The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 27, 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. Good 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. Swartz stated that he felt the Board needed to discuss some tax deed issues some time during the day, after talking with the Tax Collector, Mr. Bob McKee. He stated that, if necessary, the matter could be brought back and considered on the Agenda.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he had spoken with Mr. Jim Little, Tax Collector's Office, regarding the matter, however, did not have an answer to the issue at this time. He noted that he would get an answer later this morning.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATION

PETITION NO. 840 - BETTY B. CHEEK - GROVELAND FARMS PLAT

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right-of-way in the Groveland Farms Plat, Section 26 and 27, Township 23, Range 24, Commissioner District 2. He stated that the right-of-way was located off Old Oil Well Road, in the Groveland area, at which time he reviewed an aerial, indicating the property in question.

It was noted that the Southwest Florida Water Management District had requested the vacation and that the intent of the request was for development rights on the property, due to the fact that they had purchased conservation easements on the property.

Mr. Stivender stated that staff had received a lot of calls from people inquiring about the vacation petition; however, there were no letters of opposition or support on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one present 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 approved Resolution No. 1997-97 - Road Vacation Petition No. 840, by Betty B. Cheek, to vacate rights-of-way, Groveland Farms Plat, Section 26 and 27, Township 23, Range 24, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that there was a requested change to the Rezoning Agenda, noting that the petitioner under Tab 10, Holmar Marina and Campground, had requested a 30 day postponement.

No one present wished to address the Board regarding the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. CUP635C-4, Holmar Marina and Campground, Tracking No. 18-97-CUP/AMD, until the Board Meeting of June 24, 1997.

PETITION NO. PH20-97-4 - A TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone 8.2 acres in the Paisley area, off SR 42, to a CFD (Community Facility District). She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) and Site Plan (County Exhibit B) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, Public Works Department, appeared before the Board stating that the County has been working for a long time to secure the property in question, to develop a much needed park in the Paisley area. He reviewed the Site Plan of the park and noted that the project has been split into two phases - Phase I, which encompasses a picnic area, a playground area, and volley ball courts; and Phase II, which includes a football/baseball field combination, basketball courts, and the ability to house a future building.

Mr. Joe Shipes, President, Paisley Association for Parks, appeared before the Board stating that his organization is very excited about the proposed project and has received enough money in donations to construct two high quality, low maintenance, rustic looking picnic pavilions, with tin roofs, on the site and are in the process of getting their plans sealed and approved by the County's Building Department. He stated that his organization would like to solicit a deputy to move onto the site, for security purposes, with the County providing water from an existing well, however, noted that the deputy would be responsible for his electricity costs. He noted that his organization would raise the money to have a septic tank installed.

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 a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a community park in the Paisley area.

PETITION NO. PH21-97-2 - AR TO RA - RON AND DEBBIE BECKER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that staff was recommending approval, even though the property in question is located in the Green Swamp, due to the size of the parcel, which is five acres in size. She noted that staff had not received any comments from Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Department of Community Affairs, regarding the request. She stated that there is not a lot of difference, from a zoning perspective, between AR and RA, with the exception of mobile homes. She submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicants were not present.

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.

Commr. Swartz stated that he had a problem with placing a mobile home on the site in question, due to the fact that several people purchased property in the area, knowing that the zoning classification would only allow single family conventional homes.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would have a problem with the request, if it involved a 200 foot lot; however, the request involves a five acre tract, in an area that is still rural and, because it is located in the transitional zone of the Green Swamp, will probably stay that way. He stated that he did not feel the densities would be changing much.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that he had visited the area in question on numerous occasions and found that a lot of the subdivisions that have single family homes are actually located more toward Lake Shore Drive. He stated that there are several site built homes in the area; however, they are the old grove caretaker type homes that people have added on to, over the years.

Commr. Good stated that he would support the request, because the property in question is a five acre tract, in the Green Swamp. He stated that he does not anticipate a higher density for the area, due to the fact that, because it is located in the Green Swamp, there are some hurdles that would have to be overcome.

Commr. Gerber referred to a letter, on file, from a neighbor of the applicants, Mr. Dan Divine, in which he states, "It would be unfair to allow them (Beckers) to change the character of the area...", noting that Mr. Divine states the Beckers knew the rezoning would restrict them to a conventional home.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber 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 AR (Agriculture Residential) to RA (Ranchette), for the placement of a mobile home on the site.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

PETITION NO. CUP97/5/1-5 - CUP IN RM - LYNN AND SILVIA MYERS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was being presented to the Board for the third time. She stated that the County held a workshop several months ago, with a proposal to allow site built homes in an RM (Mobile Home Residential) zoning district. She stated that, at that time, the recommendation from the Board was to stick with the R-7 (Urban Residential) zoning classification. She stated that staff's recommendation is to rezone the single lot to R-7. She stated that there are no letters of opposition or support on file. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval and staff's recommendation is for approval. She submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Lynn Myers, Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that there were three other individuals who were waiting to see how this case comes out, because they want to build a site built home. He submitted, for the record, a drawing (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the home that he is proposing to build. He noted that he needs to start building his home immediately, or be penalized by his mortgage company.

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

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Swartz that the Board uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Urban Residential), for the construction of a single family residence.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned whether the Board wanted to address the issue of a refund for the applicant, Mr. Myers, within a six month period, if a group of his neighbors applies to rezone the whole neighborhood.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like for staff to bring back to the Board, in a few months, whether or not the applicant's fees could be waived.

PETITION NO. 17-97-4 - R-6 TO RM - WILLIAM AND MARCIA ROUTON

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was in the Sorrento Area Compact Node. She stated that it involved an acre of property and that staff was recommending approval to an R-7 (Mixed Residential) zoning, rather than the RM (Mobile Home Residential) zoning that was being requested. She reviewed and submitted, for the record, a zoning map (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, noting that it is contiguous to an RM zoning district and is surrounded by mixed use zoning classifications. She stated that staff was recommending approval and that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval, as well. She stated that there were three letters of opposition on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Marcia Routon, Applicant, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the request.

Ms. Farrell reviewed an aerial (County Exhibit B) of the property in question and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

Ms. Sandy Menard, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and submitted, for the record, 12 pictures (Opposition's Exhibit A) of surrounding properties, some showing conventional homes and others showing mobile homes. She stated that the mobile homes were not being kept up and that it has affected the sale of some of the conventional homes in the area.

Ms. Nancy Blair, Ms. Menard's sister and a property owner in the area in question, appeared before the Board stating that her home is the one closest to the property in question. She stated that the mobile homes in the area are lowering the property values of the conventional homes, because they are not taken care of.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that, if the site in question had been further into the subdivision, she would have more opposition to it; however, due to the fact that this property has a buffer that separates it, aesthetically, from the other properties, she was not as opposed to the request. She stated that there are a lot of older mobile homes in the area that were in place previous to the requirements that the County has today, which makes a difference.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt this case differed in some ways from the request that the Board just approved, noting that the other case involved five acres, however, this case involves a 125 foot lot, in an area that has mixed uses.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was not able to get a good feel for what is located in the area of the property in question, noting that the pictures that were submitted, in opposition to the request, show a lot of open space; however, in looking at the aerial, the area looks rather dense.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would agree with Commr. Cadwell that the area in question is predominantly conventional homes and that he felt a mobile home would probably be inappropriate for the area, therefore, he could not support the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like for the Board to have a count of the rooftops in the area, within a half mile radius of the property in question, before making a decision, therefore, felt the request should be postponed for 30 days, to allow staff time to provide the Board with same.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gerber to postpone this request for 30 days, to allow staff time to provide the Board with the requested information.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board was taking one of the County's rules and making it apply to this case, when it does not apply to other zoning cases, and he did not feel that was right.

Commr. Gerber stated that the 30 day postponement was only to obtain further information, it was not a rule.

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

Commrs. Swartz and Good voted "No".

PETITION NO. PH27-97-5 - C-2 AND R-6 TO C-2 AND R-7

MARGARET D. ATKINSON, TRUST

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the property in question is located in the Umatilla area, on SR 19. She stated that the front of the property is zoned C-2 (Community Commercial), however, the back of the property is zoned R-6 (Urban Residential). She stated that the applicant was requesting to change the R-6 zoning to R-7 (Mixed Residential), in order to have the ability to choose a variety of housing, not provided for in the R-6 zoning. She reviewed a zoning map (County Exhibit A) of the property, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that staff made an error in the Staff Report, noting that the area in question is not a neighborhood commercial node, it is a community commercial node. She stated that the change in the C-2 legal description will change the depth from 200 feet to 300 feet. She reviewed an aerial (County Exhibit B) of the property, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that there were no letters of opposition or support on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Steve Richey's Office, Leesburg, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, and addressed the issue of the C-2 boundary line, which he noted was deemed to be 200 feet by the planners, and the fact that it is very hard to get good commercial development along a 200 foot strip, therefore, the applicant is requesting that it be changed from a 200 foot depth to 300 feet. He stated that the applicant does not feel the request is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that there was no opposition to the request. He stated that, at this point in time, the developer will have to go with septic tanks and wells, because sewer and water is not yet available from the City of Umatilla; however, when it does become available, the developer will hook up to it. He stated that they would do a small subdivision plat, according to Chapter 14 of the LDRs. He noted that the south end of the property is wetlands and unusable.

Ms. Farrell reviewed a Boundary Survey Map (County Exhibit C) of the property in question, noting that the front footage for commercial on SR 19 is 1,729 feet.

Commr. Swartz stated that the request was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that he felt it would continue to infill more strip commercial, even with a 300 foot depth, at 1,700 plus feet.

Commr. Hanson interjected that the developer will not be able to use a lot of the commercial frontage, because of the wetlands along the roadway. She stated that she did not have a problem with the request.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the rezoning would make the property in question a better piece of property than what it presently is and encouraged the Board to approve the request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, 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 C-2 (Community Commercial) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial) and R-7 (Mixed Residential), for future commercial and residential purposes.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.

REZONING (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 16-97-5 - A, R-1 + CUP290A-5 and RP + CUP785A-5 to CFD and A and R-6 to C-2 - LAKEVIEW TERRACE RETIREMENT CENTER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request not only to expand the property in question by approximately 40 acres, but to bring some current zoning and CUPs into compliance with the CFD. She stated that the request also includes a request for a C-2 zoning at the intersection of SR 42 and SR 19, which is in a community commercial node. She reviewed a zoning map (County Exhibit A) of the property, pointing out the locations of the various zoning classifications, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs; therefore, staff was recommending approval of both the request for CFD and the request for C-2. She reviewed an aerial (County Exhibit B) of the property, which she submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating, for the record, that he had announced at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that there was an error in the legal description of the property in question, which deleted 50 feet of said property; however, subsequent to that meeting, the legal description was corrected and that is the one that was advertised for this meeting. He stated that the applicant was proposing, this date, to add additional land to a facility and clarify existing CUPs.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, representing the applicant.

He displayed and reviewed a Plat Plan (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the proposed development, at which time he gave a brief history of the project, noting that the property in question has been a part of Lakeview Terrace and has been utilized by them since the late 1970s. He stated that the property currently has five different zoning classifications. He submitted, for the record, various (4) licenses (Applicant's Exhibit B) that Lakeview Terrace has, which involve their retirement care, nursing home facilities, and other facilities that are operated by them, to serve their residents. He then answered questions from Mr. Richey and the Board, 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.

Discussion occurred regarding the various uses that are allowed in a C-2 zoning and the fact that, if Lakeview Terrace maintains control of the property, they would probably not put in any of the obnoxious uses that are allowed in said zoning; however, if they were to sell any of the property, the zoning would go with the land and then someone could put some obnoxious uses in.

Mr. Richey assured the Board that the applicant would not sell any of the property to someone that would do anything that is inconsistent with what the applicant would want them to do. He noted that, if they did sell any of the property, they would put a restriction on it, to prohibit any obnoxious uses. He stated that he did not have a problem with zoning the property CP and deleting those uses that the Board finds obnoxious, such as a kennel or bar. Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the Board eliminate some of the more obnoxious uses from the request.

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 a request for rezoning 89 +/- acres from A (Agriculture) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, excluding a bar and kennel; A (Agriculture), R-1 (Rural Residential) + CUP290-5 and CUP290A-5, and RP (Residential Professional) + CUP785-5 and CUP785A-5 and CUP948-5 to CFD (Community Facilities District), for future commercial and residential purposes.

PETITION NO. MSP94A/1/1-2 - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING SAND MINE - FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to add 143 acres to an existing sand mine, however, noted that only 29 acres would be minable. She stated that the mining and reclamation plan was presented to the Development Review Committee in March of this year and received approval. She stated that staff was recommending approval for the addition, which she noted is in the Rural future land use classification. She stated that the sand mining operation was approved by the Board in 1994. She stated that there were no letters of support or opposition on file. She submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfit & Eidson, P.A., representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and referred to a white notebook (Applicant's Exhibit A), titled Mining Site Plan Application (Amendment to Previously Approved Mining Site Plan) Turnpike Sand Plant Expansion, Lake County, (LPG #462/4), which had been submitted to the Board, for the record, noting that it contained information which outlined the various issues, as well as backup material, for the Board's perusal, with regard to this case. She stated that she would be reviewing various documents contained within the notebook and that, at the end of her presentation, would be reviewing the ordinance and cleaning it up, noting that there were several references to things that were not applicable in the Code. She stated that some Development Review staff notes were inserted in the notebook, which she would like to clean up, as well. She stated that Florida Rock Industries did not want any misinterpretation of said documents in the future. She noted that she would be conducting her presentation in a quasi-judicial type format, in questioning various consultants that were present, representing the case.

Ms. Cheryl Ellinor, Biologist, The Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and gave an overview of her environmental credentials, her educational background, her work experience, and some related work projects. She answered questions from Ms. Bonifay, with regard to her responsibilities on this project and her findings, noting that, subsequent to approval of the mining site plan, Florida Rock Industries acquired an additional piece of property to the east of the property in question. She stated that she conducted an environmental assessment of the property and determined the occurrence of wetlands and listed species and other issues that might cause a problem in obtaining the necessary permits to mine the area. She stated that the property contains pasture land and a small area of pine trees; however, it is predominantly wetlands and lakes. She stated that there are approximately 40 acres of uplands, 29 of which are acceptable for mining, which is what is being presented this date. She noted that some gopher tortoises were found on the property, which will be relocated to another site, in advance of mining the property. She noted that all permits have been applied for and received, needed to mine the property, and that site preparation has been initiated, berms have been constructed along Bridges Road, and the trees required to buffer the site from the road have been installed. She noted that the berm will be continued along Bridges Road, for the additional property.

Mr. Charles Drake, Geologist and Vice President, Hartman and Associates, Inc., appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and gave a brief outline of his professional credentials and educational background and an analysis that he performed on the property in question. He stated that he conducted standard penetration tests on the area to be mined, in the northeast corner of the property, to see how thick the sand was, if they could hit the clay layer where they thought it would occur, and to determine whether there would be any impact to Dilly Lake, if mining was continued to the proposed mine limit. He noted that there would not be any impact to the lake. He answered questions from Ms. Bonifay regarding the request, noting that his conclusion was the same for the additional parcel of property and mining activity to be added as it was for the original site, in that there would be no adverse impact; that to his knowledge, no outstanding permits would be needed, noting that the St. Johns River Water Management District has already permitted the operation, as well as the Department of Environmental Protection; that no special conditions needed to be placed on the property, other than those that are in the proposed ordinance, which will be enforceable by the St. Johns River Water Management District, as well as by the County; and that, by not excavating, or completely penetrating, the confining unit that is 50 feet thick under the sand and not doing any type of dewatering, there will not be any adverse impact to the acquifer, or to the surface water levels associated with the adjacent wetland systems.

Mr. Drake, as well as Ms. Ellinor, then answered questions from the Board, regarding the request, at which time exhibits contained in the Board's backup material were referred to and reviewed.

Ms. Bonifay informed the Board that Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, Inc., had done a traffic analysis, which indicated that adding the additional acreage would not increase the traffic, and was present to answer any questions there might be from the Board regarding same. She further noted that Mr. Mike O'Berry, Environmental Coordinator for the Aggregates Group and Operations Manager for Florida Rock Industries, was present as well, for questioning.

There were no questions from the Board for said gentlemen.

Ms. Bonifay distributed a copy (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the proposed Ordinance, which contained the changes that she had alluded to earlier. She stated that the applicant was not trying to change the policy implications, or the intent, but was trying to avoid having to come back to the Board, as they move through the process and find conditions that were included that are not applicable, or that references some portion of the Code that should not be included. She noted the following changes:

. The amount of acreage being added was changed from 150 to 143, with the total acreage, consisting of the additional acreage and the existing site, being 482 +/- acres.

. Item 2. A., on Page 1 of the Ordinance, should indicate that the 150 acres alluded to was changed to 143.

. On Page 2 of the Ordinance, under Item F. - Environmental Requirements, Paragraph 3 should be struck from the Ordinance.

. On Page 3 of the Ordinance, under Item F. - Environmental Requirements, Paragraph 8 includes language that should be struck, as well as language that should be included, with regard to that portion of the LDRs that deals with the slopes and the elevations, so that it spells out exactly what has to be included, rather than some general language that is subject to later interpretation, which will give the County greater guidance and give Florida Rock Industries greater protection, as they move through the process.

. On Page 3 of the Ordinance, under Item F. - Environmental Requirements, Paragraph 9 contains language that should be struck, as well as language that should be included, with regard to the fact that Florida Rock Industries has to seek certain permits from the Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission, to do the gopher tortoise relocation, and that

they will be provided to the County and will be done before

the applicant disturbs any of the areas where gopher

tortoises are located.

. On Page 4 of the Ordinance, under Item F. - Environmental Requirements, Paragraph 11 should be struck, due to the fact that it contains language that deals with conservation easements, however, there are no conservation easements that will be dedicated or conveyed on the site.

. On Page 4 of the Ordinance, under Item F. - Environmental Requirements, Paragraph 12 contains language that should be struck, as well as language that should be included, with regard to site alteration criteria and the fact that Chapter 6 of the LDRs, which pertains to reclamation and

revegetation, should be cited, rather than Chapter 8, and

that the applicant must be in compliance with same.

. On Page 5 of the Ordinance, under Item F. - Environmental Requirements, Paragraph 13 contains language that is in bold type, which should be struck, due to the fact that it pertains to Green Swamp requirements.

. On Page 5 of the Ordinance, under Item G. - Stormwater, Paragraph 4 should be struck and on Page 6, Paragraphs 6 and 7 should be struck.

. On Page 6 of the Ordinance, under Item H. - Transportation, Paragraph 5 contains language that should be struck and language that should be added, with regard to the issue of who would be responsible for repairs, should Bridges Road be damaged by the vehicles entering and leaving the site in question.

. On Page 6 of the Ordinance, under Item H. - Transportation, Paragraph 7 - a, b, and c should be struck.

. On Page 7 of the Ordinance, under Item H. - Transportation, Paragraph 8, as well as the following Turnpike and Planlink Analysis Table, should be struck.

. On Page 7 of the Ordinance, Item I contains language that should be struck and language that should be included, with regard to the duration of the sand mine, which will be handled at the Mining Site Plan Review.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant was proposing the Ordinance, as amended, for the Board's consideration and requested approval of same.

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.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for an amendment to an existing sand mine, to add an additional 143 acres.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz noted that he had voted against the zoning of the original parcel, because it incorporates part of the Palatlakaha River and he did not feel that was wise; however, he did not know whether this additional site, which moves away from the river, would make the project any better. He stated that it moves away from the river, but, is still within a stone's throw of famous Dilly Lake and the Dilly marsh area. He stated that his concern is with the overall amount of water that is being withdrawn and the adjacency of the Palatlakaha River to the property in question.

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

PETITION NO. CUP 97/4/2-3 - CUP IN C-2 - PRIME CO., PCS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the property in question is located in Tavares, in a commercial corridor, at the intersection of U.S. Hwy. 441 and C-473. She stated that staff reviewed the case, based on existing zoning in the area, the size of the parcel, and its proximity to residential uses and was recommending denial of the request. She stated that there were no letters of opposition or support on file, nor had staff received any comments from the City of Leesburg. She stated that the motion by the Planning and Zoning Commission failed, by a 4-4 vote. An aerial (County Exhibit A) and survey (County Exhibit B) of the property in question was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. John Ariale, Attorney, Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that an application for approval for the site in question was originally submitted on January 31, 1997 and was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April meeting. He stated that he would be using a quasi-judicial type format, in questioning several experts that were present, representing the case.

Mr. Alec Hale, Radio Frequency Engineer, PrimeCo, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Ariale, and discussed why the site in question was a good location for PrimeCo, at which time he reviewed various maps and overlays of the property and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

Ms. Sheryl Denan, Planner, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Ariale, and gave a brief background history of her qualifications and expertise. She was questioned by Mr. Ariale about a Planning Analysis (Applicant's Exhibit A) that she had prepared for the proposed project, which was submitted, for the record. She discussed various pictures and documents that were contained in the handout. She stated that the tower in question is to be an unmanned 195 foot multiple carrier tower, which means that two other service providers can locate on the tower with PrimeCo. She stated that the proposed plan is consistent with the County's Land Development Regulations and meets all the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that it meets the setback requirement from a right-of-way and meets the County's Comprehensive Plan, in that it is located within a commercial corridor. She stated that the request is consistent with the surrounding land use. She answered further questions from Mr. Ariale and the Board regarding the request.

Mr. Leroy Pate, P.E., Pate Engineering, Inc., appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Ariale, and discussed how the tower would be designed, at which time a letter (Applicant's Exhibit B) from Mr. Pate to Mr. Mike Lamb, PrimeCo Personal Communications, dated April 9, 1997, regarding the proposed tower and how it would be constructed, was presented to the Board, for the record.

Mr. Ariale informed the Board that the Ordinance pertaining to this request refers to the tower as a monopole type tower; however, PrimeCo has always referred to the tower as a lattice type tower. In addition, a reference was made in the Ordinance to a 50 foot setback from adjoining properties, which should be corrected to read, "50 feet from the roadway", as the Code states.

Mr. Ariale stated, in closing, that the applicant tried to do what he was compelled to do, under Federal law, which was to provide the Board with substantial data that would assist them in evaluating the site in question. He stated that they provided the Board with engineering studies and testimony; written reports, with respect to planning analysis; written reports regarding zones and tower designs; and information about appraisals in the area. He stated that the site in question is one of the very few commercial corridors that exists in Lake County. He stated that the applicant was trying to be unobtrusive to residential communities and feel the site in question does that. He stated that they demonstrated how the site was necessary, to complete PrimeCo's network, in order to make their system run properly. He requested the Board to consider those points, when debating the request.

At this time Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and showed a video (County Exhibit C) that was taken of the area in question, which he submitted, for the record. He noted that the distance from the proposed tower site to the nearest residential subdivision is approximately 150 feet and the distance to the nearest residence, in Orange Blossom Estates, is approximately 600 feet.

Mr. Ariale stated that there was no opposition from the local residents and the impact is negligible, due to the nature of the surrounding properties. He stated that the site is one of the more unobtrusive sites they could find, in this particular corridor.

The Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Ariale about what the applicant's determination was of the distance from the proposed tower location to the nearest residential, noting that staff had determined that it was 150 feet.

Ms. Denan reappeared before the Board and clarified that it was approximately 150 feet from the proposed tower location to the nearest residential.

Mr. Albert Peek, Albert Peek Realty and Investment Corporation, appeared before the Board and discussed a packet of information (Applicant's Exhibit C) that was submitted to the Board, for the record, noting that it was a study on commercial and industrial properties within a three county area - Alachua, Marion, and Lake. He stated that his firm also reviewed the impact on residential developments. He stated that the report concludes that there was no measurable impact on commercial and industrial properties located adjacent to communication towers 295 feet or taller. He stated that the same conclusion was determined on residential properties, adjacent to towers as tall as 1,350 feet in height. He then answered questions from the Board regarding said study.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt, rather than putting up towers in the three locations that would serve the widest area, it may be that, in areas like the proposed site, the applicant may need to look at different types of technology that will allow more towers that are camouflaged than to have fewer towers that are inappropriate.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel a tower would be any more objectionable, or any more of a safety hazard, than the billboards that are in the proposed area.

Commr. Good questioned whether the applicant could utilize a shorter tower, to obtain coverage, with a different type of aerial array.

It was noted that, if the applicant had to go with a shorter tower, they would have to have more towers and more locations for the towers.

Commr. Swartz stated that, even if the Board approved this request, he did not feel the applicant would be able to meet the 150 foot setback requirement.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he felt the applicant would want a written order of denial, if that is the decision of the Board.

Commr. Gerber stated that, if the technology existed for the applicant to go with shorter towers, she would probably support such a request, however, she could not support this request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the only tower he voted against was similar to this one, with regard to its location and proximity to residential, therefore, he would not be supporting this request.

Commr. Good stated that he would be more comfortable with an array of towers up and down the highway corridor, as opposed to one giant tower, therefore, would not be supporting the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about the distance from the tower to the residential community.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for a CUP in C-2 (Community Commercial), for the placement of a 195 foot self supporting communications tower, with equipment structures, incorporating in the Board's action all of staff's recommendations and the reasons indicated for denial, and placing particular emphasis on the fact that the tower is within approximately 150 feet of existing residential, which is significant, as well as the fact that the Board has required a 150 foot setback from any adjacent property line for all the towers they have approved to date.

PETITION NO. 6-97-5 - REZONE 180' X 200' PORTION OF A PARENT FIVE ACRE TRACT FROM R-1 TO CFD - FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that, in April of this year, the County had a request for a tower site in the Lady Lake area; however, it was continued, to allow the applicant to seek an alternate site. She stated that the site before the Board this date is that alternate site. She stated that Tab 9(A), on the Rezoning Agenda, is the original site that the applicant presented and wanted to come forward as part of this presentation, however, noted that staff would just be addressing the alternate site at this time. She reviewed an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, which was submitted, for the record, noting that it is a five acre tract, of which a .83 acre parcel is going to be leased. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the request, to locate a 195 foot communications tower on a smaller lease parcel from a five acre parent parcel. She stated that staff found the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and that they are satisfied with the proposed location for the tower. A survey map (County Exhibit B) of the property was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfit & Eidson, appeared before the Board, stating that she was representing PrimeCo. She stated that, as indicated by staff, the Board had before them two sites, both of which have received staff's recommendation for approval. She stated that the applicant is asking the Board to choose which site they feel is the better of the two sites, for the placement of the tower. She stated that there was some concern about the original site, which was the Florida Power Substation site (located at the intersection of C-25 and U.S. Hwy. 27); therefore, the applicant requested a delay and developed what is referred to as the Sellards site, which is Tab 9 on the Rezoning Agenda. She reviewed the various documents that go with Tab 9(A), the Florida Power Substation site, on the Rezoning Agenda, noting that she felt it might be helpful, due to the fact that she planned to present both sites to the Board. She noted that, when the Sellards site went before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it received a unanimous vote of approval.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel the Board should be choosing a site. He stated that the Board would look at Agenda Item No. 9, the Sellards site, and decide whether or not it would be an appropriate location for a tower and, having made that decision, would then move onto Tab 9(A), the Florida Power Substation site.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, if the Tab 9 site, the Sellards site, were to be approved, the Board would not need to move onto the Tab 9(A) site, the Florida Power Substation site, that it would probably be withdrawn.

Ms. Bonifay interjected that it would, noting that the applicant did not need both sites, they only want one tower location, the applicant is just offering the Board two sites to choose from. She noted that both sites have the same case number, because there is only one rezoning request, which is for a communications tower location. She stated that Case No. 6-97-5, Agenda Item No. 9, is what they are calling the Sellards site and Case No. 6-97-5, Agenda Item No. 9(A), is the Florida Power Substation site.

It was noted that there were no letters of support on file; however, there were three letters of opposition to the request.

Ms. Bonifay clarified the fact that the three letters of opposition that are on file are letters that were sent to the County, regarding the substation site that was originally filed.

Mr. Alec Hale, Radio Frequency Engineer, PrimeCo Communications, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and answered questions regarding his credentials, his expertise, what his job entails, why the site in question is important to PrimeCo, and other aspects of the request. He reviewed various maps and overlays of the proposed site and answered questions regarding same.

Ms. Victoria Bucher, Land Agent, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, stating that she was a consultant to PrimeCo, regarding the acquisition and zoning process, and discussed a site analysis that she had done for the proposed site. She answered questions regarding the Sellards site, with regard to its specific characteristics and entities, and discussed how PrimeCo selects a site, at which time she reviewed the four criteria they use in doing so. She stated that the application for the tower was filed December 3, 1996 and, since that time, there have been two continuances. She stated that PrimeCo evaluated eight alternate sites that were suggested to them by the Town of Lady Lake. She reviewed the alternate sites (Applicant's Exhibit A) that were evaluated by the Board, at which time said document was submitted, for the record. She noted that Site No. 8 on said document, the Sellards site, will work well for the needs of PrimeCo and that they will be able to offer a good screen for the site. She stated that, based upon her extensive research and evaluation of the alternate sites that have been suggested to PrimeCo, it is her opinion that the only sites that would work for the tower would be either the Sellards site, or the Florida Power Substation site.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the water tower in Lady Lake was considered as a site.

Ms. Bucher stated that it was not, due to the fact that it would be located outside the search ring.

Ms. Bonifay informed the Board that two of the documents that she was going to introduce into evidence was part of the Board's backup material, being (1) a letter from Ms. Mary Scott, Town Manager, Town of Lady Lake (Applicant's Exhibit B), with regard to the Sellards site, as opposed to Site 9(A), the Florida Power Substation site; and (2) a Resolution from the Town of Lady Lake (Applicant's Exhibit C), indicating that they find the Sellards site more acceptable and compatible than the Florida Power Substation site; however, they do have some reservations about it.

Mr. Ken Thomas, Community Development Director, Town of Lady Lake, appeared before the Board stating that the letter from

Ms. Mary Scott, Town Manager, Town of Lady Lake, submitted into evidence by Ms. Bonifay, was written, because Florida Power chose the Clay Street site, over various other sites that were suggested to them, and the Town felt it should take a position on the matter. Mr. John Ariale, Attorney, Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and reviewed a plan of the site in question and answered questions from Ms. Bonifay, with regard to landscaping and the fact that PrimeCo tried to tuck the proposed site in among some existing vegetation and some large oak trees that exist around the site, to try to buffer the tower from any visual impact there might be from adjoining properties. He stated that the trees would create a canopy that would cover a great portion of the upper tower. He answered further questions from Ms. Bonifay regarding the request.

Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, a Planning Analysis (Applicant's Exhibit D), from Robertson and Associates, for the substation site; and a Planning Analysis (Applicant's Exhibit E), from Ms. Sheryl Denan, Planner, representing PrimeCo, for the substation site.

Mr. Leroy Pate, Pate Engineering, Inc., appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and gave a brief history of his credentials and background. He discussed how the proposed tower would be designed, for either site, noting that it was a nationally recognized standard used by almost all engineers in the United States. He stated that the tower would be designed to withstand a basic wind speed of up to 110 mph (basic wind speed for Lake County is 100 mph) for the base of the structure and 150 mph for the top of the tower. A letter (Applicant's Exhibit F) from Mr. Pate to Mr. Mike Lamb, PrimeCo Personal Communications, was submitted, for the record.

Mr. Albert Peek, Albert Peek Realty and Investment Corporation, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and gave a brief history of his credentials and experience, with regard to this request. He stated that he was employed by PrimeCo to conduct a study regarding the impact that a communications tower would have on adjacent commercial and industrial properties, as well as residential, for a three county area - Alachua, Marion, and Lake. He stated that the conclusions from both of the studies was that the existence of a communications tower did not have an impact on the market value of the residential lots, or the residences in close proximity to it. Mr. Peek's report was submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit G, and a letter from Mr. Peek to Mr. John Ariale, Attorney, Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant, & Yon, was submitted, as Applicant's Exhibit H.

Ms. Bonifay stated, in closing, that she felt PrimeCo was very sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding jurisdiction. She stated that they took to heart some of the comments that were made by the Town of Lady Lake and were very concerned about comments that were made about adjoining property owners. She stated that they actually solicited from them alternative sites and locations and went through a very organized methodology in their approach; used the industry standards of today; continued the hearing on the prior site, and came back with a site that they felt did what the County wanted. She stated that staff recommended approval of the site and determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding land uses. She stated that no evidence was offered to dispute that. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Sellards site, by an 8-0 vote. She stated that all the industry can go by is what the standards are today and what is in the Comprehensive Plan and, based on that, the applicant tried to bring to the Board what they think is the very best site, to further their business objectives in Lake County. She noted, for the record, that there is a co-location candidate, which has been an objective of both the industry and of the County. She requested the Board to approve the proposed site, for a communications tower for PrimeCo.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Jim Mayfield and Mr. and Mrs. Milton Kirby, appeared before the Board stating that his clients had presented evidence and testimony on the Florida Power site and presented the Sellards site as one of the alternative sites. He stated, for the record, that Mr. Mayfield is not the realtor involved in this site and will not procure any benefit, if the Board chose to take this site over the Florida Power site; however, he requested him to indicate to the Board that he presented several sites to PrimeCo, this site being one of them, as an alternative site to the site that was being proposed by Florida Power. He stated that Mr. Mayfield wanted the Board to know, on behalf of his family, that they support the idea of the Sellards site, noting that it is in the Town of Lady Lake, is in their neighborhood, is going to be visible to them, but they feel that it is not as impacting on the Town as the other site and that is why they support it.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt this site falls into the category of some other sites that he has approved and that he feels it is the right type of neighborhood and would be less intrusive than some of the other sites on the map, therefore, would be supporting the request. He noted that the reason the Board is having a lot of these type cases come forward is because the citizens that live in Lake County utilize those types of services and want them.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request to rezone a 180' x 200' portion of a parent five acre tract from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the placement of a 195 foot lattice communications tower.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that, unless Lake County takes a much more aggressive approach to the permitting of communications towers, Lake County is going to become the tower county of central Florida. He stated that everyone is rushing to Lake County to put up towers, because the permitting is still fairly simple. He stated that he did not feel the tower was going to be camouflaged and was going to be located in a prominent place, for everyone entering or leaving Lady Lake to see, and that concerned him. He stated that he would vote against placing a tower at the site in question, because he feels there are other alternatives that will optimize PrimeCo's communications between Leesburg and south Marion County.

Commr. Gerber stated that she felt it was urgent for the Board to have a tower ordinance in front of them, as soon as possible.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt, if the County required shorter towers and that they be camouflaged, there will be more of them and the cost of that type of service will go up.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not see a great deal of difference between this case and the previous one, other than the size of the location. She stated that there is no place in the County where people want to have towers.

Commr. Good stated that he felt the issue of safety makes this case very different from the previous one. He stated that he would not be supporting the request and noted that he would like to see the applicant explore another alternative, which is to hook up to The Villages water tower, noting that he felt that may have been a possibility that was missed.

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

Commrs. Swartz and Good voted "No".

Ms. Bonifay noted, for the record, that the applicant was withdrawing Tab 9(A), the Florida Power Substation site, from the Rezoning Agenda, due to the fact that it no longer needed to be considered, since Tab 9, the Sellards site, was approved for the placement of a 195 foot lattice communications tower.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 2:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:45 p.m.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the Board had proposed a Settlement Agreement for Lake Sarah Estates; however, in the old ordinance there was a reference to eleven acres of open space that was not included as a natural open water body. She stated that, in viewing an aerial (contained in the Board's backup material) of the site, one could see that there was never a natural open water body on the site. She stated that, by default, the County would be adding two other five acre tracts to the parcel in question, the open space remaining will amount to more than eleven acres.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether there would be clustering on the property that Lake Sarah Estates will be constructed on.

Ms. Farrell stated that, by default, from engineering and financial standards, there will probably be clustering around the area of the ten acres that has been added.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request by the Department of Growth Management for approval of a Settlement Agreement between International Skiing, Inc. and Lake County, relating to the Lake Sarah Estates Planned Unit Development.

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that, in 1986, the applicant applied for and received a rezoning to CP (Planned Commercial) and the only use provided for within that CP was an RV park, as identified in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He noted that the applicant obtained two development orders at the same time - Planned Commercial and a CUP. He stated that, when the Florida Department of Transportation opened the new Turnpike entrance, a portion of the property in question was sold off, for a retention area, for the Turnpike, at which time he reviewed an aerial and plat of the property in question, indicating what was done with the property. He stated that the Ordinance is strictly tailored to an RV park and the Settlement Agreement before the Board limits the applicant to 192 recreational vehicle sites, for the 24 acre site, with only 4.8 acres of open space.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff had looked at any other alternatives that might give the applicant more of an incentive to do something that may be a little better for the site.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that this is a vesting question, so the applicant either gets an RV park, or he does not. He stated that the County does not have the ability to give the applicant anything more than what he had. He stated that the applicant can ask for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or a rezoning. He stated that the applicant originally requested a motel site, but the County does not have the authority to grant said request. He stated that, if the current Comprehensive Plan does not allow for a motel, the County cannot grant the applicant one, through the special vesting process. He stated that he felt the County probably had some really good defenses to vesting, due to the fact that the applicant has sold half the property, although he felt the sale was an eminent domain proceeding.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the fact that the Board would like to see something go in at the site other than an RV park and what the County could do regarding that fact.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, from a procedural standpoint, if the Board declined to accept the Settlement Agreement, they would then proceed to the Special Master's non-binding arbitration phase and the Special Master will make recommendations to the Board, which he noted they are not bound to accept, and then the property owner can contest the Board's decision in court. He stated that, if the property owner came back to the County with a rezoning and the Board felt the property had commercial locational criteria, the County would have to rezone the property.

Mr. Knight stated that he had given Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the property owner, a letter regarding potential commercial uses, however, noted that they are very limited in nature, because they have to meet the residential, or agricultural, needs of the area in the Suburban land use category.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem accepting the Settlement Agreement before the Board this date.

Commr. Good questioned whether the Board had the option to send this request back to the property owner with a counter offer.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board could reject the Settlement Agreement and instruct staff as to what parameters they would like, to see if there could be further negotiations between the County and the property owner, however, the negotiations would still have to be within the parameters of an RV park, because the property is either vested, or it is not.

Commr. Gerber noted that there would be no point in rejecting the Settlement Agreement, however, felt the Board could notify Mr. Crawford that they were open to other possibilities, with regard to the parcel.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Settlement Agreement was a good one, was fair to both sides, and that he felt the Board should move forward with it. He stated that, what the applicant does with the property after that is none of the Board's business.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board approved a request for approval of a Settlement Agreement between H. Wayne Klekamp, Inc. and Lake County.

Commr. Good voted "No" and Commr. Swartz was not present for the discussion or vote.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

SUBDIVISIONS

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval of a Settlement Agreement between Treasure Island Estates, Inc. and Lake County, regarding Howell Park Subdivision, commonly known as Treasure Cove. He stated that Howell Park Subdivision is a replat of Silver Lake Estates. He stated that, in 1986, the owner at that time was told that, if he paved the roads and put in a central water system, he could put two lots together, as a buildable lot. He stated that, based on that information, the owner at the time went forward, paved the roads in the subdivision, and put in a central water system. He stated that a number of the lots were sold, however, the Lot of Record criteria changed - it got designated Rural on the Future Land Use Map and the property owner had a large number of lots left under ownership. He stated that, at the time, a corporation owned the lots, there was a division of the corporation, and different people took different lots as payment. Mr. Knight stated that the owners perceived, based on the information they had been given, that they were going to pave the roads, put in the water system, and come up with 79 lots; however, in going back through the Lot of Record determination today, vested rights, etc., it was determined that the owners were vested for six lots less than 79, for the entire subdivision. He stated that, because of the ownership patterns, etc., there are a number of ways that they can try to get approval for different lots. He stated that the Settlement Agreement before the Board has 77 lots, for the entire subdivision, and sets forth that the owners will have to put in deed restrictions for future purchasers, for cleaning the septic systems. He stated that the subdivision is developing consistent with the patterns of ownership of the lots that have been sold, at which time he reviewed a plat of the subdivision, noting the various lots that have been sold.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the issue is over five or six lots that the developer claims he was vested for. He stated that the Settlement Agreement gives him all but two of the lots and gets the water system dedicated to the property owners, at least the property where it is located, so that, if the developer leaves, the property owners can get the water system and it adds the system for cleaning the septic tanks.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County cannot enforce it, as a deed restriction, although it is part of the County's Code.

Mr. Knight noted, for the record, that it is in the Settlement Agreement as a Code Enforcement issue, if the owners do not set up the deed restrictions and comply with it.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Department of Growth Management for approval of a Settlement Agreement between Treasure Island Estates, Inc. and Lake County, regarding Howell Park Subdivision, commonly known as Treasure Cove.

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

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Department of Growth Management for approval and execution of a Resolution amending Resolution No. 1996-116, adopted August 27, 1996, revising the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Schedule for Calendar Year 1997, Amending the Second Amendment Schedule for 1997.

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

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that there were two changes being requested to the Ordinance before them.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and indicated the portions of the Ordinance that staff was requesting be deleted, as well as the reason for said deletions. She noted that the deletions started with Page 11 of the Ordinance, contained in the Board's backup material.

Mr. Minkoff noted that the language, as shown in the Ordinance, is the language that the Legislature adopted last year that allows agencies to grant waivers or variances to agency regulations.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it was a major step in the right direction.

Ms. Farrell noted that, with the new language, the County can grant a variance, but it has to be in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that, if one were to go to the Comprehensive Plan, all the language for the variances to a Lot of Record can be found there, so the County will be taking what was created as a Lot of Record Ordinance and make it a check list for staff, before presenting requests to the Board of Adjustments. She stated that, as long as it does not violate the County's Comprehensive Plan, one can move forward and request a variance - it does not mean that one will be granted, but one can request it.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Department of Growth Management for approval to advertise an

Ordinance amending the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations; Amending References to Variances, Waivers and Appeals; Amending Chapter II, Definitions; Amending Chapter III, Zoning District Regulations, Amending Section 3.01.04.7 Mobile Homes, Deleting Section 3.02.01.H Appeals and Waivers, Amending Section 3.04.01.C Watchman's or Caretakers Quarters, Section 3.04.01.D Agriculture and Ranchette Districts; Amending Chapter IV, Special Districts, Section 4.05.04 Variances; Amending Chapter IX, Development Design and Improvement Standards, Amending Section 9.01.02 Exemptions, Deleting Section 9.05.08 Variances; Amending Chapter X, Accessory and Temporary Uses, Amending Section 10.01.05, Accessory Apartments, Amending Section 10.04.01 Private Boat Docks and Ramps; Amending Chapter XII, Hardship Relief, Appeals and Enforcement, Amending Section 12.00.00 Purpose, Repealing Existing Sections 12.03.00 through 12.03.10, Creating New Sections 12.03.00 through 12.03.07 Appeals, Repeating Sections 12.05.00 through 12.05.05 Variances Granted, Repealing Section 12.06.00 Prohibited Variances, Repealing Sections 12.08.00 through 12.08.06 Vested Rights Hearing Officer; Amending Chapter XIII, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies, Amending Section 13.03.01 Powers and Duties; Amending Chapter XIV, Administration, Deleting Section 14.18.13 Variances, Repealing Sections 14.19.00 through 14.19.04, Deleting Section 14.21.06, Variances.

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

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, noted, for the record, that the Ordinance eliminates the "No Variance" provision from the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which means that one can get a variance to every provision in the LDRs.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

LAWS AND LEGISLATION

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that she had received a Legislative Alert from NACo (National Association of Counties), on Friday, May 23, 1997, requesting the County's immediate backing, supporting the funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, in the Home Investment Partnerships Program. She stated that NACo needed the endorsement that Friday; therefore, she endorsed same, in the name of the County Manager, since the County uses and hopes to continue to use CDBG grants. She requested the Board's confirmation of their support in the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager, Ms. Sue Whittle, for confirmation of her endorsement, in the name of the County, of a request from NACo for the Board's support for funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program and the Home Investment Partnerships Program.

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

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD

LAWS AND LEGISLATION/COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Good informed the Board that he had received a letter from NACo, requesting the name of a voting delegate, from those people attending the NACo Conference.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was suggested that Commr. Swartz be named as said delegate.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from NACo for the name of a voting delegate from those people attending the NACo Conference and appointed Commr. Swartz to be said delegate.

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

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

_______________________________

WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/5-27-97/6-10-97/boardmin