A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 24, 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; Rhonda H. Gerber; Catherine C. Hanson; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, 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, requested that Item No. I. A., under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, on Addendum No. 1, a request from Public Works for acceptance of the final plat for Harbor Hills Phase 3 subdivision; approval and execution of a Developer’s Agreement between Lake County and Harbor Hills Development, L.P., for construction of improvements; and acceptance of a Letter of Credit, for performance, in the amount of $386,000.00, be pulled from the Agenda.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 27, 1998 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 3, 1998 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/FUNDS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Economic Development for approval of the Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund Award for Electric Specialty, in an amount not to exceed $187,500.00.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS
VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 879 - PHILIP AND MADELINE KUHARSKE - GROVELAND
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval of Petition No. 879, by Philip and Madeline Kuharske, to vacate a right-of-way, Groveland Farms, Sec. 16, Twp. 23S, Rge. 24E, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2. He reviewed an aerial of the property in question, indicating the right-of-way being requested to be vacated. He stated that there was legal access to the south, through Groveland Farms, and that nobody was being landlocked.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant or 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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1998-181 - Road Vacation Petition No. 879, by Philip and Madeline Kuharske, to vacate right-of-way, Groveland Farms, Sec. 16, Twp. 23S, Rge. 24E, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC WORKS
RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS AND EASEMENTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to advertise Vacation Petition No. 881, by Janet Ledford, to vacate easement (Paradise Way), Sec. 22, Twp. 18S, Rge. 27E, Eustis area - Commissioner District 4. He stated that staff was opposed to the request, because of some issues that have not been worked out among the residents in the area, at which time he submitted, for the record, a letter from Mr. Everett Bailey, an adjoining property owner, in opposition to the request. He stated that, if the residents could get everything worked out and satisfy some concerns that the Growth Management Department has (meeting requirements of Chapter 14 of the County’s Land Development Regulations), with regard to the request, staff would have no problem with approving it.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Mr. Stivender answered questions from the Board regarding same.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval to advertise Vacation Petition No. 881, by Janet Ledford, to vacate easement (Paradise Way), Sec. 22, Twp. 18S, Rge. 27E, Eustis area - Commissioner District 4.
REZONING
PETITION NO. CUP98/11/3-2 - CUP IN A - SHERRY J. TURNER
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP, involving a five acre tract in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, for care of the infirm. She stated that it was a Lot of Record and that there was a letter of no objection on file from the Department of Community Affairs, Area of Critical State Concern Office. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and that it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a 10-0 vote. She stated that 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. Pool, 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. 1998-92 - Sherry J. Turner, Rezoning Case No. CUP98/11/3-2, Tracking No. 82-98-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home on the site, for use as a caretaker’s residence for the infirm.
PETITION NO. CUP98/11/2-3 - CUP IN HM - MARTIN J. SCHEVELING AND DANNY HALL/LAKE WAREHOUSE
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in HM (Heavy Industrial) and involved a little over five acres on Old Hwy. 441, in an employment center land use. She stated that it was a request for a CUP, to convert an existing office into a caretaker’s residence. She stated that staff was recommending approval, noting that it was consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it, by a 10-0 vote.
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 upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1998-93 - Martin J. Scheveling and Danny Hall/Lake Warehouse, Rezoning Case No. CUP98/11/2-3, Tracking No. 81-98-CUP, a request for CUP in HM (Heavy Industrial), to allow for an existing structure to be used as a caretaker’s residence, for security purposes.
PETITION NO. CUP 98/11/1-4 - CUP IN A - FLORIDA TWIN MARKETS
BOB JOHNSON, NEXTEL SOUTH CORPORATION
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for Bob Johnson, Nextel South Corporation, for a 180 foot monopole telecommunications tower. She stated that it involved a 45 acre parcel in the urban expansion land use category. She stated that staff found the request to be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, as well as met the guidelines of the County’s Tower Ordinance, therefore, were recommending approval. She stated that there was a lot of discussion and debate at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, however, noted that the request was approved. She stated that there was one letter of opposition on file. She stated that staff found the location being requested to be the best one on the site, in meeting the current Code.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rob Rosen, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and reviewed a plat of the property in question (Renninger property), pointing out the lease portion of the property (50 by 50 foot parcel), stating that an existing monopole tower located on the site is over 1,700 feet away, to the south of the proposed site. He stated that the tower being requested, unlike the existing monopole tower, will accommodate up to four additional users, therefore, could be used by the County, for co-location. He stated that the applicant concurs with the Staff Report and their findings, noting that staff has found the request to be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and with the requirements of the Zoning Code and the County’s Tower Ordinance. He stated that, for said reasons, the applicant feels he is entitled to the permit. He stated that the site is shielded by trees and is an ideal location for a tower, in accordance with the standards that the County has set forth in its Tower Ordinance. He requested approval of the request.
Mr. Ronald Stephens, a resident of Mt. Dora, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he owns and has owned for over 35 years property adjacent to the Florida Twin Market site. He stated that he had written a letter of opposition to the Board, regarding the existing tower; however, it was approved and constructed. He stated that he had written a letter of opposition, regarding the proposed tower, suggesting that it be moved to a more central part of the Florida Twin Market property, noting that, even though he feels a second tower should not be constructed on the site, it would make it a little more palatable.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with moving the tower to a more central part of the property. She stated that Renninger’s Antique Center usually operates only during the weekend, therefore, is not occupied most of the time. She stated that she would like to see the Board consider a site between the two markets, if that is possible. She stated that the tower could even be located closer to Hwy. 441.
Mr. Jerry Dillard, a local resident, addressed the Board, stating that he owns 20 acres north of the proposed tower site and was objecting to the request, noting that he hopes to develop his property some day and does not want a tower located near it. He stated that there is plenty of room to move the tower south of the proposed site.
Mr. Donald Stephens, the brother of Ronald Stephens and co-owner of the property his brother alluded to, addressed the Board, stating that he drives out of his driveway every morning looking at the existing tower. He stated that Mt. Dora does not need another tower in that location. He submitted, for the record, a petition (Opposition’s Exhibit A) containing the signatures of approximately 30 property owners in Orangewood Subdivision, located north of the site in question, in opposition to the request, due to the fact that they feel the tower will decrease their property values.
Mr. Rosen, Attorney, readdressed the Board, stating that the request meets all the County’s requirements, noting that the site was selected in conjunction with staff, to meet all the requirements of the County’s Tower Ordinance, its Zoning Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, requested approval of same.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was another parcel on the property that would also meet the requirements.
It was noted that the entire parcel was advertised, therefore, if this case was postponed until a later date, to allow the applicant the opportunity to come back before the Board with a lease for another parcel of the property, after it has been worked out with staff, it could legally be done.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff worked very hard for several months trying to put together a tower ordinance that they felt would protect landowners and residents from what many see as something they would prefer not to have located next to them. He stated that they set standards, but they also included language to deal with more general compatibility. He questioned whether the Board had the flexibility to insist on a different site, even though the request meets the minimum standards, if there was another location on the site that they felt was more compatible and would also meet the minimum standards.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that they did, however, suggested that they postpone action regarding this case and allow staff to look at the rest of the property, to see if it is possible to go in that direction.
Mr. Rosen, Attorney, informed the Board that he had just been advised by the applicant that the landlord, in the negotiations, stated that the tower would have to be located on the site in question. He stated that the landlord would not be willing to move the tower to a different site on the property.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Minkoff stated that it would be permissible for the Board to postpone action regarding this request for 30 days and ask staff to evaluate the site and see if any other locations would meet the criteria of the Ordinance.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to postpone action regarding Rezoning Case No. CUP98/11/1-4, Florida Twin Markets/Bob Johnson, Nextel South Corporation, Tracking No. 80-98-CUP, until December 15, 1998, and ask staff and the applicant to evaluate the total property, to see if there is another site that will serve the purpose as well as the site in question.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool questioned whether the County should look at strengthening its Tower Ordinance, noting that there are people who are truly opposed to towers, for any reason, and that maybe a strengthened Tower Ordinance might help the situation.
Commr. Gerber questioned whether it would be appropriate for the County, during this process, to find out if there has been any communication by the applicant, with regard to co-locating on the existing tower. She suggested that the County obtain, in writing, a statement from the applicant, indicating that they are not able to co-locate on said tower.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board’s backup information indicates that additional users cannot co-locate on the existing tower. He stated that he was going to support the motion to postpone this request and let staff and the applicant try to find another site. He stated that, if the location of the towers is going to be a sensitive issue with the Board, then there may need to be a modification of the Tower Ordinance, to state that towers will be located on parcels as centrally as they can be, not near property lines. He called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
It was noted that the case would be heard December 15, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
PETITION NO. PH 46-98-2 - C-1 AND C-P TO RV - ARMANDO ALONSO, TRUSTEE/RICHEY AND CRAWFORD, P.A.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board, stating that this request involved a 27 acre parcel of property located in the south Lake County area, zoned C-1 and C-P; however, the request was to rezone it to RV for an RV park. She stated that it is located in the urban land use category, with a regional commercial overlay, has central water and sewer, and meets commercial locational criteria. She stated that the request created a debate among staff, as to whether they should look at it as a commercial use, or a residential use - they decided to look at it as both and presented three scenarios (contained in the Staff Report), for the Board’s review. She noted that there is evidence to support both arguments. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a 9-1 vote. She stated that the request was subject to a full developmental review for open space, landscaping, wetland setbacks, etc. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Richey and Crawford, representing the applicant, Armando Alonso, County Line RV, addressed the Board, stating that the applicant agreed with the Staff Report. He stated that, after 90 days of analysis and postponements, staff found the request to be consistent with both the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the fact that the parcel is completely surrounded by RV parks, 10 acres of the property is already zoned C-1, and the other 17 acres is zoned C-P, for a mobile home park. He stated that there will only be one curb-cut on Hwy. 27, which he feels will help cut down on the traffic flow. He stated that the applicant is also going to do his best to save the scrub oak trees that are located on the parcel that is zoned C-1, because people love to camp among trees. He stated that the applicant feels the use being requested will allow something more environmentally compatible than if the parcel was sold as a commercial property.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 1998-94 - Armando Alonso, Trustee/ Richey & Crawford, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH46-98-2, Tracking No. 71-98-RV, a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and CP (Planned Commercial) to RV (Recreational Vehicle Park), for an RV park.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about the non-conditional zoning, noting that he did not believe staff could absolutely limit the curb-cuts to one, if the applicant meets the County’s Access Management Ordinance, although he feels limiting it to one access point is probably the best. He questioned whether the County could do anything about it.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County could place it in the Ordinance as a condition and, at the time of review, staff would see it and attempt to enforce it.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt it was important to do so, to avoid a number of curb-cuts, therefore, suggested that the motion be amended, to include said fact.
Commr. Pool amended his motion, to include as part of the zoning approval, that only one ingress/egress entrance be allowed.
Commr. Cadwell seconded the amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
The Chairman then called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.
PETITION NO. CUP98/8/1-2 - RELOCATE AN EXISTING WATER SKI SCHOOL - ANDY AND JONI HANSEN
The Chairman requested the applicant’s representative, Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, and Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing some individuals in opposition to the request, to address the Board, with regard to this case, due to the fact that there was some confusion as to whether the case would be heard this date, or postponed until a later date.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, informed the Board that the applicant was requesting to have the case heard this date.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board stating that he was representing Mr. W. C. Davis and Mr. Terry McEwen, who are adjacent property owners to the property in question. He stated that he had recently had a conversation with Ms. Campione, where they discussed his client, Mr. McEwen, providing a lease to the existing ski school, which is located on Moon Lake, and that, if a lease was found to be acceptable, it was his understanding that this case was going to be withdrawn. He stated that he had a lease delivered to Ms. Campione’s office the day prior to this meeting, which he felt met the terms and conditions that his client and the applicant had agreed to; however, the applicant advised him this date that the lease was not acceptable. He stated that the applicant informed him that, although he was not in a position to accept the lease, he wanted to proceed with the CUP.
Mr. Richey stated that he felt the Board needed to know, as it considered the CUP for a new ski school, what would happen with the old ski school, with regard to the lease and whether or not it would continue, therefore, felt the case should be postponed until December 15, 1998, to allow all parties involved to try to reach some sort of agreement. He stated that he felt it was in the best interest of both the property owners around the new lake and his clients, who own property on both lakes, to try to resolve the issue. He stated that he was prepared to proceed with the case; however, felt it was in the Board’s best interest to know all the information and that he felt, by December 15, 1998, his clients and the applicant could have an answer for the Board.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, addressed the Board stating that the applicant was not in support of the postponement. She stated that, as Mr. Richey indicated, she received the proposed lease the day prior to this meeting; however, the terms of the lease were not acceptable.
The Chairman questioned whether the Board wanted to hear the case this date, or postpone it until December 15, 1998.
Commr. Pool stated that he felt Mr. Richey made a valid point, in that the Board needs to be very cautious with how the old ski school will be dealt with.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the request before them this date would not have an impact at all on the existing CUP; therefore, it would legally continue in force, as it is currently written.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board, in response to a question by the Chairman as to what would happen to the first CUP, if the Board granted a second CUP. He stated that his clients own the property that is subject to the CUP; therefore, they would continue it in operation and try to find another user, if the Board decided that the area in question was going to be set aside for ski schools.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the current CUP has not been advertised, therefore, could not be revoked this date. However, due to the fact that it could be enforced, there could be two legally approved CUPs for this case.
Mr. Andy Hansen, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he would like to have the case heard this date.
The Chairman questioned whether there was a motion to postpone the case until December 15, 1998.
There was no motion to postpone; therefore, the Chairman noted that the case would be heard.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a 47 acre site that is zoned R-2 (Estate Residential), of which 37 acres is a lake. She stated that, according to the Water Authority, the lake is a small one and staff felt the request was a commercial endeavor that they did not feel was appropriate for such a small lake and parcel of land. She stated that the frontage on the lake that the applicant actually owns is minimal, so staff had some issues with that. She stated that staff found the request not to be consistent with the Lake County Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, because of it being of a commercial nature and they felt that it would also have an undo effect on nearby property owners. She stated that there were some letters of opposition on file, of which copies were provided in the Board’s backup material. She stated that access to the site was also a concern, although there was some discussion about a secondary access. She stated that the Public Services Department noted some concerns about the request, with regard to turn lanes and additional development, which she noted lends to the argument that it is too commercial for such a rural area, on such a small parcel. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the CUP, by a 7-3 vote. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes reflect that the denial was for relocating an existing water ski school, however, the issue for staff was whether or not the location was a good one for a ski school, whether the school is a new one, or one that has been around for years. She stated that staff was recommending denial, because they felt there were enough issues involved with the case that they did not feel it was appropriate to recommend approval.
It was noted that the lake in question was being used by the applicants, for their ski school, without permission.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, reappeared before the Board and addressed the concerns that were raised regarding the current ski school that is located at Moon Lake. She stated that the ski school has been in operation for 25 years, noting that it was initially started by Ms. Liz Allen, it then became the Benzel Ski School, and now the Hansen family has been operating it for approximately six years. She stated that the owners of ABC Fruit Company owned all the property around Moon Lake, as well as the lake in question, and had a lease with the various ski schools through the years, including the applicants, that allowed them to operate the ski school off the Moon Lake property. She stated that he also permitted them to use Little Lake Blackwelder. She reviewed an aerial on display, indicating where the applicants reside, noting that they would be agreeable to including said site in the legal description of the CUP and providing access directly off Orange Avenue, which would eliminate the concern regarding the easement.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that it would require a postponement of the request, to do what Ms. Campione was proposing.
Ms. Campione stated that there was discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding the issues of noise and pollution, which seemed to be key factors in the Staff Report, as well, as being negative impacts on the lake, however, the applicants had evidence to present to the Board showing that the ski school operation would not have a negative impact on the area. She stated that the applicants had prepared a presentation, to present to the Board, to give them an idea of exactly what type of operation the ski school is, the professionalism that is involved, and the fact that this operation is a good steward for Lake County and that water skiing and water sports is a big part of Lake County. She stated that the applicants would like to propose that the CUP be given a time frame, for review, in the event that circumstances around the lake change, with regard to the fact that the applicants are only one property owner, out of four, on the lake at the present time. She stated that the applicants were asking that the school, itself, be allowed to remain, noting that they need a home base - a place to operate from and to house their students.
Mr. Andy Hansen, Applicant, addressed the Board and gave a presentation regarding this request, which included a promotional video (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the ski school operation; a map (Applicant’s Exhibit B) showing where the applicant’s home is located on the lake in question (Little Lake Blackwelder); water test results (Applicant’s Exhibit C) from the lake, showing the clarity of the lake, which it was noted was well within the safety standards guidelines; a video testimony (Applicant’s Exhibit D) of Mr. Franklin Reeves, his next door neighbor and President of the Villa City Homeowners Association (who could not be present at this meeting), in favor of the request; and the submission of various letters, supporting his request for approval. He stated that he has operated a ski school on the leased property for 25 years, which he noted will expire in January of 1999.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing several individuals in opposition to the request, objected to Mr. Reeves’ video testimony, noting that he would not have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Reeves, due to him not being present at this meeting.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the Board could allow cross-examination, if someone has standing to do it. He noted, however, that the rules of evidence in zoning cases are not formal rules of evidence; therefore, the testimony would have to be considered as hearsay. He stated that the Board could accept it, if they wished, and give it whatever weight it deemed necessary.
Mr. Hansen, Applicant, continued with his presentation, at which time he submitted, for the record, two letters (Applicant’s Exhibit E) from residents of Moon Lake, indicating that they do not object to the ski school. He stated that Little Lake Blackwelder is a lake that he has used for the skiing school for the past 25 years, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He stated that a baseline study was done on the fish in Green Valley Lake, by the Iowa Conservation Commission in 1971 and, shortly thereafter, a water skiing zone was designated on the lake. He stated that the fish population was then checked again and the results indicated no adverse effect on the fish from water skiing activities. He stated that the report states that the practice of water skiing on a lake has no adverse impact on its fish.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, objected to the report, noting that it was hearsay. He also objected to Mr. Hansen testifying from the report, noting that he had not qualified himself as an expert, to testify to the conclusions of the report.
Mr. Mike Holt, a barefoot water skier who lives on Lake Arthur, a nearby lake, addressed the Board, stating that he did not feel the water quality of the lake would be impacted at all from the water skiing activities and that, with regard to the issue of noise, he felt it would depend on the number of boats on the lake at one time and the time of day.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, questioned Mr. Holt about the size of Lake Arthur (approximately 155 acres) and clarified the fact that the testimony he gave about the water quality of the lake was a lay opinion, as he was not an expert on the matter.
Mr. Hansen, Applicant, submitted, for the record, a letter from Mr. Lee Brown (Applicant’s Exhibit F), stating that he has resided on Lake Arthur for 12 years and is in favor of the request, noting that he has not seen any adverse effect from the ski school operating on Little Lake Blackwelder. He then submitted three additional letters (Applicant’s Exhibit G), for the record, from Mr. Sean McFadden, Mr. Dwain Miller, and Mr. Ernest King, neighbors of his who are within the 500 foot guideline for receiving notification of the request to relocate, indicating that they are supportive of the ski school operation. He noted that Mr. King was originally opposed to the ski school, however, has since changed his mind, after hearing all the facts involved with the ski school.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, asked the Board to accept the statement made by Mr. Hansen that Mr. King was originally opposed to the ski school, however, has since changed his mind after hearing all the facts of the case as hearsay, noting that, in Mr. King’s letter it indicates that he discussed the matter with Mr. Hansen and he did not know what Mr. Hansen advised Mr. King about the request.
Mr. Hansen continued his presentation, at which time he reviewed a map pointing out where the ski school is currently located and where he hopes to relocate it, which he noted is in close proximity to the site for the proposed Fairgrounds. He addressed the issue of additional traffic, noting that the only traffic will be a van that is used to transport students attending his school to and from the airport. He stated that, with regard to the issue of a reduction in property values, he could testify that there are lots on ski lakes that are selling for large amounts of money, much more than the average price per acre.
Ms. Joni Hansen, one of the applicants and wife of Andy Hansen, addressed the Board, stating that part of her job is greeting the students as they arrive and noted that what they like about the Hansen Ski School is the fact that the lakes they train on are calm, beautiful, and pristine lakes. She stated that she and her husband feel very fortunate to be able to utilize the lakes in the area and noted that they will continue to only utilize them when there are no other boats on the lakes. She pointed out the fact that, when there are other boats on the lakes, it interferes with their skiing school.
Mr. Hansen submitted, for the record, 14 letters (Applicant’s Exhibit H) from vendors in the area, supportive of his ski school operation; a letter of support from his father (Applicant’s Exhibit I), who lives on Wonder Lake, in Illinois, stating that, as water skiing became popular on the lake a ski club formed and, in 1997, Wonder Lake boasted the National Water Ski Show Team Championship; a letter from Mr. Steve McDermeit, Executive Director, American Water Ski Association (Applicant’s Exhibit J), in support of the request, stating that he represents 33,000 members of the American Water Ski Association who would be present at this meeting, in support of the Hansen Ski School, which they consider to be a world renowned operation, if they were able to attend. He stated that he and his personnel have always been friendly and easy to work with, noting that when another party wishes to use any lake that they are utilizing, they are always amiable and work it out with said parties, to use the waterways professionally and with a high level of quality. He thanked the Board for allowing him to give his presentation.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, questioned Mr. Hansen about the issues of traffic; how many students on average, per week, would be utilizing his facility; the fact that he operates out of three lakes, at the present time, with only one boat operating in each lake; the fact that the CUP he is currently using is for Moon Lake, he is applying for another CUP for Little Lake Blackwelder, and utilizes another lake, Lake David, which is a public lake (has arrangement with the City of Clermont to utilize said lake); the fact that he has not used Lake Arthur for approximately two years; the fact that, with regard to the letters he obtained from the residents of Moon Lake, in support of his operation, were not told that he was being evicted from the Moon Lake facility; the fact that it had been stated that all the property owners on Moon Lake were in support of his operation, when, in fact, it should have been stated that all the people who live on the lake were in support of the operation, not necessarily all the property owners; the fact that a maximum of only 16 people could live on the site in question at one time, since it only has one septic tank and one well; and the fact that there is no permitted boat ramp located on the lake in question.
Mr. Richey stated that he represented Mr. and Mrs. Terry McEwen and Mr. W. C. Davis, who between the two, own 80% of the shoreline of the lake in question. He stated that they have concerns about the utilization of the lake for the intensive commercial use that is being proposed. He stated that it is difficult to tie down what that intensity is, because there is no provision in the CUP that states that the business cannot grow - it does not give a ceiling which the applicants cannot go beyond. He stated that the most telling thing about the request, as testified to this date, is the fact that the applicants do not put more than one boat on the lake in question at one time, because it is not big enough, and that is his clients’ point. He stated that it does substantial harm to his clients’ rights, noting that they cannot fish or enjoy recreational boating on a lake that they own 80% of, because someone has a commercial ski school operating on it.
Mr. W. C. Davis, the owner of approximately 50 acres on the lake in question and one of the owners of 80% of the shoreline addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was opposed to the ski school using the lake, because he cannot use it when they are using it. He stated that he has grandchildren and feels they would be in jeopardy, if they tried to use the lake at the same time that the skiers are using it. He stated that the Hansens have been trespassing on his property and using the lake for years, which he has tolerated, however, feels it is time for it to stop.
It was noted that Mr. Davis had never notified the County that he objected to the Hansens using the lake, or filed any questions, with regard to their CUP.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, questioned Mr. Davis, with regard to a statement that he had made that he tried to launch his boat in the lake, however, chose not to, due to the fact that the ski school was using it at the time. She questioned him regarding the fact that neither he nor his grandchildren, whose safety he is concerned about, live on the lake, they live in Ocoee.
Ms. Rita Stokes, the owner of 16 acres on Lake Morgan, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, noting that she feels properties in the area will be devalued, if this request is permitted. She stated that she had seen the Hansen’s ski school facility on Moon Lake and feels it is unsightly. She stated that studies have been done, which show that vegetation is damaged; erosion of the shoreline occurs, due to the wave action of the boats; the noise is detrimental to the wildlife; and she feels damage occurs to the lake, as a result of the petroleum emitted from the boats. She was then questioned by Mr. Richey regarding the fact that she is the former President of the Villa City Homeowners Association and the fact that it is her belief that the use being discussed, which occurs next to her property, is not compatible for her future use.
Ms. Campione clarified the fact that Ms. Stokes does not live on the lake in question and the fact that the amount of lake frontage she owns is 440 feet.
Mr. Richey requested the Board to look at various letters from individuals who presented testimony to the Planning and Zoning Commission, contained in their backup material, particularly the letter from a gentleman who discussed damage that has occurred to Lake Arthur from skiing activities.
Ms. Campione objected to Mr. Richey’s comments, noting that she felt some of the comments made in said letters were either misstatements or mischaracterizations.
Mr. Richey then gave his closing comments, noting that, if the Board looked at the Staff Report and the criteria for CUPs, it is his position that, based on the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the use being requested, for the site in question, is not appropriate. He stated that there is no limitation in the CUP, for the number of people that can live on the site, in an area that is Suburban. He stated that some of the request can meet timeliness, some of it is preplatted, which is vested and may or may not have to aggregate, depending on what has been done; however, the bottom line is that this request causes an undue adversity to his clients, who own 80% of the lake. He stated that it is a commercial operation and the scope and magnitude of it is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is inconsistent with the residents’ rights. He stated that the owners of the majority of the lake cannot use it, which is a major deal. He stated that it does not matter if they only use it once a month, or once a week, because they own 80% of it and should have the right to use it, without having to ask permission to do so of someone who only owns a small portion of it. He stated that it is not to the scope and magnitude of a sand mine, but is just as adverse as if one were putting a sand mine in the area to those individuals who own the other portions of the lake - his clients.
Mr. Jim Warner, the owner of seven acres on Lake Arthur, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was concerned that this sort of activity might start to migrate over to Lake Arthur. He stated that he liked to canoe, fish, wind surf, etc., and felt that, if water skiers were utilizing the lake, that is about all that could occur on the lake. He stated that he was also concerned about the structures that will be built on the property in question, noting that there are four or five new homes on Lake Emma that abut the one access point on Lake Arthur, and he does not feel that said structures would be compatible with same, or help those homeowners with their property values or quality of life. He stated that he and his wife both objected to having the ski school relocate to the area in question.
Ms. Debbie Zebrowsky, a resident of Lake Arthur, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she and her husband share the same sentiments that were expressed by Mr. Warner. She stated that they are worried about the overflow, as well, noting that they do not want to see it come to Lake Arthur. She addressed the issue of traffic, noting her concern about the water skiers using Orange Avenue, which is a clay road that gets very messy, when it rains. She stated that she feels there are enough commercial ventures on Lake Arthur, at the present time, and does not feel any additional ventures should be allowed.
Ms. Tanya Wagner, a local environmentalist, addressed the Board, in favor of the request. She discussed the water quality of the lake and the impact that it is felt the boats will have on it. She stated that she felt the orange groves in the area probably had quite an impact on the water quality of the lake, noting that she lives on Lake Minnehaha, in Clermont, and has to have her well water tested, because of the chemicals that have been emitted into the lake from the orange groves. She stated that it would probably be a good thing to have some water activity on the lake in question, since it is such a quiet lake, because it aerates the water and keeps it oxygenated. She further stated that she felt the Hansens had the right to operate their ski school on Little Lake Blackwelder, because they live on it.
Mr. Dan Stewart, Director of Human Resources for World Entertainment Services, addressed the Board, in favor of the request. He stated that he was not representing World Entertainment Services at this meeting, however, wanted to inform the Board that he hires over 120 water skiers per year, for shows such as the Sea World water ski shows. He stated that he is asked by many, many people who want to get into a professional water skiing environment where they can go to learn water skiing skills and, out of the 75 water skiing schools he is aware of, he refers them to only one place - the Hansen Skiing Center. He stated that they carry a lot of credibility in the industry and he feels they also carry a lot of credibility for Groveland.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, readdressed the Board and gave her closing remarks, stating that, unlike the situation on Lake Arthur, at the present time, there are not any residential structures on Little Lake Blackwelder, other than a small caretaker’s cottage that Mr. McEwen owns. She stated that staff checked the legal description and found that it includes the nine acres where the house is located and she would like to have it included in the overall acreage, to add to the amount of lake frontage that the Hansens own. She disagreed with Mr. Richey’s argument that his clients, who own 80% of Little Lake Blackwelder, should control use of the lake, noting that her clients should have the same rights as Mr. Richey’s clients. She stated that she feels the Board needs to look at the current situation, as opposed to what the situation is going to be in the future. She stated that the applicants propose that the CUP be structured in such a way that, if the situation changes, they could come back before the Board, for review, and that, if there are complaints or problems on the lake, the Board could review them, as well.
Ms. Campione stated that the applicants were also asking that the units they are requesting approval for, to house students, serve as their office, etc., be allowed to be located on the site in question. She stated that, if the Hansens cannot utilize the lake in the future, they would have to find another location to ski. She requested the Board to allow them to use Little Lake Blackwelder as their home base, while the situation continues as it is this date. She discussed the issue of aeration of the water, discussed by Ms. Wagner, noting that it was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and found to be something that does help the water quality of lakes. She stated that the lake has been consistently used by the Hansens for a number of years and the water quality has been found to be exceptional. She stated that the hours of operation for the school would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and that, if there were other users on the lake, the Hansens would not use it. She stated that the primary purpose for the CUP was the land and structures - a home base for the ski school. She stated that, with regard to the comment that was made about Lake Arthur possibly receiving overflow from the other lakes, there was no intention to do so and that a stipulation to that fact being placed in the CUP would be agreeable to the applicants.
It was noted that there would be no skiing in Lake Arthur by the Hansen Ski School in the future, even though they had used the lake for said purpose in the past.
Commr. Pool clarified the fact that the key issue of this hearing was whether or not the Board was going to allow the Hansens to relocate their facilities from Lake Moon to Little Lake Blackwelder, noting that they have been using the lake for their ski school for 25 years. He stated that since the Hansens own property on the lake, he feels they could continue to use the lake as they have for the past 25 years; however, the key issue to the land use is whether or not the Hansens are going to be allowed to build a school on the site.
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the County had ever placed a limitation on an actual CUP, as it pertains to a specific time frame.
Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, stated that the County has not, since she has worked for the County, although she noted that the County does do annual inspections.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not think anybody was questioning the fact that water skiing is a great hobby and a respectable business. He stated that the question is the land use, the amount of structures, the operation, and the amount of activity on the lake. He stated that he has not been able to come to a comfort level with the request, noting that he did not feel the site in question was the place for a prosperous school. He further stated that he disagreed with the statement that was made that boat activity on the lake would be good for it, noting that aeration is one thing, but there is no way to keep oil and other emissions from the boats going into the lake.
Commr. Pool stated that the fact the school has been utilizing the lake in question is not the issue. He stated that the key issue is whether the land use is compatible with what the Board feels the future should be for the area in question. He stated that he did not feel it would be a good investment on the part of the Hansens, to build their school on the site, if surrounding property owners wanted to develop their property, noting that, in as little as one to two years, the Hansen Ski School could be in competition with other users of the lake. He stated that he commended the Hansens for what they are doing and for what they have brought to Lake County and would like to think that there was a site for them; however, he was having a hard time with the request, because he did not feel it was consistent with what the County is trying to do in the area. He stated that he felt, even if the request was denied, if the Hansens have been using the lake for 25 years, they should be able to continue to do so.
Commr. Swartz stated that there was a distinct difference between using the lake for personal use, as opposed to using it for commercial use. He stated that there were two different issues, one being the land use and the other being the use of the lake. He asked the County Attorney to comment on the matter.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would assume, if a complaint was filed with Code Enforcement that there was a commercial ski school operating on a lake and there was no CUP for use of that lake, that Code Enforcement would attempt to stop it.
Commr. Gerber stated that she did not know how the County could have an industrial park less than a half mile away, with a lake that the County is allowing boat motors to be tested in, yet will tell the Hansens that they cannot have a ski school. She stated that she understood staff’s reluctance, because of the amount of lake frontage that is owned by the other property owners; however, she did not know where the Hansens were going to be able to find a lake, in Lake County, that has only one resident on the lake. She stated that she disagreed with the statement made in the Staff Report, under Staff’s Findings, that the CUP would have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties. She stated that she feels the request would have less of an undue effect than what the tower would have in the case the Board heard earlier this date. She stated that she also disagreed with staff’s statement that the CUP is not compatible with the existing or planned character of the area, noting that she did not know how it could not be as compatible as an industrial park is right next door to the Hansen’s property, so she was having a problem with staff’s recommendation and would probably vote to support the request.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had some of the same concerns, however, could not support it without a cap on the number of students allowed at one time, nor could she support it without a time limitation on the actual use of the lake as part of the school. She stated that she would support it only if the additional nine acres where the house is located was included in the CUP, increasing the Hansen’s frontage on the lake, and if they had access by way of Orange Avenue. She stated that it was never clear as to why an agreement was not reached on the current site. She stated that all the Board knows is that it did not happen and that may have been a good reason for postponing action on the request, to allow the applicants the opportunity to try to work out any problems involving that agreement.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was having trouble understanding why the commercial use would be allowed under the existing CUP, but not allowed under the new CUP, because they are not that dissimilar. He stated that he was also having trouble with some of the comments made in the Staff Report, noting that he did not believe staff was suggesting that the request was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, he just felt they were struggling with some of the same issues that the Board was struggling with. He questioned what policies staff was relying on, noting that, from a developmental review process, he could see where staff might decide that the request was not appropriate; however, he could not share, from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, staff’s recommendation.
Ms. Farrell stated that, for one thing, staff was relying on commercial locational criteria.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had always been a champion of commercial locational criteria, but noted that, if the County is going to have ski schools in rural areas, they would probably never meet commercial locational criteria. He stated that he was struggling with the timeliness issue, as well.
Commr. Hanson stated that the main thing this request points out is the need for commercial recreational criteria. She stated that the Board has discussed it for years, however, has never taken action on it.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the structures and the use of the CUP for the non-water related activities went away at the same time, he could probably support the request; however, he could not support it when the water activity becomes unreasonable and the land use based activities are left in place.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not see it as an intensive commercial use, she saw it as a school and schools could be placed anywhere in the County. She stated that she felt the facilities were a different issue and could probably be used for other things, but that was an economic issue.
Commr. Pool stated that he did not have a problem with the ski school, or with the applicants utilizing the lake, because they own a big portion of it; however, he felt that, if they were going to build several structures on the property, that was a whole different scenario, from his perspective. He stated that he felt the applicants were going to find that, as the other properties develop, they were going to be back before the Board saying that their request was approved and they now have a huge investment, but do not have access to the lake. He stated that he felt the issue of timeliness was very important.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, stated that she felt the best way to protect the investment was to build the structure similar to a single family residence, so that the applicants would have the potential, at the time that the uses change, to market the property as a single family residence.
Commr. Hanson stated that she thought that would make more sense.
Commr. Pool questioned whether the applicants could build a single family home, without the County’s permission, because of the amount of acreage they own.
Ms. Campione stated that they could, but noted that they would need a permit for the ski school.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not feel the Board could assume that the property was a buildable lot for a house. He stated that it would require a zoning clearance.
Commr. Pool questioned how Mr. Richey’s clients felt about the fact that the applicants had stated that their goal was to utilize the lake as best they could and that they realized they may not be able to utilize it in three to five years, as other developments come in.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the other property owners on the lake, readdressed the Board, stating that, if, in fact, a CUP were approved for what appeared to be a residential use, or would be a residential use at some future date, compatible with the other residential uses in the area, it would diminish his clients’ opposition substantially.
Commr. Cadwell questioned what the Board would use as a gauge, to determine whether or not the request was compatible.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board would need to make it clear that approval of the CUP would be contingent upon adjacent land uses and that the operation of the ski school and the land use would be at the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he felt the only way the Board could achieve that would be to put an expiration date in the CUP.
Commr. Pool stated that he felt the best thing to do would be to postpone action regarding this case until December 1, 1998, and have the applicants come back with a new proposal, consisting of one structure, understanding that it could have a time limit, so that, if the Board wanted to take a look at it in three to five years, they could do so.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to postpone action regarding this case until December 1, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, and to refashion the land use to be that of a single family dwelling, with a time frame of three to five years for the CUP to expire, after staff has verified the ability for a single family dwelling to be constructed on the site, and with access to the site coming off Orange Avenue.
Commr. Cadwell voted “No.”
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:30 p.m.
SIGN ORDINANCE WORKSHOP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/SIGNS/ZONING
The Chairman reconvened the meeting, noting that this portion of the meeting would be a workshop where the Board would discuss some of the aspects of the draft Sign Ordinance that was before them. He suggested that the Board review the ordinance, page by page, and obtain input from staff, as well as any individuals present in the audience who felt a particular issue should be brought to the Board’s attention. He stated that, from the beginning, the Board talked about separating this ordinance into two areas, because there are two areas of signage, being the on-site signs and the off-site, or billboard, signs. He stated that it was the Board’s intention to move forward with the on-site signs a little faster than the off-site signs. He noted that the ordinance presently states that the County will ban off-site, or billboard, signs.
A slide presentation was given to the Board showing various types of signs in Lake County, as well as some adjacent counties.
Discussion occurred regarding the best way to handle the issue of on-site and off-site signs, or billboards, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that it could take the Board some time to deal with the issue of off-site signs and his fear is that, during that period of time, additional billboards may go up and make their job more difficult. He stated that he would prefer putting into place a moratorium on billboards, until such time as the Board can consider the issue in a reasonably rash way, so that they do not have to worry about new ones going up, while they discuss it.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed that the signs should be addressed as two separate issues, however, questioned the moratorium, even though she did not have a better solution at this time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the only way he would support a moratorium would be if the Board could agree on a deadline and stick to it, so that the issue is not dragged out for a long period of time. He stated that he felt 60 to 90 days should be the maximum time allowed to draft an ordinance regarding off-site signs.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would not want to go any longer than 90 days.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would take some limited comments on the issue of a moratorium, with the understanding that, if the Board took that action, it would have to be advertised and go through two public hearings.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board, stating that there is not a proliferation of billboards going up in Lake County, in fact, statistics from the Department of Transportation show that there has been a decrease in billboards in the County since 1991, from 655 down to 334 - a 24.8% reduction. He stated that there was no compelling reason for placing a moratorium on billboards.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, addressed the Board, stating that she was representing a number of clients. She stated that there is no compelling reason for the Board to place a moratorium on billboards. She questioned where the imminent threat, danger, or proliferation was, with regard to billboard signs. She stated that she had met with 14 or 15 various representatives and not one of them had a permit pending. She stated that she had a problem, from a legal standpoint, as well as from a practical standpoint, as to why the Board would be so willing to take on what she feels is a very egregious and very, very significant measure without a cause for it.
Mr. John Pringle, Pringle Development, addressed the Board, stating that the Board was proposing to exercise police power, to protect the public’s health, safety, and general welfare; however, he did not feel the Board had established that need. He stated that on the first page of the proposed ordinance it states that the County identified a need to provide aesthetic standards regarding signage and questioned when and how the County did it. He questioned whether a public hearing had been held and whether there was a vote of the Board, or did the County just put said language in the ordinance and claim it to be fact.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it was the decision of the Board, when they decided to have a workshop on the issue and change the ordinance that the County has.
Commr. Swartz requested Mr. Pringle to keep his remarks to the issue of whether or not the Board should consider separating the issues of off-site signs from on-site signs and whether or not the Board should consider a moratorium on off-site signs, while they finalize whatever they may do with on-site signs and work toward an off-site sign ordinance.
Mr. Pringle stated that he would support separating the issues of on-site signs from off-site signs, however, would oppose a moratorium.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was not sure the County needed a moratorium, if they could have something developed in 60 to 90 days.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt it was important for the Board to be able to deal with the issue of billboard signs and not be confronted with the prospect of additional billboards going up while they deal with it.
Mr. Alton Roane, Director of Development Services, City of Eustis, addressed the Board, stating that billboards on state and county roads around the City of Eustis have been an ongoing concern and problem for the City, particularly when they are located on county properties that get annexed into the City. He stated that the City of Eustis does not allow billboards; therefore, they require that they be removed from properties that get annexed into the City. He encouraged the Board to not allow any additional proliferation, if possible, while they are considering this issue.
Mr. Pat Smallwood, Smallwood Sign Company, addressed the Board, stating that he agreed with the separation of the two ordinances, but felt a moratorium would be rather draconian. He further stated that he did not feel 60 days was enough time to work on such a complex issue.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was in favor of a moratorium and having it end on January 31, 1999.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the County should use January 31, 1999 as a drop-dead date to be through with the off-site sign ordinance and not worry about the moratorium issue. He stated that the Board will know what it has at that point in time and can move forward from there.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Pool that the Board separate the issues of on-site and off-site signs and give themselves a January 31, 1999 deadline date to have an off-site sign ordinance drafted and ready for advertising.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz clarified the fact that, during that time frame, the County would operate under the existing sign ordinance, with regard to off-site signs.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would not be voting in favor of the motion. She stated that she was in favor of splitting the two issues, but felt that the County needed a moratorium.
Commr. Swartz stated that he also felt the County would be better off if it enacted a moratorium to deal with the issue of off-site signs, without being concerned about additional billboards going up while they are dealing with it.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted “No”.
Commr. Swartz noted that the language banning billboards would be deleted from the proposed ordinance.
The Board reviewed the proposed ordinance, page by page, at which time they accepted input from staff and those individuals present in the audience.
Page 1:
No changes.
Page 2:
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, addressed the Board, regarding the language contained in Section 11.00.00 - Purpose, stating that she found nothing, in terms of documentation or statement of need, to support said language. She stated that, even though the ordinance states that signs are regulated to encourage a visually pleasing environment, in order to attract residential construction, tourist activity, and business and industrial development, what it is doing, in effect, is negating many of those sectors of the economy.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that the issue of pedestrian and traffic safety was left out of Section 11.00.00 - Purpose and needed to be added.
Ms. Eloise Fisher, a local resident, addressed the Board, stating that she noticed a lack of concern with regard to the issue of beautification and would like to see something included in the ordinance that would encourage aesthetic improvement of signs.
It was noted that the issue of beautification of signs was addressed on Page 8 of the ordinance, as well as addressed in the Code.
Page 3:
Ms. Aileen Reilly, Attorney, Livingston & Reilly, addressed the Board and questioned lines 43 and 44, which state that Lake County shall be empowered to remove, or cause to be removed, at the owner’s expense, all prohibited signs. She stated that most of the signs, it appears, are primarily on federal highways and she wanted to bring to the Board’s attention the fact that, for removal, the owners would have to be compensated, under federal and state law.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested that lines 43 and 44 be removed from this page, noting that enforcement of the Code would be through the regular Code Enforcement process.
Mr. Howard Barry, a local resident, addressed the Board, regarding the issue of illumination of signs, noting that the source of illumination should not be visible across property lines.
It was noted that said issue was addressed on Page 8, Paragraph I - Sign Illumination.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Richey and Crawford, addressed the Board, stating that the ordinance states that roof signs are prohibited. He stated that there are a lot of old roof signs that work their way into the character of an area and he was not sure that the County should make them nonconforming, just because they would not want to have such a sign put in place today.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt that was a good point and directed staff to research how the County deals with historically significant signs that may fit in with the character of an area, as opposed to not fitting in.
It was noted that, with regard to roof signs, the signage that is on awnings would not be dictated by this ordinance, it would be a separate issue.
Mr. Smallwood readdressed the Board and questioned the intent of the ordinance, with regard to Item No. 5, on Page 3, which states, “Any series of two or more signs placed in a line parallel to a right-of-way that conveys a single cumulative message.” He questioned whether it was meant to pertain to signs that are parallel to each other, or perpendicular to each other, noting that, if it means signs that are parallel to each other, the language is not correct.
Commr. Swartz directed that said language be checked, to make sure that it states what the County intends for it to state.
Mr. Doug Waldrup, AAA Signs, addressed the Board and questioned Item No. 9, on Page 3, which states that portable signs, except agricultural signs, would be prohibited. He questioned why farmers and other people in agriculture should be allowed to advertise their products, when the small businessman will no longer be allowed to do it. He stated that he felt Item No. 9 should be deleted.
Ms. Farrell stated that an agricultural sign would be a temporary sign, related to bona fide agricultural activities being performed on the property, not to exceed 32 square feet. She stated that only one sign per street frontage will be allowed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt additional language should be added to Item No. 9, clarifying the fact that the signs would be limited to sales of agricultural products produced on the property.
Page 4:
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, referred to Item No. 14 and stated that he felt Adopt-A-Park; Adopt-A-Shoreline; and Adopt-A-Roadway signs were government signs that would already be exempt. He questioned that fact.
It was noted that Mr. Crawford was correct and that said language would be deleted from this portion of the ordinance.
Mr. Crawford then referred to Item No. 12, which states that bench signs in commercial and industrial zones would be exempt, noting that such type benches are usually within the right-of-way, therefore, he did not know what zoning it would be measured against.
Commr. Swartz directed staff to review said language, noting that, if they are located in the right-of-way, they would have had to have some sort of governmental review.
Commr. Hanson brought up the issue of bus stop shelter signs and questioned whether there was a provision in the ordinance for same.
Ms. Farrell stated that they were not listed in the ordinance as being prohibited.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt they should fall under Exempt Signs, because they provide a public service.
Mr. Richey interjected that there is an agreement with the Lake County School Board, the County itself, and some of the cities in the County, with regard to said signage.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff obtain a copy of said agreement, for the Board to review.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board Item No. 8, which addresses the issue of political signs. He stated that political signs cannot be treated any differently than any other type of temporary sign. He noted that his office would provide a recommendation to the Board, regarding same.
Mr. Brad Craven, Signs and Winners, Inc., addressed the Board, stating that he was representing a lot of people in his type of work and wanted to state, for the record, that they do not hate political signs. He stated that he has made a living for ten years painting such signs.
Page 5:
Mr. Richey, Attorney, readdressed the Board, with regard to Item No. 16, which addresses holiday, seasonal, or commemorative decorations, noting that one of the ways the County gets to enjoy some of its nice signs and decorations during the holidays is from businesses that are allowed to place their logo on them, which allows for them to be underwritten. He stated that he felt it was a needless limitation on said types of signs.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, readdressed the Board, stating that he felt there should be a provision for some flexibility in the ordinance, noting that all types of signs may not be addressed in the ordinance - there could be some situations that were not thought of at the time that the ordinance was being drafted.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, readdressed the Board and referred to Item No. 20, which deals with the issue of signs, in conjunction with an approved temporary right-of-way utilization permit, or a temporary 30-day vendor license, noting that, apparently, comments from Public Works are still pending and she assumed they would be forthcoming. She stated that, given the way the Board is approaching this issue, she assumed that, under Section 11.05.00 - Permitted Signs (Matrix), the County was going to delete the reference to off premise signs.
Commr. Swartz stated that they would not be doing that, because there is a provision in the ordinance that provides for small directional, or informational, off-premise signs.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, under Sections 11.06.00 - Administration, and 11.07.00 - Permitting Procedures, it looked like the County was expanding its review for signs. She stated that it appears one will now have to go through some kind of administrative review, where staff will give one an indication as to what they can and cannot do. She stated that the other issue is the separate treatment that the County has given PUDs, noting that the ordinance contains language that tries to address the fact that PUDs may be multi-use, so there may be different categories and classifications of signage, because there may be residential and commercial and/or industrial in one. She stated, however, that when one looks at said language, it does not talk about different zoning districts, it states, on Page 12, under Section 11.13.01 - Signs Within Planned Unit Developments, that PUDs have the same standards found within this Code for the zoning district that the development images and she did not know what that meant.
It was noted that the intent of said language was for staff to be able to identify signage during site plan review.
Ms. Bonifay stated that said language is not clear and requested that it be clarified.
Ms. Reilly readdressed the Board and referred to Page 5, under 11.07.00 - Permitting Procedures, stating that, since this ordinance did not contemplate billboards, questioned whether said section of the ordinance would relate to billboards, if they were ultimately allowed.
Commr. Swartz stated that it would not. He stated that it would pertain to on-site signs. He stated that, if any reference was made that would apply to billboards, it would have to be modified.
Ms. Reilly questioned how the County was going to deal with the billboard section, noting that she was aware that the Board was just dealing with on-premise signs, but questioned how they were going to start dealing with off-premise signs.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not know exactly how it was going to be handled, however, noted that the Board would soon be holding a retreat and he felt they would probably give staff some direction on preparing ideas for them to look at, with regard to off-site signage.
Page 6:
It was noted that Item No. 3, which states that signs located adjacent to a principal arterial, state road, or state highway without written approval from the State Department of Transportation would not be permitted, should be deleted.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board, stating that there was not a definition in the ordinance, under Planned Unit Development Signs, which is contained in the last phrase of Paragraph 1, on Page 5, and continues on to Page 6.
It was noted that said paragraph should state “signs in Planned Unit Developments”, rather than “Planned Unit Development Signs”, due to the fact that there is going to be separate sign criteria for PUDs, which has not yet been defined.
Mr. George Karst, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board and referred to Section 11.08.00 - Freestanding Signs to be Ground Signs, stating that it states, “Ground signs shall be designed in such a way that all means of support are concealed.” and questioned the purpose of same. He stated that, if the sign’s support is aesthetic and pleasing, what would be the point of concealing it again.
Commr. Swartz stated that the intent of said statement is to conceal holes, if, in fact, the base of the sign is a monument of some type comprised of brick, wood, or stucco.
Mr. Karst questioned why the Board was revamping its Sign Ordinance, noting that he felt the County was going to run into a lot of problems, with regard to it.
Commr. Swartz stated that the reason the Board was doing so was because Lake County has been both blessed and cursed, when it comes to signs, noting that it has some extremely attractive, well landscaped, well designed signs and, on the other hand, it has some of the most obnoxious signs that are not pleasing and do not help Lake County describe itself as a place to come visit and live. He stated that it was an attempt to try to provide signage in Lake County that would do what signage is intended to do, which is to help people in business advise the traveling public that they exist and what types of services they may be able to provide, but to do so in a more uniform manner that is more attractive than the clutter that is currently in Lake County, from one end of the County to the other.
Commr. Gerber stated that it was highly prioritized in the Lake County Tomorrow visioning process, by almost every group that met regarding same.
Mr. Karst questioned whether it would be possible to see where people have protested about the clutter - how it was identified, what sort of public outcry there was, etc.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board does not always respond to just public outcry, noting that it is a representative form of government, where the Board members talk to people and understand what their concerns are and bring them forward, as representatives of the people.
Mr. Karst stated that, as the owner of some commercial property in Lake County, he was very concerned about the sign ordinance, noting that he saw it as taking away his ability to make effective use of the properties that he has acquired that have zoning that allows commercial ventures and allows on-site signage.
Mr. Dan Hayes, Mid-Florida Signs, addressed the Board and referred to Paragraph 2, on Page 6, which addresses the need for one to obtain a building permit to erect, alter, repair, or relocate any sign that is not exempted by this code. He stated that it is fairly easy to obtain a permit in Lake County, due to the fact that the process has been simplified, and questioned whether it would be kept on existing signs. He stated that said paragraph was not very clear on that issue.
Commr. Swartz stated that there are two different types of signs, those where buildings currently exist and those where site plans are on the ground, of which a sign review and permitting process will be required, which is very similar to what the County has at the present time.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, readdressed the Board and referred to Section 11.08.00 - Freestanding Signs to be Ground Signs, noting that, although it contains only two sentences, it speaks volumes. She questioned where the support was for the philosophy that all freestanding signs are going to have to be ground signs.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board should be careful not to restrict or limit creativity to just ground signs.
Page 7:
Mr. Karst readdressed the Board stating that the only problem he saw with Page 7 was the 8 foot height requirement for ground signs, noting that the language states that the height of any ground sign shall be measured from the finished grade level to the top of the sign face. He stated that there are rolling hills and valleys in Lake County and some of the commercial development goes into those shallow areas, therefore, he feels the County will be harming businesses, if they do not allow some flexibility in the height of the signs. He stated that he felt it should be measured from the crown of the road, not from the finished grade of the lot itself. He stated that he was concerned about the safety issue involved with signage that is only visible upon immediately arriving at a particular property, noting that, if the sign cannot be seen from a certain distance, one would not have ample time to break, change lanes, and turn on one’s turn signal.
Discussion occurred as to what the height should be for on-site signs, with regard to its square footage.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there is no set rule regarding same. He stated that it is keyed to the amount of frontage that a business has on a highway.
Mr. Hayes stated that he felt, with speeds and traffic flow as they are in the County, the height should be in the 30 foot range and the square footage in the 150 foot range.
Mr. Bruce Washburn, L. R. Media, addressed the Board, stating that any time an ordinance is drafted, one of its major concerns is the safety of the general public. He stated that he felt, on Hwy. 27 especially, because there are some extremely wide medians and right-of-ways, a 65 mph speed limit, and sometimes four and six lanes of traffic, 60 square feet would not be appropriate. He stated that he felt signs on such roads should be at least 25 feet in height.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, readdressed the Board and referred to Paragraph A, under Section 11.10.01 - Ground Signs, stating that PUD uses are not addressed under this section. He stated that he felt the County should figure out some way to either add the issue of PUDs under said section, or figure out a better way to address it.
Commr. Swartz stated that the intent of said language is that PUDs do not derive any special consideration - it may have signage that is related to commercial and residential; however, it would come under those provisions.
Mr. Richey stated that he felt the Board should probably come up with some criteria for dealing with speed, in relation to the size and height of signs, because it would involve a safety factor on major highways.
Commr. Swartz suggested that anybody who had comments, regarding any issues discussed this date, should submit them to the Board Office, for review.
Mr. Smallwood readdressed the Board and questioned why the setback requirement under Paragraph E, Item No. 2, was doubled, noting that it used to be five feet - now it is 10.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff brought the setback requirements a little closer to the right-of-way and a little further away from the side and rear property lines.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt staff should look at the issue of two frontages, noting that he was not sure the setback for a side frontage should be more than what a setback would be for a primary frontage.
Page 8:
Discussion occurred regarding Options A and B, on this page, at which time it was noted that they were part of the definition and not options to be considered.
Mr. Smallwood readdressed the Board and questioned the issue of time and temperature signs.
It was noted that they would come under the provisions of whatever else was allowed and were not specifically addressed in the ordinance.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board and staff needed to consider whether or not said issue needed to be addressed.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board stating that she would provide the Board with some square footage, with regard to commercial center identification signs. She stated that she was confused about the fact that, under Section 11.10.01, on Page 7, it states that ground signs shall be utilized in Residential Professional, Community Facility, and Commercial and Industrial zoning districts and there are a number of requirements, or criteria, in terms of the square footage, height, and setbacks; however, under Section 11.10.04, on this page, it deals with commercial center identification signs and has different types of square footage and setbacks. She questioned what type of commercial business in Lake County would not fall under Section 11.10.04, since it has commercial locational criteria.
Commr. Swartz stated that Section 11.10.04 was designed for those shopping centers that have multiple users, as opposed to a single user on a single parcel, which he noted would fall under Section 11.10.01, on Page 7.
It was noted that this issue needed clarification and that staff was aware of the fact that language regarding the issue of square footage for ground signs, with regard to one-sided versus two-sided, was not currently contained within the ordinance. It was further noted that language would be inserted that clarifies that a double-faced sign counts only for the square footage of the one side.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff had also discussed taking out the titles “Community Activity”, in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 on this page, under Item No. C, and just putting the ranges of the square footage, because between the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) and other changes, “gross leasable areas” could change. She noted that it would simply read “centers.”
Commr. Swartz stated that one additional thing he felt should be addressed was under Item No. 3, where it states 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, noting that he felt it should probably just state “up to 10,000 square feet”, because one could have a 4,500 square foot center, with multiple users, and still fall under that provision.
It was noted that all the language contained under Section 11.10.04 pertains to a commercial shopping center, with multiple users; however, it is not contained under the definitions; therefore, it needed to either be defined, or clarified, on both Page 8 and Page 6, where it addresses ground signs.
Mr. Hayes readdressed the Board and questioned Section 11.10.04, Paragraph B, noting that it states, “One additional ground sign, not to exceed sixteen square feet, may be permitted for the major tenant, provided there is a minimum six hundred foot separation between signs.” He stated that he felt it needed to be clarified as to how the major tenant would be identified and whether or not only one tenant would have to sign the lease.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, readdressed the Board and referred to Paragraph 2, under Item No. G - Design, stating that it states the architectural style of a sign needs to be similar to that of the principal building. He stated that he did not know of anywhere else in the Land Development Regulations where the County blatantly regulates the way something needs to look. He stated that this ordinance is an infringement on private property rights, which makes him nervous and he feels caution needs to be exercised. He further commented on Item H- Sign Landscaping, which states that a landscape planting area shall be provided around the base of any ground sign a minimum of 100 square feet in size. He stated that, on small parcels, that could be a chunk of land. He stated that he felt the size of the landscape planting should be reduced, in some instances.
Ms. Farrell interjected that it would be on the site plan and would become part of the landscaping requirements.
Mr. Crawford suggested that a clause that states that fact be added to said paragraph.
Page 9:
Ms. Farrell addressed Item E. - Setbacks, Paragraph 2, which states that the minimum setback from a right-of-way line shall be 15 feet. She stated that the thought behind that was that, if smaller ground signs are at five feet, there might not be as big a visual problem with the larger ones, if a center came before an individual site. She stated that it could be reduced to 10 feet, if need be.
Mr. Karst readdressed the Board, stating that he had a problem with the language contained in Section 11.10.05 - Directory Signs for Industrial Parks, which states that complexes under 100,000 square feet shall be permitted up to 48 square feet, noting that that is smaller than what is allowed for an individual business. He stated that Paragraph 2 states that complexes of 100,000 square feet or more are allowed up to 64 square feet and he did not understand the rationale behind that.
It was noted that that was in addition to the ground sign and the wall sign - the complex would get additional signage for the directory.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff needed to clarify that the directory sign is in addition to the signage allowed under ground signs and appropriate wall signs.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and referred to Paragraph B. 2., under Section 11.10.05, which states that complexes of 100,000 square feet or more shall be permitted up to 64 square feet. She questioned whether the County considered its signage to be exempt, as a government sign, or whether it would also have to come into compliance.
Commr. Swartz stated that he believed the County should follow the same rules that it would suggest for any other commercial user. He clarified the fact that the numbers indicated under Section 11.10.05, Paragraph B.1.2., only apply for the additional directory sign. He stated that, if a complex started out with only one building at 50,000 square feet, they may have a certain size directory at 48 square feet, however, as the complex acquired more buildings and went over 100,000 square feet, it would be allowed the larger amount of square footage.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff may have to reword the language pertaining to same, noting that, rather than it reading “complexes”, perhaps it should read “plats” or “designs.”
Commr. Swartz stated that some industrial complexes may want to design their sign according to what they know is going to happen, based on the plat, as opposed to piecemeal.
Page 10:
Commr. Swartz stated that it needed to be clarified, under Section 11.11.02 - Shopping Center Wall Signs, that the wall sign square footage is in addition to the sign area allowed for ground signs. He further stated that, under Section 11.11.02, Paragraph B., the 200 square feet alluded to is the total that one would get, noting that one would get 150 square feet, plus 50 additional square feet, for a total of 200 square feet.
Ms. Farrell interjected that staff needed to clarify said language.
Mr. Hayes readdressed the Board and questioned the language contained in Section 11.11.02, Paragraph B, which states that individual businesses in a shopping center with multiple frontage may be permitted an additional sign area of one square foot for each linear foot of building frontage. He questioned how tenants inside a mall would be handled.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County would not be regulating signs inside malls.
Page 11:
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt Section 11.11.05 - Automobile Service Stations should be deleted from the ordinance, noting that he did not feel automobile service stations needed an extra16 square feet in the areas used for displaying gasoline prices.
It was the consensus of the Board to delete said section from the ordinance.
Commr. Swartz referred to Section 11.11.06 - Awning Signs and clarified the fact that the square footage of an awning sign would count against the square footage of the wall sign. He stated that one could have both; however, the total wall sign square footage would include any awning that the company may have.
Mr. Greg Clark, Cecil Clark Chevrolet, addressed the Board, with regard to Section 11.11.09 - Flag Poles, stating that the flagpole at his business, which flies the American flag, is 100 feet in height and questioned whether he was going to have to take it down, due to the fact that it is over the 50 foot height limitation.
It was noted that, if the height limitation was adopted at 50 feet, then his flagpole would be non-conforming; however, the Board was not yet sure how they were going to deal with non-conforming flag poles.
Ms. Farrell interjected that the County would not regulate the flag, just the flagpole itself.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, readdressed the Board, stating that the County exempts the regulation of flags, but controls them by controlling the height of the flag pole, which does indirectly what the Board did not do directly. He stated that there are a lot of structures in the County that exceed the current height requirement set by the County, such as stacks on grain elevators, stacks on waste recovery energy facilities, water towers, etc.; therefore, he did not think there was any compelling reason not to allow somebody to place the American flag on a flag pole of 100 feet or more, if that were the case. He requested the Board to consider same.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County may relate it to the size of the parcel.
Mr. Richey stated that he found it interesting that the County would not regulate the flag, but would regulate the flag pole. He questioned the fact that, if the flag is not a sign, why would the County want to mess around with the flag pole.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the County had two options, either exempt them altogether, or do something in relation to the size of the parcel. He requested staff to check into the matter.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, readdressed the Board stating that he would like to differ with the Chairman, with regard to service station signs, noting that he feels they are different. He pointed out the fact that, in Section 11.11.07 - Theater Signs, and in Section 11.11.08 - Seawall Signs, the County addresses two other kinds of signs that are different and exempted out.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board would take the matter under advisement. He further stated that staff needed to clarify the language regarding theater signs, because it is not clear where the additional sign allowed for theaters can be located - on the wall, or as an additional ground sign.
Ms. Farrell stated that it would be up to the theater where they placed the additional sign.
Page 12:
Commr. Swartz stated that the County would be doing something with Section 11.13.01 - Signs Within Planned Unit Developments, noting that he was not sure why there was anything in the ordinance related to it, because it would fall under whatever provisions of commercial and residential signage would otherwise be allowed.
Ms. Farrell stated that there did not have to be any reference to it, in fact, felt that it might be a lot clearer not to have any reference to it.
It was noted that Section 11.13.01 - Signs Within Planned Unit Developments would be deleted from the ordinance.
Page 13:
It was noted that Section 11.13.03 - Flag Poles, which requires that a flag pole in a residential zoning district not exceed 40 feet in height, would be deleted from the ordinance and that Section 11.13.04 - Nonresidential Uses clarifies what signage one would be allowed as an inn, or a home.
Page 14:
Mr. Smallwood readdressed the Board and referred to Section 11.14.01 - Temporary Signs in Commercial and Office Districts, Paragraph C., stating that there were some inconsistencies, with regard to the setback requirement. He stated that it is five feet in some areas and ten, fifteen, or twenty feet in other areas.
Commr. Swartz directed staff to try to make the setback requirements consistent, with regard to temporary signs.
Ms. Farrell stated that, with regard to temporary signs, it was more of a safety issue, noting that, if someone were putting up temporary signs, they might not pick the best spot to put them in.
Commr. Swart stated that he felt said issue might need to be readdressed.
Page 12 (cont’d.):
Mr. Smallwood readdressed the Board and referred back to Section 11.12.02 - Off Site Directional Signs, Paragraph D., on Page 12 of the ordinance, noting that it states an off site directional sign shall be located within 1,320 feet of the subject property advertised, which would mean that the sign would not have to be on his property, he could put it on someone else’s property.
It was noted that staff needed to readdress said language.
Page 14 (cont’d.):
Mr. Hayes readdressed the Board and referred back to Section 11.14.00 - Temporary On-Site Signs, Paragraph B., which states that temporary signs may not be permanently attached to the ground, a building, or other structure. He stated that signs have to be attached to something; therefore, he did not understand said language and felt that it needed to be clarified.
It was noted that staff would do so.
Page 15:
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, referred to Section 11.14.04 - Political Signs, Paragraph D., which states that political signs shall be removed within 10 days after the election event, or after the campaign issue has been decided. He stated that he felt the County was going to have to treat political signs as temporary signs; therefore, his office would have some suggested changes for the Board’s review, with regard to said language.
At this time, the Chairman announced that this meeting would be adjourned and that another workshop would be scheduled for December 1, 1998, at 1:00 p.m., for the purpose of continuing the review of the proposed Sign Ordinance, and that it is the intention of the Board to conclude discussion and review of the ordinance at the end of said meeting, with the hope of presenting it for advertising.
Commr. Pool stated that he felt there were probably some very good ordinances in some of the surrounding counties that the Board could massage a little and come up with something that they could live with, therefore, would like to see staff compile a list of three or four of them, for the Board’s review. He stated that he felt the Board was going to spend a lot of time in meetings, trying to reinvent this ordinance, when they may not need to.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
__________________________________
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK