A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

June 24, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 24, 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; Catherine C. Hanson; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Welton G. Cadwell. Commr. G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman, was not present, due to another commitment. 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

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he would like to add to the Agenda the issue of the Department of Environmental Protection's purchase of the Ray Ranch, under his County Attorney's Business, noting that they had requested the County to make a change to the Settlement Agreement that was entered into between Lake County, the Department of Community Affairs, and the Ray family.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda, under the County Attorney's Report.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

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

Commr. Good stated that he had an item (Constitution Revision video)that was scheduled to be addressed under his Commissioner's Business; however, he would like to move it up on the Agenda and show the video before the Board started the public hearing portion of the Agenda.

MINUTES

Regarding the Minutes of May 20, 1997 (Regular Meeting), the following was requested:

On Page 14, Line 25, clarify the statement that was made, with regard to the Citizens' Commission for Children.



On Page 15, Line 24, change Welch to Welsh.



On Page 29, Line 11, change was to were.



On Page 33, Line 28, change the word of to and; on Line 29, change the word was to are and delete the language and the type of aircraft, at the end of the sentence, on Lines 29 and 30.



On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 20, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 20, 1997 (Special Meeting), as presented.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

Regarding the Minutes of May 27, 1997 (Regular Meeting), the following was requested:

On Page 10, Line 13, change the word infield to infill.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 27, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

Regarding the Minutes of June 3, 1997 (Regular Meeting), the following was requested:

On Page 18, Line 25, insert the fact that Commr. Cadwell will be serving on the Value Adjustment Board this year, in place of Commr. Gerber, who will be unable to serve.



On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 3, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as amended.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Community Services/Human Services



Request from Community Services for approval and execution of Elaine H. McInerney Satisfaction of Mortgage.



Bonds - Mobile Home



Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Mobile Home Bond for Michael Mulholland, to place a 30 foot travel trailer on his property, located on Felkins Road, while constructing a single family dwelling.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works



Request from Public Works for acceptance of the Final Plat for Deer Island Club, Second Replat; approval and execution of a Developer's Agreement, for Construction of Improvements, between Lake County and the Deer Island Community Development District; and acceptance of a Letter of Credit, in the amount of $95,510.80.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works



Request from Public Works for acceptance of the Final Plat for Greater Hills, Phase 8-A; approval and execution of a Developer's Agreement, for Construction of Improvements, between Lake County and Greater Construction Corporation; and acceptance of a Letter of Credit, in the amount of $411,000.00.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.



ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2

A handout titled Process for Accountability Draft Recommendation of the Local Government Commission II, as well as a handout titled Preliminary Position Statements as Prepared by the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Constitutional Revision Committee, were submitted, for the record, as For Your Information Items, and a video that had been provided to the Board from the Florida Association of Counties, with regard to the Constitution Revision Commission, was shown to those present.

It was noted that some of the Commissioners would be attending the Florida Association of Counties' Annual Meeting, in Ft. Lauderdale, this week.

It was further noted that meetings, with regard to same, have tentatively been scheduled for July 30, 1997, in Gainesville, at the University of Florida Law School Auditorium; in Tampa, on August 28, 1997, at the Hillsborough County Convention Center; on September 4, 1997, in Orlando, at the Expo Center; and on September 5, 1997, in Daytona Beach, at the Ocean Center.

Commr. Good invited anyone interested in the Constitution and what changes are being proposed to it to attend said meetings.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 842 - JOE B. TRAMELL, DEER ISLAND - MT. DORA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate rights-of-way, lots, and tracts in Section 36, Township 19, Range 26; Section 31, Township 19, Range 27; Section 1, Township 20, Range 26; and Section 6, Township 20, Range 27, in the Mt. Dora area - Commissioner District 3. He stated that three years ago a vacation occurred in this area; however, the applicant is currently in the process of a replat and this request is to catch anything that was not vacated at that time.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, stating that his firm has been involved in this PUD since 1989. He stated that the request is strictly to vacate the remaining portions of the project and take care of some areas of conflict that resulted from the actions of the previous developer. He stated that the applicant has also brought the lot yield back up to the lot yield that was approved

in the PUD and has adjusted where some of the rights-of-way are actually located. He stated that they are private rights-of-way and some of the roads were built where they were not supposed to be. He stated that this request cleans up all the mistakes that were made in previous years.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Mr. Stivender noted that there were no letters of support or opposition on file; however, the County did receive a telephone call from an individual who lives in Deer Island, who questioned the vacation that had occurred previously and noted a concern about additional lots. He stated that staff was recommending approval of 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 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 1997-113 - Road Vacation Petition No. 842, by Joe B. Tramell, Deer Island, to vacate rights-of-way, lots, and tracts in Section 36, Township 19, Range 26; Section 31, Township 19, Range 27; Section 1, Township 20, Range 26; and Section 6, Township 20, Range 27, in the Mt. Dora area - Commissioner District 3.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 843 - JIM STIVENDER, JR.,PUBLIC WORKS

FOREST HILLS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right-of-way in Section 20, Township 17, Range 29, Forest Hills area - Commissioner District 4. He stated that the request involved part of a road project that was underway that was excess right-of-way and was very close to a gentleman's trailer. He stated that staff felt it was excess right-of-way for the County, in light of the road projects that the County was accomplishing in the area, and that he felt there was some donation of right-of-way, in conjunction with the request. He stated that staff was recommending approval.

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. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 1997-114 - Road Vacation Petition No. 843, by Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, to vacate right-of-way, Section 20, Township 17, Range 29, Forest Hills area - Commissioner District 4.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 844 - RONALD DAVIS - LEESBURG

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate lots, tracts, and right-of-way, Silver Lake Estates, Section 14, Township 19, Range 25, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 3. He stated that this case involved underlying plats of easements that do not go anywhere, along the south boundary of Silver Lake Estates, where the plat already exists, and to vacate any traces of the previous plat.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ronald Davis, Applicant, appeared before the Board and answered questions 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. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 1997-115 - Road Vacation Petition No. 844, by Ronald Davis, to vacate lots, tracts, and right-of-way, Silver Lake Estates, Section 14, Township 19, Range 25, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 3.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 845 - ALAN AND JOYCE CULVER - MT. PLYMOUTH

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a road in Mt. Plymouth, Section "A", Section 28, Township 19, Range 28, Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4. He stated that staff's recommendation was for denial, the reason being that the area in question remains an area of uncertainty, with regard to a potential special assessment for the area. He stated that, due to said fact, staff would like to keep the area open. He stated that, if all the roads are paved and this road is not necessary, it will be vacated at that time. He stated that the road in question is probably the least traveled, if traveled at all, in the area. He suggested that the Board consider approving a resolution to restrict the area to motorized vehicular traffic, rather than having the road vacated.

An aerial and plat of the property in question were displayed and reviewed, at which time Mr. Stivender answered questions regarding the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Alan Culver, Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that he and his wife purchased their home, an historical landmark that was built in 1926, approximately two and one half years ago, and their purpose in wanting to vacate the road in question was to keep the property as it has been since the area was developed. He stated that it is a refuge for gopher tortoises, birds, woodpeckers, etc. and they want to keep it that way. He stated that they purchased four lots across the street from them, fronting Oakmont Avenue, for said purpose. He stated that they feel a road going through the property will disturb the wildlife refuge, however, the road vacation will not disturb anyone that lives on their end of Oakmont Avenue. He answered questions from the Board regarding the request.

It was noted that the lots on Oakmont Avenue could be buildable lots; however, the applicants have no intention of developing them.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicants would be interested in closing the road to vehicular traffic, if the Board did not vacate the road.

Mr. Culver stated that that would be an option.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the County was going to have any need for the road, that she did not think this request was any different than what the Board has approved in the past, and that she did not think there was any opposition to the request. She stated that she saw no reason for the Board not to give the applicants a full vacation, particularly, in view of the historic value of their home.

Commr. Gerber stated that she hesitated approving this request, when the County does not know what it will be doing in the area in the future.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, because of the way the community is developed and, because there are enough other roads in the area for an outlet, there is probably not going to be a need for the road to be open.

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.

Mr. Stivender informed the Board that Florida Power wanted to reserve an easement, for future use, if the road was vacated.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to approve Resolution No. 1997-116 - Road Vacation Petition No. 845, by Alan and Joyce Culver, to vacate a road in Mt. Plymouth, Section "A", Section 28, Township 19, Range 28, Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4, with the stipulation that Florida Power have the right to reserve a right-of-way easement, for future use.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Florida Power had power lines on the property, at the present time.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, if the County wanted to reserve an easement for utilities, it should reserve it for all utilities.

Commr. Hanson amended her motion to vacate completely the portion of Oakmont Avenue in question.

Commr. Cadwell amended his second to the motion.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would not be able to support the request, noting that she would be more in favor of letting the property be used for a park. She questioned what difference it would make, if the use is going to remain the same, for the County to reserve the right-of-way and see what happens in the future.

Commr. Hanson stated that the road vacation would preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. She further stated that she did not see a need for Florida Power to have a right-of-way easement on the property.

Commr. Good stated that the historical and architectural significance of the applicant's home puts this request in a different category than some of the vacation petitions that the Board has seen in the past. He stated that, with the home being an historical one, he felt the Board needed to look at the aesthetics of the parcel and the architectural and landscape design of the home. He stated, however, that he was not sure having the piece of right-of-way in question serves the public purpose that the right-of-way needs to serve. He stated that he would support the request, even though he does not support many road vacation requests. He then called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-1 vote.

Commr. Gerber voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.



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 applicant under Tab 10, Holmar Marina and Campground, had requested a 60 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 4-0 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 August 26, 1997.

Ms. Farrell informed the Board that Tab 11, Pinnacle Towers, Inc., Lee Barnard, Rezoning Case No. CUP97/6/3-2, Tracking No. 44-97-CUP, and Tab 12, Triangle Industrial Park, Gene Smith, Rezoning Case No. CUP97/6/4-3, Tracking No. 45-97-CUP, both being cases involving communication towers, needed to be postponed until September 23, 1997, in order to allow staff to draft and present to the Board a Tower Ordinance.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the two zoning cases alluded to, as well as other pending tower applications, were filed after the date that the Board started to review its new ordinance on tower locations. He stated that there is a legal doctrine, titled Zoning in Progress, which allows counties and cities to delay issuing permits, once they have started changing their ordinance, so that, as soon as the County identifies that it is going to change an ordinance, staff will not get a lot of applications trying to come in under the old rules. He stated that the Board needed to act on the cases, separately, with regard to the postponements.

It was noted that, when the cases being postponed come through the process, they will be subject to the new Tower Ordinance. PETITION NO. CUP97/6/4-3 - CUP IN LM - TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK, GENE SMITH

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, appeared before the Board, representing Mr. Gene Smith, Triangle Industrial Park, and requested that this case be heard this date, noting that there were a number of people present who wished to address the Board regarding the case and that she felt there were distinguishing circumstances involving it. She stated that the two cases before the Board this date were for replacement towers, not new towers, therefore, felt they should be heard, noting that the Tower Ordinance is directed at new towers. She reviewed what transpired, up to this point in time, with regard to the case and the reason Mr. Smith agreed to a continuance, when it was brought before the Board several months ago as a rezoning request by AT&T. She stated that Mr. Smith was informed by staff that he would have to refile his application and pay all new fees, which he did.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the County had started work on the Tower Ordinance; therefore, Mr. Smith was asked to wait until it was completed, which they predicted to be in March of this year. She stated that she heard it may not come before the Board until August; however, workshops will have to be held and it will have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board, for public hearings, so she feels it will not be ready until the end of the year. She stated that, although the County was informed that AT&T withdrew their request because of their satellite technology, that was not the case, they withdrew it because they found another site in Eustis where they did not encounter a problem.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the County enacted a moratorium on towers; however, Mr. Minkoff has since changed his legal position and is no longer relying on the moratorium, because it is felt it was enacted without sufficient notice. She stated that there is case law, for both cities and counties, that state moratoriums that effect building permits must be handled with the same due process requirements as rezoning hearings. She stated that that was not done and Mr. Smith is now relying on pending ordinance doctrine. She stated that equitable estoppel can be applied to a local government entity, in spite of its claim that it is filing a pending ordinance. She stated that, if an applicant can prove reliance, a change of position, expenditures, and that it would be unjust or inapplicable not to allow him/her to go forward, then equitable estoppel would prevail and, in essence, would trump the pending ordinance doctrine. She stated that, for those reasons, she was requesting that the case be heard this date.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Minkoff was comfortable with the advice that he had given the Board, with regard to postponing Tabs 11 and 12, the two cases involving towers.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he was.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would rather hear the case this date, noting that, if the Board postponed it and it went before a Special Master, they could end up with something they had no control over.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board decided it would not hear any cases involving towers, until a Tower Ordinance is in place.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there were another seven tower cases pending, therefore, felt the best way to handle the matter would be to postpone them all, or to hear them all.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the Mission Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board stating that said Association has been involved in this case, from the beginning, and would like to refute the comment that was made that this request was for a replacement tower. She stated that they do not feel it is for a replacement tower and are in favor of a postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board postponed Tab 12, Triangle Industrial Park - Gene Smith, Rezoning Case No. CUP97/6/4-3, Tracking No. 45-97-CUP, until September 23, 1997, in order to allow staff to draft and present to the Board a Tower Ordinance.

Commr. Gerber voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/3-2 - CUP IN A - PINNACLE TOWERS, INC.

LEE BARNARD

Mr. Lee Barnard, Pinnacle Towers, Inc., Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that this request is for a replacement tower. He stated that he had inquired last November about replacing the tower and was told that the County would be redoing the Code. He stated that it is now eight months later and the County still does not have the Tower Ordinance in place and he did not feel that there would be one in front of the Board before the end of the year. He stated that the tower in question is one that has been in place for a number of years and is in the middle of planted pine trees. He stated that the tower's purpose is for co-location. He stated that he recently had a $12,000.00 piece of radio equipment stolen from the building at the bottom of the tower, thus, was requesting to replace the tower in question with an identical tower. He stated that he needed to construct a bullet proof building at the site, because the building that is presently in place has been shot at several times. He stated that the workshops that the County is having, with regard to communication towers, is promoting colocation - to use existing towers. He stated that that is what he is doing, using an existing tower. He stated that it was not built to hold four major carriers and sixteen radio companies. He stated that he is replacing it with the same height, location, and type of construction. He stated that the only thing he will be changing is that he is going to pave the road, put in a nice building, landscape it, and install a fence around it with a security system.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board does not know what the new ordinance is going to look like, or how it is going to address existing sites, therefore, feels this case should be postponed until the Ordinance is approved.

Mr. Barnard stated that he did not have a problem with paying an additional fee, if he has to separate out, noting that his main concern is getting a building constructed at the site and securing his equipment.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could approve the building this date, without approving the tower.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Gerber to postpone Petition No. CUP97/6/3-2, Pinnacle Towers, Inc., Lee Barnard, Tracking No. 44-97-CUP, until September 23, 1997, in order to allow staff to draft and present to the Board a Tower Ordinance.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, if Mr. Barnard did not want to move forward with changing the tower, he should be refunded his $1,000.00.

Mr. Barnard interjected that he would continue with the process for the tower, but would pull the permit for the building.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the best way to handle the matter would be to approve a CUP this date for the building only and postpone the balance of the request until September 23, 1997. He stated that the approval would be for a CUP, for use with an existing, non-conforming tower, and have the request for the tower to be postponed until September 23,1997.

Commr. Cadwell amended his motion, to hear that portion of the rezoning request that would address the storage building only.

Commr. Gerber amended her second to the motion.

It was noted that the portion of this request that pertains to the tower would be continued until September 23, 1997 and that the Board would grant a limited CUP, for the building, for the existing tower.

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

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

It was noted that the portion of the request regarding the storage building would be heard later this date.

PETITION NO. PH11-97-3 - CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION

ALBERT KREIBICK

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that staff was bringing the request before the Board to correct a clerical error in what was recorded for this case, following a public hearing that was held two months ago. She stated that the day of the public hearing staff pulled the large portion of property that was being reapportioned, which was zoned RP; however, when the Ordinance was recorded, the entire legal was recorded with it. She stated that the first page of the Ordinance read 4.8 acres; however, the legal that is attached to the Ordinance did not less out that section of the property. She stated that, administratively, staff cannot amend an ordinance, without it being resubmitted to the Board. She stated that the case had been readvertised, the property had been reposted, and adjacent property owners were renotified. She stated that staff was requesting, this date, permission to correct the Ordinance - to correct the legal description that was recorded.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the applicant was in favor of correcting the legal description, to reflect the actual property involved.

Ms. Glenda Mahaney, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the Board had received a letter and map that she had sent them, indicating that the back portion of the property in question was not RP, according to the previous zoning records. She stated that a portion of the property was MP all the way to Lake Saunders and that she felt it should have been pointed out that the map that was referred to before was erroneous and she feels misled the Board into thinking that the back portion of the property was RP, when it was not. She stated that she felt the case should be postponed and that an investigation should be held, with regard to the matter.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, with the corrected legal description, the rezoning only affects the front portion of the property. He stated that the rear of the property would remain the same, noting that the request before the Board would only apply to the front portion of the property, as shown on the zoning map contained in the Board's backup material.

The Board questioned whether any action they would take this date would apply to the back portion of the property.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the Ordinance, with the new legal description, would only affect the dark shaded portion of the map contained in the Board's backup material. He stated that what was recorded with the original ordinance included the legal description for the entire piece of property; therefore, if the legal description is not changed, the entire parcel of property would be rezoned to MP, inadvertently.

Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Ms. Farrell answered questions from the Board regarding same.

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 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Department of Growth Management, to correct the legal description approved with Ordinance No. 1997-33, to reflect that the RP (Residential Professional) zoning is lessed out from that portion zoned MP (Planned Industrial), for an auto salvage yard.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.

REZONING (CONT'D.)

Commr. Hanson requested that Petition No. 24-97-4 be moved up on the Rezoning Agenda and heard at this time, due to the fact that the applicant had another commitment and needed to leave.

PETITION NO. 24-97-4 - REVOCATION OF CUP926-5 AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - RALPH REEDER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that staff was going to get the applicant out of annual inspections, out of paying for the CUP, and clarify the uses of the site, to add the picnic area, the playground, the concession stand, the caretaker's residence and accessory uses, soccer, football, T-ball, Little League, shuffle board, tennis and basketball. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ralph Reeder, Applicant, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the request.

The Board thanked Mr. Reeder for his efforts in getting the park established.

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 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for revocation of CUP926-5 and a request to rezone the property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the development of a community recreational facility, to include basketball, tennis and shuffleboard courts, a Little League baseball field, soccer, football and T-Ball fields, a picnic area with pavilions, a playground area, a caretaker's residence, and accessory amenities.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

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, at the meeting of April 27, 1997, staff presented the case to the Board for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RM (Mobile Home Residential); however, there was some concern as to the existing uses in the area, so staff was asked to bring a video back to the Board showing same. She noted that there were no changes in the Staff Report.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff had conducted a rooftop count of the area, noting that it was one of the key items requested.

Ms. Farrell stated that they had not.

At this time the video of the existing uses was shown to the Board and submitted, for the record, as County Exhibit A.

Commr. Hanson suggested postponing this request until later in the meeting, to allow staff time to conduct a rooftop count of the area and come back with the figures, as she had requested.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gerber to postpone this request until later in the meeting, to allow staff to provide the Board with the requested information.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he would support the motion, as long as the request will be finalized this date.

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

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH22-97-5 - RM TO AR - GEORGE W. LUNN, JR.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved five acres of land in the Lake Yale area. She stated that it was a request to rezone from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to RA (Ranchette), to construct a single family home. She stated that staff was recommending approval and noted that there was no opposition to the request on file. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Ms. Connie Lunn, Applicant, appeared before the Board to answer any questions there might be regarding 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 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to RA (Ranchette), for construction of a single family residence.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/1-4 - CUP IN A - HENRY CHURCH

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit in an Agricultural zoning. She stated that the applicant has ten acres in the east Lake County area, on which he has a current nursery and green houses. She stated that the applicant was requesting a mobile home, for housing a caretaker on the site. She noted that the mobile home is currently on the site and that this request would make it legal. She stated that the request is in compliance with the County's Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there were no letters in opposition on file and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 8-0 vote. She noted, for the record, a change in the Ordinance, being on Page 1, under Paragraph 2.A.1., being that the use of the site shall be limited to that of the single family home that is currently on the site and a mobile home for the caretaker, or watchman. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property was submitted, for the record.

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. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for keeping an existing mobile home on site, for use as a caretaker's living facility, to assist in the maintenance and operation of a nursery business.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/2-5 - CUP IN RA - JAMES AND SHIRLEY OREM

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a 5.8 acre parcel of property in the Umatilla area. She stated that this case was unique, in that two relatives needed assistance, both the mother and the father, who are the applicants. She stated that physician affidavits had been provided for both individuals. She stated that there is some concern from the neighbors, as to the use of the property. She stated that the request is in compliance with the County's Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there are three letters and one petition, with 20 signatures, in opposition to the request on file. She stated that the motion for approval failed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, by a 4-4 vote. She stated that staff was recommending approval and noted that the use is temporary and for the care of infirm relatives. She noted that the request would have to be renewed annually and that physician affidavits would have to be submitted, annually, as well. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board stating that this request was to allow a family member to temporarily locate a mobile home on the property in question, to take care of the father, particularly, but also the mother, who suffers from a heart condition. She stated that said family member is a paramedic, who is moving to Florida from West Virginia, because she is the one that the family feels is most capable of caring for the applicants.

Ms. Shannon Butler, one of the daughters of the applicants, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and answered questions regarding the request.

Ms. Campione submitted, for the record, a petition (Applicant's Exhibit A), containing eleven names of individuals in the area who are not opposed to the request, and a petition (Applicant's Exhibit B), containing three names of individuals who had previously signed a petition opposing the request, however, no longer oppose it, after having received more information about it.

At this time, two plats of the Lee Acres Subdivision were submitted, for the record, one (Applicant's Exhibit C) indicating the number of mobile homes (11) in the subdivision and the other (Applicant's Exhibit D) indicating the number of single-family conventional homes. Eighteen (18) pictures of various homes in the area and two pictures of the applicants (Applicant's Exhibit E), were shown and submitted, for the record, as well.

Ms. Butler informed the Board that she had researched the records of the Clerk's Office and found that Lee Acres, the subdivision where the property in question is located, does not have a homeowner's association, or deed restrictions; therefore, the request would not be in violation of any deed restrictions recorded on the property.

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 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a Conditional Use Permit in RA (Ranchette), for the

placement of a mobile home on site, for a temporary living facility, for the care of infirm relatives.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 25-97-5 - AMENDMENT TO CUP95/11/4-5 TO DELETE LAND AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - DAN CAMPBELL/PASTOR DOUG DYKSTRA

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that, in 1995, the County rezoned over 60 acres of property, for a ratite (ostrich) ranch, in the Silver Lake area, and this request is to allow 17 of those 60 acres to be set aside for the construction of a church, school, fellowship hall, cafeteria, and an adult congregate living facility/retirement center. She stated that staff had no concerns about the request, noting that it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the applicant submitted a site plan and staff was recommending approval; however, noted that the request will be subject to full site plan review and approval. She stated that there were no letters of opposition or support on file and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 8-0 vote. She noted that, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, there were some comments with regard to Access Management. An aerial (County Exhibit A) and a site plan (County Exhibit B) of the property in question were submitted, for the record.

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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to CUP95/11/4-5, to delete 17.47 +/- acres and rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a church, school, fellowship hall, cafeteria, and an adult congregate living facility/retirement center.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 12:30 p.m.

PETITION NO. 26-97-5 - REVOCATION OF A+CUP91/5/1-5 AND REZONE

FROM A TO CFD - CITY OF UMATILLA

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that this case was a request from the City of Umatilla for revocation of A (Agriculture) plus CUP91/5/1-5 and a subsequent rezoning of the parcel from A (Agriculture)to CFD (Community Facility District),for the continued use as a composting facility, for yard trash and land clearing debris, as well as for a future operation of the site as a wastewater reclamation facility. He stated that the parcel is approximately 40 acres in size, is located east of the City of Umatilla, off Twin Ponds Road, and that the future land use category is Suburban. He stated that the parcel is surrounded by rural residential type uses. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. He stated that staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan policies, regarding the provision of utilities, and reviewed the Land Development Regulations, placing some conditions within the Ordinance, as well as within the Staff Report, with regard to buffering, overspray, and the actual operation of the sprayfield, when it is finally designed.

Mr. Richardson stated that, at such time as the applicant wants to initiate operation of the sprayfield, they will be required to go through a full site plan process, as well as full review, for the actual operation of the sprayfield facility. He stated that, within the Staff Report, there are various conditions, some that pertain to the composting facility and some that pertain to the actual sprayfield facility, especially with regard to the provision of a 200 foot wooded buffer surrounding all operations on the site. He stated that the applicant will be required to provide all Federal and State permits, prior to final site plan approval. He stated that, although the parcel is 40 acres in size, only 20 acres will be utilized for the sprayfield and composting facility. He then addressed the pros and cons of the request, contained in the Staff Report. He stated that the County received 59 letters of opposition and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request, by a 5-1 vote. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Michael Hatfield, Attorney, representing the City of Umatilla, appeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Richardson about various aspects of the case, being the buffer area and the distance from it to nearby residences; whether the CFD submittal by the City of Umatilla complies with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan; whether it complies with the Lake County Land Development Regulations; whether the request is consistent with the existing and proposed uses in the area in question; whether it complies with concurrency requirements and the various Comprehensive Plan policies alluded to by Mr. Richardson, as well as with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and whether it would be in compliance, or even advance, the State of Florida plan; whether there would be a negative impact on the environment; whether it would adversely effect any property values; whether it provides for the orderly and logical development of the area in question; whether the conditions outlined in the draft ordinance are adequate to comply with staff's concerns related to the buffer and the impact of the use on the surrounding area; what his title entails; whether he was familiar with the spirit and intent of Rule 9J-5, of the Florida Administrative Code; and whether this application meets the spirit of said Code, for long-range future growth plans.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, informed the Board that she was representing some individuals in opposition to the request and questioned whether she would be allowed to cross-examine Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that Ms. Bonifay had filed a Notice of Appearance, therefore, would be entitled to participate in the public hearing and cross-examine the witnesses and that he felt it would be best to do so, while the witnesses were at the podium, rather than request them to reappear before the Board.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. James Makin and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Martin, residents who are in close proximity to the facility in question, appeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr. Richardson extensively regarding the case.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 1:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.

PETITION NO. 26-97-5 - REVOCATION OF A+CUP91/5/1-5 AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - CITY OF UMATILLA (CONT'D.)

Mr. Hatfield, Attorney, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Richardson further, in rebuttal to Ms. Bonifay's questioning. He then distributed to the Board a white binder, containing eleven (11) exhibits, which he noted he would submit, individually, for the record. At this time, he submitted, for the record, the County's Staff Report, as Applicant's Exhibit 1.

Mr. David Hanna, City Administrator, City of Umatilla, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, stating that he had been directed by the Umatilla City Council to submit an application to the County, to have the property in question rezoned to CFD, so the City could continue its future long-range planning efforts, to comply with their Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he has a responsibility to the residents of the City, for future growth management, as well as to the people in the Lake County area, the surrounding joint planning area, and the utility service district and they feel the site in question is the best site for that use. He noted that he would be addressing alternative sites, as well.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding his professional credentials; how The Land Planning Group is involved in this case; his education and training; and the fact that he assisted the City of Umatilla, in compiling various documents, for presentation as evidence this date.

Mr. Hatfield informed the Board that he had asked Mr. Beliveau to assemble Chapter 163, Part II, of the Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, of the Florida Administrative Code, into a composite exhibit, consisting of 21 pages, including the blue cover sheet, which he submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit 2 (Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code). He then questioned Mr. Beliveau about the fact that he had included in his report what he felt to be the perfect parts of the State Comprehensive Plan, which compliments this application, and the fact that same was listed under Composite Exhibit 3 (State Comprehensive Plan), consisting of four pages, including the blue cover sheet, which he submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit 3.

Mr. Hatfield questioned Mr. Beliveau further, with regard to the State plan, and submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 4 (East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan), consisting of 22 pages, including the blue cover sheet; and Composite Exhibit 5 (Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 9, 1991), consisting of seven pages, including the blue cover sheet, as well as a Supplement to Exhibit 5 (highlighting various Policies and Objectives in the Economic Element, pertaining to this request), consisting of nine pages, including the yellow cover sheet.

Mr. Hatfield clarified with Mr. Beliveau the fact that the City of Umatilla had a Comprehensive Plan adopted and approved by the Department of Community Affairs and the fact that it had pertinent policies and goals and objectives, which deal with the providing of utilities concurrency compliance and having them in conjunction with and in response to growth. At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 6 (City of Umatilla Comprehensive Plan, Adopted January 21, 1992), consisting of 28 pages, including the blue cover sheet, noting that Mr. Beliveau had prepared same, as pertinent portions of the City of Umatilla plan. He then clarified with Mr. Beliveau the fact that the City of Umatilla's application is supported by and consistent with Chapter 163, Part II, of the Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5, of the Florida Administrative Code; the State Comprehensive Plan; the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan; the Lake County Comprehensive Plan; and the City of Umatilla's Comprehensive Plan and that it meets 17 years of good planning, for future growth, by the City of Umatilla.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing two property owners in the area in question, reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr. Beliveau about the various documents that he had prepared, that were submitted, for the record. She clarified the fact that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan is not to promote intergovernmental cooperation, but public/private partnerships, which really speaks to contractual relationships, as to the provision of services for utilities, and the fact that there is no contractual relationship between Lake County and the City of Umatilla, at the present time.

Mr. Beliveau stated that there is an implied contractual relationship between Lake County and the City of Umatilla, noting that the City of Umatilla has on file a utility service area that is recognized by the Lake County staff and, whenever an applicant applies for a use within that utility service area, the City of Umatilla is notified and asked to comment.

Ms. Bonifay questioned whether there was a contractual arrangement, as two independent parties at an arms length transaction, as there was in the case of Greater Groves Utilities, to enter into a contract, for the provision of utility services to county residents, and was informed that there was not.

Mr. Hatfield reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Beliveau further, in rebuttal to Ms. Bonifay's questioning.

Mr. Timothy Green, ASLA/Vice President, The Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding the preparation of various exhibits that he felt were pertinent to this application. At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 7 (Lake County Land Development Regulations), consisting of fifteen pages, including the blue cover sheet, which contain the exhibits alluded to earlier, from the Lake County Land Development Regulations.

Mr. Hatfield then questioned Mr. Green about Composite Exhibit 8 (Site Selection Data), consisting of fifteen pages, including the blue cover sheet, which he noted he had helped prepare, and submitted same, for the record. He noted that it contained what Mr. Green believed to be the site selection data that would support the project in question.

Mr. Will Davis, Director, GIS Services, The Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding his training in the field of engineering and GIS services; the Site Selection Data exhibit and what had taken place to lead him to his conclusions regarding same. He briefly discussed the steps that were taken, in compiling the Site Selection Data contained in Composite Exhibit 8, at which time he reviewed the various charts contained within said exhibit and answered questions from Mr. Hatfield and the Board regarding same.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr. Davis about the proposed lift station and various charts that he had reviewed, during his presentation.

Mr. Nicholas Andreyev, President/Owner, Andreyev Engineering, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding his education, experience, and expertise as a hydrogeologist, with regard to this project. He was questioned as to what he felt the impact would be, after examining the various site criteria and the Site Selection Data prepared by The Land Planning Group, from the placement of a wastewater treatment facility plant on the site in question.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr. Andreyev about his analysis of the site in question and the fact that it was limited only to that site, as well as the fact that he had not conducted an analysis on any of the alternative sites that the City of Umatilla had indicated had suitable characteristics and were under only one ownership.

Mr. Hatfield reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Andreyev further, in rebuttal to Ms. Bonifay's questioning about adverse impacts of groundwater and the fact that, in his opinion as a hydrogeologist and engineer, there would be no potential for well contamination from the proposed project.

Mr. Hanna, City Administrator, City of Umatilla, reappeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and was questioned about his employment and expertise, as it relates to public works; why the City of Umatilla had acquired the 40 acre tract of land; and whether he had examined the site and determined that it was suitable for a wastewater treatment facility. He clarified the fact that, in searching the records of the City of Umatilla, it was found that a Warranty Deed was procured for the property on March 3, 1980. He was further questioned, regarding various documents contained in Applicant's Composite Exhibit 9 (City of Umatilla Property), consisting of 12 pages, including the blue cover sheet, two of which were Figures 15 and 15A, showing designated land uses in the area of the proposed site, as well as a copy of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP91/5/1-5), under which the City presently operates, which was submitted, for the record.

Mr. Hatfield questioned Mr. Hanna regarding the Golden Gem industrial waste sprayfield and its capacity per day (750,000 gallons), in comparison to the capacity (100,000 gallons per day for Phase I and 200,000 gallons per day for Phase II) for the startup of the proposed facility and the type of water (Class I reliability, which will be suitable for reuse in land application) that will be coming out of the plant, once it is treated.

It was noted that the existing facility's capacity per day is 300,000 gallons and that the load that is being supplied to it will be reduced by approximately 50%, which will be delivered to the new facility.

Mr. Hatfield questioned Mr. Hanna about some aerial photographs (4) and a video that he had taken of the site in question, which was shown to the Board and then submitted, for the record, as a Supplement to Applicant's Composite Exhibit 9. He then clarified with Mr. Hanna the fact that, based on his experience with water treatment and as the City Administrator and former Public Works Director for the City of Umatilla, the site plan that has been selected by the City, which it already owns, is the best site, of all the possibilities, for the construction of the facility in question; that it would relieve the demands on the existing plant; provide for future growth and urbanization of the eastern side of the City of Umatilla; is within the service area that has been designated by various comprehensive plans - county and city; is within the joint planning area of the City of Umatilla, which provides for city expansion; and, in his opinion, is needed now, prior to the construction of additional homes in the area, so that the City can meet future growth demands, and is necessary to advance those demands.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Hanna about the City of Umatilla's long-term plan; when it first purchased the property in question; whether there had been a demand, or need, up to this point in time, for use of the property as a wastewater treatment plant, or spray effluent; whether, sometime after 1979, there was a proposal, either before the City, or the County, to utilize the site in that way; what happened to the proposal (denied by the Board of County Commissioners); what the capacity of the plant is; whether there is anything in the Ordinance that restricts the City to the 200,000 gallons per day capacity; whether there could be additional spray effluent beyond the site in question and, if so, what would be done with said disposal and whether it is part of the proposal that is before the Board this date; whether it is a condition of the approval of the application; and how long he projects the life of the plant to be, at 200,000 gallons per day (till the year 2005). She clarified the fact that the City would be freeing up capacity in the present plant and transferring it to the site in question; how large a site Golden Gem has (twice the size of the City of Umatilla site); how they are disposing of their effluent; and how many other institutional uses there would be, such as wastewater treatment plants, spray effluent, and closed landfills.

Mr. Hatfield reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Hanna further, in rebuttal to Ms. Bonifay's questioning.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 3:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for fifteen minutes.

PETITION NO. 26-97-5 - REVOCATION OF A+CUP91/5/1-5 AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - CITY OF UMATILLA (CONT'D.)

Mr. Roland Lewis, Wicks Consulting Services, Inc., appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and was questioned as to where he was employed; his training; whether he had assisted in the Preliminary Engineering Report, as prepared by Wicks Consulting Services, Inc.; how the report was prepared; of the various alternatives that were given, which approach seemed to be the best, to satisfy the future growth needs of the City of Umatilla; and whether it was determined that the best long-range growth plan would be to relieve some of the capacity and create some capacity in the old plant, by opening a new plant east of Umatilla. He clarified the fact that the future growth on the west side of the City is restricted, so the City is trying to open up some capacity and create a plant that will take care of future growth, in what has been identified as a growth area, east of the City. He was questioned as to whether he had consulted with the Public Works staff and the City Administrator, for the City of Umatilla, relative to what would be the best location to divide the City into the two plant areas; and clarified that his firm had done a preliminary engineering report, once the decision was made, through the site selection process.

At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record, Applicant's Composite Exhibit 10 (Preliminary Engineering Report), consisting of 41 pages, including the blue cover sheet.

Mr. Lewis discussed the data contained in the Preliminary Engineering Report, at which time he reviewed various charts contained within the report, and answered questions from Mr. Hatfield and the Board regarding same.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr. Lewis about the report, clarifying the fact that, in dividing the City of Umatilla into east and west and, based on elevations and criteria that his firm considered, as engineers, came up with the location for the lift station; that his firm had a utility master plan for the City, which they used; that one of the criteria for locating the lift station in the middle of the City was that there be equal pumping capacity; clarified why his firm did not go to the same distance, in looking at potential sites for the new wastewater treatment plant; and clarified whether or not the firm limited their search to city owned properties, within a certain radius, east of where the lift station was going to be.

Mr. Green, ASLA/Vice President, The Land Planning Group, reappeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and was questioned as to whether he had done a study, in his capacity as a land planner for the City of Umatilla, related to the effects of this project on the adjacent lands; whether he had gone through the County records, to obtain data, for inclusion in a report that he had done, with regard to said study, and utilizing said information, compiled said report.

At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 11 (Effects on Adjacent Land), consisting of 48 pages, including the blue cover sheet, and questioned Mr. Green further regarding said report. Figure 15A, a map indicating adjacent land uses, contained in Composite Exhibit 9, was referred to and discussed, at which time Mr. Green stated that the Staff Report indicated that the County had received 59 letters in opposition to the request, however, noted that his firm received 122 letters, of which only eight came from individuals living in Section 17, the area in question. He gave a breakdown of the property locations of the remaining letters.

Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 12 (Maps indicating location of property owners in opposition to request), consisting of three documents - Figures 17, 18 and 19.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Green regarding his credentials; whether he was an appraiser; whether he had ever taken an appraisal course, or was certified to do appraisals; how he compiled the information he alluded to earlier, regarding the property owners in opposition to this request; what his premise was, in stating that the facility in question could not have an adverse effect, because properties built after Golden Gem was erected have a higher average value than those built prior to that; whether he had located any of the properties and their proximity to Golden Gem; whether he had taken into consideration any improvements that were made to the Golden Gem sprayfield, during this period of time; clarified what she felt was no qualitative analysis on what part of the sprayfield the property owners in opposition to the request live near, or what the conditions were; whether he had any idea how those values might rank in actual market values this date - what the properties are listed for on the tax rolls, compared to what they might actually sell for today; and clarified that there was no analysis of any other market factors, in doing his report, that he just used tax numbers off the tax rolls.

Mr. James Makin, a resident of the area in question, who owns five acres adjacent to the property in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he purchased his property before the 40 acre parcel in question was sold to the City of Umatilla and had spent 10 years building a home that is worth over $200,000. He stated that, if the facility is approved, he will be ruined, as far as resale value of his home is concerned. He stated that 17 years ago the request was turned down by the Board, because they felt it would be a negative impact to the area. He stated that, since that time, several upscale homes have been built in the area and the area is growing. He stated that the landfill that was once located in the area is now closed and the area is looking good. He stated that the residents should not be sandwiched between two sprayfields. He discussed the video that was taken of the property in question and the fact that it did not show all the homes that are located around the property, noting that there are homes on five acre tracts, ten acre tracts, and small lots. He then discussed the odor that will be emitted from the facility.

Ms. Nadine Foley, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she felt the use would be incompatible with the present land use. She referred to Objective 1-5, of the Future Land Use Element, which she read into the record, noting that the request is not in compliance with same. She stated that, since it is not likely that the facility will ever serve the community where it will be located, it is very unlikely that it will ever serve the very people who are going to be impacted by it. She then referred to Objective 1-8, of the Future Land Use Element, which she read into the record. She stated that the residents of the area would like to continue to improve and develop their area of the County, according to the present zoning and land uses, therefore, requested the Board to deny the request.

Ms. Yvonne Rice, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and addressed the issue of property values, noting that she had spoken to several realtors in Lake County and was informed that, in their opinion, a facility such as the one in question would adversely effect property values in the area adjacent to the facility, as well as within one-quarter mile of the facility.

Mr. Dave Denison, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he felt the Board had a responsibility to the residents in the area of the proposed facility. He stated that he was planning to build a home on two acres that he owns; however, noted that, if the Board approved the request, he would sell his property and move. He stated that he felt the residents should have been dealt with fairly and told exactly what was happening in the area, noting that, if they had been, they may have been able to work out a lot of the problems. He stated that they do not want the facility in their backyard and will not accept it.

Mr. Richard Kahle, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was representing himself and five of his neighbors, who could not be present. He stated that the neighborhood was going residential, not agricultural, so there will be less people who will have a need for the wastewater from the facility.

Ms. Bertha Carroll, Chairman, Oak Grove Cemetery Association, and a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that a group of the residents fought this request 17 years ago. She discussed problems that the residents have had with property in the area of the proposed facility and noted that they do not want the facility in their area.

Ms. Bernadine Makin, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and questioned whether she had understood correctly that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted against the request and was informed that they had denied it, by a 5-1 vote.

Ms. Nicole Szymanski, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she and her husband own a hydroponic (recirculation of water) nursery in the area in question and have approximately $200,000 invested in it, because they believe in saving the environment and the land. She stated that they grow herbs, with basil being the main crop, which goes to the consumer, and, if the facility is approved and it poisons their wells, she will be out of business. She stated that she was also concerned that her basil could be contaminated, without her knowing it, and she would be shipping contaminated food all over the country. She requested the Board to deny the request.

Ms. Vi Heyner, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she was concerned about the water in the area, noting that she bought her home 13 years ago, ignorant of Golden Gem's sprayfield, however, has since become educated about the matter. She stated that the proposed sprayfield will literally be in her back yard and requested the Board to deny the request.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating that they had a lot of data and information before them and substantial evidence from those in opposition to the request. She stated that, as testified to by Mr. Beliveau, one of the issues of Rule 9J-5 is a determination of compatibility; however, there is no criteria for that, it is a determination that the Board will have to make, as to whether or not the use is compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. She stated that the residents in the area get all the burden, but none of the benefits. She stated that the City of Umatilla does not have to make a decision about locating the facility within the City boundaries - they left that decision to the Board, so the impact and effect is going to be on county residents, and the benefit and burden is going to be on the yet to come city residents. She stated that the bottom line is that it is a good idea, good project, but wrong location. She requested the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Hatfield reappeared before the Board, in rebuttal to Ms. Bonifay's comments, stating that the arguments of the residents that testified, in opposition to the request, are what are called NIMBY (not in my back yard) arguments, which he noted is going to occur anywhere that the City attempts to meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5 and the various statutes. He stated that, according to the engineering reports and the experts, this site is perfectly located and suitable, in every way - topographically, geographically, and hydrologically, which is not by accident, noting that the reason it is perfect is because a group of people got together in 1979 and selected the property, because of its physical attributes and because of the exposure that the City would get and the growth that would go eastward. He stated that it is a magnificent plan and needs to be brought to fruition, noting that the acquisition of the site is part of a long-range plan.

Mr. Hatfield stated that it was suggested that the City seek a site to the west of the City, however, noted that it is unsuited hydrologically for an expansion of the plant. He stated that there is not a site in the boundaries of the City of Umatilla large enough to accommodate the plant, or the proposed expansion of the plant, to meet the needs that the City needs to meet, through the year 2005, and on to the year 2015. He stated that the growth area is east of the City and the City has gone to that growth area, before they have the growth, and has constructed a plant, so that, when the growth comes to the area, they will have the plant capacity there, in a perfectly suited location, with a negative slope, with the proper soil, and with the proper hydrological data. He stated that there is no place to put the plant, in an urban area, in the City of Umatilla. He stated that there are tremendous agricultural uses, as well as other uses that would take the reclaimed and reusable water and treat it to the standards that are required by the State and the County, in its comprehensive plan, which is part of the long-range planning. He stated that there is no expert opinion, no document, no report, or anything that would rise to substantial and competent evidence that would support a denial of this request. He requested the Board to approve the request.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the growth that was going to occur in the area in question was going to be the kind that would require a sewer system, at least not for the next 30-40 years, because it is being developed in five acre tracts and is in the Suburban land use category. She stated that there is a need to reuse the water, whether it is on a golf course or orange grove, but feels it needs to be handled in a different manner than it is presently being handled.

Commr. Gerber stated that she felt the facility would be a good one, however, did not feel it would provide a regional service. She stated that she did not see any evidence that the City looked internally and would like them to do so. She stated that she would not be supporting the request.

Commr. Good stated that he did not see substantial evidence that the growth in the area in question was going to occur at a density that would require the kind of sprayfield being proposed and that he felt there may be other, more agricultural, locations to place the facility. He stated that he was not sure the request was consistent with the Future Land Use Map, or the designation for the area, and that he did not feel it was a compatible land use. He stated that he would not be supporting the request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that this case was a tough one for him, noting that he has a connection to the City of Umatilla, however, has neighbors and friends that will be affected by it. He stated that he felt the site in question was a good one for the facility, because a buffer is there and the soils are good. He stated that there is no place for the facility within the City, so, at some point, the County is going to have to assist the City in finding a site.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for revocation of A+CUP91/5/1-5 and to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the continued use of a storage and yard trash/land clearing debris composting operation and the future use of a water reclamation facility.

Commr. Cadwell voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

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

(CONT'D.)

It was noted that this case was continued from earlier in the meeting, to allow staff to conduct a rooftop count in the Sorrento area, as requested.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that staff conducted a rooftop count of the area in question, as requested, during the Board's lunch break, and that the area contains 49.6% conventional homes and 50.4% mobile homes.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), for the placement of a mobile home.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH23-97-2 - C-1 TO C-2 - MAYE WELLS AND

JOHN M. DODGEN

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that staff has had an ongoing dialogue with the applicant, since day one, as to the proposed uses, what they had to have, what they could settle for, etc. She stated that the evening prior to this meeting staff received a FAX (County Exhibit A) from the applicant, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that staff was recommending denial, based on the initial request; however, the initial request has changed. She stated that the applicant has 2.6 acres, within a neighborhood commercial node, on Hwy. 27 and SR 561. She stated that the site is a fairly small one, therefore, will have some development limitations. She stated that the initial request was for manufacturing; however, there is no zoning to cover that use. She stated that staff was recommending approval for CP (Planned Commercial), to allow an office and sales on the parcel, based on the most recent conversation with the applicant. She stated that the applicant would need CP, because vehicular sales is not a permitted use in

C-1. She stated that the only change that would have to be made to the backup for the Ordinance would be to strike through any reference made to the light industrial, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, and the applicant would be limited to 5,000 square feet, which is the neighborhood cap. She noted that the zoning will not give the applicant site approval; therefore, he will have to have an engineer work out the details. A plat (County Exhibit B) of the property in question was submitted, for the record.

Commr. Hanson noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request to C-2 (Community Commercial), however, staff was recommending that it be changed to CP (Planned Commercial).

Ms. Farrell stated that staff's recommendation has always been CP, because vehicular sales are not permitted in C-1 or C-2. It was noted that CP would give the County more control over the use of the land, however, would still allow the use that the applicant is seeking.

Ms. Farrell noted that the request meets the commercial locational criteria and that staff was recommending approval.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Harry Truesdale, Truesdale Real Estate, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, stating that the property in question is presently being used for a dump site. He stated that the applicant will be spending thousands of dollars putting in a business operation, to display top-of-the-line RVs along the highway frontage. He stated that the area in question is excellent for this type of sales.

Commr. Good stated that he felt the request would be a reasonable use for the property, being that it is a commercial area, and that he felt CP would be the right zoning. He stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation; however, noted that he was concerned about the alignment of the entrance and wanted to make sure that it is part of the County's access management. He stated that he wanted to make sure that, during the site plan review, it would be kept in mind.

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. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning, however, changed the request from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial), rather than C-2 (Community Commercial), to build a model light manufacturing facility, for construction of an office and show room area for "Born Free Motor Homes".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/5-2 - CUP IN CP WITH C-1 AND C-2 USES - SES GROUP LAKE COUNTY ASSOCIATION, LTD./JOHN C. KELLY

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the property in question is an 8 acre site, located at the intersection of Hwy. 19 and U.S. 27, in the area of the County's industrial park (Lake County Central Park). She stated that the property was rezoned in 1994 for commercial uses, specifically C-1 and C-2, however, is located outside the commercial node. She stated that, due to the fact that the County has yet to come forward with a unified commercial site plan, staff was recommending denial. She reviewed a copy of the Future Land Use Map (contained in the Board's backup material)and submitted, for the record a plat (County Exhibit A)of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, appeared before the Board stating that she was representing the owners, the sellers, the broker, the limited partner, and the purchaser. She stated that she did not know why this case was before the Board, because the zoning on the property is CP, with

C-1 and C-2 uses, and a CUP is not required, because there is no provision for a CUP in CP, with C-1 and C-2 uses, for RVs - they are conditional. She stated that the applicants had to go through this process when they had the property rezoned in 1994 and nothing has changed, with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, since then. She stated that a determination was made by the County, in 1994, that the property was located within an activity center; therefore, it was appropriate for the property to be rezoned to CP, with C-1 and C-2 uses. She stated that the issue of the unified site plan came up, at that time, so she went through her files and found that meetings were held with Mr. Pete Wahl, the former County Manager; Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Department of Growth Management; and Mr. Cole Whitaker, prior to the request being brought before the Board. She stated that Mr. Knight had prepared a Unified Site Plan Map (a copy of which she had in her files)and the County was to initiate the plan.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the zoning was approved and the following determinations were made: That the unified site plan should not be a hindrance to the applicant getting a commercial zoning; that they had to bring a site plan in, at the time that they had a user; and that the County was to go forward with the effort. She stated that the applicants feel it would be prejudicial, at this point in time, to deprive them from using commercially zoned property that has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because the County has not fulfilled its responsibility and finished the unified site plan. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously, in favor of the request.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the applicants would need to amend their CP, because the current CP does not allow vehicular sales. He stated that it would be required, under any circumstances, regardless of the Comprehensive Plan issues.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether staff's recommendation would still be for denial, if someone made a motion to change the CP to allow vehicular sales.

Ms. Farrell stated that the County does not have an approved unified site plan and that is what staff is basing their request for denial on.

Mr. Minkoff interjected that it would be a fine line, noting that, when the CP says C-1 and C-2 uses, vehicular sales is not a permitted use - it is a conditional use.

Ms. Bonifay urged the Board to amend the CP, to allow vehicular sales, so that the applicants could move forward with the RV sales and service operation.

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.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and amend the CP, to allow vehicular sales and service.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that he would not support the change in zoning, because it would automatically permit vehicular sales, without the Board having a review, or a site plan available.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt an equity situation existed, noting that the Board had just approved such a request, without a site plan.

Commr. Good interjected that the request alluded to by Commr. Hanson is for property that is located at an intersection that is designated for RV sales, however, this one is not.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-1 vote.

Commr. Good voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ZONING

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the County granted the Ray Ranch a PUD, for 700+ dwelling units; however, the case was appealed under the Green Swamp rule and a Settlement Agreement was entered into, in 1992. He stated that the Department of Environmental Protection is now preparing to acquire the property and, because the Settlement Agreement was recorded in the public records, they treat it as an encumbrance and have requested that the County agree to rescind and cancel the agreement, when they purchase the property. He stated that the Department of Community Affairs has proposed that the agreement has to close before July 1, 1997. He stated that the Conditional Rescission of Settlement Agreement before the Board this date would rescind the Settlement Agreement, only upon the time that the Department of Environmental Protection bought the Ray Ranch, which he noted is scheduled to occur June 30, 1997.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Conditional Rescission of Settlement Agreement, between the Department of Community Affairs, Ruth A. Ray, and Lake County - Case No. 91-6598DRI.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2

COMMUNITY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to send a letter to Fr. David J. Randolph, Juvenile Justice Council, on behalf of the Board, with regard to the issue of a juvenile detention center being placed in Lake County and the Board's opinion regarding same.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2

COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Ms. Alicia Barrett, Our Small Children at Risk Foundation, for the support of a grant application for the Family Preservation Grant, from the Department of Children and Families, which provides prevention and intervention services for children in the Lake and Sumter County areas.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.



_______________________________

WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:





_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/6-24-97/7-15-97/boardmin