The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Catherine C. Hanson. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Assistant, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
It was noted that Addendum No. 1 had been added to the agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson, and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Subdivisions
Request for acceptance of final plat for Pennbrooke Fairways Phase 1K Unit III Subdivision, consisting of 59 lots - Commissioner District 1.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Deeds/Subdivisions
Request for final plat for Royal Highlands Phase 1-C-A PUD; approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for performance of improvements between Lake County and Pringle Communities, Inc.; acceptance of a letter of credit in the amount of $375,000.00; and acceptance of a conservation easement deed from Pringle Communities, Inc.; subdivision consist of 123 lots - Commissioner District 2.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
RESOLUTIONS/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. Tony Otte, County Manager, City of Leesburg, and Ms. Debbie Stivender, Economic Development & Airport Manager, City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board to request approval of a resolution in support of the interchange at the intersection of County Road 470 and the Florida Turnpike. Mr. Otte stated that the Board adopted a resolution in support of the interchange in 1991 and that they were requesting that Resolution No. 1991-49 be updated. He briefly discussed a proposed location for the interchange at County Road 468, which had been approved by the Sumter County Board of County Commissioners on April 21, 1998, and explained that said location does not meet the criteria of the Florida Turnpike Commission. He directed the Board's attention to letters from Marlene Staley, President, COM-IND Properties, Inc., dated April 23, 1998 and April 27, 1998, and discussed same. He stated that the City of Leesburg was requesting that the Board reapprove Resolution No. 1991-49 in support of the interchange at the intersection of County Road 470 and the Florida Turnpike.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board and stated that there have been several occasions since 1991 that this issue has been brought forward supporting or reaffirming Resolution No. 1991-49. He explained that the County Road 470 interchange has been the only improvement in Lake County on the list of Florida Turnpike improvements for several years and that it was felt that County Road 470 was a vital east/west link for Sumter County and Lake County. He illustrated on a map the location of County Road 470 and County Road 468 and briefly discussed reasons why County Road 470 was the better location for the interchange.
Commr. Good stated that he was not in support of the interchange at the intersection of County Road 470 and the Florida Turnpike. He explained that there were places in Florida where rural character, rural roadways, and rural traffic must be preserved, and this location was an area that business would develop if the interchange was in place. He expressed concern that it was not the best location for a business center, infrastructure was not in place, and he would vote against this request in support of the citizens who live in the area that are not interested in this type of change.
Commr. Hanson stated that she also represents citizens in the area that are in support of the proposed interchange at the intersection of County Road 470 and the Florida Turnpike.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve Resolution No. 1998-67 in support of an interchange at the intersection of County Road 470 and the Florida Turnpike.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would support the resolution because the City of Leesburg was in favor of the interchange.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not know if construction of an interchange at County Road 470 and the Florida Turnpike was the appropriate action and expressed concern that an analysis has not been made regarding the long range impact of changing traffic patterns in the future.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 3 - 2 vote.
Commr. Good and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING/ORDINANCES
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the three Lake County Comprehensive Plan amendments before the Board for the adoption hearings, at this time, were LPA 98/1/1, LPA 98/1/2, and LPA 98/1/4.
LPA 98/1/1 Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Ms. Farrell explained that LPA 98/1/1 was a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to adopt a schedule of potential roadway improvements that would be funded by the Five-Cents Local Option Fuel Tax and noted that the state agencies have recommended approval and have no concerns regarding the text amendment. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request to amend the Capital Facilities Element to acknowledge the Five-Cents Local Option Fuel Tax as a source of roadway improvement revenue.
Commr. Good stated that this request was totally opposite from the action taken recently by the Board to turn down the Local Option Gas Tax and expressed concern that language states that capital improvements were to be funded from revenue generated from the Five-Cents Local Option Fuel Tax.
Discussion occurred regarding this issue and what would be appropriate language in Policy 10-5.6 and Policy 2-1.8; at which time, Commr. Swartz stated that this Comprehensive Plan amendment provides for a proposed list in the Comprehensive Plan of the road improvements to be done.
At this time, Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Ms. Farrell stated that the Department of Community Affairs would have no objection to a minor language change to the above noted policies; at which time, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, concurred with Ms. Farrell.
Commr. Gerber suggested that language be amended, as follows:
Policy 10-5.6: 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax Schedule of Capital Improvements.
Line 3 - insert if adopted after "Fuel Tax".
Policy 2-1.8: Use of Traffic Impact Fees and 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax Revenues.
Line 6 - insert if and when adopted after "Fuel Tax".
Commr. Good made a motion that language in the Capital Facilities Element list the needed roadway improvements and the need for a funding source and that all language referring to the 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax be removed.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 4 - 1 vote, the Board approved to modify language in the Capital Facilities Element of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan under Policy 10.5.6 and Policy 2-1.8, as follows:
Policy 10-5.6: 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax Schedule of Capital Improvements. The County shall adopt a Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements to be funded from revenue generated from the 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax, if adopted. Capital Improvements shall be programmed within the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, as shown in Table X-1a-d, according to the rank of priority.
Policy 2-1.8: Use of Traffic Impact Fees and 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax Revenues. Lake County shall designate revenues collected via its traffic impact fee ordinance (Ordinance 1990-18) for improvements to arterial and collector roadways included int he County's Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. The County shall coordinate with the FDOT to receive credit for revenue designated for improvements to the State Highway System. Revenues collected from the 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax, if and when adopted, shall be used for improvements to roadways included in the 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax schedule of Capital Improvements.
Commr. Good voted in opposition.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 4 - 1 vote, the Board approved LPA 98/1/1 Ordinance No. 1998-30 of the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, as amended, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PROVIDING FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS, AMENDING POLICY 10-5.6 FIVE CENTS LOCAL OPTION FUEL TAX SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, AMENDING POLICY 2-1.8 USE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND FIVE CENTS LOCAL OPTION FUEL TAX REVENUES, AMENDING POLICY 2-1.9 USE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND FIVE CENTS LOCAL OPTION FUEL TAX REVENUES FOR NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, ADDING TABLE X-1D. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSED FIVE CENTS LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX PROGRAM, AND ADDING TABLE X-1E FY 1997/1998 TO FY 2001/2002 ROAD RESURFACING PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AS AMENDED CHANGING LANGUAGE IN POLICY 10-5.6 AND POLICY 2-1.8.
LPA 98/1/2 Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Ms. Farrell explained that LPA 98/1/2 was a Comprehensive Plan text amendment revising Policy 5-1.4 in the Housing Element to incorporate recent changes in state legislation concerning the provision of affordable housing incentive strategies. She stated that staff was
recommending approval of the request to amend the Housing Element and noted that the state agencies have recommended approval and have no concerns regarding the text changes.
At this time, Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
No one wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved LPA 98/1/2 Ordinance No. 1998-31 of the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PROVIDING FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS, AMENDING POLICY 5-1.4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LPA 98/1/4 Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Ms. Farrell explained that LPA 98/1/4 was a Comprehensive Plan text amendment initiated by the Department of Growth Management regarding regulation of septic tanks. She stated that staff was recommending that the Board not adopt the proposed change in the language and noted that the Department of Community Affairs has requested additional data for review before they are comfortable with the proposed change.
At this time, Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
No one wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved not to adopt LPA 98/1/4, a plan text amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING
It was noted that the following staff members were present for the zoning hearings: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management; Mr. James Smith, Director, Division of Planning & Development Services; and Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services.
POSTPONEMENTS/WITHDRAWALS
PETITION NO. CUP#98/4/4-5 CUP IN A BETTY HOLT
LESLIE CAMPIONE
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, was requesting a thirty (30) day postponement of Petition No. CUP#98/4/4-5 to allow the applicant time to address life estate issues.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Petition No. CUP#98/4/4-5 for thirty (30) days.
PETITION NO. PH#8-98-4 A TO CFD ROBERT W. MAXWELL
FLASH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, requested that Petition No. PH#8-98-4 be withdrawn.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services, explained that staff has received an application for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) to replace the request for the CFD (Community Facility District); therefore the request would be readvertised.
Ms. Wendy Davis, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board and stated that she was not in opposition to the zoning change, however, was in opposition to the use of the alleged easement across her property.
Commr. Cadwell stated, for the record, that he has spoken with Mr. Robert W. Maxwell, the applicant, about the access issue; however, has not spoken with the applicant about the zoning change.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to withdraw Petition No. PH#8-98-4, Robert W. Maxwell.
PETITION NO. PH#6-98-2 A TO CFD SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY
LINCOLN GROVES, INC.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to withdraw Petition No. PH#6-98-2, School Board of Lake County.
PETITION NO. PH#15-98-4 A TO CFD LAKE COUNTY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION
WILLIAM P. MELVIN
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) for construction of a church and associated uses. She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone to CFD (Community Facility District), and that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by an 8 - 0 vote. She stated that there was no opposition to this request and that the applicant would be required to go through site plan review and approval. She noted that a change has been made to the Ordinance that requires that any other use of the site shall require approval of an amendment by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area in question.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.
Mr. Harold Coffman, representing the Lake County Baptist Association, Inc., appeared before the Board and explained that the plans were for a 4,000 square foot building with a small auditorium to seat approximately 150 people, and classrooms for bible study or Sunday school rooms. He stated that the site plan may be designed for an additional structure.
Ms. Farrell clarified that pre-kindergarten day care was an appropriate use for the church, and that an amendment to the ordinance would be required if the day care was for children kindergarten age or older. Discussion occurred regarding this issue.
Commr. Hanson stated that there was a need for day care in the area and she would like to leave day care in the language as an allowable use and remove halfway house and homeless shelter.
Commr. Gerber expressed concern that day cares for churches were being treated differently than day cares for private individuals, particularly in the assessment of impact fees. She suggested that it would be more equitable for the church to go through the waiver process.
Mr. Coffman stated that the primary concern, at this time, was to get approval for the church and allow the church and sunday school to operate. He stated that there would be no problem with the new proposed language in the ordinance, and that they have no concern with a requirement to come back to the Board at a later time for additional uses.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request from Lake County Baptist Association, Petition No. PH#15-98-4, to rezone from (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) for construction of a church and associated uses - Ordinance No. 1998-32.
PETITION NO. 16-98-2 R-6 TO CFD OKLAWAHA BASIN RECREATION & WATER CONSERVATION & CONTROL AUTHORITY
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was to rezone 4.57 acres in the Okahumpka area from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) to place a mobile home on site for security purposes with the continued uses of sheds, and concrete water control structures. She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 7 - 0 vote.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area in question.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
It was noted that a representative from the Oklawaha Basin Recreation & Water Conservation & Control Authority was present in the audience.
No one wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, 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 a request from the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority, Petition No. 16-98-2, to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) to place a mobile home on site for security purposes with the continued uses of sheds, and concrete water control structures - Ordinance No. 1998-33.
PETITION NO. CUP#98/4/1-4 CUP IN A MICHAEL & ANNE CARLTON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) on a one (1) acre parcel for keeping and raising of lizards and frogs on site with three (3) outbuildings and one single family residence. She further explained that the area was platted in residential lots with mixed uses in the surrounding area. She stated that staff was recommending approval for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture), and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by an 8 - 0 vote.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area in question.
It was noted that there was one letter in opposition to this request.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Archie Lowry, Attorney, Potter, Clement & Lowry, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board and explained that this was an agricultural pursuit on agricultural property for the raising and selling of small lizards and small frogs. He stated that the applicants were agreeable to comply with the recommended use of the property.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request from Michael and Anne Carlton, Petition No. CUP#98/4/1-4, for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for the keeping and raising of lizards and frogs on site with three (3) outbuildings and one single family residence - Ordinance No. 1998-34.
PETITION NO. CUP#98/4/5-3 CUP IN A HANG JU CHON & YOUN SU CHON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) to permit a water withdrawal well on a six (6) acre site on County Road 561 in the Astatula area. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area in question. Ms. Farrell noted that the future land use was Rural and that staff has reviewed this request with the current regulatory language and found it to be in compliance with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the applicants were requesting permission to rezone the six (6) acre parcel on the west side of County Road 561 for a CUP to construct a well and withdraw less than 50,000 gallons per day subject to the conditions in the proposed ordinance. She stated that the applicant would be required to submit a site plan/ operating permit with supporting detail regarding the net effect on the aquifer, recharge effect, transportation concerns, environmental concerns and any other concerns deemed appropriate by the Board. She further stated, as part of the operating permit and part of the annual inspection process, the applicant would be required to make provision for detailing water withdrawal amounts in a log format to be submitted to Planning and Development Services. She briefly discussed the traffic impact to County Road 561. She stated that staff was recommending approval for a CUP in A (Agriculture) based on what has been presented by the applicant, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by an 8 - 0 vote of a CUP in A (Agriculture) for construction of a well drawing less than 50,000 gallons per day with the following changes to the proposed ordinance:
1. The well will operate seven (7) days per week;
2. Paragraph "F" on Page 2 will change from 100,000 to 50,000 gallons. When this amount is exceeded, the applicant shall notify Lake County Water Resource Management.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff could not project the new programs and policies being presented by the St. Johns River Water Management District for Lake County, and noted that there was one letter in opposition to this request.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board
and stated that the request for a CUP was substantially different from the request that was presented to the Board in 1995. He explained that the request before the Board, at this time, was a six (6) acre parcel, and that the well would be metered and the withdrawals would be monitored and submitted to the County. He stated that the applicant has presented a contract to the Lake County Water Authority to donate a twenty (20) acre parcel to the Water Authority, noting that the Water Authority has not accepted the contract at this time. He stated that it was anticipated that one (1) employee would be on-site; however, the applicants were requesting two (2) employees, and the hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He explained that the applicant now has an approved bottling facility in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills and that a site plan has been prepared that would initially employ ten (10) to twelve (12) employees, free spring water would be provided at the plant to County residents, and ten (10%) percent of the net profit would be donated to the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. He stated that this request was supported by an hydrological report, prepared by Mr. Rich Potts, Geologist, Atlanta Testing and Engineering, and Mr. Potts was present in the audience to answer questions and to provide testimony. He stated that the report indicates that there would be no measurable impact on the aquifer at that location and that this use was less of a water use than would be used if active agriculture. He discussed traffic impact to County Road 561 and stated that full size trucks would be transporting the water and turning right onto County Road 561; therefore, not interfering with the left lane of traffic.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the previous request by the applicant went through the Circuit Court of Appeals and District Court of Appeals and ultimately resulted in the Circuit Court upholding the decision of the Board of County Commissioners not to grant the rezoning from the November 21, 1995 public hearing. He stated that the Board's previous denial was based upon Comprehensive Plan policies which were sited by the Board members during the hearing.
Mr. Crawford displayed on the monitor Policy 7-2.6: Interdistrict Transfers of Groundwater 9J-5.013(2)(c)(4). (County Exhibit 2) for the Board's review. He stated that Policy 7-2.6 was the policy cited in the Judge's opinion and by the Board of County Commissioner's previous denial. He stated that they were no longer an interdistrict transfer with the approved bottling facility in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. He further stated that, if the Board decides that they are an interdistrict transfer, said policy provides the Board with the ability to approve or disapprove an interdistrict transfer of groundwater. He noted that the applicants would have no objection to language being added to the ordinance that states that the bottling shall be done within Lake County.
Commr. Good stated that he understands that the bottling of the water was being done locally. He expressed concern that there was nothing that would preclude the bulk shipment of water across county lines from occurring and that he has not heard assurances that bulk shipment of water across county lines would not occur.
Mr. Crawford stated that they could not commit to not marketing any bottles of water outside of Lake County because it would probably be marketed regionally in Central Florida. He noted that they fall under the thresholds of St. Johns River Water Management permitting and that the drinking water permit under the Department of Agriculture was the only permitting that was required outside of Lake County.
Commr. Hanson requested information on how many gallons of water a five (5) acre nursery would use, at which time, Mr. Rich Potts, Geologist, Atlanta Testing and Engineering, appeared before the Board and responded that the water consumption for a five (5) acre nursery would be comparable to the request before the Board at this time. She declared, for the record, that she has had extensive communications with the applicant over the last two (2) years; however, that would not significantly impact her decision.
Ms. Frankie Thorp, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board in objection to this request and directed the Board's attention to a letter, dated March 25, 1998, expressing her objection to this rezoning. She stated that Ms. Joanie Moore, an adjacent neighbor, has also expressed her objection to this request due to the adverse impact on her well water. Ms. Thorp expressed concern with the impact on her quality of life, flow of water into Lake Harris, private well water supply, and destruction of the natural habitat. She stated that her greatest concern was with the increased traffic and congestion on County Road 561 and noted that the proposed entrance would be approximately one-quarter mile from Double Run Curve, a locally known hazard. She stated that slower-moving water tankers, whether decelerating, accelerating, or turning onto or off County Road 561, would impede the normal flow of traffic and would tempt other drivers to pass in no-passing zonings. She requested that the Board consider a requirement that an acceleration lane and a turn lane be required and that the entrance/exit be relocated north of the present unpaved access driveway in an attempt to reduce the sight impairment caused by the hill to the south.
Mr. Richardson presented photographs (County Exhibit 2) illustrating the crest of a hill on County Road 561.
Mr. Crawford called Mr. Potts to the podium to provide testimony. Mr. Potts stated that because of the small pumping rate, the impact on the adjacent wells was so small that it could not be measured. He stated that there would be no effect on the flow of water to Lake Harris.
Mr. Crawford explained that the hours of operation could be decreased by increasing the size of the pump. He stated that they would have no objection to funding a no-passing sign on the south side of the crest of the hill, relocating the entrance as far north as possible, and language which addresses no signage.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Gerber questioned if serious discussion has occurred regarding acceleration and deceleration lanes; at which time Ms. Farrell stated that discussion has not occurred based on the limited number of trips. She stated that, if a deceleration lane was required, it would be required during the site plan review. She noted that it was standard procedure that all ordinances go through Development Review and approval. Commr. Gerber interjected that she would have a hard time approving this request without knowing that the deceleration requirement was part of the plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that the issue for him was one of policy and consistency with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that 18 million gallons of water per year may be a relatively small user for an agricultural enterprise; however, this was not an agricultural enterprise and the underlying issues have not changed from the previous request in 1995. He stated that this request was a commercial enterprise that withdraws water and still results in an interdistrict transfer of groundwater.
Commr. Hanson stated that this request was not truly agriculture but was production for human consumption. She stated that her interpretation was that interdistrict transfer of groundwater language was applying to the water management districts, and she was assuming that most of the water would be consumed within the Central Florida area, which would be interdistrict with the other management districts in and around the City of Orlando.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he voted in favor of the original request in 1995; however, with the water issues and the intergovernmental issues, he would not support this request at this time. He stated that this operation was not an agriculture use or a mining use, however, was for human consumption, and the Board needs to address these types of operation to determine how to address these operations in the future.
Commr. Gerber stated that she could not support this request because the interdistrict transfer of groundwater issue has not been addressed from the previous request in 1995.
Commr. Good stated that he would not support this request because of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan policies and because it moves Lake County down a road and sets a precedent in selling water in a water caution area and mining other people's resources and not being able to compensate those people.
Commr. Hanson stated that this was in an area of springs that were flowing down the rivers and out to the ocean. She stated that Lake County was going to face a major water issue of potable water and will eventually have to look at tapping into those spring bodies of water for our potable water. She stated that this issue would be back before the Board because there was a demand for it.
Commr. Swartz concurred with Commr. Hanson and stated that the issue was are we going to protect the groundwater sources for the use of the people in Lake County as opposed to pumping it out, bottling it, and selling it.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) for Hang Ju Chon & Youn Su Chon, Petition No. CUP#98/4/5-3, to permit a water withdrawal well.
Commr. Good stated that he was in opposition to this request because of Lake County Comprehensive Plan Policy 7-2.6: Interdistrict Transfers of Groundwater 9J-5.013(2)(c)(4), and problems with land use in the area.
Commr. Gerber stated she was in opposition to this request for the same reasons as stated by Commr. Good.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was in opposition to this request because the same concerns exist that formed the basis for denial in 1995; it was not an agriculture use, therefore, a CUP was not appropriate based on the Lake County Land Development Regulations, and it was not an utility that comes under that definition of a public use utility.
Commr. Hanson noted that staff has recommended approval because it does meet the requirements in their opinions of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 4 - 1 vote.
Commr. Hanson voted in opposition.
PETITION NO. CUP#94/4/2-3 CUP IN A JOHNNY & DARCH BREWER &
JO CARTER
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) to keep an additional five (5) mobile homes in addition to the three (3) approved under CUP#475-3 for agricultural housing for a nursery facility on ten (10) acres in the East Lake County area. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area in question. Ms. Farrell stated that this CUP comes to the Board through a Code Enforcement complaint on the existing CUP and, upon inspection, it was found that there were eight (8) mobile homes on a ten (10) acre parcel, which would be five (5) mobile homes over the allowed number. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request for an additional five (5) mobile homes under CUP 475-3 for agricultural housing in A (Agriculture) based on the size of the site and review of the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial of this request by a 7 - 0 vote. She stated that there were two letters in opposition to this request.
Mr. Richardson presented photographs (County Exhibit 2) illustrating the existing status of the mobiles that are on site and the nursery facility, and explained that there was one (1) travel trailer on the site in addition to the mobile homes.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Ms. Jo Carter, the applicant, appeared before the Board and provided a brief history of CUP#475-3 and explained that at the time that she purchased the property in 1985 she was told by the County that she was allowed to have three (3) mobile homes on her property. She stated that Mr. Johnny Brewer, who owns a portion of the ten (10) acre parcel, and she have each paid $100 for two (2) annual inspections, and they were under the assumption that all of the mobile homes were permitted under the original CUP. She stated that she would not object to removing the fourth mobile home on her property.
Commr. Swartz clarified that CUP#475-3 was approved in 1975 and provided for three (3) mobile homes and the parcel was split in 1978, however, was not recognized by the County. He stated that, based on the original ten (10) acre CUP, three mobile homes are allowed and would be consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
In response to a question presented by Commr. Cadwell, Ms. Carter responded that there was no agricultural operation in place at this time. She clarified that she rents the homes to farm workers who work in the area.
Mr. Johnny Brewer, the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that in 1994, when he purchased seven (7) acres of the ten (10) acre parcel, there were two (2) mobile homes on his parcel, and he understood that it was agricultural land. He explained that his occupation was harvesting fruit and processing said fruit on his property which he sells at flee markets. He stated that he has added one (1) additional mobile home and one (1) travel trailer, noting that no permits were pulled for the additional mobile home.
Ms. Evelyn Brewer, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, and explained that the original CUP was pulled when Mr. Pierce, the original owner of the parcels in question, wanted to place a mobile home on his property for his infirmed mother. She provided a brief history of the original CUP. She expressed concern that eight (8) mobile homes on this ten (10) acre parcel of land was nothing more than a mobile home park and would decrease the value of the surrounding property. She stated that the area was ninety-five (95%) percent site built homes, and they do not wish to have a mobile home park in the area.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson clarified that the intent of the original CUP was approved to have mobile homes on the parcel for agricultural workers that were employed on the property and not for agricultural workers employed off site.
Ms. Farrell stated that, if the Board denies this rezoning, they would be denying the amendment and would not be evoking CUP#475-3, the original CUP. She clarified that there were three (3) mobile homes on the seven (7) acre parcel and the nursery was on the three (3) acre parcel. She explained that, if they go through the deeds that have been presented, and there are two (2) lots of record, each parcel would be legal for one (1) mobile home. She explained that, if the original intent of the three (3) mobile homes was to support agricultural housing, staff would determined if there was a need in the area for agricultural housing to leave the three (3) mobile homes in place.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that in the 1970s and 1980s Lake County did have labor camp type facilities that were strictly agricultural housing where the workers traveled off site, which was allowed in the old code under a CUP.
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 denied a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agricultural) from Johnny and Darch Brewer and Jo Carter, Petition No. CUP#98/4/2-3, to keep an additional five (5) mobile homes in addition to the three (3) approved under CUP#475-3 for agricultural housing for a nursery facility.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m. __________________________________ G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR.,CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
msf\4-28-98-5-5-98\boardmin