The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 28, 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; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; and Catherine C. Hanson. Staff members present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested that Item I. A., under Economic Development, be removed from the County Manager's Consent Agenda and placed on the regular agenda for discussion.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Tabs 1 and 2, under the County Manager's Consent Agenda on the regular agenda, and Item I. B. under the County Manager's Consent Agenda on Addendum No. 1, for the following requests:

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development

Request for acceptance and execution of Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Godfrey Custom Homes, Inc. for the issuance of six building permits for models in Chelsea Park Subdivision prior to the acceptance and recordation of the Final Plat, development consists of 83 units in Sec. 14, Twp. 19S, Rng. 25E - Commissioner District 3.

Planning and Development/Ordinances

Request for approval to advertise a Public Hearing for an Ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the Lake County Code, Building and Construction.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Roads-County & State

Public Services

Request for approval to enter into an agreement with Warner Brothers to remove road building materials from Rosewood and Sumner access roads and staging areas in exchange for use of materials in extending the road.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the issue regarding Deer Island Partners, Ltd. vs. Lake County, Florida - Case No. 95-05168-6B1 - United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Florida, which had been scheduled for a public hearing. Mr. Minkoff presented a brief synopsis of the issue and noted that the Board had a copy of the Stipulation Agreement, which was a combination of the residents' negotiations, and the County's demands. He reviewed the Agreement with the Board, which contained language that would modify the Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow public play on the golf course for a period of five years, and it provided for the course to be run as a private club. Mr. Minkoff stated that there was an agreement by the proposed purchaser to make the traffic improvements, which had been reviewed by Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, and would require that most of them be done within 150 days, and it allowed them 18 months to do the major intersection changes. In addition, they would give to the County a Letter of Credit, or a Performance Bond, in the amount of $450,000, to guarantee that the improvements would be made. The proposed purchaser wanted to explore the feasibility of building a bridge to the Orange County side, and the 18 months would allow time for them to investigate whether such a bridge could be permitted and would be financially feasible. If it got to the point where they wanted to build it, the Agreement provided for them to come back to the Board and ask for a modification of the two major intersectional improvements, but a deletion, or change, of those would require Board approval. The Settlement Agreement was contingent upon confirmation of the organizational plan by the proposed purchasers; however, the Agreement provided that, should it fall through, the debtor would agree that the golf course language would include no public play, or daily play on the course. Mr. Minkoff noted that there had been approximately 30 to 35 residents present at the meetings that he had attended, with Mr. Carl Linstrom being the spokesperson. Mr. Linstrom had informed Mr. Minkoff that he could tell the Board that the residents were in favor of the settlement. Mr. Minkoff noted that the proposed purchasers were present in the audience, and if the Board took action on the Agreement today, it would then go to the bankruptcy court, if the other matters could be resolved.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the necessary signatures on the Settlement Agreement pertaining to Deer Island Partners, Ltd. vs. Lake County, Florida - Case No. 95-05168-6B1 - United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Florida.

REZONINGS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that individuals could be sworn in, on a case by case basis, as long as everyone in the audience understood that, if they preferred to have witnesses sworn, this should be announced at the beginning of the case.

It was noted that the following staff members were present for the rezoning hearings: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning & Development, Mr. Paul Bergmann, AICP, AIA Director, Development & Regulation Services, Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Development & Regulation Services; and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering.

CASE: BCC Variance PH#14-96-5 Five Oaks Partnership

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board and stated that this was a request for a variance to Section 9.05.05(B) of the County's Access Management Ordinance. He explained the location of the property and stated that a Winn Dixie shopping center, and an Eckerd drugstore, would be in the City of Eustis, and the development would be going through the site plan process for the City. The only approval needed from Lake County was a driveway connection permit, because of the access being proposed on County Road 44.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that no presented wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Mr. Steve Richey, representing Mr. Paul Resop, Trustee, and Five Oaks Partnership, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Stan Flack, who was the developer of the corner property, which was being developed for an Eckerd shopping center, was present for the discussion. He stated that there were two independent property owners, and he had met with three different governmental entities to try and develop a common access between the two property owners. Mr. Richey clarified that the applicant would be required to meet the County's new access management, which was being proposed to the Board today. It was noted that the detailed site plan had been presented to the City of Eustis, but it had been delayed and would be coming back for review in June, based on the action of the Board today.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of staff and approved a request for a variance of Section 9.05.05(B) "Minimum Connection Spacing and Median Openings - Other Access Management Techniques" driveway spacing section of the access management requirements for Five Oaks Partnership.

CASE: CUP #96/5/1-2 CUP in A Bertha L. Miller

Tracking No. #22-96-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the request would allow for the placement of a second mobile home on a five acre parcel for the care of an infirm - relative. She noted a letter in the backup material from the doctor, but staff was still waiting for the actual affidavit. Ms. Farrell stated that staff had no concerns, as far as land use issues, and there were no outstanding environmental concerns on the site. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Bertha Miller, applicant, and her sister, Erlene Gaskins, addressed the Board to explain the need for the second mobile home to be placed on the property. It was noted that Ms. Miller had cancer, and her sister interpreted her statements for the Board.

Ms. Wendy Brakefield addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that she lived next door to Ms. Miller, and she felt there were other options that could be considered, instead of moving another mobile home directly onto the property. She stated that there was an existing doublewide mobile home on the property, where Ms. Miller and her sister currently resided. She further stated that an area had been cleared for the mobile home, and it was directly in front of her property. She questioned why Ms. Miller could not place her mobile home on the other side of her five acres where there was plenty of property, instead of putting it right in front of her home. Ms. Brakefield discussed costs that she had incurred for the placement of a fence between her property and the property in question; other surrounding property that was for sale that could be purchased and be more of a permanent solution to the problem; executive homes being built because of the five acre zoning in this area; the possibility of opening up opportunities to others who would want a variance for the same type of situation; and how long it would take for someone to get medical service in this area. Ms. Brakefield stated she would still have a problem with a mobile home being placed at this location on the property, even if the buffer had been left in place, because she did not want to see this happen to the neighborhood. She had considered planting a tree buffer on her property, but she only had a ten foot entrance to her property, and the rest of it was wooded. She and her neighbor use an access road, and if she planted trees, there would be no way for him to get onto his property, and if she planted trees 20 feet in front of her house, she would have no front yard and would have to remove irrigation and landscaping.

Ms. Farrell explained that staff did not have a site plan at this time, so she did not know where the mobile home would be located. She stated that staff could request additional buffering from the east property line.

Ms. Gaskins explained where the trailer would be placed on the property; why they wanted the trailer placed at this particular location on the property; and noted that one tree had been removed, as well as some brush.

Discussion occurred regarding the variance, with clarification being made that the CUP would be reviewed annually, and a fee would have to be paid to the County, and that, at some point in time, the mobile home would have to be removed from the property.

Commr. Gerber stated that this did not appear to be what the Board had in mind when it made its decision to allow CUPs for the care of an infirm.

Mr. George McKinney addressed the Board and stated that he lived next door to Ms. Brakefield's property, and he and Ms. Brakefield share a common easement. He was not present to oppose the fact that Ms. Miller needed someone to take care of her. Mr. McKinney stated that there used to be a screen of trees, but now the area was wide open, because the applicant had cleared her property, and therefore, it was an eyesore. He did not want to see a trend start in Ferndale where there would be a "trailer city". Mr. McKinney questioned the need for an additional trailer on the same piece of land that already housed a trailer.

Discussion occurred regarding the requirements of the County's tree ordinance.

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

Discussion occurred regarding other options that the applicant could have pursued, such as a lot split.

Commr. Good stated, for clarification, that the CUP was a temporary situation, and it would not start a trend in an area, because the CUP would be reviewed annually and would be revoked at a certain point in time. This was not a lot split, which was an option that could have been taken, which would have started a permanent trend. The placement for the mobile home, under this request, was for the purpose of immediate response to a health care problem. He explained that the applicant would incur costs to set up and remove the mobile home, and he would hesitate to say that the Board should deny someone the right to live on their own property, because they were sick and needed more care.

Commr. Swartz stated that the area was zoned agriculture, which allowed mobile homes. The additional mobile home was due to a hardship, which the Board had found several years ago that it had become very difficult for family members to look after others who were ill. The CUP would exist as long as the requirements were being met in the CUP. He stated that he was going to support the CUP, because of its temporary nature, and because they could have taken other steps, which could have led to a family lot split and a permanent situation. He felt this would be a better option for Ms. Miller, as well as the neighborhood, and he would support the District Commissioner's motion for the CUP.

Commr. Hanson requested that staff, as part of the motion, evaluate the request for additional screening/vegetative buffering, if necessary, which would be at the discretion of staff.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would not support the request, because she felt there were other options that could have been considered. She stated that this was not the intent of the Board, when the care of the infirm issue was originally envisioned, and because of its temporary nature, the Board would have a hard time revoking the CUP, after a family had been living in the mobile home.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation the Planning and Zoning Commission, and approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agricultural) for the placement of a second mobile home on a five acre parcel for the care of an infirm - relative, with staff evaluating, but not necessarily requiring, buffering.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that, under her reasons for denial, she felt this was a neighborhood in transition, and the applicant had room in her home for someone to live.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Gerber voted "no".

CASE: #22-96-5 RP and R-6 to RP Robert Smith

Tracking No. #23-96-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the applicant was going to build either two duplexes, or one quadruplex depending on the additional information he got at the Technical Review Committee (TRC) level. She stated that staff was recommending approval, because it was a good use along this particular collector roadway. There had been other inquiries for this site and other sites in this close proximity for commercial uses, which had been discouraged, and staff felt comfortable bringing this forward for rental property. Ms. Farrell noted that there were no letters of opposition, or support, of the request. She stated that the applicant was aware of a Developer's Agreement limiting the use to the quadruplex, or two duplexes.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that the request was in his district, and he had no concerns with it.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) and R-6 (Medium Density Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Professional) to allow for the construction of duplexes, subject to a Developer's Agreement limiting the uses to residential single-family duplexes.

CASE: #14-96-4 A to R-7 and R-1 Daisy & John Gniech

Tracking No. #24-96-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the rezoning request to divide the property and maintain the existing home, and to allow the construction of a new single family site built home. She stated that staff was comfortable with the request and was recommending approval.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not present, and no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-7 (Mixed Residential) and R-1 (Rural Residential) to divide the property and maintain the existing mobile home and construct a new single-family site-built residence.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

CASE: #21-96-5 RMRP to RM Robert Cyrus/Baird Mobile Homes

of Leesburg, Inc. - Tracking No. 33-96-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that Mr. Robert Cyrus was present in the audience and may wish to address the Board. She stated that staff had recommended approval with the only concern being that the applicant had an approved master park plan for 13 lots, but as far as looking at it as a new development, it would be subject to the point rating system. If the applicant had 5 1/2 acres high and dry, he would get the 13 lots, but if he had less, he would get less than 13 lots, but this would be determined by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). She stated that there were no letters of support, or opposition, to the request.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that Mr. Cyrus was present in the audience, and no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Commr. Gerber disclosed that Mr. Cyrus has acted as her business and personal attorney, but she would have no problem voting on the case.

Mr. Robert Cyrus addressed the Board to discuss the urban density point system and requested that the Board consider waiving the requirement in this case, due to the fact that the applicant already had 13 lots approved as lots that already had water and sewer.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff had no concerns, because they were glad that the applicant was asking for RM zoning, so that it could be taken through a site plan and platting process. She stated that there were already some shared driveways and some improvements made to the property.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that there was nothing in Chapter 3.03 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which gave the Board the authority to waive the requirement. If the number of lots were a concern, he suggested that the Board postpone the request, to allow the applicant time to go through the point system count.

Mr. Cyrus suggested that, if the Board approved the Ordinance for the rezoning, it could make the Ordinance subject to meeting the requirements of the point system; otherwise, it would remain as RMRP zoning.

Mr. Minkoff clarified that the rental mobile home park would be vested and not the subdivision, so the vesting would give him 13 lots in RMRP zoning.

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

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RMRP to RM (Residential Mobile Home) to develop the property as a mobile home subdivision consisting of 13 lots contingent upon the property having 5 1/2 acres of upland, in order to meet the density points.

CASE: CUP#285D-2 Site Built Managers Residence in RMRP

Holiday Travel Resort/Kenneth Saundry

Tracking No. #29-96-CUP/AMD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the request would allow a site built residence to be placed on site for a park manager. She stated that staff had no real concerns, and there were two mobile homes already on the site.

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

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a Site Built Managers Residence in RMRP for an amendment to the CUP in RMRP zoning to construct a site-built home in an existing mobile home park for the park manager's living quarters.

CASE: #23-96-2 PUD to CFD Green Isle Foundation, Inc.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that this would correct an ordinance from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a CFD (Community Facility District). She stated that staff did a site visit and found the use on the site to be compatible and was recommending approval.

Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he had talked with Mr. Claude Smoak about the vesting portion, which had prompted the request, and stated that this would not affect his ability to make a decision.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff stated that the application for vested rights was denied, as to the future development rights, which caused the need for rezoning.

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

Commr. Good disclosed that he had visited the site and had donated a hog to the Green Isle Children's Ranch, but he did not feel this would influence his vote.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request to rezone from PUD to CFD (Community Facility District), to bring the Green Isle facility into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and to add those uses (phased) as requested by the applicant.

CASE: CUP#96/5/2-2 CUP in A Barbara K. Hodges

Tracking No. #96/5/2-2

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the applicant wanted to establish a home dental lab in her residence. Ms. Farrell explained that staff had a difficult time trying to fit the request into criteria for an occupational license for a home occupation, and therefore, staff was recommending a CUP in A. There were no letters in opposition, or support, of the request.

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

Ms. Barbara Hodges, applicant, addressed the Board and presented her reasons for making the request, as stated in her detailed report in the backup material.

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

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) for a Home Occupation other than approved by Chapter 10 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), to establish and operate a small-scale dental lab from the primary residence.

CASE: #19-96-4 A to CFD La-No-Che Scout Reservation

Central Florida Council BSA - Tracking No. #30-96-CFD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and staff was recommending approval of the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 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), to bring the existing Boy Scout Camp into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), in order to complete renovations and expand the camp facility.

CASE: #17-96-2 A to CP with C-2 uses Carolyn Bagony

Gobin Persaud and Parshan Sahota - Tracking No.#34-96-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She noted that the applicant had not come forward with a conceptual site plan, and there was one letter of support, and no letters in opposition, to the request. It had been approved 8-0 by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Commr. Swartz noted that the property was 990 feet west from the intersection of SR 50 and C-455.

Ms. Farrell explained that staff worked with 1,320 feet, as far as a cutoff number from an intersection, and the Access Management Ordinance, and the fact that the person on this case may not be interested in doing anything with their property for 20 to 30 years. Therefore, staff was comfortable bringing the request forward with the development trends in the area for commercial activity on SR 50. She noted that the designation of activity was "neighborhood".

Commr. Swartz questioned how this particular case was not going to contribute to strip commercial and noted that there was no site plan for CP, and if it was neighborhood, it was supposed to be between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area.

Ms. Farrell stated that, when the applicant comes forward with her actual uses, she would be limited to 10,000 to 50,000 square feet at site plan review and approval.

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

Commr. Good stated that he was curious about the 990 feet using the 1,320 criteria, and questioned why historically staff was using this criteria.

Ms. Farrell explained that staff was not actually using the 1,320 number historically, but the 1,320 number was one that staff was comfortable using given the history of an area, or history of property, and when determining when something might be developed before something else in the area. If it was below 1,320 feet, staff would take it through the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson stated that there was a need for mini storage, particularly in this area, and she felt that the market would make it successful, as well as the automotive sales and service.

Commr. Swartz stated that, even if he agreed with the 1,320 feet, it would result in exactly what the locational commercial - locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan was supposed to do, and that was to eliminate and try to reduce prematurely the stripping of the highways with commercial development. He was also troubled that this ten acre parcel could conceivably have 50,000 gross square feet of leasable space, but there was no site plan to review, and even if he did not think it was premature and in the wrong place, he could not make a legitimate decision on the request. He did not feel it met the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, because it was premature, and it would lead to exactly what the Board should be trying to avoid, the destruction of Highway 50, and the continued stripping of that particular corridor. He stated that he could not support the request particularly because there was no site plan.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board needed to look at the intent of the property, and whether the surrounding residential neighborhood would use a car sales lot and mini storage. He stated that he would re-open the public hearing, because of questions from the Board members.

Ms. Carolyn Bagony, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she did not have a site plan, because what had been presented were uses that had been presented from people who had inquired about the property. She stated that there would be a technical review of any plan that was submitted, and she understood that the property met all of the criteria according to staff's report. Ms. Bagony explained that there was planned commercial next to the property in question.

Commr. Cadwell re-closed the public hearing and reserved comment to the Board.

Commr. Hanson noted that the limitation on the actual building would be 50,000 square feet, and it would be approximately 1 1/4 acres on the ten acres. The requirements for buffering and road frontage would be taken into consideration, when the site plan was presented. She agreed that 1/4 of a mile was probably a reasonable distance; it was an appropriate use at this location; and the market would tell the future, which would probably not be known until it was leased.

Commr. Gerber stated that, as much as she would like to think of the request as premature, she could not bring that argument to bear, when there was RMRP across the street and industrial uses across the street. She stated that it was urban expansion, but she was having a problem with the prematurity of it.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, on these types of requests, he considered the accessory use to the community, and whether it blended with the residential that was already there, and he was not sure that this one fit in.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was not comfortable having warehouses right next to Greater Hills.

Commr. Hanson felt that the warehousing would be an accessory use to those residents in Greater Hills.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried by 3-2 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied the request for rezoning from Agricultural to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, to establish commercial uses to include automotive sales and service and mini-warehouses.

Commrs. Hanson and Commr. Gerber voted "no".

CASE: #15-96-3 C-1 to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses

Richard Harris - Tracking No. #25-96-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the applicant was proposing to change the used car dealership to a marine and boat dealership. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, because it was a positive change of use, and staff had not requested a traffic analysis, because it could foresee a lower trip generation, and it was in the commercial corridor located in the mall area.

COMMISSIONERS

At 11 a.m., Commr. Cadwell turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Good, Vice Chairman.

CASE: #15-96-5 C-1 to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses

Richard Harris - Tracking No. #25-96-CP (Continued)

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

Commr. Swartz stated that the request was in District 3, and this was an existing building, and he would probably vote against the request, if the applicants were trying to rezone it and the building was not in existence, because it would contribute to exactly what he had described earlier to Highway 50, but given the fact that there was an existing building, which would probably reduce the use, he would support the request.

COMMISSIONERS

At 11:03 a.m., Commr. Good returned the chairmanship to Commr. Cadwell.

CASE: #15-96-5 C-1 to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses

Richard Harris - Tracking No. #25-96-CP (Continued)

Commr. Swartz 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 C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CP with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, to include a marine/boat sales and service, with conditions, as outlined in the proposed ordinance.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the Board used to consistently receive site plans when the Board was rezoning to planned commercial, or industrial, and the Board seldom sees the plans now. On vacant parcels, he would like to have some staff review and recommendations, as to whether site plans would, or would not be submitted to the Board.

Commr. Good stated that the Board had been requesting commercial siting action by staff, and language to be considered, and therefore, made the following motion:

Commr. Good made a motion to request staff to bring forward language addressing commercial siting criteria, especially planned commercial relating to the size of the parcel being rezoned, and the actual number of square feet that was going to be used.

Commr. Hanson felt that what was before the Board had been traditionally the policy where site plans did not have to be presented for CP zoning.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the issue, which would require a change in policy, be placed on the agenda for discussion.

Commr. Good withdrew his motion and stressed the importance of scheduling the issue as an agenda item.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned whether the motion would allow CP with only the marine/boat dealership, or allow CP with all C-1 and C-2 uses and the marine/boat dealership.

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

Mr. Don Edmister addressed the Board and explained that he wanted to change it from used cars, to boat sales and service.

Ms. Farrell explained that marine/boat sales and service were not in C-2 uses, or in C-1 uses.

Commr. Swartz stated that the motion was to include C-1 uses and marine/boat sales and service, and not all C-2 uses.

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

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

CASE: #16-96-4 C-2 to CP with C-2 uses

Paul Stevens/Stevens' Enterprises of Vero Beach

Tracking No. #26-96-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the applicant was requesting that RV sales and service be added to the property. He currently had commercial activity in the Astor area, and the surrounding property was zoned commercial. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and a site plan had been submitted.

Commr. Hanson stated that staff needed to look at a change to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to allow this particular use in C-2, as well as the use in the case before this one.

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

Commr. Hanson 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 C-2 (Community Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-2 uses to include RV sales and service dealership.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned whether the request would include all C-2 uses, because there were some C-2 uses that were allowed in the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area that the Board may no want allowed in this particular instance.

Commr. Hanson stated that, in this case, and in this location, she would have no problem with all C-2 uses.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

CASE: #20-96-3 C-1 to CP with C-2 uses

Robert C. Partridge/Steven J. Richey - Tracking No. #27-96-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and noted that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present representing the applicant. Ms. Farrell stated that staff had considered this as an infield parcel along SR 19. The applicant currently had a landscape business on the property, and he owned the parcel next door, which was a warehousing setup. He wanted to add mini-warehouses to the uses of the property. Ms. Farrell stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and he had met the locational criteria, as far as being the appropriate distance from US Highway 441 and SR 19.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicant, as well as his representative, were present in the audience, and no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Discussion occurred regarding mini-warehouses being allowed in C-1 or C-2, with Ms. Farrell explaining that there was no criteria for mini-warehouses versus warehousing.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board should look at those uses that were not the traditional warehouse, but could be allowed in C-1 or C-2 uses, for a little more flexibility.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-2 uses to include mini-warehouses.

CASE: MSP #96/5/3-2 Mining Site Plan in A

Lake Sand Plant III/Key Trust Co. of Florida

Tracking No. #5-96-MSP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that this was a request involving 455 acres in the south Lake County area. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and it had been taken through the Technical Review Committee. There were no letters in opposition to the request.

It was noted that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present representing the applicant.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Mr. Richey addressed the Board and explained that the backup material in the book was not the same as the Planning and Zoning evidence, and therefore, he requested that the Mining Site Plan Application, Lake Sand Plant III, as prepared by Florida Rock Industries, Inc., the Land Planning Group, Inc., and Hartman and Associates, Inc. dated March 1996, be entered and marked as the Applicant's Exhibit "A".

Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Steve Adams and Ms. Cheryl Eleanor, both from Land Planning Group, Inc., were present, as well as Mr. Mike O'Berry, Florida Rock Industries. He stated that the hydrologist was on his way to the meeting.

Mr. Steve Adams appeared before the Board and was given the oath by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Adams stated his occupation and qualifications and stated that the application marked as Applicant's Exhibit "A" was a full and complete application that met all of Lake County's requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He testified that this was the third phase of an existing facility that operated in the Green Swamp. Mr. Adams reviewed what was being proposed on the 455 acres and stated that the intent was to mine approximately 154 acres of the improved pasture area into three separate pits. He testified that the mining length would be approximately 10 acres per year. There was an option for a seven acre plant site that may be utilized in the future, but right now it was being proposed to extract sand from the pits and hydraulically move it to the Lake Sand Plant II and returning clear water to the pit from the Lake Sand Plant II area. The operation of Lake Sand Plant III would help in the reclamation of Lake Sand Plant II, and it would also eliminate the need for any above ground storage for initial settling, and Lake Sand Plant III would meet all new technology.

Mr. Richey stated that the Planning and Zoning minutes indicated 123 acres, but the Applicant's Exhibit "A" indicated 154 acres, as testified by Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams stated that an environmental analysis and hydrological analysis were conducted, and the environmental analysis was conducted by Land Planning Group, Inc., under his direction. He stated that there were no listed species occurring within the actual mine site area, but there were some plant species that occurred, in the wetland areas, that were potential. None of those areas would be disturbed for mining, so there should be no impact on those protected species. Mr. Adams testified that the applicant met the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern Alteration Criteria, and therefore, exceeded the guidelines of State Law, and the Lake County LDRs. He noted that the hydrological report prepared by Hartman and Associates, Inc. concluded that there would be no draw down in the adjacent wetlands from the operation of the facility. A permit had been acquired from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and there would be no adverse effect on the wetland areas.

Commr. Good clarified that the Miocene Age undifferentiated clay was an impermeable cap above the double stone layer, and he wanted that to be on the record.

Mr. Richey stated that there was a confining layer, which was determined through the drillings and borings, which were reviewed by the County's hydrological staff, and the St. Johns River Water Management District, which was supported by the hydrological report and was part of the Applicant's Exhibit "A".

It was noted that the expert hydrologist had arrived and was present in the audience.

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

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a Mining Site Plan in A (Agriculture) for expansion of an existing sand plant, "Lake Sand Plant II", contiguous to this site.

CASE: #18-96-4 A to CFD Conway D. Kittredge/Chet Lemon's

School of Baseball

Tracking No. #31-96-CFD

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the Board and staff with additional letters that had been received regarding the proposed request.

Commr. Hanson stated, for the record, that she had been approached by several individuals in the area, and she told them that she could not discuss the pending case.

Mr. Minkoff stated that ordinarily witnesses were not sworn for Lake County proceedings, but if any participant requested to be sworn in, all witnesses would be sworn for the hearing.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Planning and Development, presented the request for rezoning to the Board and stated that the applicant was requesting rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) for the entire 83 acres to create a public baseball field facility for the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU). She stated that the applicants had outlined, in phases, the future development; they were in the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento urban compact node; and the surrounding zoning was agriculture. The parcel was located 1 1/4 miles from the intersection of a collector (CR 437) and arterial (SR 46), and there were a number of lot splits in the area, as well as single family residential subdivisions, including Rolling Oak Estates Subdivision. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicants came twice to the Technical Review Committee (TRC), to review some of staff's concerns. She stated that staff was comfortable in recommending an approval at the rezoning hearing and taking them back for a technical review after the rezoning was in place. Staff found the request to meet all of the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1-25: Provisions of Activity-Based Recreation Facilities; Goal 8: Recreation and Open Space; and Objective 8-1: Provision of Adequate Sites and Facilities in an Efficient Manner. Ms. Farrell stated that there were two debates with this particular request, one being the need for community uses, and the other being the adjacent neighborhood. There were 27 letters of support and six letters in opposition, but there were other letters that had been presented to the Board today. Ms. Farrell noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request 8-1 to CFD, and the Commission requested a landscape plan and traffic study to be submitted prior to the BCC Public Hearing. She stated that the traffic study had not been submitted, but there was a staff member present who could address the traffic concerns, and he was comfortable with the available trips on both roadways.

Commr. Hanson disclosed that she had met with Mr. Lemon several months ago when he was looking at another piece of property off of State Road 46.

Mr. Chet Lemon, applicant, addressed the Board and introduced his wife, GiGi, and Ms. Doreen Shaw with Dave Lowe Realty. Mr. Lemon stated that he was the baseball chairperson of the Florida Association of AAU, as well as the registration chairperson. Mr. Lemon submitted four photographs from Smith Aerial Photography, which were marked as Applicant's Composite Exhibit "A", and stated that the photographs depicted what was being proposed in Lake County. He discussed the buildings that would be constructed, which included concession buildings, and a pro shop, and explained that 25 foot trees would be planted for buffering. Mr. Lemon stated that there would not be much change to the land, with the exception of those buildings, and he hoped that it would beautify the land and enhance the area. He explained that the photographs showed facilities that had been built by Mr. Fierro, and he noted that the homes were much further away from the property in question than the ones being shown in the photographs. The complexes in the photographs were located in Lake Mary, Winter Springs, and Oviedo.

Ms. Lemon addressed the Board to clarify a misconception that had come from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding what exactly was going to be built. Ms. Lemon explained the plans for the 12 baseball fields, and other structures, as well as the backstops for the facility, paved walkways, and batting cages. She submitted 16 photographs, which were marked as Applicant's Composite Exhibit "B". Ms. Lemon explained the proposed tree line buffering; the traffic count based on past estimates; and the maximum use of the fields.

Ms. Doreen Shaw, Dave Lowe Realty, submitted 12 photographs, which were marked as Applicant's Composite Exhibit "C", which showed the property and its relation to Equestrian Trail and Integrity Way, as well as the Florida Power sub-station, and the trees that already provided a natural buffer. The pictures also showed the proposed entrance to the project. Ms. Shaw stated that she and the applicants met with some of the residents immediately following the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to address some of the concerns that had been expressed by them. She further stated that she had taken a video of the property in question, if there were any other questions.

Mr. Lemon explained the lighting that had been proposed for the project, and he addressed the concern of noise. He stated that there were individuals who lived near the fields located in the other towns that were willing to come and testify for him about these issues of concern.

Discussion occurred regarding why a traffic study had not been done, and it was noted that there had been some confusion as to who would be doing the study.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board and stated that the applicants were to obtain a traffic study, once they got approval for rezoning.

Ms. Lemon addressed the Board and explained that the AAU operated in the entire State of Florida, and currently their office was located in Lake Mary. She explained that the AAU covered 32 sports, and their office, as well as the office for the AAU for the State of Florida, would be relocated to the new facility being proposed. She explained the leasing process for the fields, which was done through the cities.

Mr. Lemon explained the proposed dormitories, which would create a facility that would allow him to work with kids all of the time. He stated that they were currently using the colleges to conduct the "camp" situations. He noted that the National headquarters for AAU recently relocated to Disney in Orlando.

Commr. Gerber explained that she had a real concern with the golf driving range being proposed in Phase II.

Mr. Lemon stated that he was not opposed to adjusting anything being proposed in Phase II, and he noted that it was not a necessity for the project.

Discussion occurred regarding the relationship between the Chet Lemon School of Baseball and the AAU.

Ms. Lemon explained that it costs $10 for a child to join AAU, and there were currently 106 teams playing through the AAU. She stated that the concession stands would pay for the grounds maintenance. Ms. Lemon explained the Chet Lemon camps currently being run by them and stated that the proposed project would be privately owned and privately funded, and they would not be asking the County for money.

Ms. Donna Bortell addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. She stated that she had eight children and lived in Michigan when she raised her them. Ms. Bortell stated that they never had the opportunity to play sports being raised on a farm. She stated that children needed to be kept busy, so that they would not get involved in drugs, and they needed a role model. She stated that she currently lives in Longwood and has been in Florida for 12 years, but when she and her husband retire, they hope to relocate to their property in Lake County.

Mr. Chris Hornberger addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. He stated that he was a volunteer for AAU, and a graduate from the University of Michigan where he played baseball. He stated that kids from ages eight through high school would be using the proposed facility. He did not see any reason for opposition, because it would be a first class facility, and children needed some place to go to feel appreciated.

Mr. George Sadler addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. He explained that he was involved in amateur boxing, which was regulated by the Mid-Atlantic AAU, which led to him winning a number of championships and getting to the Pan-American games in Mexico City when he was in the Marine Corps. He felt the baseball facility would be good, because it was needed, and it was consistent with east Lake County's sanction, which included the Boggy Creek Gang, the Simpson Standardbred Training Center, Camp Challenge, the Rock Springs Run, and other lands that the State had bought. He felt it was a very honorable gesture on the part of the Lemons, and he hoped that the Board would support the request.

Ms. Gloria Cadfield, Lakeshore Drive, Eustis, addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. She and her husband were going to build a house on Old Mount Dora Road on three acres. Ms. Cadfield stated that there were 55 acres right next to their property, which was for sale, or either it had recently been sold, and when they bought their property, they knew that something else would go in there, but that was the risk they would be taking. She suggested that people go into a community that was totally developed, so that no risks would have to be taken. Ms. Cadfield stated that she was very involved with youth sports and had taken her kids to other towns for the events. She stated that anything the Lemons proposed would be an asset to the community, and she stressed the importance of having adults involved with their children. She could not understand how there could be opposition to the request, and therefore, requested that the Board approve it. She also wanted the Board to understand that parents were presently having to drive their children to different locations for sport events, and it would be no different with the area being proposed.

Ms. Nancy Moore addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. She explained the location of her ten acres, which was outside of the city limits on CR 439, and stated that, when she moved to the property, there was nothing in front of her. She explained that there was now a day lily nursery, an ostrich farm, and cows and horses. She stated that the project being proposed was a positive change. Ms. Moore stated that her children were involved in baseball and had attended Chet Lemon's camp in Lake Mary, which took 45 minutes traveling time. She addressed the noise issue and stated that it could be considered as "positive" noise involving families, which would be a blessing, and she would not have a problem with the facility going next to her property, because it was beautiful.

Ms. Edie Swanson addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. Ms. Swanson stated that she was a volunteer for AAU and lived in Seminole County, but had previously lived on CR 44 for eight years. She explained that she and her family moved away, because there were not a lot of athletics being offered in the area. She retains the mortgage on the property in Lake County, so she has an interest economically in what happens in this area. Ms. Swanson addressed the problems with the Eustis ballfield, and the dangers involved with the location of it. She does all of the AAU registration for the State of Florida, and she has registered over 1,000 kids in the last month for boys and girls in all sports. Ms. Swanson requested that the Board give Mr. Lemon 100 percent of its support.

Mr. George Sands addressed the Board in support of the request for rezoning. Mr. Sands noted that the ballplayers present in the audience were on his AAU team. He stated that he volunteered his time and went to school and was majoring in education. Mr. Sands stated that he was trying to make a difference in the lives of youth, and he did not see how the request could be denied.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

CASE: #18-96-4 A to CFD Conway D. Kittredge/Chet Lemon's

School of Baseball - (Continued)

Tracking No. #31-96-CFD

At this time, the Chairman requested that staff show its video pertaining to the site in question, with the video being marked as County's Exhibit "A".

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and proceeded to narrate the contents of the video, which depicted the site being proposed for a baseball school.

Ms. Billye Kozlowski addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Ms. Kozlowski stated that she lived on Equestrian Trail, and she was a full time mother, and a civic volunteer who was very involved in the community. She stated that the Boggy Creek Gang CFD involved a non-profit organization, as well as Camp Challenge, and neither of these would be considered as a noise nuisance or lighting nuisance, and they were very, very conducive to the surrounding areas. Ms. Kozlowski explained that the residents were not against Chet Lemon's School of Baseball. She stated that, when she and her family moved to the rural area, they knew they would be traveling to other areas of the State for their children's activities. She further stated that this was not conducive to the area, and it was not the place to put such a facility that was going to support Lake Mary, Altamonte, Mount Dora, Tavares, and Eustis, even though there was a need for it, and it was a wonderful idea. She discussed the plan in the area, which was one home per five acres, and stated that the individuals in Rolling Oaks subdivision were 100 percent adamantly opposed to the request. Ms. Kozlowski stated that she attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and she had not been included in any formal meeting with Chet Lemon, or any representative. She pointed out the location of her home, which was on top of a hill, and stated that she could hear the noise on the ridge. Ms. Kozlowski stated that the facilities being proposed belonged in an area where there were already homes developed, as shown in the Applicant's Composite Exhibit "A". She described the noise that the residents get from the Florida Power sub-station.

Mr. Coleman Holt, Equestrian Trail, addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. He referred to his letter in the backup material, which addressed why this particular use being proposed for the wrong place and stated that the project being proposed would be a for profit business. He questioned how this would fall into the category of the CFD use, and how commercial recreation differed from a for profit business. Mr. Holt discussed the 466 proposed parking spaces and stated that the facility would be placed further south on CR 437, and questioned the consequences, if the business should fail. He felt it would be a business that would draw other businesses to the south, which would further alter the character of the area. Mr. Holt did feel the project was needed and wanted, and that the keeping with the local quality of life was important. The property of one of the neighbors was approximately 100 feet from the proposed gymnasium, and he stated that this was not about baseball, but compatibility and zoning. He had always been active with his kids when they were growing up, and he would like to have a facility in the County, but not in this location, and therefore, he urged the Board to vote no.

Ms. Linda Botens addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Ms. Botens discussed the description of the agricultural district, as indicated in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and stated that the proposed facility was not qualified under CFD criteria, as listed in Section 3, Pages 18-21. However, the proposed buildings for the facility seemed to be included under many of the definitions under commercial uses, Section 3, Pages 13-17. Ms. Botens stated that there was no question that the facilities would have a high impact on the surrounding area, because the proposed rezoning was not consistent with the LDRs and was obviously inconsistent with the existing land uses in the area. She addressed the lighting and the noise and stated that it would result in increased demands on public facilities, roads, sewage facilities, water supply, drainage, solid waste and emergency medical services. She further stated that it would adversely affect the currently prime property values in the area; it was not a logical development pattern for this area; and it was in direct conflict with the purpose of the existing area as currently zoned. She stated that it was a great idea, but it was a commercial facility.

Mr. Steve Barcus addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Mr. Barcus stated that, although he lived in Longwood, he was the owner of the western acreage, 32.5 acres, which abuts the property in question. He stated that this was being proposed in his backyard. He presented a video, which was marked as Opposition's Exhibit "A", which showed the elevation from the middle of his property to the proposed development. Mr. Barcus stated that any amount of buffering would be inadequate to shield him from all of the illumination of a ballfield. He visited the facility in Winter Springs, which did not have close developments, but noted that there was a lake, and it was away from low density, large acre tracts such as those on Equestrian Trail. The video showed the lighting at the three ballfields at Central Winds, and Mr. Barcus stressed the difference when the lighting was magnified by 12 ballfields, two soccer fields and a driving range. He addressed Section 14.02.05 in the LDRs, which were standards for review, and stated that the for profit venture would be against CFD platform, as setforth. He addressed the dormitories and gymnasium being proposed in Phase II and stated that there would be car loads and bus loads of athletes coming to the facility. The minimum residential dwelling on Equestrian Trail, by deed, was 2,500 square feet, and everyone had built far in excess of these dimensions.

He projected an increase in the use of the roads, the sewage facilities, water supply, drainage, removal of solid waste, security, and emergency facilities. He requested that the Board vote "no" on the application.

Mr. Tom McKuen addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Mr. McKuen stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had requested that the applicant have an independent statement made about the effect the project would have on the property values in this area, which had not been forthcoming, as well as a traffic study, and a meeting with the residents. He stated that the developer presented sworn testimony that this was a non-profit organization, and indicated that, if a profit was made, it would be a very little one.

Ms. Heather Brush addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Ms. Brush discussed the eagle's nest that had been registered with the State, as well as federally registered, which was 3,800 feet from the northwest corner of the proposed project, and the restrictions for such a site. She discussed herbicides and pesticides, and lighting, and the effect all of this would have on the eagles. Ms. Brush stated that this area was all agricultural, and the project was not compatible to the area. She noted that there were also turtles on the property. Ms. Brush stated that she did not want the illumination caused by all of the lighting, and that this was a commercial business being proposed in agriculture. The people in the area love children and baseball, but this was the wrong place. She stated that the ballfields shown in Applicant's Composite Exhibit "A" showed houses that were close to the fields, which indicated that the fields were already in keeping with what had already been developed. She urged the Board to vote "no".

Ms. Evelyn Beilman addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Ms. Beilman stated that she lived directly across the street from the entrance to the proposed facility. She explained that she had two boys, and she was well aware of the noise that came from such a site. Ms. Beilman questioned why it was becoming all commercial along SR 46 and stated that the buzz from the Florida Power sub-station was considerably better than when it was first constructed. She gave Mr. Kittredge a strip of land across CR 437, because he did not have legal access, and he convinced her that there would be $100,000 homes developed there in agriculture.

Ms. Carol Tinhupen addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. She stated that she was concerned because there was a sink hole on the property where the facility had been proposed. With the recent drought, the County was considered below rainfall level for this area, for this period of time of year. She stated that, because of drought, there was potential cave in problems. The sink hole was located at the corner of the power station, and she was concerned about construction and heavy equipment extending the sink hole and causing a cave in, and about children retrieving balls from the power station. She was concerned about runoff from major construction being proposed, and the parking pavement, which would decrease the absorbable ground, and walkways, driveways, gymnasium and other buildings being non-absorbable surface area that would cause runoff. She was concerned about herbicides and pesticides connecting to the local water supply, and the contamination to the ground water; the sewage that would be generated; the wildlife reproduction being affected by impesticides; and the lighting being proposed. She stated that the local poultry farm could also be affected, and that all of these issues needed to be addressed before the light were placed in this area. She preferred to keep the area agriculture and stated that there could be a maximum of 16 houses placed on the property, which could not even compare to the problems that would be generated by the commercial development being proposed. She requested that the Board deny the application.

Ms. Debbie Gebhardt addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning. Ms. Gebhardt explained that she could hear the buzz from the sub-station, and she could see the lights from Lake Mary and Apopka. She stated that, before she and her family moved to this area, they lived right next to a baseball diamond, and it was already there when they bought the property. She did not want this anymore, and the facility should be in a more appropriate area. She requested that the Board vote against the request, because it was already difficult getting onto CR 437.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff had a plat showing all of Mr. Kittredge's property along SR 44 and stated that he had a PUD in this area, but there was some question whether the PUD was vested.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the County was currently in the special master proceeding. The PUD had been approved for 670 single family homes on approximately 670 acres, and the PUD, which was in rural, abutted the urban compact node, and the property was actually in the urban compact node. He stated that the PUD to the north was still in question, and the County was in the mediation stage, with the County staff having made an offer for consideration, and if it was accepted, it would be brought back to the Board in June, or July.

Commr. Hanson stated that everyone was in agreement that this was a good project, with modifications, but the question was where it should be located. She questioned whether it would be less objectionable on SR 44, if it were possible to exchange the property and pull the property into a PUD. She realized that it would take some planning by Mr. Kittredge, to have the project placed on SR 44.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the property in question was developable at a higher rate than the property in the vested PUD, which was only one unit per acre, where this property could be developed at 5.5 units per acre, because it was in the urban node.

Ms. Lemon addressed the issues presented by those present and stated that they were more than willing to order every environmental study and take care of every environmental aspect on the property.

Mr. Lemon explained that there were 890 acres for sale, and they had proposed development on 83 acres. He stated that there were 2,000 feet from the front of the property to the back of the property, and many of the homes were 5,000-7,000 feet away from the property in question. He had planned to build in front of the property, not the back of the property where the homes were located. He stated that Phase II could be adjusted, and he did not feel the people were understanding the entire overview of what was being proposed.

Ms. Lemon stated that there would be no PA system, and the pro shop would be located in the offices upstairs. She discussed the hours of operation and explained that this was an issue that could be restricted.

Mr. Lemon stated that the capital improvement costs would be approximately 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 million dollars to build the complex. He explained that the facility would be leased by the Chet Lemon Baseball School, and he did not know if Phase II would ever be completed. He addressed the parking issue and explained that there would be no paved parking.

Ms. Shaw explained the surrounding area and the existing facilities along CR 437. She talked with Mr. Kittredge, who was willing to sell that portion of the property along the Florida Power sub-station, for the project, and stated that Mr. Kittredge planned to develop the remainder of the property. He had no concerns about the project possibly lowering the property values of the adjacent property. She explained that the property owned by Mr. Barcus was quite a distance from Equestrian Trail, and he had a direct view of the Florida Power sub-station, which would be much more of an eyesore than anything developed further down the property. She stated that there would be minimal impact on the property, and in the contract, it stated that an environmental study would be done on the property.

Commr. Cadwell closed the public hearing portion of the property.

Commr. Hanson explained that this was a difficult situation for her and stated that, with her active support of the Sports Commission and Lake County's participation in economic development, and looking out for the rural environment in this particular area, she was looking for compromise. She stated that everyone recognized that this was a desirable first class project, and the applicants would have to abide by all of the environmental concerns as they went before the Technical Review Committee. She addressed the issue of a CFD and stated that she did not believe that the County's policy stated it could not be for profit, because daycares were allowed in CFDs, and those were for a public benefit. Commr. Hanson stated that there were enough concerns with this plan that she would not approve it as it was being proposed today. Her first preference would be to have it face towards SR 44 rather than CR 437, and if this was a possibility, a decision could be made today. She was glad that the parking would be mulch; the eagles nest would have to be addressed as an environmental concern; she would rather see a reconfiguration of buildings, at least the dormitories and gymnasium, so that they were not put as close to the south and would be placed more to the north; and she did not want to see the entrance right across from Rolling Oaks Subdivision. She stated that the Chamber of Commerce and Kiwanis had wanted, for years, a baseball field in the Sorrento area, but they had no idea that something like this would be proposed. She would rather see the dormitories one story rather than two, if possible, and she would like to see trees all of the way around the project, and not just along the highway. She was glad to see the time restrictions and noted that there was a golf course proposed as part of the PUD. She stated that the sprayfield on the west side would be somewhat of a buffer, if it was further to the north. Even though this was zoned for agriculture, she felt that, with the residential interests, it carried a gamut of enterprises. It was mentioned that the property could only be developed at one unit per acre, but it could actually be 5.5 units per acre, which could be a high density development. She asked that the Board help her with a solution to the issue.

Commr. Good commended Mr. Lemon on a beautiful idea, but looking at the community and their reaction to it, he stated that it was the wrong place.

Commr. Cadwell agreed that it was a good idea, but he did not know where in Lake County you could find 80 acres, or a parcel that would accommodate such a facility. The County needed a regional facility, and it promotes commercial recreation, and he reminded the Board that this was a 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 million dollar investment. He felt that the lighting could be taken care of with restrictions, as well as the timing of events. He stated that the driving range could be omitted, and there could be a requirement that there be no lighting on the soccer field.

Commr. Gerber was concerned with the compatibility issues and felt that there was another place in the County that would be more compatible. She stated that changes could be made to the restrictions in the ordinance, but she was worried about the wastewater issue, and the eagles, and felt more information was needed on both issues. She further stated that there would be an impact to the traffic, but her main concern was the compatibility issue. She felt that it needed to be more densely developed, in order to make it fit better with the community.

Commr. Swartz discussed Page 30 of the LDRs, Policy 1-5.4, i-30, which addressed the location of institutional/facility development in urban areas and stated that it included a number of things, one of them being recreational. It stated that it shall be generally limited to the urban area. A scale of such a facility should be related to surrounding land uses designed to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods. He questioned whether this facility, as a CFD of this nature of recreational, would fit into this policy.

Ms. Farrell stated that, since there was a great amount of open space in green area with the development of this facility, staff was comfortable with the policy.

Discussion occurred regarding the urban area, with it being noted by staff that CFD was an allowed rezoning in the urban compact node, as well as a PUD.

Commr. Swartz hoped that the Board could find a way for the project to come to Lake County. He understood that the County could have CFDs, or it could have commercial enterprises within CFDs. He had a problem with the fact that it fit closest to commercial recreation and commercial amusement. It had a public ballfield, but it clearly fit those two uses. It was not a residential use, or an agricultural use, but it did have the characteristics of those two commercial uses, but CFDs did not list that as an approved use. The aspect of it, that it seemed to be clearly commercial, was not allowed in the CFD, and then, when considering community facility uses, the closest would be whether or not it was a school. He reviewed recreational uses, and it came closest to the commercial aspects, which made it, in part, inconsistent, but the other would be the ones that were permitted in those uses that did not have the problems of light and noise. It was in the urban compact node, but consideration had to be given to the land use; what was it zoned; how was it currently being developed historically; and in this area it was large tracts of land. He did not feel that all of the concerns could be addressed, and he did not feel the Board could postpone the case for 30 days, in hopes that an agreement could be made between the applicants and the residents, when there were fundamental issues that would separate that being a viable project from their concerns. He agreed with Commr. Hanson, and the idea of other sites along SR 44, but he hoped that it was clear that there was not one of the Commissioners that did not believe this was a good project and a needed project.

Commr. Hanson stated that there was no point in trying to look at a site on SR 44, if this one was not compatible, and she was sympathetic with the people that lived there, too, but if this was not compatible, then nothing else on SR 44 would be compatible, because there was going to be more homes going into Eustis, and fewer to the west, and then there was the Wekiva Basin, and therefore, it would be more dense, and it would have more opposition. She would rather postpone the case for 30 days to see if there was a way to bring it together; if the Board did not believe that the property just north of that on SR 44 was compatible, her suggestion would be that there was no point in postponing.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, from looking at those present, there was probably not anything that the Board could offer that would satisfy them. He felt that there were things that could be done to minimize the effect, but it was apparent that the majority of the Board was not going to feel that way. He did not feel postponing the case was going to benefit anyone.

Commr. Good stated that this was significantly different than a needed community ballfield. It was a beautiful idea and project, but he was not sure this was the need for that community.

Commr. Cadwell reminded the Board that the County considered recreational needs on a regional basis.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board could preserve some of Mr. Lemon's efforts and his money, if the request was denied, by denying it without prejudice, not necessarily that it would come back on this site, but to allow, if another site could be located, that the fees that have been paid on this site, to be used with another site during the next year.

Commr. Hanson stated that her first recommendation would have been to postpone for 30 days, because she would rather see it on SR 44 than on CR 437.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to overturn the recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request without prejudice, for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to create a public baseball field facility for the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) baseball teams, and if another site can be located, to allow the fees that have been paid on this site to be used with another site during the next year.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that maybe the fees, that had been paid for this rezoning, would be allowable and could be applied to a future rezoning for this project.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Cadwell voting "no".

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval to eliminate the CRSPP Program. Mr. Bergmann stated that, after experimenting with the program and discovering some difficulties, the best solution would be to go back to the prior process. He explained that there were some issues that needed to be addressed such as tree removal and setbacks, and these would be brought back to the Board in another format at another time. Mr. Bergmann stated that currently there was no Lot Grading requirement, and this would be coming to the Board in June as a separate issue. A Plot Plan was on a check list, but there was no ordinance at this time, and a draft would be brought to the Board in June. He stated that staff has been working with the Homebuilders Association on these two programs for some time and had some support from them, after finding good solutions, but there was a delay because of reformatting ordinances under the new requirements.

Commr. Gerber suggested dropping the CRSPP program concurrent with the ordinances.

Mr. Bergmann explained that the original recommendation was to have the termination of the CRSPP Program effective simultaneously with the action on the Plot Plan and Lot Grading ordinances, but because of a delay in the reformatting of the ordinances, they would not come before the Board until June.

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to terminate the CRSPP Program concurrently with the adoption of the new ordinances.

Under discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the new ordinances did not propose any fees, and the CRSPP Program had a pretty substantial fee.

Commr. Swartz stated that the fees were approved by Resolution, and the Board could choose to eliminate the $75 fee.

Mr. Bergmann explained that the users would pay their way, and instead of spreading the costs generically over all of the permits, there would be only the people obtaining the permits paying for the service.

Commr. Gerber amended her motion to include dropping the $75 fee.

The amendment died for the lack of a second.

Commr. Swartz explained that the fees were approved by Resolution, and the Board would have to approve one to reflect action taken by the Board to drop the fee.

Mr. Minkoff explained that there were no changes made to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) at the time the CRSPP Program was approved. There was a fee charged to each building permit application, and the fee was accepted by Resolution.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Homebuilders Association, addressed the Board and stated that the development of the CRSPP Program seemed to be a good concept, which consolidated all of the requirements into one permit. Of the first 514 permits, 185 of them needed nothing, and over $13,000 was paid for no service. Of the first 514 permits, there were only five permits that needed four of the items, which was one percent, and the rest of those people were paying for items that did not apply to them. She stated that 15 of them needed three of the items. For the majority of the people, it was an additional cost for no service. Ms. Kaminski stated that the CRSPP Program should have been dropped at the end of last year, and she requested that the fee be dropped today.

Mr. Bergmann explained that the recommendation to end the CRSPP Program had to be changed to June 1, 1996, because of a change that had been made to the redrafting of ordinances, so there would be a transition period to give people notice, even though staff had wanted them to be effective simultaneously.

Commr. Gerber withdrew her motion, and Commr. Swartz withdrew his second to the motion.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the termination of the CRSPP Program effective June 1, 1996.

OTHER BUSINESS

The following information was provided on the agenda, with no action being needed by the Board:

Acknowledge issuance of the following vested rights determinations:

Bahata Groves PUD - Vested Rights Issued 4/3/96

Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with Bahata Groves PUD. Lake County will not deny the property owner, continuing in good faith, the opportunity to complete the project in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance 58-91.

For the purpose of this vested rights determination, continuing in good faith shall mean that a final plat has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded in the public records of Lake County, Florida, for development associated with Phase One, within two (2) years from the date of this vested rights determination, and a final plat for development associated with Phase Two shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded in the public records of Lake County, Florida, within five (5) years from the date of this vested rights determination.

Notwithstanding any vested rights associated with the Bahata Groves 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.

Rezoning Petition Case No. 246-89-4 (Ordinance 105-89 - Vested Rights Issued 4/26/96

Lake County denies any vested rights associated with rezoning petition number 246-89-4 (Ordinance 105-89).

B's Recreational Vehicle Resort - Vested Rights Issued 5/2/96

Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with B's Recreational Vehicle Resort. Lake County will not deny the owner of real property described in Conditional Use Permit Case No. 324-2, acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the right to develop the property in accordance with the terms contained in Conditional Use Permit Case No. 324-2. Lake County determines that the terms contained in Conditional Use Permit Case No. 324-2 shall have vested rights, and that the property owner is acting in good faith if the property owner complies with the following conditions:

1. An application for a Master Park Plan, pursuant to land development regulations adopted by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, is received by Lake County within one (1) year from the date of this vested rights determination for real property described in Conditional Use Permit Case No. 324-2. The application for a Master Park Plan shall make reference to previous development of the property, and shall identify proposed site development changes.

2. Master Park Plan approval is obtained from Lake County within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination provided the County makes reasonable and timely requests upon the developer for approval of a Master Park Plan in accordance with land development regulations adopted by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.

3. Commencement of physical construction in accordance with the Master Park Plan and associated construction plans (improvement plans) occurs within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination.

Notwithstanding any vested rights associated with the B's Recreational Vehicle Resort (CUP 324-2), the developer shall not be relieved from paying any fees associated with development orders issued by the County, or the concurrency management system adopted by Lake County.

If any of the conditions contained within this vested rights determination are not complied with by the property owner, future development of the property shall be in accordance with the most recent policies and a land development regulations adopted by Lake County.

Paradise Recreational Vehicle Resort - Vested Rights Issued 5/14/96

Lake County denies any vested rights associated with Paradise Recreational Vehicle Resort (CUP 86/4/2-2).

George MacKay - Vested Rights Issued 5/14/96

Lake County denies any vested rights associated with the real property legally described above.

John Shegas - Vested Rights Issued 5/17/96

Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with property legally described in Ordinance 74-88 (Public Hearing No. 129-88-1). Lake County will not deny the property owner, acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the right to develop the property in accordance with MLS No. 94-68, subject to the conditions specified at the TRC meeting of September 8, 1994. For the purpose of this vested rights determination, acting in good faith shall mean that the property owner has dedicated right-of-way to Lake County, and recorded a legal description of the three parcels associated with MLS No. 94-68 in the public records of Lake County, Florida within one (1) year from the date of this vested rights determination.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/PARKS & RECREATION

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following appointments to the Lake County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for terms ending May 20, 1998:

School Board Representative Randy Wiseman

League of Cities Representative Jim Myers

Water Authority Representative Irene "Rene" James

At-Large Representative Joe Shipes

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board to discuss the request for approval and execution of the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs Anti-Drug Abuse Act grant funds for the Operation Redirect grant for Fiscal Year 1996-97.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the execution of the grant funds, as stated above.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the request for approval of the refunding of the Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund at a Fiscal Impact of $300,000 should not have been placed under the consent agenda, therefore, it would be scheduled on a regular agenda where it would be properly noticed.

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

CODE ENFORCEMENT/COURTS-JUDGES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the County had a pending Code Enforcement case where a Code Enforcement Board member was asked to recuse herself and felt that she did not need to do so. Since then a lawsuit had been filed in Circuit Court trying to prohibit that person from voting. The County was now faced with the choice of whether to provide an attorney to that individual Board member. He stated that the County may be required to pay for a defense, even if the County did not provide an attorney to her. In order to minimize the County's risk of costs in the case, he suggested that the Board allow staff to withdraw the Code Enforcement case and file a case in court to enforce the County codes, as a Mandatory Injunction and have the courts determine whether this, in fact, was a code violation. He noted that, in this case, the County Attorney's Office was not representing the Board, but was representing the staff. The Board had an attorney that recommended that the individual abstain. If she goes to court and wins, the County would pay the attorney's fees, even if the County chose not to defend her.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request by the County Attorney to file a case in court, as stated above.

CODE ENFORCEMENT/COURTS-JUDGES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that staff was trying to collect Code Enforcement liens that had been filed previously, where fines had been issued, and they had not been paid. The method to do so would be through a foreclosure proceeding. He questioned whether the Board wanted staff to bring those back to the Board for permission to file the suit, or as a matter of course, if it was recommended to him by staff, he would file the suit to foreclose those liens. He noted that each individual case could be brought back to the Board with notification that he would be filing the suit, or a blanket request could be made to the Board, or notification could be made each time a case was filed.

It was the consensus of the Board that the County Attorney be directed to file foreclosure suits on Code Enforcement liens, as they were sent to the County Attorney's Office by staff.

REPORTS - County Manager

COMMITTEES/LEGISLATURE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that she had received a FAX from the Association of Counties on the "presumption of correctness" bill, which was now in the Governor's Office. The Association was strongly urging the Board to contact the Governor and ask him to veto the bill, and to establish a study commission to look over the appeals process, and the whole assessment system and make recommendations to the Legislature in 1997. She requested permission to take this action.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request, as stated above by Ms. Whittle, County Manager.

BUDGET/MEETINGS

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the budget reviews had been scheduled for the following days: July 11 (Thursday); July 12 (Friday); July 18 (Thursday); and July 19 (Friday).

REPORTS - Commissioner Cadwell

MEETINGS

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that the League of Cities would be having their quarterly dinner at Silver Lake Country Club this Wednesday night at 6 p.m.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\5-28-96\6-7-96