The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, at 9 a.m., in the Board Meeting Room, Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Rhonda G. Gerber; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Commissioners not present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson. Staff members present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Good stated that, under Commissioner's business, he would be making his appointment to the Charter Development Committee.

It was noted that this item did not have to be added to the agenda for action, because such issues could be brought up under each individual Commissioner's business.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Tabs 6 and 7, under public hearings, could not be heard today. He noted that Tab 6 had not been advertised at all, and Tab 7 had a error in the advertisement, which had been made by the paper, and the ordinance had to be readvertised. He further noted that the ordinances that were being pulled would be heard on May 7, 1996, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved to postpone the public hearings, as listed in Tabs 6 and 7, until May 7, 1996.

Commr. Cadwell noted that the item pertaining to Deer Island Properties, Ltd., as listed on Addendum No. 1, III. A. 1., would be heard before the rezoning cases.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested that Tabs 3 and 4 be withdrawn from the County Manager's Consent Agenda, on the regular agenda.

Commr. Swartz requested that Tabs 3 and 4, under I. A., County Manager's Consent Agenda, Addendum No. 1, be pulled for discussion.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, explained that it was only the first Statutory Warranty Deed listed on the regular agenda that needed to be withdrawn, and the Board could approve the other three deeds.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the County Manager's Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 and 2, on the regular agenda, and Tab 4, with the exception of Statutory Warranty Deed #3-3840; and on Addendum No. 1, Items 1 and 2 under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, for the following requests:

Public Services/Subdivisions

Request for acceptance of Final Plat for Park Ridge on Lake Minneola, First Addition - Commissioner District 2.

Deeds/Public Services/Subdivisions/Roads-County & State

Request for approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:

Deed No.: 977

Applicant: Norman J. Green and Dorothy Green, his wife

Location: Lot 112, Third Addition to Three Lakes Sub., Section 15-18-26; Dona Vista area

Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from the centerline of Turner Dr. #5-6764

Deeds/Roads-County & State

Statutory Warranty:

Rosalie M. Matthews

East Dewey Robbins #2/3-2729

William C. Rankin

Lake Seneca #4-5983

Quit Claim:

Montcler Groves, Inc.

East Dewey Robbins #2/3-2729

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Resolutions/County Manager

Request for approval and execution of Proclamation 1996-65 declaring the week of April 21 through April 27 as Professional Secretaries Week in Lake County.

County Manager/Private Industry Council

Request for approval of Job Training Partnership Act Training and Employment Plan for Region 12.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COUNTY ATTORNEY/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, advised the Board that, even though the County had not received a summons, an adversary proceeding had been filed against Lake County, in bankruptcy court in Orlando, with reference to the Deer Island Properties, Ltd. He explained that a confirmation plan had been proposed, which would result in the sale of substantially all of the assets of the development to a new development firm, which would then proceed with the development of the project. Staff met with the proposed purchasers and reviewed some of the issues pertaining to Lake County, and the only issue remaining was how the golf course could be used. Currently the golf course was being used, and they were allowing the public to play, but the County's position was that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) did not allow public play at the golf course, which created a problem for the proposed purchasers. Mr. Minkoff stated that the suit alleges two grounds, as follows: 1) it asks the court to interpret the PUD; and 2) there is a estoppel argument where the debtor, in this case, claims that it was told by some County officials that it would be able to use the course for public play. The proposed purchasers would like to sit and negotiate a settlement with the County, and the residents in the area. He stated that the trial date had been scheduled for June. Mr. Minkoff requested authority to retain bankruptcy counsel, which would be approximately $200-250 per hour, if he determined that it was necessary; and authority to sit down with the debtor and the proposed purchasers, as well as the residents, to see if something could be worked out, which everybody could buy into, which could be brought back to the Board. Mr. Minkoff stated that, before the Board could approve it, there would have to be a quasi-judicial hearing, to take steps to notify at least everybody that had been notified in the original zoning case.

Commr. Swartz felt that the request being made by Mr. Minkoff was the proper course of action to be taken by the County. He stated that he had read a portion of the complaint that had been filed and, in regards to the first issue presented by Mr. Minkoff, he felt it was without merit, and he was very familiar with what the intent was with regard to the golf course. He further stated that he was troubled by the second issue where the Deer Island partners had alleged that Lake County had given them the assurance that the language of the Ordinance would be honored, to permit the utilization of temporary outside memberships to the public. Commr. Swartz stated that the language in the Ordinance, as well as in the records of the meetings, was clear.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to authorize the County Attorney to engage a bankruptcy attorney to prepare to defend the Deer Island Properties, Ltd. v. Lake County lawsuit, and to discuss possible ways to resolve it at the same time.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that, in the course of discussion, if the County was not going to go forward and fully defend, he wanted to know what circumstances and assurances had been given.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposed purchasers, on a permanent basis, did not want to change the issue with the golf course. They had made a request to be given a period of time, for the arrangement that had been in affect, to continue, until they had started the bankruptcy procedure. Should staff get to the stage where something could be presented to the Board, a public hearing would be called, and the outgrowth would be a stipulated judgment in bankruptcy court, which would amend the PUD through court action. He addressed the estoppel issue and stated that, through the discovery process, the County should be able to determine the allegations of estoppel and be able to present those to the Board.

Commr. Swartz commended Ms. Whittle and Mr. Minkoff for their review of the issue.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONINGS

Case: PH#11-96-5 HM to CFD Florida Regional EMS, Inc.

Tracking No.#18-96-CFD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Planning and Development, presented the case to the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, were recommending approval of the request to rezone to CFD (Community Facility District), for a regional EMS station in the Altoona area. It was noted that there were no letters in support, or in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz questioned the language on Page 2 of the Ordinance, Item 1. Terms: A. Land Uses, which stated the following: "Use of the site shall be limited to medical ambulatory facility and accessory uses related thereto in association with Florida Regional EMS, Inc."

Ms. Farrell stated that the language could be changed from "medical ambulatory facility" to "ambulance station".

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

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from HM (Heavy Industrial) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a regional EMS Station in the Altoona area, which would include the recommended change to the language.

Case: #9-96-5 R-1 and C-2 to C-2 J. J. Linforth

Ruth Nagem, Realtor - Tracking No. #19-96-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Planning and Development, presented the case to the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, were recommending approval of the request to rezone to C-2 (Community Commercial), to establish office uses within the existing structure. Ms. Farrell explained that the request would allow the whole parcel to be zoned C-2, and there were no letters in support, or in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz discussed the fact that staff was relying on the property being located in a community commercial future land use node, which had been designated on the Land Use Plan by a "red" circle. He explained that no one had designated whether the property in or out of the circle would be community commercial. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan talked about other requirements being met, and Commr. Swartz questioned how the existing zoning, or the proposed zoning, met the locational criteria.

Ms. Farrell explained that staff was comfortable with the appropriate distance from the intersection with the current amount of commercial zoning in the area, and with some of the development trends in this area.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was concerned about the noise, because of the amount of people that lived across the street.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, addressed the Board and explained that Tracy Avenue was paved and was more of a driveway than a street.

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

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) and C-2 (Community Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial), to establish office uses within the existing structure.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he would vote against the motion, one reason being C-2 zoning, and another being that the whole purpose of locational commercial criteria was to avoid the stripping of the highways.

Commr. Good felt that the request would be moving commercial off of the highways, and therefore, he was supporting the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no", and Commr. Hanson was not present for the meeting.

Case: #12-96-5 R-1 to CP with C-1 & C-2 Joe Fechtel

and Vincent J. Fechtel, Jr.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Planning and Development, presented the case to the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, were recommending approval of the request to rezone to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial), to include an automotive dealership. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant had been placed on notice that he could run into some concurrency problems in the future and would probably need a complete traffic study when he went through the site plan review. She stated that the applicant had come to a pre-submittal with the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Ms. Farrell noted the layout of the property, which was in the backup material, and stated that the applicant would be providing a cross access easement from the main entrance to the east and west property lines.

It was noted that the level of service was below the County's level of service standards, and the applicant would be moving forward with the rezoning and then would be dealing with the County's Transportation Engineer.

Commr. Swartz questioned the language on Page 4, d. under Commercial Corridors, which stated the following: "Shall not degrade the proper functioning of the adjacent roads below the established levels of service."

Ms. Farrell noted that the applicant had not presented a specific use, or a traffic analysis.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicants were present in the audience, and there was no one present who wished to speak in opposition to the request. It was further noted that Mr. Steve Richey was present in favor of the application for rezoning.

Commr. Gerber stated that she had talked to the County Attorney about Mr. Bob Cyrus, Attorney, who was present representing the applicant, and the fact that he had represented her family on business from time to time, and it was determined that she would have no problem participating in the issue.

Mr. Bob Cyrus, Attorney representing the owner of the property, addressed the Board to discuss the request. Mr. Cyrus stated that the applicant was not asking to do anything different with the property, as far as usage, that could not already be done. The request for CP would allow utilization of the property to its maximum potential. The applicant was well aware of the requirements for concurrency and traffic, which would be dealt with when the site plan was submitted. Any potential buyer would be aware of the fact that he would have to have a site plan approval to do anything with the property. Mr. Cyrus stated that, in talking with the adjoining property owners, they were in favor of the request. He described the location of the residential property, and the proposed retention area.

Mr. Steve Richey addressed the Board and stated that he represented John and Sherry McCloud, who were property owners that lived in a residential area behind the site in question. The McCloud's supported the idea of the rezoning, and the area described that was going to be utilized for water retention, in either commercial or residential, was found to be acceptable to them. They supported the unified site plan, from a neighborhood perspective, especially since it showed access to the Lakes Boulevard intersection, which was signalized now. Mr. Richey stated that he had been requested by Mr. Fechtel, after the Planning and Zoning meeting, to evaluate the concurrency elements, based on the new impact fee ordinances, and he had initiated a full study of the traffic analysis in this area. He stated that they had looked at captured rates of existing traffic versus generation of new traffic for purposes of users of that site, and the applicant was aware that it would have to be marketed for a captured type user, and not a generator of new traffic. Mr. Richey referred to the conceptual site plan, which had been shown to him, and reviewed the issues he had just highlighted for the Board.

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

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, explained how the area being discussed would be included in the proposed rails/ trails plans.

Commr. Swartz stated that the applicant could possibly meet some of the open space requirements through part of the trail that might fit into the storm water retention. He stated that this was planned commercial, with no plan, and the purpose of CP zoning, or MP zoning for planned industrial, or planned unit developments, was to have a plan. Commr. Swartz stated that he was in favor of approving the request to CP without uses, and having it brought back to the Board when either a use, or a site plan, was available. He noted that the drawing prepared by Walling Engineering was not a site plan.

Mr. Cyrus felt that, by approving the request as submitted today, all plans would then be submitted to staff, who would have the authority to make the decisions based on the rules currently in place, or staff would give direction to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and back to the Board. He noted that the property could be used for C-1 and C-2 uses, as it was currently zoned, with the exception of the residential strip.

Mr. Vincent Fechtel, Jr., applicant, addressed the Board and explained how long he had owned the property and how he had always anticipated C-2 uses. He explained that the application was being made solely because of the wording of the Code and the requirement for green space, and he had not realized that, each time a parcel was sold, he would have to come back and get a variance.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the applicant already had C-2 uses, and by approving the request today, the County would allow the applicant to have the ability to take care of some access management and storm water problems on a whole site basis, and this would be a better piece of property than what the applicant had now.

Commr. Good stated that he had major concerns about the concurrency on this particular roadway. He stated that it was a signalized access point, and he felt that potentially it moved towards a better utilization of property. He further stated that he would be much more comfortable seeing a site plan for planned commercial, and he was of the opinion that this was part of the process. Commr. Good stated that he would be more comfortable with a site plan, but he could support the rezoning, as it was being presented today. He felt that the Board should look more seriously when considering planned commercial, or planned industrial, to see whether there was a site plan available for the Board to review.

Commr. Swartz referred to the Code and stated that, when the Board rezoned something to CP, particularly when it was adjacent to residential, when it was related to a highway that was already below the level of service standards, and when it was a piece of property that was odd shaped that currently had residential as a part of it, the site plan was a very important part of the approval process.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, informed the Board that staff had recommended CP with C-2 uses to include a "car dealership".

Commr. Swartz made a motion to approve CP zoning with C-1 and C-2 uses, with the requirement that the site plan come back before this Board for approval.

The motion died for the lack of a second.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve CP zoning with C-1 and C-2 uses, and to ask staff to vigorously ensure that all of the important requirements of the site plan review be met prior to approval of those site plans.

Under discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff questioned whether the motion included the applicant's request to allow vehicular sales as a C-1 or C-2 use.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the motion was the recommendation of staff, as reported, to rezone from R-1 and C-2, to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses, which would not include vehicular sales. Commr. Swartz explained that the CP, if it included automotive sales, would be something that would require a conditional use permit today, and there was no site plan for the Board, and no advertising that this was going to be a car dealership.

Commr. Good stated that he would support the motion indicating that the Board would rezone the property to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses, which currently exist today, and to allow for the individual parcelling out of the parcel and the collectivization of the 30 percent green space. He stated that he was not ready to agree with the car dealership without seeing the CUP during the initial phase of rezoning.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:18 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.

Case: CUP#96/4/1-4 A for a Caretaker's Residence

Melanie Lanier - Tracking No.#21-96-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Planning and Development, presented the case to the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, were recommending approval of the request for a caretaker's residence in A for an existing and operating agricultural business (fernery). She stated that the applicant was present in the audience. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant was in the Wekiva River Protection Area, and there were not letters in support, or in opposition to the request.

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

Ms. Lanier addressed the Board an explained the proposed location of the new mobile home.

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

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a caretakers residence in A for an existing and operating agricultural business (fernery).

PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCES - SETBACKS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed setback ordinance on the floor, by title only, as follows:

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER III ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 3.02.05 SETBACKS, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS A, B. AND C, ADDING SUBSECTION D - AVERAGE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE WHICH ALLOWS THE USE OF AVERAGE SETBACKS IN SOME INSTANCES, ADDING SUBSECTION E - SURFACE WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS, ADDING SUBSECTION F - DOCKS, ADDING SUBSECTION G - LIVESTOCK BUILDINGS, RENUMBERING THE SECTIONS ON VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND FENCES AND DELETING SECTION F - WETLANDS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, presented the Board with a proposed language change to Section D of the Ordinance on setbacks.

Commr. Cadwell 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. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved Ordinance 1996-40, as read by title only, and as reflected under Tab 5, with the change to Section D, Average Front Setbacks, as presented by staff.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

PUBLIC HEARING/TIMES CERTAIN

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the Settlement of Litigation in the Bradford v. Lake County court case. He stated that a mediation hearing was held, and the Board had authorized up to and including $20,000 to be offered. This amount was offered by the County, and it was not accepted, and the School Board had settled for a sum slightly higher than $20,000. After mediation, the plaintiffs indicated that they would settle for $20,000, and Mr. Minkoff requested that the Board approve the settlement amount of $20,000.

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

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the Settlement of Litigation in the Bradford v. Lake County case, in the amount of $20,000.

Mr. Minkoff directed the Clerk to release the transcript from the Bradford case and attach it to the minutes of this meeting.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director of Development Regulations Services, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval to advertise proposed changes to the Lake County Code, Appendix E., Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Chapter VI, Resource Protection Standards 6.06.01.F.2. Mr. Bergmann noted the list of attached firms who had been sent a copy of the proposed LDR change for their review and comments. Mr. Bergmann stated that changes would be made to the exemption section of the General Provisions of Mining, Section 6.06.01. The change was specifically made to 2. a. 1., as follows: "The total amount of material removed off site is not greater than two-hundred percent (200%) of the storm water retention/detention volume."

Mr. Allen Hewitt, Water Resource Specialist, addressed the Board and stated that the change had been sent to approximately 19 firms, with five responses being received. Those changes were incorporated and sent back to the five respondents, and then approximately four responses were received. The final changes were also incorporated into the material.

Discussion occurred as to whether the language referred to in 2. a. 1 was explicit enough, so that everyone would know it was storm water related.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff stated that the language did not specifically say storm water pond, but it did say that you could only remove 200% of the volume, whether it came from another part of the site, with a pond being dug somewhere else. Mr. Minkoff explained that the exemption being changed in Number 2 had to do with the bona fide commercial and industrial construction, where there had been no standards to approve, and you were able to remove as much as you wanted to, as long as it was bona fide construction.

Commr. Swartz questioned why notification that the criteria had exceeded the 200%, or excavation was not storm water related, and was not being included at the construction, or building permit approval point and made a part of the review process.

Mr. Minkoff explained that in Item a., the County Manager would have written notice during construction, and in b., the County Manager would actually give written approval, and therefore, the County would be notified under either of the scenarios.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the initial notification and review should take place during the actual review of the construction plans, or site plan approval.

Mr. Minkoff stated that it required, in the beginning of Item 2., that construction approval, or a building permit must be obtained.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if it was a part of the review process to find out how much overburden was being removed and whether it met the criteria, it should be a part of the original site plan and/or construction plan approval, so that there would be no question.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board and explained the storm water review process, and the information that was provided to staff, as part of the storm water calculations.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff make it explicit that, during the construction plan and/or site plan review process, if the thresholds were going to be exceeded in either way, the applicant would be required to provide the County with this information.

Mr. Minkoff explained that it was illegal in Lake County to remove any excess overburden, unless you either obtained a mining site plan, or operating permit, or you fit one of the exemptions. Commr. Swartz suggested adding some language that would indicate that this type of information would be required as part of the construction plans and/or site plan approval.

Mr. Minkoff stated that it would not be appropriate to add such language in this particular instance, and the language may already be in the site plan portions of the ordinance, but that certainly the County would have the authority to ask any developer if he were moving any excess overburden. He did not feel that this type of change was needed in this ordinance.

Mr. Griffey suggested the following change to the language in Item 2. a. 1.: "minimum storm water retention/detention volume".

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved to advertise proposed changes to the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations Chapter VI, Resource Protection Standards 6.06.01.F.2, with the change to include the minimum required storm water, as stated by Mr. Griffey, and for staff to put procedures in place that would ensure the changes.

OTHER BUSINESS

Osprey Heights PUD - Vested Rights Issued 3/20/96

The Board acknowledged receipt of the following vested rights determinations:

As of March 20, 1996, Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with the Osprey Heights Planned Unit Development. Lake County will not deny the owner of the PUD (Ordinance 55-87), acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the opportunity to complete the project in accordance with the terms contained in Ordinance 55-87, subject to the conditions of Ordinance 55-87. Also, Lake County will not deny the owner of Osprey Heights PUD, acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the right to develop or continue development of the property for purposes of the Concurrency Management System adopted by Lake County.

Notwithstanding vested rights associated with the Osprey Heights PUD, the developer shall not be relieved from paying any fees associated with any development order or development permit issued by Lake County, or any fees associated with the concurrency management system adopted by Lake County.

For the purpose of this vested rights determination, acting in good faith shall mean that physical development must commence within one (1) year from the date of this vested rights determination, and that a final plat has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and recorded in the public records of Lake County, Florida, for all development associated with Ordinance 55-87 within five (5) years from the date of this vested rights determination.

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the Settlement Agreement between R. Lance Walker and lake County. Mr. Minkoff stated this particular issue had a special master proceeding that was held on April 8, 1996, and the County staff felt that this project should not have been in a special master proceeding. It was determined that the Planned Unit Development (PUD), that had been approved by the County, was in compliance with the current Lake County Comprehensive Plan, after reviewing it from all aspects of the Plan. Mr. Minkoff noted that the Board, during the last several months, had approved a PUD similar to this one, for a different property owner. He stated that staff made a concession that the concurrency would not be required to be measured for three years, and because the PUD currently meets concurrency, the County felt that the concurrency agreement was not a concession.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between R. Lance Walker and Lake County.

Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that there were five other special master proceedings all of which involved vesting. He stated that he had not interpreted the special master proceeding to allow closed door sessions of the Board, so staff, in their negotiation, was working without being able to get Board input during the mediation process. He explained that the County was taking the position that it denied vesting.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of the Special Master Agreement between Lake County, Owner (Jimmy D. Crawford) and Special Master (Christopher C. Ford, Ford & Associates), for the Midway Mobile Home Park case.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the Special Master Agreement between Lake County, Owner, and Special Master, as stated above.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COMMISSIONERS/PROPERTY APPRAISER

Commr. Gerber declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion or vote on the issue relating to the payment of attorney fees to represent her in a complaint that had been filed with the Florida Ethics Commission.

Commr. Good made a motion to approve the request for payment of attorney fees, in the amount of $5,293.46, to Robert Williams for representation of an ethics complaint.

Commr. Swartz seconded the motion for discussion.

Commr. Good explained that fees would come from the Contingency Fund, and that the payment would come from the Property Appraiser's Legal Contingency budget, which was a part of the Board of County Commissioner's Contingency budget.

Commr. Swartz agreed to the additional language, as provided by Commr. Good, which would be made a part of the motion.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board was certainly liable for the payment of fees, and they should be paid out of the Board's funds, and that he would like to see the fees paid out of the Board's Contingency Fund, which would be from the taxpayer's dollars.

Ms. Sue Whittle explained that there was no Legal Contingency Fund set up for the Property Appraiser. The funding for the Property Appraiser's legal contingency was being maintained in the Board's Contingency.

Commr. Swartz explained that the amount would reduce the overall Board's Contingency, of which $50,000 was initially allocated for the Property Appraiser's legal contingency.

Ms. Whittle stated that it had been a discussion and an understanding that the money would be maintained in the Board's contingencies rather than in the Property Appraiser's contingencies.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there was no account and no separate line item for legal fees for the Property Appraiser. He stated that attorney bills have been paid for Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, from the General Contingency Fund.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-0 vote, for the fees to be paid from the Contingency Fund. Commr. Gerber declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote, and Commr. Hanson was not present for the meeting.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Alvin Jackson, Assistant County Manager, addressed the Board to discuss two requests relating to Workforce Development.

The first issue discussed by the Board was the request for appointment of 15 members to the Lake/Sumter Service Delivery Area Board: twelve (12) from the private sector, and three (3) from the community based organizations.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the appointment of the following twelve (12) members to the Lake/Sumter Service Delivery Area Board, from the private sector:

Ed Bixby William E. Compton

Raymond Gilley P. Shannon Elswick

J. F. Nelson, Jr. Don D. Roberts

Tim Peters Elaine Williams

John B. Smith Glynn L. Wallace

Ray W. Richardson John Weed

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of the following three members to the Lake/Sumter Service Delivery Area Board, from the community based organizations:

Mehmet F. Baki Frances M. Jones

Leslie A. Little

The Board discussed the second item brought forth by Mr. Jackson, which was the request for approval of nominations to the Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board Region 12.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the following nominations to the Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board Region 12:

Ed Bixby P. Shannon Elswick

Don D. Roberts John Weed

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BIDS/ROAD PROJECTS/SUBDIVISIONS

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved to award a Neighborhood Revitalization Project No. 4-96 of the Hazzard Homestead Subdivision, Bid No. B-6-6-18, to Superior Asphalt Company, Inc., and approved to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $266,290.00 from the General Fund - Commissioner District 4.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2 p.m.

TIMES CERTAIN

WORKSHOP - US 441 Transportation Concurrency

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, and Ms. Maryann Bardon, Transportation Engineer, were present to give an overview of the US 441 Transportation Concurrency.

The Board discussed the following information with staff, which pertained to US 441 Transportation Concurrency, and asked questions regarding each topic:

Overview

Level of Service

Type of Facility and Measure of Effectiveness

LOS Analysis

Florida Department of Transportation's LOS Manual

Operational Analysis

Field Measurement

US 441 LOS Analysis

Management Techniques

Signal Optimization

Access Management

Options

No action was taken regarding the information provided by staff.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER GERBER - DISTRICT #1

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the execution of Resolution 1996-66 supporting House Bill 257 and Senate Bill 200 making it an act of child abuse to impregnate a child under 16 years of age.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT #2

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Hanson not being present for the meeting, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Marge Giacobe to the Charter Development Committee.

COMMITTEES/MEETINGS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the first Charter Development Committee had been scheduled for May 9, 1996, at 9 a.m., and noted that it would be a public meeting, so the Commissioners could attend.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT #5

COUNTY EMPLOYEES/RECREATION

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that the March of Dimes Walk America would be held Saturday, April 27, 1996, with everyone meeting at the Lake Square Mall Food Court at 7 a.m.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that the Board employee picnic would be held Sunday, April 28, 1996, at 12:30 p.m. in downtown Umatilla.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\4-23-96\4-30-96