A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

APRIL 22, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 22, 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: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum to the Agenda and that it had been properly advertised.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he needed to add to the Agenda, under his Commissioner's Business, the appointment of a representative from the Transportation Disadvantaged Board to serve on the Human Services Grant Advisory Committee.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add said request to the Agenda.

Commr. Good noted, for informational purposes, that several Rezoning cases had either been withdrawn or postponed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following:

Withdrawal

Case No. PH18-97-2, Rick Weber, Tracking No. 25-97-MP/AMD



Postponement for 30 Days



Case No. 635C-4, United Southern Bank

Tracking No. 18-97-CUP/AMD



Case No. PH6-97-5, Florida Power Corporation

Tracking No. 13-97-CFD



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health



Request from Community Services for approval of the payment of the monthly Medicaid hospital bill, in the amount of $55,822.70, and the Medicaid nursing home bill, in the amount of $41,352.63, for the month of February, 1997.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements

County Property/Economic Development



Request from Economic Development for approval and execution of Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement between Lake County and SKC, L.L.C., a Kansas City Limited Liability Company, for property in Lake County's Central Park, in the approximate amount of $426,000.00.



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RESOLUTIONS/PUBLIC HEALTH

Commr. Good presented a Proclamation to Ms. Martha Harnit, R.N., Lake County Public Health Department, declaring April 23, 1997 through May 1, 1997 as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Week in Lake County.

Ms. Harnit thanked the Board for said Proclamation and informed them about upcoming events, with regard to the issue of teen pregnancy.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES

Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the purpose of this public hearing was for the Board to consider and, if approved, adopt Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) 97/1/1-5, in accordance with Resolution 1996-116. She stated that the applicant, the Lake County Department of Public Works, was seeking to lease 62.55 acres for a proposed clay mine, which would be used for the construction and maintenance of the Lake County highway and local road system, and that they would operate the mine. She stated that the requested action was to change the future land use designation for the site, located between Lake Yale and Lake Eustis, in the general vicinity of Hwy. 452, from Suburban to Rural. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, at their January 8, 1997 meeting, by a 9-0 vote, and the Board approved the amendment, for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), on January 21, 1997, by a 5-0 vote.

Ms. Strum informed the Board that, at the transmittal hearing held on January 21, 1997, they had expressed concern that there were no citizens in the audience, with regard to this application, and requested that staff revisit the issue of courtesy notices for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and all other cases from the Department of Growth Management requiring public hearings. She stated that she surveyed eleven other counties and hoped to bring a recommendation to the Board, in the near future, regarding the matter. She stated that, on January 21, 1997, the Department of Growth Management transmitted the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Mr. John Baker, Department of Community Affairs, and sent copies of the amendment to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). She stated that Resolution No. 1996-116, adopted by the Board on August 27, 1996, set the schedule for the public hearings, being January 8, 1997, January 21, 1997, and this date, April 22, 1997.

Ms. Strum stated that she had been asked to attend a meeting of combined homeowners associations from Lake Yale Estates,

Sandpiper Mobile Village, and Wedgewood, at which time she reviewed an aerial map indicating the homeowners associations, in relationship to the property in question. She noted that the aerial was a 1995 aerial, but the most current one available. She stated that she explained to the homeowners the difference between a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, and additional steps and hearings that would be required, before mining could commence, should the amendment be approved. She stated that she had sent courtesy notices to 23 property owners within 1,000 feet of the existing and proposed mines, as well as to the 203 residents of Lake Yale Estates and Sandpiper Mobile Village, and noted that many of the residents took the time to express their concerns, as indicated by the petitions contained in the Board's backup material.

Ms. Strum stated that, on March 31, 1997, staff received a letter, dated March 28, 1997, from Mr. Michael McDaniels, Growth Management Administrator, Department of Community Affairs (contained in the Board's backup material), indicating that DCA had no objections, recommendations, or comments concerning the amendment. She noted that she has been doing Comprehensive Plan Amendments since 1983 and this was the first one that she had ever had that had no objections, recommendations, or comments from DCA. She noted, however, that the Division of Historical Resources would like the County to hire an archeologist to survey the property, before mining commences, and, because the proposed mine is located on an elevated site, between two lakes, there is a possibility that there could be some archeological significance. She stated that it is not required, it is just something that they would like to have happen, before a shovel of dirt is moved. She stated that, based on the fact that there were no objections, recommendations, or comments from DCA, staff's recommendation was for approval of the change from Suburban to Rural.



Commr. Good requested that Ms. Strum include in her presentation the technical review of the proposed amendment and the report from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (contained in the Board's backup material).

Ms. Strum read into the record the comments from said report.

She then read into the record excerpts from a letter staff received from the Department of Environmental Protection (contained in the Board's backup material) indicating that they had no comments concerning the proposed amendment. She stated that the request before the Board was strictly to change from a Suburban land use designation to Rural. She stated that a Suburban land use designation would not allow a new mine; however, a Rural designation would allow the applicant to proceed forward with an application for mining. She noted that a restoration plan is required, through the requirements of Chapter 6, when applying for a new mine.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board stating that it was coincidental that the LUPA acreage is approximately 60 acres and the site that the County is looking at is 60 acres, however, noted that they are not the same 60 acres. He further noted that the site the County is looking at includes the existing clay pit.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, appeared before the Board, stating that she was the joint representative and legal counsel for the Eichelberger and Holler families, the owners of the property in question. She noted that they were being represented this date by their independent counsel, as well. She clarified that what was before the Board was a land use plan amendment, not a mining site plan; therefore, it only had the effect of changing the land use designation. She stated that, by approving the comprehensive plan amendment, the County would be bringing the land use designation into consistency with the actual zoning, which is agricultural.

She stated that, with a land use designation of Rural and a zoning classification of Agricultural, the permitted uses under the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are limited to single family residential homes, at a density of one unit per five acres, and traditional agricultural uses.

Ms. Campione stated that the application indicates that the intent for a land use change was to allow a clay mining operation, if the site plan could be approved. She stated that the applicants did not try to hide that fact, noting that it was spelled out in the initial application and it was that information that went to the Department of Community Affairs and was reviewed by the various regional and state agencies that looked over the proposed change. She stated that DCA was aware of the fact that this was not just a down zoning from a Suburban land use to Rural, they saw the proposed use, along with the land use change, and those comments came back, as indicated by Ms. Strum, very supportive, in that there were no objections to the request, other than some comments from the SJRWMD that were already raised in Ms. Strum's staff report, regarding hydrological issues that would need to be further explored.

Ms. Campione stated that it was clear, from the Minutes of the transmittal hearing, that it was the direction of the Board that they be given more information than would typically be given for a land use change, because they knew there was a use attached to the plan. She stated that she felt the staff report prepared by Ms. Strum did that very well. She stated that it is a known fact that much of the property that surrounds the site in question is owned and will continue to be owned by the Eichelberger families, therefore, noted that it would not make economic sense for them to go forward with something that would be a detriment to the marketability and future use of the property. She stated that the families have a vested interest in assuring that the clay pit is not operated in a way that will be detrimental to the surrounding

properties, thus, their reason for contacting the County seeking a "partner" to proceed with a change of use and a site plan for the property. She stated that the family felt, if the County was the participant, or actual user, it would eliminate their concerns about a third party operating the mine.

A brief discussion occurred regarding a similar case that had come before the Board several months ago, in the Villa City area, in which Ms. Campione represented homeowners who were vehemently opposed to a sand mine operation that was proposed for the area and the differences between that case and the one before the Board this date.

Ms. Campione stated that the differences between the two cases were quite numerous, which she discussed. She discussed the difference between a sand mine and a clay pit, as well. She informed the Board that the Eichelberger and Holler families are committed to only proceeding with the mining site plan, if Lake County is the participate in the clay mine. She stated that they are not interested in proceeding with any other third party, because they feel they have to protect their interest in the matter. She stated that they feel it is in their best interest, as well as the County's best interest, to allow the reclamation to occur, in conjunction with additional mining, so that it would create a positive situation that would be a benefit to the property owners that are closest to the property in question, where what is proposed to be mined is much further away.

Ms. Campione stated that, if the Board approved the amendment, they would, in no way, be bound to approve the mining site plan, nor would the owners be bound to proceed with the mining site plan. She stated that the owners are committed, however, noted that, if they choose to proceed, they will only do so if the County is the operator of the mine. She stated that, if all else fails, at the very least, the agricultural zoning that is on the property at the present time will become consistent with the land use designation.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board of the Supreme Court case that he had distributed to them at a prior meeting, which declared that these proceedings are legislative, not quasi-judicial, and, as such, the Board would not be bound, by allowing people to question each other, or by having to abide by any of the other quasi-judicial rules that formally apply, so the procedure to be used would be determined by the Board.

Commr. Good stated, for the record, that the action to be taken this date was for a land use change, which in no way would obligate the Board to make a decision about the clay mine, and he felt that was an important point to remember.

Ms. Campione called Mr. Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works Department, to the podium, at which time she questioned him regarding the difference between the 63 acres that is part of the proposed plan and the acreage that is the proposed LUPA; the quality of the clay (high) contained within the mine; where the buffers would be located; how long the reclamation project would take; what type of vegetation the buffers would consist of; and how the County would clean up the site, after the clay has been reclaimed.

Mr. Charles Goodman, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was going to go on the presumption that the Board would be approving the request, therefore, requested them to guarantee him that the holes made from the mining operation would never be used as landfills.

Ms. Marcia Harvey, a resident of Lake Yale Estates, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she was speaking on behalf of the Lake Yale Estates Homeowners Association. She stated that she and the other residents of the park were told, in 1990, that the property adjoining their park would be a future golf course and that the clay mine would be restored within two years. She read into the record a letter

(contained in the Board's backup material) from Mr. Glenn Tyre, Tyre & Taylor Realty, Inc., to Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, regarding the issue of the Eichelberger clay pit. The letter stated that Mr. Tyre was enclosing the Application for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, together with the Owner's Affidavit, which had been signed, and that, based on his understanding, if he was unable to reach an agreement with Lake County, regarding the operation of the clay pit, nothing to be done, pursuant to the application, would prohibit the land owner from using the property for any use permitted under a Rural designation. The letter further stated that, alternatively, should he be unable to reach an agreement, he would be able to direct that the application be withdrawn, prior to final approval, without prejudice to either party. The purpose of this understanding was to assure that the owner of the property, referred to in the application, would not be limited to using the clay pit for the Lake County highway and local road system, in the absence of their reaching a written agreement. She stated that it is in writing and should be very seriously recognized that the County is going to lose control of the property in question, if the Board approves the amendment.

Ms. Campione interjected that she had referred to said letter in her statement and had indicated that Mr. Tyre had retracted the letter.

Ms. Harvey discussed highway statistics for CR 452, at which time she submitted, for the record, a chart (Opposition's Exhibit A), indicating an increase in the number of accidents and fatalities that have occurred on said highway, from 1992 to 1996. She stated that Hwy. 452 is used as a shortcut to bypass Hwy. 441, to get to various other cities in and around Lake County; therefore, traffic is extremely heavy on the road. She discussed a concern about not being able to sell the remaining vacant lots in

her community, if the Board approved this request, and the fact that it would cause financial disaster to the park.

Ms. Harvey discussed a concern that, should the Board approve the request before them, it might affect Goose Prairie Swamp, located south of Lake Yale Estates and considered to be one of the finest water filtering swamps in the State, in the future. She discussed, item by item, the Standards for Review (contained in the Board's backup material) and requested the Board, on behalf of the Lake Yale Estates Homeowners Association, to deny the request.

Mr. Harry Hadaway, a resident of one of the nearby communities, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and discussed a concern he had about a 27 acre wildlife sanctuary, located between Sandpiper and Lake Yale Estates, being affected by the clay pit, should the Board approve this request. He requested the Board to deny the amendment.

Ms. Gwen Bromley, representing Palm Shores Here and There Mobile Home and RV Park, located near the property in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the residents of the park are very concerned about the traffic issue, with regard to this request, as well as the location of the clay mine, noting that they feel its location is not the proper place for it.

Mr. Donald Drolshagen, President of the Lake County Mobile/Manufactured Housing Homeowners Association, Inc., appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that his Association is an organization consisting of approximately 52 major mobile home parks in Lake County and that they strongly oppose rezoning the property in question for anything other than residential development. He stated that the clay mine has been opened and closed several times since 1985 and that each time it got a little bigger and uglier and eventually became a scar in what is a beautiful area. He stated that, for the County to put a mining operation into what has been primarily a residential area

did not make sense to him. He stated that the mine should have to be reclaimed by the property owners, not the taxpayers of Lake County.

Ms. Lucinda Roberts, a resident of Lake Yale Estates, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and showed a video (Opposition's Exhibit B), which she submitted for the record, indicating the amount of traffic that travels along Hwy. 452, in front of Lake Yale Estates, which also runs in front of the clay mine, and how dangerous the situation will be, with the trucks entering and exiting the mine. She stated that she lived between two mines in Indiana for 20 years and is fully aware of how they operate. She stated that she did not think she would be living next to one where she presently lives, noting that it is not a nice life.

Ms. Elsie Lytle, a resident of Sandpiper Mobile Home Manor, appeared before the Board, on behalf of the residents, in opposition to the request, stating that the park is located on Lake Yale, north of the Eustis city limits, on the east side of CR 452, less than one mile north of the proposed clay mine. She stated that the park consists of 184 homesites and approximately 290 residents. She discussed what had transpired, up to this point in time, with regard to the public hearings that had been held, concerning the proposed clay mine. She stated that she wanted to bring to the Board's attention two things, being (1) that the legal description of the proposed site is incorrect and the Department of Community Affairs and various other agencies will be basing their decision on that description; and (2) the Board had in their backup material many letters and a petition, with 143 signatures, from Sandpiper residents who are opposed to the clay mine. She stated that there would have been many more signatures, had a lot of the residents not gone back up north.

Ms. Lytle submitted, for the record, three (3) pictures (Opposition's Exhibit C), showing the condition of the clay pit.

She stated that the residents are opposed to the land use amendment before the Board this date, for the following reasons: the Lake County Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use surrounding the proposed site as Suburban; the land uses are agricultural and residential and would allow a density of three homes per acre; Suburban does not allow for clay mining, so it is obvious that the change to Rural is to allow for the clay mine; they believe that Suburban is the best future land use; many homes have already been built, or are being built, in this area and it is becoming a predominantly residential community; the article in The Lake Sentinel, dated March 20, 1997, showed that, from 1990 through 1996, the population in Lake County increased by 34,527 people. She stated that, if the County wanted this growth to continue, it must reserve the land in question for future homes, rather than a 63 acre clay pit.

Ms. Lytle stated that the Rural land use designation, which would allow for a clay mining pit, or one home per five acres, is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan and would discourage new residential development. She stated that it did not make sense to have Suburban land uses on the north, south, and east and a Rural land use on the west. She stated that the residents do not feel a clay mining pit is an appropriate land use and that it would not be compatible with existing and new residential development. She reviewed various policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan, which address the issue of mining, and commented on each. She stated that there are large residential developments on CR 452, north and south of the proposed site, being Wedgewood, Lake Yale Landing, Raintree Harbor, Southern Palms, and north are Kings Peninsula, Lake Yale Estates, Sandpiper Mobile Manor, Palm Shores, Quail Ridge, and Sun Lake. She stated that, in addition, there are homes and Lake Yale Baptist Assembly, on CR 452. She stated that it had been confirmed by several real estate agents that, if the clay pit becomes a reality, their property values will be lowered

and their homes will be difficult to sell. She stated that some other concerns of the residents were the wildlife sanctuary, alluded to earlier; increased truck traffic and the hazards it will create, as well as the noise and dust that will be generated from the trucks and heavy equipment. She stated that these were some of the things that needed to be taken into consideration, when making a decision on the clay pit. She stated that, apparently, this is going to be a long-term operation and the residents of the surrounding communities are the ones that will have to live with it. She stated that the residents were opposed to the amendment and requested the Board to deny it.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES (CONT'D.)

Mr. William C. Miller, Secretary, Lake Yale Corporation, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that his firm is the developer and owner of Sandpiper Mobile Home Manor and Lake Yale Estates, two senior citizen parks that border the property in question. He stated that, when the Eichelberger family approached his firm a number of years ago asking for a variance to rezone the portion of property that is the clay pit, in order to financially replant their orange groves from the freezes of 1983 and 1985, his firm went along with the request. He stated that, at the time, his firm was told that, as a portion of the pit was mined out, the side banks would be rolled back and planted, however, that did not happen then and has not happened to date. He stated that his firm has had difficulty selling homes, due to the clay pit and the fact that it was never reclaimed. He stated that the County correctly zoned the property as Suburban and his firm feels it is the County's duty to protect the surrounding residents

from any commercial activity that can detrimentally change their lifestyles. He strongly urged the Board to vote against the amendment and enforce the reclamation of the mine.

Mr. Tom Kuhn, a resident of Sun Lake Estates, a community of over 300 homes, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the residents of his community feel their homes will be financially hurt by the clay pit. He addressed the issue of traffic and how it has increased over the years and the safety aspect associated with it.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the Eichelberger families, reappeared before the Board and called Mr. Glenn Tyre to the podium, for questioning.

Mr. Tyre appeared before the Board, stating that he was the Court Appointed Receiver for the Eichelberger family properties and that it was his job to manage the properties, for a period of time. He stated that the Eichelberger family started discussing the possibility of working with the County, with regard to the property (63 acre tract) in question, because they felt the County could best reclaim the mine, have some good quality clay, and it would be a win/win situation for everybody involved. He was questioned regarding some test borings that were made at the mine, the quality of the clay that was extracted, the location of same, and the fact that, due to said borings, the amount of acreage involved would probably be a great deal less than 63 acres.

Mr. John Wetherford, Attorney, representing Ms. Mary Elizabeth Eichelberger, Mr. Bill Eichelberger, and Mr. Jay Eichelberger, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and discussed what has transpired, up to this date, with regard to the citrus grove operation of the Eichelberger family, the passing away of Mr. Robert Eichelberger, and how his death affected the clay mining operation. He stated that the Eichelberger family has had some very bad experiences dealing with third parties, in accomplishing the reclamation of the mine. He stated that all the

family members are concerned about preserving their land values and feel that the best way to adequately utilize this resource is in a relationship with Lake County.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board and answered questions from Ms. Campione regarding the hours of operation (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and the frequency (approximately 30) of trips that are expected to and from the mine. He stated that it will not be a round-the-clock operation. He addressed a concern about the protection of wildlife and noted that a vegetative berm would be installed, so that noise and visibility will be kept to a bare minimum. He noted that only 37 acres would actually be used for mining purposes and that the project would be phased, so that no more than two acres would actually be mined at any one time.

Ms. Campione stated, in closing, that the applicants were just asking for the opportunity to put a site plan before the Board; however, they could not do so, without the land use being changed. She stated that her clients were willing to live with the Rural land use designation and were asking for the opportunity to try to meet the concerns noted and, if they could not, then the Board could deny the site plan, but she requested the Board to not deny the land use designation.

Mr. Tyre noted, for the record, that he, as the Court Appointed Receiver, would like to rescind the letter (alluded to earlier by Ms. Harvey) that was attached to the application.

Mr. Harvey Felske, a resident of Sun Lake, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he feels CR 452 is one of the County's most beautiful roads, except for the area near the Eichelberger property, noting that the Eichelbergers have not done anything with the site for the ten years that he has lived at Sun Lake, except mine clay. He stated that the County does not need clay pits for clay roads, it needs concrete or blacktop roads.

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

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN TO RURAL, FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 18, RANGE 26, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF CR 452, EAST OF GOOSE PRAIRIE ROAD; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



Commr. Gerber questioned whether Mr. Stivender had estimated what the cost of the reclamation would be.

Mr. Stivender stated that staff had not gone that far with their evaluation of the project.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the County cannot ignore its need for additional clay, but, neither can it ignore existing communities and its own Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, noting that the Comprehensive Plan states that mining is prohibited in rural villages and areas immediately adjacent to rural villages and the LDRs make reference to new mining operations within established predominantly residential areas. He stated that he felt the area was going to continue to grow, therefore, felt the Board should deny the land use plan amendment.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board would be putting what would be an incompatible use beside what is existing residential. He stated that, in the County's Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1-1.3 deals with the impact of adjacent development and Policy 1-1.6 requires the County to ensure compatibility. He stated that, due to the fact that the clay pit is located immediately adjacent to a rural village and the fact that it is a land use that is prohibited, he could not support the proposed land use plan amendment.



Commr. Gerber stated that her main concern was the noise factor, noting that she is a big proponent of peace and quiet, and that she could not reconcile in her mind that the cost of reclaiming the mine would be offset by the maintenance costs, therefore, would not be voting in favor of the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that this was a tough decision to make, noting that she would like to vote on the land use plan amendment alone; however, she was concerned about the issue of timeliness and the fact that a rural village is located near the property in question. She stated that she would not be able to support the land use plan amendment from Suburban to Rural.

Commr. Good discussed the difference between the densities allowed for Suburban versus Rural and the fact that, if the property is left Suburban, it may have much more of an environmental impact on the wildlife preserve and other communities than the clay pit. He stated that, if the Board denied the land use plan amendment, there could be higher density uses, more trips on the road, and probably more costs for services than the clay pit would demand, from an economic perspective. He stated that the County presently hauls clay from Marion County and south Lake County, which are expenses the taxpayers pay, and, if this request is denied, it will mean that the County will have to look for another good source of clay for its roads. He stated that he would be opposing the amendment, however, could not oppose the fact that the County needs a clay pit, with good quality clay, in north Lake County, to continue the County's road maintenance program.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied a request for approval of an ordinance providing for amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing the land use designation from Suburban to Rural, for property in Section 30, Township 18, Range 26, generally located on the northeast side of CR 452, east of Goose Prairie Road.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 12:45 p.m.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a Proclamation recognizing May 1, 1997 as a National Day of Prayer.

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT 2

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a Proclamation recognizing the week of April 20-26, 1997 as Professional Secretaries Week.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a Proclamation recognizing the week of April 20-26, 1997 as National Infant Immunization Week.

Commr. Hanson noted, for informational purposes, that an immunization clinic would be held May 3, 1997 at the Lake Square Mall.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT 5

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Helen

Elleck, a Representative of the Transportation Disadvantaged Board, to the Human Services Grant Advisory Committee.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/LAWS AND LEGISLATION

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Central Florida Research and Education Center for the Board's support of its request for a $6 million appropriation, to complete necessary funding for its education center, which will initially support research and education programs in environmental horticulture, horticulture, entomology, plant pathology and agricultural economics and offer associated college-level courses and a Bachelor of Science degree on site.

It was noted that a letter would be sent to the Lake County legislative delegation in support of the request.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT 2

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/MOSQUITO-AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT

LAWS AND LEGISLATION

A brief discussion occurred regarding Senate Bill 554, at which time the Chairman, Commr. Good, was authorized to write a letter to Senator Anna Cowin, on behalf of the Board, requesting her to oppose Senate Bill 554, which proposes to transfer $6 million from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund to the SWIM Program and $9 million to the Aquatic Plant Control Program, which will potentially cost Lake County $178,500.00 and reduce the efficiency of its Solid Waste Program.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT 2

COMMISSIONERS/COMMITTEES

Commr. Good informed the Board that he had been asked by Orlando Mayor Glenda Hood to serve on the Metropolitan Orlando International Affairs Commission (MOIAC), representing Lake County, and that he wanted to bring it to the Board's attention.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was the consensus of the Board for Commr. Good to serve on said commission.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT 2

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES/MEETINGS

Commr. Good informed the Board, for informational purposes, that a meeting would be held at Bay Lake Church, on Tuesday, May 6, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., to discuss locating a fire station in the area.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION

PETITION NO. 834 - LOUISA WROBEL - HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the plat in question was a very old plat and that staff was recommending approval of the request.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfit & Eidson, P.A., representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and reviewed a plat indicating the lots in question. She stated that her client, Ms. Louisa Wrobel, ended up with Lots 35 and 36, as the result of a divorce from her husband, the owner of Lots 34, 41, 42, 43, and 44. She stated that, when Mrs. Wrobel's husband constructed their home, he constructed it in the right-of-way; therefore, when she tried to sell it, she found there was an encroachment, thus, the reason for this request. She stated that there was a problem with the legal description, therefore, her client had the entire area surveyed and the County now has a legal description of what is going to be vacated. She stated that, prior to that, there was a question as to exactly where the right-of-way was located.

Ms. Bonifay stated that her client was proposing to vacate the entire area and would then give the County a Quit Claim Deed, for her portion of the right-of-way. She stated that Lots 41-44 are under five acres in size, so the petitioner had asked the County whether or not they would be aggregated and found that they would be, to meet comprehensive plan amendments. She stated that it was her understanding that Mr. Wrobel had signed the appropriate paperwork, to allow for the aggregation. She stated that all the parties involved are in agreement and have provided the County with a legal description, which should clear up any problems associated with the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1997-75 - Road Vacation Petition No. 834, by Louisa Wrobel, to vacate road, Howey First Addition, Section 36, Township 20, Range 25, Howey-in-the-Hills area - Commissioner District 3.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION

PETITION NO. 838 - TOWN PLAT OF VILLA CITY - GROVELAND

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Mr. Louis Geys, DABI, Inc., to vacate drainage easements, Town Plat of Villa City, Section 36, Township 21, Range 24, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2. He stated that it was for the relocation of an easement; however, the proper construction of the relocation had not occurred, so the petitioner was requesting a two week postponement of the case.



Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Ms. Caroline Grandy, an adjoining property owner, appeared before the Board stating that Ms. Grandy lived in Maryland, however, had recently come to town and viewed the site. She stated that Ms. Grandy had some concerns that the improvements that had been constructed, the retention areas, were encroaching onto her property. She stated that, looking at the maps, there was no way to verify it, without conducting a survey, which is what Ms. Grandy wished to do, however, did not feel that she could get it done in two weeks. She stated that Ms. Grandy was requesting a 30 day postponement, in order to allow her sufficient time to have a survey conducted.

Mr. Rick Libinski, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that Ms. Grandy could have a survey conducted; however, he felt it was irrelevant, because the easements in question are located solely on the property of the petitioner. He reviewed a plat of the property in question, indicating Ms. Grandy's property, in relation to said property. He stated that the petitioner needed to get the matter wrapped up, due to some upcoming closings on the lots.

Mr. Stivender stated that staff needed to review the site, therefore, could clarify the location and make sure that the proposed work had been done.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, stated that she felt her client would be satisfied with that.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether two weeks would be an adequate amount of time for Mr. Stivender to verify that the proposed improvements had been done and that the exchange of the vacation was satisfactory to the County.

Mr. Stivender stated that he felt two weeks would be sufficient.

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



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Vacation Petition No. 838, a request by Mr. Louis Geys, DABI, Inc., to vacate drainage easements, Town Plat of Villa City, Section 36, Township 21, Range 24, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2, until May 6, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

REZONING

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 30A-96-1 - AMENDMENT TO CFD ORDINANCE

NO. 1996-73 - HOLY TRINITY EPISCOPAL/THE LAND PLANNING GROUP

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was for the Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, with The Land Planning Group as the applicant. He stated that it was a request for an amendment to Community Facilities District (CFD) Ordinance No. 1996-73, to amend the legal description of the property, which was mistakenly recorded under a previous amendment to an existing PFD ordinance. He stated that the property is five acres in size and is located in the Fruitland Park area, off Spring Lake Road. He stated that staff was requesting to amend the CFD Ordinance and the legal description of the property. He stated that, in the previous request, the applicant had included property that was not part of the church's property and was seeking to correct the mistake, but still include all the previously approved uses, under Ordinance No. 1996-73. He stated that, in addition, a request was being made to strike a requirement in the proposed Ordinance, under Item D - Transportation Improvements, for dedication of right-of-way that had already been given. He stated that there were no letters in opposition, or support, of the request on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the church had swapped

right-of-way back and forth with the County and, when the Ordinance was drafted, it was discovered that 40 feet went through two rows of the church's cemetery, thus, the reason for the request to have it removed from the Ordinance. He stated that the church will live with the right-of-way that they had already agreed to swap.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1997-28, a request for an amendment to CFD Ordinance No. 1996-73, to reflect the new legal description for property mistakenly included in the previous amendment, as well as the deletion of a right-of-way requirement in the proposed Ordinance, under Item D. - Transportation Improvements.

PETITION NO. 15-97-2 - R-6 TO A - ROBERT GREENWALT

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to A (Agriculture), for the construction of a single family residence and the ability to keep horses on the property. He stated that the parcel is approximately 9.8 acres in size and is located in the south Lake County area, off Oswalt Road. He stated that the property is presently vacant and is in the Suburban future land use category. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. He stated that there are several subdivisions in the area, which were initiated prior to the 1992 comprehensive plan and the subsequent timeliness issue. He stated that, it is due to the timeliness issue that this property owner, as well as several other property owners, have maximized the best use of their property, which, in the applicant's case, is the ability to keep horses on his property, as well as a single family residence. He

stated that there is an underlying lot split that is also part of the property, involving half acre parcels each and, due to the Suburban future land use category, they would be required to fall under a lot of record and aggregate to a minimum lot size of one acre, for the future land use, under the lot of record ordinance. He noted that the applicant would be required to adhere to all regulations under the lot of record ordinance, within the Land Development Regulations. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, by a 9-0 vote. He stated that there were no letters in opposition, or support, of the request on file. He submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Robert Greenwalt, the applicant, appeared before the Board to answer any questions there might be regarding the request.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, 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 Ordinance No. 1997-29, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to A (Agriculture), for the construction of a single family residence and the keeping of horses.

PETITION NO. CUP97/4/3-4 - CUP IN A - GLORIA ANN MCCULLOUGH

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home on the site, for use as a caretaker's residence/agricultural housing, in conjunction with a nursery. He stated that the parcel is approximately 5 acres in size, located off CR 44A. He stated that there is presently a double-wide mobile home on the site, with a nursery and a pasture, for future

expansion of the nursery. He stated that it is located within the Wekiva River Protection Area. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

Mr. Richardson stated that this was another case that could fall under the family density exception; however, due to the configuration of the property, being only 150' wide by 1,320' deep, it would be very difficult for the applicant to place an easement on the property. He stated that it would also require the potential for several variances, in order to go through the process. He stated that a caretaker's residence, or agricultural housing, for the nursery facility was the better route for the applicant to take. He stated that there is a private easement that runs to the east of the property that is providing access to it. He submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a plat (County Exhibit B) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Robert McCullough, Jr., the applicant's son, appeared before the Board stating that he was the caretaker for the nursery, therefore, needed to reside close to it, in order to properly maintain it. He noted that he presently lives in Apopka and it is a burden for him to have to drive from Apopka to east Lake County to maintain the nursery.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1997-30, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home on the site, for use as a caretaker's residence/agricultural housing, in conjunction with a nursery.

PETITION NO. CUP97/4/1-3 - CUP IN A - JAMES AND DOROTHY BEST

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), to allow for the keeping of pet wallabies on the site, with a single family residence. He stated that the parcel is approximately 10 acres in size, located off Palm View Circle, in the Lake Jem area. He stated that the future land use is rural and there are a variety of uses surrounding the property, including agricultural and residential. He stated that staff was recommending approval.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Sue Ellen Coughtry, Realtor, representing the applicants, James and Dorothy Best, appeared before the Board stating that the applicants were requesting two alterations to the request, at which time she submitted, for the record, a handout (Applicant's Exhibit A) containing said alterations, being (1) would the County accept a copy of the United States Department of Agriculture yearly inspection, provided it covers the same areas as the Lake County Code Enforcement Division, so as not to duplicate fees for the same information. It was noted that it would be the responsibility of Philip and Anita Jones, the owners of the wallabies, to give a copy to the Code Enforcement Division, within 30 days of receipt; and (2) the applicant would like to request four wallabies, or small kangaroos, per acre. It was noted that the American Zoological Protection Agency accepts densities of 30 animals, in a 50' x 50' enclosure. Harshest of critics find 20 of these animals per acre highly acceptable, with 50 being closer to a normal wild population. The request for four animals per acre is due to the fact that the family cares for the animals themselves, they are their pets.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, with regard to Item No. 1, the actual CUP would probably cover things outside the parameters of what the Department of Agriculture would, because it deals with the use of the land, etc., however, noted that the Board would be hard pressed to do that, under the County's current CUP rules.

It was noted that staff would look into the matter.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Ms. Anita Jones, the owner of the wallabies, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the request. She noted that a wallabie's life span is ten to fifteen years in captivity and approximately five years in the wild. She stated that a wallabie only comes into heat once a year and only has one baby at a time. She stated that, when a wallabie reaches the age of five, it stops cycling, so they are not always producing babies. She stated that a wallabie does not reach full maturity until the age of three. She stated that she and her husband will be installing an eight foot privacy fence around the perimeter of their property, with a six foot chain link fence within the eight foot fence, to keep animals from getting to the wallabies. She stated that the wallabies are going to be endangered within ten years in Australia, so she and her husband are trying to preserve the species. She stated that albino wallabies (one of which she has) are extremely rare. She stated that she and her husband consider the wallabies as pets, however, noted that, from time to time, they do have to place them. She stated that she and her husband have an exhibitor's license, through the United States Department of Agriculture, and exhibit the wallabies at schools and libraries. She stated that, to have an exhibitors license, one is allowed to disperse of its stock, on occasion, thus, the reason they are not considered a breeder or dealer.

It was noted that the types of requirements that the County has put on the ostriches, emus, rheas, etc. is very similar to what is being requested for this case.

Mr. Richardson stated that the only thing that is in the Ordinance that is a little different is a clause that states "No sales from site", however, noted that it could be added to the CUP.

Commr. Good stated that he did not see why the County was having a problem with the issue of sales, noting that, if one has a CUP in A (Agriculture), they can sell their products from their property.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff was aware that the request was for both wallabies and small kangaroos.

Mr. Richardson stated that staff was not aware of that fact.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was having a problem with the request, noting that he felt it was far more than just keeping the wallabies as pets.

Ms. Coughtry, Realtor, reappeared before the Board stating that she had sent letters to all the surrounding neighbors, regarding the wallabies, and had not received any opposition to the request. She further stated that she had received letters of support (Applicant's Exhibit B) from the Jones' former neighbors and county commissioners, which she submitted, for the record.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

Commr. Gerber questioned how the wallabie's waste would be disposed of.

It was noted that the wallabie's fecal matter is a small, dry pellet that dissolves in one to two days.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, with regard to the number of wallabies being requested, if the County changed the language to 20 adults, he felt it might take care of the problem.

Commr. Hanson concurred and stated that she felt the number of wallabies could be increased in the future, if there were no problems involved with them.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether it was wise, even in captivity, to introduce an exotic specie, such as the wallabie, that is only found in one part of the world, to this area. He

stated that he was a little troubled at encouraging that, no matter how cute and cuddly they are.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Gerber to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), to allow for the keeping of pet wallabies on site, with a single family residence, with the conditions set forth by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and changing the number of adult animals allowed on the property from 20 to 30, as follows:

1. There shall be no more than thirty (30) animals allowed.



2. Any and all enclosures shall maintain a 200 foot setback from all property lines, or shall be as closely centered as possible on the property.



3. All pen areas shall be fenced, with a minimum six (6) foot high chain link fence.



4. The applicant shall submit an animal waste disposal plan to the Planning and Development Services division, for review and approval.



Under discussion, Commr. Good requested to see the aerial showing the property in question and questioned the date of the aerial.

It was noted that the aerial was dated March, 1994.

Commr. Good questioned whether the CUP stated "wallabies" or "pet wallabies".

It was noted that the CUP stated "pet wallabies" and "for personal use only".

Commr. Good stated that he would be more comfortable with having the CUP just state "wallabies" and that he would like to have "for personal use only" removed, as well.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would like to have said changes included in her second to the motion.

Commr. Cadwell agreed to make it part of the motion.

Commr. Good stated that he would like for the motion to also include a size limit on the kangaroo, because there are some species of kangaroo that are large and aggressive. He stated that one of the conditions is that public shows and activities are prohibited on the property and that chain link fencing will be installed and questioned whether the Joneses were comfortable with that.

Ms. Jones stated that the interior fence would be chain link, however, noted that the exterior fence would be an 8 foot privacy fence, to protect the wallabies.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

PETITION NO. 19-97-3 - A TO PUD - PAUL DIDION, JR. AND

DIDION FAMILY TRUST

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the construction of a low density residential single family development. He stated that the request was before the Board several months ago, as a request from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential). He stated that the parcel is approximately 37 acres in size, located off SR 48, in the Yalaha area. He stated that it is within the Urban Expansion future land use category. He stated that the proposed project does not lie within an existing utility service area. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, with waivers, as requested by the applicant.

Mr. Richardson reviewed an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, which he submitted, for the record, noting that there are existing developments to the west of the property, which are of equal density, being Waterwood, Bloomfield, and Sun Eden, all being two to three dwelling units per acre. He stated that staff reviewed the property, with regard to the urban residential density point system, within the Land Development Regulations and that the property is eligible for up to 35 points, which would allow for densities up to 3.5 dwelling units per acre;

however, due to the unavailability of central utilities, the applicant is limited to a minimum 1/2 acre lot size. He stated that staff feels the proposed rezoning and subsequent development will be in harmony with the surrounding area and should continue development trends for this particular section of CR 48. He stated that the applicant has shown on the site plan open space areas that will meet, or exceed, the 25% requirement. He stated that, in addition to the open space requirement, active recreation shall be provided at .92 acres per 1,000 residents, which should be approximately 3,000 square feet of active recreation.

Mr. Richardson stated that the applicant was requesting two waivers, being (1) a request that Lots 8, 10, 11, and 12 be allowed to access Lakeshore Drive, rather than access internally into the development, and (2) a request that the internal right-of-way width be allowed to be 50 feet, rather than 66 feet, with a pavement of 20 feet. He reviewed a master plan (County Exhibit B) of the property in question, pointing out the fact that all the shaded areas on the plan were open space areas. He noted that the water retention areas were not included in the open space calculation. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote, allowing for the 50 foot right-of-way width and 20 foot pavement on the roads, as well as allowing Lots 8, 10, 11, and 12 to have access to Lakeshore Drive, in addition to the water and sewer requirements being by well and septic. He stated that there were no letters in support, or in opposition, to the request on file.

Discussion occurred regarding the issue of sidewalks, at which time Mr. Richardson stated that any development of one dwelling unit per acre, or greater, up to five dwelling units per acre, is required to provide sidewalks along one side of the roadway, which he noted can be addressed through the LDRs, or can be included within the Ordinance. He stated that it was something that was overlooked by staff, when gathering comments. He noted that this development will require sidewalks and that it was not requested as one of the waivers.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the development would be required to have sidewalks along Lakeshore Drive, as well as internal, within the subdivision.

Mr. Richardson stated that he did not have that information available.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Works, appeared before the Board stating that the County does not have an ordinance that requires the installation of sidewalks for external roadways. He noted, however, that in this case, there is a county road that enters one section of the subdivision and exits another and is the only access road for a number of lots within the subdivision; therefore, it would come down to an interpretation of the LDRs.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that whoever has a condition of the waiver could clear up any ambiguity, by stating how they prefer to have it.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, with the law firm of Steven J. Richey, P.A., representing the applicant, Paul Didion Jr. and the Didion Family Trust, appeared before the Board stating that this was the third time that this request had been before the Board and that it was the sixth public hearing, in nine months. He stated that the last hearing was November 26, 1996, when the request was brought before the Board as a rezoning to R-2 (Estate Residential), with a staff recommendation for approval and a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval, by a 9-0 vote. He stated that, following a lengthy presentation and discussion, the Board expressed concerns in several areas, being open space requirements; septic tank suitability and a possible pump out provision, like the Green Swamp has, requiring inspection and pump out at a certain number of years, or in a certain time period; what impact the

development might have on a spring that emanates just off the site in question and the protection of same; a request for clustered lots and upland, as much as possible; and forcible density restrictions of at least one unit per acre. He stated that, at the Board's suggestion, the applicants pulled the application and agreed to resubmit it as a PUD.

Mr. Crawford stated that, in response to those concerns, he and the applicants spent the past five months developing this PUD and feel it not only meets the concerns that were expressed, but that it really represents a showpiece of how to develop property near environmentally sensitive lands. He stated that the plan received staff's recommendation of approval, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of approval, by a 9-0 vote, as well as a public commendation from Commr. Herndon, of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who commended the developers on their septic tank provision.

Mr. Crawford stated that the proposal before the Board, this date, is different in several different ways, being that six acres were removed on the west side, which contained almost two acres of wetlands and some of the more environmentally sensitive land on the property; the number of lots were reduced to 30 and 25% of the property was dedicated to open space and active recreation; they clustered the lots, as much as the half acre restriction would allow them, on the highest ground; added a septic monitoring provision, requiring annual professional inspections of the tank, the drain field, and pump outs, when necessary, which will be performed by the homeowners' association, through dues, rather than by the individual lot owners.

Mr. Crawford called Mr. Nicolas Andreyev, a hydrogeologist and President, Andreyev Engineering, Inc., to the podium, at which time he questioned him regarding his qualifications as a hydrogeologist; his educational background; and whether he was familiar with the

soils in Lake County and the groundwater conditions, as they relate to septic tank limitations.

Mr. Crawford submitted, for the record, a video (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the November 26, 1996 Board Meeting, as well as Minutes (Applicant's Exhibit B) of said meeting, noting that it would eliminate the need to rehash any ground that has already been covered.

Mr. Crawford questioned Mr. Andreyev further, regarding the fact that he had conducted a soil and groundwater investigation of the site in question and that his report was contained in a booklet, titled Didion P.U.D., Application for Rezoning, which he noted was part of the Board's backup material. He questioned Mr. Andreyev regarding the conclusions of the report.

Mr. Crawford reviewed a topographic overlay of the site plan (contained in the booklet alluded to, in the Board's backup material). He then questioned Mr. Andreyev regarding various aspects of his report, with regard to septic tank drain field requirements.

Mr. Crawford referred to the proposed ordinance for this case, which includes a Septic System Monitoring/Maintenance Provision for the Didion PUD, noting that the applicant is still working on improving the development. He noted a change in the language contained in Paragraph K, Item 2. - Sanitary Sewer, of the PUD ordinance, which he read into the record, as follows: Either through deed restrictions, or a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, effective for the entire development, each septic system shall be required to be designed and constructed with a drain field monitoring system, and the homeowners association, through annual assessments, shall be required to obtain annual professional inspections of each septic tank and drain field, and shall be required to have each tank pumped as needed.

Mr. Crawford then questioned Mr. Andreyev regarding a second part of his report, being the Investigation of Offsite Spring. He

stated that there was considerable discussion and concern at the original zoning hearing about the fact that the spring emanates just off the property and runs through it, to get to Lake Harris. He stated that, due to the fact that no one had solid information on the spring - where it came from and what it would and would not impact - the applicant hired Mr. Andreyev to do a study (contained in the booklet alluded to, in the Board's backup material) of the spring.

Mr. Andreyev gave a brief synopsis of said study and answered questions regarding same. He noted that, as long as the developer keeps the clay area in tact, the development should not have any impact on the spring.

Commr. Good referred to Page 4 of Mr. Andreyev's report, regarding the investigation of the off-site spring and clarified some concerns that were raised about the project, with regard to the surface water recharge that goes into Lake Harris.

Mr. Crawford informed the Board that Mr. James Modica, President, Modica and Associates, Environmental Planning, Design and Permitting, had been present to give a brief presentation to the Board, however, had to leave. He noted that Mr. Modica's report was contained in the Board's backup material, in the booklet before them. He stated that Mr. Modica's report indicated that there were no threatening or endangered species or habitat found on the site. He stated that Mr. Modica did a wetland delineation (three wetland systems present on the site), as well, and found that the development would not impact them.

Mr. Crawford called Mr. Bob Farner, Farner, Barley & Associates, Inc., Engineers, to the podium, and questioned him regarding the fact that he was the engineer for the project; the fact that he had retained Mr. Nicolas Andreyev to help with the stormwater design and testing, to make sure that the Hawthorne Formation is not breached, during the development of this project; what happens to the stormwater that is currently on the site; the

fact that anything that is put on the citrus grove, on site, at the present time would end up in the wetlands and Lake Harris, without treatment; clarification as to how a ditch that pours into a wetland area on the site, which eventually crosses the road and goes into Lake Harris, would be handled; the fact that some of the lots are most likely going to have to have some fill, to be certain that there will be a properly functioning septic system and that it will continue to function properly in the future; whether mounding of an entire front yard, or lot, would create drainage problems on neighboring lots, or properties, and the fact that it will be designed in the project's master stormwater plan.

Mr. Farner answered questions from the Board regarding the issue of sidewalks and where they will be located.

Mr. Crawford reviewed a plat (contained in the Board's backup material, in the booklet alluded to) of the development, noting that the project was designed to have an open space trail, probably a mulch path, from the back of every lot, that will go down to a park at the waterfront, however, noted that sidewalks will be installed on Lakeshore Drive, if necessary, and that it is almost certain that curbs and gutters will be installed, to make sure that there will not be problems with the project's 50 foot right-of-way. He stated that the developer will comply with whatever they have to, to get the project done.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it would be nice to have the sidewalks installed internally.

Mr. Crawford referred to the last page of the booklet (contained in the Board's backup material), titled Preliminary Traffic Generation Analysis, which he reviewed with the Board. It was noted in the report that 286.5 trips per day would be generated from the development, which would be shared between the Yalaha Cutoff and Hwy. 48 and Lakeshore Drive, with possible turn lanes on Hwy. 48.



Mr. Crawford, in closing, reviewed what the applicants have done, in trying to comply with the requirements of the County, for the proposed development, and noted that all substantial evidence supports approval of the rezoning. He noted that the process has taken nine months and six hearings, however, he feels they now have a beautiful development.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz questioned why the developer did not have a central water system that meets fire standards, if he was going to have to meet the County's fire protection standards.

Mr. Farner stated that it was the intent, from day one, to go with sprinkling the houses, as allowed in the LDRs, due to the cost and long-term maintenance of a central water system, for the small number of lots involved.

Commr. Swartz stated that the development falls under the fire protection standards, because it consists of more than 20 lots and the lots are less than five acres.

Mr. Farner stated that it would not be feasible to install a central water and sewer system for a project of this size and the project would not happen, if the developer was required to do so.

Mr. Crawford stated that Paragraph M. 2. - Secure Funding, on Page 6 of the Ordinance, addressed the issue and requested the Board, when approving the Ordinance, to consider striking the language in said paragraph, because it seems to require that the applicants come back for a public hearing, no matter what they do. He stated that he did not want said language in the Ordinance.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to strike the language contained in Paragraph M. 2. - Secure Funding, on Page 6 of the Ordinance, and insert language suitable to the County

Attorney and staff, regarding the homeowners association and the fiscal responsibility for maintaining the open areas and common areas, as required by the LDRs and/or the site plan review requirements.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved for sidewalks to be installed on one side of the street, for all interior streets within the project, as well as on property that the property owner has control over, or could possibly gain access to, along Lakeshore Drive.

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

Commr. Swartz stated that, with regard to the language for septic tanks, he felt the language that was used for the Green Swamp, which requires pumping every five years, or sooner, if there are problems, seemed to provide assurances regarding the matter.

Mr. Richardson stated that staff would not have a problem using the Green Swamp language.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to include modified language, as necessary, to provide for special septic tank requirements that require evaluation and/or pumping within five years, or as needed, for the project in question.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether language needed to be included in the Ordinance, with regard to a variance for a road right-of-way.

Mr. Richardson stated that the language contained in the Ordinance currently covers an internal street network, with a 20 foot pavement and a 50 foot right-of-way.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the Ordinance should include the fact that whether or not the developer would use swales, or curb and gutter, would be determined by the Public Works Department, to ensure that it meets the stormwater standards.



Mr. Crawford interjected that he was informed by Mr. Griffey that, if the developer cannot locate the ditches within the 50 foot right-of-way, curbs and gutters will have to be installed. He stated that the developer will not go outside the 50 foot right-of-way to control stormwater.

Mr. Griffey stated that the County would probably want to add provisions in the Ordinance that the stormwater conveyance system be maintained within the 50 foot right-of-way. He stated that, usually, the developer tries to put the swales and easements beyond the right-of-way, which is not acceptable to the County. He stated that, as long as the developer can put the road and the stormwater conveyance system within the right-of-way, it would be acceptable.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to include language in the Ordinance, as alluded to, with regard to the 50 foot right-of-way and the 20 foot pavement.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, 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 a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the construction of a low density residential single family development, with amendments, as noted.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 3:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 3:45 p.m.

PETITION NO. 11-97-3 - MP TO LM AND RP TO MP - ALBERT KREIBICK

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone from an existing MP (Planned Industrial) zoning classification and expand an adjacent LM (Light Industrial) zoning to MP (Planned Industrial). He stated that the applicant had also included a request to rezone from RP (Residential Professional) to MP (Planned Industrial); however, he chose to remove that portion

of the request and only deal with the existing MP (Planned Industrial), in addition to the LM (Light Industrial) zoning. He stated that, due to this fact, the size of the parcel will be reduced from 7 1/2 acres to approximately 4 acres. He stated that the request is for the storage of cars, for parts and associated retail service, in the employment center. He stated that there is an existing MP Ordinance, which allows for the storage of 120 operable vehicles, within a fenced area, at the rear of the property, and no more than 20 operable vehicles, to be stored outside the fenced area, in the front of the property.

Mr. Richardson stated that the existing uses, under the MP Ordinance, include a body shop, mechanical repair shop, an auto parts facility, and one 60 x 120 foot building, for dismantling any inoperable vehicles. He stated that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Ordinance, to allow for a greater number of operable and inoperable vehicles, and noted that the applicant has amended his request, to delete the RP (Residential Professional) portion, which is toward the Lake Saunders side. He reviewed and submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, as well as a Preliminary Plan (County Exhibit B).

Mr. Richardson stated that, because the applicant had chosen to remove a request to rezone a portion of the property from RP (Residential Professional) to MP (Planned Industrial), the site shall continue to be used as an automobile storage and parts yard, with associated retail services and uses. He stated that the number of cars, operable and inoperable, shall be limited to 300, with no stacking of cars on site. He stated that all development shall be located outside the 100 year flood plain and the property shall not be developed as an industrial park. He stated that the applicant shall maintain setbacks, in accordance with the LDRs, and, in addition, the applicant shall maintain a 50 foot setback for all vehicle storage areas. He stated that the applicant shall

also be required to maintain 150 feet from the wetlands jurisdictional line of Lake Saunders. He stated that there shall be no parking of vehicles within the 50 foot right-of-way, for customer parking, per the definition of Section 9.03.05, Parking Design Standards, of the LDRs, which states, under Paragraph E. - Setbacks, the following: In commercial and industrial zoning districts, the area used for setback purposes shall not be used for storage or parking, except for currently licensed and operable vehicles belonging to owners, supervisors, or clients.

Mr. Richardson stated that the applicant shall provide a visual screen, to buffer along the western and northern property lines, to include a buffer fronting Lake Saunders, to provide a visual screen from U.S. Hwy. 441. He stated that, in accordance with Section 9.02.04 of the LDRs, the applicant shall be required to landscape the site, to alleviate impacts to adjacent properties and the right-of-way of Old U.S. Hwy. 441 (CR 500A). He stated that berms shall be constructed, in accordance with the St. Johns River Water Management District regulations, if required. He stated that the applicant shall be required to dedicate 20% of the site as open space, for the land use classifications under Industrial. He stated that, at the time of platting, the developer shall be required to designate the party responsible for the maintenance of all open space areas shown on the plan.

Mr. Richardson stated that, under Stormwater, the applicant shall be required to upgrade all stormwater retention areas and treatment facilities, to protect the runoff from Lake Saunders. He stated that the groundwater monitoring plan, which encompasses background information, must be completed within six months of the rezoning and then groundwater sampling shall be done by an outside source, on a semi-annual basis, and shall be submitted to Water Quality Services, to ensure that it is in compliance with Federal and State statutes. He stated that the applicant shall provide a berm and/or swale on the Lake Saunders side of the property, to

address pretreatment of stormwater runoff to the lake, within the 150 foot setback line.

Mr. Richardson stated that this addressed all the conditions that had been set by staff, with regard to the entire property, as a whole. He stated that staff was recommending approval, with the conditions, as outlined in the Ordinance.

Commr. Swartz questioned what existing code violation was causing this request to come before the Board.

Mr. Richardson stated that there were more than 140 inoperable vehicles on the site, so it was in excess of the number of vehicles that were allowed under MP Ordinance No. 88-86.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained why the applicant decided to remove the RP zoning request. She discussed the history of the business and what the applicant would like to do with his property. She noted that the applicant has always tried to be a good steward of the environment and protect Lake Saunders from any runoff. She stated that groundwater monitoring, to a certain degree, is done on a regular basis, by the Health Department, and there have been no problems in the past. She stated that the applicant brings cars to the site, works on them, takes parts that he can use, and then removes them. She stated that the applicant's business gets lumped together with the definition of a junk yard, even though that is not what it is, and a junk yard has a certain stigma attached to it.

Ms. Campione stated that the applicant is willing to install a visual screen along the northern boundary of the property and meet whatever landscaping requirements are required, under the Code, as well as put in a swale and/or berm to prevent any runoff there might be from flowing into Lake Saunders. She stated that the applicant is willing to undertake the groundwater monitoring,

on a regular basis, to ensure that there is no type of pollution occurring that could affect the groundwater.

Mr. Albert Kreibick, the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained exactly what his business entails, at which time he presented, for the record, several (21) pictures (Applicant's Exhibit A) of his property. He noted that he has been in business for 50 years.

Mr. Richardson showed and presented, for the record, a video (County Exhibit C) that staff had taken of Mr. Kreibick's property, as well as surrounding properties.

Ms. Glenda Mahaney, an adjacent property owner, to the west of the property in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and addressed several concerns she had about the applicant's business and the request before the Board. She requested a postponement of the case, noting that the applicant had been granted a postponement and she felt she should be granted one, as well. She stated that she had requested Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager; Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management; and Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, to investigate the applicant's business and that she had received a letter from Mr. Jackson stating that there were no violations. She stated that it was an insult to receive such a letter, when it is evident that there are violations.

Commr. Good interjected that, in a letter dated January 6, 1997, from Mr. Jackson to Ms. Mahaney, Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant's business was cited for having too many inoperable vehicles on his property and that he was in the process of removing some of them from the property.

Ms. Mahaney stated that the applicant has not complied with the County's citation and does not intend to comply. She again requested to have a postponement of the case, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that, until the Board had had an opportunity to hear

those people who had come to the public hearing, he would not want to do so. He stated that he would like to hear any other comments there might be, regarding the case.

Ms. Mahaney stated that the applicant's business is supposed to be located 300 feet from her well and is not, noting that her well is less than 100 feet, give or take a little, from the applicant's boundary line. She stated that the applicant's business cannot be located within 1,000 feet of any state, federal, or primary highway and she wanted to know the County's position on the matter, with regard to the distance of his business from Old Hwy. 441.

Ms. Mahaney addressed the fact that she and her mother had won a previous lawsuit that she had filed against the County, at which time she presented the Board with a Notice of Intent to Sue, noting that she intended to sue the Board for failure to uphold the zoning laws of the County, as well as the fact that she intended to sue them in a personal capacity and/or employment capacity, whichever she chose to do. She stated that the State requires her to give notice; therefore, the Board could consider the Notice of Intent to Sue her notice.

Ms. Bertie Kost, a resident of Lake Saunders Manor, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she did not want to see another junkyard located on Old Hwy. 441.

Ms. Zella Moore, the mother of Ms. Linda Mahaney, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she objected to the rezoning request, due to noise that is generated on the site and the fact that the applicant has poured concrete right up to the fence that runs along the boundary line that separates her property from his, which allows water to flow onto her property and into her well. She requested a postponement of the case, to allow her and her daughter to obtain answers to some questions they have about the case.



Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board and responded to some allegations that Ms. Mahaney had made against the applicant. She stated that Mr. Kreibick has never had a violation, of an environmental nature, and has never had an allegation of a violation that was investigated by any agency and found to have any merit. She stated that the applicant's record is exemplary, except for the fact that he currently does not comply with the original Ordinance. She stated that he concedes to that fact and is asking that the zoning be changed, so that the entire property can be used for planned industrial use, with the conditions, as noted, which are quite stringent.

Ms. Campione stated that, when the applicant is in a position to do so, he will be proceeding with a site plan, potentially for a building that will be located on what is being called the LM site and, along with that, the applicant will be required to come up to code; therefore, anything that the review committee believes to be applicable would be a requirement of the site plan process, so there will be improvement, to the extent that there is future construction, pursuant to this zoning request.

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

Commr. Good clarified that the Ordinance before the Board this date preceded the LDRs, by several years, and that they were the rules that applied to the operation, as it was then, and would also apply to the operation, as it is today.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board and responded to some questions regarding the issue of the 1,000 foot setback along Old Hwy. 441.

Commr. Swartz stated that it appeared to him that there was a violation of the Code, with regard to the number of inoperable vehicles on the site. He stated that he felt it would be worthwhile to combine the parcels to an MP (Planned Industrial)

zoning classification and then place conditions on it that make it absolutely clear as to what is allowed and try to improve the circumstances on that portion of property along Old Hwy. 441. He stated that he felt the Board should be decreasing the number of inoperable vehicles, rather than increasing them, and that he felt there should be more buffering and landscaping, particularly from the Old Hwy. 441 side, where there is any sign of vehicles being stored.

Commr. Hanson stated that she concurred with Commr. Swartz, however, felt that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission had done a very good job, with regard to their recommendations. She stated that she did not have a problem with increasing the number of inoperable vehicles to 300 and noted that staff is requesting that the applicant hook up to central water, however, noted that the issue of signage has not been addressed, nor the hours of operation, and she felt they should be. She stated that she felt, if the applicant would upgrade the area, it would be a win/win situation for the applicant, as well as the adjoining property owners.

Commr. Swartz reviewed the Summary of Staff Recommended Conditions, contained in the Board's backup material, item by item, at which time he recommended that the following conditions apply:

Under Item 2, he would like for it to state that, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall, at Site Plan Approval, submit and have approved a current site plan on the parcel of property that is being rezoned; under Item 3, he would recommend that the condition be that the applicant connect to central water and sewer, at the time that it becomes available from the City of Tavares and is consistent with the County's LDRs; under Item 4, the applicant shall be required to landscape the site, to alleviate impacts to adjacent properties and the right-of-way of Old Hwy. 441 (CR 500A); Item No. 5, the applicant shall be required to provide a visual screen and buffer along the western and northern property lines and

include a buffer fronting Lake Saunders, to provide a visual screen of the property from U.S. Hwy. 441; Item No. 6, the applicant shall maintain a setback of 50 feet from all operations; and Item No. 7, there shall be no parking of vehicles within 50 feet of the right-of-way of Old Hwy. 441.

It was noted that Item Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11 would be deleted.

Commr. Swartz further recommended that Item No. 12, requesting that the applicant be required to upgrade all stormwater retention and treatment facilities, to pretreat any runoff to Lake Saunders, be left in, for review; Item No. 13, the applicant shall provide a berm and/or swale on the Lake Saunders side of the property, to address pretreatment of stormwater runoff to the lake; Item No. 14, modify to read that the applicant shall be required to submit a groundwater report bi-annually to Water Quality Services, showing no effect to ground water quality; Item No. 15, there shall be no stacking of cars; Item No. 17, to be deleted.

Commr. Hanson stated that the issue of signage and the hours of operation needed to be addressed.

It was noted that the issue of signage could be included under Item I - Development Review Approval, and that the hours of operation were from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, on Saturdays.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in place of Item No. 16, he would recommend that the language that was originally approved in the MP Ordinance, in 1986, be inserted.

Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board stating that the applicant was requesting that the conditions that were set in 1986 be changed, in light of the additional conditions that have been placed on the property, that were not in place at the time.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Cadwell suggested 155 vehicles total - operable and inoperable, with 120 to be operable, along with all the other conditions set forth this date.

Commr. Good questioned whether the issue of the distance of the applicant's property line from the wells would be grandfathered in, based on the 1986 provision of the original Ordinance.

Ms. Farrell noted that she would not be able to answer that question this date, however, would investigate the matter.

Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board stating that the applicant was requesting to have 175 cars on the site.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz to approve the request, with the conditions, as noted, and to limit the number of vehicles to a total of 155 (the number that was allowed under MP Ordinance 88-86), 80 of which could be inoperable.

The motion died for lack of a second.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve the request, with the conditions, as noted, and to limit the number of vehicles to a total of 175 - operable and inoperable.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber noted that she felt to increase the number of vehicles allowed was a slap in the face to the adjoining property owners.

Commr. Hanson stated that, with the removal of the RP zoning request, it took care of most of the concerns of those people that signed the petition, in opposition to the request.

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

Commrs. Gerber, Good, and Swartz voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from MP (Planned Industrial) to LM (Light Industrial), with the conditions as noted, and to limit the number of vehicles allowed on the site to 155 - operable and inoperable.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".



There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.



_______________________________

WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/4-22-97/5-7-97/boardmin