A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 24, 1999

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 24, 1999, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Robert A. Pool. Commr. Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman, was not present due to another commitment. 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, informed the Board that there was a published Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda and noted that she would also like to add to the Agenda, as a discussion item under her County Manager's Business, the Lake Griffin Restoration Task Force.

Commr. Cadwell stated that that discussion may require a vote, therefore, suggested that it be placed on the Agenda at the time that the County Manager's Business is addressed.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

Growth Management

Request from Growth Management for approval of a temporary non-conforming use to utilize a motor home on the construction site for Marc T. Matthews.



Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for authorization to accept the final plat for Weston Hills Subdivision, Phase II; accept a Performance Bond, in the amount of $226,245.00; and execute a Developer's Agreement, for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Clermont Hills - Lake County Limited Partnership.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for authorization to accept the final plat for Greater Pines Subdivision, Phase 6; accept a Letter of Credit, in the amount of $318,836.55; and execute a Developer's Agreement, for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and The Greater Construction Company.



Public Works/Resolutions



Request from Public Works for approval of a Proclamation recognizing the successes of Mr. Fred Sommer, founder of CFT/Sommer Sports and the 100th Triathlon hosted in Clermont, Florida, on August 29, 1999.





Accounts Allowed/Solid Waste



Request from Solid Waste for approval to transfer, encumber, and expend the funds necessary to perform structural repairs to the Intermediate Materials Processing and Collection Transfer (IMPACT) Center, in the amount of $32,110.00.



ADDENDUM NO. 1



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA



AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC WORKS



Request from Public Works for approval to provide aquatic plant management treatment for invasive plants in the Astor canals.



Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCES

TITLE LOAN ORDINANCE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its final reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING ARTICLE XII OF CHAPTER 13 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLE TITLE LOANS" FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE MOTOR VEHICLE TITLE LOAN INDUSTRY IN INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED LAKE COUNTY; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING CONDITIONS FOR ENGAGING IN MOTOR VEHICLE TITLE LOAN TRANSACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM INTEREST RATES; PROVIDING FOR LOAN TRANSACTION SATISFACTION; PROVIDING FOR LOAN DEFAULT; PROVIDING FOR ACCOUNTING OF SURPLUS PROCEEDS TO BORROWER; PROVIDING FOR VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one present wished to address the Board.

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

Commr. Pool informed the Board that he had met with representatives of a bank called CIBC, who is going to set up a kiosk in all Winn-Dixie Marketplace stores, enabling individuals to obtain unsecured loans, ranging from $500 to $1000, at 18% interest per year, however, noted that it will be approximately three to four months before it will be available.

Commr. Gerber stated that she had contacted a group in Minnesota that partners with local banks to supply loans to people who need emergency funds, for various reasons. She stated that they are very interested in the Lake County area, due to the title loan issue, and are willing to do the same thing that Commr. Pool alluded to. She stated that she also obtained some information from the Internet, regarding the issue of title loans, at which time she reviewed said information with the Board. She stated that said information leads one to believe that the individual obtaining the loan is going to keep their car, no matter what; however, that is not the case. She stated that she was startled to find that the article advertised for "investors", and, in researching that issue, discovered that the Internet informs individuals that the title loan industry can, in some cases, offer returns as high as 36% annually and that the minimum rate of return is 14.5% annually, on a $5,000 investment, which indicates to her that somebody is making money. She stated that, after viewing said information, she feels the Board needs to limit said loans to 30%.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 1999-81 - Title Loan Ordinance.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the Ordinance will become effective immediately upon becoming law, which will be in approximately one week, however, noted that there will be a transition period of 60 days.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES/ZONING

PIGEON ORDINANCE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this Ordinance would require two public hearings, at which time he placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER II, DEFINITIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER III, ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 3.01.02, 3.01.03, AND 3.01.04; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that staff had made some changes in the Ordinance, since it was last presented to the Board, specifically addressing some concerns from the pigeon breeders. She referred to Page 4 of the Ordinance, noting that staff centered the portable pigeon lofts, due to the fact that there were some concerns that there could be some residential lots that are less than 50 feet in width. She stated that staff added the following language: Parcels 1/4 acre or less, no more than fifty (50) pigeons, maximum pigeon loft size shall be eighty (80) square feet. and removed the prohibition of pigeons being released adjacent to a public park. She stated that the Definitions are contained in Chapter 2 of the Code and are applicable to the entire Code, not just for pigeon interests, thus, the reason some changes were not made in the Definitions section of the Ordinance.

Commr. Pool referred to Paragraph g., on Page 6 of the Ordinance, which states that the construction and location of lofts shall comply with all applicable county, state, and federal laws and questioned whether there were, in fact, federal or state laws involving the construction of lofts.

Ms. Farrell stated that it pertained more to their location from wetlands, noting that said language is standard language that is used regarding same.

Commr. Pool stated that he was told there had to be engineered and sealed drawings for pigeon lofts and questioned whether that was a requirement.

Ms. Farrell stated that it would be a requirement of the Building Code above a certain size loft, however, noted that staff worked out a guide for any structure less than 400 square feet and, if one uses said guide, one would not be required to obtain engineered plans. She stated that Mr. Dave Bacon, the individual who requested that the Pigeon Ordinance be enacted, was working with an engineer, as well, to come up with a series of pre-engineered plans and models.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bacon addressed the Board stating that he was present representing 40 pigeon owners in Lake County, ranging in age from 10 to 90. He stated that people have had pigeons for various reasons, such as a hobby, religious use, meat production, etc., for over 3,000 years. He stated that raising pigeons is a worldwide hobby and noted that there has never been a reported problem caused by thoroughbred pigeons in Lake County, in the history of the County. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the Pigeon Ordinance, by a 6-3 vote. He displayed a number of pictures that were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, showing various pigeon lofts located in Lake County, and noted that he was concerned about the setback requirements for pigeon lofts.

Ms. Farrell interjected that, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, under the definition of "Portable Loft", it states that anything less than thirty-two (32) square feet in size is exempt from permitting. She stated that the only thing that would have to be met would be setbacks. She submitted, for the record, a handout (County Exhibit A) containing copies of the ten pictures of pigeon lofts that were viewed by the Board and discussed by Mr. Bacon.

Mr. Bacon informed the Board that he was working with an architect to develop an outline, similar to the 400 square foot building, that would apply to pigeon lofts.

Commr. Pool clarified the fact that the Ordinance states any loft 32 square feet or under would not require a permit, nor sealed plans. He stated that the issue at hand was the setback, which has to be 25 feet from the property line and, in some cases, 15 feet from the property line.

Mr. Travis Wiggins, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board and questioned whether an individual who had existing pigeon lofts would be grandfathered in. He was informed that they would.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt striking Items 2 and 3, on Page 4 of the Ordinance, would solve the problem with setbacks.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, rather than striking Items 2 and 3 from the Ordinance, he felt it would be better to state that portable pigeon lofts, as defined in the Ordinance, do not require a setback.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to amend the language contained in Items 2 and 3, on Page 4 of the Ordinance, to state that portable pigeon lofts, as defined in the Ordinance, do not require a setback.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

The final public hearing for the Pigeon Ordinance is scheduled for September 7, 1999, at 6:00 p.m.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEES/ORDINANCES

HISTORICAL MUSEUM ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORDINANCE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING THE "LAKE COUNTY HISTORICAL MUSEUM ADVISORY COMMITTEE"; PROVIDING FOR A TITLE; PROVIDING FOR A PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR MEMBERSHIP; PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one present wished to address the Board.

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. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 1999-82 - Historical Museum Advisory Committee Ordinance.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 905 - NANCY ESHELMAN - MT. DORA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate right-of-way, Dora Manor Subdivision, Section 25, Township 19S, Range 26E, in the Mt. Dora area - Commissioner District 3. He viewed an aerial of the property in question, stating that the right-of-way in question was not being utilized for drainage; therefore, the County did not see any need for it, at this time. He stated that the County had excessive right-of-way in that area.

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. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1999-141 - Road Vacation Petition No. 905, by Nancy Eshelman, to vacate right-of-way, Dora Manor Subdivision, Section 25, Township 19S, Range 26E, Mt. Dora area - Commissioner District 3.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING

VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 906 - JOHN M. JOBO - EUSTIS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a road, in the plat of Riley Health Sanitarium Grounds, in Section 10, Township 19S, Range 27E, Eustis area - Commissioner District 4. He

reviewed a plat of the property in question, noting that the subdivision involved with the plat was developed in a way that does not match the original lot pattern. He stated that the individuals involved with this request were listed on the petition. He stated that staff was recommending approval.

Commr. Swartz informed Mr. Stivender that he had received some letters regarding Petition No. 906 (the petition in question), as well as Petition No. 909, and questioned whether there was some relationship between the two.

Mr. Stivender stated that Petition No. 909 would be coming before the Board on September 28, 1999. He stated that Mr. Jobo, the applicant, was a common property owner who had signed two petitions - a petition regarding access on the north side of his property, as well as a petition regarding the south side of his property. He stated that Mr. Jobo was opposed to the road vacation on the north side of his property, however, was in favor of the vacation on the south side of his property.

Mr. John Jobo, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he had entered into a contract with the property owners on the south side of his property and, if this road vacation was granted, he intended to purchase their portion of Citrus Avenue, at a specified price, in order to give him a buffer zone between the two properties. He stated that he was giving up his rights to access his property from the south, in lieu of access to the north, which he noted would be Emerson Avenue and Holmes Avenue. He stated that he understood there was a petition being presented to vacate Holmes Avenue, which he is strongly opposed to, since he is giving up the access to the south side of his property. He stated that he was willing to give up his right to have access on the south side of his property, as long as he could be assured that he would have access on the north side of the property. He noted that he may want to do a family split in the future, because his daughter is considering moving to this area, therefore, would like to keep Holmes Avenue open.

Mr. Daniel Lewis, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board stating that he and his wife spent many days cleaning up trash and debris that had been dumped on his property and, due to the fact that they are planning to eventually build on it, would like to have the public accesses to it vacated. He stated that he would like to see Satsuma Avenue closed, because he and his wife own the properties on both sides of it.



Mr. Jeff Bootz, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board stating that he only needs Magnolia Avenue to access his property and would like to eliminate other traffic from accessing it, therefore, was in favor of the vacation.

Mr. Jeff Allen, the owner of a one and one-quarter acre parcel of property abutting the northwest corner of Mr. Jobo's seven acres, addressed the Board stating that he filed Petition No. 909, to vacate Holmes Avenue, to the east of his property, and that it is scheduled to appear before the Board on September 28, 1999. He stated that Mr. Jobo opposes his petition, however, wanted to note, for the record, that he is opposed to Mr. Jobo's petition, Petition No. 906. He stated that he feels, if the Board approves the petition in question and the roads are vacated, he will encounter difficulties in vacating Holmes Avenue. He stated that, due to the fact that Petition Nos. 906 and 909 are interrelated, he would like for the Board to postpone action regarding Petition No. 906 until September 28, 1999, when Petition No. 909 is scheduled to be addressed, to allow both petitions to be addressed at the same time.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Road Vacation Petition No. 906, by John M. Jobo, to vacate roads, plat of Riley Health Sanitarium Grounds, Section 10, Township 19S, Range 27E, Eustis area - Commissioner District 4, until the Board Meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999, to allow Petition No. 906 (John M. Jobo) and Petition No. 909 (Jeff Allen) to be heard at the same time.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

Mr. Stivender submitted, for the record, a plat (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, indicating Mr. Jobo's property, as well as the surrounding properties; and two pictures (County Exhibit B), one of Holmes Avenue and the other of Emerson Avenue.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

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

REZONING

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PETITION NO. CUP99/8/3-2 - CUP IN A - CALVIN AND LILLIAN HOLTON

BENNY RAY AND MELISSA HOLTON

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that staff worked very closely with Ms. Rebecca Jetton, with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), concerning this case, noting that it involves the replacement of a non-conforming existing use. She stated that staff had some issues with the request, based on the size of the property, however, worked them out with the applicant. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, for the care of the infirm.

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. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-83 - Calvin and Lillian Holton/Benny Ray and Melissa Holton, Rezoning Case No. CUP99/8/3-2, Tracking No. 49-99-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home as a temporary living facility for the care of an infirmed relative.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP99/8/1-2 - CUP IN A - DENNIS AND JACKIE CRAMPTON

KIM CARTER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a little over 17 acres in the Groveland area and was a request for the placement of a mobile home as a temporary living facility for the care of an infirmed relative. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there were no concerns from the Department of Community Affairs and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the request, by a 9-0 vote.

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. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-84 - Dennis and Jackie Crampton/ Kim Carter, Rezoning Case No. CUP99/8/1-2,Tracking No. 50-99-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home as a temporary living facility for the care of an infirmed relative.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 39-99-5 - R-6 TO R-7 - DENNIS AND DEBBIE JONES

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that a few weeks ago she came before the Board with a request to replace a condemned mobile home, although staff did not have the proper zoning in place. She stated that this request is county initiated and staff was recommending approval.

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. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-85 - Dennis and Debbie Jones, Rezoning Case No. 39-99-5,

Tracking No. 51-99-Z, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), to allow the placement of a mobile home on a non-conforming lot not meeting the minimum lot size.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH31-99-2 - R-1 AND R-6 TO R-3 - KAREN JAFFEE-MCGUIRE

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved two 40 acre parcels in the Clermont area - one with

an R-1 zoning and the other with an R-6 zoning. She stated that staff went back and forth, as to whether to recommend an R-2 or an R-3 zoning for the property. She stated that, when one runs through the points, the applicant gets approximately 24 points, which puts them in the 2.5 DU/Acre category, and, since the County does not have a 2.5 DU/Acre category for zoning, staff strongly suggested that the project come through as a PUD. She stated that the applicant chose not to go the PUD route, therefore, staff was recommending an R-3 zoning. She stated that, if the applicant is approved for R-3, they will have 200 units on central water and septic and with R-2, they will have 160 units on central water and septic. She stated that a PUD would give the County an opportunity to protect some of the open space and add some language for a future sewer connection. She stated that, in talking with the City of Clermont, they are not going to be ready to run sewer lines to the area in question for approximately three years, therefore, that is not something that the County can work out at the present time.

Ms. Farrell pointed out the fact that staff had listed some issues that would need to be addressed, under Staff Notes, on Page 13 of the Staff Report, such as the fact that the property will require a paved road, because there is no paved access, and the fact that staff would like the placement of the septic tanks in the front yards, for future connection to sewer. She stated that some of the other concerns are development review concerns that staff will look at again, as the applicant comes through the process. She stated that today's consideration would be whether to rezone to R-2 or R-3, since the County is not able to take the applicant's request through as a PUD. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote, with one letter of opposition being filed against the request, by the Save Our Lakes Committee. She submitted a handout (County Exhibit A), containing Residential Densities Developed Under Current Zoning; Developed Under R-3 Zoning District; and Developed Under R-2 Zoning District, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Karen Jaffe-McGuire, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she was asking to be down-zoned, noting that she has an R-1 zoning on one 40 acre parcel and an R-6 zoning on the other 40 acre parcel. She stated that, if she gave up the R-6 zoning for an R-3 zoning on the total parcel, she would only be getting 2.5 DU/Acre; however, if she kept the R-6 zoning, she would be allowed more development. She stated that she felt the easiest thing to do would be to do the whole thing as a straight R-3.



Commr. Swartz stated that he has long opposed straight zoning, because the County cannot make requirements on the zoning to address issues such as water and sewer connections, as opposed to septic tanks, or road requirements that may need to be in addition to what the County's standards are. He stated that 80 acres is a large enough tract that, if it is going to be considered, it should be under a PUD. He stated that he would not support the request as a straight zoning and that, as a PUD, he would look at it very, very closely before approving it.

Mr. McGuire, the husband of the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the development known as The Legends is being constructed behind his property, which is going to be on sewer, and, due to the fact that his development would be within 1,200 feet of the sewer line, he would be forced to connect to it. He stated that he had spoken with representatives from the City of Leesburg and was informed that they have sewer capacity for his property; therefore, it is his intention to submit his plans, with sewer hookups. He stated that he was not planning to have septic tanks, at all.

Commr. Cadwell questioned what the applicant would have to do, if the Board approved a straight zoning for the property.

Ms. Farrell stated that the Public Works Department Code requires a paved road, as part of the applicant's construction approval.

Commr. Swartz stated that all the issues addressed this date were the very reasons why, at a very minimum, a PUD should be considered for this development, noting that the issue of the roads could be addressed and the County could halt the development, until those roads are put in. He stated that the sewer connections could be addressed, as well. He stated that, if the Board goes with a straight zoning, sewer connection is not a certainty at all, however, in dealing with it from a PUD, if a majority of the Board decides that the land use densities need to be different than what they are and the land use map is inappropriate, then at least the County can deal with it as best it can. He stated that with a straight zoning the County gets no open space requirement, just straight zoning, with no conditions other than what the zoning allows in the County's Land Development Regulations.

Ms. Jaffe-McGuire, Applicant, was questioned whether she had considered a PUD and informed the Board that she did not want a PUD. She stated that she worked very closely with the Planning and Zoning Commission and that they had approved a straight R-3 zoning at their last meeting, therefore, was very surprised with what had been suggested, due to that fact. She

stated that she thought everything was fine and that the Board was going to approve a straight R-3 zoning for her property.

Commr. Pool informed the Board that he agreed with the applicant, noting that when one goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission and gets a unanimous 9-0 vote of approval for straight R-3 zoning and then staff recommends approval of it, based on the work that has been put forth, he was a little puzzled as to why the Board would request a PUD. He stated that the Board should approve the request, based on staff's recommendation, or deny it, based on their recommendation. He stated that he was puzzled by staff recommending approval one day and then saying something different this date. He questioned whether the applicant would go along with a straight R-2 zoning, noting that it did not appear staff was willing to support the 200 units, under an R-3 zoning, but they might support the 160 units under an R-2 zoning , which he noted would be more consistent with what is north and south of the applicant's property.

Ms. Jaffe-McGuire stated that she did not want to give up the R-6 zoning, because, even though she could get 2.5 DU/Acre for the bottom 40 acre parcel, she would rather not have an R-2 zoning for the entire 80 acres - she would prefer an R-3 zoning.

Ms. Farrell informed the Board that she wanted to make it very clear that staff suggested to the applicant that a PUD would be better - that they did not ignore the issue of a PUD.

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

A motion was made by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Rezoning Case No. PH31-99-2, Karen Jaffee-McGuire, Tracking No. 47-99-Z, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for construction of a single family residence subdivision.

The Chairman passed the gavel to Commr. Swartz and seconded the motion.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that the property in question is abutted by a fairly dense development on the left and it looks like it is going to be abutted by even more development. She stated that there has to be some scrutiny involved with this project that only a PUD can provide, as to roads, school issues, etc., that cannot be addressed in a straight zoning. She stated that she feels very strongly the request should come through as a PUD.



Commr. Cadwell questioned, if the vote is 2-2 and fails, whether the applicant could bring the request back to the Board under a PUD, if she chose to, and utilize some of the monies that had been spent thus far.

Ms. Farrell stated that the fee schedule provides that the County Manager can waive or reduce fees, if the fee for which the review is based is not necessary. She stated that the County can probably reduce or waive most of the submittal fees for the rezoning, with the exception of advertising and noticing.

Commr. Swartz called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 2-2 vote.

Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "No".

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH34-99-1/5 - AMENDMENT TO CFD ORDINANCE NO. 94-87 - CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH/ROBERT A. MULLIS, PASTOR

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a seven acre parcel in the Fruitland Park area. She stated that the applicant has had RVs on the property in question, for guest speakers, for some time. She stated that the request involved a 1987 CUP and staff just wanted to amend the CUP and clarify the use on the property.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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.

Commr. Gerber stated that she noticed the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes state that the applicant requested a seven day maximum stay; however, the Ordinance states five days.

It was noted that the Ordinance states a maximum stay of five days, but the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a maximum stay of seven days; therefore, the Ordinance would be changed to read seven days, with a 30 day annual limit on stays.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-86 - Calvary Baptist Church, Robert A. Mullis, Pastor, Rezoning

Case No. PH34-99-1/5, Tracking No. 52-99-CFD/AMD, a request for an amendment to CFD Ordinance No. 94-87, to allow temporary parking of RV units for guest speakers.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH3-99-2 - AR TO CFD - CLERMONT BIBLE CHURCH

KARL KIRKPATRICK

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a parcel of property consisting of a little under five acres on Johns Lake Road. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that it meets all the location issues for a church, as far as a Community Facility District is concerned. She stated that there were some issues about the paving of John's Lake Road, which she noted is presently surface treated rock. She stated that the road is due to be paved by the year 2000. She reviewed an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, which she submitted, for the record, indicating what is transpiring in the area. She also submitted a Conceptual Site Plan for the Church (County Exhibit B), for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Jon Bekemeyer, Pastor, Clermont Bible Church, addressed the Board stating that the church is under contract to purchase the parcel of property in question, subject to the rezoning. He noted that he had read the Ordinance and understood the restrictions that would be placed on the church.

Mr. Mike Hurst, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that there was a fair amount of controversy about this request. He stated that the residents that live on John's Lake Road own 2 to 5 acre tracts and have livestock, horses, etc. He stated that the thing that led them to the area was the quiet country atmosphere. He stated that, when he bought his property 8 years ago, there was no ordinance in place indicating what was going to be Urban Expansion, so the residents did not know anything about the zoning classification. He stated that, according to the County's land development regulations, the zoning classification A (Agriculture) provides long-term means for preventing further encroachment upon agricultural enterprises. He also stated that he was a little confused, noting that the applicant is asking for a rezoning from AR to CFD; however, according to the plat book, the property in question is zoned A (Agriculture). He addressed the issue of John's Lake Road, noting that there are multiple problems involved with it, one being that it is surface improved and is starting to wash out. He stated that there is no place for the children in the area to walk on the road and the residents are

concerned about their safety and do not want to add more traffic to the road. He stated that the residents are not opposed to the church, they just do not feel that the area in question is the greatest location for the church. He requested the Board to protect what the residents have worked so hard to accomplish - buy their land, build their homes, and have their quiet lifestyle. Mr. John Palmer, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that the residents in his neighborhood did not want the church to be located in their area, nor did they want the school that was constructed in their area to be built where it is. He stated that John's Lake Road cannot stand the extra traffic that will be generated by the church. He stated that the church is not going to be just a church, it is scheduled to house a gymnasium and day care center, as well. He requested the Board to vote against the request.

Mr. Richard Achor, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that County staff misrepresented the facts on the existing zoning status and noted that a list of property owners (contained in the Board's backup material) were on record, with the petition, as opposing the zoning change.

Mr. Bekemeyer readdressed the Board stating that his congregation feels, with the school alluded to earlier being located in the area of the proposed church and the fact that a development has been approved for the area, as well, to the west of the school, containing 1,100 homes and a shopping center, whatever impact the church would have on the area would be lost in the shadow of all the development that has already been approved and developed. He stated that he felt, with the road that is currently being constructed off Hwy. 27, to the east, that access to his church would probably come from that direction, off Hwy. 27, rather than from Hancock Road to John's Lake Road. He stated that, with regard to the issue of a day care center, or any future construction, it would have to be approved before it could occur. He stated that his congregation's desire is to have a church, noting that there are no immediate plans for anything other than that.

Commr. Gerber stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes referred to a homeless shelter various times and questioned how it came to the forefront.

Mr. Bekemeyer stated that there had been no thought of it, whatsoever. He stated that, if his church ever had a homeless shelter, it would probably seek a site where it would be more accessible to those who needed it. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission felt, if the church ever decided that they wanted something like a homeless shelter, they wanted the church to have the option to do so. He stated that he feels, whether the church is built on the property in question or not, the quiet secluded atmosphere alluded to by Mr. Hurst has already been lost.

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

Commr. Pool stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, as well as staff, therefore, felt the Board needed to take a good look at this particular case. He stated that he was not going to deny the church the opportunity to build on the property in question. He stated that, with the church being proposed to be located next to the school that is already in the area and with a new road being scheduled for completion in the year 2000, he was going to approve the request.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Gerber to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 1999-87 - Clermont Bible Church, Karl Kirkpatrick, Rezoning Case No. PH33-99-2, Tracking No. 53-99-CFD, a request for rezoning from AR (Agricultural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for construction of a church and associated uses, such as classrooms for bible study; offices for administration; kitchen area; day care; pre-school; and Christian Life Center (Gym); and for the keeping of an existing mobile home for a caretaker's residence.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he could not support the request. He stated that it included a variety of uses, which he was concerned about, however, noted that, even if the Board took out a few of the uses, he still would not be able to support it. He stated that the area in question is predominantly agricultural, but is squeezed between a gargantuan development on the south, ones that are occurring on the north and across the road, and a new school. He stated that, when the Board sees people come before them opposing a church, something is not right. He stated that he felt the school was in the wrong place, because nobody can get to it, unless they are bused in. He stated that the residents are concerned about the land they bought, the homes they built, and what impact the decision that the Board makes is going to have on them. He stated that the Board is going to have to stand up and address the issues better than it has in the past.

Commr. Gerber suggested putting a period after the word "allowed", in the second sentence of Paragraph 2, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, under Section 1.A.1., so that the sentence reads, "The use of the site for a halfway house or homeless shelter/soup kitchen shall not be allowed.", period, which will address the issue of the homeless shelter/soup kitchen. She stated

that churches are traditionally the focus of community use, in that they usually become a meeting place for the residents of the community, and she hopes the congregation will have the resources to build the church. She stated that she would not deny the request.

It was noted that Commr. Gerber's suggestion would become part of the original motion.

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

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP99/8/2-5 - CUP IN A - ROBERT AND MARGARET ANN CRAIG/ IRENE SEWELL/ AND RHONDA THURMAN

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a 200 plus acre parcel of property that is currently zoned A (Agriculture) in the Umatilla area. She stated that the request is for a fox pen/dog kennel/and archery range. She stated that, when it came through the process, staff was quite perplexed as to the use, noting that it was one of those things that they did not have a lot of background on, in fact, staff was so unsure about the request that, when it went to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it did not have a Staff Recommendation. She stated that staff was recommending approval, with several conditions, as listed in the Board's backup material. She stated that there were 41 letters of support on file. She stated that staff was recommending approval, because the Florida Fish and Wild Life Commission regulates said activities and the County does not have anything in the Land Development Regulations to address such a use. She stated that the concern staff had was the noise factor generated by the hounds barking while chasing the foxes. She noted that there will be no gunfire on the site.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that the Board of County Commissioner's office received an anonymous complaint, with regard to this request, which he sent to Code Enforcement, and that he had received a call from the applicant asking what he needed to do and was told that he needed to discuss the matter with the Growth Management Department. He stated that that was the only discussion he had had with the applicant and noted that it would not hinder his ability to make a decision in the matter.

Mr. Robert Craig, one of the applicants, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding the request. He stated that the foxes are released on a 203 acre parcel of land that is enclosed with an electrified fence and contains escape pens for the foxes that the hounds cannot

access. He stated that the intent of the sport is not to kill the foxes, but to train the hounds to hunt. He noted that no guns are allowed in the sport.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board, for the record, that he had had a discussion with Mr. Craig's wife, prior to this meeting, about the request. He stated that there are a lot of new homes in the area and he was concerned about the noise factor.

Mr. Craig stated that he agreed to limit the hounds to 25, therefore, felt that the noise factor would not be that great. He stated that the hounds have been running in the area for a number of years, without complaints.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he could not support the request, for the parcel of property in question, because (1) people have built nice homes in the area and he felt that type of activity would be intrusive to their lifestyles, and (2) he felt the activity was a commercial activity. He stated that, if Mr. Craig wanted to reapply for another larger parcel that he owns, located next to a lake, further away from the residential area, using the same permitting dollars, he might be able to support it.

Mr. Craig informed the Board that he had switched several parcels of property with a neighbor, in order to get the hounds as far away as possible from the residential area. He suggested that the Board allow him to operate for six months and see if any complaints are registered.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the case be postponed, to allow the rest of the Board members to view the site, before taking action on the matter.

Mr. Norman Watts, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board stating that he was not in favor of the request, nor against it, however, wanted to inform the Board that he once lived next to a fox pen in Lake Catherine and never had a problem with it. He stated that once in a while he would hear the hounds barking, but it did not bother him. He stated that a fox pen is not that annoying and he never heard any complaints about it.

Dr. James Wright, a veterinarian from south Miami and friend of Mr. Craig, addressed the Board, stating that the applicants wish to maintain the pristine nature of the area in question. He stated that he and his wife were leaving south Florida, because the area that they lived in was totally agricultural ten years ago, but is the reverse today. He stated that the vocalization of dogs in a densely wooded area, such as the area in question, would not carry a particularly long distance, because the density creates soundproofing. He suggested that Mr. Craig be granted permission to operate for six months and see if any complaints are registered

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. CUP99/8/2-5, Robert and Margaret Craig/Irene Sewell/Rhonda Thurman, Tracking No. 56-99-CUP, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH38-99-2 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE NO. 53-90 - CHARLES HWANG, GLOBAL ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL GROUP

MICHAEL C. HOLBROOK, MILLER MCCOY EINHOUSE & ASSOCIATES "SUNRISE LAKE" FKA WALKER'S HEIGHT PUD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicants were amending the Planned Unit Development ordinance that was approved several years ago. She stated that, when the request originally came in, it included several uses, however, staff has narrowed it down to just allow for a veterinarian clinic, as one of the permitted uses, in addition to the C-1 zoning district that it currently has.

She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. Gerber and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-88 - Charles Hwang, Global Associates International Group/Michael C. Holbrook, Miller McCoy Einhouse & Associates "Sunrise Lake", formerly known as Walker's Height PUD, Rezoning Case No. PH38-99-2, Tracking No. 55-99-PUD/AMD, a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance No. 53-90, to amend "Section 1 - Terms: (1) Land Uses (B) Commercial", to include language for additional commercial uses, as follows: "In addition, veterinary clinics (fully enclosed), self service storage, and communication towers (not in excess of 250 feet in height) are permitted uses."



Commr. Swartz was not present for the vote.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH35-99-4 - A TO CFD - NORMAN AND DONNALEE WATTS

AMERICAN TOWER, KAREN SEGGERMAN, AICP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a 200 foot monopole tower on a parcel of property zoned A (Agriculture), in the Paisley area. She stated that the request meets the County's new Tower Ordinance, therefore, staff was recommending approval, to place a tower on the site. She stated that the tower will be centrally located on the parent parcel, consisting of 177 plus acres.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-89 - Norman and Donnalee Watts, American Tower, Mary Scruggs, Rezoning Case No. PH35-99-4, Tracking No. 58-99-CFD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for placement of a 200 foot tapered monopole communication tower, as amended: "Communication towers shall not be required to be artificially lighted except to assure human safety, or as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. If the FAA requires lighting and there are residential uses found within a distance that is 300 percent of the height of the communications tower, dual mode lighting shall be requested from the FAA."

Commr. Swartz was not present for the discussion or vote.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP98/8/1-2 - ANDY AND JONI HANSEN - APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1998-96 ON NOVEMBER 24, 1998

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the purpose of this meeting was to finalize the Ordinance for the Andy Hansen Ski School, noting that the CUP was approved in November of 1998. He displayed an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, indicating three parcels of

property owned by Mr. Hansen - a 38 acre parcel, with approximately one acre of wetlands; a 5 acre parcel; and a 2.5 acre parcel, which he reviewed with the Board and submitted, for the record. He stated that Mr. Hansen's house is currently located on the 5 acre parcel. He stated that, at the time the CUP was approved, Mr. Hansen proposed to acquire a 9 acre parcel (indicated on the aerial as "Property Deleted") and use it for housing the ski school. He stated that Mr. Hansen also proposed to split said parcel into two five acre parcels, by having a lower five acre parcel, an upper four acre parcel, and a Unity of Title with a one acre parcel that he owned to the north. However, in the process of obtaining a variance to do so, he lost his option on purchasing said property; therefore, at this point in time, the legal description for the CUP would include the 38 acres, the 5 acres, and the 2.5 acres joined together as one parcel. He stated that there were a couple of options that the applicant would have, at some point in time, to legally create the 2.5 acre parcel. He stated that Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing various property owners in the area, would like to add some conditions to the Ordinance in question and that staff did not have any problems with the additional conditions.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Andy Hansen, addressed the Board, stating that the request before them this date was to remove the 9 acre parcel of property alluded to by Mr. Smith from the Ordinance, due to the fact that the applicants were not able to purchase said property within the time frame designated in the contract that they entered into. She stated that she had discussed with Mr. Crawford, Attorney, and the group of individuals that he represents, prior to this meeting, a few additional conditions, which the applicants were agreeable to, being (1) that there be a requirement that the gas tank used for the ski school be kept 50 feet from the shoreline; (2) that the applicants comply with any regulations pertaining to the gas storage tank; (3) that it not exceed 500 gallons in size; and (4) that the pro shop for the ski school only be used by the students and the instructors and not be open to the general public. She stated that there was one other condition, noting that the current CUP states that any owners on the lake would have the right to use the lake and that the ski school would yield to them, if they wished to fish, ride their jet ski, etc. She stated that the owners would also like to include their guests and she felt that, as long as it is not abused, the applicants would not be opposed to having it added to the CUP.

Ms. Campione stated that, other than the Hansen's house, there was only one other house, which is a rental house, on the lake, thus the reason the CUP only ran for four years, when the

Board approved it in December of 1998. She stated that it was noted, at the time, if the conditions changed, the applicants could reapply for a CUP; however, the Board would consider whether to grant it not, on the conditions that existed at the time. She stated that that is why the requirement that the house that is being constructed, or proposed to be constructed, be of a type that is consistent with single family homes and that the applicants, in designing the interior of the house, give consideration as to how they would move walls, add walls, etc., to make it a more traditional design inside, if they needed to convert the use of it from the ski school to a single family residence. She stated that, when the Ordinance was approved, in December of 1998, the Hansens were under the impression that the CUP was approved and had been operating on the lake. She stated that they had not used the home, however, continued to use the camp. It was noted that their lease runs through October 31, 1999, for said camp. She stated that there was a question of whether the CUP that was approved in December was technically in effect, because the applicants did not own the 9 acre parcel. She stated that the applicants' impression was that it was in effect and that they were going through the variance process, in order to divide the 9 acre parcel into two parcels, so that, if they built two units, they would have two single family structures for the future. She stated that that is what held things up - the variance process.

Ms. Campione stated that the applicants were asking to get rid of the 9 acre parcel - to not include it in the legal description, but to let them work with the 7 acre parcel that they currently own, with their house on the five acre parcel that already exists, and that they be allowed to build a structure on the 2 acre parcel and use it for the students, to be converted in the future.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Richey and Crawford, representing several property owners around the lake in question, being Mr. McEwen, Mr. Davis, and Ms. Stokes, addressed the Board, stating that they did not want the ski school to be located at its present location, because they did not feel it was appropriate, however, were aware of the fact that the Board had approved the CUP, in December of 1998, and did not wish to rehash all the concerns this date. He stated that some of the applicants' neighbors wanted to discuss some things that they perceived to be a problem, because they felt they would be back before the Board, at a future date, if they had problems. He stated that his clients did feel that the current plan was better than the original plan, therefore, would support the legal description modification of the CUP this date. He submitted, for the record, a list of changes (Opposition's Exhibit A) that his clients wanted to be made to the CUP, which he reviewed with the Board, being (1) that the language

for use of students and instructors only be added to the second sentence of Paragraph 2.A.(2), on Page 1 of the Ordinance, after the word "uses"; (2) to add the language A gas tank not to exceed 500 gallons permitted, in accordance with all state and local requirements, as Item No. 5, under Paragraph 2.A., on Page 1 of the Ordinance; and (3) that the language or their guests be added to the sentence contained in Item No. B, under Paragraph 2.A., on Page 2 of the Ordinance, after the word "owners". He stated that his clients felt, with said language being added to the Ordinance, it would give them as much protection as they felt they could get and would appreciate the Board's consideration in the matter.

Mr. Richard Davis, representing Davis Grove Service and William and Dorothy Davis, addressed the Board, stating that they were opposed to the ski school, because it was a commercial venture in a residential/agricultural area. He stated that there was no other commercial anywhere in the area of the ski school, except at the corner of Hwys. 19 and 27 and back to Groveland, on Hwy. 19. He stated that he felt the ski school was going to be a detriment to Lake Morgan, because he felt the boat was going to pollute the lake and that it would generate noise. He questioned who was going to police the Hansens and make sure that they did not violate the CUP.

Mr. Bill Noland, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, stating that he was opposed to the ski school, because of the noise generated by the boats on Lake Morgan and because of the traffic that the ski school generates. He stated that he was concerned about his safety, as well, noting that he did not feel the students would stay on the grounds of the ski school, but would start wandering onto adjacent properties, one being his.

Mr. Roy Beaver, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, stating that he was also opposed to the ski school, as well. He stated that the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park was located two miles from the ski school and he felt that was where this type of venture should be located, because it was a commercial business. He stated that he felt additional traffic would be generated by the ski school and did not feel that Lake Emma Road would be safe to travel, because it was a very curvy two lane road.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, readdressed the Board, stating that the existing CUP included the 9 acre tract that the applicants were attempting to have removed from it; therefore, if they proceeded with negotiations to buy said property, questioned whether they would be able to continue operating under the CUP that was adopted in 1998 - the one that they were attempting to amend this date. She stated that, if the applicants could proceed with

that CUP intact, they would try to work out another contract with the seller of the 9 acre parcel. She stated that there had been confusion over whether the applicants had a CUP or not and whether it was a necessity that they amend the CUP. She questioned whether the applicants would be able to continue operating under the existing CUP.

Commr. Swartz stated that the CUP was granted by the Board; however, it had conditions and he did not feel those conditions had been met, such as additional housing being constructed.

Ms. Campione stated that it was not a condition that additional housing be built, but that they would be allowed to be built, under the conditions of the CUP.

Commr. Swartz further elaborated on what his understanding of the conditions of the CUP were, noting that there was some discussion about a variance being required and some questions as to whether or not it met the strict requirement of a variance.

Commr. Pool stated that the point of the County placing conditions on the CUP was that they did not want to allow multiple structures, in the event that the ski school was abandoned and the structures used for something else that might take its place.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the majority of the Board approved the CUP, however, was not present this date and he did not want to go against what the majority of the Board wanted to do. He stated that the issue of the additional parcel of property did not sell him one way or the other. He stated that his concern was having that type of use on the lake and having to yield to the other owners and their friends and families.

Ms. Campione asked that the Board allow the applicants to bring the matter back to them, at a later date, to look at the issue of how they work within the parameters of the existing CUP and whether they could continue to operate, while they renegotiate a contract on the 9 acre parcel. She stated that she felt they could figure those things out within the next 30 days, therefore, requested a 30 day postponement, noting that her clients would pay the cost of readvertising the public hearing, following any other requirements that they needed to follow, in order to be back before the Board in 30 days. She noted that there were some issues that the applicants needed to work out, as far as the Ordinance that was adopted in 1998 and whether or not they even needed to be back before the Board amending the CUP.

Mr. Crawford, Attorney, readdressed the Board, stating that his clients were in favor of postponing the request for 30 days, because there were three different attorneys with three different answers, regarding this request.



Commr. Swartz stated that he had asked a question earlier in the meeting that he would like answered by the County Attorney, Mr. Minkoff. He stated that he wanted to know whether or not what the majority of the Board approved had been complied with, thus, allowing the operation of the ski school, as he understood it should be operated.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he had not reviewed the compliance issue, because it was not something that was handled by his office, it was something that the Code Enforcement Office, or the Growth Management Office would handle, if a complaint was registered. He stated that the CUP was approved and in force, although there might be some problems with it, because the legal description encompassed some land that was not under ownership by the applicants. He stated that he did not know if the applicants were in compliance.

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. Gerber to approve a 30 day postponement for Rezoning Case No. CUP98/8/1-2, Andy and Joni Hansen, Tracking No. 62-98-CUP, until the Board Meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he had voted against the request before, for many of the problems that the Board was dealing with this date. He stated that the conditions stated that the applicants must comply with them, within the time limitations set forth in the CUP, and that, in the second line of the CUP, it stated that a single building sufficient in size to house ten (10) students and six (6) instructors would be constructed. He stated that that is what the ski school should consist of and he did not see that that was in place, therefore, felt that it needed to be looked at, in terms of whether it was in compliance or not, and whether it should be operating.

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

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GRANTS

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, explained this request, stating that it was in regard to Cooperative Agreements between Lake County and the Incorporated Municipalities, relating to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. She stated that the matter was discussed approximately three weeks ago and, since that time, the City of Tavares had approved an agreement with the County for the CDBG Fund.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of Cooperative Agreements between Lake County and Incorporated Municipalities, relating to the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

SUBDIVISIONS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained this request, being a request for approval of a Settlement Agreement between Woodland Heritage, Inc. and Lake County, which was approved by the parties involved at a Special Master Hearing that was held on May 14, 1999, entitling Woodland Heritage to expand its existing mobile home park, by meeting the conditions of the Agreement.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that this issue started in 1998. She stated that the County had extended some dates, because the mobile home park had several different buyers that fell through, during the Special Master process. She stated that one of the conditions of the Master Park Plan was that Phase IV, an area scheduled for future development not be developed, due to the fact that it contains wetlands. She stated that some units in the park were moved out of Phase IV and into Phases I, II, and III.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval of a Settlement Agreement between Woodland Heritage, Inc. and Lake County, entitling Woodland Heritage to expand its existing mobile home park, by meeting the conditions of the Agreement.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ZONING

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that the issue of pot bellied pigs had come up in several cities, who had to wrestle with whether to consider them livestock or not, and that the Board had discussed doing something about the issue for some time, however, did not want to get it involved with the Animal Control Ordinance. He stated that the Board needed to decide whether to consider them livestock, or to have their owners apply for a Conditional Use Permit and classify them as a specialty animal.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that she had heard complaints that pot bellied pigs do not stay small, but that they can get as large as 150 pounds in size and that, if they are kept outside, they behave as any other pig. She stated that staff did a survey of 24 counties and found that 48% of the counties prohibited them.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt pot bellied pigs should be considered as livestock, noting that, if they were not swine, they would not be classified as swine. He stated that he felt they should be kept within agricultural districts that allow non-commercial livestock and come under the County's requirements of non-intensive agriculture.

It was the consensus of the Board to leave the language contained in the Lake County Code, pertaining to pot bellied pigs, as it currently is, which indicates that pot bellied pigs are swine, therefore, are to be considered as livestock.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

RESOLUTIONS/SOLID WASTE

Mr. Don Post, Senior Director, Solid Waste, addressed the Board, stating that the request before them was an administrative requirement, to authorize the approval of the Initial Assessment Resolution for the Solid Waste Management Collection and Disposal for FY 1999-2000, pending the County Attorney's approval. He stated that it will be read again at the Board Meeting scheduled for September 7, 1999. He stated that this requirement is to ensure that the County has met the legal steps to have a Resolution for the Assessment Program. He stated that, if the County was just raising the tipping fee, they would not have to approve said Resolution; however, since the County is also raising the assessment by $7.22, which the Board directed, as well as the first class notices, this was the paperwork that follows up on the first class notice.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the Board will hear the actual Assessment Resolution at a public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Solid Waste for approval of Resolution No. 1999-142 - Initial Assessment Resolution for Solid Waste Management Collection and Disposal for FY 1999-2000.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.



ADDENDUM NO. 1

OTHER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board reappointed Mr. Tom Wetherington to the vacant position on the Comprehensive Health Care Committee.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.

COMMITTEES/WATER RESOURCES

Mr. Alan Hewitt, Director, Water Resource Management, addressed the Board to discuss the findings of the Lake Griffin Restoration Task Force, which he noted had been meeting since May of this year, to discuss possible cures that could be used to restore Lake Griffin. He stated that he feels the biggest area that everybody is worried about is the drawdown. He noted that Thursday, August 26, 1999, would be the last meeting of the Task Force.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the studies that have been brought to the Board have indicated that the Lake Griffin Restoration Project would be the County's first priority. He stated that the Task Force would like the Board to commit to some stormwater retrofitting and maintenance of Lake Griffin. He stated that the monies the County has spent for stormwater, so far, has been to identify the needs and, if the County has identified the Lake Griffin Restoration Project as one of its top priorities and is going to commit to it, the Board needs to move forward with it - drawdown or not.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was still undecided about the Lake Griffin drawdown, noting that, unless it is done in conjunction with all the other things, the drawdown will only be a short-term gain, just like it has been in the past.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place on the Agenda a request from Water Resource Management to commit funding, in the amount of $175,000.00, for stormwater retrofitting and maintenance of Lake Griffin.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to inform the Lake Griffin Restoration Task Force Committee that its intention is to consider the Lake Griffin Restoration Project as one of its top priorities and move forward with the stormwater retrofitting and maintenance of the lake.

Commr. Hanson was not present at this meeting.



OTHER BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/COUNTY ATTORNEY

COUNTY MANAGER/SOLID WASTE

The Chairman reminded the Board that they were scheduled to meet on Thursday, August 31, 1999, in a worksession, to discuss the County Attorney and County Manager evaluations, as well as to discuss the Ogden Martin contract, regarding solid waste.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

__________________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN





ATTEST:









_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/8-24-99/9-2-99/boardmin