A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FEBRUARY 25, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Commissioners not present at the meeting: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman; Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue B. Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Swartz noted that Commr. Good was out of town, and he would be acting in the capacity of Chairman.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Hanson stated that she had two items she wanted placed on the agenda and both items dealt with speed limits. She stated that she would like to have a resolution supporting reducing the speed limit on SR 46 between Mount Plymouth and Sorrento, and through Pine Lakes on SR 44.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place the request made by Commr. Hanson on the agenda for today.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Cadwell introduced Mr. Bill Duvall who was doing his internship for Leadership Lake County today.

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Swartz requested that the Board place on the agenda a request for a Charter Committee member, to replace a member who had become very ill.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place the request made by Commr. Swartz on the agenda for today.

MINUTES

Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of January 21, 1997, Regular Meeting, with the following corrections being made:

Page 24, Line 18: Lake County Day is April "8"

Page 30, Line 6: "needs to be determined"

Page 1: Clarification to be made as to the current

Chairman and Vice Chairman

Page 22, Line 20: 4-1 vote, with Commr. Gerber voting "no"



On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of January 21, 1997, as amended.

Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of January 28, 1997, Regular Meeting, with the following corrections being made:

Page 1: Clarification to be made as to the current

Chairman and Vice Chairman

Page 25, Line 6: Change "know" to "no"

Page 1: Under Agenda Update correct "pull" to "put"



On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of January 28, 1997, as amended.

On a motion y Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of February 4, 1997, as presented.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/GRANTS/COMMUNITY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the submission of the Community Development Block Grant to the Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $750,000 and authorization for Chairman to sign the grant documents.

INFORMATION

The following vested rights determinations have been issued.



Edward and Susan Koch - Vested Rights Issued 1/21/97 (Supersedes that dated 1/9/97)



Findings of Fact:



Property Location:

Range 25E, Township 23S, Section 25

Postal Colony



Land Use:

Rural Conservation (1 du/10 ac)

Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern



Conclusions:



1. E 1/2 of Tract 10, ORB 492, PG 167



Two (2) Final Development Orders (building permits) were issued before the effective date of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.



2. W 1/2 of Tract 12, ORB 1092, PG 2459



On October 21, 1994, Lake County issued a Lot of Record Determination with the provision that additional right-of-way is needed before any permit is issued.



On November 29, 1994, a Statutory Warrantee Deed for Right-of-Way was recorded.



Corrected Determination of Vested Rights:



1. W 1/2 of Tract 12, ORB 1092, PG 2459



A Lot of Record Determination was made following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and right-of-way was deeded to the County. Under the Lake County Land Development Regulations, Chapter I - General Provisions - Section 1.02.02 Common Law Vesting, this parcel is determined to be vested.



In summary, the applicant is granted a total of three (3) parcels:



Parcel 1. W 1/2 of Tract 12



Parcels 2. & 3. E 1/2 of Tract 10, W 1/2 of Tract 11, E 1/2 of Tract 11, and the W 1/2 of Tract 22 aggregated into two (2) parcels. Configuration and size of parcels to be determined by the applicant subject to approval by the Lake County Department of Growth Management.



This determination is consistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-8, Florida Administrative Code under which vested rights determinations in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern can only be made in accordance with Policy 1-12A.1 of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan:



Policy 1-12A.1: Vested Rights Provisions.

By July, 1993, Lake County shall enact a vested rights ordinance to ensure that existing rights of property owners are preserved in accord with the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States. Property ownership patterns as of the adoption date of the Plan shall be the basis for all determinations of vesting.



The details of this ordinance shall be guided by principles of statutory vesting and common law vesting.



1. Statutory vesting is defined in Subsection 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes, and gives the property owner the right to complete any development that has been authorized as a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380, or has been issued a final local development order and development has commenced and is continuing in good faith.





2. Common law vesting is generally found to exist when an applicant proves, that the owner of a project or parcel of land, acting in good faith upon some act or omission of the County, has made a substantial change in position or has incurred such extensive obligations or expenses that it would be inequitable and unjust to destroy the right to develop or to continue development of the property.



REZONING

PETITION #10-97-5 A + CUP#91/5/1-5 to CFD CITY OF UMATILLA TRACKING NO. #8-97-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that there had been one change to the agenda. She stated that the City of Umatilla (Tab 7), Case #10-97-5, was requesting a withdrawal.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to accept the request for withdrawal from the City of Umatilla, Case #10-97-5, Tracking No. #8-97-CFD.

PETITION CUP#97/1/2-4 CUP in MP JAMES A. CROSON/NEXTEL

COMMUNICATIONS TRACKING NO. #5-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the Nextel Communications case was postponed last month, so that staff could notify additional residential neighbors to the north. As of yesterday, no correspondence, or telephone calls had been received by staff. Ms. Farrell stated that staff readvertised and reposted and notified the additional residential properties. A map indicating the zoning of the area, and the additional area of notification, was presented to the Deputy Clerk and marked County's Exhibit A.

Commr. Hanson, once again, declared a conflict of interest and stated that she would not be voting, but that she had met with some of the folks on a different land issue and had mentioned the zoning case to them.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested that the Deputy Clerk attach a copy of the original Conflict of Interest form that was filed at the previous Board meeting, January 28, 1997, to these minutes.

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

Mr. Robert Rosen, Attorney with Broad & Cassell, Orlando, addressed the Board and stated that he was representing Nextel Communications, and that the Board had in their minutes their presentation from the last meeting. Mr. Rosen stated that he would only be addressing a couple of issues, since the applicant had already made a record in the case. The issue had been raised regarding the fall zone of the tower, and Mr. Rosen submitted a letter from a professional engineer, which the Deputy Clerk marked as Applicant's Exhibit A, explaining the fall zone, which had a 45 foot radius. In the event of a catastrophe, the tower would not fall off of the site, or anywhere near any adjacent properties, roads, or railroad track. He reiterated that, while understanding the expanding notice request of the Board, the applicant had complied with the County's codes, and he wanted to have the opportunity to respond to any concerns from those present. Mr. Rosen reiterated that the applicant was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would comply with all applicable laws, codes and ordinances, and the applicant was consistent and in compliance with the Federal Communications Act. He stated that no substantial competent evidence had been placed on record to support a denial of this tower, and he requested approval of the tower consistent with the recommendations of staff.

Ms. Farrell noted that, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, the language allowed for the tower to be designed to accommodate collocation.

Ms. Jackie Ellis, representing her husband Paul, Hilldale Avenue, Sorrento, addressed the Board and questioned the location of the tower, in regards to the location of her property.

Ms. Farrell noted that it was over 600 feet from the tower to the nearest residential site. She presented a video of the site, which showed the location of the tower, in relation to the residential homes.

Mr. Bob Johnson, Site Development Manager for Nextel Communications, addressed the Board and explained the location of the tower, as well as the setback requirements.

Ms. Ellis explained the location of several pieces of property which she owned and stated that the tower would impact them, because it would be less than 600 feet from one of her homes.

Ms. Minnie Bell Harvey addressed the Board and pointed out the location of her property on the map, which was lot 11 on Hilldale Avenue. It was noted that Ms. Ellis owned Lot 16, Lot 1, and a lot which was closer to Ms. Harvey.

Commr. Swartz explained that it appeared to be at least 300 feet from the tower to the closest residential property line. He noted that the letter provided by the applicant was an engineer's statement regarding the design of the tower, which would collapse into the area where it was built, if there was a catastrophe.

Ms. Ellis was concerned about her and her little girl's safety when walking on the road near the proposed tower, and whether the tower was going to be enclosed.

Mr. Rosen stated that he would be glad to meet with Ms. Ellis and Ms. Harvey after the hearing, to address their concerns. He explained that the tower was going to be fenced, and the area would be landscaped, and if the tower was to collapse, it would be within a 45 foot radius around the tower itself, which was well within the site that would be fenced and self contained. It was noted that the tower would be 250 feet high.

Mr. Dave Richards addressed the Board to question the location of the tower, in terms of SR 46 and CR 437, and his property.

He was opposed to the request, because he owned commercial property, and he did not think the tower sounded good, because, if there were high winds, or a hurricane, it could collapse. He stated that he pays a lot of taxes, and he felt there should be something viable in this location. Mr. Richards stated that there was nothing on his property today, and he was going to keep the current zoning, but if this did not work for him, he would go back to residential.

Discussion occurred regarding the location of the tower, with it being noted that collocation could be provided on the same structure, but there would be no additional towers.

Mr. Rosen stated that he would be happy to meet with the residents after the meeting, if they had any questions or concerns. He reiterated that there was no evidence submitted that would permit a denial of the tower.

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

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve the request, as presented.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she was happy that staff did the notification, because it gave these individuals a chance to come forward and talk to Mr. Rosen, and to have their fears allayed. She stated that, according to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Board had no compelling evidence not to find in favor of the application.

Commr. Swartz stated that he agreed with Commr. Gerber's comments, and he was glad that staff had readvertised. The tower was further away from residential than he had realized, approximately 350 feet or more, and this was probably within the reasonable guidelines.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-0 vote. Commr. Hanson abstained from voting.

PETITION #14-97-4 RM to R-7 LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS FOR DEER HAVEN SUBDIVISION TRACKING #15-97-Z



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that staff was before the Board several weeks ago, and under the Board's direction, it moved forward with this staff initiated rezoning. She stated that there was no opposition to the request, and it was approved at Planning and Zoning 10-0.

Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that those present were in favor of the request.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated staff and the Commission addressing a long time concern of the folks in Deer Haven, and this appeared to be the only way to resolve the issue of being able to replace some older mobile homes with conventional homes.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the County initiated request for rezoning the unrecorded platted subdivision of Deer Haven from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential) zoning, to allow for placement of mobile homes and conventional homes.

PETITION CUP#97/2/3-4 CUP in R-1 IRWIN & SUSAN SIEGEL

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that currently the residence was being used as a single family residence and staff was recommending approval for the use of the home as a bed and breakfast. She stated that there were no letters in opposition, and there was one letter from the City of Eustis. She further stated that Planning and Zoning had recommended approval 10-0. Ms. Farrell reviewed pictures of the site and noted that the parcel was serviced by well and septic, and the applicant would have to meet certain regulations of the Department of Professional Regulations for Bed and Breakfasts in the State of Florida.

Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in R-1 (Rural Residential), for the establishment of a bed and breakfast home from an existing residence.

PETITION #7-97-4 LM to CFD J. P. HEINMAN/TREASURE

COAST ARCHITECTS



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the request involved 15 acres in the Mount Dora area from the intersection of US 441 and Robie Avenue. She stated that staff had been in contact with the City of Mount Dora, and the City was working on a service agreement for utilities with the applicant. Staff was recommending approval for the Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) to be located on the site, and the project would have to come back through a development review. There were two letters of support and none in opposition, and it was approved by Planning and Zoning 10-0. It was noted that the total bed count would not exceed 194 persons, which would be phased in. Ms. Farrell stated that staff did not have any traffic studies today, or any information, as far as the phasing and the impact to the transportation, but they would have to address these issues at the site plan review.

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

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant was asking the Board to do a rezoning to Community Facility District (CFD). She noted that the existing zoning on the property was Light Industrial (LM). When a rezoning was done on the property to the east (Sullivan), a Comprehensive Plan amendment change was done to a residential land use classification; however, community facilities are allowed in the employment center, which would allow for the highest densities and intensities in Lake County. The proposed facility was much more in keeping with what the City of Mount Dora envisions for that area, and also for the residential development that was occurring there. Staff has found the request to be consistent with the policies and compatible with the surrounding land uses. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant would be receiving central water and sewer from the City of Mount Dora, and the City Attorney has suggested that the City use the same model agreement that she prepared for the Sullivan parcel, which had received City Council approval. Ms. Bonifay stated that Robie Avenue was paved to the eastern most end of the property, and the continuous paving of it was also a requirement of the Sullivan PUD. She stated that, to the east and west, the property was owned by Mr. Jim Simpson, and she noted that there was a letter in the backup from him in support of the request. There was also a letter from Mr. George Pandolph expressing his support for the request. On Page 2 of the proposed ordinance, Ms. Bonifay made a request to revise the language where it listed the total bed count. The total bed count was only for the ACLF facility, which would be done in Phase I and II, which would be an eight wing facility with a total of 194 beds. She discussed the future phases and stated that the 194 beds was really the only limitation on the ACLF. She stated that her clients were here today, as well as a consultant who had worked with them on developing a site plan for the facility.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether there should be language in the ordinance indicating that the applicant would be connecting to the City of Mount Dora for utilities.

Ms. Farrell noted that the standard language for utilities could be included, so that the intent of the applicant, as well as the Board, was clear.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from LM (Light Industrial) to CFD (Community Facility District), for construction and operation of an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF), with the inclusion of the standard language for utilities.

PETITION CUP#92A/5/1-5 Amend CUP#92/5/1-4 JOYCE DAY

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this was a six acre parcel, and the applicants had been before the Board in 1992 with the original request for a hunting camp. The applicant now wanted to extend the months from nine to 12, and staff had recommended denial of the request, because it did not want it to turn into a RV park, or to change the zoning for such a use. Ms. Farrell stated that there had not been any complaints, but staff was not comfortable extending the use to year round. Ms. Farrell presented photographs of the site, which were presented to the Deputy Clerk and marked County's Exhibit A. She stated that there were three letters of support, and the motion made for approval at the Planning and Zoning meeting failed by a 4-6 vote.

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

Mr. Rock Hooker, representing Ms. Joyce Day, addressed the Board and stated that he was one of the users of the property and his letter was attached to the Board's backup material. He stated that the other two letters were from his uncles who also use the property. Mr. Hooker stated that there were eight trailers currently on the property, and he doubted there would ever be any more, because this was a family venture. He explained that no one could see any of the travel trailers from any public road. Mr. Hooker noted the names of some of the people and their families that come to the site and stated that there was not going to be any permanent structures. He stated that they were trying to avoid having to move all of the structures off of the property and, then three months later, moving them back to the site. Mr. Hooker stated they have always abided by the CUP, and they pay a fee to the County for staff to inspect the property.

Mr. Allen Day, son of Joyce Day, the applicant, addressed the Board and explained that they have an outdoor privy, as set forth in the terms of the conditions in the CUP. Mr. Day noted that no units were rented, and this was a private hunting and fishing site for the families.

Mr. Ray Bryant addressed the Board and stated that, during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, it appeared that the Commission's only problem involved the trailers becoming permanent structures, and he assured the Board that this was not going to happen.

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

Commr. Cadwell noted that, when the case came before the Board in 1992, there was a concern about the trailers becoming permanent structures, and he felt that the applicant had proven, with the CUP, that this had not happened. He stated that there had been no code violations, and he had visited the site, and it was very well kept, and he felt the Board should approve the request.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the request with the setbacks being 50 feet, as currently stated, from the water line, and being enforced; limiting the site to a maximum of eight units, again reiterating no permanent structures, no concrete pads, no screen porches, etc.; and extending the time from nine months per year to 12 months.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber wanted to know what would happen if the property was sold.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the biggest downside would be if somebody bought this property with this CUP, because they could turn it into a coop, or condominium without coming back through zoning approval.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the Board could add language to the CUP, so that the CUP would stay in place under this ownership.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the County does land use, and not individual use, and the coops or condos would not have to come back to the Board. The people who bought the lots would still be subject to the condition where they could not occupy it more than nine months, even though they would not have to move it. He explained that the people would file a condominium document with the State, which does not come to the County for approval, and that Florida Statutes Chapters 718 and 719 states that the County could not discriminate against them, because they were a condominium.

Commr. Swartz stated that he remembered some of the concerns when the case originally came before the Board, and the request was primarily for a temporary hunting camp. It seemed to him that the County would be making it a multi-unit park, and Commr. Swartz felt that the Board would be making a mistake, if it did this, because the Board would have a difficult time saying to the next applicants, in a similar situation, they could not do it as well. Commr. Swartz stated that he would not support increasing the nine months, and to increase the number of units was going further and further down that road.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, if the property was vacant, the County would not allow camping on the property, because if the zoning use required a single family house, for example, the County would not allow occupancy of a camper.

Commr. Gerber stated that she had a circumstance off of Griffin Road where it was a nice little family fish camp that had turned into the selling of single lots. She stated that she had no problem with the existing CUP, because no one would want to buy a lot for nine months in a year.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he did not feel there would be any problem with someone buying a lot for nine months, or during hunting season, because hunters would not have a problem bringing their trailers onto the property and moving them off during that period of time.

Commr. Swartz explained that, if he had had the input that he just received from the County Attorney, he would have been inclined to vote against it, and he was hesitant to see the Board increase the usage, and the number of units.

Commr. Hanson discussed getting a consensus on whether it would be more acceptable to leave the numbers as they were at the six, but only extending the use.

Commr. Gerber stated that she thought eight units for nine months was better than six units for 12 months, because of having to move and store the trailers. She did not have a problem with the number of units and family members coming for nine months, and she felt it would be a disincentive when they know they have to have storage for three months out of the year, and they would not be able to make it permanent.

Commr. Swartz explained that there was a motion on the floor to approve the increase to 12 months and eight units.

Commr. Gerber stated that this was not the only place like this in the County, and they were becoming more and more rare, and more and more desirable, and the Board needed to recognize this and not set a precedent.

Mr. Hooker addressed the Board and explained why it takes them all weekend to move the trailers. He stated that three months out of the year nobody would want to be on the property, because of the mosquitoes.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the Board said the property could not be occupied for specific months, staff would have an easy way to verify, but otherwise, there would be no way to inspect.

Commr. Hanson stated that the RVs could be left on the site, but not have anyone in them for three months.

Commr. Hanson amended her motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to say that the RVs could stay on the site for 12 months, except for the three consecutive months of May, June and July, at which time they would not be utilized and inhabited.

Commr. Swartz felt that the Board had gone above and beyond when it was originally approved, and he felt the Board was allowing a multi-unit use on a piece of agricultural property.

The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

PETITION #9-97-2 R-4 to PUD DAN DECKER/MAGNOLIA POINT

DEVELOPMENT, INC.



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this particular case had been presented to the Board in November, 1996, for rezoning from agriculture to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), and since that time, the applicant has gotten central water and sewer connections with the City of Clermont. Staff and the applicants also worked diligently on a Developer's Agreement to take care of some of the adjacent property owners' concerns. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicants came to the Development Review Staff (DRS) and discussed some of their design techniques and ideas they had for the property, and staff thought it would be best if they came back as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). She reviewed the proposed ordinance with the Board noting that there had been some changes, since the Board had received a copy of it. Ms. Farrell stated that there would be single family units with a mixture of detached houses and condominium units keeping the dwelling units under four units an acre. The setbacks would include a 50 foot setback from the wetlands jurisdictional line, and the recreational uses were not really changing from what was approved in November, but staff did remodify the language in terms of acreage and use.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, in the Planning and Zoning minutes, there had been a request for a waiver of the 50 feet on the tennis courts.

Ms. Farrell stated that the request was denied at the Planning and Zoning Commission, and it was noted, by the applicant's attorney, that the request had been withdrawn.

Ms. Farrell noted that staff did not have a problem with #7 on Page 4, which dealt with a decorative brick wall being permitted in the community park and within 50 feet, but not less than 5 feet from the wetlands. She further noted other areas of the ordinance that would remain the same and stated that the language would remain regarding the MSTU and MSBU. Ms. Farrell stated that F. was added regarding the Developer's Agreement, and the OR Book and Page number would have to be included.

Commr. Swartz questioned the fire impact fee language in the ordinance, with Ms. Farrell noting that the language should be deleted.

Commr. Swartz addressed the five foot setback from the wall and questioned whether staff had any evaluation from Environmental Services as to whether or not a brick wall would impede any flow of water in such a way that it would impact the hydrologic action of the wetland.

Ms. Farrell stated that she did not get a comment specifically from the Environmental staff, but language could be included such as "provided it would not affect stormwater or drainage."

Commr. Gerber questioned whether there was inter-governmental coordination of access management in a development that was this close to the Orange County line.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained that, if the spacing goes into Orange County, the County coordinates primarily with the Department of Transportation (DOT). He noted that DOT keeps the traffic counts east and west across the State on SR 50, because they coordinate with the County's departments.

Mr. Lanny Harker, Planning Director, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that there was an agreement that was signed by the City Council on December 10, 1996, which included not only the system expansion to provide utilities to this project, but also annexation language. The project created another $1.2 million expansion for the existing east side system, which the City had already enlarged by $10.5 million over the last two years. He stated that a portion of this system will complete the loop south coming onto CR 455, which included both Arrowhead and Greater Hills Subdivisions. The City has agreed to oversize the lines, and the utilities will be placed within 1/4 mile of the Orange County line. Mr. Harker stated that this appeared to be an upscale development, and the City appreciated the opportunity to comment. He stated that the City had a very good working relationship with County staff, and with the developer.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and presented a video, which recapped several of the issues brought forth for discussion, including the brick wall.

The video was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Applicant's Exhibit A. Mr. Hoban recapped that the development had upscale housing, with the interior lots being approximately $200,000 to $400,000, and the houses on the lake being approximately $400,000 to $1 million. Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Decker wanted to have the brick wall going down to the lake and noted that it would not impede the water flow at all. He noted that an engineer could testify to this, if necessary. Mr. Hoban recapped that, last August, he came before the Board to request a zoning for the same property to R-4, with a density cap of 300 units, and the applicant was prepared to extend Clermont's water lines 1.5 miles, but they were not prepared to do the sewer 2.5 miles. He showed a sketch of the proposed wall and noted that the applicant has agreed to keep the tennis courts at least 50 feet away from jurisdictional wetland, and the applicant was committing again to do a 100 foot right-of-way into the project with a median and extensive landscaping, as well as private roads and a guard house near the front of the property on SR 50. In August, the Board had encouraged the benefits of sewer, and the applicant has now reached an agreement with the City of Clermont involving a $1.2 million water and sewer contract, and today Mr. Decker has spent over $200,000 in reliance on the rezoning. Mr. Hoban explained that it cost an extra $800,000 to run the sewer lines to the project, and another $800,000 to run the lines from the entrance of the property and all through the property, and the only way to make this work was to increase the density, so the project was re-designed. Mr. Hoban reviewed the graphic drawings in the backup material, which showed the design of the condominium units and two car garages. There were no parking lots and no dumpsters, and it would be under condo ownership. The applicant consulted with the City of Clermont, and the City indicated that it would support upscale multi-family, as long as the average square foot was at least 1,500, and the applicant agreed to this condition. Mr. Hoban stated that the gross density being proposed was 3.65 units, with the net density being 3.96 units per acre, which was under the Comprehensive Plan of 4 units per acre, and the applicant was going to meet the 25% open space. The plan had been explained to the neighbors and commitments were made to them. He noted that the Zeiglers were present, as well as Ms. Cecelia Bonifay and Ms. Denise Hammond who owned adjacent property. Mr. Hoban stated that, in exchange for them giving up their dirt easements over the applicant's property, they agreed not to landlock them, and Ms. Bonifay would be presenting agreed upon language, which they would like to have placed in the PUD ordinance. He noted that some of the neighbors had asked about the gopher tortoises, and the applicant has agreed to relocate them, pursuant to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission guidelines, and to not utilize the option to pay money and destroy them. Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant has agreed to a 50 foot buffer around the neighbors, and for the existing vegetation to be kept in the open space area, which would be dedicated to the Homeowners' Association, and live oak, laurel oak, sand pine, and slash pine would be planted in the buffered area. The disking would be done from east to west, and there would be no access through their existing roads, and all of the access would be through to SR 50. In order for the applicant to get a Department of Transportation (DOT) permit for the curb cut, the applicant would have to submit a traffic study to DOT. Mr. Hoban noted that one letter of opposition had been received. He stated that DOT has told the applicant verbally that there was a median cut that did not meet their spacing requirements, and DOT has agreed verbally that, if the applicant removes the spacing cut and relocates it, pays the total expense, and does a traffic study, it would approve the application. Mr. Hoban stated that he agreed with the staff report and this being an asset community.

Commr. Gerber questioned the environmental assessment in the letter received from Mr. James V. Modica, President, Modica and Associates, Environmental Planning, Design & Permitting.

Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Modica had discovered, on the other side of the lake, some clasping warea, but he had done a 100% survey on the applicant's property, and there was none on it.

Mr. Hoban noted that, on page two of the proposed ordinance, it needed to indicate a five foot setback from side and rear property lines for the multi-family, as shown in 2. a. and b.

Mr. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, addressed the Board and stated that she was representing Ms. Denise Morris Hammond, who was in the audience, and her sister, Patricia Morris Flood, who were the owners of the parcel that was immediately to the east of Lots 11, 12, and with Lots 24, 25, and 26 bordering it. Ms. Bonifay noted that Mr. Zeigler and his son-in-law were also present, but she did not represent them, and they had the remaining portion of the property going to the east. She stated that Ms. Hammond and Ms. Flood acquired the property from their uncle, and it has remained in their family and, at the present time, they do not know their future development plans. However, their particular parcel was benefitted by an easement that was granted to the Zeiglers, which runs along the northern top of those properties, and then went up the mid section line, and they have access through the other developments out to SR 50. Because the ordinance was silent on access, they would like language that dealt with this issue. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Hoban has provided Grants of Easement and a Revocation of Easement to her, which can be executed and she could hold in escrow, but if Mr. Decker sells his contract, she wanted to have something in the ordinance that was binding on the successor, because Mr. Decker was not currently the owner of the property, and it was her understanding that they would not close on it until sometime later in the year. Ms. Bonifay presented the following language to be included in the ordinance:



Provision - In exchange for revoking the existing Hammond/Flood easement rights, if any, access will be provided to the out parcel (the Hammond/Flood parcel) located to the east and adjacent to lots 11 & 12 as depicted on the Master Concept Plan dated Feb. 4, 1997, job No. 96-011 and approved as part of the PUD zoning. Access will be via the cul de sac at the end of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and will be over all paved street in the Magnolia Pointe Subdivision out to SR 50. No access will be granted to any other surrounding property owners through the Hammond/Flood parcel.



Ms. Bonifay noted that, in exchange for the granted easement, they would give up whatever rights or interests they may have in the easement that benefits their property, or this east 50 foot easement that would bisect the current property. The other concern was the wildlife, which they did not want migrating over onto their property, and Ms. Bonifay noted that the relocation of the wildlife should take place before those areas were developed. She discussed another provision with Mr. Hoban and Mr. Harker where, if her client wanted water or sewer extended through the development, they would have the opportunity to tie into it at whatever rate was afforded to other residents of the development.

Mr. Hoban indicated that his client agreed with the language proposed by Ms. Bonifay.

Mr. Harker stated that the City of Clermont would have capacity and availability to serve the individuals, whenever the time came.

Mr. Hoban discussed the Developer's Agreement, which was prepared last fall by Mr. Minkoff, Ms. Farrell and himself, and stated that he would like to take out the language for Mr. Hammond, and to put the exact same language in as before, in exchange for the Zeiglers giving up their dirt easement over the developer's property, and the developer would agree to give the Zeiglers easements over the property over the paved roads to SR 50. He would like this language back in the agreement for Mr. Zeigler, because he had the same exact concern as Ms. Bonifay.

Discussion occurred regarding having the same language for both people, with Mr. Hoban noting that Ms. Bonifay's clients did not seem to want to give Mr. Zeigler access through her property, and the developer would be giving him a dirt access up to their paved road, which was what he has now, and once there was a paved road, he will access all of the way through.

Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant has agreed to give 50 feet of common open space to be dedicated to the Homeowners' Association, and on Page 3, to cross out F. 1. and put the exact language agreed upon by Mr. Minkoff, Ms. Farrell and himself last fall, where the developer agreed to buffer Sylvan Shores and Citrus Cove where the existing neighborhoods are now, but they did not wish to buffer 50 feet of Ms. Bonifay's client's grounds. Mr. Hoban discussed the possible access points for Mr. Zeigler, which had not be determined at this time.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff had contacted Public Services about the access issue, and as long as staff was calling it a private driveway, and not a road and not an easement, it would be considered as a private driveway that would not have to meet setback requirements, or concerns with the lots.

Clarification was made that the setback would be from the easement, as opposed to the property lines.

At this time, Mr. Hoban stated that he would like to make a request for a five foot setback from the easement.

Ms. Farrell discussed the changes that had been made and noted that, on Page 2, the information regarding setbacks would be included under multi-family, and on Page 3, F. 1., language would be added from the Developer's Agreement, because staff was comfortable with it. It was noted that the 50 feet was considered as part of the open space.

Commr. Swartz stated that, when the applicant runs the buffer/open space down the back of all of the property lines on the east and north side of the project, it would have to meet the requirements of open space.

Mr. Minkoff stated that this was contemplated, and therefore, language was included that stated appropriate conditions would be placed on the use of the common open space at the time of platting.

Ms. Farrell continued the discussion by noting the language on Page 4. 7, not less than five feet from the wetlands, and she confirmed with staff that it would not affect the wetlands. She further stated that the language in Q. Fire Service Impact Fee would be removed, and the language provided by Ms. Bonifay would be added to the ordinance.

Mr. Stivender stated that, if Mr. Zeigler would like to keep his access for a single resident, there was no requirement on the width of the access; however, it did have to have a 25 foot setback from adjacent properties. If Mr. Zeigler would like to split the property sometime in the future, he would be required to have additional right-of-way, which, for two way traffic, it would be the same as the roads in the subdivision. It was noted that Mr. Zeigler currently had a ten foot dirt access. Mr. Stivender stated that, by doing this with a minimum easement, he would be limiting the situation for the future, which would be his choice, but the 25 foot setback did come into play, unless it was waived. He further stated that, in these cases where it was a single residence, staff has been very flexible and reasonable with individuals. As to the request made for five feet, Mr. Stivender indicated that it should be more than five, but less than 25 feet, with ten sounding more reasonable.

Mr. Minkoff stated that it would also depend on the width of the easement, because if it was only a ten foot easement, then five feet would not be very much, but if it was a 50 foot easement, then five feet would be great.

Mr. Stivender explained that 15 to 20 feet would be normal easement width to be able to go through with a single traffic.

Mr. Dan Decker addressed the Board and stated that he had met on many occasions with Mr. Zeigler, and he had told him this morning that whatever he decided he needed, as far as access, he would be happy to oblige.

Commr. Swartz discussed what had been said by Public Works and accepted by the applicant, which was a 20 foot easement as a minimum driveway easement, with a five foot required setback from that easement for whichever property that might be developed on either side of it.

Mr. Hoban concluded that the Board requirement for the applicant to have sewer connection was the reason he was back before the Board, and he requested approval of the PUD.

Commr. Hanson stated that the biggest concern with the utilities was the density not being high enough, but the proposal being presented to the Board solved the problem. It was a real good solution that was found to make it economical and acceptable to the neighbors and the community.

Mr. Carl Zeigler questioned, if he agreed with the five or ten foot setback, as being suggested, would Mr. Decker be the only developer that could develop it, if it was called a private drive or something similar, because he was unsure of the future.

Commr. Swartz stated that, by limiting him to 20 feet of access, he would probably be limiting the future development potential of his property, unless he could acquire some additional right-of-way into that property.

Mr. Minkoff stated that 50 feet would be the minimum County acceptable width to have a public road.

Commr. Swartz stated that, even though Mr. Zeigler currently has ten feet, it may appear to be very minimal access, but it was very important to the developer as well.

Discussion occurred regarding Mr. Zeigler coming back at another time for a variance on the 20 feet, with Mr. Zeigler questioning how this issue could be taken care of at this time.

Commr. Swartz stated that the issue could be taken care of by Mr. Zeigler having some desire to have the access that would be needed for him to do what he might potentially want to do in the future, because he has approximately seven acres in urban expansion. He stated that the applicant was getting four dwelling units per acre, and Mr. Zeigler could possibly be limiting himself to one building lot across that easement.

Mr. Zeigler explained that he would rather not be limiting himself in this situation, and he would like to have it set up so that the property could be developed.

Mr. Ed Huff, Mr. Zeigler's son-in-law, addressed the Board and stated that he did not know whether they would personally want to develop the property, but he felt it was something that his father-in-law should consider.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had a situation that was very important, and that he, as a Board member, would not feel comfortable without the appropriate language, because even though Mr. Zeigler has ten feet today, it was through the heart of the development. He suggested that the Board take about a 14 minute recess, so the developer could meet with Mr. Zeigler and see if they could work out something that would assure his future property utilization and protect him, and to bring back some language.

Commr. Hanson suggested that, while they were negotiating on the issue, the Board would continue with the agenda.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4

RESOLUTIONS/SIGNS/SUBDIVISIONS

Commr. Hanson addressed the two issues that she had the Board place on the agenda regarding speed limits. She stated that it had been brought to her attention that there was still a lot of public interest in reducing the speed limit through Pine Lakes on SR 44.

Commr. Hanson made a motion for the Board to approve a resolution to be sent to the Department of Transportation (DOT) requesting the reduction of speed to 45 miles per hour through Pine Lakes on SR 44.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the speed limit be left open and the Board have staff review the issue and bring back a resolution.

The motion died for the lack of a second.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to ask staff to bring back resolutions defining and recommending reduction of speed limits in both Pine Lakes, and the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area.

COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Hanson stated that she had discussed with Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, some confusion on the committees regarding the difference between an ex-officio member of a committee versus a liaison Commissioner, as far as the Sunshine regulation. She stated that she would like to have the Board ask Mr. Minkoff to address this issue, and to have the language clarified so that, on those committees where the members do not vote, they would be called liaison Commissioners rather than members of those committees.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, if a Commissioner was a member of a committee, whether the member had voting power or not, he would be subject to the Sunshine Law. He explained that the Board could ask a particular Commissioner to monitor and work with a committee, in which case he would not be a member, and he would not be subject to the Sunshine Law. In some of the ordinances, it specified that the Commissioner was a member that did not vote, in which case it would be Sunshine, and some of the other committees, the Commissioner was merely a liaison and not mentioned in the organization document.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the language be clarified, so that there would be no opportunity for any misinterpretation.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff look at each of the ordinances and modify them as necessary.

Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, was in the midst of undertaking a review of all of the committees, and staff could identify in each of them what the status of the Board members would be and bring it back to the Board for review.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that staff would be bringing back a full review of all of the committees.

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTIONS/COMMISSIONERS/GRANTS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, brought forth a resolution that would provide for authority of the Vice-Chairman of the Board to sign in the absence of the Chairman. He stated that, in connection with the Block Grant, staff realized that Commr. Good may not be back in time to sign it. Some of the Block Grant information requires that there be a paper authorizing authority.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to put a resolution on the agenda, as stated by Mr. Minkoff.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 1997-38 providing for authority of the Vice-Chairman to sign in the absence of the Chairman.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT #5

COMMITTEES

Commr. Cadwell reported that the Parks and Recreation Committee was meeting diligently, and he hoped to come back within the next month with some suggestions, so that the Board would be able to establish a direction. He stated that Volusia County would be making a presentation tomorrow to the Committee, and it had some joint agreements for the joint use of facilities with schools.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4

MEETINGS/MUNICIPALITIES

Commr. Hanson reminded the Board of the Paisley Park dedication on Saturday, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.



REPORTS - COMMISSIONER SWARTZ - DISTRICT #3

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that Mr. Don Rushing with the First Baptist Church had contacted him, and on Thursday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., they would be having a session where they have asked elected officials and others to come and attend, or send a letter of request, with regard to any issues that were of particular concern to the Commissioner that the church might be helpful in trying to bring about a resolution.

COMMITTEES/APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS

Commr. Swartz stated that there was a representative to the Charter Committee, Ms. Pat Leonard, who was quite ill and would not be able to attend the meetings in the foreseeable future.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson, and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Alton Roane to the Charter Development Committee, to replace Ms. Pat Leonard.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONERS GERBER - DISTRICT #1

LEGISLATION/RESOLUTIONS

Commr. Gerber addressed the Resolution that the Board approved regarding intangible tax and stated that she was in touch with Senator Anna Cowin's office on Friday, and Senator Cowin had asked that Senator John Ostalkiewicz amend the Bill to state that they would find revenue for Lake County to supplant what they would be taking under taxes, should it be revoked.

PETITION #9-97-2 R-4 to PUD DAN DECKER/MAGNOLIA POINT

DEVELOPMENT, INC. (CONTINUED)



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the parties in this case had agreed to the following language: "The developer shall provide a 50 foot right-of-way through to Mr. Zeigler's out parcel of seven acres." She explained that the parties were not going to get specific as to where this would be, because, if there were to be any changes in the reconfiguration, the developer could put the 50 foot right-of-way wherever it needed to go.

Commr. Swartz noted all of the issues to be approved, as follows: the setback issue on Page 2, which staff had recommended approval; the modification of the buffer language on Page 3, F. 1. consistent with the agreement; the wall with a minimum five foot setback from the wetland; the removal of the fire language, item Q; including the language providing access with a 50 foot right-of-way from one of the existing roadways to Mr. Zeigler's property; and the access language brought forth by Ms. Bonifay for access to the Hammond/Flood property.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for development of a 526 unit subdivision, including the changes, as presented by staff.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he appreciated the way the applicant worked with the neighbors and the City of Clermont in bringing a good project to the Board.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Gerber informed the Board that the funeral for Mr. Zebulon Osborne would be held at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, at the Presbyterian Church in Umatilla, and the family would be at the Beyers Funeral Home tonight for visitation.

COUNTY MANAGER

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, reminded the Board that the next Board Advance, which would be devoted to goal setting and problem solving and looking ahead to the coming year, had been set for March 11, 1997, at River Trace.



COMMITTEES

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, reminded the Board that the tentative Steering Committee for the visioning and action process

for the County was set for Monday, March 3, 1997, at Lake Sumter Community College.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:





JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\2-25-97\3-4-97