A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DECEMBER 14, 1999

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 14, 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; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Robert A. Pool; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that an Addendum No. 1 had been added to the agenda. She requested that an update on the status of Lake County's old health insurance plan be added to the agenda under Reports.

MINUTE APPROVAL

Regarding the Minutes of November 18, 1999 (District Meeting), Commr. Pool requested that District 3 be changed to District 2.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 18, 1999 (District Meeting), as corrected.

CLERK OF COURTS' CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Bonds - Contractor

Request for approval of Contractor Bonds - New, Cancellations and Rider, as follows:

NEW



4245-00 James W. Spencer dba J & R Signs

5699-00 Christopher John Palmer & Palmer Pool Corporation

5745-00 M. David Schwalb

5746-00 Dean Engler dba Engler Roofing, Inc.



CANCELLATION



1795-99 Charles Simanoski dba Pre-Design, Inc.

5507-98 John Paul Rosier dba Rosier Electric, Inc.

5635-99 Kerry G. Bartlett (General Contractor)

5630-98 Jim Clark's Plumbing, Inc.

5662-00 Ronald Tripp (Electrician)





RIDER



4667-01 John Meeker

5390-00 Jim Percy dba Jim Percy's Air Conditioning & Heating



Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges



Request for approval of the following Satisfaction and Release of Fines; and authorized proper signature on same:

Satisfaction and Release of Fine for Robert and Paulette Smith, in the amount of $650.00, dated October 11, 1996, and recorded in Official Records Book 1472, pages 181 and 183.



Release of Fine for Larry M. and Judith S. Farley, Trustees, in the amount of $9,000.00, dated November 10, 1999, and recorded in Official Records Book 1768, pages 1329 through 1331.



Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges



Request for approval of the following Satisfaction of Judgments; and authorized proper signature on same:



Satisfaction of Judgment in the Interest of John Thomas Deal, Jr., a Child, in the amount of $150.00 - John Thomas Deal, Jr. and his parents, John and Bonnie Deal.



Satisfaction of Judgment State of Florida vs. Anne Mathis, Case No. 84-399-CF, in the amount of $400.00.



Accounts Allowed



Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.



State Agencies/Utilities



Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission of Commission Hearing and Prehearing Conference to All Parties of Record and All Other Interested Persons; Docket No. 990649-TP; In Re: Investigation Into Pricing Of Unbundled Network Elements. Notice is hereby given that a prehearing conference will be held on December 2, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., Room 148, Betty Easley Conference Center; and a public hearing will be held on December 15-17, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., Room 148, Betty Easley Conference Center, Tallahassee, Florida.



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested that Tab 3, a request for denial of request to subordinate a loan for Ms. Betty Ann Ostaine through Mr. Richard Featerston, Loan Officer of NationsCredit, based upon the guidelines of the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP), be pulled for discussion.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested that Addendum No. 1, Item I. B. 2., a request for approval of Contract for Sale and Purchase between Lake County and Carla R. Doerr and Agreement between Lake County and HCN, Inc. relating to the purchase of right-of-way, in the amount of $99,633.00 (purchase plus costs), be pulled for discussion.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the following requests, with the exception of Tab 3 and Addendum No. 1, Item I, B. 2:

Community Services/Citizens' Commission for Children



Request for approval to advertise the Citizens' Commission for Children's Requests for Proposal (RFP) for programs that provide prevention services for children, youth and families for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements



Request for approval of the Agreement between LifeStream Behavioral Center and Lake County for annual funding contribution, in the amount of $166,925.00; and authorized proper signature on same.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements



Request for approval of the Agreement between We Care of Lake County, Inc. and Lake County for the funding contribution previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners, in the amount of $70,000.00; and authorized proper signature on same.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Libraries



Request for approval of the Second Amendments to Interlocal Agreements relating to the provision of Library Services for the City of Fruitland Park, the Town of Lady Lake, and the City of Umatilla, in the amount of $20,000.00 each; and authorized proper signature on same.



Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Sheriff



Request for approval of budget transfer from Contingency-Sheriff to Law Enforcement Capital Outlay, in the amount of $133,725.00, pursuant to Florida Statute 30.39 request by the Sheriff from the Sheriff's Contingency account. This is a rebudget for Y2K upgrades ordered in Fiscal Year 1999 and to be received in Fiscal Year 2000.



Request for approval of budget transfer from Law Enforcement Operating Account to Bailiff's Operating Account, in the amount of $4,200.00, pursuant to Florida Statute 30.49 request by the Sheriff.



Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Subdivisions



Request for approval to accept and execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Carcer Enterprises, Inc., for the issuance of six building permits on lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in the Courtyard Villas Subdivision prior to the acceptance and recordation of the final plat.



Personnel/County Employees



Request for approval of the Addendum/Clarification to the Lake County Policies and Practices Employee Manual regarding Section 29/Corrective Action, Section 30/Grievance Procedure and Section 35/Educational Assistance.



Resolutions



Request for approval of Proclamation No. 1999-201 declaring January 9-15, 2000 as "Stop, Red Light Running" Week in Lake County; and authorized proper signature on same.



Request for approval of Resolution No. 1999-202 proclaiming Friday, December 17, 1999 as "Stormwater Awareness Day"; and authorized proper signature on same.



Accounts Allowed/Budgets



Request for approval of a request to refund First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake County $40,351.51 from Transportation Impact Fees, Benefit District 5.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/ Resolutions

Roads-County & State/Subdivisions



Request for authorization to accept the final plat for Avalon Estates Phase 3 Subdivision; execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Brenda P. Longenbach for Maintenance of Improvements; accept a letter of credit for maintenance, in the amount of $12,750.00; and execute Resolution No. 1999-203 accepting Cupid Court (C.R. #2-0964) and Heartwood Loop "Part" (C.R. #2-0965A) into the County Road Maintenance System. Subdivision consists of 8 lots - Commissioner District 2.



Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements/Road Projects

Request for approval to accept three Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement Deeds, one Statutory Quitclaim Deed, four Statutory Warranty Deeds and one Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deed, as follows:



Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement

Road Project

Lost Lake Reserve, L.C., a Florida Corporation

Johns Lake Road



Lost Lake Reserve, L.C., a Florida Corporation

Johns Lake Road



Lost Lake Reserve, L.C., a Florida Corporation

Johns Lake Road



Statutory Quitclaim Deed

South Lake Trail



Dennis R. & Deborah A. Thurlow



Statutory Warranty Deed

Road Project



Lost Lake Reserve, L.C., a Florida Corporation

Johns Lake Road



Acie L. & Elsie J. Moreland

Keene Road (#5-8165)



Preliminary SP



New Covenant Community Church of Lake County, Inc.

Lane Park Cutoff (#3-3444)



Road Project



Francis E. & Lavon B. Silvernell

Robbins Road



Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deed

Drainage Project



Robert R. Friend

Marthann F. Knaus

Pinetree Street (#1-6205A)



REPORTS

COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT NO. 2

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 -0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 1999-210, a resolution to support and assist in the Lake Apopka Planning Initiative.

Commr. Pool presented Resolution No. 1999-210 to Mr. Jim Thompson, President, Friends of Lake Apopka.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS-ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 918 - W.T. & BARBARA SANDERS - EUSTIS AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, presented Petition No. 918, a request by W.T. and Barbara Sanders to vacate road (Center Drive) and lots in Green Gables in the Eustis Area. He stated that staff was recommending approval to vacate.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

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

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 918 by W.T. and Barbara Sanders to vacate road (Center Drive) and lots in Green Gables, Section 35, Township 18S, Range 26E, in the Eustis area - Resolution No. 1999-204.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ORDINANCES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance, amending Section 1-5 of the Lake County Code entitled Jurisdiction, on the floor for its final reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 1-5 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED JURISDICTION; PROVING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve Ordinance No. 1999-118, an ordinance amending Section 1-5 of the Lake County Code entitled Jurisdiction, as read on its final reading by title only.

Mr. Minkoff stated that this ordinance provides clarification to language in the Lake County Code that makes it clear that it complies with the Constitution on the effect of County ordinances.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote.

ORDINANCES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance, creating Chapter 22 entitled Water Resource Standards, on the floor for its final reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 6.02.02(C), CLEARING LIMITATIONS OF THE SHORELINE; REPEALING IN THEIR ENTIRETY SECTIONS 6.10.00, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; 6.10.01 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; 6.11.00, OPERATIONS AND WASTE TREATMENT; 6.12.00, CENTRAL WATER SYSTEM/CENTRAL SEWAGE SYSTEM; AND 6.12.01, CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS, OF THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; CREATING CHAPTER 22, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED WATER RESOURCE STANDARDS; CREATING LAKE COUNTY CODE ("CODE") SECTION 22-1, PURPOSE AND INTENT; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-2, JURISDICTION; CREATING CODE SECTIONS 22-3 THROUGH 22-5, RESERVED; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-6, MINIMUM CONDITION OF ALL WATERS; TIMES AND PLACES; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-7, GENERAL WATER QUALITY; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-8, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-9, CRITERIA FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-10, WATER QUALITY TESTING; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-11, WETLANDS APPLICATION; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-12, SHORELINE PROTECTION; CREATING CODE SECTIONS 22-13 THROUGH 22-14, RESERVED; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-15, WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-16, STORMWATER AND SURFACE DRAINAGE; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-17, OPERATION OF POLLUTION CONTROL/ABATEMENT STRUCTURES OR WORKS; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-18, WASTE TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-19, AGRICULTURAL WASTE; CREATING CODE SECTIONS 22-20 THROUGH 22-22, RESERVE; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-23, CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS; CREATING CODE SECTION 22-24 THROUGH 22-26, RESERVED; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



Mr. Allen Hewitt, Director, Water Resource Management, appeared before the Board to present the changes that had been made since the last discussion on the Water Resource Standards ordinance and stated that the major changes were in the area of shoreline protection. He stated that staff has discussed the ordinance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to insure that the County's rules and regulations do not conflict with FDEP's rules and regulations. He discussed the following four major changes within the shoreline protection: 1) Twenty-five (25) foot clearing restriction on Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW); 2) Permitting requirement for mechanical clearing; 3) Permitting requirement for muck removal; and 4) No grandfather clause as required by FDEP. He stated that a fifty (50) foot clearing would apply to anything other than Outstanding Lake County Lakes or Outstanding Florida Waters, which is in line with the FDEP requirements. He stated that House Bill 57 was passed into law in 1997 by the State without any FDEP approval or input and, as a result of House Bill 57, Lake County's laws became null and void.

Commr. Gerber discussed the following language submitted by Mr. Steve Judson in a memorandum, dated December 13, 1999, regarding perpendicular distance from the shoreline:

Sec. 22-12 Shoreline Protection



This section is intended to complement Chapter 369.20(8), Florida Statutes.



A riparian owner desiring to claim the exemption of Chapter 369.20(8), Florida Statutes, and who wishes to remove plants from an area (a) of a width permitted by said Chapter 369.20(8), Florida Statutes, but (b) extending in length more that 100 feet perpendicularly from the riparian owner's shoreline, must obtain a permit from the Lake County Water Resource Management Division, which shall be granted at the discretion of the County Manager or the County Manager's Designee.



Mr. Hewitt explained that the purpose of the Water Resource Standards ordinance was to put the County's water quality requirements into the Lake County Code. He discussed standards for issuing or denying permits for clearing the shoreline beyond fifty (50) feet horizontally, under Section 22-12, Shoreline Protection. He stated that the ordinance was setting standards that were prudent for the lakes in Lake County and attempting to come into compliance with FDEP requirements.

Commr. Swartz expressed concern that this ordinance has been drafted to be consistent with the new FDEP regulations which were based on House Bill 57. He stated that it was not his desire to make this ordinance consistent with FDEP requirements and House Bill 57, which was the purpose for creating a shoreline protection ordinance.

Mr. Hewitt explained that staff was monitoring what was being excavate in way of muck, and nuisance species and what beneficial species were being planted.

Commr. Gerber stated that the standards should not allow removal of native non-invasive species beyond 100 feet of depth of lot.

Commr. Hanson stated that the standards should provide an incentive to encourage replanting of native non-invasive species.

Commr. Swartz directed the Board's attention to Section 22-12, Shoreline Protection, Item B. 2. (b), the clearing activity is in the public interest and does not degrade the natural habitat or adjacent shoreline uses. He stated that native non-invasive shoreline vegetation was beneficial for the lake; therefore, clearing it would be bad for the lake. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners, St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Florida were spending millions of dollars to clean Florida lakes and, at the same time, the County was making the ordinance consistent with ill advised House Bill 57. He stated that the ability for the property owner to clear non-native invasive vegetation was reasonable to allow them use of their water front property; however, the ordinance was expanding the requirements to clearing fifty (50) or fifty (50%), whichever is less, on Lake County lakes and twenty (25) feet on Outstanding Lake County Lakes and Outstanding Florida Waters.

Mr. Hewitt stated that an application form would be required describing the intent of the property owner and indicating the nuisance species, the beneficial species, how deep and how far they intend to go before a permit will be issued.

Commr. Pool stated that the property owners have expressed concern that they would be prohibited from keeping what they already have and explained that, on an Outstanding Florida Water, the new ordinance would mandate that the previously allowed fifty (50) foot clearing requirement with a permit would be change to twenty (25) feet. He stated that the property owners have suggested a compromise splitting the difference to 37 feet which allows the environmentalist to win and the property owner to win.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Tony Otte, City Manager, City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board and stated that the City of Leesburg City Commission was in opposition to the Water Resource Standards ordinance. He stated that the city has expressed concern with the shoreline clearing and staff has expressed a concern with the impact on city utility operations. He stated that the cities are required to comply with state standards and questioned how this ordinance compares with those standards.

Mr. Minkoff clarified that this ordinance, if adopted, would only be effective within cities to the extent that it was not in conflict with an existing city ordinance.

Mr. Otte stated that the city has expressed concern that the shoreline clearing provision was too restrictive and did not feel that something above what the state already requires was necessary. He suggested a workshop on the proposed ordinance with the County and the cities.

Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney, representing the Cities of Mount Dora, Howey-in-the-Hills and Fruitland Park, appeared before the Board and expressed concern that this ordinance does more than the shoreline clearing provision to protect the lakes. He stated that all three cities have stated that, if the Board adopts this ordinance, they will, in turn, pass an ordinance to assure they are inconsistent with this ordinance. At this time, he discussed their concern with Section 22-1, Item 1, which prohibits the presence of pollutants in the water. He stated that the City of Mount Dora has a concern, since approximately one-fourth of the shoreline of Lake Dora is within their jurisdiction, that they will be face with a penalty because there are pollutants in the lake. He discussed a concern with Section 22-7, Item 5, Stormwater/surface drainage, and stated that the City of Mount Dora, the County and Florida Department of Transportation will be in violation of this provision.

Commr. Swartz expressed concern with the language under Section 22-7, Item 5, which states that, it is a violation of this ordinance if any existing and/or proposed stormwater/surface drainage discharge adversely affects the biological, chemical, or physical characteristics of said receiving waters. He questioned what was the importance of said language.

Mr. Minkoff responded that it would require retrofit of facilities, and requires all facilities to be in compliance with Lake County Code.

In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz, Mr. Hewitt stated that, if the County or cities discharge stormwater and pollutants in excess of state standards, they would be in violation of state and federal standards.

Mr. Cooney noted that the City of Mount Dora has a stormwater exempt district downtown which allows construction of buildings in the downtown area without providing stormwater retention ponds; therefore, as soon as the county passes this ordinance, the City would be in violation of the County ordinance. He suggested to the Board that, if we have to visit this issue to correct it, and the City passes their own ordinance, the County would be in violation of Mount Dora's ordinance. He questioned why pass an ordinance that the County would be immediately in violation of and would have to be enforced against yourself.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, by passing this ordinance, it might put the County on target for understanding that we continue to degrade the quality of our lakes.

Mr. Cooney expressed concern with Section 22-7, General Water Quality, Item 1, which states that any industrial wastes or other wastes shall be effectively treated by the lastest modern technological advances. He stated that said language was stating that, when new technological advances become available, the City of Mount Dora would be required to retrofit their facilities. He expressed concern that standards were not provided in Section 22-12, Shoreline Protection, Item B. (b), which states that the clearing activity is in the public interest and does not degrade the natural habitat or adjacent shoreline uses. He suggested that clearing of native vegetation on a lake would probably be in the public interest and, if that was what was intended with this ordinance, clearing should be prohibited. He stated that the ordinance does not contain language that deals with the clearing, exemption or otherwise of nuisance species. He expressed concern with language in Article IV. Central Water System/Central Sewage System, Section 22-23, Item A. Central Water System and Item B. Central Sewage System, and stated that the County was attempting to impose the County's utility connection standards within a municipality. He suggested that the ordinance, as drafted, reads that the city must determine which is more restrictive or which is inconsistent or not inconsistent with regard to water connections and sewer connections. Mr. Cooney stated that all of the councils and commissions that he represents applaud the County's efforts in trying to protect the lakes in Lake County; however, if the ordinance goes forward in its present form, the cities will address what standards they want to impose in their cities and the County may end up with a lot less than what they intended for half of the water bodies. He suggested that the Board have a dialogue with the cities so that the rules will be consistent within County and city boundaries.

Commr. Pool suggested that the Board consider scheduling quarterly or annual meetings with the local elected officials to discuss issues of concern. He stated that the key was to have communication and not confrontation between the County and the municipalities.

Mr. Steve Vaughn, Realtor, City of Mount Dora, appeared before the Board and stated that he has sold a number of lots on the Chain of Lakes based on the understanding that the property owners would have the ability to clear their property with the fifty (50%) percent or fifty (50) foot rule in accordance with the Department of Environmental Protection regulations. He stated that the property owners were concerned with the twenty (25) foot rule and questioned if present property owners that have already cleared their property would be grandfathered in under the twenty (25) foot rule.

Mr. Brad Brown, a resident of Lake County, appeared before the Board and stated that he was a paramedic and also owns a company called Dirt Works which does lake clearing. He stated that he supports what was being proposed for shoreline clearing, and the fifty (50) foot rule would not be excessive. He stated that his main concern was with mechanically clearing, and the ordinance does adequately address this issue. He stated that he sees a lot of degradation to the lakes and the shoreline and the degradation comes from stormwater runoff.

Mr. Mark Venzke, a member of the Save Our Lakes Committee and the Lake County Conservation Council, appeared before the Board and read, into the record, a letter, dated December 14, 1999, in support of the water quality/shoreline protection ordinance. He stated that it was important that any decisions that are made be based on science and based on what will maintain and enhance the quality of water and, in general, the quality of the environment in Lake County.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess and reconvene at 10:45 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ORDINANCES (CONTINUED)

Ms. Carol Lang, a member of the Save Our Lakes Committee, appeared before the Board and expressed concern with the quality of the lakes in Lake County. She stated that her interest was to keep the lakes clean for the person who does not live on the lakes.

Mr. Dan Roebuck, a lake front property owner, appeared before the Board and commended the Board for the stormwater portion of the ordinance. He expressed concern that a fifty (50) foot clearing was not large enough for water skiing and that the grandfather clause has been removed from the ordinance. He suggested that the Board consider doing away with the fifty (50) foot clearing requirement and require a permit to do mechanical or chemical clearing and allow hand clearing under the state requirements.

Mr. John Benton, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, appeared before the Board and stated that House Bill 57 has changed the ground rules; however, House Bill 161 has been prefiled, by the same individual that pushed through House bill 57, that would allow a property owner to remove muck on one hundred (100%) percent of their lake front property and only replant twenty-five (25%) with native vegetation without a permit. He stated that the County has a compelling interest to protect the citizens of Lake County, and his personal preference would be a twenty-five (25%) percent rule on all water bodies. He expressed concern with the lack of an enforcement mechanize, and the need for more detail on removing noxious vegetation in the Water Resource Standards ordinance. He briefly discussed the City of Eustis' objection to the Water Resource Standards ordinance and a need for open dialogue with the cities.

Ms. Ann Griffin, a resident of the City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board in support of the ordinance and stated that the businesses along the canals should be exempted from the shoreline clearing provisions. Mr. Hewitt stated that the ordinance was drafted toward residential sites and would exclude commercial or public activities that have permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or from the St. Johns River Water Management District. She briefly discussed her personal experiences living on Lake County lakes and her experience with invasive plants and tampering with the shoreline.

Mr. David Young, a Lake County resident, appeared before the Board in opposition to the ordinance, and stated that the ordinance was too restrictive and appears to be drafted by the environmentalist movement without consideration for the property owner.

Mr. Joe Branham, a resident of Okahumpka, appeared before the Board in support of the ordinance, and expressed concern that the ordinance was not restrictive enough. He read, into the record, a paper titled, The Proposed Lake County Shoreline Protection Ordinance, 22-12, Views of Joe Branham. He stated that the ordinance sets forth conditions that have to be met before waterfront property owners are allowed to extend their yards into the publicly "owned" waters. He expressed concern that the ordinance was too weak to adequately protect the public domain and grants undue rights to the property owner.

Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, President, Save Our Lakes Committee, appeared before the Board in support of the ordinance and stated that Lake County desperately needs the authority to protect its shorelines, marshes, and wetlands against the excessive exemptions granted by state law. She stated that the Water Resource Standards ordinance will help to provide this protection and help put the destiny of our waters back into the hands of local control necessary to sustain the health of our lakes. She stated that the problems that have been expressed today were how to balance the wants of man and the needs of nature and this ordinance was attempting to achieve that balance. She stated that the Save Our Lakes Committee has expressed concern that there were no outward limits set for clearing in the exemptions. She stated that the fifty (50) foot rule appears to be too large and would be damaging to the many small lakes that exist in Lake County. She stated that this ordinance will protect our shores and lakes from House Bill 57 and from the abusive lake shore destruction that could come in the future. She presented photographs of an example of extreme shoreline destruction on Lake Nellie that was granted and allowed by House Bill 57 without a permit and discussed same.

Mr. Hewitt stated that the Water Resource Standards ordinance would have allowed shoreline clearing on Lake Nellie, in the above noted situation, up to fifty (50) feet wide, however, would never have permitted 1,000 feet deep for mechanical harvesting due to the destruction of the wetlands. He stated that current FDEP rules provide the ability to clear 1,000 feet through wetlands. It was noted that an aerial extent should be added to the ordinance.

Ms. Fullerton suggested that, if the Water Resource Standards ordinance is not approved today, the Board should strongly consider a moratorium on shoreline clearing until said ordinance is approved and becomes effective.

Mr. Steve Judson, Attorney, and a resident of Mount Dora, appeared before the Board to discuss legal concerns with the ordinance and stated that the proposed Water Resource Standards ordinance impacts almost every property owner on a lake in Lake County whereas House Bill 57 contains exemptions so that people do not have to have permitting where it allows fifty (50) feet except on Outstanding Florida Waters. He expressed concern with the twenty-five (25) foot rule on Outstanding Lake County Lakes. He cited Florida Supreme Court Case Rinzler v. Carson that stands for the proposition that, if a statute gives an exemption, an ordinance cannot take it away. It further states that, in order for an ordinance to prohibit that which is allowed by the general laws of the state, there must be an expressed legislative grant by the state authorizing the prohibition. He cited Florida Supreme Court Case Campbell v. Monroe County that applied the Rinzler reasoning to county ordinances. He stated that the first point was that, to the extent that it conflicts, it was subordinate and the state ordinance takes control. The second point was that shoreline owners have common law rights to an unobstructed view over the waters in front of them, and government action that obstructs this view constitutes a taking. Lakeshore owners also have a right to unobstructed access to the water in front of them and the law for that proposition was Lee County v. Kiesel. He stated that the ordinance before the Board, at this time, needs to be considered in light of how it works with Florida Statutes. He discussed Alternative Section 22.12, Shoreline Protection, which he had distributed in a memorandum prior to the discussion and was previously addressed by Commr. Gerber, which sets in place the standards for extending in length more than 100 feet perpendicularly from the owner's shoreline. He requested that the Board construct an ordinance that was more in line with state policy.

Mr. Robert Taylor, Executive Director, Lake County Water Authority, appeared before the Board and noted that the Lake County Water Authority Board has supported a local control over water quality and shoreline protection by sending the County Commission a resolution urging the Commission to go through the process of drafting a water quality and shoreline protection ordinance. He stated that they have also advocated the repeal of House Bill 57 by sending a resolution to the Legislative Delegation encouraging the Delegation to pursue said repeal. He stated that the Water Authority has not reviewed the present draft ordinance, therefore, does not have a position as it was currently proposed. He stated that Section 22-12, Shoreline Protection, states that the intent and purpose of this section was to improve and protect the quality of surface waters and enhance the natural functions of the waters of Lake County and that relates directly to Section 22, B. 2. (b) which states that the clearing activity is in the public interest and does not degrade the natural habitat or adjacent shoreline uses. He stated that the Board needs to be clear on the purpose of the ordinance and suggested that the purpose of this ordinance might be to establish a system to allow acceptable damage to shore lines.

Mr. Robert Allen Schwegl, a resident on Lake Minneola, appeared before the Board and submitted a petition with signatures in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He questioned if the Board would compromise and reduce their property values and property taxes if the County takes their riparian rights away by reducing the shoreline clearing rule. He stated that, from a scientific point of view, there has been no science involved in the debate and argument over fifty (50) feet versus twenty-five (25) feet. He stated that the Board should study this situation and have a workshop to allow the property owners an opportunity to give their point of view. He stated that he has spent approximately $8,000 clearing fifty (50) feet of shoreline, and he has a vested interest in the quality of the water. He expressed concern that, because he lives on an Outstanding Florida Water, he has to let his shoreline grow back. He stated that the issue was educating the property owner on how to protect the water quality of our lakes.

Mr. Glenn Barnes, owner of 250 feet of lakefront property on Lake Loch Leven, appeared before the Board and suggested that wording in the proposed ordinance, which states that the clearing of the lake front must be in the public interest, should be removed from the ordinance. He suggested that there was no way that clearing the lake front was going to be in the best interest of the environment. He stated that clarification must be made to the ordinance because, as it was written, there would be no clearing at all which was totally unreasonable.

Mr. Howard Barry, a resident of the City of Clermont, appeared before the Board in support of the ordinance and stated that there has been sufficient dialogue and workshops on this ordinance. He stated that he was opposed to private water treatment facilities; however, Lake County needs a lot of public water treatment facilities and this ordinance would accomplish a good deal of that need. He stated that the County needs the perpendicular depth provision, and a moratorium on shoreline clearing if this ordinance is not approved today.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, representing the Cities of Umatilla, Groveland and Mascotte, appeared before the Board to discuss Section 22-7, General Water Quality, Item 5, which states that it is a violation of this Ordinance if any existing and/or proposed stormwater/surface drainage discharge adversely affects the biological, chemical, or physical characteristics of said receiving waters. He requested that the Florida Department of Transportation be included within the list of people who are violating the code because several of FDOT's road systems do discharge directly into Lake County's water bodies. He noted that there was no reference to exemption for public facilities in the list of exemptions under Section 22-12, Shoreline Protection, C. Exemptions. He discussed Article III. Operation and Waste Treatment, Section 22-17, Item 8, which states "Not install, extend, or alter any pollution control/abatement structure of works for use in Lake County without first having the plans and other related material reviewed by the County Manager or designee.". He stated that said language would indicate that the municipalities would be required to obtain a permit for stormwater projects or be included in the exemptions.

Mr. Hewitt stated that the intent of Section 22-17 was to allow the County to look at the environmental aspects to determine if there were any discharges to wetland and surface waters because FDEP does not always look at the environmental aspects. He stated that this was primarily for those systems that may have an industrial discharge that will be discharged offsite into the waters of Lake County.

Mr. Beliveau addressed Article IV. Central Water System/Central Sewage System, Section 22-23 Connection Requirements, Item A. which states that existing development utilizing a private potable water system shall be required to connect to a regional/subregional potable water system when the Board of County Commissioners determine that there is endangerment to the environment, public health, safety, and welfare. He questioned if there was a definition for regional/subregional and are those also inclusive of the municipalities.

Mr. Hewitt stated that said language was intended toward the unincorporated area and not intended toward the municipalities. It was noted that clarification was needed to said language.

Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney, representing Summit Land Trust, appeared before the Board and stated that Summit Land Trust owns substantial holdings on Outstanding Florida Waters in South Lake County. He stated that, since the Chain of Lakes in South Lake County have been declared an Outstanding Florida Water, there has been no scientifically documented or established evidence that the quality and character of those lakes has deteriorated under the current FDEP rules. He expressed concern that the Board was balancing the rights of property owners on the water with the public interest, and this ordinance was only interested in protecting the public interest. He discussed the Burt J. Harris Preservation of Private Property Rights Act, Chapter 70.001, Florida Statutes, which states that the private property owner has rights and, if government, state or local, are going to take those rights away, the property owner deserves to be compensated. He stated that the economic impact on the County and on the private property owner for the reduction in their ability to utilize their lakefront has not been addressed. He distributed a memorandum, dated December 14, 1999, regarding the Shoreline Protection/Water Quality Ordinance, prepared by Steve Adams, Environmental & Permitting Services, Inc. Mr. Richey briefly discussed said memorandum. He suggested that the ordinance should address exemption for commercial activities and expressed concern that every stormwater system that was permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District in Lake County would be subject to this ordinance. He expressed concern that Section 22-12, Shoreline Protection, Item B. Standards for Issuing or Denying Permits; Permit Application, contains no specifics or timetable.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

In response to a question presented by Commr. Hanson, Mr. Hewitt stated that the ordinance additional requires a permit for mechanical harvesting and muck/organic material removal activities. Commr. Hanson stated that she was not prepared to vote on the ordinance today as it was drafted. She stated that it was a very emotional issue, noting that we will probably never know what the impact would be on the twenty-five (25) foot rule for clearing versus the fifty (50) foot rule. She stated that the ordinance was not comprehensive because it has not been worked out with the cities, and each city was going to be unique in their agreements with the County. She stated that, if the cities choose to withdraw from the ordinance, the ordinance will encourage annexation into the cities. She stated that there has been no differential defined between the beneficial and non-beneficial plants. She stated that she agrees that the County might want to consider allowing a 200 foot clearing rule and replanting 100 feet of beneficial plants which would have a positive affect on the water quality. She stated that language needs to be included regarding the depth and perpendicular length requirements and a definition of nuisances species. She stated that the grandfather clause should be reconsidered.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he has supported this ordinance; however, seven municipalities that have been represented today would opt out of the current proposed Water Resource Standards ordinance if adopted, therefore, diluting the Board's intentions. He suggested that the Board direct County staff to meet within forty-five (45) days with the municipalities individually, or as a group, to discuss the Water Resource Standards ordinance and reschedule a public hearing on a draft ordinance that the municipalities would support.

Commr. Pool requested that the County Attorney and the Attorney's who have voiced opinions today meet to discuss the legal issues to avoid litigation.

Commr. Swartz stated that there were a couple of provisions in the proposed ordinance that may be an improve over FDEP requirements, however, by and large, the issues that are missing from the ordinance are the ones that bring the County into compliance with House Bill 57. He stated that the intent of the Board was to have a Comprehensive Plan that had more of a limitation on shoreline clearing. He expressed concern that the ordinance that the Board approved for advertising had the necessary provisions, and the ordinance before the Board today does not include those provisions. He suggested that the ordinance be brought back to the Board for permission to advertise.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board directed staff to bring back to the Board a request for permission to advertise an ordinance creating Chapter 22 entitled Water Resource Standard within forty-five days; and to meet with the municipalities for discussion on said ordinance prior to readvertising.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:15 p.m.

ZONING

It was noted that the following staff members were present for the zoning hearings: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management; and Mr. James N. Smith, Director, Division of Planning and Development Services.

POSTPONEMENTS

PETITION NO. CUP#99/12/1-3 CUP IN A JOHNNY BREWER

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was in receipt of a letter requesting a sixty (60) day postponement on CUP#99/12/1-3, Johnny Brewer.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting on the postponement of CUP#99/12/1-3.

Ms. Ruby Brewer appeared before the Board in objection to the postponement of CUP#99/12/1-3, and briefly discussed the history of this request. She expressed concern that the applicant has had ten (10) months to obtain the necessary permits.

Mr. Johnny Brewer, the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that he purchased the land in February 1999, and a sixty (60) day postponement would allow him time to complete the nursery operation before requesting the Conditional Use Permit for placement of a mobile home on site for agricultural housing for workers assisting in the operation of a nursery.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request for a sixty (60) day postponement on CUP99/12/1-3, Johnny Brewer.

PETITION NO. PH#46-99-2 A TO PUD R. DOUGLAS SADLER/MAGNOLIA CENTER

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was in receipt of a letter from Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, requesting a thirty (30) day postponement on PH#46-99-2, Douglas Sadler, Magnolia Center.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request for a commercial PUD (Planned Unit Development), and that staff would support a thirty (30) day postponement.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting on the postponement of PH#46-99-2.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, was present in the audience.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the postponement.

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Petition No. #46-99-2, Douglas Sadler, Magnolia Center, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for thirty (30) days.

PETITION NO. PH#55-99-2 R-1 TO CFD DALE LADD/SOUTHLAKE LAND TRUST/LAKE UTILITY SERVICES, INC.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that Lake Utility Services, Inc. was requesting a postponement on Petition No. PH#55-99-2, Dale Ladd/Southlake Land Trust/Lake Utility Services, Inc.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Don Rasmussen, Vice President, Lake Utility Services, Inc., appeared before the Board and explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied their request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a water treatment plan for Amberhill Subdivision without prejudice. He stated that his interpretation for denial without prejudice was that the project was probably worthwhile and meets most of the County improvements but needs some final modifications. He stated that Lake Utility Services has evaluated alternatives from an engineering cost standpoint and have made some worthwhile modifications to the water storage tank. He stated that, because of the short time period between the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the meeting today, they have not had the opportunity to meet with the Board of Directors of the Amberhill Subdivision and the Lake Ridge Club Subdivision to explain the modifications that they would like to make to their original plans; therefore they have requested a thirty (30) day continuance to be able to meet with the homeowners associations to resolve some of the issues.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, briefly explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval, denial or denial without prejudice. He explained that, if four (4) members of the Board vote to allow the petition to be refiled in less than one (1) year, the case can be denied without prejudice.

Mr. Rainert Janetzki, President, Lake Ridge Club Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board to speak on behalf of Lake Ridge Club and Amberhill Subdivision homeowners. He stated that approximately forty (40) concerned residents were present today, and he has 120 signed letters in opposition to the proposed facility. He requested that the Board deny the request for a postponement.

Mr. David Calfee, a member of the Amberhill Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board to speak in opposition to the postponement of Petition No. #55-99-2.

Mr. Paul Heitman, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request for postponement and noted that they have given up a days work to come to the meeting today.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied a request for a thirty (30) day postponement of Petition No. 55-99-2, Dale Ladd/Southlake Land Trust/Lake Utility Services, Inc.

PETITION NO. CUP#99/12/3-3 CUP IN HM BELLSOUTH MOBILITY/DONNA MCINTOSH/LARRY & JUDITH FARLEY

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in HM (Heavy Industrial) for placement of a 250 foot telecommunication tower and an unmanned equipment building on approximately 39 acres in the Astatula area. She stated that existing zoning on the parcel was HM (Heavy Industrial), and this request meets the criteria of the Lake County Tower Ordinance. She stated that staff was recommending approval for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in HM (Heavy Industrial); and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 9 - 0 vote. She stated that there were no letters in opposition to this request.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

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

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-119, a request from BellSouth Mobility/Donna McIntosh/Larry and Judith Farley, Petition No. CUP#99/12/3-3, a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in HM (Heavy Industrial) for placement of a 250 foot telecommunication tower and an unmanned equipment building.

PETITION NO. CUP#99/12/4-2 CUP IN A J. RAY BRIDGES, ET AL

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) to allow access to a small lake on site for use as a ski instruction with the operation of two (2) boats and an existing sun shelter in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. She stated that this case involves the operation of water skiing training on a lake created from an abandoned mining activity, and the Department of Community Affairs had no concern with the request. She stated that staff was recommending approval of a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture), and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 9 - 0 vote with a change in the conditions lengthening the hours of operation from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. from September 1 through December 15.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and asked that the Board approve this request with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to lengthen the hours of operation from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. from September 1 through December 15.

Commr. Swartz questioned how the refueling of the ski boats would be handled within the ordinance. Ms. Farrell responded that boats under a 500 gallon capacity would be exempt. She noted that previous ordinances relating to ski schools have included Florida Department of Environmental Protection language for refueling of ski boats. Commr. Swartz requested that refueling facilities on site be reviewed by staff and be required to meet minimum criteria for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, 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. 1999-120, a request from J. Ray Bridges, Petition No. CUP99/12/4-2, for a CUP in A (Agriculture) to allow access to a small lake on site for use as a ski instruction with the operation of two (2) boats and an existing sun shelter, with the conditions that the hours of operation be changed from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. from September 1 through December 15; and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection language regarding refueling of ski boats be inserted in the ordinance under 2. Terms, Item D. Permitting.

PETITION NO. PH#60-99-4 A & R-1 TO CFD LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for rezoning from A (Agriculture) and R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for the expansion of adjacent middle school uses or as a new elementary school in the Eustis area. She stated that this was a logical extension of the existing middle school currently in place and staff has recommended approval to rezone from A (Agriculture) and R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District). She stated that a petition was submitted today (County Exhibit 1) with signatures in support of the Lake County School Board's proposal to establish two (2) residential lots where this property meets Lake Swatara Drive with the same deed restrictions that are currently established for Lake Swatara Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 9 - 0 vote with the conditions that there shall be no access through Lake Swatara Subdivision and that a site plan must be submitted for approval. Ms. Farrell illustrated on the aerial map the location of the two (2) proposed residential lots that would be created through the County's lot line adjustment process.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Jerry Cox, representing the Lake County School Board, appeared before the Board and explained that a suggestion was made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting by the residents that two (2) residential lots be created, which would make the cul-de-sac a dead; and, the buyers of said lots would be aware that a school facility would be going in on the adjacent property at time of sale. He stated that the School Board has also agreed to come back through site plan review. He stated that the Lake County School Board was requesting that the Board less out those two (2) acres for the two (2) residential lots. He noted that they were adopting the deed restrictions of the community to apply to the two (2) residential lots, and that consideration has been given to adding additional buffering to said lots before they are sold. He stated that the existing school has authorization to put lighting on the fields, and he would not want to totally restrict lighting on the site for future needs.

Mr. Michael Gionfriddo, a resident on Bates Avenue, appeared before the Board and explained that his three (3) acre parcel abuts the property in question on the southeast corner. He stated that he has no objection to the request to rezone to a CFD (Community Facility District). He noted on the aerial the location of his property and the eight (8) adjoining properties that are directly affected by this planned facility. He requested that he be given the opportunity to review the site plan as he was an architectural engineer. He expressed concern that the law was not conclusive of prolific recreational facilities; therefore, they were requesting no bleacher type facility be built and that no recreational facilities be conducted on the parcel. He expressed concern that the parcel was approximately seventy (70%) percent hardwood trees, with a diameter of six (6) inches or more, and requested that the Lake County School Board not be allowed to remove all of the trees. He noted that all of the neighboring houses were located 150 to 250 feet from the roadway and requested that the School Board be required to mirror their setback lines for any structures. He requested that a berm be required at least six (6) feet in height with the appropriate landscaping if a structure was constructed on the parcel. He requested that a turn-out lane requirement be included for any future ingress or egress to the facility. He requested that a traffic analysis be performed on this portion of Bates Avenue and discussed the need for resurfacing of the road from Estes Road to the existing school because of deteriorating road conditions caused by the school buses. He requested that, if the road was resurfaced, the road be resurfaced with a smooth asphalt and not the economical rough aggregate which magnifies tire noise. He requested that the speed limit be taken into consideration and suggested that the speed limit be reduced to thirty-five (35) miles per hour or less. He stated that he does not contest the rezoning but only that they be given the opportunity to review the site plan.

Mr. Egor Emery, a resident on Lake Swatara Drive, appeared before the Board and explained that his property directly abuts the subject parcel on the northside on Lake Swatara Reserve. He discussed the staff report and stated that there would be environmental impacts as there were gopher tortoises on the site. He stated that the proposed rezoning would likely degrade the current level of service on Bates Avenue and Estes Road. He requested that the Board compel the Lake County School Board to come before the Board with a site plan to assure that the mistakes that were made with the existing school are not repeated. He stated that they do not want school buses or construction trucks using Bates Road and Estes Road to get to the school to eliminate further degradation of the road. He expressed concern that the proposed rezoning does affect property values. He addressed the ordinance, Section 1. Terms, Item B. Transportation Improvement Conditions, and Item C. Buffering/Screening. He requested that the Lake County School Board be held to as high a standard of buffering on the parcel as possibly. He addressed the recreational issues and stated that he was more concerned with overnight lighting than he was with a ball field.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., appeared before the Board on behalf of Michael Holland, a resident on Lake Swatara Drive, and requested that the site plan be brought back to the Board for review to determine what kind of residential dwellings were in place, and to address landscaping and/or lighting concerns.

Mr. Bruce Finger, a resident on Lake Swatara Drive, appeared before the Board and requested that the Board less out the two (2) lots so that they can complete the cul-de-sac.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had concerns with regard to screening and buffering; however, if the motion would include the requirement that the site plan be brought back to the Board for approval, his concerns could be addressed at that time.

Commr. Swartz stated that it needs to be made clear that the buffering, screening and transportation requirements would be revisited at site plan review and that there may be additional requirements and changes.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the Board adopts the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, Item C., Buffering/Screening would change to basically state that buffering and screening would be determined at the time that the Board considers the site plan.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-121, a request from the Lake County School Board, Jett & Sandra Riley, Petition No. PH#60-99-4, to rezone from A (Agriculture) and R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for the expansion of adjacent middle school uses or as a new elementary school with the following conditions: 1. The site plan be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval with appropriate advertising and noticing; 2. Buffering must be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval; and 3. Deletion of two (2) lots.

PETITION NO. CUP#99/12/1-3 CUP IN A JOHNNY BREWER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) for placement of a mobile home on site for agricultural housing for workers assisting in the operation of a nursery on a five (5) acre parcel in the Lake Jem area. She provided a brief history of the parcel in question and discussed an aerial map illustrating those structures that have been removed from the site since the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) was revoked. She explained that Mr. Brewer has been working with Lake County Code Enforcement in an attempt to bring this property into compliance. She stated that currently there were two (2) non-permitted mobile homes on the parcel, and Mr. Brewer was requesting a CUP for the second mobile home in association with the nursery activity. She stated that staff was recommending approval of a CUP in A (Agriculture), and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial by a 9 - 0 vote. She noted that there were four (4) letters and eight (8) form letters in opposition to this request.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Johnny Brewer, the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that the nursery would be completed within sixty (60) days and that he would be growing landscape plants. He explained that he also works in the produce and fruit business and needed a caretaker to care for the nursery in his absence.

Ms. Evelyn Brewer, a resident in Lakeview Homes Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and explained that this request was not for use as agricultural housing for an employee and would be a rental mobile home. She questioned the need for a caretaker when Mr. Brewer lives one-hundred feet from the nursery.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson questioned if the Property Appraiser's Office has granted an agriculture exemption on the property; at which time, Mr. Brewer responded that he has filed for an agricultural exemption for next year.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny a request from Johnny Brewer, Petition No. CUP#99/12/1-3, for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of a mobile home on site for agricultural housing for workers assisting in the operation of a nursery.

Commr. Pool stated that the key was that Mr. Brewer was asking for a thirty (30) day extension in order to get the nursery completely operational. He questioned, if Mr. Brewer gets the nursery completely operational as an agricultural exempted piece of property with fernery involved, when would he be able to return with the request for the caretaker's residence.

Mr. Minkoff explained that Mr. Brewer would have to wait one year unless four (4) members of the Board agree to shorten the time.

Ms. Farrell provided a brief history of the Code Enforcement violation and explained that the Code Enforcement case began in September 1997 and the Condition Use Permit was revoked on October 27, 1998.

Commr. Swartz amended his motion to include "without prejudice", with Commr. Gerber including "without prejudice" in her second to the motion.

Mr. Minkoff noted that the motion would require four (4) votes to include the term "without prejudice".

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for denial without prejudice, which carried by a 3 - 2 but failed for the lack of four (4) votes.

Commr. Hanson and Commr. Pool voted in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried by a 3 - 2 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request from Johnny Brewer, Petition No. CUP#99/12/1-3, for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of a mobile home on site for agricultural housing for workers assisting in the operation of a nursery.

Commr. Hanson and Commr. Pool voted in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied a request from Johnny Brewer, Petition No. CUP#99/12/1-3, for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of a mobile home on site for agricultural housing for workers assisting in the operation of a nursery, without prejudice.



PETITION NO. PH#41-99-1/3 R-6 TO PUD ESTATE OF VALERIA JESSEE

STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for single-family residential and multi-family residential purposes on 30.97 acres located just north of the Lake Square Mall in the Leesburg/Silver Lake area. She stated that staff found the request to be a good transitional use between the mall, the commercial uses and the residential uses. She stated that the PUD ordinance would require a minimum of twenty-five (25%) percent open space with the development plan. Ms. Farrell discussed the aerial map (County Exhibit 1) and the site plan. She stated that the applicant was proposing up to 145 condominium dwellings comprised of 57 lots and 88 cluster or multi-family homes. She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) to a PUD, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 10 - 0 vote.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney, representing Howard Hewitt and Keith Shamrock, the purchaser and developer of the property in question from the Estate of Valeria Jessee, appeared before the Board and introduced Mr. Tim Green, Green Consulting Group, Inc.

Mr. Tim Green, Green Consulting Group, Inc., appeared before the Board to provide testimony on the Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan and discussed open space requirements, which exceed the twenty-five (25%) percent requirement. He explained that the condominiums would be two (2) story single-family detached homes and one (1) story multi-family townhouses. The minimum townhouse size was 1,384 square feet on the conceptual plan, and the minimum single-family house size has been increased to 1,213 square feet. He stated that this would be a gated community with a single entry point and would be surrounded by a six (6) foot privacy wall. He stated that the development review staff has indicated that a traffic analysis would be required at site plan review to determine the signalization and sequencing of the signal at the Target entrance and at Highway 441. He stated that gopher tortoises have been found on the property and would be relocated to the open space or moved off-site through permitting. He discussed a site plan (Applicant's Exhibit A) illustrating the elevations.

Ms. Pam Murray, a resident of Silver Lake Forest, appeared before the Board and stated that the proposed rezoning was incompatible with the surrounding area of single family homes and stated that over 300 individuals have submitted petitions or letters in objection to this rezoning. She stated that the Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Silver Lake Forest, written by Keith Shamrock, required all homes to be single family units with a minimum of 1,400 square feet excluding garages, porches, and breeze ways. She stated these declarations were necessary to protect Silver Lake Forest when Mr. Shamrock had a financial investment in the development, noting that she, now, has a financial investment in the development. She stated that credibility was an issue and, therefore, she was more comfortable with the R-6 (Urban Residential) zoning than an ever changing plan from Mr. Shamrock's representative.

Ms. Katy Wettingel, President, Silver Lake Association, appeared before the Board and expressed concern with the size of the proposed single family and multi-family homes and stated that the PUD was not compatible with the surrounding areas. She expressed concern with the traffic and stated that the traffic was affecting their property values and their quality of life. She requested that the Board deny the request to rezone to a PUD.

Ms. Sheila Ball, a resident of Chelsea Park, appeared before the Board and expressed concern with the traffic on Radio Road and the number of units per acre.

Mr. Richey explained that the townhouses would be individually owned and would cost approximate $100,000, and the single family houses would cost in excess of $100,000. He stated that the site plan includes a common area with an amenity package that would provide a club house for the residents. He stated that, at the request of County staff, he filed a request to rezone to RP (Residential Professional) for 210 residential units. He explained that staff evaluated the request for RP and asked that he reconsider rezoning the property to PUD (Planned Unit Development). He stated that the proposed PUD was compatible with what was developing in the area and that there was a demand for this PUD.

Commr. Gerber disclosed that she had an opportunity to discuss meeting dates with some of the individuals in opposition to this request but did not discuss the specifics of the case.

Commr. Swartz noted that there was an error on the cover sheet that indicates that the Future Land Use was Urban Expansion when, in fact, it was Urban.

Mr. Richey requested that the ordinance in Section H, Additional Conditions, Item 8. be changed to state that the applicant proposes to build one story townhouses and two story single-family houses.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz expressed concern with the open space, however, stated that this request would go through staff review and staff would interpret what the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations say to insure that the open space meets the requirements. He stated that he does not see this PUD as a detriment, and it appears that the requirements have been met; however, he does not believe that the garden area within the condominiums was open space. He stated that, if the Board was going to allow more urban type densities, we have to be more particular in insisting on real and reasonable open space and encouraged staff to try to insure that we do that when we move in these directions. He stated that this request meets all of the requirements of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and those who have spoke in opposition have not submitted specific policies in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan that the Board would need to deny this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 1999-122, a request from the Estate of Valeria Jessee, Petition No. PH#41-99-1/3, to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), as amended, with the townhouses limited to one story and any single family residential be limited to the height requirements in the Lake County Code, for single-family residential and multi-family residential purposes.

PETITION NO. #55-99-2 R-1 TO CFD DALE LADD/SOUTHLAKE LAND TRUST

LAKE UTILITY SERVICES, INC.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a water treatment plant for Amberhill Subdivision on 1.837 acres in the Clermont area. She explained that there are two (2) existing water treatment plants that abut the site and provide water to the Amberhill Subdivision, and the request was to build a new water treatment plant site on a parcel that has not been developed. She discussed the aerial map of the property in question and an engineer plan (County Exhibit 1). She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) with conditions regarding landscaping, buffering, and full site plan approval for construction of water treatment facilities to service all of the area and the future growth of the area. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial without prejudice by a 10 - 0 vote. She noted that there were four (4) letters and 101 form letters in opposition to this request.

Mr. David Orr, Regional Operations Manager, Lake Utility Services, Inc., appeared before the Board and explained that the proposed water treatment plant was adjacent to two (2) existing water treatment facilities located in Lake Ridge Subdivision and Amberhill Subdivision. He stated that their original solution included a low profile tank with a volume of 500,000 gallons and a side wall depth of twelve (12) feet. He stated that they also included excavation to conceal the tank so only approximately eleven (11) feet would be protruding above the existing grade. He stated that they also had done extensive landscaping around the complete border of the site that met or exceeded all County requirements. He stated that, at a previous meeting with the homeowners, two concerns were raised with the use of chlorine gas and with aesthetics. He stated that the use of chlorine gas as a disinfectant has been changed to bleach. He stated that he contacted Mr. Rainert Janetzki, President of the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners Association, on December 10, 1999 to discuss the new proposal, and Mr. Janetzki indicated that, unless the facility was moved to another location, nothing could be done to satisfy the homeowners, which was why Lake Utility Services has requested a continuance. He stated that they have proposed a smaller tank housed within a residential facade with a capacity of 290,000 gallons, which will provide the necessary potable water for the area and adequate fire protection and was similar to the existing approved Vistas Ground Storage Tank and Site Plan located within The Vistas Subdivision. He stated that this will require Lake Utility to build another ground storage tank at another location to serve the existing developments within the area.

Mr. Jim Boyd, President, Boyd Environmental Engineering, appeared before the Board to demonstrate the necessity of this ground storage tank, the necessity for this site, to provide an overview of the proposed improvements, and to address the issues that have been raised at prior meetings with the homeowners' associations. He explained that, on the average, each individual uses approximately 240 gallons of water per person per day and, as the area grows, they have to maintain strong water pressure to assure that they can provide the necessary fire flow. He presented drawings of the existing and proposed water treatment plants (Applicant's Exhibit A & B) and discussed same. He stated that they currently have two (2) wells adjacent to each other located at the Amberhill water treatment plant and at the Lake Ridge Club water treatment plant. He stated that they were proposing to maintain the two (2) existing wells and to build a storage tank with the wells pumping to the storage tank. This would maximize the effectiveness of the wells and enable the water utility to better meet its needs in respect to water demand. He stated that the site plan (Applicant Exhibit C) illustrates a sixty (60) foot setback from property boundaries, a liquid chlorine storage shed, a stormwater retention pond, a ten (10) foot landscape buffer and access from Garnett Drive. He discussed a sketch of the plant illustrating the residential facade. He presented two photographs (Applicant's Exhibit E) and discussed the location of the water treatment plants. He explained that the intent of Lake Utility Services was to interconnect all of their water treatment plants which would provide a more reliable system. They have developed cost effective designs that are regulated by the Public Service Commission. He presented a topographic map (Applicant Exhibit F) of the area and discussed the elevation of the existing and proposed water treatment facilities (Applicant Exhibits G, H & I), and the advantages of having a higher elevation. He discussed site lighting and low noise levels and explained that they were proposing the use of a generator to provide water service during power outages, and the generator would be exercised one (1) hour per week during midday. He discussed other issues of concern and stated that there would be no odor generation associated with the plant. He stated that one operator would visit the site once daily, liquid chlorine would be delivered once every three weeks and the fuel would be replaced once per month.

Mr. Rainert Janetzki, President, Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Board and stated that the homeowners were opposed to this facility because it was located in the center of an established community. He requested clarification on the projected size of the storage tanks. He questioned if Lake Utilities was aware of two (2) other sites in the area that have a similar elevation that were further away from the established neighborhoods. He stated that Lake Utilities has several facilities throughout the region and questioned why Lake Utilities couldn't interconnect those wells. He suggested that Lake Utilities use the existing wells, add four additional pumps to those wells and run the pipes to the storage facilities in the proposed PUD that was to be developed. Mr. Janetzki submitted one-hundred and twenty (120) letters in opposition (Opposition Exhibit A)to this request. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Orr responded to Mr. Janetzki's questions and comments.

Mr. Doug Gibson, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, and presented questions in regard to the proposed Spring Valley PUD, the proposed 290,000 gallon tank service area, access to the proposed facility, cost analysis on the proposed project, the noise level of the generator, impact on property values, landscaping, buffering, and storage and well capacity. Mr. Gibson presented a copy of the Spring Valley PUD Ordinance (Opposition Exhibit B) and questioned if there was a location for a Community Facility District in the Spring Valley PUD. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Orr responded to Mr. Gibson's questions and concerns.

Mr. Steve Bragg, a resident of Lake Ridge Club Subdivision representing the views of the area residents who could not be present today, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request. He discussed major concerns with safety issues regarding the transportation of hazardous materials; lifestyles irreversibly altered; economic impact on present home values and future appreciations. He read a statement from Florida Real Estate Analysts, Inc. (Opposition Exhibit C), which states that the location of the water treatment facility adjacent to Lake Ridge Club would have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties. He stated that, based on his conversation with real estate brokers, the average reduced price on the homes in the area was fifteen (15%), and the objection was the mixing of an industrial type facility into an established residential neighborhood. He stated that this proposed facility was not needed to meet current or long term needs of residents and asked that the Board respectfully consider their request for denial of the application.

Mr. Paul Heitman, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, appeared in opposition to this request and stated that the residents understand that Lake County was going through a tremendous growth and with that growth comes utility growth; however, the County needs planned growth and this request was not planned growth. He stated that the proposed water treatment plant should be in a future Planned Unit Development in the area and located away from the residential community.

Ms. Kristin Cummings, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and explained that her family moved to Lake Ridge Club because the community was a safe, quiet, professional community and because of the great potential home resale values in the area. She stated that one week after they moved into their new home, they were informed of the proposed water treatment facility that was going to be located directly across the street from her home. She expressed concern with the health and welfare of her family. She noted the location of her property on the aerial map.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

TRANSMITTAL AND ADOPTION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL

REPORT (EAR)

At this time, Commr. Cadwell announced that the public hearing on the transmittal and adoption of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been postponed until the next scheduled meeting on January 5, 2000.

PETITION NO. #55-99-2 R-1 TO CFD DALE LADD/SOUTHLAKE LAND TRUST

LAKE UTILITY SERVICES, INC. (CONTINUED)

Ms. Joyce Prakke, President, Amberhill Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and presented photographs (Opposition Exhibit D) of the existing water treatment facility. She expressed concern with the transportation of chemicals through residential streets where her children and neighbor children play, and noted that the roads in Amberhill were very narrow. She stated that this facility was for future development and future use and should be developed within a future Planned Unit Development.

Mr. Joe Godfrey, a resident in Lake Ridge Club, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and stated that his property was abutting the proposed water treatment site, and that the proposed facility was a detriment to the surrounding communities. He stated that there were other alternatives for the water treatment facility in future Planned Unit Developments where the facility can be located away from the residential community.

Mr. Robert Waugh, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and expressed concern that, if this request was approved, there were no guarantees that Lake Utilities would do what they said they were going to do. He expressed concern with the decline of real estate values.

Mr. David Calfee, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, and stated that Lake Utility Services and the developers were the only winners if this request is approved, and the residents were the losers because of the incompatibility of a water treatment facility in a residential community and because of the traffic issues.

Ms. Kathy Lee, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, and stated that Amberhill Subdivision consisted of homes 2,000 to 4,000 square feet with extensive landscaping. She discussed the landscaping plan around the tanks and pumps and a concern that Lake Utilities would not maintain the proposed landscaping. She stated that they estimate that they will lose approximately $40,000 on their property.

Ms. Kelly Lorenz, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, and stated that she was the closest home to the proposed site. She expressed concern with the safety of her children and the value of her home.

Mr. Clarence Papetti, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and stated that his property was surrounded by Amberhill Subdivision, Lake Ridge Club and Crown Point. He noted the location of his property and expressed concern with the loss of his property values. He stated that the proposed ten (10) foot buffer was not adequate for the facility.

Mr. Walt McCarty, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and stated that the two communities were close to build out and there has never been a problem with the water treatment system. He suggested that the entire project be placed in another location.

Mr. Gibson reappeared before the Board and stated that the comments today indicate that the proposed water treatment facility was an industrial site and does not fit with the community. He stated that Lake Utilities indicated in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that this facility would be serving 1,800 acres, noting that Amberhill Subdivision was 46 acres. He discussed the staff report and stated that he had a problem with County staff stating that this was consistent with what was in place at this time and that the proposed facility would not affect property values. He discussed the aerial map and noted locations of future PUDs surrounding the proposed water treatment facility. He discussed concerns with transportation issues.

Mr. Boyd explained that this was a CFD (Community Facility District) providing a central public service and was not industrial zoning. He stated that the property immediately abutting on the west side was a tennis court and R.V. parking lot, and on the north side was an undeveloped lot that cannot be developed because it was encumbered by the existing well.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Pool stated that he could not guarantee that there would not be some reduction in property values with the water treatment facility, and the property owners should not have to endure even a five (5) or six (6) percent reduction in property values. He stated that the key was that the water treatment facility could be placed on another site as other properties develop in the area.

Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny a request from Dale Ladd/Southlake Land Trust/Lake Utility Services, Inc., Petition No. PH#55-99-2, to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a water treatment plant for Amberhill Subdivision.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan requires regional utilities and Lake Utility Services has put in small package plants to meet the needs of some of the small subdivisions. He stated that the scale of those tanks do not create the problems that a regional utility creates when you try to put that type of structure in a residential community. He stated that Lake Utility Services was attempting to put in the regional utility to meet the requirements of all of the existing subdivisions plus the new subdivisions that are planned. He cited Policy 1-1.6A, Policy 1-1.6B, Policy 16.1.10, Policy 16.2 and Policy 16.2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the proposed site does not meet the criteria for a regional water treatment facility, and Lake Utility Services should look for a site that will make them the regional utility provider within their utility service district that will not create the problems that were presented today.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LPA 99/2/1-2

Commr. Cadwell presented the adoption hearing on a request for an amendment to change the current land use designation of Rural to Urban Expansion to add additional lands to a vested Development Order.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

It was noted that Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, was present in the audience.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 4 -1 vote,

the Board approved the adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment LPA 99/2/1-2, Ordinance No. 1999-124, an ordinance changing the current land use designation of Rural to Urban Expansion to add additional lands to a vested Development Order for Royal Highlands PUD, Pringle Communities, Inc.

Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.

PETITION NO. PH#69-86F-2 AMENDMENT TO ROYAL HIGHLANDS PUD

PRINGLE COMMUNITIES, INC;

Commr. Cadwell presented the request for a substantial amendment to the Royal Highlands PUD to add approximately 307.36 acres of land to the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) to spread the existing number of units out for larger parcels, and amendment to the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Rural to Urban Expansion to allow residential density of 1.6 to 2.3 dwelling units per acre.

Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

It was noted that Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, was present in the audience.

No present wished to speak in opposition to this request

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.



On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 4 -1 vote,

the Board approved Ordinance No. 1999-123, a request from John Pringle, Pringle Development; Hester Estate c/o Linda Powell, Representative; Lowry Family LTD Partnership c/o H. Clay Lowry, Petition No. PH#69-86F-2, a request for a substantial amendment to Royal Highlands PUD to add approximately 307.36 acres of land to the DRI (Development of Regional Impact); and amendment to the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Rural to Urban Expansion to allow residential density of 1.6 to 2.3 dwelling units per acre.

Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

At this time, the Chairman announced that the Board would hear questions, comments, and concerns from the citizens who were present in the audience.

Ms. Glenda Mahaney appeared before the Board to discuss Code Enforcement Case CEB 113-97 and distributed copies of an Order of Enforcement pertaining to Lake County v. Glenda Mahaney. She discussed the Findings of Fact and the Order which states that Ms. Mahaney must comply with the CEB Order and remove a sign to meet the minimum setback of 15 feet of a traveled roadway or a fine of $50.00 per day will begin on the eleventh (11th) day if not in compliance. She stated that she was in compliance with the order; however, the County will not issue a permit for the pole sign because the County's attorneys were stating that she was not in compliance because of two wooden pieces of plywood. She stated that the fine that was levied against her was based on incorrect, false and/or perjured testimony given by either the County Attorney and/or Steven Frances Lengauer, Attorney, representing Lake County.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that a determination of whether someone was in compliance was a Code Enforcement issue. He explained that there was a Code Enforcement case, and Ms. Mahanney was found in violation; there was an Order of Violation entered; Ms. Mahaney appealed the order and the court affirmed and upheld the Code Enforcement actions. Subsequently, the Code Enforcement Board issued at least one (1), if not more, Orders of Fine, and the Court upheld said orders. He stated that, at this point, the County Attorney's Office was handling a foreclosure to enforce the Code Enforcement Lien, and the signs are still not in compliance as determined by Code Enforcement. He noted that there was a pending lawsuit arising out of a Code Enforcement action.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the County would respond to Ms. Mahaney's concerns by letter.



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONTINUED)

COMMUNITY SERVICES/STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Department of Community Services, appeared before the Board to present a request to subordinate a loan for Ms. Betty Ann Ostaine through Mr. Richard Featerston, Loan Officer of NationsCredit, based upon the guidelines of the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). He explained that Ms. Ostaine is seeking to refinance her first mortgage and has requested that Lake County consider subordinating the second mortgage held by Lake County. He stated that staff was recommending denial of this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to deny a request to subordinate a loan for Ms. Betty Ann Ostaine through Mr. Richard Featerston, Loan Officer of NationsCredit, based upon the guidelines of the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP).

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Department of Community Services, appeared before the Board and explained that the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 requires that bonds issued to finance multi-family housing developments require the approval of the government unit which has jurisdiction over the area where the projects will be located. He stated that this request was for approval of five (5) resolutions for the following projects: Lakeview Apartments, Osprey Ridge Apartments, Madison Gate Apartments, Indian Trail Apartments, and Seneca Lakes.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved and authorized execution of resolutions for issuance of Multi-family Housing Revenue Bonds to be issued by the Orange County Housing Finance Authority for the following five proposed projects in Lake County.

Resolution No. 1999-205 - Lakeview Apartments

Resolution No. 1999-206 - Osprey Ridge Apartments

Resolution No. 1999-207 - Madison Gate Apartments

Resolution No. 1999-208 - Indian Trail Apartments

Resolution No. 1999-209 - Seneca Lakes.



ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that this request was for approval to enter into negotiations with Perconti Data Systems, Inc. to create an integrated database for Emergency Services Assessments and Road Assessments which will allow a common database with the existing Building Service, Solid Waste Assessment and any Municipal Services Benefit Units for creation of the required certified tax rolls.

Ms. Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director, Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services, appeared before the Board and explained that this project would create a database that links into the Property Appraiser's database and the GIS database and any type of methodology of assessing would fall into the tables that are created once the database and the linkage is created.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval to enter into negotiations with Perconti Data Systems, Inc., as sole source, to create a software module for Emergency Services Assessments and Roads Assessment which will share a common database with the existing Building Service and Solid Waste Assessment modules in the amount of $25,000.00 for Phase I.

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

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board to present the request for approval of the Settlement Agreement between Jon Jones and Lake County approved by the parties at a Special Master hearing held on August 26, 1999. She explained that this case involved a recreational vehicle/mobile home park, known as Jones' Cypress Cove Marina, with structures that were not on a recognized lot. She stated that this agreement recognizes those lots as in conformance with County regulations regarding lot size, setbacks, and the placement of recreational vehicles or mobile homes on said lots.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between Jon Jones and Lake County.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board to present this request.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved a request for approval of the execution of the First Amendment to the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners on the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Study to purchase computer equipment to support the Lake County Transportation Model in the amount of $17,500.00.

ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONTINUED)

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS/COUNTY PROPERTY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the request for approval of a Contract for Sale and Purchase between Lake County and Carla R. Doerr, and an Agreement between Lake County and HCN, Inc. involves a piece of property that Ms. Doerr refused to sell to the County for the appraised value of $26,351.35 per acre. The Board directed staff to look at other alternatives. Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, and his clients, the adjacent property owners, intervened and negotiated a purchase price of $33,000 per acre. He explained that, in addition to donating right-of-way, the adjacent property owner has agreed to pay the difference between the appraised value of $26,351.35 per acre, which the County will pay, and the new asking price of $33,000 per acre. He stated that the County will be committed to the construction of the road, approved driveways, a median opening, and to provide a buffer to conceal activities at the landfill within three years.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the Contract for Sale and Purchase between Lake County and Carla R. Doerr and Agreement between Lake County and HCN, Inc. relating to purchase of right-of-way, in the amount of $99,633.00 (purchase plus costs), and the County will receive $19,680.00 from HCN, Inc.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, presented a request for authorization to proceed with steps necessary prior to the end of the year in regard to closeout issues with Commercial Union, and the close down with Florida Health Care Purchasing Cooperative in regard to health insurance issues last year. She stated that staff will work with Robey-Barber, the third party administrator, to determine outstanding claims and to begin to pay those claims from the money that had been set aside for that purpose in the health insurance fund.

Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance, noted that any liability has to be included in the financial statements for Fiscal Year 1998/99.



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously

by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to put on the agenda a request for authorization to proceed with steps necessary in the close down with Florida Health Care Purchasing Cooperative in regard to health insurance.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the request for authorization to proceed with steps necessary, prior to the end of the year, in regard to closeout issues with Commercial Union and the close down of health insurance with Florida Health Care Purchasing Cooperative.

COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT NO. 2

Commr. Pool informed the Board that he has received a request from Jaymark Builders that Lake County pay for a portion of the ingress and egress to the Lost Lake Elementary School. Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained that, on previous projects, a part of the design and bid process included the intersections at the schools. He stated that Lake County was not involved in the Lost Lake Elementary School project and was only a reviewing agency because impact fee credits were being utilized on the project. He noted that there was an extreme problem at the site when dropping off children at the school.

Mr. Stivender was directed to discuss this issue with the Commissioners individually.

ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONTINUED)

REPORTS/LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION

Commr. Swartz presented a request from the Transportation Disadvantaged Board to include in the Legislative Package an increase in funding for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program by increasing the automobile and light truck registration fee dedicated to the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust fund by one dollar, from $1.50 per vehicle to $2.50 per vehicle.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the Transportation Disadvantaged Board's recommendation to include in the Legislative Package Increased Funding for the Transportation Disadvantaged Board.

MEETINGS

Commr. Cadwell announced that a Legislative Delegation meeting has been scheduled on December 16, 1999 at 12:00 noon, at the Lake County Administration Building; and a Stormwater Summit has been scheduled on December 17, 1999, from 8:30 a.m. to noon, at the Agricultural Center.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

__________________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



msf\12-14-99-12-22-99\boardmin