the Ordinance being amended to include Section 3.11.04 of the Land Development Regulations regarding "non-conforming uses".

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the applicant would have to go through the lot split process, and if he was not successful with the lot split, he would be left with a non-conforming use, therefore, he would like the property to go back to agriculture.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to amend the original motion to include a Developer's Agreement that would state, if the applicant was not able to get a lot split, the property would revert back to the original agriculture zoning.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to amend the original motion, which was carried by a 3-0 vote.

The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, as amended, which was carried by a 3-0 vote.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board and explained that staff had received a letter from Mr. J. Bronson Monteith, Aviation, Seaport & Intermodal Analyst, Department of Transportation (DOT), as attached to the backup material, and in the Notice, there was a clause that stated the following: "This determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinances, laws or regulations of any other governmental body or agency." Mr. Stubbs stated that he had consulted with Mr. Lacy Moore in Tallahassee regarding the seaplane base for Mr. Oliver P. Kennedy on Lake Lucy, and he had informed him that the County had no rights over the waters of the State. Mr. Stubbs explained that, when someone exits his plane and walks to his land, the County had the ability to rezone that site as a base. Mr. Stubbs stated that he did not feel that an individual should be able to get a State permit first, and that staff had a specific objection to this request. He further stated that he would like to write a letter, for the Chairman's signature, stating that the County was requesting an Administrative Hearing, under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that he hoped the County would be able, at a minimum, to file in opposition, and reach an agreement with the party, and that he would come through the rezoning process.

It was noted that staff had until August 14, 1995, to respond to the Notice.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that Commr. Gerber had requested that he draft a resolution supporting efforts being made to stop the seaplane base. He discussed this with Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, who felt that the resolution would not have the appropriate affect, and to request an Administrative Hearing.

Mr. Hoban suggested that the Board request the Administrative Hearing, with staff coming back to the Board, at the next Board meeting, with recommendations.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board authorized staff to prepare the necessary documents for the Chairman's signature, or the Vice Chairman's signature, if she was not available, to protect the County's rights under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, Administrative Hearing.

Mr. Hoban noted that the document would most likely be signed by the Senior Assistant County Attorney, as a court pleading, as opposed to a resolution.



REPORTS - COMMISSIONER SWARTZ - DISTRICT 3

COMMITTEES/APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Alton Roane to the Board of Adjustments, for District 3.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.



RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\8-8-95\9-6-95