A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 30, 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; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there was one published addendum, and there would be some changes to the Consent Agenda.

PETITION NO. CUP#97/6/3-2 PINNACLE TOWERS INC. (LEE BARNARD)

TRACKING NO. #44-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a tower application, which meets the County's criteria, as found in the newly adopted Ordinance 1997-65. She stated that staff was recommending approval based on the criteria. This was a seven acre site in a rural area, and it was a request to replace an existing tower. Ms. Farrell noted that there was no opposition to the request, and it was approved 8 to 0 by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

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

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of a 20 foot by 40 foot building for storage of communication equipment and for the replacement of the existing tower with a guyed tower within 20 feet of the existing tower location - Ordinance 1997-69.



PETITION NO. CUP#97/7/5-2 OPM USA INC./CLONTS GROVES INC.

TRACKING NO. #57-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this application was reviewed under County Ordinance 1997-65, it meets the criteria as the Board approved, and staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that this was approximately one-quarter of an acre, and it was a multiple carrier tower. Ms. Farrell stated that there were no letters of opposition, and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request 8 to 0.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had made a revision in the Ordinance that allowed for the Board to take some action with regard to the landscaping. He questioned that, in the absence of taking action, does the landscaping requirements in the Ordinance apply.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if the Ordinance is silent, then it would be what is required in the Ordinance; if it is modified, it would be in the CUP Ordinance.

Commr. Swartz stated that, for example, on the previous agenda item, it was also in rural, and whether or not what type of landscaping the Board wants there, the Board may want to come back to it. He stated that this application was also rural, and the Board may want to discuss this aspect of it and whether or not there would be some modification to the strict interpretation of the code in a rural area.

Commr. Good stated that this issue was discussed by the Board when it was developing the Ordinance, and the effect of the hedge would be quite positive, even though it was not a shield, because it was actually a landscape buffer that tends to address the visibility of the tower.

Commr. Gerber felt that it would have to be site specific, because there were circumstances where there would be no purpose of having a hedge.

Commr. Hanson felt that it should be site specific, because someone could have one acre that would be truly residential in character, but it was zoned agriculture.

Commr. Cadwell explained that, if the Board does not address the issue in the CUP, then what is on paper applies, so as cases come up, and if a particular Commissioner wants to address a specific site in his district and additional or less landscaping, he can do so at that time.

Ms. Farrell noted that, in the Ordinance in the backup material, staff references Section 9.02.04, which would be an incorrect reference today now that the County has an Ordinance specific to towers, and this needed to be addressed.

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

Mr. John Ariale, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to comment on the landscape issue. Mr. Ariale stated that he would be happy to work with the Board, or staff, regarding the site requirements. He referred to the site plan and stated that he was of the understanding that the site plan was modified so that the site is on the other side of the extension of trees, which acts as a buffer between the tree line and the highway. In addition, it was located in the middle of an orange grove, so from a landscape perspective, he felt it was a good shielding to the rest of the site. Mr. Ariale stated that, from this perspective, he agreed with the landscape requirements and asked that staff use some judgment in the natural vegetation that exists on the site. He noted that the buffering was adjacent to the site, and it was not a part of the leased parcel area.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the Ordinance allows staff, in Paragraph B, to use existing vegetation as either a substitute, or a supplement, to the regulations, so if the site had existing vegetation all around it, then perhaps, at site plan review, no additional landscaping would be necessary. The Ordinance also allows the Board to waive those landscaping requirements even if there is no existing vegetation in certain cases.

Commr. Good stated that, at least in District 2, he would want to make sure that the buffering occurs on site, and in the staff review process, the County would not be relying on the neighbors to buffer the site for the tower, and it needed to be reviewed as an on site issue.

Commr. Hanson stated that it needs to be on site, but since Clonts Groves owns all of the property around the site, when something else is put around the tower, at that point, staff would be looking at buffering whatever other use goes in.

Mr. Ariale stated that the entire section, township, and range is under the same property ownership.

Commr. Swartz stated that he agrees with the Chairman, with regard to the landscape requirements in the Ordinance, and the need for them to be associated with the tower and on the tower site, but although this is agriculture, it is urban expansion land use designation, and both of these issues needed to be considered and probably more requirements for landscaping. If it was agriculture and it was rural land use designation, then it might be looked at differently.

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

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

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 the request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of a multiple carrier 400-foot guyed telecommunications tower on site - Ordinance 1997-70.

PETITION NO. PH#29-97-5 LEESBURG HUMANE SOCIETY, INC.

(MARY DOTY, ATTY.) TRACKING NO. #53-97-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, noted that, on Page 1 of the Staff Report, the request had come in initially as a lattice telecommunications tower, and during the course of the Board's review in creation of the Ordinance, the application was changed to a monopole, which allowed staff the ability to recommend approval of the request. She stated that this was a little over two acres in a somewhat rural area, it meets the criteria as found in the Ordinance, and staff was recommending approval of the request. Ms. Farrell noted that the height of the monopole was only 164 feet.

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

Ms. Mary Doty, Legal Council for APT Tampa-Orlando, Inc., applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she had with her Mr. Brian Milder, Zoning Manager for APT, and the engineer, to answer questions of the Board. She stated that, if there were no questions, she would defer to the staff recommendation, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation.

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

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

On a motion by Comr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CFD for placement of a 164 foot monopole telecommunications tower on site - Ordinance 1997-71.



PETITION NO. PH#31-97-4 FLORIDA TWIN MARKETS

(MARY DOTY, ATTY.) TRACKING NO. #54-97-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, referred to Page 1 of the staff report and noted that the word "lattice" had been struck through, and the applicant redesigned the plan to place a monopole on the site, which gave staff the ability to recommend approval of the request. She stated that this was a 164 foot monopole tower on a little over two acres in urban expansion. Ms. Farrell stated that no comments were received from the City of Mount Dora, although the City was notified.

Commr. Swartz requested that, in the future, he would like the Board to get copies of the aerial maps where staff was showing the radius and the location of residential, as related to the application, and, if necessary, tower separation.

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

Ms. Mary Doty, Legal Council for APT Tampa-Orlando, Inc., applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she would defer to the staff recommendation and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and noted that there were representatives present to answer any questions of the Board.

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

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CFD for placement of a 164 foot monopole telecommunications tower on the site of the existing Renninger's Antique and Flea Market - Ordinance 1997-72.

PETITION NO. PH#37-97-4 PEGGY J. NESTOR

(MARY DOTY, ATTY.) TRACKING NO. #65-97-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, referred to Page 1 of the staff report and noted that the word "lattice" had been struck through and the applicant redesigned the plan for the monopole. She noted that this involved a little over two acres in the Seminole Springs area, and there would be a 164 foot monopole tower on the site. Ms. Farrell stated that staff has recommended approval based on the newly adopted Ordinance. There were no letters of opposition and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request 8 to 0.

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

Ms. Mary Doty, Legal Council for APT Tampa-Orlando, Inc., applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she would defer to the staff recommendation and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and would answer any questions of the Board.

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

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

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 the request to CFD zoning for placement of a 164 foot monopole telecommunications tower on site - Ordinance 1997-73.

PETITION NO. PH#28-97-4 FLETCHER & SHIRLEY POWERS

(MARY DOTY, ATTY.) TRACKING NO. #52-97-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that, when the request came in initially, not only was it a lattice tower, but there were concerns with the height, and the adjacent property owners. When staff revisited the Ordinance, Section 3.13.07, language was provided to the effect that, if the adjacent property owners were family members, this would not be taken into consideration when calculating the setback requirements of the section. On Page 2 of the staff report, there was a recommendation of denial, however, the language on Page 19, Line 13 of the Ordinance gives staff the ability to recommend approval today. Ms. Farrell stated that staff would need, in hand, the consent in writing that the family members approve of the tower location. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request for a 164 foot monopole on 2.2 acres, which is commonly known as the Powers Dairy.

COMMISSIONERS

At 9:32 a.m., it was noted that Commr. Gerber had left the meeting.

PETITION NO. PH#28-97-4 FLETCHER & SHIRLEY POWERS

(MARY DOTY, ATTY.) TRACKING NO. #52-97-CFD (CONTINUED)



Ms. Mary Doty, Legal Council for APT Tampa-Orlando, Inc., applicant, addressed the Board and stated that all of the members of the Powers family have been out of town for a month and this morning she had received the papers, and some of them had been signed incorrectly, and some of them had not been signed at all. She stated that she could not supply the Board with the consents today, but she would ask for a conditional approval dependent on her clients supplying the appropriate consents to staff. Ms. Doty stated that she has discussed the matter with all of the family members, and none of them have an objection to the tower.

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

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the CFD for placement of a 164 foot monopole telecommunications tower on site, subject to the proper documents being filed with the Planning and Zoning Department - Ordinance 1997-74.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the vote.

COMMISSIONERS

It was noted that Commr. Gerber had returned to the meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP#97/6/4-3 GENE SMITH/TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK

TRACKING NO. 45-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that staff was recommending denial of the request. She stated that the existing tower is a guyed tower, and the proposed tower is a monopole tower, so the applicant could not take advantage of the section of the Ordinance that provides that an existing non-conforming tower may be modified without a public hearing provided there is no increase in height. Ms. Farrell stated that there is opposition to the tower, and there are two letters and one petition with 68 signatures. She stated that, in reviewing the Ordinance, staff could not find a way, based on separation or distances from zoning and distances from single family homes, to recommend approval of this particular request. It is in an urban area on a .284 acre site, it is a leased parcel, the current zoning is LM (Light Industrial), and staff requested that they come through as a CUP, however, it is not able to recommend approval for this one tower request. The tower would be 200 feet in height, and the existing tower is 175 to 210 feet in height.

Ms. Farrell submitted the site plan noted as Bonifay, Triangle Industrial Park, Inc., and the Deputy Clerk marked it as Exhibit "A" for the County.

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

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, representing the applicants, Gene and Brenda Smith, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Jack Smith, an Officer in the Corporation who holds title to the piece of property, was present and would be offering testimony, and there is an adjoining property owner, Mr. Moore, who would also be offering testimony in support of this tower site. Ms. Bonifay stated that there have been numerous delays for her clients, and she felt they constitute a deprivation of due process of their rights along the way. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Smith came forward with a tower proposal in 1996, and she did not represent him at that time, but from reading the minutes, the request was denied, however, it was denied without prejudice by this particular Board, which meant he could resubmit an application within a 90 day period of time rather than having to wait a year. In January, 1997, Mr. Smith resubmitted an application for the AT&T tower, but AT&T had terminated their agreement with Mr. Smith, because of the denial and the delays, and they found another site in Eustis. Ms. Bonifay noted that there were letters in the file that assert, without any factual knowledge or basis, that AT&T broke off the negotiations because of modern changes in technology, and the fact that fewer towers are now needed, which were absolutely without any merit or foundation. Mr. Smith went to the first public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) in January, at which time several P & Z Commissioners had stated on the record that, if the case was heard that day, they would vote to deny it, so Mr. Smith asked for a continuance. He then came to her and asked for representation in this matter. On February 20, 1997, she wrote to the County asking to proceed to a public hearing as soon as possible. She was advised by County staff that it needed some kind or release, or a letter, from Mr. Bruce King who is the agent and the representative of AT&T allowing them to submit the necessary information. On February 28, 1997, a letter was obtained from Mr. King transferring the application solely to Triangle Industrial Park, and it was provided to Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III with the Lake County Planning Department. On March 10, 1997, she received a copy of a letter from Lake County addressed to Triangle Industrial Park advising that the application would be placed on a zoning agenda for Wednesday, April 2, 1997 and would proceed to the Board on April 22, 1997. On March 11, 1997, she received a letter from then Mr. Paul Bergmann, who was the Director of Planning and Development Services, stating that he reviewed the application and they would be required to reapply and file a new application. On March 12, 1997, she met with Mr. Farrell and Mr. Richardson to discuss alternatives available and, during that meeting, the County disclosed that it had a draft Ordinance that was going to be taken to the Board in March that would assist them in moving the application forward and would enable them to find a way to get the application approved, and therefore, she needed to resubmit the application. She noted that the Tower Ordinance was approved last week in the month of September. After further communications with staff, they were scheduled to go to the P & Z Commission on June 4, 1997. Ms. Bonifay stated that, between this period of time, the Board approved several applications for towers, which she noted for the Board, and stated that none of these applications were required to wait until such time a tower Ordinance was approved. On June 3, 1997 staff brought a letter to the Board asking that the Board approve a moratorium for 120 days, and Ms. Bonifay testified before the Planning and Zoning Commission that it was not a duly adopted moratorium, because it was not done within the requirements of the Florida Statutes. Based on the strength of their testimony at the meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission decided not to observe the moratorium, and their case was approved by an 8 to 0 vote. She noted that the minutes were in the backup material. After further communication with staff, Ms. Bonifay never received a notice of the scheduled hearing. She stated that Jack Smith received a notice and was in attendance, and when he indicated that his lawyer was not present and asked for a continuance, his request was denied. The case was heard and the motion to approve failed on a 4-4 vote, so it comes to the Board with no recommendation from P & Z. Ms. Bonifay noted that the Board has a copy in the backup of the minutes from the June 4, 1997 meeting where it was approved by a 8-0 vote. She noted that they have participated in the tower Ordinance workshops and made recommendations, and this may be the only case today that will not meet the criteria primarily because it in an urban developed area. Ms. Bonifay stated that there is an existing tower on the site, which is a guyed tower that sits on top of a building, and it has been there for a number of years. She stated that it is a non-conforming use, because at the time it was constructed, it did not receive a permit, and it may not have been required. She further stated that the tower is approximately 218 feet in height, and the proposed tower to be built on the new location will be approximately 200 feet in height and will be a monopole as opposed to a guyed tower, which under the Ordinance requires less space from residentially zoned property, or residences. However, the Board made no provision in the Ordinance that it be the exact same type of tower. Ms. Bonifay explained that the new location was sought to get it farther away from the residents who were the earlier source of complaint. Those people are now over 800 feet away from the site, but in moving it, it now picks up a new residential area to the north side of US Highway 441. Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Jack Smith to come forward to narrate a video of the neighborhood.

Mr. Smith stated that he was representing Gene and Brenda Smith, his mother and father, who own the Triangle Industrial Park. He explained the video, which captured the location of the tower, in relation to the different neighborhoods and roads in the area, and he explained the reasons for the new location being proposed for the tower.

Ms. Bonifay submitted the petition with 12 signatures and the Deputy Clerk marked it as Exhibit "A" for the Applicant.

Mr. Wendell Mohr stated that he lives across the street from the existing tower, and he is approximately 200 yards from the tower. Mr. Mohr stated that the tower is barely noticeable, as shown in the pictures that he took of the site. He submitted the pictures and the Deputy Clerk marked them as Exhibit "B" for the Applicant. Mr. Mohr stated that he could not understand why anyone would object to the tower, because with the increase in population, there will be a need for them.

Mr. Smith clarified exactly what was to be placed on the new site, in terms of the tower, and he clarified that the new site, with all of the trees, was chosen mainly to get away from the neighbors.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she would like to reserve the right for rebuttal, and to note that any limitations that the Board tries to impose, in terms of distance, were always going to be somewhat arbitrary. She felt that the process involves trying to respond to the concerns of the neighbors, and she did not feel that the tower was going to make a significant difference in their quality of life.

Ms. Bonifay submitted the video narrated by Mr. Smith, and the Deputy Clerk marked it as Exhibit "C" for the Applicant.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the Mission Avenue Homeowners' Association, addressed the Board and stated that staff has presented its case and this tower cannot meet the setback requirements in the Ordinance. She explained that there was not a provision in the Ordinance for people to waive their rights, so it made no difference if the gentleman that lives across the street did not object to it. Ms. Campione stated that, if a home is within 400 percent of the tower height, that setback must be maintained, and it cannot be in this case. She urged the Board to stick to the Ordinance, apply the Ordinance, and if it did, this application will be denied. She pointed out that the provisions that she cited under 3.13.07 are just part of the requirements in the Ordinance that they cannot meet, as well as 3.14.17, which includes additional criteria, such as aesthetic impact and compatibility of the proposed tower with the nature and character of the surrounding land uses. Ms. Campione discussed pictures that had been taken by Mr. Sabert Howell, who would be coming forward to testify, which showed the contrast between the two towers and stated that the video proves their case, because the existing tower in not obtrusive, and it is barely noticeable from various vantage points, and right now it is really not a concern to the neighbors of Mission Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Mr. Sabert Howell addressed the Board and explained the pictures that he had taken and the distance to the towers from where he was taking the pictures.

Ms. Campione explained that Mr. Howell had superimposed the monopole as the existing tower in the photograph. She submitted the two photographs and the Deputy Clerk marked them as Exhibit "A" for the Opposition.

Mr. Howell testified that the existing tower is really not a concern to the residents, but compared to the monopole, it would have to be pretty sturdy to support the 200 foot tower.

Ms. Campione stated that, if the tower was replaced with a similar tower, she wanted it made clear as to what would be considered as a similar tower, and she wanted the Board to acknowledge that it would have to be guyed towers, or something comparable to this, as opposed to a monopole, in the same location. In closing, she stated that her clients feel that they also have endured some unfair treatment, because they have also come to many hearings, and at the initial hearing, the case was denied without prejudice. The Board, at that time, addressed specific issues and requested that those issues be addressed in a future application, but the applicant resubmitted the same application for review. Ms. Campione stated that, in closing, she requested that the Board deny the proposed application, because it did not meet the criteria in the Ordinance.

Ms. Bonifay stated that her client currently does not have a user, and Mr. Smith did address the Board's concerns, because the original problem was the location, and therefore, he moved the proposed tower to the north end of the property. The Ordinance has been interpreted by both attorneys, and there is not a waiver provision in it, but the Board has the authority to apply the Ordinance as it sees fit. If there are issues of public policy that are put on record, and the Board feels there is competent substantial evidence to support them, the Board can make a choice. Ms. Bonifay stated that, even though she did not cross-examine the gentleman who introduced the photographs, she did not feel that a picture of an Altamonte Springs monopole superimposed over the existing tower rises to the level of competent substantial evidence. Ms. Bonifay asked the Board to approve the request just as P & Z did originally, because they do not feel it is incompatible, there is nothing in the staff report that talks about adverse impacts to the neighbors, and it does not demonstrate that there are portions of the Comprehensive Plan where staff has found it to be incompatible.

Ms. Betty Stephen stated that she lives at the south end of the property where the proposed monopole would be seen. She stated that, with the "hurricane valley" that they have in this area, all of those trees will not always be there to hide the monopole. She further stated that the Board has seen the homes in this area, and there was no reason why the property owners should have to tolerate these kinds of things. Ms. Stephen stated that Lake County has plenty of room for such things, and she asked the Board to deny the request.

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

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board that there are two setback requirements, one is from lands that are zoned a particular way, and the other one is from dwellings. It is 330 feet from lands that are zoned residential and urban and urban expansion, and 400 percent of the tower height from any existing homes, and you would have to meet both of these setbacks.

Commr. Hanson was concerned about the homes to the north across from US Highway 441. She stated that this whole area is an industrial area, there may be residential homes within it, and the land use includes urban, urban expansion, but the majority of the lands are LM, MP, and RP. Therefore, it makes it difficult when the Board tries to apply some of the uses in industrial that come in conflict with the residential areas.

Ms. Farrell stated that this is a difficult area for staff, because of residential development around both lakes, however, the historical pattern along Old US Highway 441 is that of industrial and light industry. She stated that staff has been trying to work with the applicant and work within the County codes, but unfortunately, staff could not find a way to recommend approval.

Commr. Hanson stated that it was interesting that the folks north of Highway 441 have not been present at the hearings in objection to the request, which is a conflict that she sees. When looking at the Ordinance, the Board and staff talked about the possibility of allowing those residential areas, that were within those setbacks, to sign a waiver, but the Board decided not to allow it.

Commr. Gerber explained that those people that sign a waiver in that particular residence may not forever be those people in that particular residence.

Commr. Swartz noted that the Board did deliberate at great length and tried to come up with standards that would meet the requirements as set out in the Ordinance, and they included locating towers in areas that would not be harmful to those other land use categories. He stated that, so far, it appears that the Ordinance is doing what the Board had wanted and expected it to do and, in this particular instance, it appears to clearly not meet the setback from other residential, or other zoned properties, and only by reducing the height of the tower significantly and relocating it more toward the center of the property could they meet any of the criteria. Commr. Swartz stated that much of what exists on the industrial site, that the Smiths have operated for many years, did precede a lot of what is around there now, and there has been a continual effort by the owners to improve that site, but the site does not meet the criteria that the Board adopted for these towers. He reminded the Board that, in the Ordinance, these were minimum standards, and the Board has the ability to say that, conceivably to the south, the tower still impacts them, and he did not see any justification for ignoring the Ordinance.

The aerial map for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "B" for the County, and the aerial map with mylar was marked as Exhibit "C" for the County.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board denied the request for a CUP in LM (Light Industrial) for placement of a 200 foot tall self supporting/monopole type telecommunications tower with a 20 foot whip antenna, based on the staff recommendation of denial, and based on failure to meet the minimum requirements of Section 3.13.00 in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) for wireless antennas.

Commr. Hanson voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.

PETITION NO. CUP #97/7/3-2 PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

CARROLL A. FULMER - TRACKING NO. 55-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, noted that, on Page 2 of the Staff Report, staff originally recommended denial of this conditional use request. On Page 21, Line 6, the Ordinance provides for a separation reduction by taking advantage of the colocation reduction, and the applicant was going to be able to reduce his separation requirement by 15 percent. Staff will get the necessary written commitments from the applicant, but staff was able to recommend approval of the request, with the change, and subject to the applicant providing the information prior to the building permit being issued. It was noted that language would have to be added in the CUP.

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

Mr. John Ariale, representing PrimeCo Personal Communications, addressed the Board and respectfully requested a continuance of this item for the specific reason dealing with the separation issue. Mr. Ariale stated that this tower was approximately 4,400 feet from the DOT State of Florida tower. They can, with users under the code, get a 15 percent reduction, which would mean they would have to be 4,250 feet from the tower, which would work. They were very comfortable with three letters of intent in their files for three users, but before they went forward, they would be more comfortable knowing that they had the fourth applicant. He stated that they wanted to bring to the Board an application that represents what they plan to do, and if not, it may have to be modified.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request to postpone Petition No. CUP #97/7/3-2, PrimeCo Personal Communications, until October 28, 1997.

PETITION NO. CUP#97/9/1-4 SARVAN INC. - STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQ.

TRACKING NO. 71-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Sr. Director, Department of Growth Management, noted that staff

was recommending approval of the request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for use of the site for a maintenance facility for the Black Bear Golf Course. She stated that, under Section 3.01.05 Similar Uses of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), it states that other similar uses, not specifically listed and not more obnoxious or detrimental than the uses listed in Subsection 3.01.03, may be permitted in the commercial, industrial, agricultural, and community facility zoning districts after review and approval by the County Manager or designee. Ms. Farrell stated that staff looked at this not only as agricultural related but as a similar use, and with an abundance of caution, because it is in the Wekiva. Staff advised the applicant that he would need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in agriculture to operate a maintenance facility to care for the golf course. She discussed the language in Chapter 7 regarding permitted uses in the Wekiva, and the other sources of information staff used to evaluate and determine its definition of agriculture Ms. Farrell presented a list of Pros and Cons that was determined by staff when the application was presented and stated that staff was comfortable with the request in agricultural zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7 to 0 for a CUP in A, with some conditions as noted in the backup. She stated that staff still has some issue with the limit of five cars, and it felt that the nonsubstantial change to convert the acreage to open space was a plus that could have been listed on the Pros side, because it was approximately more than an acre; however, there would have to be some language, in terms of a guarantee. Staff was recommending approval of the request, because it is consistent with the LDRs, and it is an agricultural use. The Pros and Cons list was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the County.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that he had given to the Board members a copy of the letter that was hand delivered to him from Mr. Mark R. Carson.

Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant had with him today an engineer who would be addressing some of the site specific questions of the Board. She noted that the Board was looking at the approved master plan that was done by Farner, Barley and Associates, Inc., in 1994. She stated that the approved location for the maintenance facility on the master plan was almost adjacent to the park and other residential lots. She stated that, from a planning perspective, the location being proposed was not really an issue of better or worse, but from a marketing standpoint, having a maintenance structure within the lots was not good planning. The plan was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "B" for the County.

Commr. Gerber discussed the allegations that had been brought forth in the letter received from Mr. Carson and questioned whether there were any open code violations against the applicant.

Ms. Farrell stated that there were none at this time, and the only code issue was the use of the permitted barn for a maintenance facility.

Mr. Minkoff clarified that there was the one issue before the Board, and another issue regarding a swale that was a pending Code Enforcement case, but these were resolved through a Settlement Agreement and includes this rezoning application.

Ms. Farrell stated that there has not been a maintenance facility constructed, because there is no road to the site, there is no access, and the lots are not platted. The off site facility was built last year, but she was not certain when they started utilizing it for maintenance.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to address the notice that was given to adjacent property owners. He explained that the official tax rolls were checked to determine the names of the adjacent property owners, and they were noticed, with the exception of one person whose property they bought. The sewer treatment plant, as pointed out on the master plan, did not show up in the check of the public records of Lake County through the official tax roll, so a notice was not sent to the owner of that property. On the application, it talked in terms of this piece of property being vacant, and there was a typographical error, in that regard, on the front of the application that was filed in June. With that application, they filed a site plan showing that there were improvements on the property, so there was an inconsistency on the application. As soon as he discovered the inconsistency, he contacted staff and advised them that, when he processed his application in August, he would have a correction. Mr. Richey filed a Letter of Correction on the vacant property, but staff had not processed the application, and the site plan that was filed showed all of the improvements that were there. He stated that the property was currently posted and has been posted to his knowledge during this period of time, which would be shown on the video. Mr. Richey stated that the PUD was done by a predecessor and, when his client bought the golf course, there were supposed to be roads and improvements made to allow them to get to the maintenance facility. Because the developer failed to proceed, those roads were not built, and his client, after building the golf course, operated for awhile in a tent, and it was determined that the tent could not be used for a maintenance facility. He was advised by staff that he could pull a building permit in agriculture to put up a barn. Some time later, complaints were filed against the facility, and he met with staff and it was determined that they would do two things, first they would file a CUP application, as advised by staff, and secondly, they would do a nonsubstantial change to the PUD and delete the ability to have a maintenance facility on the land that was currently set forth on the master plan, and if the CUP was approved, it would convert back to open space as part of the CUP. They also put in a provision that this CUP would be specifically tied to Black Bear, and should Black Bear Golf Course go out of business, this CUP would go out of existence. They bought additional lands on both sides of the five acre tract, so they would have approximately 16 acres. Mr. Richey noted that, in the master plan that was submitted by the previous developer, it shows the facility next to residential lots, and they did not feel this was the appropriate place for it. There were no outstanding code violations, other than utilization of this building, and some questions were raised with regard to some St. Johns permits on additional lands and acreage, but they agreed, in the Code Enforcement case, to limit the utilization of this barn to what would be an allowed use in agriculture, should the CUP not be granted. Mr. Richey asked the Board to consider one more condition to the CUP, which would be a provision with regard to septic tank evaluations, because until water and sewer become available to this site, periodic testing on a six month basis, or on an annual basis, would be a comfortable condition. In regards to the traffic issue, there are two employees living on the property right now running the maintenance facility, and there are three more employees that come to the property for a total of five people and P & Z allowed five cars. There are a total of nine people involved in the maintenance operation, but the other four operate out of the golf course itself, so there is no utilization of the facility by them. There are approximately two UPS type of truck deliveries per month. They have been trying to resolve some outstanding issues with the neighbor, in terms of the lots within the project that have not been developed that are subject to several foreclosure actions with Seminole Springs, and Mr. Richey was anticipating that they will be able to resolve these issues. Mr. Richey stated that they are prepared to go through detailed site plan review and meet all environmental concerns. He noted that they own Lots 8, 9 and 10, and the facility will be placed on Lot 9. He further noted that he had requested P & Z to add the three conditions, as noted in the backup material. When they go through site plan review, they will provide for those cars to park out of view of the public on Lester Way, and if they need to do additional landscaping, or berming or buffering, they will be happy to do this for the five cars. Mr. Richey called Mr. Duane Booth to testify.

Mr. Duane Booth, Farner, Barley and Associates, Inc., stated that he was the project engineer involved with the Black Bear Golf Course. He provided testimony as to the location of the steel barn, the mobile home, buffering, and pesticide plan with St. Johns, and the conditions that staff has placed for the appropriate storage of those materials on this site in the barn. He further testified as to the issue of stormwater, and the additional traffic on Lester Way and it not exceeding the threshold of the LDRs for requiring any upgrade and pavement design, or turn lanes on Lake Norris Road. He testified that an environmental assessment had been done on the property. He further noted that all of these types of issues were dealt with when it was platted, the property will be served by a septic tank and well, and there will be no problems with the pesticide program.

Mr. Mark Carson addressed the Board and stated that he was not in opposition of the zoning, but being involved with the Seminole Springs PUD as a mortgage holder and a potential future developer, he felt this was to the benefit of both the project and the golf course. However, he was here to disagree with how the petition has been handled. Mr. Carson stated that it was in violation of the Florida Statute, because the Lake County staff was advised seven times over two months prior to the first public hearing, of the unnoticed parties. Mr. Carson stated that there were several other inconsistencies including the environmental report not being made available for the public until the first Board meeting. These inconsistencies have regularly been brought forth to staff and have never been addressed. Mr. Richey was also advised, not less than five times prior to the first public hearing, of the parties he had not noticed. He did amend his CUP by letter form, and the notice of the amendment was never sent out to any of the adjacent affected property owners. Mr. Carson stated that he was not against the zoning as much as he was against the way the zoning case has not followed the legal course that the rest of the constituents of Lake County must follow. He stated that he has letters of record that he put in the County files that have not been provided to the Board. He was of the understanding that the County staff had represented to the Department of Community Affairs ( DCA) that this was for maintenance of open space, therefore, it could not possibly qualify as commercial. He stated that DCA was questioning its consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that it was probably better to have the facility where it was being proposed, because it was an additional five acres that was going to be converted to open space.

Commr. Gerber addressed the letter in the backup regarding the fire inspection summary and stated that it basically indicated that it was commercial, and she questioned the requirements, if it was deemed to be residential.

Mr. Richey stated that the fire staff has been to the site, and they have already addressed all of the requirements.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if it was vacant, non-subdivided, non-platted residential zoned property, and there was a proposal to add the requirement to the existing PUD and move the maintenance facility for whatever reasons, it would be reasonable, and he would support it. He stated that this was not an agricultural use, but a commercial maintenance facility to maintain a commercial golf course. He stated that expanding the PUD by the applicant may be a reasonable way to do it, but not by expanding it into a residentially zoned subdivision. Since this subdivision was zoned to provide for mobile homes, it did not reduce his concern about taking what he viewed as a commercial operation into what is a residentially zoned private subdivision. Commr. Swartz stated that he was not quarreling with the idea that a maintenance facility may be better somewhere else, but he did not think the proposed area was acceptable, because of the nature of the zoned platted subdivision. He felt that maybe the correct course of action would be to try and get some temporary roads put in, or to take recourse against whoever was to put those roads into the maintenance facility. He was not comfortable going into a residential subdivision and creating a commercial operation. If the applicant was to acquire other land that was adjacent to the golf course that was really agricultural that could be brought into the PUD, he would think that would be a reasonable alternative. Commr. Swartz stated that he was not comfortable putting a CUP on residentially zoned sub-divided land just because it happens to be five acres, and it was intended for a mobile home.

Ms. Farrell presented a video depicting the area in question. It was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "C" for the County.

Commr. Hanson stated that she wanted to address the concern of Commr. Swartz, which was being opposed to having this facility in a residentially zoned area, because this was not zoned residential, and it was zoned agricultural. It was an improvement to put the facility outside the subdivision on a much larger piece of property than within the subdivision, and in agriculturally zoned property rather than residentially zoned property. It also points out a need for recreational uses and accessory uses, whether it be golf courses, or dude ranches, or any facilities that would help the public take advantage of the environment. Commr. Hanson stated that it was not an agricultural use, but it was allowed in the agricultural zoning and the rural designation. She did not have a problem with what was being done, but she had a problem with the classification. Commr. Hanson stated that this was not a substantive change to the PUD, but it actually improved it. She stated that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for use of the site for a maintenance facility for the Black Bear Golf Course, Petition CUP#97/9/1-4. It was noted that the motion would include the conditions set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she would like to see further buffering.

Mr. Richey stated that the applicants were prepared to go through the site plan review, and it would not be a problem for them to do additional buffering.

Commr. Gerber stated that her main concerns were with the chemicals and the storage of them, but after viewing the video, she had less concerns about the PUD amendment versus the CUP.

Staff requested clarification of the conditions set forth in the motion.

It was clarified that the motion would include the conditions set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as follows:

1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to a maintenance facility for Black Bear Golf Course.



2. Parking shall be limited to five (5) cars with the vehicles being parked behind the facility in a screened area.



3. A nonsubstantial change shall be made to the site plan to convert to open space the acreage previously set aside for the maintenance facility within the PUD.



Commr. Hanson amended her motion to include the request made by Mr. Richey to monitor the septic tank per the Green Swamp regulations, and Commr. Cadwell included this in his second to the motion.

Commr. Swartz stated he did not doubt that it might be an improvement to the PUD, but his concern was that it was not necessarily an improvement, or an acceptable change, to the subdivision that was there. It was a platted residential subdivision, and there was the ability to add land, if necessary, for the golf course as part of the PUD. So rather than taking what was viewed as a problem for the development and moving it and making it a land use conflict, the alternative might be for the maintenance facility to utilize other lots, or to increase the area that was needed.

Discussion occurred regarding notice that was given to the property owners, with Mr. Carson stating that Seminole Springs Limited Partnership has property within 100 feet.

Mr. Minkoff noted that the Florida Statute is not involved with the noticing of property, but the LDR provision is the one that requires the notice.

Mr. Richey stated that they followed the County's LDRs, they provided the names to staff, and staff mailed out notices to the people based on the official tax rolls of Lake County.

Discussion occurred regarding the open space, with Commr. Good asking that it become open space on the golf course.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, including the noted conditions, as outlined by staff, and as requested by the applicant, and it was carried by a 4-1 vote.

Commr. Swartz voted "no".

RESOLUTIONS

Commr. Cadwell had asked that the Board place on the agenda a request from Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr., for a Resolution declaring October 3, 1997 as the "Lake County Sheriff's Department Volunteer Recognition Day".

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 1997-177 declaring October 3, 1997 as the "Lake County Sheriff's Department Volunteer Recognition Day".

MISCELLANEOUS

Commr. Good informed the Board that the American Heart Walk will be held on October 12, 1997 at 7 a.m., at the Lake Sumter Community College gymnasium, and on October 18, 1997, at 7:30 a.m., there will be a walk for "Making Strides Against Cancer".

LIBRARIES

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to place on the agenda, for discussion, the issue of library contracts.

After some discussion, it was determined that Commr. Hanson could bring the item up for discussion without having a motion. The motion was withdrawn, and the second to the motion was withdrawn.

Commr. Hanson stated that she had talked to the some of the City Council people from Mount Dora, and Mr. Leon Bibb expressed some of his concerns about the library contract. They had a meeting on Monday with Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, Mr. Gary Cooney, Mr. Bibb, Ms. Bernice Brenson, City Manager, of Mount Dora, and Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Services Manager, and Ms. Whittle felt uncomfortable moving forward with any alternative other than what the Board had directed her to do regarding the contract. Commr. Hanson stated that last night she talked to Ms. Paulette Alexander, Mayor of Mount Dora, and she was very interested in continuing in the countywide system, but her primary concern was the additional funding that Mount Dora receives from outside of either government, and the control of those funds.

Mr. Minkoff noted that gifts were specifically addressed, and they are to remain with the cities.

Commr. Hanson explained that there have been substantial amounts of private dollar donations that have gone into the library. She stated that Mayor Alexander had suggested that a simple addendum added to the contract would clarify the issue of donations and the control of those funds, so that the same problems, as a few years ago, do not occur again where people were pulling out of the County library. Commr. Hanson stated that she was uncomfortable at the last meeting when the Board had three contracts for consideration, and it was important that the Board not allow bureaucracy to get in the way of finding a solution to this problem. She was requesting that the Board reconsider, not necessarily the contract, but to allow the County Manager and the County Attorney to sit down with the representatives of at least two other cities and discuss the possibility of an addendum, or any clarifying language to the contract. She noted that there was a letter from Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the Town of Lady Lake, and their concerns with the contract.

Commr. Gerber stated that, after speaking with Mr. Cooney, she found that Mount Dora wants to form a governing board for the libraries, however, this board would have no authority to tax, so it could make policies that the Board could approve or deny, in regards to funding. She did not see the difference in having this type of board in relation to the Library Board the County has right now.

Commr. Hanson stated that there was a lot of confusion over the original facilities plan and proposal and the operation of it.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the facilities plan was taken to the cities, and nobody liked it, so a contract was done for one year, to give the County time to address all of those issues.

Commr. Good stated that he agrees with Commr. Gerber and does not see a tremendous difference between the County Library Board and the board being proposed. He believed that the contracts that have been offered gives them the support, and he supports maintaining the position that the Board has now, at least for the next year, and if, in the process, people feel they do not understand, the Board can get back in the negotiating position again, but he would not advocate the Board moving into a negotiating position at this point.

Commr. Gerber stated that the contract was done in June, and the Board determined it would do it for a year. The cities did not get the changed contracts until some time in August, and the Board wanted them to make a decision within a very short period of time. One city felt that, once again, the County was trying to push it into the contract.

Commr. Cadwell was concerned that, through the whole process, he was liaison to the League, and he never got any comments about them getting the contract late; no body asked him to come to a meeting; he always made himself available to them; and he never got one call.

Commr. Swartz stated that the document that the County has now, with the exception of the Florida Administrative Code changes, was a contract that was put together with a great deal of effort, in order to meet the requirements of the State. At that time, for reasons very similar to what the Board has now, but not really related to the contract, some libraries chose to leave the library system. The contract is not any different and it is cancelable by the cities within 60 days. He stated that there is nothing in the contract that takes away control, and what the County has crafted was designed to give those cities the control that they wanted through the budget process, so everything in the budget that relates to the document for the next year was exactly what has been approved by them.

Commr. Hanson recommended giving Ms. Whittle and Mr. Minkoff the option of working with the cities to come up with some resolution, which might be just clarification of the contract.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.



WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\9-30-97\11-24-97