A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OCTOBER 27, 1998

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 27, 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 Sandra Carter, 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 an Addendum to the Agenda, which had been properly advertised.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 876 - JAMES AND MARY STEWART - ASTATULA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by James and Mary Stewart, to vacate a right-of-way, Map of Astatula, Sec. 28, Twp. 20S, Rge. 26E, Astatula area - Commissioner District 3.  He stated that all the roads in the area had been vacated and that the Stewarts own both sides of the property in question; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1998-167 - Road Vacation Petition No. 876, by James and Mary Stewart, to vacate right-of-way, Map of Astatula, Sec. 28, Twp. 20S, Rge. 26E, Astatula area - Commissioner District 3.

PETITION NO. 877 - CHARLES H. MASTERS - LADY LAKE

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Charles H. Masters, to vacate a utility easement, Orange Blossom Gardens, Sec. 7, Twp. 18S, Rge. 24E, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5.  He stated that the request was to clear title, due to a transfer of land.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1998-168 - Road Vacation Petition No. 877, by Charles H. Masters, to vacate utility easement, Orange Blossom Gardens, Sec. 7, Twp. 18S, Rge. 24E, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5.

PETITION NO. 878 - JOHN R. PRICKETT, JR. - LEESBURG

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by John R. Prickett, Jr., to vacate a right-of-way, to correct a plat in a north Leesburg subdivision, Sec. 15, Twp. 19S, Rge. 24E, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.  He stated that the right-of-way in question was located south of Picciola Road, on the east side of Hwys. 441/27, north of the old Wal-Mart Shopping Center.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant’s representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1998 -169 - Road Vacation Petition No. 878, by John R. Prickett, Jr., to vacate right-of-way, to correct plat of north Leesburg subdivision, Sec. 15, Twp. 19S, Rge. 24E, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/SUBDIVISIONS/ZONING

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that, according to Section 14.02.09 of the Land Development Regulations, an applicant can request to be heard prior to the expiration time of one year for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that is what is before the Board this date, a request to allow the Royal Highlands Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be heard prior to the expiration of the required one year time frame for the application.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the Code requires that there be a motion and a second and four votes to allow this case to be heard.  He stated that it would involve two separate issues - first the issue of the rehearing and then the issue of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, Mr. John Pringle, Pringle Communities, Inc./Royal Highlands Subdivision, appeared before the Board and explained why the request for reconsideration was filed.  He stated that, when this case was previously before the Board, questions were raised regarding the ability of the Board to bind the developer from adding additional land to the Royal Highlands community and to bind subsequent Boards from taking action regarding same, as well, at which time a motion was made by Commr. Good to deny transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs.  He stated that the motion was approved by a 3-2 vote, however, after said meeting, a group of residents met with Commr. Good and discussed what the inability of adding the additional land meant to the community.  It was suggested that they go back and revisit some of the issues that were raised in that hearing, to be presented once again, in an effort to try to resolve some of the outstanding ones, specifically the ability of the Board to bind the developer from adding land, or piece-mealing it together.

Mr. Richey stated that the applicant drafted a Developer’s Agreement, which states that he cannot change the Development Order without the consent of every resident in the community.  He stated that it also requires anybody within 150 feet of the perimeter of the community to consent to adding additional land, or making any changes to the Development Order, as well.  He stated that a delay of one year would preclude the developer from constructing amenities that the residents of the community are relying on, noting that their dues and membership fees are based on his ability to do so, by adding the additional land.  He stated that the developer will have to put constructing the amenities on hold, for a couple of years, if the Board does not waive the one year requirement for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.  He stated that this case involves an unusual circumstance and noted that the Code states, if there is an unusual circumstance that justifies waiving the one year requirement, by a super  majority of the Board, they can do so.  He reviewed portions of the Developer’s Agreement that address some of the concerns that were expressed at the previous meeting and requested the Board to reconsider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Mr. Ted Bolin, Land Development Manager, Pringle Development, addressed the Board stating that, if they approved the expansion being requested, Royal Highlands would be a better community, because the current style of development could be maintained and the lot spread of the residents currently residing in Royal Highlands could be maintained.  He stated that the overall net density for the property would not be increased, in fact, after the additional property is added, the overall net density would be decreased.  He stated that the developer is willing to give up the 300 overnight stay approved RV sites and is willing to submit a Developer’s Agreement prohibiting Pringle Development from any future expansions, without the approval of 100% of the residents, as alluded to by Mr. Richey.  He stated that it would not be prudent on anybody’s part to make the development wait an additional year for the expansion being requested.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether the issue of the additional property was ever included in any requests before the Board, from the developer, in the past.

Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, stated that it had not.

Commr. Good stated that, during the last presentation before the Board regarding this issue, he stated that he was against Royal Highlands being located where it is, because he felt it was putting something in a rural land use that probably would not fit there, however, noted that the situation has changed drastically and the area has since been changed to a suburban land use.  He stated that his concern, at this point, is to mediate between the 300 residents that currently reside in Royal Highlands, who have needs and amenities, yet still look at the appropriateness of the existing Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that he felt holding up the planning process of the Royal Highlands development would be detrimental for the community, therefore, would be willing to waive the one year requirement and hear the case this date.

A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to waive the one year requirement and hear Royal Highlands PUD Comprehensive Plan Amendment LPG #108/27.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she supported the amendment several months ago and still supported it.  She stated that staff has indicated that larger lots would be more desirable to potential home buyers; that to add this land would have an overall reduction in density of the DRI (Development of Regional Impact); that the proposed amendment does not meet the State’s definition of urban sprawl; that the proposed amendment provides for a better project than the original DRI; that the proposed amendment will help maximize the use of existing public utilities; that the increase in additional acreage will promote the preservation of some environmentally sensitive lands, by the avoidance of wetland areas; that the additional land will decrease the overall density for the development, allowing for a greater amount of pervious surface and a greater filtering capability for stormwater runoff impacts of the overall development; and that residential areas should be protected from the encroachment of incompatible non-residential development, which this amendment would help to do.  She stated that the reason she voted for it before was that it would actually be an enhancement of the development and not an overall increase in density.  She stated that she would support the motion to rehear the case.

Commr. Gerber stated that it was regrettable that the Board did not see the revamp of the plan the first time, because she felt it was a good one and would have agree to it.  She stated, however, that although she felt the revamp of the plan would make for a better community, she felt the Board would be showing favoritism toward the developer, if they approved the request.  She stated that it was a difficult decision to make, however, felt that the only fair thing to do would be to make the developer wait a year, just like anyone else would have to do in the same situation.  She stated that she regretted the fact that the plans would have to be put on hold, but felt it was the best thing to do, therefore, could not support the request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he supported the project originally, however, feels that it is even a better project now and encouraged the Board to approve the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that, originally, this case came before the Board as the Monterey DRI, before any of the present Commissioners were on the Board, and that it was inconsistent with the then comprehensive plan, which was a more general comprehensive plan.  He stated that, prior to its expiration, the Board at that time voted 3-2 to modify the DRI and take it from a mobile home community to what it is today, with the entrance of Pringle Development.  He stated that he voted against it, at that time, because it was inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that, if the County ignores its comprehensive plan, then no one has assurance that the land use that they currently have around them can be counted on.  He stated that there would be no law to protect either people that want to develop their land, or people that may be adjacent to people that want to develop their land.  He stated that the request is inconsistent with the State Growth Management Act and the State Comprehensive Plan, as well.  He stated that he would be voting against the request, for said reasons.

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

Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted “No.”

It had been noted that the motion would need a 4-1 vote to pass.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT’D.)

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES/ZONING

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval to advertise a public hearing regarding an Ordinance amending the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations; amending Chapter II, Definitions; amending Chapter III, Zoning District Regulations; and providing for the amendment of Sections 3.01.02, 3.01.03, and 3.01.04.  She stated that staff worked on this Ordinance for a number of months and that one of her planners had worked closely with the people at the Agricultural Extension Office, regarding it.  She stated that the draft Ordinance contained in the Board’s backup material contained some minor changes and noted that some additional changes would probably be made before it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then back to the Board, for the final reading.  She stated that staff was requesting permission to move forward with the Ordinance.

Ms. Farrell noted that one of the changes made by staff was a definition for Portable Lofts, which she reviewed with the Board.  She stated that staff was asked to add a permitted use in a commercial zoning; however, they do not have a problem with it being in a commercial zoning.  She stated that it was not a part of the original request, but, staff did add it.  She stated that staff also reduced the setback from 25 feet to 20, on lofts less than 20 square feet in size, and exempted the loft size of one square foot for each bird, for fewer than 10 birds, in order to address any 4-H activities, or a young person with just two or three birds.  She stated that they also added, with the building official’s blessing, the fact that a portable pigeon loft (less than32 square feet) shall be exempt from the Building Department’s permitting requirements.  She noted that staff had received citizen input regarding this matter.

Mr. David Bacon, a resident of Lake County and pigeon breeder, addressed the Board, stating that he was thrilled that the County is finally going to get a Pigeon Ordinance; however, he had some problems with the draft Ordinance before the Board.  He stated that approximately one and a half months ago he presented a draft Ordinance to each of the Commissioners that his group had put together that dealt with the number of pigeons allowed and loft sizes, based on the size of the property, that was agreed to in a meeting with staff, on March 19, 1998, and that had been approved by his group, a committee that represents different pigeon groups in Lake County.  He stated that his group only approves of Page 1 and the last page of the draft Ordinance before the Board.

Commr. Swartz directed Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, to set up a meeting for him, Mr. Bacon, Ms. Farrell, and some of her staff, to address the issues that Mr. Bacon and his group feel needs to be addressed.  It was noted that the Ordinance will then be brought back to the Board, at a later date, for further discussion and approval.

It was the consensus of the Board not to advertise a public hearing on the Ordinance amending the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations; amending Chapter II, Definitions; amending Chapter III, Zoning District Regulations; providing for the amendment of Sections 3.01.02, 3.01.03, and 3.01.04, until they have the results of said meeting.

REZONING

PETITION NO. PH48-98-4 - A TO CFD - CHESHIRE FAMILY TRUST (MARION C. MANDERSON AND ANN C. MANDERSON)

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves approximately 20 acres in the Pine Lakes area.  She stated that the Board of County Commissioners is the applicant and they are requesting to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a recreational park, a solid waste residential drop-off facility, and a Lake County fire station.  She stated that it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a 6-3 vote.

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she had had quite a bit of contact within the area in question, regarding this project, however, noted that it would not interfere with her ability to vote objectively.

Mr. Don Post, Senior Director, Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board, stating that two years ago the County started a joint effort within its departments to locate a site for a park, a residential drop-off facility, and a fire station, should there be a need for one in the future.  He then turned the floor over to Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Manager, stating that he would be presenting the case.

Mr. Pula addressed the Board and reviewed the history of the project, noting that a citizens group was formed to look at parcels of land, to develop as a park.  He stated that, in 1997, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board made a recommendation to the Board to set aside funds to purchase property in the Pine Lakes area, to develop a public park.  He stated that they looked at seven parcels and eventually settled on the parcel (approximately 28 acres) in question.  He stated that the County has received letters in opposition to the request and has tried to address their concerns, in that the County has planned a 100 foot buffer all around the parcel to isolate it from the residents; it is planning to install posts and cable to control where vehicles and people are allowed to go; and it plans to provide for an individual to be at the site several times per week.  He stated that the Pine Lakes area is an isolated area definitely in need of a park, noting that the residents are presently going to Deland or Eustis to enjoy a park setting.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. David Crowe, Contract Administrator, Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board, stating that part of Fire Rescue’s Five Year Presentation was the relocating of Fire Station No. 35 to Hwy. 44.  He stated that two acres has been set aside at the front of the park for a potential fire station, which he noted would give the County a live-in resident and security person, because it will be manned 24 hrs. a day.  He stated that the residential drop-off center will accept bagged household trash and will provide the residents a place to bring the usual recyclable commodities, as well as old appliances, tires, furniture, etc., that is currently found in the forest and swamps that the community has to clean up.  He stated that the County is currently planning to have the facility open at least three days per week.

Mr. Jim Pendleton, a resident of Forest Ridge Subdivision, addressed the Board, stating that he lives adjacent to the proposed site and questioned why the park could not be located further south, towards Pine Lakes.  He stated that some of the residents of Forest Ridge feel their quality of life is going to be jeopardized and that their property values are going to plunge.  He stated that they are concerned about people using the park at night, as well, which could present some security problems.  He stated that, if the park were located at least 400 feet further towards Pine Lakes, no one would suffer.  He requested the Board to deny the request.

Mr. James Todd, President of Pine Lakes Community Club, representing the Pine Lakes area and surrounding communities, addressed the Board stating that the Pine Lakes area needs a park; therefore, the residents support it and ask that the Board vote in favor of the request.  He stated that the majority of the residents in the area will benefit from the park.

Mr. Paul Bergman, a resident of Forest Ridge Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that he was in favor of the park, noting that the Pine Lakes area needs a park; however, he does not like the idea of it being at his front door.  He questioned why the park could not be moved further south, away from the entrance to the Forest Ridge Subdivision, where the park is currently proposed to be located.

Ms. Holly Green, a resident of Highland Lakes Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that the residents in the area will benefit from the park, as well as the drop-off station.  She requested the Board to approve the request.

Ms. Karen Miller, a resident of Highland Lakes Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that she understood the concerns of the residents of Forest Ridge Subdivision, however, feels that there has to be some give and take.  She stated that she feels everyone concerned will agree that the Pine Lakes area desperately needs the park and the services being proposed.

Mr. Ed Creamer, a resident of Pine Lakes, addressed the Board, stating that, although he does not have any children, he feels the Pine Lakes area badly needs a park.

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

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the concerns noted were legitimate, but he wanted the residents to understand that the proposed design did not have to be the final design.  He stated that, if in fact there are real concerns, the County can reconfigure the design.  He stated that the design is preliminary, noting that it will have to come back before the Board with a recommendation from the Recreation Committee.  He stated that the County bends over backwards to try to reduce the impact of its parks, because everybody wants them, but not close to them.  He stated that, with regard to the solid waste drop-off facility, if there is a legitimate concern, the County can ensure that the facility will be pulled each day; therefore, there will be less ability for it to have an odor than there will be if it is left overnight.

Commr. Hanson stated that the communities of Pine Lakes and Highland Lakes have been working for a long time to get a park in the area for the children and, hopefully, this will be a start.  She stated that, by having the solid waste drop-off facility with the park, the County can leverage dollars, noting that it can use solid waste dollars to provide a larger park.  She stated that the fire station was an after-thought, noting that the County felt it might be a good partnership between the fire station, the solid waste drop-off facility, and the park.  She commended staff for their hard work during the past two years in putting this project together.  She stated that the proposed site might not be the best site, but it was the only one that the County was able to purchase at a reasonable price that would take care of the needs of the drop-off facility and the park.  She stated that, as far as the issue of property values in the area is concerned, she felt they might increase by having the park in place, particularly with the Board’s commitment of doing whatever it takes to eliminate any odors that might be present.  She stated that she feels the residents of the area will be proud of the park, as well as the drop-off center, because it will be something that will improve their community rather than make it less attractive.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1998-81 - Cheshire Family Trust/Lake County Solid Waste, Rezoning Case No. PH 48-98-4, Tracking No. 77-98-CFD, for a recreational park, a solid waste residential drop-off facility, and a Lake County fire station.

PETITION NO. CUP 98/9/1-5 - CUP IN R-6 - QUENELL AND MARY BONDS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a parcel of property .42 +/- acres in size, in the Umatilla area.  She stated that the request is to permit the operation of a beauty salon, from a proposed addition of an existing residence.  She stated that staff looked at this request from two angles, noting that the Staff Report gives a good outline from a zoning perspective and the Land Development Regulations perspective, however, noted that the request would be inconsistent with the actual commercial locational criteria policies.  She stated that the request went before the Board of Adjustments.  She stated that some work was done on the property, without a permit, which does not meet the setback requirements.  She stated that it would be difficult to do some buffering and other things that are required, for introducing this type of land use in a residential neighborhood.  She stated that she looked at some of the past conditional use permits that the Board has granted and, out of the 275 that are on the books, only two have been granted in the past for hair salons, of which one is in the process of revocation and she was not sure what the status was for the other one.  She stated that it is not a typical CUP, or home occupation, and it does not meet commercial locational criteria, so staff found no way to recommend approval for the use, even with additional buffering, hours of operation, etc.; therefore, staff was recommending denial of the request.  She submitted, for the record, a plat of the property in question (County Exhibit A); a picture of the front of the applicants’ home (County Exhibit B); a picture of the slab that had been poured next to the home (County Exhibit C); and a second picture of the slab, showing that the plumbing is in place (County Exhibit D).

Ms. Mary Bonds, Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that she understood staff’s dilemma, noting that she was aware of the fact that there are statutes and bylaws on the books that they are governed by, however, feels that said statutes and bylaws do not see the pains, disappointments, and broken dreams of the youth in the community.  She submitted, for the record, 51 pictures (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of her home, showing the concrete slab that has been poured for the addition to her beauty salon, as well as pictures of her community.  She stated that she was requesting the Board to allow her to acquire a CUP, to operate a two station, one bowl, beauty salon, in a 14 x 30 foot addition to her home.

Ms. Jacquelyn Handy, a resident of the Umatilla area, addressed the Board, stating that she feels the beauty salon would be a plus for the community and was in favor of the request

Mr. Jack Carroll, representing his father, James Carroll, a resident of the Umatilla area, addressed the Board and discussed a concern he had about the fact that the applicant failed to obtain a building permit and had not filed the necessary plans for the addition.  He stated that, whether the residents of the area supported the request or not was irrelevant.  He questioned whether the area would be changed from residential to commercial/residential and what effect it would have on individuals, with regard to taxes, who live within the community.

Commr. Cadwell interjected that the community’s zoning would stay the same; however, the residence in question would have a Conditional Use Permit attached to it.

Mr. Carroll noted that Ms. Bond was not certified, or licensed, therefore, questioned how she could be allowed to build a beauty salon before becoming certified or licensed to operate it.

Commr. Swartz stated that all the Board was considering was the land use issue, which was a request for a CUP, to allow a beauty salon in the applicant’s home.  He stated that the requirements Ms. Bond would have to meet, with regard to her business and profession, was a different issue.

Ms. Toni Wilder, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board, stating that she was in favor of the request, noting that she felt Ms. Bond would allow the young girls in the community to come to the salon and learn what they would need to do to become a hair stylist.  She stated that she felt it would inspire them to do something with their lives.

Ms. Bertha Carroll, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board, stating that she did not feel it was right for the applicant to be able to expand her home, without a building permit, yet she could not put a new roof on her home, without pulling a permit.  She stated that she was opposed to the request.

Ms. Shawn Donaldson, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board, stating that she understood about rules and regulations, with regard to getting a business started; however, she felt Ms. Bond’s purpose in trying to get her beauty salon up and going was to be a role model for the young people in the community.  She stated that the young people in the community do not have any type of positive role models; therefore, the adults in the community have to help them be productive members of society.

Ms. Cynthia Dukes, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board, stating that she was in favor of the request, even though she was aware of the fact that the applicant started constructing her salon before pulling a permit.

Ms. Gwen Lovett, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board, stating that there are not any businesses in Umatilla that are black owned and she feels the community needs one and will stand behind the applicant in any way she can to help her get her business established.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that this case was a tough one for him, because the applicant is a long time friend of his family and the request has pitted neighbors against neighbors and friends against friends.  He stated that he really tried to make this request work; however, noted that the applicant should not have started the construction process without a permit and the request does not meet parking requirements, setback requirements, commercial locational criteria requirements, or home occupation requirements.  He stated that he felt it was a very noble thing that the applicant was trying to do; however, he could not support the request, for the reasons indicated.

Commr. Swartz stated that the request would create a commercial activity, even though it may be a less intense commercial activity than some of the businesses located on Hwy. 19, and he felt, if the request was a request to rezone to commercial it would probably be inappropriate,  unless the County was going to look at it in a larger context as an area that will begin to commercialize and create a buffer between more intensive commercial and residential; however, he did not believe that that was what was going to happen.

Commr. Good stated that, in this particular case, he was going to vote his heart and not his head, noting that even though the rules make it tough to support home businesses he feels they encourage self-sufficiency and productivity.  He stated that he felt it was sometimes hard to make general rules fit a specific case, therefore, was going to vote in support of the CUP.

Commr. Hanson stated that sometimes the County can have a CUP and limit it to one year and review it in one year, but, in this case, the building would be completed.  She stated that the objections she heard, other than the fact that there is no policy that allows the salon, has been of taxes; however, she did not see the taxes as being an issue.  She stated that the taxes will not go up for a long period of time and will depend on comparables when they do.  She stated that the issue of starting the addition without a permit could be remedied.  She stated that she has a problem when there is a need in a community for some sort of neighborhood commercial activity that the community supports, but the County does not have a policy to allow it.  She stated that she would like to find a way for the Board to allow the request.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was having a problem with the request, as well, because of the character of the community and the lack of any other commercial zoning, except that which is on Hwy. 19.  She questioned what the applicant can do with the slab that has been poured, if the request is not approved.

Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, stated that the Board of Adjustments granted the setback variance based on the use requested; therefore, the applicant would have to take a cement blade to the slab and meet the five foot setback requirement.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request before them.

The Chairman passed the gavel to the Vice-Chairman, Commr. Cadwell, and seconded the motion.

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

Commrs. Good, Gerber, and Hanson voted “No.”

A motion was made by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 3-2 vote, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 1998-82 - Quenell and Mary Bonds, Rezoning Case No. CUP 98/9/1-5, Tracking No. 73-98-CUP, for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), in Urban Residential (R-6), to permit the operation of a beauty salon from a proposed addition of an existing residence.

Commrs. Cadwell and Swartz voted “No.”

PETITION NO. PH 45-98-3 - A TO CFD - JAMES AND CHERYL RAKES

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves approximately 10 acres in the Astatula area, off Ranch Road.  She stated that there is a single family home on the property that is being used as a residential facility for girls only.  She stated that the Ordinance contained in the Board’s backup material limits the facility to 24 girls.  She stated that there is some opposition to the request.  She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.  She submitted, for the record, a picture of the front of the home in question (County Exhibit A); a picture of the side of the home (County Exhibit B); a picture of the back of the home (County Exhibit C); and an aerial (County Exhibit D) of the property in question.

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she had communicated with members of the ranch, although she had never been to the site, however, felt she would be able to make an objective decision regarding the case.

Commr. Swartz interjected that he had been asked for information as to how to review the request by individuals involved in the case and had directed his staff to provide them with information regarding same.

Commr. Swartz stated that a question was raised in the Board’s backup material, with regard to access, and questioned same.

Ms. Farrell stated that access to the home was by way of a 40 foot easement off Ranch Road.  She stated that staff had discussed the issue with Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director, Public Works, and he did not have any issues with said access.

Mr. Griffey addressed the Board, stating that staff received a copy of the deed for the property in question that described the access easement, noting that there is a 30 foot easement to the west and a 40 foot easement to the north, which he pointed out on an aerial of the property.

Ms. Jerri Blair, Attorney, representing the applicant, the Lake County Boys Ranch, addressed the Board stating that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommended approval of the request.  She stated that the applicant feels all the criteria of the Ordinance has been met and that the request for rezoning is appropriate.  She stated that the Lake County Boys Ranch is a non-profit corporation, which is in the arena of child care, and has been for a number of years.  She stated that it was originally started by a group of Lake County people interested in trying to provide housing and facilities for children who were disadvantaged, because their parents had abused, abandoned, or neglected them.  She stated that, originally, it was a ranch facility specifically for boys; however, in 1996, the Florida Legislature enacted a statute that provided for the privatization of foster care services and, in doing so, created the project that now exists at the Boys Ranch, which is a preeminent privatization project that is recognized throughout the United States as one of the best efforts in the process of trying to better the foster care system, by allowing for a public/private partnership.

Ms. Blair stated that the Boys Ranch currently has a number of foster homes throughout the County and the property in question currently has a foster home existing on it that is under the Ordinances and State law.  She stated that it is a residential home and up to six (6) children are allowed to reside there.  She stated that it has been used for said purpose for the past eight months, by the Turning Point Ranch, which is in partnership with the Boys Ranch, to provide services to children in the Lake County area.  She stated that Lake County is desperately in need of a facility that will provide for an all girl residential home, which is what the home is currently being used for and what it is proposed to be used for in the future.  She stated that the Boys Ranch wants to have the property rezoned, so that it can use the property more efficiently and provide more services to more girls at that location.  She stated that the home in question is the only same sex facility in Lake County and there is a desperate need to expand it to house 24 girls.  She stated that the request falls within the scope of parameters laid out that must be considered in determining a rezoning under the Land Development Regulations, but also something that very strongly serves the public interest of this county.  She reviewed and submitted, for the record, eighteen (18) pictures (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the home in question.  She stated that there is very strong public support for the home in the County.  She noted that the home has only four bedrooms; therefore, the majority of girls that can be housed there at the present time will be eight.

Commr. Cadwell questioned what additional structures will be constructed on the property to handle 24 girls should the request be approved.

Ms. Blair stated that, at this point in time, the only thing planned would be an additional residential facility for the girls and a caretaker’s cottage.

Mr. Jeff Heyne, Vice-President of Operations, Lake County Boys Ranch, addressed the Board in response to a question by Commr. Swartz as to what the long-term growth and needs would be for a girls ranch in Lake County.  Mr. Heyne stated that the majority of girls that they work with are housed in foster homes.  He stated that he felt a capacity of 24 girls would last the Boys Ranch for some time.  He stated that, at the present time, approximately 25 children per month enter the Boys Ranch programs who are abused or neglected, with only a small percentage being teenagers.  He stated that the Boys Ranch is currently having a hard time placing teenage girls; therefore, they need a group setting where they can be served more appropriately than in a foster home setting.  He noted that currently, the Boys Ranch in Altoona is serving 24 boys on site; however, Lake County services approximately 600 children total, with approximately 300 of them being served residentially in foster home and group home shelters.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether the Boys Ranch had considered housing less than 24 girls at the home, utilizing the application before the Board this date.

Ms. Blair stated that, if the Board feels the size of the property will not serve 24 girls and is a matter of concern, the Boys Ranch would be willing to service a smaller number of girls.

Ms. Shirley Grantham, a member of the Board of Directors for the Turning Point Ranch and its current Treasurer and Chairman of Fund Raising, addressed the Board stating that the Turning Point Ranch’s Board of Directors consists of a group of working women - very interested, concerned volunteers from all over Lake County.  She stated that their main focus and primary objective is to be able to provide a safe, clean environment for young teenage girls, to be able to thrive and have positive role models in their lives, and to be able to help them with their self-esteem and other very important goals that they need to make in their lives.  She stated that the property in question is very conducive to allow them to do that.  She stated that she is quite impressed with the girls that are currently housed at the home and hopes that the Turning Point Ranch will be the turning point for them.  She stated that the Board of Directors for the Turning Point Ranch have met with a number of the surrounding neighbors, to explain what is occurring at the ranch, and most of them understand and believe in the project.  She stated that the Turning Point Ranch wants to be a good neighbor, making it a very conducive relationship for all concerned.

Mr. Archie Lowry, Attorney, representing several clients in opposition to the request, being Mr. and Mrs. Rick Sines, who have a contract on 10 acres in the vicinity, as well as an option to purchase an additional 10 acres contiguous to the property in question; Ms. Claire Slinker, the owner of the 10 acre parcels alluded to, which Mr. and Mrs. Sines have a contract and option on; and Mr. Paul Faircloth, the owner of a 350 acre parcel, located on the opposite side of the property in question, addressed the Board, stating that neither he nor his clients are against the Lake County Boys Ranch, or the Turning Point Ranch.  He stated that they applaud the merits of what the Boys Ranch is doing in Lake County, they are just opposed to the Astatula location.  He stated that the property in question is rural in nature and the people who live in the area enjoy that type of lifestyle.  He stated that rezoning the property will increase the density and the overall tranquility of the area will not be the same.  He addressed the issue of the easements, at which time he reviewed an aerial indicating same, as well as seven (7) pictures (Opposition’s Exhibit A), which he submitted, for the record,  noting that one of the easements is a non-exclusive easement, for the purpose of ingress and egress.  He stated that it was granted to Mr. and Mrs. Rakes, in a deed, at the time that they purchased their property, so that they could build a residential home on the ten acres.  He stated that the majority of the residents in the area do not want the property in question to be rezoned.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Lowry’s clients had any opposition to the home continuing in its present use.

Mr. Lowry stated that the current use is permissible, under the current zoning.

Ms. Clare Slinker, the owner of the property in question, prior to Mr. and Mrs. Rakes purchasing same, addressed the Board, stating that she had received a letter from a possible client stating that said individual had indicated that, due to the fact that Turning Point Ranch wanted to rezone the property and expand their facility, she was not comfortable with the idea of purchasing a 30 acre parcel from Ms. Slinker, which the residents of Turning Point Ranch would have to drive through, to get to the home.  She stated that she had three children who would soon be in their teens and did not feel that the home would be a positive influence on her children.  She stated that she appreciated what the Boys Ranch has done for its teens, however, did not feel that 10 acres would be enough land to support the difficulties that the Turning Point Ranch would be dealing with and would not be comfortable living next to it.  She stated that she supports homes for troubled teens, but only when they have more land available to them, and feels that the homes should be a little more rural.  She stated that, for said reasons, her client was withdrawing her offer to purchase the 30 acres.

Mr. Hermon Steverson, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, stating that he was concerned about the safety of the girls that will be housed in the home, with regard to the issue of fires, due to the surrounding properties being pasture land that can easily catch on fire.  He played and submitted, for the record, a video (Opposition’s Exhibit B)  that he had made of the easements and property in question, as well as the surrounding properties, off Ranch Road, showing said pasture land.

Mr. Rick Sines, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, stating that he had recently signed a contract to purchase 10 acres from Ms. Slinker and had an option to purchase an additional 10 acres from her, as well, with the intention of utilizing the land to raise horses.  He stated that he did not object to the number of girls currently being housed at the Turning Point Ranch; however, was opposed to 24 girls being housed there, noting that he raises very expensive horses and did not want to have to worry about the girls messing with them.  He stated that he did not understand why a girls facility could not be placed at the Boys Ranch.

Discussion occurred regarding the issue of the easement, at which time Mr. Lowry stated that, when the easement was originally granted, it was granted for agriculture and for a certain use and now that is completely being changed.  He stated that the intent of the grantor, at the time of granting, was to grant an easement to a residential home on ten acres, zoned Agriculture.

Ms. Jerri Blair, Attorney, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Board and addressed concerns that were raised by some of the residents in the area, noting that, with regard to the issue of traffic, the amount of traffic that would be entering the property would be very minimal - two to three cars per day.  She stated that, as far as the issue of fires was concerned, she felt that, due to the fact that a home was constructed on the site, she would assume that there was some sort of fire protection available.  She stated that the residents indicated they were worried that more girls would mean more trouble; however, she feels the opposite would be true, because as a foster home, the Boys Ranch cannot place staff at the home that would be able to supervise the girls.  She stated that, if the request is approved, there will be a lot more supervision than there currently is and it will be a better facility.  She stated that the home will not be used for anything other than what it is currently being used for, the Boys Ranch just wants to be able to place more girls at the home.  She stated that, as far as the easement is concerned, they have tractors that they can utilize to maintain the road, in whatever fashion the residents want it to be maintained.  She stated that they do not need to expand the easement in any way, it is perfectly fine the way it is.  She stated that the home in question is the perfect place for this type of facility.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether it would be possible to construct a more stabilized road to the home from Ranch Road.

Ms. Blair stated that the Boys Ranch would be happy to do so, noting that they would be willing to do whatever the Board, or the neighbors, want them to do, with regard to the road and the maintenance of same.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt 24 girls was probably too high a number, at this point in time, noting that she would rather see the Board limit the number of girls to12 and see how the need goes.  She stated that, if there is a need and there are no concerns, that may be somewhat of a compromise and middle ground.  She stated that she felt the road was going to be a problem; however, it was apparently going to be taken care of.

Commr. Good stated that the public seems to have the perception that teenagers are inclined to mischief; however, he was not sure that that was the case.  He stated that he agreed with Commr. Hanson, in that housing 24 teenage girls at the site would be a lot, as opposed to six, however, felt the site could possibly house eight girls, which would maximize the usage of the existing facility.  He questioned how the opposition would feel about housing an additional two girls at the site and why this request could not have been a CUP rather than a CFD.

Mr. Steverson reappeared before the Board, stating that the residents would not object to housing two additional girls at the facility.

Ms. Farrell addressed Commr. Good’s question, with regard to why the request could not have been for a CUP, rather than a CFD, noting that for more institutional type uses staff tries to stay away from CUPs, because they require annual inspections.

Commr. Good stated that he felt 24 girls would be a big jump, at this time.  He stated that he felt they should go with a smaller increase and allow the surrounding community to see how the home operates with just two more girls.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt eight girls seemed awfully small and questioned whether the home’s garage could be converted into another bedroom, which would allow a total of ten girls.

Ms. Blair stated that she had been informed by the financial officer for the Boys Ranch that they could not justify expanding the facility for just 12 girls.  She stated that it would not be feasible to do so.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board is committed to trying to find ways to help the children in Lake County who need it and is supportive of the Boys Ranch; however, he was concerned about placing 24 girls and a caretaker so far away from the County’s fire rescue service.  He stated that he felt some property could be located along an arterial, or collector road, closer to what are now going to be paid fire stations, where there will be around-the-clock fire service.  He stated that he had the same concerns that the residents had.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would support 12 girls, but no more than 12.

A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny Rezoning Case No. PH 45-98-3, Lake County Boys Ranch/James and Cheryl Rakes, Tracking No. 69-98-CFD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction and operation of a girls ranch.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would not support the motion because she felt they could arrive at a middle ground.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the motion be amended, to deny without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to come back with an alternative proposal, should they choose to do so.

Commr. Good amended his motion, to deny the request without prejudice.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the amendment.

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

Commr. Hanson voted “No.”

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 1:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

REZONING (CONT’D.)

PETITION NO. PH43-98-4 - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 77-89/ MP WITH LM USES - CATHERINE HANSON/BONNIE ROOF

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she was the owner of the property in question, therefore, would be declaring a Conflict of Interest and would not participate in the vote.  She submitted, for the record, a Conflict of Interest form.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant/representative was Ms. Bonnie Roof.  She stated that this particular piece of property was rezoned in 1989 for mini-storage/warehouse type MP uses, with LM light uses; however, the applicant was back before the Board to amend the Ordinance, to allow for the collection and distribution of used oil.  She stated that she called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), regarding this request, and they did not have any issues with it being located in the Wekiva River Protection Area.  She submitted, for the record, a letter (County Exhibit A) that the County had received from DEP, regarding the matter.  She stated that the company the applicant was representing had a similar operation in Seminole County and that DEP had not had any problems with the company.  She stated that there was one letter of support, containing seven signatures, in the Board’s backup material.  She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Bonnie Roof, Applicant/Representative, addressed the Board, stating that she had obtained some pictures (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the applicant’s facility in Seminole County, as the Board had requested at a previous meeting, which she reviewed with the Board and submitted, for the record.  She stated that the pictures show the types of trucks and tanks that are used in the operation.  She stated that the refined oil is taken off the site and delivered to whomever is purchasing it.  She stated that the facility that is being proposed for Lake County would be very similar, although not as large.  She submitted, for the record, a proposed site plan (Applicant’s Exhibit B), however, noted that it would probably change, according to what water retention needs would be met.  She stated that the tanks would be housed in buildings on the site.  She stated that Long Acres Road is a paved, county maintained road, on the east side of the property.  She stated that there will be four trucks per day, making two trips each, for a total of eight trips per day to and from the site.  She stated that there is a ten foot buffer on the north side of the property, where it is contiguous with a residential community, consisting of whatever fencing and vegetation is required and that as many trees as possible will be left on the site.

Commr. Swartz suggested that language be inserted in the Ordinance requiring all the tanks to be enclosed within a building, with landscaping and buffering, noting that it was a concern he had.

Ms. Roof stated that the owner of the property, Commr. Hanson, did not want to give up the existing uses on the property (mini-storage/warehouses).  She stated that the intent of the request was to add the proposed use to existing uses on the property.

Commr. Swartz stated that the land uses listed under the Ordinance did not include that fact; therefore, it needed to be included and shown as one or the other, not both.

Mr. William Patterson, Owner/Operator of Oils Unlimited, Inc., addressed the Board, stating that he owns and operates three such facilities in three states.  He allayed concerns that the Board had regarding what provisions would be made for spill containment, should it occur, stating that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has stringent requirements on containment, inspections, and conformance to their regulations; therefore, every humanly possible effort to contain the oils has been exerted, both by the State and by his company.  He further elaborated on the matter.

Ms. Farrell stated that there needed to be a few changes to the language, noting that, under Land Use, it should state, “Use of the site shall be for the MP zoning district, for the collection and distribution of used oil, or mini-storage/warehouses.”  She stated that Item D. covers some of the concerns, with regard to state permits, local permits, and any other government entities involved, and noted that language should be added to Item A., or an additional letter should be added, requiring inside storage of the tanks and a requirement that a 20 foot landscape buffer be installed along the north property line.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved  Ordinance No. 1998-83 - Catherine Hanson/Bonnie Roof, Representative, Rezoning Case No. PH 43-98-4, Tracking No. 74-98-MP/AMD, amending Ordinance No. 77-89, MP with LM (Light Industrial) uses, to use the site for collection and distribution of used oil.

Commr. Hanson had declared a Conflict of Interest, therefore, did not vote.

PETITION NO. CUP 475-3 - COUNTY INITIATED REVOCATION OF CUP 475-3 - JOHNNY AND DARCH BREWER AND JO CARTER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that, in April of 1998, staff presented this parcel with a request to add a number of mobile homes to an existing Conditional Use Permit, which was denied.  She stated that the request was then taken back to the Planning and Zoning Commission on two separate occasions, requesting revocation of a CUP.  She stated that, in 1975, 3.3 acres of the property in question was sold to one owner and 6.8 acres to another, which started the problems that exist today.  She stated that there are four mobile homes on one site and three on the other, which is in violation of the CUP.  She stated that Code Enforcement got involved in the case in September of 1997 and, in April of 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial.  She stated that the case then came before the Board, at which time they recommended denial.  She stated that the case was again before the Board and staff was requesting a revocation of the original CUP that provided for agricultural housing on a ten acre parcel in the Lake Jem area.

Commr. Swartz questioned the fact that, if the revocation was approved, whether the two parcels - one consisting of 3.3 acres and the other consisting of 6.8 acres, would be allowed one dwelling unit each.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff would like to take the applicants back through the process, to try to help them recognize the two different parcels.  She stated that they might have to take the matter before the Board of Adjustments, noting that there are some other issues that will need to be looked at, to try to make them legal, so that they can get at least one dwelling unit per parcel.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that both lots were created before 1982; therefore, felt that they would qualify as a Lots of Record.

Ms. Farrell stated that she did not think they would qualify as same, however, noted that staff would work with the applicants, to try to get them at least one single family dwelling unit  per parcel.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Johnny Brewer, one of the applicants, addressed the Board, stating that this case just keeps getting worse and worse, therefore, was not opposed to the revocation.

Ms. Jo Carter, another one of the applicants, addressed the Board, stating that, since Mr. Brewer had no objection to the revocation, questioned why she could not have the three mobile homes that she and Mr. Brewer were originally told they could have on their property on her property.  She stated that the original CUP stated that the applicants could have three mobile homes on their property.  She stated that Mr. Brewer did not care about the revocation, because he was getting his part of the property bulldozed for a housing project.

Commr. Swartz stated that what Ms. Carter would be allowed to have on the property would depend on whether or not it would qualify as a Lots of Record.

Ms. Carter stated that the County inspectors inspected her property each year and told her that everything was alright; therefore, she did not feel that it was fair to her that all of a sudden she was told that she could no longer have the mobile homes on the property.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission  and approved Ordinance No. 1998-84 - Johnny and Darch Brewer\Jo Carter, Rezoning Case No. CUP 475-3, Tracking No. 76-98-CUP/Revocation, for a county-initiated revocation of CUP 475-3, for violation of terms and conditional uses.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/COURTS-JUDGES

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request by the County Attorney for approval and execution of an agreement between Lake County and Jodi Anderson, for the legal representation of indigents in the adjudication of incompetency cases.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4

COMMITTEES

Commr. Hanson stated that she had been questioned about whether the Coleman Prison gave funds to the County’s Cultural Affairs Council, so that they could select a person to serve on said Council, and she wanted to clarify the fact that no county dollars were used for such purpose.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER SWARTZ - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Commissioner Richard Swartz, Jr. to the Lake Community Action Agency Board of Directors.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER SWARTZ - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3

COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he had thanked staff for their participation in the State of the County Address that was held on Thursday, October 22, 1998, however, wanted to thank all the Commissioners for their participation, as well.  He stated that he felt it went very smoothly and was a very nice event.

Commr. Hanson interjected that she felt the Historical Courthouse was a very nice location to hold it.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

PRESENTATION - CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION NO. 7

COURTS-JUDGES/LAWS AND LEGISLATION

Commr. Cadwell stated that, while the Board and the Florida Association of Counties has supported Constitutional Revision No. 7, he hoped the general public would understand that it was a long process getting it to the point where it presently is.  He stated that the reason the Board campaigned so aggressively to get it passed was that they felt they had exhausted all other measures.  He stated that the County cannot continue to pay court costs out of people’s property taxes.

At this time, a video was shown explaining Constitutional Revision No. 7, for informational purposes.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.

 

 

____________________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK