A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JANUARY 23, 2001

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 23, 2001, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Robert A. Pool, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Debbie Stivender; and Jennifer Hill. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there was a published Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda.

CLERK OF COURTS' CONSENT AGENDA

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

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.



Bonds - Contractor



Request to approve Contractor Bonds - New and Cancellation, as follows:



New



5494-01 Mark Chodos

5527-01 Lee Woods d/b/a Lee Hadley Woods Construction/Central Florida, Inc.

5812-01 Mark Sylvain d/b/a Sylvain Electric, Inc.



Cancellation



5622-00 Farrells Heating and Air Conditioning Co., Inc.



Municipalities/Ordinances



Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 407-M, from the City of Clermont, providing for the annexation of a certain parcel of land contiguous to the present city boundaries; providing for an effective date; providing for severability; and providing for publication. Passed and ordained by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, on the 12th day of December, 2000.





COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that Tab 15, a request from Public Works for approval to advertise Vacation Petition No. 952, for Julie Faye Rogers, to vacate easements located in Section 19, Township 23, Range 25, in the area south of Groveland, needed to be pulled from the Consent Agenda, because the applicant had requested postponement. She then corrected Tab 19, a request from Public Works for approval and authorization to award North Hancock Road Extension (2-1354), Phase 1B, Project No. 2001-04, Bid No. 01-027, to J. Malever Construction Company, and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $1,107,674.20, from the Road Impact Fee Fund, noting that Boykin Construction, Inc. should be changed to J. Malever Construction Company, who was awarded the project, and the figure of $1,189,818.20 should be changed to $1,107,674.20.

It was noted that the presentations associated with Tab 20, a request for approval of the High School, Middle School, and Elementary School Recycler of the Year Award Program, will be made at a later date.

Commr. Stivender questioned whether the funding source for Tab 9, a request from Personnel for approval of the addition of two new positions in the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division - a Public Transportation Manager and an Administrative Office Associate I, in the amount of $94,056.00, would come out of Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) funds or some other fund.

It was noted that said positions would be funded out of additional TD funds that the Board approved for the Public Works Department.

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

Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Contracts, Leases and Agreements

Grants/Libraries



Request from Community Services for approval of the Florida Library Literacy Grant Agreement, in the amount of $25,000.00, and authorized proper signatures on same.



Committees/Community Services/Public Health/Resolutions



Request from Community Services for approval of Resolution No. 2001-8, amending Resolution Nos. 1994-19, 1995-211, 1996-105, 1998-179, and 1998-194, for the Comprehensive Health Care Committee, concerning membership provisions.



Community Services/Impact Fees/State Agencies



Request from Community Services for approval of a waiver of impact fees, pursuant to Chapter 15.00.003, for applicants for the County's Housing Assistance Program, funded by the

State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program; and approval of payment of these fees from the Impact Fee Trust Fund interest for the following participants:



Paul and Nancy Bauswell Jennifer Post

Jason and Melissa Birch Veronica Rickard

Shane Creel Carmelo Rebello

Eugene Domine Billy Skank and Christine Borrack

Franklin Hooper Miguel and Maria Sanchez

Andrew Larson Betty Steele

Abraham Lupian



Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Economic Development/Impact Fees



Request from Economic Development for approval of an amendment to the Agreement between Lake County and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, in reference to the payment of transportation impact fees, and authorized proper signatures on same.



Accounts Allowed/Courthouses/Facilities and Capital Improvements



Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of nomination form to the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, Inc., for the Historic Courthouse to be considered for the State Preservation Award, in the amount of $50.00.



Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Budget Transfers/Community Services

Fiscal and Administrative Services - Budget/Impact Fees/Sheriff's Department



Request from Fiscal and Administrative Services - Budget, for approval of the following:



Budget transfer from In-House Support - Law Enforcement, Machinery and Equipment, to Constitutional Offices/Sheriff - Law Enforcement Capital Outlay, in the amount of $9,000.00. Pursuant to Florida Statute 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting a transfer from the Sheriff's Automation Account to the Law Enforcement Capital Outlay Account, to be used for purchasing three (3) digital spectra mobile radios.



Impact Fee Refund Request to Margaret J. Piper, in the amount of $2,523.86. Impact fees should not have been charged. Permit issued for replacement home for house destroyed by fire.



Impact Fee Refund Request to Golden Triangle Affordable Housing, Inc., in the amount of $1,875.00. Building permit issued October 5, 2000. Waiver of impact fees approved November 7, 2000. Refund due to delay in approving waiver request.



Impact Fee Refund to Cold Springs Communities, in the amount of $400.00. Owner not given $400.00 credit for deposit in Concurrency Management System (CMS) Account

(CMS No. 930024, Eagleridge Subdivision).



Impact Fee Refund Request to Joseph A. and Joann Finelli, in the amount of $877.77. Proof of previous structure on the property presented after permit was issued.



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Libraries

Fiscal and Administrative Services - Procurement Services

Request from Fiscal and Administrative Services - Procurement Services, for approval and authorization to award RFP No. 01-024, encumber funds, and authorize a contract, subject to County Attorney approval, to Ingram Library Services, Inc., to provide opening day collection services for four (4) new library facilities, in the amount of $400,000.00.



Accounts Allowed/County Employees/Personnel/Public Works



Request from Personnel for approval of the addition of two new positions in the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, in the amount of $94,056.00. One position is Public Transportation Manager, Pay Grade 116, and the other is Administrative Office Associate I, Pay Grade 109. These positions are necessary for the effective administration of Lake County's Public Transportation Program.





Deeds/Public Works/Rights-of-Way, Roads and Easements



Request from Public Works for approval to accept the following:



Drainage Easement



Diamond Players Club, L.C.

N. Hancock Road (2-1354)



Levitt Homes, Inc.

N. Hancock Road (2-1354) and South Lake Trail



Non-Exclusive Easement Deed



Ann Huffstetler Rou

Huffstetler Drive



HLH Hwy. 27 LLC

U.S. 27



Statutory Warranty Deed



Huffstetler Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation



Diamond Players Club, L.C.

N. Hancock Road (2-1354)



Summit Greens Residents' Association, Inc.

S. Lake Trail



Levitt Homes, Inc.

S. Lake Trail



Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deed



Diamond Players Club, L.C.

N. Hancock Road (2-1354)



Levitt Homes, Inc.

N. Hancock Road (2-1354)



Deeds/Public Works/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Lake Horseshoe Reserve Subdivision and a Conservation Easement Deed from Kathleen Lee Lawrence and Joe Wynn Shipes, Trustees of the Dorothy Mae Shipes Family Trust. Subdivision consists of 8 lots - Commission District 3.



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



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Royal Highlands Phase 2 Subdivision; accept a Letter of Credit, for performance, in the amount of $213,384.45; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Pringle Communities, Inc. Subdivision consists of 181 lots - Commission District 2.



Municipalities/Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County and State



Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-9, lowering the speed limit on Thrill Hill Road (4-5880) from 45 mph to 35 mph, from SR 44 to Reedy Road (4-5881), in the Eustis area, and authorized proper signatures on same.



Municipalities/Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County and State/Signs



Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-10, authorizing the placement of a "No Turn on Red" sign on the traffic signal overhead assembly for Niles Street (4-4488A) southbound traffic approaching SR 46, in the Mt. Plymouth area, and authorized proper signatures on same.



Municipalities/Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County and State/Road Vacations



Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-11, advertising Vacation Petition No. 953, for Paul and Jeanette Netwal, to vacate a road located in Section 28, Township 20, Range 26, in the Astatula area - Commission District 3.



Municipalities/Public Works/Resolutions/Rights-of-Way, Roads and Easements

Road Vacations



Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-12, advertising Vacation Petition No. 954, for Robert A. Lawson and D. R. Horton, Inc., to vacate an easement located in Section 25, Township 24 South, Range 26 East, in the plat of Clear Creek, Phase III, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2.



Accounts Allowed/Bids/Public Works/Roads-County and State/Road Projects



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to award Rolling Acres Road (5-6903) and US 27/441 Signalization Project No. 2001-03, Bid No. 01-020, to Chinchor Electric, Inc.; and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $46,572.67, from the Impact Fee Fund - Commission District 5, Benefit District 3.



Accounts Allowed/Bids/Public Works/Roads-County and State/Road Projects



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to award North Hancock Road Extension (2-1354), Phase 1B, Project No. 2001-04, Bid No. 01-027, to J. Malever Construction Company; and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $1,107,674.20, from the Road Impact Fee Fund - Commission District 2, Benefit District 5.



Education/Solid Waste



Request from Solid Waste for approval of the High School, Middle School, and Elementary School Recycler of the Year Award Program.



Resolutions/Solid Waste



Request from Solid Waste for approval of Proclamation No. 2001-13, recognizing February 6, 2001 as Lake County Commercial Pesticide Clean Sweep Day.



PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PRESENTATION

PRESENTATION BY WENDOVER HOUSING PARTNERS, INC., REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE ELDERLY

Mr. Patrick Law, Wendover Housing Partners, Inc., addressed the Board stating that his firm is pursuing the development of a deed restricted apartment complex for seniors, to be located at the intersection of CR 46 and Hwy. 441 in Mt. Dora, and were requesting a local contribution, as required by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which provides tax credits for these types of properties. He stated that, in return for the tax credits, his firm will provide affordable rent to the seniors who will be residents in said community. He stated that they need $115,231.60 in local contributions and were present this date to request said amount from the County, in the form of impact fee waivers.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Wendover Housing Partners, Inc., the developers of affordable housing projects for the elderly, for $115,231.60 in local contributions from the County, in the form of impact fee waivers, and that payment of these fees be taken from Impact Fee Trust Fund interest.

PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 919 - KENNETH E. BOSSERMAN - CLERMONT

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Kenneth E. Bosserman, to vacate right-of-way, lots, and tracts recorded in Lake Highlands Company, located in Section 28, Township 22, Range 26, in the Clermont area. He stated that the property in question is associated with the high school site in Clermont, at which time he displayed and reviewed an aerial of said property. He stated that the request is to clear title, so that development of the site can move forward. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was not present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-14 - Petition No. 919, by Kenneth E. Bosserman, to vacate right-of-way, lots, and tracts recorded in Lake Highlands Company, located in Section 28, Township 22, Range 26, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2. PETITION NO. 944 - DENIS D. AND NANCY B. GRAY - GROVELAND

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Denis D. and Nancy B. Gray to vacate an easement in the Plat of Groveland Farms, located in Section 4, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, south of Groveland. He stated that the request was to clear up a title issue associated with the easement, at which time he displayed and reviewed an aerial of the property in question, noting that the easement runs through the middle of the applicant's front yard and house.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-15 - Petition No. 944, by Denis D. and Nancy B. Gray, to vacate an easement recorded in the Plat of Groveland Farms, located in Section 4, Township 23 South, Range 25 East - Commission District 2.

PETITION NO. 945 - STOKES GROVES OF EUSTIS - EUSTIS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr, Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a portion of streets and lots in the S. B. Hewett Lands Subdivision and Oakdale Park Subdivision, lying in Section 27, Township 19 South, Range 26 East. He displayed an aerial of the properties in question, stating that said streets and lots were necessary at one time, because they were the only legal access to the properties, however, noted that a road is currently being paved along the east property line that will be under county maintenance, which will be a short-cut to the north and south of Merry Road; therefore, the portions of the streets and lots in question will no longer be necessary. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The Applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-16 - Petition No. 945, by Stokes Groves of Eustis, Inc., Lowell A. Stokes, President, to vacate a portion of streets and lots in the S. B. Hewett Lands Subdivision and Oakdale Park Subdivision, lying in Section 27, Township 19 South, Range 26 East - Commission District 3.

PETITION NO. 947 - TRACY A. OR ROBERT SEIDLE - CLERMONT

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate easements recorded as part of a lot split off of Nellie Oaks Bend, in Section 24, Township 23, Range 25, in south Clermont. He noted that there was opposition to the request. He displayed an aerial of the property in question, at which time he discussed the history of the property and what has occurred, up to this point in time. He stated that a group of lots were developed off of a lot split and that part of one of the lots had frontage off of a platted right-of-way. He stated that there is a 30 foot easement along the south side of the property for drainage, utilities, and ingress/egress. He stated that there are several issues at stake, one being that the right-of-way is a public lot, which was to be used for recreational purposes, noting that there is a basketball court located on the back side of it.

Mr. Stivender displayed a map of the property, noting that a wall runs along the property line, which has been in place for six to eight years, as well as a small fence that has been erected on the property within the last year, which has caused a dispute between the residents of the subdivision and the Seidles about the location of it. He stated that the easement in question is usually wetlands, however, noted that it is dry at the present time, because of the County's current drought conditions. He displayed two pictures of the property, which he submitted for the record, showing the fences in question. He stated that some complaints have been reported to Code Enforcement associated with the fences and there is litigation involving them, however, noted that they are not part of the vacation request before the Board this date. He stated that another issue involved with this request is that of a lot split. He stated that, if the easement was vacated, there would be 50 feet of public right-of-way on the Seidle property, because of the way the lots were put together, along with the property that is considered wetlands. He stated that the Seidles have one deed on all the property, so it cannot be split, and noted that they are supposed to have 150 feet of frontage, which they do not have, from the original easement. He stated that one could say there is frontage along the easement on the north side, but it may also get vacated some time in the future. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, because the initial purpose of the easements have been served and the property has been built upon.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Alan Taylor, Attorney, Litchford and Christopher, in Orlando, representing the Applicants, Robert and Tracy Seidle, addressed the Board stating that Mr. Stivender had accurately laid down the historical issues involved with this case. He stated that the intention and sole purpose for the easement in question was to provide access to the rear tract (Tract A) of the property, consisting of five acres. He stated that the Seidles purchased Tracts A and B and constructed their home on the center line of the two tracts; therefore, he did not think it was in the interest of the County to continue to maintain the easement. He stated that, if the Seidles were to subdivide any portion of that property, private easements could be arranged to ensure access through any particular tracts owned by them. He stated that the wall, shown in the pictures that were displayed to the Board, was put in place, along with the gate, in March of 1993 and has only recently become an issue. He stated that an adjacent property owner, Mr. Granoff, approached the Seidles every year, to see if they would be interested in purchasing the property in question, but they refused to pay his exorbitant prices; therefore, Mr. Granoff retaliated by suing, to seek removal of the wrought iron fence that runs along the north and south sides of the Seidle's driveway, within the 50 foot easement that runs across the Granoff parcel. He stated that it was Mr. Granoff himself, the owner of said property, who told the Seidles they could put up the wrought iron fence, as long as he had a gate to the right of the easement that would allow him access to his property, notwithstanding the fact that there is an additional 30 to 35 feet of access off the right-of-way to the west of the gate. He stated that, in the intervening months, after the gate was put into place, there were attempts by Mr. Granoff to force the Seidles to purchase the lot for an excessive amount of money. He stated that the Seidles conceded to said amount; however, Mr. Granoff then asked for thousands of dollars more than he had originally quoted. He stated that Mr. Granoff is now suing the Seidles to seek removal of the fence, driveway, and sprinkler system that has been used to beautify the area in question, solely for the purpose of using it as nuisance value to gain a favorable advantage on the property. He stated, however, that said issue was not relevant at this public hearing, he just felt the Board should have some understanding of what the Seidles position is, with regard to it.

Mr. Taylor stated that the sole purpose for the easement was to provide access to the five acre tract along the back of the subdivision and noted that the Seidles' property is not located within the platted subdivision adjacent to their property, nor are they members of the homeowners' association. He stated that it appears the property owners in the subdivision are interested in acquiring rear access to the park, alluded to earlier, through the Seidles' property, notwithstanding the fact that the Seidles' property is not included within the platted subdivision, or that there already exists access along Mossy Oak Lane directly into the park. He stated that the Seidles should not have this issue held over their heads any longer, therefore, requested the Board to consider the recommendation of staff and approve the request.

Mr. Fred Woodering, the owner of Lot 10 on Nellie Oaks Bend, addressed the Board stating that he owns a piece of the lot that comprises the park alluded to earlier, as well as every other member of the homeowners' association, and that the easement in question abuts the back of said park. He stated that the homeowners' deeds state the easement is a public easement and he did not feel it was right for somebody to take over an easement that is described as a public easement. He stated that a public easement is a public easement, it is not somebody's private property, even though the Seidles have fenced it off and consider it to be their property.

Ms. Jeannette Saganich, President of the Lake Louisa Oaks Homeowners' Association, addressed the Board stating that a lot of the homeowners in the subdivision were not aware that the easement in question was supposed to be a public easement and, now that it has come to light, they are questioning why there has been a gate and "Private - No Trespassing" signs on it, prohibiting them from accessing it. She stated that the homeowners and children in the subdivision utilize the park and it would be safer for them to access it by way of the easement, rather than the roadway. She stated that she did not feel it was right for somebody to block use of the easement.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, when the subdivision was platted, the easement was not part of the subdivision. He stated that the only reason it was put into place was to allow the Seidles to access the parcels they own.

Ms. Jane Wiedeman, the owner of a parcel of property that backs up to the easement in question, addressed the Board stating that she became aware of the ownership of the easement by accident. She stated that the easement is located in her subdivision; therefore, she feels that all the homeowners in the subdivision should have access to it.

Ms. Kathy Granoff, an adjacent property owner to the Seidles, addressed the Board stating that the Seidles erected a fence across her property and that they erected it without her or her husbands knowledge or permission. She submitted, for the record, a Special Purpose Survey of the property in question, noting that she and her husband own two parcels that border the easement, one in Lake Louisa Oaks and the other in Lake Nellie Oaks. She stated that she and her husband were two of the original partners in both Lake Louisa Oaks and Lake Nellie Oaks and have owned the properties since they were originally platted in 1991. She stated that they developed Lake Louisa Oaks and then, through Lot 14, developed Lake Nellie Oaks. She stated that Tracts A, B, C, and D were split up between the partners, with each partner taking a tract, and, in exchange for being able to build on the property, they were required to donate a 50 foot easement, which she noted was larger than what they wanted to donate, but they were required to do so by the County. She stated that, contrary to the statement that was made that Lake Louisa Oaks and Lake Nellie Oaks were separate subdivisions and did not have anything to do with each other, they were very related. She stated that one subdivision was developed with the other one in mind and, at the time that Lake Louisa Oaks was developed, in 1991, the park became a community park and the partners had every intention of allowing Lake Nellie Oaks residents to have access to it and become part of the homeowners' association, noting that it all fell under one association. She stated that an ingress/egress and a conservation easement was set aside - not to be driven on, or used by the homeowners to access another homeowner's property, but because it was required by the County. She stated that, at the time that the easement was granted, she and her husband allowed access to the park across the front of their five acre tract; however, at some point fences, gates, "Private Driveway" signs, gate opening devices, and a decorative driveway were put into place by the Seidles, without her or her husband's consent. She stated that they repeatedly called the Seidles and sent them certified letters, which they refused to accept, asking them to remove the obstructions. She stated that the 50 foot easement the partners deeded to the County was property that they maintained and paid taxes on through the years and left open for public use and that the issue being addressed this date stemmed from the County requiring the donation of that 50 foot easement; therefore, she felt the County should help resolve the issue.

It was noted that the 30 foot easement, which is involved with this request and in question this date, runs parallel to the 50 foot easement alluded to by Ms. Granoff.

The Chairman questioned whether Ms. Granoff agreed that the Seidles own the portion of the easement in question, to which she responded that she did.

Ms. Granoff informed the Board that, if they were going to consider vacating the Seidles easement, due to the fact that she and her husband own the adjoining five acre tract, the Board should vacate their easement as well. She stated that she felt it would be discriminatory for them to vacate the Seidle's easement and not vacate their easement.

Mr. Harry Hackney, Attorney, representing the Granoffs, addressed the Board stating that he was representing them in a lawsuit against the Seidles. He stated that this was the second lawsuit he had this year involving a 50 foot wide public access easement. He stated that, in the other case he represented, the response he got when the opposing resident started blocking the easement was much the same as this Board responded, in that the opposing resident owned the property involving the easement; therefore, they could do anything they wanted to with it. He stated that it is true that the Seidles own the portion of the easement in question, however, noted that it is subject to a public easement, which comes not only with rights to the property owner, but with responsibilities as well. He stated that he felt the Board should be concerned about the long term effect, noting that the trend they were setting was to allow people to do what they wanted to with such areas and then bless them for doing it.

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

Commr. Pool questioned whether Mr. Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, had a different opinion than what he originally had, with regard to the easement, as it now sits.

Mr. Stivender stated that he did not, therefore, felt the request should be approved, as presented.

Commr. Pool stated that the 50 foot easement was created by the County, so that the lots in the back of the property in question could be accessed, however, noted that Mr. Seidle bought all the lots involved, so there is no longer a need for access to the back of the property.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to approve Resolution No. 2001-17 - Petition No. 947, by Tracy A. or Robert Seidle, to vacate easements recorded as part of a lot split off Nellie Oaks Bend, in Section 24, Township 23, Range 25, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2.

Under discussion, Commr. Stivender questioned whether the request would leave a 50 foot easement in front of the Granoff's property and was informed that it would.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the original intent of the easement was no longer there, noting that it was for ingress/egress for the Seidles, or whoever owned the property. She stated that the Unity of Title has been recorded, so the Seidles are the only owners of said property; therefore, she supported the request.

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

PETITION NO. 948 - H. L. AND CAROL M. GENTRY - OKAHUMPKA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right-of-way in Okahumpka Terrace, in Section 15, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, in Okahumpka. He stated that it was an old plat that has been in place for many years. He stated that the Gentrys own all the property in the area in question, with the remaining property owners having access to the north of their property, off CR 48. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-18 - Petition No. 948, by H. L. and Carol M. Gentry, to vacate right-of-way recorded in Okahumpka Terrace, located in the Okahumpka area, in Section 15, Township 20 South, Range 24 East - Commission District 2.

PETITION NO. 949 - MAYOR GLENN IRBY - MINNEOLA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a right-of-way recorded in the City of Minneola, located in Section 18, Township 22 South, Range 26 East. He stated that the right-of-way was given to the City, as part of an ingress/egress matter associated with former County Commissioner Claude Smoak. He stated that the City determined that it is no longer necessary to have the right-of-way, therefore, recommended that it be vacated. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-19 - Petition No. 949, by Mayor Glenn Irby, to vacate right-of-way recorded in the City of Minneola, located in Section 8, Township 22 South, Range 26 East - Commission District 2.

PETITION NO. 950 - MILLARD AND SALLY COSBY - CLERMONT

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a utility easement recorded in the Sunshine View Subdivision, First Addition, located in Section 32, Township 22, Range 26, in the Clermont area. He stated that there is a pool located within the easement; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-20 - Petition No. 950, by Millard and Sally Cosby, to vacate a utility easement recorded in the Sunshine View Subdivision, First Addition, located in Section 32, Township 22, Range 26, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2.

REZONINGS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that there was one change to the Zoning Agenda, noting that staff was requesting a 30 day postponement for Agenda Item No. 4, PH 9-01-3, Amantha Musselwhite, represented by Ms. Bonnie Roof, in order to work out some issues between the applicant, the neighborhood, and the County.

Commr. Hanson declared a Conflict of Interest, noting that her real estate office has an open listing for the property in question and there is a potential for gain, therefore, passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Pool, for action regarding the request.

The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request for postponement.

Ms. Irene Brinkman, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board stating that she would accept the request for postponement.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. PH9-01-3, Amantha Musselwhite/Bonnie Roof, Tracking No. 9-01-CP, for 30 days.

Commr. Hanson had declared a Conflict of Interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.

It was noted that this request was a continuation of a previous public hearing.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he had a conflict involving this case and had filed a Conflict of Interest form at the previous hearing, when the case was originally heard, therefore, would not be filing an additional Conflict of Interest form at this time.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that staff would be attaching a copy of the previous Conflict of Interest form that was filed by Commr. Cadwell to this file, as well.

PETITION NO. PH 50-00-1 - R-1 TO R-7 - CHARLENE FLINT/JOHN W. GARDNER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that, on December 19, 2000, staff presented the Board with a request to rezone a parcel of property in the Fruitland Park area from R-1 to R-7, at which time the Board was shown a video of the property in question. Due to the fact that Commr. Hill was not present at that meeting, a request was made for postponement of the case, until such time as she could be present. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request, noting that they could not support it, because they consider it spot zoning, due to the fact that the area to the northeast and west of the property is developed with conventional single family homes. She showed a brief portion of the video (County Exhibit A) alluded to earlier and reviewed an Assessment Map (County Exhibit B), showing the zoning classification that is presently in the area, as well as a picture of a conventional home (County Exhibit C) that is typical of the homes in the area, which she submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

Mr. Bob Cyrus, Attorney, representing Mr. John Gardner, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that the property in question consists of three lots and is located in a subdivision that was platted in 1953. He stated that the subdivision contained 85 lots at the time that it was platted, which were zoned for mobile homes; however, at some point, 17 of those lots were rezoned to R-1 and R-3. He stated that two of the lots that were zoned for R-1 and R-3 have mobile homes on them and there is another lot facing Lake Unity Road that remains RM. He stated that staff makes reference to the increased density that may occur, if the Board approves this request, because it would allow smaller lots than what is required in R-1 and R-3 zoning; however, he noted that the lots in question are 100 x 150 feet, so they cannot be cut into smaller lots. He stated that a survey of the area revealed that, within a quarter mile radius of the property in question, 65% of 163 lots were mobile homes, or zoned RM, and, within a one-half mile radius, 80% of 261 lots were mobile homes. He stated that the area is currently mixed use and the request before the Board is to go to a mixed use; therefore, it is compatible with the surrounding properties. He stated that the applicant plans to place a manufactured home that sells in the upper $60,000.00 price range on the property, not a mobile home, and that, with the cost of the lot and other amenities, it would amount to $87,000.00 to $95,000.00. He displayed various pictures (Applicant's Exhibit A) showing existing homes in the area, which he feels do not look any different than what his client is proposing to place on the property in question. He stated that staff's information to the Board was inaccurate, noting that one will find the area is one of mixed uses and that there will be no decrease in property values, by allowing the applicant's home to be placed there.

Ms. Jennifer Marsh, the owner of a parcel of property located on Eagles Nest Road, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the properties that were shown to them by Mr. Cyrus, containing mobile homes, were located on Ridge Road, which is behind Eagles Nest Road. She stated that the residents on Eagles Nest Road have spent a lot of money trying to keep their properties up and feel that it would be detrimental to the area to place mobile homes on the property in question.

Mr. John Wilkins, the owner of a parcel of property on Eagles Nest Road, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and displayed a picture of his property (Opposition's Exhibit A), which he submitted, for the record, along with letters (Opposition's Exhibit B) from two other residents opposing the request, who were unable to attend this meeting. He stated that he disagreed with the statement that was made that a mobile home matches his house, noting that a mobile home depreciates, where a site built home does not. He stated that there is no comparison between a mobile home and a site build home.

Mr. Charles Waychoff, the owner of a parcel of property on Eagles Nest Road, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he did not feel one could compare a mobile home to his home. He stated that, if one were to go two and a half miles down Eagles Nest Road, from the west to the east, they would not find a single mobile or manufactured home until they got to Fisherman's Wharf, which he noted contains some very old mobile homes, and, if one were to go north on Gray's Airport Road to the Marion County line, they would not find a single manufactured home. He asked the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Gerald Boyce, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that he was a "snowbird" who lives in a mobile home directly behind the property in question. He stated that he has had the experience of building five houses in his lifetime and that there is no way a mobile home can meet the standards of a conventional home, because the quality is not there. He stated that a mobile home detracts from the value of homes around it; therefore, he feels he should support his neighbors, who have conventional homes and are opposed to this request.

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

Commr. Hill stated that she felt this request was being looked at as a density issue, or a mobile home issue; however, she felt that staff looked at it as a density issue and that it would be a spot zoning problem.

Ms. Farrell interjected that it is an issue of spot zoning and compatibility, noting that staff looked at the zoning line that runs down Eagles Nest Road and found it to be all single family residential homes. She stated that it is a compatibility issue, more than anything.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff did a mobile home count in the area, however, was informed that they did not, because they did not feel that it applied in this case.

Commr. Stivender clarified the fact that the issue was not that of density for mobile homes, but the fact that this request was for a mobile home to be placed on Eagles Nest Road.

Commr. Hanson stated that some time ago the Board looked at the issue of conventional homes versus modular homes, however, did not take a position on one or the other. She stated that a modular home is not considered a mobile home, because it is not on wheels. She stated that this request was a tough one for her, because it is compatible with the homes that are within a half mile radius of the property in question, however, according to the film that was shown to the Board, it is not compatible with the homes along Eagles Nest Road. She stated that, if the type of homes are put in that the pictures indicated, there would not be a lot of difference, visually, between them and the homes that are currently in the area.

Commr. Pool stated that, due to the fact that the entire corridor of Eagles Nest Road is conventional homes and not the type of home in question, he would not be able to support the request.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board denied Rezoning Case No. PH 50-00-1, Charlene Flint/John Gardner, Tracking No. 89-00-Z, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), to allow construction of a single-family residence.

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

PETITION NO. PH 3-01-3 - A TO R-1 - LACY AND KERRY WROBEL

GREEN ACRES FERNERY

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for straight zoning from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for a parcel in the Yalaha area, consisting of 4.41 plus acres. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it, by an 8-0 vote.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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. 2001-2 - Kerry and Lacy Wrobel, Green Acres Fernery and Citrus, Inc., Rezoning Case No. PH 3-01-3, Tracking No. 3-0-1-Z, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential).

PETITION NO. CUP 01/1/4-5 - CUP IN A - LORRAINE ABECASIS

JENNIFER LEE ELLIOTT

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture), for the temporary placement of a mobile home, for the care of the infirm, on a seven acre parcel in the Fruitland Park area. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there were two letters of opposition, contained in the Board's backup material. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote, however, noted that there was a question as to the placement of the mobile home. She stated that the Board could add a requirement to the Ordinance that the mobile home be placed at the rear of the property.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Jennifer Elliott, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she recently moved to Lake County from Palm Beach County, because her parents are infirm and Lake County is where she wanted to retire. She stated that she was in total shock, when she learned that her neighbors were upset about her request, noting that she had told them what she planned to do, when she first moved into her home, and had no idea that they would have a problem with it.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Ms. Elliott had a problem with placing the mobile home at the rear of her property.

Ms. Elliott stated that her concern with placing the mobile home at the back of her property is the ability of E-911 to access it, noting that her parents have serious disabilities. She stated that she sees the mobile home as a temporary situation and will do everything she can to make sure it looks good. She stated that it will be located a little behind and to the west of her home. She stated that it will be as far off the road as her home is and will be buffered somewhat by trees that are located on the property.

Ms. Farrell requested that language requiring that the mobile home be located no closer to the road than the applicant's home be placed in the Ordinance.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-3 - Lorraine Abecasis, Jennifer Lee Elliott, Rezoning Case No. CUP 01/1/4-5, Tracking No. 13-01-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the temporary placement of a mobile home for care of the infirm, with a stipulation that language be placed in the Ordinance that the mobile home be placed no closer to the road than the existing residence.

PETITION NO. CUP 01/1/1-5 - CUP IN A - KENNETH AND ROSANN M. EVANS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a very small private cemetery. She stated that staff had no issues with the request and noted that there was no opposition to it. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote, however, noted that they took out the maximum of 20 grave sites, which staff had included, as a precaution. She stated that this request is not something that is regulated by Lake County. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-4 - Kenneth and Rosann Evans, Rezoning Case No. CUP 01/1/1-5, Tracking No. 10-01-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for a private family cemetery.

PETITION NO. CUP 01/1/5-4 - CUP IN AR - ELLIS DUANE EISNOR

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in AR (Agriculture Residential), to have a minor automobile repair shop in a very rural area of the County. She stated that, in accordance with the County's Code and Comprehensive Plan, staff could not recommend approval of the request, however, noted that there has been an appeal from the applicant's neighbors that this request involves a real need in their neighborhood. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-1 vote, with a requirement that the shop be limited to five (5) years, with an option for an extension. She stated that, should the Board approve the request, the County would conduct an annual inspection of the site. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request, because they could not find a way to introduce automobile repair in such a rural area of the County, which is the Wekiva River Protection Area.

It was noted that the CUP would stay with the property, however, would not stay with the current owner, thus, the reason the Planning and Zoning Commission put the five year requirement in the Ordinance.

Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed with staff's recommendation, however, noted that this particular operation has been in existence since the 1980s.

Ms. Farrell informed the Board that staff had added, under Item D.,on Page 2 of the Ordinance, one external employee to assist in the operation and that she would like to have said item deleted from the Ordinance.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ellis Eisnor, Applicant, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding this request. He stated that he did not intend to have any employees.

Commr. Pool stated that very seldom did the Board see a petition signed by an applicant's neighbors in support of a request; therefore, it was obvious that Mr. Eisnor's neighbors want his business in their neighborhood.

Mr. Jim Hunt, a neighbor of the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the only problem he had with the request was that of the CUP staying with the property. He stated that he did not feel that was a good thing, noting that Mr. Eisnor takes care of his property, however, he has no way of knowing how the next person will take care of it. He stated that he felt another issue that needed to be addressed was that of the dirt road leading up to the business, because the business is located within the Wekiva River Protection Area, which is a very sensitive area.

Commr. Cadwell interjected that, with regard to Mr. Hunt's concern about the CUP staying with the property, the County is only going to approve the request for five years, with an option for an extension, and it will be subject to a yearly CUP inspection.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-5 - Ellis Duane Eisnor, Rezoning Case No. CUP 01/1/5-4, Tracking No. 14-01-CUP, a request for a CUP in AR (Agriculture Residential), to allow the operation of a minor automobile repair shop (i.e. brakes, oil change, tune-ups), with a stipulation that Item No. D, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, indicating the assistance of one (1) external employee, be deleted from the Ordinance.

PETITION NO. PH 7-01-3 - R-6 TO RM - Frank Kell

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to go from an R-6 (Urban Residential) zoning classification to RM (Mobile Home Residential) in an existing mobile home park, with some scattered single family residential zoning. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-6 - Frank W. Kell, Rezoning Case No. PH 7-01-3, Tracking No. 7-01-Z, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RM (Mobile Home Residential).

PETITION NO. PH 2-01-4 - R-1 TO CFD - ROYAL TRAILS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION/FRANK BAGGETTA

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from the Royal Trails Property Owners Association to rezone a five acre site within the Royal Trails Subdivision, to be utilized as a community center and playground area, with a ballfield. She stated that there is opposition from some of the residents in the subdivision, noting that there is a petition with 40 signatures on file, opposing the request. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 10-0 vote. She stated that anything constructed on the site will have to meet all the County's current codes and will have to go through a site plan review. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Paul Connors, President of the Royal Trails Property Owners Association, addressed the Board stating that Royal Trails is a growing community and the residents would like to construct a clubhouse on the site in question, where the residents can play cards and hold monthly association meetings. He stated that a concern was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting about who would hold title to the property, at which time he indicated that it would be held by the Royal Trails Property Owners Association.

Mr. Frank Ayers, a resident of Royal Trails Subdivision, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he lives across the street from the property in question and was very concerned about the Association's plans for the community center and playground, with a ballfield. He stated that some other property owners are concerned about the matter, as well. He stated that there were many concerns voiced by the property owners about the proposed park, noting that there are no specific plans drawn up for the building that will be constructed on the site and he feels the park will have a detrimental impact on the property values of the homes in the area. He stated that they are also concerned about endangerment to the wildlife and possible problems with septic tanks and wells in the area, as well as the fact that outsiders may be given permission to use the park and building, creating a safety issue. He stated that the building is not needed, noting that the Association currently utilizes another building to hold its monthly meetings, etc. He stated that he just purchased his home, however, had he known about the plans for the park, he would not have purchased it. He stated that he was not given sufficient notice about the plans for the park.

Mr. Frank Baggetta, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that, with regard to Mr. Ayers' concern about the environmental impact, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the environmental impact on the area.

Ms. Martha Whitley, a resident of Royal Trails Subdivision, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that there have been more names added to the petition that was submitted at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, in opposition to this request. She stated that there are now 43 names on the petition, at which time she submitted a copy of said petition (Opposition's Exhibit A), for the record. She stated that there are not that many residents who attend the Association meetings, noting that, if 25 people attend them, it would be considered a lot; therefore, she does not see the need for the clubhouse. She stated that it is going to be built and paid for by all the residents; therefore, they will be liable for all the upkeep and liability on the facility. She stated that they do not see the need for such an expensive expenditure.

Mr. Connors readdressed the Board stating that an average of 25 to 29 property owners attend the Association meetings. He stated that everyone in the subdivision was notified about this request and that they had received 276 returns back, out of 750 notices that were mailed out. He stated that, of the 750 notices, 91 approved of the request, 40 were against it, 44 were in favor of modifying the pavilion that currently exists on the property, and 101 abstained. He stated that the reason no plans have yet been drawn up is because they did not know if the request was going to be approved. He stated that, if the request is approved, the next step will be to have some plans drawn up and submitted to the County, for approval, and go from there.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-7 - Frank Baggetta, Royal Trails Property Owners Association, Rezoning Case No. PH 2-01-4, Tracking No. 2-01-CFD, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a community center and playground area, with a ballfield.

PETITION NO. CUP 00/8/2-2 - CUP IN A - JOHN R. ARNOLD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a large CUP (Conditional Use Permit), consisting of a little over 1,800 acres in the Rural land use category, in the Green Swamp area. She stated that a few questions came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, however, were addressed by staff and are addressed in the Ordinance. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-1 vote.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant plans to conduct ecological tours of the property in question, utilizing recreational vehicles, at which time he displayed a picture (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the vehicle that will be used, which he submitted, for the record. He stated that the tours will show the natural side of Florida - the groves, wetlands, etc. He stated that the applicant will be operating a fruit stand during the fruit season and noted that some employees will live in RVs on the site, man the facility, and conduct the tours.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-8 - John Arnold, Rezoning Case No. CUP 00/8/2-2, Tracking No. 63-00-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for an amendment to change the use of CUP No. 95/1/2-2, to allow for a fruit stand, ecological tours, gift shop, and recreational vehicles, to be utilized by employees for security purposes and to tour live environmental displays.

PETITION NO. PH 4-01-2 - R-1 TO R-2 - DALE LADD/SOUTH LAKE LAND TRUST

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately 130 acres in the Urban Expansion land use category, in the Clermont area, from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential). She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that central water and sewer is available to the site and they characterize the property as compatible for development. She stated that there are some issues regarding access to the property, as well as a Developer's Agreement that was presented to the Board several weeks ago. She stated that there are two letters of opposition on file and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request, by a 6-4 vote.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Dale Ladd, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he was the Trustee for the South Lake Land Trust. He discussed the history of the property in question (proposed Pine Ridge Subdivision) and why he was before the Board this date, at which time he reviewed a plat map (contained in the Board's backup material) of the property, as well as surrounding developments, being Lake Ridge Club, Amberhill, Sunshine Hills, and part of Anderson Hills. He stated that almost all of the surrounding developments have a density of approximately two and a half to three units per acre, with Amberhill having slightly less than that, because of the size of the lots, which are a little larger than those in some of the other developments. He stated that to the east of the property in question is the Spring Valley PUD, which he noted is instrumental in the rezoning of this property, and to the south of the property is the City of Clermont. He stated that The Legends is located to the south of this property and Ridge Club is located to the east. He stated that the property is completely surrounded by established subdivisions and a proposed subdivision, in an Urban Expansion land use category, which allows up to four (4) units per acre. He stated that the services are in place, noting that central water is being provided by Lake Utilities, which is currently in the process of interconnecting all their wells, which are located from U.S.192 to Lake Crescent Hills and beyond, part of which is through some of his property. He stated that one of the things that has held up construction in Spring Valley is the fact that they needed to be able to connect to the Amberhill and Ridge Club sites; therefore, they have been negotiating an easement with him, which he noted they have settled and will soon execute.

Mr. Ladd stated that the layout of the proposed development was not his design, but came about as a product of the meetings with the Amberhill residents, at which time he displayed and reviewed a plat (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the subdivision, which he submitted, for the record. He stated that, in order to prevent Amberhill from feeling the total brunt of all the traffic going through their subdivision, he subdivided his property into two sections, with 50 acres having access through Sunshine View and 80 acres having access through Amberhill, with Opal Street being vacated, upon the platting of the proposed subdivision. He stated that he made the lots larger, which satisfied the residents of Ridge Club and Amberhill, and then made the lots in the other section slightly smaller, so that they would more closely represent the lots located at Sunshine Drive. He stated that, in addition to that, he tried to allay the concerns of some other residents who had issues with things such as buffering and setbacks. He stated that, in the end, he was able to come up with a compromise that was suitable for Amberhill, noting that he will close off Opal Lane and never use it and will only use Garnet Drive until the south Lake County connector road is constructed. He stated that, once he has an alternative access, he will vacate Garnet Drive through Amberhill and noted that, once he has access through Spring Valley, he will vacate Sunshine Drive. He stated that he only wants temporary access through both of those subdivisions, until such time as he has access through Spring Valley and the connector road.

Mr. Ladd stated that the only subdivision he was not able to come to an agreement with was Lake Ridge Club and that he was only able to obtain an agreement with them by agreeing that, should he get approval of the rezoning, he will amend his agreement with Amberhill and make every effort to make those lots that are adjacent to Lake Ridge Club a little deeper, so that he can meet the setback requirements that they are requesting. He stated that he has been able to obtain two (2) agreements, subject to the Board's approval of the request before them this date, and has another one pending. He stated that he did not feel the opposition to this request was the issue itself, or a service issue, noting that he has all the services he needs, but is one of a connection issue, involving the connector road and Spring Valley. He stated that, even if he gets approval of the request this date, he is still looking at one year before he can even think about starting construction, so the connector road, which he noted leads to Hwy. 27, should be in place by then; therefore, he will probably never have to put into effect the agreements that he has with Spring Valley and Amberhill Subdivisions. He stated that he did not feel he could have done any more to satisfy the concerns of the surrounding property owners than what he has done. He stated that he has been building homes in south Lake County for approximately 15 years and feels that he has a fairly decent record of being good to his neighbors, noting that he has always been sensitive to their needs. He stated that he has never, in any circumstance, affected property values and does not intend to do so, in fact, noted that what the area will end up with will be lots that are similar in size and neighborhoods that are similar in appearance, with some amenities that are better than what is already in place.

Mr. Doug Gibson, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and questioned Mr. Ladd about some concerns he had regarding the proposed development, with regard to density; lot sizes; connection of the sewer system through the Spring Valley Subdivision; infrastructure; access to the proposed site and the vacation of same, once a connector road is available to Mr. Ladd; street lighting, etc.

Ms. Pat Lewis, President of the Lake Ridge Club Homeowner's Association, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the last time this issue came before the Board her homeowner's association had a petition with 90 signatures in opposition to the request; however, the request was withdrawn, so she did not submit the petition. She stated that some of the homeowner's concerns are the economic impact that the proposed development will have on their properties, as well as traffic congestion, water shortage, and crowding of schools that the development will create. She stated that the timeliness and appropriateness of this proposal is not right, at this point in time. She submitted a new petition (Opposition's Exhibit A), containing 111 signatures of residents of the Lake Ridge Club Subdivision who are strongly opposed to the proposed development, as it stands. She stated that they are not against the development, however, are against the request, as it is being presented to the Board this date. She stated that they are requesting that the petition be denied.

Mr. Gordon Shogun, a resident of Lake Ridge Club Subdivision, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was making his presentation on behalf of a Lake Ridge Club resident who has done research on the traffic situation in the area in question, at which time he read a statement from said resident into the record. He reviewed a plat of the properties involved with this request, pointing out Lake Louisa Road and Hook Street, at which time he stated that there are over 35 developments in the area that have been approved and are either partially completed, or totally completed, and that the traffic from those developments is being funneled onto one road, a road that is not designed for such traffic. He stated that there has been a 40% increase in the amount of traffic on said road, which is a two lane road, over approximately two years. He stated that it is the intent of the developer to use Lake Louisa Road to gain access to the construction site and, subsequently, Spring Valley Road will connect to Hwy. 27. He reviewed several reasons why he thought that was a good idea, however, noted that he felt a Spring Valley Road access should be completed prior to any activity being performed on either the proposed Ladd subdivision, or the Spring Valley Subdivision.

Dr. Marcella Vogelmann-Peper, a resident of Lake Ridge Club and school psychologist in private practice, addressed the Board and discussed the issue of the overcrowding of schools, at which time she reviewed data (Opposition's Exhibit B) that she had compiled, indicating current school enrollment for the south Lake County area, which she had obtained from the Lake County School District's computer main frame, as well as from each principal of the schools listed in said data. She pointed out the fact that the 8th Grade Center and two of the elementary schools in the Clermont area are at capacity, or "capped", which she noted means that they have been directed by the Lake County School Board not to accept waivers, etc.; that the teachers at South Lake High School have to float, because they have no classrooms of their own; and that the 8th and 9th grades have to be housed elsewhere, because the school has no room for them. She stated that the County has already approved for an additional 9,000 homes to be constructed in the Clermont area, consisting of single-family homes, multi-family homes, townhouses, etc., and, if one were to calculate two children per unit, it amounts to 18,000 additional children in the Clermont area. She noted that the figures indicated do not include Spring Valley, which is 546 units, or the Ladd proposal, which consists of 260 units. She stated that the statistics she gave does not include what is already in place. She stated that this amount of growth must not continue and asked the Board to consider the statistics she gave, when voting on this matter.

Commr. Pool interjected that over half of the developments that were approved for the Clermont area were adult communities.

Ms. Linda Ralston, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, addressed the Board and discussed some compliance and environmental concerns that the residents of Lake Ridge Club have, at which time she read a three page statement (Opposition's Exhibit C ) regarding said issues into the record and displayed eight pictures (Opposition's Exhibit D) that were taken January 20, 2001, showing some land clearing that has occurred adjacent to her subdivision, as well as debris and a gopher tortoise burrow that was found on the property. She stated that Lake Ridge Club abuts the east and southeast sides of the property in question, which she noted was a natural habitat for animals, some protected, such as the gopher tortoises, however, said animals have now been displaced or destroyed. She stated that the State requires that a developer file a Notice of Intent to Develop and an Erosion Control Plan, prior to any land clearing; therefore, if Mr. Ladd had filed an Erosion Control Plan, silt fences and other erosion control devices should be present on the property, which they are not. She stated that the St. Johns River Water Management District requires an Environmental Resource Permit, prior to construction, as well, however, noted that, according to the District, no permit application has been received. She stated that it appears Federal, State, and County compliance rules are not being followed. She stated that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the St. Johns River Water Management District have been notified and asked to look into the matter. She stated that the Lake County Code Enforcement Department cited Mr. Ladd for violations of development and tree removal and the lack of an environmental study has been noted.

Ms. Ralston addressed concerns the residents have about the fact that the area in question is served by septic and what impact an additional 260 homes will have on the runoff, seepage, and septic waste into the soil, groundwater, and nearby lakes, which are a part of the Clermont Chain of Lakes and considered some of the more pristine lakes in this area. She addressed concerns the residents have about the drought that Central Florida and Lake County are currently experiencing and the fact that, if this request is approved, it will necessitate the need to drill for more water, to service the proposed development, putting a further strain on the region's dwindling water supply. She stated that the residents of Lake Ridge Club would urge the Board to keep in mind the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the compliance violations, and the impact on the environment and infrastructure and deny the request.

Ms. Susie Gibson, a resident of Sunshine Hills, addressed the Board, in favor of the request, stating that she was representing most of the residents of Sunshine Hills. She stated that her subdivision does not have a formal homeowner's association, however, noted that she has signed a developer's agreement with Mr. Ladd. She stated that the residents have spent the last several years trying to negotiate with Mr. Ladd and a previous developer. She stated that they did not get everything they wanted in the agreement, however, feel that Mr. Ladd's request of going from an R-1 to an R-2 zoning classification and changing from a PUD does not seem unreasonable. She stated that he spent a lot of time trying to compromise with everyone, including herself, and that, as soon as she could get the agreement notarized, she would be turning it over to the County.

Ms. Pat Hill, a resident of Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that she was one of 13 people who attended a meeting with Mr. Ladd, who agreed to enter into an agreement with him, with certain conditions. She stated that it was the lesser of two evils, noting that they felt if they did not accept the agreement something worse could come along in the future. She stated that she wished the Board would deny further growth in all of south Lake County, until the needed infrastructure is in place.

Ms. Nancy Fullerton, President, Save Our Lakes Committee, addressed the Board stating that she had mailed them a letter opposing the request before them, in which she addresses some of the concerns that were noted this date. She stated that the Save Our Lakes Committee does not support staff's recommendation for approval of the request, because they feel the density is still too high, however, noted that they acknowledge the fact that "smart growth" encourages higher density closer to cities and are supporters, in theory, of that belief. She stated that inadequate facilities in south Lake County, which have been so definitely illustrated this date, compound this request. She stated that the proposed development would double the impacts and concerns heard this date. She suggested that the Board wait until there are more roads in place, before they approve the request. She stated that the State Statutes state the availability of water should be a strong consideration in growth management, which the Committee feels illustrates the need for the Board, because it falls within their responsibility, to base growth management and zoning decisions on that fact. She stated that she felt it was of vital concern to find out how much communication there has been between the developer, the County, and the City of Clermont, with regard to honoring the intergovernmental element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she had asked that question at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and had talked to a few people in the Growth Management Department, however, has not been able to obtain an answer to it

Mr. Paul Hite, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that his property directly abuts Mr. Ladd's property. He stated that, if the Board approved the request before them this date, Mr. Ladd would have an agreement with his neighbors to the north, but not his neighbors to the west. He stated that he would like to see Mr. Ladd have an agreement with all the subdivisions in the area of the proposed development, so that the residents would have a part in what is happening in their community and know what his intentions are, therefore, would like to see the Board reject the request, until such time as Mr. Ladd has entered into said agreements.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:15 p.m.

PETITION NO. PH 4-01-2 - R-1 TO R-2 - DALE LADD/SOUTH LAKE LAND TRUST (CONT'D.)

Mr. Steve Gregg, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, addressed the Board stating that he would welcome the proposed development, if it is constructed in such a manner as to meet the elements of appropriateness that the Board has previously laid down and, if it is done with consideration for timeliness, particularly with regard to infrastructure. He stated that he is also concerned about the overcrowded schools, traffic, water levels, and the drought, however, feels that they are concerns that the Board has to live with, if the development is not addressed properly. He stated that some concerns he has with the proposed development is how much distance there is going to be between his backyard and his neighbor's yard; a buffer zone or rear setback between Lake Ridge Club and the proposed development of at least 50 feet; that homes comparable to the homes in Lake Ridge Club be constructed in the development; and the location of the water treatment plant. He stated that, if the residents of Lake Ridge Club could get an agreement worked out with Mr. Ladd regarding the issues he alluded to, he felt there would be, if not unanimous, near unanimous support of the development. He stated that he felt the Board should deny the request, until Mr. Ladd and Lake Ridge Club can engage in sincere attempts to reach an accord on the outstanding issues.

Mr. David Calfee, President, Amberhill Homeowner's Association, addressed the Board stating that the residents of Amberhill feel the proposed development should be rezoned as a straight zoning, rather than a PUD. He stated that they have three concerns with Mr. Ladd, being traffic issues; the closure of Opal Lane and Garnet Drive; and the issue of access. He stated that they have been told many times by many people that a south Lake County connector road is immanent and that they feel it has to happen in the near future. He stated that they are looking to the Board to see that that happens, otherwise, the effect of opening up Mr. Ladd's property onto the existing Amberhill residents will be catastrophic, as it will create a big traffic problem.

Mr. Paul Gunns, a resident of Lake Ridge Club, addressed the Board stating that he was concerned about the size of homes that Mr. Ladd plans to build in the proposed development, noting that they will be significantly smaller than the homes in Lake Ridge Club, and that he was concerned about the fact that Mr. Ladd's water treatment plant will be built 400 feet from his lot. He stated that he was concerned about property values, aesthetics, and possible health problems involved with said issues.

Mr. Doug Gibson, a resident of Amberhill, readdressed the Board stating that the main concerns of the residents of Amberhill is the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. He addressed concerns the residents have regarding traffic, noting that, if the request is approved this date and the connection to Spring Valley and the south Lake County connector road are never built, it will put 1,300 car trips per day through Sunshine and Amberhill subdivisions, which will create a burden on the local roads, a safety issue for the children in the area, and an issue regarding property values. He reviewed a plat (Opposition's Exhibit E) of the property in question, which he submitted, for the record, noting that the road that goes through Sunshine View subdivision (shown on the plat in blue) is going to be taxed three times beyond its capacity, if the Board lets Mr. Ladd build the homes that he plans to build, as well as a winding road that runs through Amberhill (shown on the plat in yellow) that changes elevation and has no sidewalks, creating a safety issue for the children in the subdivision. He addressed the issues of sewer and water and concerns the residents have regarding same, as well. He reviewed a graphic (Opposition's Exhibit F), which he submitted, for the record, that he had drawn, which indicates that, if the developer would connect Opal Lane and Garnet Drive in a loop around Amberhill, the residents of Amberhill would approve for him to start building his development right away, because they would not have a problem with it. He stated that, as time goes on and the developer has the connection, he could tie in with either the south Lake County connector road, when he has the opportunity, or tie into the east, through Spring Valley, allowing him to have 275 lots, which is 15 more lots than he planned to have. He stated that the Board has to be responsible to their community and the growth management issues of Lake County. He stated that he would like to trust Mr. Ladd to do the right thing; however, he does not trust a deal that is not written in stone with the County.

Mr. Ladd, Applicant, readdressed the Board, in rebuttal to some comments that were made regarding the issue of the already overcrowded schools in the Clermont area and the fact that it is felt the proposed development would only add to the problem; the clearing of the property; the issue of water and the availability of same; the location of the utility transmission facility; the issue of an agreement with Lake Ridge Club and why he has not yet entered into same, at which time he submitted, for the record, a copy of the agreement (Applicant's Exhibit B) that he has with the Amberhill Homeowner's Association; the vacating of the roads alluded to earlier; and the issue of additional traffic that the development will create through Amberhill and Sunshine View subdivisions.

It was noted that the development in question will contain 260 lots and that Mr. Ladd anticipates it will be less than 90 days before the other access to the development is available.

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

Commr. Pool stated that his main concern is the issue of access from the proposed development to Hwy. 27, without dramatically impacting Amberhill or Sunshine View subdivisions.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the concerns noted by the residents of Lake Ridge Club can be worked out, judging from Mr. Ladd's comments. She stated that she has been promoting the issue of "smart growth" and feels that the proposed development would probably qualify for it, because it is putting development where utilities are available, and it is surrounded a great deal by either city or residential development; however, she was still concerned about the impact of traffic that the proposed development will have on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Commr. Hill questioned under what time frame the County would be starting the south Lake County connector road.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, informed the Board that some of the meetings that are currently being held will determine which way it will go, with regard to the donation of rights-of-way and as to who will construct the road.

It was determined that, as the Board goes forward with what it is now doing, the southern connector rights-of-way are going to be available.

Commr. Cadwell stated that his concern is with the residents entering into an agreement with Mr. Ladd and then the road never being constructed. He stated that he felt the rezoning should be conditional, which he elaborated on.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the zoning cannot be conditional. He stated that the way the County usually attaches the conditions alluded to by Commr. Cadwell is through the PUD process, however, noted that, in this case, there is no PUD application pending.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2001-9 - Dale Ladd, South Lake Land Trust, Rezoning Case No. PH 4-01-2, Tracking No. 4-01-Z, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for detached single family residential.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned whether Commr. Pool wanted to include anything regarding the request by Lake Ridge Club for an agreement between their development and Mr. Ladd, with regard to the issue of a setback.

Commr. Pool stated that Mr. Ladd indicated he would be willing to enter into an agreement with Lake Ridge Club regarding the matter; therefore, he would be willing to add it to his motion, but was informed by the County Attorney that it cannot be done.

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

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/GRANTS

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for approval to apply for the One Stop Permitting Grant, Phase Two, in the amount of $50,000.00.

PETITION NO. PH 5-01-3 - A TO AR - THOMAS FOLEY, FOLEY HOLDINGS, INC.

STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to AR (Agriculture Residential), to do a lot split. She stated that the property in question is located just outside the City of Tavares and that central utilities are not available to the site, however, noted that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant's representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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. 2001-10 - Thomas and Constance Foley/ Steven J. Richey, Rezoning Case No. PH 5-01-3, Tracking No. 5-01-Z, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to AR (Agriculture Residential).

PETITION NO. PH 53-00-2 - A TO PUD - ZUREIQ INVESTMENT COMPANY

M. SAMI ELI-BEHIRI/SILVER CREEK SUBDIVISION

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for an expansion of a small PUD, consisting of 35 acres in the Urban land use category in south Lake County. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that the request went through the Development Review Staff process, with some conceptual plans, which showed a lot of open space. She stated that there was no opposition to the request at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-11 - Zureiq Investment Company/M. Sami Eli-Behiri/Silver Creek Subdivision, Rezoning Case No. PH 53-00-2, Tracking No. 92-00-Z, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for a single family development consisting of 116 units.

PETITION NO. SLPA 00/12/1-1 - SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT - FLORIDA LEISURE COMMUNITIES/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE AND PETITION NO. PH 44-00-1 - MP , LM, AND A TO CP WITH C-1 AND C-2 USES - FLORIDA LEISURE COMMUNITIES/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it and the following request involved the same parcel of property. She stated that this request is for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and the other request is to rezone from MP (Planned Industrial), LM (Light Industrial) and A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses. She stated that it involves a small parcel of property on SR 44 that, with the industrial zoning, got snagged. She stated that industrial zoning in the Comprehensive Plan is considered an employment center and, in order to allow the applicant to have some limited commercial uses on the property, staff had to do a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which cleans up the map. She stated that staff was recommending approval, noting that it will serve as a useful service to the Pennbrooke PUD. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request and noted that there is no opposition to the request.

It was noted that the two requests, being a request for a land plan amendment and the second for a rezoning, would be heard together, due to the fact that they involved the same parcel of property.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant was taking an employment center that currently allows for a cement plant and fish hatchery and rezoning it to C-1 and C-2 uses, with a limited number of C-1 and C-2 uses, as noted in the attachment to the Ordinance. He stated that the request involves a parcel of property consisting of 3.25 acres, located in the general vicinity of the Pennbrooke development, and is compatible with the Pennbrooke development. He stated that the applicant will be doing accessory uses, which will complement and help the community.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this request, for a small scale amendment, would be final and would not be required to go to the Department of Community Affairs for approval. He stated that, if the Board approved the request, it would take effect immediately.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hill, 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. 2001-12 - Florida Leisure Communities/Steven J. Richey, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. SLPA 00/12/1-1, Tracking No. 15-01-SLPA, a request for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, to change the land use from Employment Center to Urban Expansion.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-13 - Florida Leisure Communities/Steven J. Richey, Esquire,

Rezoning Case No. PH 44-00-1, Tracking No. 79-00-CP, a request for rezoning from MP (Planned Industrial), LM (Light Industrial) and A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses.

PETITION NO. LPA 00/10/1-5 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN TO RURAL - HARBOR HILLS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. AND PETITION NO. LPA 00/10/2-5 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL TO RURAL VILLAGE - HARBOR HILLS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves two land plan amendments for the same parcel of property, which is Harbor Hills. She stated that the first request was to change the current land use designation from Suburban to Rural and the second request was to rezone from Rural to Rural Village. She stated that the two requests would be heard together. She stated that the proposed site contains a little over 1,384 acres and that, under the current Suburban land use classification, approximately 276 units could be developed on the site. She stated that the purpose of the amendments is to amend the future land use map from Suburban to Rural, for the creation of a new rural village. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the requests, based upon planning, economics, and environmental and fiscal responsibilities of the County. She stated that staff feels it is in the County's best interest to plan for the future land use and be concerned over the future development patterns. She stated that the County's Comprehensive Plan was found to be in compliance in October of 1993 and the future land use map that the County currently works from provides for Urban and Urban Expansion in Suburban acreage for future growth. She stated that logical growth progression is outward from the municipalities to the Urban and Urban Expansion land uses, also known as Urban Growth Boundaries, which ensures that urban services are provided to the rural areas in an efficient manner. She stated that the Staff Report that was presented for this request addresses the minimum requirements, as found in the Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Statutes, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Regulations.

Ms. Farrell stated that the Harbor Hills development was approved prior to adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, staff found it to be insignificant, with regard to support for the expansion. She stated that, from a planning perspective, those approvals were subject to a different plan and a different level of review and, although the project is mathematically low density, the use itself will be an urban land use. She stated that staff had to make the decision as to whether the project met the rural village criteria, whether the designation of a new rural village was necessary, and whether it furthers the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that staff 's recommendation of denial is related to legitimate planning interests of encouraging more town centers than pedestrian oriented new development within the urban and urban expansion areas, while also protecting the agricultural lifestyles that are in place in the area. She stated that staff's concerns are listed in the Staff Report, noting that some attributes of a traditional rural village are listed on Page 5 of the report; the definition of urban sprawl is contained on Page 7; a timeliness survey is on Page 8; and the County's Findings of Fact are noted for each case. She stated that there is no change in the agricultural industry or documented demand for this type of lifestyle. She stated that the rural village designation would create a finger like projection into a rural area and it is not appropriate for a residential golf course community.

Ms. Farrell displayed a copy of Map I-1, the Future Land Use Plan Map for Lake County through 2005 (County Exhibit A), indicating the scale and size of the rural villages currently in the County, at which time she pointed out the size of the Harbor Hills development, in comparison to the size of some of the other rural villages in the County. She submitted said map, for the record. She displayed 10 aerials (County Exhibit B) and a packet of maps (County Exhibit C) depicting the various rural villages in the County, as well, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that staff conducted a timeliness test for the area in question and found that it is more of a rural lifestyle than what staff anticipated. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this meeting was a legislative proceeding and, unlike the earlier zoning cases, which were quasi-judicial, there would not be any rules of cross-examination or procedural rules and the standards of review are quite different, should the case ever be reviewed by a court. He stated that the only action the Board could take this date would be to transmit the proposed amendments to DCA and then, if that action is taken, approximately four months from this date there would be a final hearing on the cases.

It was the consensus of the Board to hear both cases together, due to the fact that they are related.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, Harbor Hills, addressed the Board stating that his client filed a request for development of regional impact, which was to add 1,500 acres to the currently approved Harbor Hills PUD and that, as part of the PUD/DRI process, they filed two comprehensive plan amendments. He stated that they are seeking to have a comprehensive plan amendment adopted and then have a development order and a DRI/PUD order approved by the Board. He stated that his client was present this date to ask the Board to transmit their proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the State, for their comments, noting that they have 45 days to do so. He stated that, when those comments come back to the County, his client will start back through the process with a DRI, the PUD, and the development order, which he noted will go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval and then back to this Board for approval. He stated that the Board will then look at the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments, the comments from the State, and his client's total development order and approve or disapprove them. He submitted, for the record, the Development of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval for Harbor Hills (Applicant's Exhibit A) and the Development of Regional Impact Request for Additional Information Responses for Harbor Hills (Applicant's Exhibit B).

Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., addressed the Board, representing Harbor Hills, and answered questions from Mr. Richey as to why he feels the proposed development meets the criteria for a rural village. He noted that he is a consultant and urban and regional planner, with almost 20 years of experience with the private and public sector, who was a member of the Future Land Use Element Subcommittee that was created in the early 1990s, who helped draft the Future Land Use Map and Element. He reviewed an evaluation that he had prepared for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments that have been filed by Harbor Hills on the property in question, at which time he distributed three (3) documents, noting that the first document, Supporting Analysis for Lake County Comprehensive Plan for Harbor Hills Rural Village/DRI (Applicant's Exhibit C) pertained to the Future Land Use Element, Traffic Element, Housing Element, Conservation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Capital Improvements Element, Concurrency Management System, and the Economic Element. He stated that the second document, a letter from Springstead Engineering, Inc. (Applicant's Exhibit D), was a review that Springstead Engineering had done on the Public Facilities and Conservation Element of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, with regard to the design of the proposed Harbor Hills development and the existing PUD at Harbor Hills. He stated that the third document, Supplemental Supporting Documentation for Rural Village for Harbor Hills, dated January 23, 2001 (Applicant's Exhibit E), was supporting documentation for the rural village for Harbor Hills, noting that he had gone through every element of the County's current Comprehensive Plan, to see if the applicant's request for a rural village was compatible with every element of the plan.

Mr. Beliveau informed the Board of his findings, with regard to the matter, at which time he addressed the issues of the size of the proposed development; densities that are permitted in a rural village, which is two units per acre; open space requirements; the fact that they are required to create a cluster plan; requirement for buffers around the entire parcel of property; the fact that the proposed development is a mixed use project, noting that they have three different types of houses; the fact that they provide for community facilities and commercial; the fact that there is no prohibition for golf courses; the fact that, out of the 1,500 acres that comprises the proposed development, there are 445 acres of wetlands, with no wetland impacts, in fact, they will be protected; the fact that they exceed the recreation requirements, noting that they have both passive and active recreation; the fact that 73 acres is being set aside in a conservation easement, which is being connected to the development's wetland buffer, to allow access to the development's nature center; the fact that there will be a very minimal impact to the flood plains on the north side of the development, where compensating storage will be provided in the golf courses and open space, which is allowed under the County's policies; the fact that they have met the requirements for aquifer recharge, noting that 75% of the development will be preserved for aquifer recharge; the project complies with all policies dealing with lakefront and wetland littoral zones; the development complies with all policies dealing with vegetative communities and wildlife habitats; exhaustive archaeological and historic research has been conducted on the site and the property has been coordinated with the State, as far as archives are concerned; they have coordinated extensively with the State concerning the conservation element; they have 3.6 acres designated for community use, such as a fire station, church, day care center, etc., separate from the commercial area; they meet the requirements for concurrency management; and they meet the guidelines for a rural village, in fact, exceed them. He stated that the Board has the ability to designate new rural villages, based on the criteria outlined, and, if the Harbor Hills development meets the test, the Board may approve it. He stated that there is a definition for meeting a rural village, which this project meets, noting that the definition requires that they meet all the criteria which he reviewed with the Board and that there be documentation to that effect, which he noted the Board had before them, as well as the fact that they identify all requirements and that they meet all concurrency issues, such as potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater management, transportation, fire/police, recreation, and emergency medical. He noted that, in the ADA submittal application, they included letters from the Sheriff, the School Board, Fire and Emergency Services, hospitals, etc., indicating that they meet the criteria and that the capacity is in place for what Harbor Hills is proposing in the rural village.

Mr. Beliveau addressed the transportation issue; the agricultural aspect of the project; performance criteria within the rural village; the possible expansion of the rural village boundary; the criteria for commercial uses; the fact that there will be a pedestrian linkage system with the clustered units, as well as the commercial and recreational components, so that the residents can access any part of the development they wish, by foot or golfcart, without having to drive their cars to any of the areas; and the protection of environmentally sensitive resources, noting that this project exceeds anything that has ever been proposed for Lake County, as far as protection of the resources. He stated that, with regard to the development's golf course design and its water conservation techniques for the golf course, the Lake County Water Authority will be sending the criteria that was used by Harbor Hills to the St. Johns River Water Management District, recommending that all future golf courses use the Harbor Hills golf course as an example and that, if an existing golf course requests a consumptive use permit, they will be asked to retrofit their existing golf course to meet the Harbor Hills standards. He stated that they meet the standards for nonresidential development in rural villages and the criteria for approving development in rural villages.

Mr. Beliveau informed the Board that Applicant's Exhibit C, Supplemental Supporting Documentation for Rural Village for Harbor Hills, includes a rebuttal to the County's reference to Definition 9J-5 for a rural village, as well as urban sprawl, which he reviewed with the Board, noting that the proposed development is limited by intensity and density and not necessarily by its physical size. He stated that they are only impacting 25% of the site with residential development; it is a mixed use PUD; they are creating 599 new jobs; they have complete buffering; and they are not designated as urban. He stated that they provided, for the Board's perusal, a chart illustrating how the new development compares to the pre-existing PUD that was approved under the County's old rules. He stated that they are enhanced and are providing a gross density of just under one unit per acre. He stated that the handout also includes a chart illustrating the fact that R-1, or one unit per acre, makes up 49.6% of the area's current zoning, with agriculture comprising 23.8% of the area. He stated that, with regard to the area's current land use categories, rural makes up 19.7%; suburban makes up 30.2%; urban expansion makes up 32.5%; and urban makes up 11.4%. He reviewed the phasing plan for the proposed development and discussed the water reduction program and how the development will not impact the upper aquifer, noting that they will cease drawing water from Lake Griffin to irrigate the golf course, but will, instead, draw water from the deep aquifer to irrigate its golf courses and new homesites. He stated that they will, over time, convert the existing non-potable use, which is the utilization of the existing golf course, and augment it with their wastewater treated water; utilize the deep aquifer, and phase out the use of the lake for its existing golf course. He stated that they will also be phasing out use of their wells as their primary source of water for their existing homes.

Mr. Richey interjected that Harbor Hills will be retrofitting their current golf course to come into compliance with the criteria that they are going to be utilizing, when building their new golf course.

Mr. Beliveau stated that they are also going to investigate aquifer storage recovery, which is a process where excess water is stored in the ground and utilized during periods of drought. He noted that this will be the first time that a project inland of the coast has looked at such an option. He stated that they will be xeroscaping all the rough areas, as well as all the residential homesites. He reviewed a map of the area in question, contained in the Board's backup material, noting that the area is not predominantly rural and agricultural, as it may appear to be, but is a 50/50 split between residential and agricultural.

Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, Attorney, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was representing the Friends of Lake Griffin, a non-profit corporation that has more than 100 active members, all of whom reside in Lake County, most within close proximity to the proposed Harbor Hills DRI. He stated that they object to the proposed comprehensive plan amendments, because they feel they are contrary to Florida's growth management laws and that, if adopted, will create internal inconsistencies within the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that they support the Staff Report, which recommends denial of the request. He stated that the area is rural and the density is low, at which time he noted some rural enterprises that are located in the area, such as Cottom Farm, Continental Acres Equestrian Center, Uncle McDonald's Farm, etc., which they feel are incompatible with the suburban development that is being proposed. He requested the Board to not transmit the comprehensive plan amendments to Tallahassee.

Mr. Fred Goodrow, Certified Planner, representing the Friends of Lake Griffin, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he has reviewed the proposed development, the applicant's submission documents, the Staff Report and recommendations, the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and the County's Land Development Regulations. He stated that he felt the Staff Report was very thorough, well above the norm that he has seen around the State, in terms of its analysis and making a case for its recommendation. He stated that he agrees with its findings and feels that the request before the Board this date is inconsistent with the planning policies contained within the County's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he feels it is inconsistent with sound planning policy and, in general, inconsistent with the Department of Community Affair's definition of a rural village; however, he feels the plan is very consistent with the definition of urban sprawl.

Ms. Phyllis Feeney, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she will be affected by the proposed development, therefore, objects to the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. She stated that she supports staff's analysis of the plan amendments and considers them improper for the reasons stated in the analysis. She urged the Board to not transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the Department of Community Affairs. She stated that she is a member of the Friends of Lake Griffin and represents them in this case. She read a statement into the record indicating that, on October 3, 2000, a petition containing 125 signatures in opposition to this request was delivered to the Board and noted that a petition, containing an additional 2,293 signatures, was being delivered this date, for a total of 2,418 people who are opposed to the plan amendments. She stated that they are inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and would be a breach of the covenant between the Government and the citizens of Lake County. She noted that copies of the petitions have been sent to Senator Anna Cowin and Representative Hugh Gibson and indicated that copies will be delivered to Representative Cliff Stearns tomorrow. She stated that a letter was being sent to Mr. Tom Beck, Division of Community Planning, Department of Community Affairs, and to their attorney, Mr. Steve Pfeiffer. She stated that, while the developer will be fulfilling his dreams, he will be destroying the hopes and dreams of those people who are already in the community. She submitted, for the record, the statement (Opposition's Exhibit A) that she read into the record.

Mr. Tom Feeney, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was representing himself and the Friends of Lake Griffin. He stated that he objected to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and supports staff's analysis of the amendments. He stated that he considered the amendments improper for the reasons stated in the analysis and urged the Board to not transmit the proposed plan amendments to the Department of Community Affairs. He stated that he would like the Board to know that he and the members of the Friends of Lake Griffin had been treated fairly, openly, and honestly by the County's employees. He submitted, for the record, a packet of information(Opposition's Exhibit B), containing a statement regarding the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as a handout which addresses the economic impact of agriculture, agribusiness, community revenues, and expenses generated by agriculture compared with other land uses, which was prepared by the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District, by Farming for the Future, Inc., out of Boca Raton, Florida. He stated that agriculture pays its own way, but residential creates a deficit, which is paid for by the taxpayers, in dollars, and by the people who live in the area of the proposed development, by having their way of life destroyed.

Mr. Charles Jacobs, representing the residents of Picciola Island subdivision, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the Picciola Island Homeowner's Association met and discussed the proposed zoning change. He stated that the residents were very upset and object to the proposed change, because they feel such a change will adversely effect water supply, roads, schools, and their rural way of life. He stated that he has seen from experience that, if a developer is given an inch, he will take a mile. He reminded the Board that they were elected to represent and protect the people who will stand to be adversely effected by the proposed zoning change.

Mr. Egor Emery, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was an intervener in the County's comprehensive plan in 1991. He referred to several pages in the Lake County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, noting that he felt staff had properly addressed the issue of a rural village. He stated that the County has developments on the ground, which represent a history of bad ideas. He stated that redesignating the property in question back to rural, when it currently meets the definitions for more density, represents a rather interesting logic. He stated that, while there may be some merit for considering this request as a master planned community, under the PUD guidelines, it makes no sense to try to undermine the County's comprehensive plan with this rezoning. He stated that there is no basis for the rezoning whatsoever, therefore, requested the Board to not transmit the proposed amendments to DCA.

Ms. Nancy Fullerton, President, Save Our Lakes Committee, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she was representing the Committee, as well as herself, as a resident of Lake County. She stated that the Board should have received some letters and other communication from the Committee, as well as others, outlining the details of their opposition. She stated that they totally support staff's recommendation for denial. She discussed various policies in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and asked the Board to evaluate the fact that a created rural village would be rising up amidst a traditionally rural lifestyle area and the fact that, in reality, they would have little or no connection. She questioned how the Board would envision further development of the area in question, if they approved the DRI before them. She stated that the Committee believes the Board should eventually consider amending the Comprehensive Plan, to remove the new rural village concept, or amend the policies that lead to such distortion. She stated that the Committee was requesting the Board to follow the recommendations of the Growth Management staff and deny the request.

Mr. Dan Halstead, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he has lived in the vicinity of the proposed development for 14 years and that he objected to the rezoning change before the Board this date. He stated that he believes it will adversely effect the quality of his and his family's life. He stated that, as elected officials, it is the Board's task to make sure that the County's land use laws are followed for the good of the many, not just a few. He urged the Board to cautiously consider the amendment changes that will effect the people before them this date, noting that it is their homes and they depend on the Board for sound judgment in this issue.

Ms. Donna Morris, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she is the third generation of her family to live in the area in question. She stated that she operates a business in the area, which she noted is rural. She stated that the area did not start growing until about ten years ago and they are now having problems, because the roads are in terrible shape and the residents have to get variances to construct their homes, because the lot sizes are so small. She discussed the issue of traffic and water consumption in the area, noting that, if the residents of Harbor Hills are going to buy expensive homes in the proposed development, they are going to use the water to irrigate their homes, regardless of what happens, noting that they are not going to be concerned about paying their water bills. She discussed the cost of installing a well, as well as the cost involved if a well goes dry. She stated that the residents maintain their wells, the water is not free; therefore, they conserve water and are very careful in their water consumption, because they are responsible for redoing their wells, when they go dry. She stated that the residents in the area are very upset about what is going on with Lake Griffin and, until this area realizes that toxicologist and contaminant specialists need to come in and do a long-term cleanup of the County's lakes, it is going to get a lot worse, before it gets better. She stated that the residents are educated people, who do not have to live in the area, they want to live there, because it is their lifestyle and the way they want to live. She stated that they care deeply about their rural lifestyle and the urbanization that is coming at them.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 4:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.

PETITION NO. LPA 00/10/1-5 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN TO RURAL - HARBOR HILLS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. AND PETITION NO. LPA 00/10/2-5 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL TO RURAL VILLAGE - HARBOR HILLS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. (CONT'D.)

Mr. Robert Smith, President, Voters' League to Control Development, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that it was his personal opinion that this case could end up in court, noting that it definitely would, if it goes the wrong way. He submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition's Exhibit C) containing a speech which addresses the request before the Board this date, as well as a chart that addresses the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Evaluation of Suburban to Rural Change Authorization. He stated that it would be legally impossible for the Board to rezone what physically exists as a suburb into a rural area, without violating the County's comprehensive plan. He stated that he did not feel the two cases before the Board should be heard together, noting that, if this was a quasi-judicial hearing, the two cases would not be allowed to be heard together, because the first request would not allow the second request to happen. He stated that he was determined to make this County recognize that "not in my backyard" will not work anymore and that the residents have got to become a mass group that will stand up to the Board and tell them what they want and then demand that they get what they want, if they are being abused. He stated that they will fight any battle, no matter where it is.

Mr. Colby Gilson, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, at which time he read a statement (Opposition's Exhibit D) into the record, which he submitted, for the record, in which he states that he objects to the proposed plan amendments and supports staff's analysis of same. He urged the Board to not transmit the amendments to DCA, noting that he was concerned about the impact that the plan will have in the form of urban sprawl to the present rural setting that the residents enjoy. He discussed the Future Land Use Plan Map, noting that it designates the primary functions of rural areas to be for the continuation of existing agricultural uses, maintaining open space, and protecting native habitats and that residential development in areas designated as rural shall be limited to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. He discussed land uses that would not be allowed in areas designated as rural and noted that the proposed expansion plan's intent to change the zoning from rural to rural village will result in urban sprawl. He asked the Board to deny the request, based on the proposed plan's incompatibility with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as well as other points raised this date by members of his neighborhood group.

Ms. Wendy Cottom, Cottom Farm, Lady Lake, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she, her husband, and his brother own Cottom Farm, as well as other businesses in the City of Leesburg and in Lake County. She stated that she supported the testimony of the people who had spoken before her, noting that she does not have the degrees or expertise that many of them have. She stated that her family is not against land development; however, they are concerned about the issue of water, additional traffic that the proposed development will bring, and safety issues involving the children and residents of the area.

Ms. Beth Rodahaver, a resident of Weirsdale, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the residents in her neighborhood have two concerns, one being that they derive their water supply from wells and the other being the freedom to use their airplanes. She stated that, if high density housing is built, it could cause them a lot of problems with noise and strict limitations on their freedom to have their own airplanes and fly them. She stated that she objects to the proposed plan amendments, supports staff's analysis of them, and considers them improper for the reasons stated in the analysis. She urged the Board to not transmit them to the Department of Community Affairs.

Ms. Ann Griffin, a resident of Lake County who lives on Lake Griffin, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the development in question is not an ordinary development and is going to hold back the clean-up efforts of Lake Griffin. She reviewed a handout (Opposition's Exhibit E), consisting of charts, newspaper articles, excerpts from the SJRWMD's Water Supply Plan, etc., regarding the State's aquifer and the water supply issue, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that there are currently five DRI's within a three mile radius of Lady Lake, where the proposed development is to be located, according to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. She stated that a state law will be violated by the proposed development, being Florida Statute 373.0395, which was passed by the Florida Legislature in 1982. She stated that the development is going to have to use reclaimed water; however, since it will not be available for several more years, they will have to draw from the lake until 2016, when the development gets its sewer system. She stated that the present Harbor Hills development draws 600,000 gallons of water per day out of Lake Griffin and has been known to exceed their drinking water withdrawals. She stated that Lake Griffin is the most polluted lake in Florida, at the present time. She stated that the County cannot keep destroying its lakes. She stated that the area in question is the wrong place for the proposed development.

Mr. Harpo Zaneis, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request. He submitted, for the record, a packet of information (Opposition's Exhibit F), containing charts, maps, letters from various departments within the County, a copy of the Marion County Board of County Commissioner's Workshop Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2000, letters from various departments within Marion County, a copy of the Lake County Transportation Construction Program for FY 2000-2004, etc. He stated that he felt it was ridiculous to approve 27 more holes of golf for the Harbor Hills development, when their present 18 holes exceeded their water permit by over 76 million gallons of water in the years 1998 and 1999 and expect to greatly exceed their permit for the year 2000. He stated that the SJRWMD should have taken action long ago. He stated that he was against the rezoning for all the reasons heard this date and all the reasons they will hear. He stated that he was against Harbor Hills building one more house, until they can demonstrate responsible management. He stated that he had confidence that the people of Lake County elected individuals who will make the right decision. He urged the Board to deny this request, for the good of the people of Lake County, noting that they could take a giant step in restoring their faith in county government.

Ms. Colleen Holstead, a resident of Marion County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she objects to the proposed plan amendments and supports staff's analysis of same. She stated that she considers the proposed amendments improper, for the reasons stated in the analysis, and urged the Board to not transmit them to DCA. She stated that the land in question has not been left to the people by their ancestors, they are borrowing it from their children. She asked the Board to keep that in mind, when voting on this issue.

Mr. Mark Venzke, a resident of Sumter County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request. He read a statement into the record regarding the proposed development and why he is opposed to it, at which time he suggested that the Board approve a Resolution that he had written for implementing water conservation measures, to address the County's chronic water crisis, which he read into the record. He stated that he is a member of the Lake County Conservation Council, the Save Our Lakes Committee, and the Ocklawaha Valley Audubon Society. He submitted a packet of information (Opposition's Exhibit G), containing his statement and the proposed Resolution, for the record, and urged the Board to strongly consider his resolution, noting that it would show the people of Lake County that the Board is serious about putting an end to the water woes of Lake County. He asked the Board to save the people of the Friends of Lake Griffin additional needless stress and expense and vote to reject the voting change sought by Harbor Hills and adopt the Resolution he presented to the Board this date.

Mr. Harold Smit, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he moved to Lake County three years ago from Indianapolis, where he spent 20 years on the police department, to be in the country, where homes are not so close together. He stated that he agreed with everything that was stated this date and asked the Board to not approve the development, noting that, if they did, they would be taking the souls of everybody in Central Florida.

Mr. Jon Arbuthnot, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he objected to the proposed plan amendments, supported staff's analysis of the amendments, and considered them improper for the reasons stated in the analysis. He urged the Board to not transmit the proposed amendments to DCA, noting that they do not resemble any other rural village in Lake County. He stated that the County is already overdeveloped and the Board must take that into consideration. He questioned how many more golf courses Lake County needs, noting that there are currently five ,golf courses within five to eight miles of the proposed area. He stated that people who live in the country choose to live with the wildlife, in a country setting, and he does not feel that any developer should be allowed to change the landscape and the biological diversity for personal gain, without regard to the local residents.

Ms. Pat Carter, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she has a garden that she cannot water and the only green she sees in the area is the golf course at Harbor Hills. She stated that, even if there was enough water for the development, she still would not approve of the rezoning, because she does not want to look out over her back yard and see homes, she wants to see foxes, deer, bears, and red tail hawks.

Mr. Dennis Howard, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he and his wife have served as missionaries for a number of years in different countries. He stated that they moved to Central Florida and were able to buy their dream home - their first home in 35 years of marriage, on ten acres of heavily wooded land, backed up to what used to be a fifteen acre lake, which no longer exists. He stated that today it is nothing but a mud hole. He stated that it is disheartening when you have spent a lifetime looking for a dream and think you have found it, to find that it is disintegrating around you, because of someone wanting to make more money, which is exactly what it comes down to. He stated that their lifestyles are being interrupted, in order to satisfy the ambitions and goals of a very few.

Mr. Ken Tolliver, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he lives across the street from Harbor Hills and has seen the changes that have occurred over the years. He stated that it is the Board's job to look after the general welfare of the people. He stated that the Board does not have to send the proposed amendments to the State, as indicated earlier. He stated that the issue can end at this meeting.

Ms. Vicki Lundgren, a resident of Lake County, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she owns a small farm approximately one mile from the property that is to be developed. She stated that she was present at this meeting representing the Friends of Lake Griffin. She stated that she objects to the proposed plan amendments, supports staff's analysis of the amendments, and considers them improper for the reasons stated in the analysis. She urged the Board to not transmit the amendments to DCA. She stated that she is a member of the Sierra Club, as well as other organizations, at which time she submitted a letter from the Sierra Club Central Florida Group (Opposition's Exhibit H), for the record, recommending that the Board deny the request. She stated that Signature Properties (developer of Harbor Hills) has every right to develop their land, but not to do what they are proposing in the County's green belt and very rural area. She stated that the area is dominated by large parcels. She stated that the property owners in the area have their legal rights in this matter, as well, and feel that approval of the proposed rezoning would violate those rights. She stated that the Board members were not elected to expedite the wishes of developers, but rather it is their responsibility to protect the public and to respect the wishes of their constituency. She asked the Board to do so, when they vote on the matter.

Mr. Tom Voss, a resident of Orange Blossom Gardens, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he saw an ad in the newspaper stating that Harbor Hills was going to be holding an auction this weekend to sell some homes and vacant lots, therefore, questioned why, if they cannot sell the homes they already have, they would want more homes.

Ms. Nancy Lopez, a resident of Tavares, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she lives on a lake that is in serious trouble; therefore, it is troubling to her, in looking at the Staff Report, that an environmental analysis was not provided in the report, yet there is serious consideration of making a decision to send the proposed plan amendments to the State. She stated that she did not see how the Board could do that, given the serious problems that have already been identified. She stated that she is a hydrologist, with 30 years of experience as a water resources professional, and pointed out the fact that there are some very significant flags regarding water quality and quantity for both the County's surface water and its ground water, which she noted relates to the lake that she lives on. She stated that the Board does not have enough solid information to make a decision regarding this matter, therefore, urged them to not send the proposed amendments forward to the State.

Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, Attorney, representing the Friends of Lake Griffin, readdressed the Board stating that there are some very sound legal reasons for not transmitting the proposed plan amendments to the State, which are expressed very well in the County's Staff Report and supported by the presentation of many of the speakers this date, as well as very good policy reasons for not transmitting the amendments. He asked the Board to take these things very seriously to heart and not transmit the plan amendments to the State.

Mr. J. T. Smith, a resident of Harbor Hills, addressed the Board, in favor of the request, stating that he felt all the foxes, birds, squirrels, peacocks, and sand hill cranes that he sees in his backyard did not know they were not supposed to be there, but they are there, and in abundance. He stated that he is a retired builder, who has built over 40 manufacturing plants around the world and had to fight a lot of battles in order to build them, however, noted that, as a rule, situations were enhanced by the building of the plants. He stated that he reviewed the developer's plans and has been to the other two developments that the developer owns and found no urban sprawl. He stated that they protected the environment and the roads were handled efficiently. He stated that he loves living in Harbor Hills, because he thinks it is a very wonderful place to live. He urged the Board to submit the proposed plan amendments to DCA, as the schedule calls for.

Mr. Walt Lemon, a resident of Harbor Hills, addressed the Board, in favor of the request, stating that he has lived in Harbor Hills for over three years and wanted to reiterate what Mr. Smith stated. He stated that many of the residents in Harbor Hills feel it is a little bit of heaven for them. He stated that he did not feel urban sprawl was an issue, with regard to this request, therefore, fully supports the development.

Mr. Bob King, a resident of Harbor Hills, addressed the Board, in favor of the request, stating that he and his wife retired to Florida four years ago. He stated that they traveled throughout Florida for six weeks trying to decide where they wanted to live and chose Harbor Hills. He stated that he can go outside and see the stars, the sand hill cranes, the alligators, etc.. He stated that it is a beautiful place. He stated that people will not stop coming to Florida - they will come and they are going to need a place to live and no place is like Harbor Hills.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 6:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.

PETITION NO. LPA 00/10/1-5 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN TO RURAL - HARBOR HILLS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. AND PETITION NO. LPA 00/10/2-5 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL TO RURAL VILLAGE - HARBOR HILLS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE/GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, INC. (CONT'D.)

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board, in rebuttal to the comments that were made this date. He called Mr. Bernie Yokel, a resident of Mt. Dora who has been involved with water and wetlands in Florida since 1960, to the podium and questioned him about this request. Mr. Yokel stated that he worked with the University of Miami for a while in the Everglades, at which time he opened a research station in Naples, looking at the impact of development on wetlands and studying the ecology of the estuaries in Naples and the surrounding areas. He noted that he has been working with Harbor Hills, in developing the project that is the subject of the rural village and comprehensive plan amendments this date. He stated that he brought to the developer's attention an aquifer storage and recovery proposal, which he noted stores water until it is needed and then is retrieved, treated, chlorinated, and sent out to the homes as potable water.

It was noted that such a system will be one of the elements that will be investigated for the Harbor Hills development, to meet the conditions for reducing its water usage at the current golf course and throughout the entire project.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., readdressed the Board and answered questions from Mr. Richey about this request, in rebuttal to some of the comments that were made this date. He stated that they did an impact analysis (Applicant's Exhibit F) of the property in question, to determine how many five acre lots could be placed on the property, and compared it to the PUD/rural village before the Board this date, which he reviewed and submitted, for the record.

Mr. Richey then rebutted some of the comments that were made this date, with regard to the widening of the roads in the area of the proposed development; issues concerning the golf courses; the fact that the developer will be providing 75% open space; and the fact that the proposed development meets every element of the County's Comprehensive Plan for meeting the rural village criteria, at which time he noted that he is not aware of any other area of the County's Comprehensive Plan, or its Land Development Regulations, that is so restrictive. He stated that the developer has done everything he can do to comply with criteria that has been created to protect Florida's wetlands and environmental areas. He stated that, if the proposed project is not accepted, the developer will have to try to figure out some way to utilize the property. He stated that the plan before the Board this date affords the best opportunity that everyone has to do it right and the first step in doing that is for the Board to transmit the proposed plan amendments to DCA, get their comments, and let the developer work on resolving the unresolved concerns that people have. He stated that the next step is to see what the State has to say. He asked the Board to give the developer the courtesy of doing that and then the developer will resolve to make this project one of the best projects the Board has ever approved in Lake County.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that the concerns over the rural village are less of a concern to him than some of the things that he read in what will eventually be a development order, which he noted neither side is probably going to like. He stated that the existing Harbor Hills is not going to go away and neither is the land that they own adjacent to it. He stated that he felt the rules regarding a rural village could have been called either way, however, staff chose to call on the side that they did not feel it was legal under the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he felt it could have been called either way, with regard to establishing a new rural village, along with an existing rural village. He stated that the questions concerning the number of residents and the square footage of the commercial area that Ms. Griffin brought up, with regard to groundwater availability, are concerns of his that will have to be answered, before it goes any further than a transmittal. He stated that the question is one that is going to have to be answered for any development that comes before the Board from now on, until something changes drastically, besides rainfall.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Rezoning Case No. LPA 00/10/1-5, Harbor Hills/Greg Beliveau/Steve Richey, Tracking No. 85-00-LPA, a request for an amendment to change the current land use designation from Suburban to Rural, in order to subsequently amend the land use of the current DRI and its proposed expansion of approximately 1,384 acres to a Rural Village, through a separate amendment; and Rezoning Case No. LPA 00/10/2-5, Harbor Hills/Greg Beliveau/Steve Richey, Tracking No. 86-00-LPA, a request for an amendment to change the current land use designation from Rural to Rural Village, for the existing DRI and its proposed expansion of approximately 1,384 acres.

Commr. Stivender seconded the motion, for discussion purposes.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that the proposed development is called a rural village, but it is really a PUD, but a commendable one, noting that she feels it is a very good one. She stated that it just may be a few years too late. She stated that she liked the way the golf course was handled, the amount of open space it contained, the amount of area that has been set aside for commercial use, etc., however, she does not feel the County has gone far enough in determining what a rural village is, noting that they have accepted the fact that there are rural villages in the County, but one has never actually been created, other than Crows Bluff. She stated that, with regard to the issue of five acre tracts, she feels it is the worst case of urban sprawl, because services cannot be provided to those areas - it is very difficult to do so and very costly to the County, as well as to the cities. She stated that she feels the County needs to set up guidelines for what a rural village actually is. She stated that the proposed development does not fit the County's regulations; therefore, she will not support it, at this time.

Commr. Hill commended staff and the report that they prepared for this case, noting that it is evident that they spent a significant amount of time researching the matter and gave a great presentation. She stated that there are a number of issues that have been raised by this land use change and, for the most part, feels that staff's analysis was on point. She commended the applicant on the design and the proposed development plan, noting that they gave a great presentation, as well. She stated that there are many attributes to the development plan that are currently desirable, however, not here and not now. She stated that she was having difficulty overcoming what she believes are compelling land issues and concerns and long-range planning issues, many of which are not addressed by the developer's proposal. She stated that she did not believe the designation of the property in question as a rural village was consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Pool applauded the developer on every angle of what they tried to do, to make the proposed development a good project. He stated that there is no doubt it is a good project, the problem is that there is a group of citizens who reside there that do not want this project to be approved. He stated that, if this project were put anywhere else in Lake County, with transportation corridors available, it would be a slam-dunk for him. He stated that there would be no doubt that he would be in favor of everything that was proposed; however, the fact is there would eventually be a traffic problem generated by the number of vehicles that would be coming and going from the development. He stated that he could not support the development at this time.

Commr. Stivender stated that she feels the proposed project is a great project, in fact, is the best one that she has seen Mr. Richey come to the Board with; however, she does not feel it is the right time, or the right place to put it, especially with the current water concerns facing the County. She stated that there are issues that need to be addressed, before moving forward with such a project.

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

Commr. Cadwell voted "Yes".

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES

Mr. Tommy Leathers, Senior Director, Code Enforcement, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that a lot of damage is being done by semi-trucks parking on the sides of the roads in the County, therefore, requested approval of this request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval to advertise changes to Sections 3.06.03 and 3.06.04 of the Parking Ordinance, regarding the parking of semi-trucks and oversized vehicles on the sides of the County's roads.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS

PUBLIC WORKS/ROAD PROJECTS/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves an agreement that the County has been working on between Lady Lake Holdings, Ltd. and Capital Development Group, Inc., with regard to an intersection project for Rolling Acres Road and Griffin Avenue. He stated that the County has agreed to pay for a portion of the improvements and Lady Lake Holdings, Ltd. and Capital Development Group, Inc. has agreed to pay for their portions. He stated that it is just a matter of moving forward with the agreement and doing the intersection road improvements.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and execution of a Developer's Agreement between Lake County, Lady Lake Holdings, Ltd., and Capital Development Group, Inc., for the Rolling Acres Road (5-6903) and Griffin Avenue (5-7807) Intersection Project, in the amount of $106,700.00.

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to approve an agreement between Metroplan Orlando, which is Seminole, Orange, and Osceola counties; Volusia MPO; Brevard MPO; and Lake County, to form a Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Alliance. He noted that the membership may change during the coming year, because of the MPO status that the County would bringing to the cities and other discussions that the Board will be having regarding the process. He stated that the timing of this request is critical, noting that a meeting has been scheduled for January 31, 2001, in Daytona.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and signature authorization on an Agreement between Metroplan Orlando, Volusia County, Brevard County, and Lake County, to form the Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Alliance.

OTHER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed individuals to vacant positions on the Citizens' Commission for Children, as follows:

District 2

Mr. Charles Crane

District 3

Ms. Jennifer Welch

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed individuals to vacant positions on the Planning and Zoning Commission, as follows:

District 5

Mr. Paul Bryan, II

Mr. Jim Mayfield



REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/REZONING

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that the Board had in their backup material a letter from Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing Heathrow Land Company, requesting them to waive the waiting period of one year to rehear a zoning petition to amend an existing PUD that was denied by the Board on July 25, 2000. He stated that, if the Board approved the request, it would save the applicant three or four months, otherwise, the earliest it could get on an agenda would be March of this year, if they filed immediately. He stated that he did not have any recommendations, with regard to this request. He stated that this request involves a part of the Code that staff is currently rewriting and one of the things that staff is going to be eliminating is this provision, noting that they will require, in order for a case to be brought back before the Board, it will have to be different, to prohibit the same thing from coming back before the Board over and over again.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to approve a request by Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing Heathrow Land Company, to waive the waiting period of one year to rehear a zoning petition to amend an existing PUD that was denied by the Board of County Commissioners on July 25, 2000.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not see any substantial reason to hear this case any earlier than scheduled.

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

It was noted that the motion would require a 4-1 vote to be approved, in this case; therefore, the motion was denied.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

COMMISSIONERS/COMMITTEES/ORDINANCES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that staff surveyed other counties regarding this request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the issue of quasi-judicial hearings should be left as it presently is.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved a request to advertise an Ordinance concerning Quasi-Judicial Procedures; Ex Parte Communications allowing ex parte contacts, excluding the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustments, the Board of Examiners, and the Code Enforcement Board.

Commr. Cadwell voted "No".

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

MISCELLANEOUS

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the cleanup of the fish kill is ongoing and that it has been determined that the tipping fees for said cleanup will come from the Fish Conservation Fund.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

MISCELLANEOUS

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that a rather large fire was burning out of control in the south end of the County, the result of an automobile accident at CR 474 and Hwy. 27, and that Hwy. 27 may have to be closed during the night.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.



________________________________ CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/1-23-2001/2-9-2001/boardmin