The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 27, 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; Debbie Stivender; Jennifer Hill; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sanford A. "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Bill Neron, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman opened the meeting.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he would like to add to the Agenda an item regarding the correction of some conservation easements, with regard to the Lakes and Springs Subdivision.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GRANTS

COMMUNITY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval and signature on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Agreement, in the amount of $969,000.00; and approval for the Department of Community Services to implement the programs covered under said Agreement.

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Community Services, and his staff were recognized for a job well done, with regard to their work on this issue.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 959 - FRANKLIN AND MARGARET HOLMAN - UMATILLA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicants were requesting a 90 day postponement. He stated that there were some issues involved that might be able to be worked out, prior to the February meeting date. He stated that staff was requesting approval of the request for postponement.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that 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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 90 day postponement for Petition No. 959, by Franklin and Margaret Holman, Representative Robert F. Vason, Jr., Esquire, to vacate streets in Section 1, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, recorded in the Plat of Glendale, in the Umatilla area - Commission District 5.

PETITION NO. 970 - HIGHLAND GROVE, LTD. - MONTVERDE

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 the Trails of Montverde and to approve and execute a Resolution pertaining to same. He displayed an aerial of the property in question, pointing out the right-of-way to be vacated. He stated that there is an alternate easement that the County has not yet received, pertaining to this request, that will satisfy a legal access issue, however, noted that they expect to receive it in the very near future. He noted that the vacation petition will not be recorded until the County receives the easements. He stated that staff was requesting approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-225 - Petition No. 970, by Highland Grove, Ltd., to vacate right-of-way in Section 9, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, recorded in the Lake Highlands Subdivision, in the Montverde area - Commission District 2.

PETITION NO. 972 - ROBERT AND LUCY HAGUE - EUSTIS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate an easement in the Eustis Meadows Subdivision. He stated that it was located on Hwy. 44, north of Eustis, at which time he displayed an aerial of the property in question and pointed out the easement to be vacated. He stated that staff was requesting approval of the request to vacate the easement.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-226 - Petition No. 972, by Robert and Lucy Hague, to vacate an easement in Section 36, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, recorded in the Eustis Meadows Subdivision, in the Eustis area - Commission District 3. PETITION NO. 973 - LAKE COUNTY - LEESBURG

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Lake County to vacate a right-of-way in the Lady Lake area. He stated that the request was to vacate the easement in question and return it to the adjacent property owners, which was part of a proposal for a road that the County did not construct in that location. He stated that it was surplus right-of-way and staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Mr. Tom Feeney, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board and read a statement into the record, stating that he had no objection to the petition that was filed requesting the vacation of the right-of-way and that he wanted to thank the Board for rescinding the realignment and extension, on June 19, 2001, and approving the paving of Marion County Road, as it exists. He stated that he had reviewed the file regarding this case and wondered why the property owners of Parcel Nos. 42 and 43 were not officially notified of the petition, since they are located within the 150 foot notification area. He noted that ownership of the parcels was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office. He stated that he determined the lot splits occurred during the time of the Harbor Hills DRI process, which originated in May of 2000; that for one to obtain a lot split, one must submit a Lot Split Application to the County's Growth Management Department; that an application was not submitted, therefore, Growth Management does not recognize the lot splits and the lot splits do not meet the criteria of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), Section 14.10.00; and that the only way the two parcels will be able to be developed by the owner is if the owner comes before the Board and requests a variance. He submitted said statement, for the record.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the parties involved with the petition, addressed the Board stating that he was the one that requested the County to give said individuals back their land. He stated that he was notified about the hearing, rather than the individuals who signed the original deeds, because he was representing said individuals and was the one that had prepared the deeds. He stated that, with regard to the lot split issue, there are some private easements that have met the criteria of the LDRs and are legal lot splits, however, noted that that was not the issue before the Board this date and did not have anything to do with the vacation of this petition.

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 approved Resolution No. 2001-227 - Petition No. 973, by Lake County, to vacate a right-of-way in Section 1, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, in the Leesburg area - Commission District 5.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

Commr. Hanson thanked staff for putting together a summary that had been provided to the Board, as well as staff, giving them the results of the Planning and Zoning Board hearings and their recommended action, as well as a brief synopsis of the petitioner's request, with regard to the rezoning cases before the Board this date. She stated that it was very helpful and felt that it was something that should have been done a long time ago.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that the following cases were being postponed for anywhere up to 90 days, because of the School Siting Criteria Ordinance:

Rezoning Case No. LPA01/9/4-2

W. T. Cox

Steven J. Richey, PA

Tracking No. 124-01-LPA

Rezoning Case No. LPA01/9/6-2

The Golden Fleece

Steven J. Richey, PA

Tracking No. 126-01-LPA

PETITION NO. PH69-01-5 - R-1 TO A - JAMES AND CAROLINE DUNN

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone six acres in the Rural land use category from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture), in order to construct a barn on the property. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 10-0 vote, and noted that there were no letters of opposition on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicants were 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. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-139 - James and Caroline Dunn, Rezoning Case No. PH69-01-5, Tracking No. 138-01-Z, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture), to allow for those uses permitted in the Agriculture zoning district.

PETITION NO. PH68-01-5 - A TO CFD - VOICE OF CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, PASTOR WES TEATER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone five acres in the Rural land use category from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District). She stated that the request meets the necessary criteria, noting that the area in question saw a 17.5% jump in population over the last 10 years; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-1 vote, and there were no letters of opposition on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-140 - Voice of Calvary Pentecostal Church, Pastor Wes Teater, Rezoning Case No. PH71-01-3, Tracking No.143-01-CP/AMD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a church and accessory uses.

PETITION NO. PH71-01-3 - AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE NO. 92-88 - BILL BRYAN IMPORTS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a little over one acre in the Mt. Dora area. She stated that it is the old Bill Bryan Jeep dealership, which is requesting to amend CP (Planned Commercial) Ordinance No. 92-88, to allow for limited commercial uses of the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, by a 10-0 vote, and there were no letters of opposition on file. She stated that the request meets the County's criteria for commercial development, however, noted that there was some discussion between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant, as to the need for an accel/decel lane, thus, the reason for the following amended language: The accel/decel lane is not necessary, based on the limited traffic generated by the used furniture store, but any change of use that intensifies the traffic may require an accel/decel lane at a later date. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. 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. 2001-141 - Bill Bryan Imports, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH71-01-3, Tracking No. 143-01-CP/AMD, a request for an amendment to CP Ordinance No. 92-88, to allow for limited commercial uses of the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, as amended, including the language recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the accel/decel lane is not necessary, based on the limited traffic generated by the used furniture store, but any change of use that intensifies the traffic may require an accel/decel lane at a later date.

PETITION NO. PH72-01-2 - CP ORDINANCE NO. 35-92 TO C-2 - FOUR SQUARE M CORPORATION/JIMMY CRAWFORD, P.A.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a little under 12 acres in the Clermont area, located at the intersection of CR 455 and SR 50, which she noted qualifies it to be a community activity center, allowing for 50,000 plus square feet of shopping, office, and institutional uses. She stated that the applicant has an old CP Ordinance for model homes. She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone from CP (Planned Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial) for up to 127,630 square feet. She stated that there were no letters of opposition on file.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the request met the County's commercial locational criteria and was informed that it did.

Commr. Pool questioned whether the needed rights-of-way and easements, for expansion or improvement to the intersection, had all been obtained.

Ms. Farrell stated that, if they had not, it would be handled at Development Review Staff, as far as traffic impacts are concerned.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the applicant, informed the Board that the applicant had already donated the right-of-way for CR 455.

Mr. Todd Clark, a local resident, addressed the Board and questioned whether the County planned to install a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 455 and SR 50, noting that there already seems to be a problem with traffic and accidents at that intersection.

Mr. Clark was informed that there are plans to install a traffic signal at said intersection in the very near future.

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. 2001-142 - Four Square M. Corporation, Jimmy Crawford, PA,

Rezoning Case No. PH72-01-2, Tracking No. 140-01-CP, a request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) Ordinance No. 35-92 to C-2 (Community Commercial), to allow for retail and commercial uses, limiting the commercial square footage to 127,630 square feet.

PETITION NO. CUP01/11/2-5 - AMENDMENT TO CUP NO. 495-1 - BOB AND MARY LOU TORRENCE

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request involving an old CUP, dating back to 1975, with an underlying zoning of R-1 (Rural Residential). She stated that staff issued a zoning clearance for what they considered at the time to be a replacement mobile home, however, discovered after the fact that there was a question as to whether the mobile home that was in place was ever permitted, or a part of the original application that came before the County in the early 1970s. She stated that this request was to correct a permitting snafu. She stated that staff found the double wide mobile home to be consistent with the development of the project and with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there was an issue regarding fencing; therefore, a condition has been placed in the Ordinance requiring the installation of a six foot high stockade/privacy fence to surround the perimeter of the property, to provide buffering between the fishing resort and the residential development.

Commr. Hill stated that a reference was made regarding over $5,000 in fines, for permits, and questioned whether it involved just permitting, or other things as well.

Ms. Farrell stated that it probably involved permitting costs, impact fees, etc.

Commr. Hill stated that she just wanted to make sure that the applicant was not paying for some outstanding fines that somebody else had accrued.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had driven out to the site and found that the current owner has done a lot with the parcel in question, compared to the way that it used to be.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-143 - Bob and Mary Lou Torrence, Rezoning Case No. CUP01/11/2-5, Tracking No. 144-01-CUP, a request for an amendment to CUP No. 495-1, to allow the keeping of a replacement mobile home on the site, with the existing uses.

PETITION NO. CUP 01/11/5-4 - CUP IN A - DORIS DAUGHARTY/SPRINT PCS

JEFF YOUNG

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a 15 acre site in the Cassia area, for the placement of a 200 foot telecommunications tower, with accessory uses. She stated that the applicant met all the criteria found in the County's Tower Ordinance. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it, by a 10-0 vote, with the deletion of Section 2. B., on Page 1 of the Ordinance, eliminating a request for landscaping along the perimeter of the site in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2001-144 - Doris Daugharty, Jeff Young/Sprint PCS, Rezoning Case No. CUP01/11/5-4, Tracking No. 146-01-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture)/A-1-20 (Wekiva River Protection Area/Sending Area No. 2), for the placement of a 200 foot telecommunications tower, with accessory uses, with the deletion of Section 2. B., on Page 1 of the Ordinance, eliminating a request for landscaping along the perimeter of the site in question, to provide a visual and continuous screen.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he would be supporting the motion and wanted to make sure that, when the Board granted the landscaping variance, they realized that it is in an area that is away from anything else and will be away from anything else.

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

PETITION NO. PH73-01-4 - REVOCATION OF CUP NO. 87/2/1-5 - BLANCHE PARKER/JOHN H. PARKER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a parcel of property consisting of a little over one acre in size, in the Paisley area. She stated that there is an old CUP on the property and the applicant has requested to go to a straight zoning, which staff supports, for a museum, gift shop, and bait and tackle shop. She stated that there is an existing house on the parcel. She stated that the request meets all the County's criteria required by the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. She stated that there was no written opposition to the request, however, noted that some concerns were expressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. She stated that the Ordinance limits the request to 5,000 square feet and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 10-0 vote.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-145 - Blanche Parker and John Parker, Rezoning Case No. PH73-01-4, Tracking No. 148-01-CUP, a request for revocation of CUP No. 87/2/1-5 and rezoning from A (Agriculture) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), to permit the use of a museum, gift shop, and bait and tackle shop

PETITION NO. CUP01/11/1-4 - CUP IN A - BILL DOWDY, JR./RONALD GORDON

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a 26 acre site in the Paisley area and is for a storage container for low explosive fireworks. She stated that there were several photographs (contained in the Staff Report) depicting the site and the storage container that will be utilized. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that they have been working very closely with the applicant. She stated that there will be two locking devices on the storage container and noted that the applicant is proposing a setback of 400 feet from the east property line and 350 feet from the north property line for placement of the storage container. She stated that the Ordinance prohibits any wholesale or retail sales and noted that the Board might also want to add some language prohibiting any testing or firing of the explosives. She stated that, under Section 2. B., on Page 1 of the Ordinance, staff would like to change the language to read that the landscaping be required around the fenced enclosure for the storage container, rather than around the storage container itself. She stated that staff also added some language to give them some flexibility, should they have to adjust anything, because of the fire requirements of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the applicant did a very good job of supplying the County with all the needed information. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, by a 10-0 vote.

Commr. Hill questioned whether staff was including in the Ordinance language to prohibit the testing or detonating of the fireworks in the area, noting that she would feel a lot more comfortable with approving the request, if said language were included in the Ordinance.

Ms. Farrell stated that she would like for the Board to include the addition of said language in their motion.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 10-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-146 - Bill Dowdy, Jr./Ronald Gordon, Rezoning Case No. CUP01/11/1-4, Tracking No. 145-01-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), to permit the use of a storage container for low explosive fireworks and those uses of the agriculture zoning district, as amended, adding language prohibiting any testing or firing of the explosives and, on Page 1 of the Ordinance, under Section 2. B. - Buffering, that the language be changed to indicate that the landscaping be installed around the fenced enclosure, rather than around the storage container itself.

PETITION NO. PH63-01-5 - R-6 TO RMRP - MADELINE WHALEN, ET AL

LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) a parcel consisting of approximately 14 acres, in the Urban Expansion area. She stated that the prior month the Board spent six hours discussing the case and, as of November 20, 2001, the County had not received a conceptual plan for the PUD. She stated that staff's concerns were the same as they were one month ago, in that they would like to see a PUD, to limit the density, to address the lakefront lot sizes, and to address any environmental constraints. She stated that staff was recommending approval to a straight RMRP zoning. She stated that the parties involved have been working together, however, noted that staff has not been included in those discussions, so she did not know where the case stood, as far as the presentation scheduled for this date. She stated that there was a petition on file containing 37 signatures in opposition to the request. She stated that the motion for approval before the Planning and Zoning Commission failed, by a 3-6 vote, and noted that staff was recommending denial of the request, as well.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that she and Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing individuals in opposition to this request, had met several times regarding the case and, after reviewing various versions of a new site plan, had reached an agreement, which provides that the County will be a third party beneficiary to the agreement, to the extent that, should the County choose to enforce the agreement, it would have the right to do so, but it would be the parties involved that would have to pursue a civil remedy, in the event there is a problem with implementation of the plan and agreement, as agreed to by said parties. She stated that they went back to the drawing board, since the last meeting was held, and came up with a plan that the adjoining property owners agreed to as acceptable to addressing their concerns. She displayed and reviewed the Expansion Plan for the Grand Island Resort (Applicant's Exhibit A), stating that the property in question was surveyed and plotted and they worked around the large clusters of trees that run along the eastern boundary of the property and pushed the lots that were on the lakefront further away from the lake, in order to address the 50 foot requirement from the wetlands, which she noted puts the lots approximately 150 feet from the water's edge. She stated that they provided for a Type C landscape buffer, starting at the location of the adjoining property owner's home, as opposed to any type of opaque artificial buffer, and shortened the lots that run along the east side, so that there is a setback from the property line, ensuring that the homes cannot be placed any closer than the rear lot line, plus the setback.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing individuals in opposition to this request, addressed the Board stating that his clients have entered into an agreement that puts forth in the Conditions the things addressed by Ms. Campione, tying it to this plan, which requires his clients and several other people to sign, should this plan change, or any of the conditions be modified. He stated that, if the property in question is rezoned to RMRP, those conditions apply to the development of the property. He stated that he feels all parties involved are relatively happy with the plan and that he feels it makes for a better plan. He stated that they encourage the Board to approve the request.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff and approved Ordinance No. 2001-147 - Madeline Whalen, et al, Leslie Campione, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH63-01-5, Tracking No. 129-01-RMRP, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park), for an expansion to the existing Grand Island Mobile Home Park, as presented by the applicants, along with the agreement addressed this date.

PETITION NO. PH64-01-2 - A TO CP - CHESTER FOSGATE COMPANY

CLERMONT AUTO SALES

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it had been addressed the previous month and that there was some debate at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as to whether the rezoning request should be to MP (Planned Industrial), LM (Light Industrial), or CP (Planned Commercial). She stated that the City of Clermont had requested that they be given the opportunity to determine whether they could service the dealership or not, as well. She stated that the County received a letter from the City of Clermont stating that they had denied the request for service, noting that their primary concern was their consumptive use permit. She stated that another concern was whether the proposed use meets the County's commercial locational criteria. She stated that the parcel in question consists of a little over 11 acres, on SR 50, in Clermont. She stated that it is not located at an intersection and is not located within a planned center; therefore, it would be considered strip commercial. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request. Ms. Farrell stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, with some changes to the Ordinance. She stated that, due to the fact that there was also some discussion as to whether the applicant was going to find another site and staff was not sure, up to the last minute, where this particular request was going, should the request be approved, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, under Section 1. A. - Land Uses, the wording "light industrial" would need to be changed to "automotive retail sales, professional offices, and C-1 uses", and Section 1. E. would need to be struck through, as well, which requires that central water and wastewater services shall be provided to the site, since the County now knows that the City of Clermont will not be servicing the site.

Commr. Cadwell stated that this case was put off at the previous month's meeting, because the County had received a letter from the City of Clermont the morning of the hearing, requesting that they be given the opportunity to determine whether they could service the dealership or not. He pointed out the fact that the City of Clermont met on November 13, 2001, however, did not send the letter informing the County that they would not be able to service the dealership until November 26, 2001. He stated that he felt staff needs to meet with the City of Clermont and inform them that the County is trying to work with them and do the right thing; but, they do not feel the City was right in waiting until the day before the scheduled Board Meeting to notify the County of their point of view. He stated that it was not fair to the applicant, nor to staff. He stated that, if the County is going to try to represent the City and look after their interest, then the City needs to be courteous enough to get the County needed information in a timely manner.

Commr. Stivender stated that she understood staff's position, but, she could not comprehend it, logically. She stated that there is CP zoning, an employment center, and HM zoning all around the parcel in question; therefore, she did not understand why the request did not fit the criteria.

Ms. Farrell stated that there is an old PUD, which had some commercial uses that are vested and those are the commercial uses one sees along the highway, however, noted that staff's position in this case is to present the County's Comprehensive Plan as it reads today, so they had to recommend denial.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that there are similar operations to the one in question in Ocala and Gainesville, which she feels are communities that have a lot of the same characteristics as Lake County, in the sense that they are urbanizing areas, so they have had to be very sensitive to what is going on around them, with regard to landscaping, etc.

Commrs. Stivender, Hanson, Pool, and Hill noted, for the record, that they had met with Ms. Bonifay prior to this hearing, with regard to the case.

Ms. Bonifay displayed an aerial (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the property in question, which she reviewed with the Board, noting that the applicants looked in Lake County for some time for a suitable location for their dealership franchise. She stated that they met with staff, who advised them to apply for an industrial zoning, because they thought the property was located within an employment center designation, however, noted that it is not located within said designation, it is in the Urban land use category. She stated that the applicants applied for an industrial zoning, as they had been advised to do, however, noted that she became involved in the case and was a little surprised to find that they had been informed to do so, because she did not think it was an appropriate classification. She stated that staff then made a recommendation of denial, so she informed the Planning and Zoning Commission that her client had relied on what the County's Planning staff had told them to do, thus their reason for selecting LM uses. She stated that, if staff really thought that commercial zoning was the appropriate use, the applicants would have amended their application to a CP zoning, receiving staff's recommendation of approval. She stated that, if the Board were to look at the Staff Report, they would find that said fact was omitted, noting that, at the actual hearing the request was changed to CP and staff indicated that, based on that fact, they were recommending approval of the request. She stated that the County's Comprehensive Plan has not changed, since that particular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, noting that it is the same plan that the County has been using since 1993, in terms of commercial locational criteria. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed it, felt that it was an appropriate use for the site, and recommended unanimously to approve it to CP. She stated that no mention was made that day by staff that the request did not comply with the County's commercial locational criteria, or that there was a problem. She stated that the request has gone from denial to approval and back to denial. She questioned what one can do with the site, if one cannot do commercial or industrial.

Ms. Bonifay gave a brief background history of the request, at which time she noted that the site had received a recommendation of approval for CP from staff in 1996 and had been approved by the Board for CP in 1999, with the same policies that have been in effect since 1993, when the County redid its Comprehensive Plan. She addressed the issue of the site being located close to an intersection containing a collector or arterial road, noting that the site does not have any kind of road near it, other than SR 50, and she does not feel the applicants would be starting a domino effect on SR 50, by putting in their dealership, because she feels it has already happened. She stated that the applicants are offering the County a well-designed, well-planned use for the site. She stated that the applicants concur with the changes that staff made in the Ordinance, in that, for some reason, if one or more of the dealerships that the applicants are proposing, which is a Chrysler or Dodge dealership, did not go through, then they would want to have some other type of commercial use.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, as to the issue of water and sewer, the site is located within the Clermont utility district. She stated that the owners of the property gave the City of Clermont water and sewer lines, as well as right-of-way for the placement of those lines, with the understanding that, when the applicants got ready to develop the property, the City would provide the services. She noted that the sewer lines are on the south side of SR 50 and the water lines are on the north side of the highway. She displayed and submitted, for the record, a map (Applicant's Exhibit B) indicating the placement of said water and sewer lines.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicants would be willing to hook up to water and sewer services, if the time came where the services were available to the site.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she felt the applicants would be required by law to do so. She stated that the applicants have also been working with the Public Works staff on the issue of a trail, in conjunction with the County's Rails to Trails Program, noting that they have agreed to donate to the County 30 feet for a conservation easement for said program, consisting of approximately one acre, which she noted makes a nice buffer between the proposed dealership and a residential area located behind the property. She displayed and submitted, for the record, a Conceptual Site Plan (Applicant's Exhibit C) for the proposed dealership, which she reviewed with the Board.

Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, a handout (Applicant's Composite Exhibit D), containing a copy of an Addendum that staff had prepared April 12, 1999, giving a Revised Analysis of the case; a copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, dated May 1, 1996, with regard to this case; and a copy of the Minutes from the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, dated April 27, 1999.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, addressed the Board, in response to a concern by Commr. Pool that there may not be any vegetation between the proposed dealership and the trail. He stated that the County leaves as much vegetation in place as possible, when constructing the trails, however, noted that there may be alignments along the trail, where there is a significant width of right-of-way. He stated that in some areas, where there are narrow widths of right-of-way and the County is constructing a 16 foot wide paved trail, it does not leave much room on either side for landscaping, so they have to look at those areas and determine what they can leave in and what they can install in the ground, to enhance the trail.

Ms. Bonifay asked the Board to approve the request, noting that it is consistent with all the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map, as well as with proposed commercial land uses along SR 50. She stated that the request meets all the County's Code requirements, in terms of landscaping, setbacks, etc., and noted that the applicants have agreed to the donation of acreage for the Rails to Trails Program, alluded to earlier, as well.

Mr. Karl Herder, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that he was concerned about the ingress/egress to the proposed dealership and how far away from SR 50 it will be located, as well as what kind of traffic problems it will generate. He stated that he was not opposed to the dealership, noting that he feels it will be a great asset to the community, he was just concerned about what he feels is a serious safety hazard. He stated that he felt the ingress/egress should be really well thought out and planned accordingly.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicants have met with Mr. Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, as well as with representatives of the Department of Transportation, about the matter, since SR 50 is a state road. She noted that the applicants originally wanted to have two access points, but the State would only allow the one access point, in the center of the dealership.

Mr. Schneider readdressed the Board stating that FDOT indicated they would like to have only one driveway, however, noted that he felt there will most likely be a directional median opening on SR 50. He stated that Public Works would like to request that there be a joint access to the property to the east (opposite the Hess station), so the County can try to tie the properties together. He stated that there could possibly be a driveway in between the two property lines, as well.

Ms. Bonifay stated that FDOT only wants to have the one directional access point, as indicated on the Conceptual Site Plan, however, noted that there will be improvements at the Greater Hills Boulevard entrance.

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

Commr. Pool stated that he realizes what is taking place on the SR 50 corridor is a reality and that growth is coming, however, noted that he was disappointed that the City of Clermont chose not to provide water and sewer services to the site, since the property owners gave the City the easement for said lines. He stated that he was in a difficult position, because he is the City's District Commissioner and he feels they do not want the dealership to be approved, therefore, would not be supporting the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about the fact that the proposed dealership will probably be in the Joint Planning Area (JPA) of Clermont and, in that JPA, one of the requirements will be to have the ability to provide utilities to the site. She stated that another concern she has is that, while the Board states they do not want strip commercial, in some cases it is too late. She stated that she commended staff for doing their job, noting that the request probably does not meet the commercial locational criteria for LM zoning, however, common sense tells one that the request is on SR 50 and is surrounded by commercial, with an employment center located across the road from the site, a significant amount of CP zoning located to the east of the site, and the City of Clermont being located almost adjacent to the site, which does not make a real good case for turning the request down. She stated that she asked herself what would be a better use for the property, noting that nobody would want to build houses right on SR 50. She stated that commercial is just about all that is left. She stated that she feels the dealership will be a good addition to the County, as well as to the City of Clermont, and she feels that it will serve the neighborhood, contrary to what was stated earlier about the matter. She noted that she did not understand why the City of Clermont chose not to provide utilities to the site.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there is a stigma, somewhat, to dealerships, however, noted that said industry has changed, because the market has changed. He stated that, while a dealership may not be ideal for the property in question, he feels it will create less traffic than a lot of other commercial uses on the property would create. He stated that he feels everyone agrees that the property will be commercial at some point in time and he feels the City of Clermont probably used the utility issue as a way to slow it down. He stated that he intended to support the request.

Commr. Stivender stated that, logically, there is nothing else that can go on the site. She stated that it is going to have to be a commercial use.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-148 - Chester Fosgate Company/Clermont Auto Sales, Rezoning Case No. PH64-01-2, Tracking No. 130-01-MP, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial), as amended, in that, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, under Section 1. A. - Land Uses, the wording "light industrial" should be changed to "automotive retail sales, professional offices, and C-1 uses"; and Section 1. E., which requires that central water and sewer services shall be provided to the site, should be struck, since the City of Clermont will not be servicing the site; along with the commitments concerning the right-of-way issue, as discussed by the Board this date.

Commr. Pool voted "No".

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

PETITION NO. PH84-01-2 - AGRICULTURE, CFD, AND R-6 TO CFD - WATER CONSERV II/CITY OF ORLANDO AND ORANGE COUNTY UTILITIES DIVISION

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning in south Lake County, involving a parcel of property consisting of a little over 850 acres. She stated that the Conserv II Project is a joint project with several of the counties in the Central Florida area. She stated that they have been on the site in question since the early 1980s and three-fourths of the property is located in the Rural land use category. She stated that, although their request is technical in nature, it is fairly straight forward, noting that they spray reclaimed water over hundreds of acres. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that they went through all the applicant's applications and monitoring programs, etc., and have no issues with the request. She stated that staff feels it is a win/win situation, as far as the County is concerned. She stated that there was no opposition to the request. She stated that some minor changes were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, however, noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 10-0 vote.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Alan Oyler, Wastewater Bureau Chief of Engineering and Support, City of Orlando, addressed the Board stating that an adjacent property owner had noted a concern about the setback requirement between the ribs of Conserv II and the edge of the property. He stated that said individual owns some property to the northeast of Conserv II and has asked whether the City of Orlando would consider a 500 foot setback from the edge of the property to the wetlands. He stated that, even though the current requirement is only 200 feet, the City will agree to the setback, to alleviate the individual's concern, and would be happy to include that in staff's recommendations.

Mr. Miles Hensley, an adjacent property owner to Conserv II, addressed the Board stating that his property overlooks the property in question and that he was concerned about the view, as well as the water quality. He noted that the City of Orlando was very understanding and cooperative with him; therefore, they were able to work the problem out.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether there would be any type of financial compensation to Lake County, noting that there has been such compensation in the past.

Mr. Oyler stated that Conserve II is currently in the process of negotiating an update to the agreement between Orange County, Lake County, and the City of Orlando and he felt the fee associated with it has been recommended to be increased.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County is somewhat of a partner with the Conserv II Project, therefore, suggested that the County's logo be placed on the sign indicating said fact.

Mr. Oyler noted that the logo would be placed on the sign, as suggested. He gave a brief overview of the Conserv II Project and extended an invitation to the Board, as well as the general public, to take a tour of the Conserv II facility, noting that they are always happy to conduct tours of both the distribution center and facilities, as well as the Orange County National Golf Course, which is a partnership member on that project, but the treatment facilities, as well, so that people can see the level of treatment that they provide at their facilities and the water quality leaving those areas. He noted that Conserv II provides west Orange County and east Lake County with approximately 27 to 30 million gallons of irrigation quality water per day. He stated that, overall, it has provided the Lake County area with billions of gallons of water, which he noted is water that would have been pulled from the Floridan aquifer, for either irrigation of agricultural parcels, or water that has gone into the ribs, to help elevate the superficial aquifer in that area. He submitted, for the record, a booklet (Applicant's Exhibit A) that had been prepared and utilized during his presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 7, 2001.

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. 2001-149 - Water Conserv II/City of Orlando/Orange County Utilities Division (O.C.U.D.), Rezoning Case No. PH84-01-2, Tracking No. 134-01-CFD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture), CFD (Community Facility District), and R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD, to allow for the construction and operation of a reclaimed water rapid infiltration recharge system, subject to a 500 ft. setback from the edge of the wetlands, as noted.

PETITION NO. MSP01/9/1-2 - MINING SITE PLAN IN A - HYPONEX PEAT MINE/J.D. EGGEBRECHT

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request involving over 600 acres in the Florida Turnpike area, in the Rural land use category, for a peat mine. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 8-1 vote, with conditions regarding the road and the duration of the mining. She stated that, although County staff had recommended denial over a year and a half ago, the applicants came back with some additional information, as requested, and met all the County's conditions and criteria, as far as review and approval for such a use on the property was concerned; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request. She noted that there was some opposition to the request.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board, for the record, that he had spoken with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, regarding some questions he had about the life of the mine and the reclamation process, prior to this meeting.

Commrs. Pool, Stivender, and Hanson stated, for the record, that they had spoken with Mr. Richey regarding the project, prior to this meeting, as well.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he had several witnesses that he would like to call upon for questioning.

Ms. Cheryl Ellinor, LPG Environmental & Permitting Services, Inc., addressed the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Ms. Sandra Carter.

Commr. Cadwell noted that Ms. Ellinor had addressed the Board on a previous occasion and the Board would accept her as an expert in her field.

Mr. Richey questioned Ms. Ellinor about various aspects of the peat mining operation, at which time she referred to documents, aerials, maps, etc., contained in the Mining Site Plan Application (Applicant's Exhibit A), a large binder of information that had been prepared for Hyponex Corporation by LPG Environmental & Permitting Services, Inc., and Andreyev Engineering, Inc., and provided to the Board, prior to this meeting. He questioned her about the extraction of peat from a portion of the site in question and the temporary stockpiling of same on the site; the fact that there will be no formal processing facilities on the site, due to the fact that the material will be transported from the site to another location; the fact that the entire operation is expected to be completed in a maximum of five to six years; the fact that only peat will be excavated from the site and the bottom contours of the wetland area will remain intact; and the fact that the peat will be extracted from a parcel consisting of approximately 131 acres.

Ms. Ellinor displayed various photographs (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the property, showing the wetlands being altered by agricultural uses; an area of the wetlands that is low and dry; showing the dried out conditions of the wetlands and cattle that have been allowed to graze on the property; and showing a cattle pond that has been dug on the edge of the property, which provides a water source for the cows. She stated that one of the things she did, while evaluating the site and trying to determine the best reclamation plan for the wetlands, was an historical review of the system, to see how it might have changed over time. She stated that she went back as far as she could in time, to obtain aerial photographs of the area, and the earliest available photographs she could find were taken in 1958; therefore, she started with 1958 and went forward in time. She stated that she found, in 1958, the system consisted of more open water.

Ms. Ellinor was questioned regarding the harvesting operation; the fact that a berm will be constructed on the site, to isolate the construction areas from the wetlands located off-site, which will be 25 feet from the property line, in order to be able to maximize the isolation of the areas being harvested from the off-site wetlands; the fact that the mine will only be operated during the Summer months, when it is dry; the fact that the material will be naturally dried, without the use of artificial machines, blowers, etc.; that machinery on the site will consist of only two bulldozers and one front end loader; that the bulldozers will be used to scrape one foot of peat from the property and the front end loaders will load the peat, after it is dry, into trucks, to be hauled to the processing facility; the fact that they do not haul wet peat, only dry peat; the fact that there is no off-site discharge of water, or consumption of water, from the site; the fact that the only movement of water will be from one part of the wetlands to another, which will be done by electrical pumps, if necessary; the reclamation plan for the site, once the peat has been extracted from it; the fact that there will be a maximum of 20 to 25 trucks per day, during the days that the trucks are running; the fact that there will only be two to three employees working the site at any given time; the fact that the site will be restored back to more of what it was in the historical 1954 plan than what is present on the site today, creating more wetlands; the fact that the applicant has to post 110% of the cost of the reclamation plan with the County, so that, if they do not go forth with the reclamation plan, the financial ability to do it is there, which is part of the application and the Ordinance that is before the Board this date; the fact that a diversity of wildlife and plants were found on the site, listed and non-listed species, and what is planned, during the reclamation process, to create a better habitat for said species; the fact that no scrub jays were found in the area; the fact that a management plan will be provided for the environmental areas on the site; that flashing lights will be used on the front end loader and the two bulldozers, rather than backup beepers; the fact that the hours of operation will be limited to daylight hours, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; the fact that there will be no nighttime activity whatsoever on the site; where the site is located, in relationship to Hwy. 27; the fact that an internal road will be constructed on the site to North Libby Road and Hwy. 27; that the applicant will maintain and monitor any of the roads that it utilizes, to ensure that they do not deteriorate; and the fact that there is no hazardous waste on the site. She displayed various other photographs (Applicant's Exhibit C) of the property, showing its highest elevation; the topography of the land, etc.

Mr. Nicholas Andreyev, Andreyev Engineering, Inc., addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Ms. Sandra Carter.

It was noted that Mr. Andreyev had addressed the Board on a number of occasions; therefore, the Board would accept him as an expert in his field.

Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Andreyev about the fact that he had been called upon to do an evaluation of the site in question, for purposes of the Mining Site Plan Application currently before the Board as Applicant's Exhibit A, at which time he reviewed various charts contained in the exhibit. He discussed the fact that he had done an initial investigation of the site in 1999, followed by a second investigation in 2000, and a third in 2001; the fact that the items of concern from the beginning were the Floridan aquifer and whether there would be draw down impacts to it, or whether there would be leaks into the aquifer during the mining operation; whether there was a confining layer or not; whether changing the wetlands to a more open body would create more evaporation loss; and a potential contamination of the aquifer during the operation.

Mr. Andreyev informed the Board that he did a total of 20 borings on the site - several deep and 13 shallow, to find the direction of groundwater flow in the aquifer; that from those borings they created a groundwater model, to make sure that there would not be any impact off-site; the fact that three additional borings were done within the mining area to 50 feet, where clay material was located, rather than rock, indicating a confining layer; the issue of open water, versus marshes, and the fact that marshes have a little more loss than open water; and the fact that any movement of water during the excavation process will be going from the deep aquifer to the shallow; therefore, there will be no chance of contamination of the aquifer.

It was noted that the Board would not be requiring witnesses to be sworn in, other than expert witnesses that may testify.

Mr. Don Griffey, a licensed civil engineer with the State of Florida and President of Griffey Engineering, addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Ms. Sandra Carter.

It was noted that Mr. Griffey would be accepted by the Board as an expert in his field.

Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Griffey about an evaluation that he had done of the conditions that exist at the intersection of North Libby Road and Hwy. 27, where the trucks hauling the peat would be coming up from the site and entering Hwy. 27 to get to their facility, as well as the conditions at Libby No. 3 Road, which he elaborated on, displaying photographs (Applicant's Composite Exhibit D) of said roads; the type of trucks that will be hauling the peat; and the width of North Libby Road, which is 18 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, and the fact that it is sufficient to accommodate both a truck and a car. He referred to a chart depicting the intersection sight distance, while turning off of North Libby Road onto Hwy. 27, which he noted meets the FDOT's green book standards, as well as the standards of the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, which recommends having 1,250 feet of clear sight distance, while turning to the left, onto Hwy. 27, and 1,500 feet of clear sight distance to the right, while turning onto the highway. He stated that he found a truck would have a greater sight distance than the recommended 1,250 feet to the left and, to the right, they would have a sight distance of approximately 900 feet, which he noted is a little less than the recommended standard distance of 1,500 feet. He displayed various other photographs, contained in the packet that he had provided to the Board, pertaining to the roads in question, at which time he noted that there was a greater sight distance, which would allow for better movement of the trucks, at the Libby No. 3 Road site than at the North Libby Road site. He stated that, with regard to the utilization of North Libby Road, he contacted FDOT to discuss the potential operation and movement of trucks through the intersection and, based upon the low volume of trucks involved, they did not feel it was something that would warrant any kind of intersection improvement. He stated, however, that they did discuss the possibility of posting some advance warning signs for the north bound lanes of Hwy. 27, notifying motorists that trucks would be entering the highway.

Mr. Scott Allard, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and played a brief video (Opposition's Exhibit A) that he had taken, showing sand hill cranes at the site, as well as the actual operation of the peat mine. He stated that he and his wife moved to the area for its peace and quiet. He stated that the mine is not in plain sight of his house, however, noted that the noise generated by the mine is an issue. He stated that the mine does not benefit the community and noted that his main concern is for the residents of the area.

Mr. Jay Schommer, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, at which time he read a statement (Opposition's Exhibit B) into the record, which he submitted, stating that he and his wife live down the street from the excavation site and they are well aware of the noise that heavy equipment with diesel engines and empty dump trucks bouncing on rough clay roads can bring to their quiet neighborhood. He stated that the offer to eliminate back-up beepers on the equipment is commendable and appreciated, but he feels it will only lessen the noise pollution by a small percentage. He stated that they have been told by experts that peat does not smell, however, noted that he has been told by two separate families who live and have lived next to the Hyponex plant in Montverde that the excavation process unleashes a foul smell, similar to sewage. He addressed a concern he had about the possible contamination of the aquifer, as well as a concern about property values, noting that he felt, even though the project has been deemed temporary by Hyponex, he feels that five to six years is a sizeable amount of time to be subjected to this type of pollution, six days per week. He stated that, for Hyponex, it is just another peat mine, but, for the residents of the area, it is their home that is on the line. He asked the Board to sincerely weigh their concerns and vote against the mining proposal.

Ms. Christine Klink, a resident of the area in question , addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that her biggest concern is the roads, noting that the residents in the area have three major ways that they come in and out of their community, one of which happens to be the Libby No. 3 Road. She stated that she felt North Libby Road would be a perfect way for the trucks to get in and out of the mine, however, noted that it is not a very good road. She stated that it is currently a county maintained road and has been measured at 16 feet wide, not the 18 feet that Mr. Griffey alluded to earlier, and that it opens up onto Hwy. 27 at a blind hill. She displayed and submitted, for the record, a handout containing various photographs (Opposition's Exhibit C) showing North Libby Road and Hwy. 27 at the point of the blind hill she alluded to; Libby Road No. 3 and North Libby Road, where they intersect with Hwy. 27 and the entrance to the proposed peat mine; a measuring tape stretched across North Libby Road, showing that the road is 16 feet wide, not 18 feet; and photographs of her home under construction in 1998, one showing that the lake behind her home was an open body and another showing the lake considerably smaller, somewhat dried up. She stated that she did not feel the Board should allow Hyponex to come into their area and take advantage of an already bad situation.

Mr. G. W. Scott, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that, from 1987 to 1997, he and his wife were residents of the Town of Montverde and that it was impossible to be unaware that there was a peat mine in the vicinity, because, even though they were approximately one and a half miles from the mine, they could smell it, when the wind was blowing from that direction, because it smelled like an open sewer. He stated that, although the mined peat does not have a strong odor, something in the mining of the peat creates an odor. He stated that, when he and his wife chose to build their home in the Montverde area, they did not realize that the mine would become so distasteful to them. He stated that, in 1997, he and his wife moved to North Libby Road, where they once again found a rural community, with dirt roads, little traffic, and a beautiful nighttime sky. He stated that they enjoy the many pleasures of outdoor activities, but are once again being faced with the possibility of a peat mine in their neighborhood. He stated that the proximity of the proposed mine is even closer to their present home than it was to their home in Montverde, which means that they will not only have to contend with the odor more often than they did in Montverde, but will have the noise to contend with, as well. He noted a concern he had about the dirt roads in the area and the upkeep of them, noting that maintenance of said roads is performed by the County, as needs demand. He stated that heavy trucks utilizing the roads will be very hard on them, which will mean increased maintenance by an already thinly stretched maintenance crew, which he feels will lead to paving the roads. He stated that the dirt roads are one of the reasons he chose to build his dream home where he did and, even though he realizes that growth is inevitable, he would like to put it off for as long as possible. He stated that they live a country

lifestyle that they cherish and feel that the beginning of the end of that lifestyle will be a mining operation in their back yard. He stated that, as County Commissioners, it is their responsibility to ensure the orderly growth of the County, but it is also their responsibility to protect the rural areas and the residents that live in them.

Mr. Karl Herder, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that a lot of his concerns had already been addressed by other residents in the area. He questioned what guarantees the residents have that everything the Board states the County will do, it will do. He also addressed a concern he had about potential safety problems associated with the trucks hauling the peat entering onto Hwy. 27 and blocking one full lane of traffic, noting that it is getting busier and busier every day. He stated that scrub jays are in the area, even though it was indicated that they were not present. He discussed the issue of the berm, as well, noting that he felt there was going to be a lot more digging on the site than just peat mining. He noted that a petition was submitted to the Board, containing 255 signatures, in opposition to the request. He asked the Board to remember who they represent.

Ms. Nancy Fullerton, President of the Save Our Lakes Committee and a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that she was representing herself, as a resident of Clermont, who is concerned about impacts to the County's groundwater and other environmental issues. She stated that she had studied many of the reports and had talked to people with scientific knowledge, however, noted that she makes no claim as to expertise in the matter. She stated that she was speaking in opposition to the mine, at which time she referred to a letter (Opposition's Exhibit D) that she had submitted to the Board, outlining concerns she has about the County's Comprehensive Plan policies and its Land Development Regulations, which address impacts to the onsite and offsite wetlands; to the Floridan and surficial aquifers; to the wildlife habitat; and to the quality of life. She stated that her reasons for opposing the request were also based on information and conclusions presented by the applicant and the Growth Management staff. She questioned why the request was originally denied and is now being recommended for approval. She requested that they deny the application request, on the basis of the information she submitted, as well as out of a consideration of the environmental conflict and environmental respect.

Mr. John Nap, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he and his wife purchased their home three years ago, which is located approximately one-half mile from the proposed mining site, because they enjoyed the rolling hills, the beautiful lakes, the wide open spaces, the fresh air, and most of all the quiet. He stated that one of his immediate concerns is that removing the peat and possibly destroying the natural wetlands, the residents stand to lose the natural filtration process for their drinking water. He stated that he was also concerned about the wildlife in the area and what will become of the property, once Hyponex is through with it and a manmade lake is created. He questioned whether it will bring more new subdivisions with small lots, or apartment complexes, or whether the property will be returned to its pristine beauty, minus some of the wetlands and some of the wildlife. He stated that he and his wife do not want to see the natural beauty of their neighborhood changed, or altered, by the possible destruction of the natural wetlands; therefore, they are strongly opposed to the request.

Mr. Max Pullen, a resident of The Villages, in Lady Lake, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to note, for the record, that the 16 to 18 foot width of North Libby Road was not ample room for a tractor trailer and car to pass each other safely and that trucks accessing Hwy. 27 northbound, making a left turn, would create a very dangerous situation, if there is any amount of traffic traveling the highway at the time. He further elaborated on the matter.

Mr. Don Heinrich, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that his property is located west of the proposed mine site and that his family plans to build several homes on the property for family members. He referred to a letter that he had mailed to the Board, dated November 5, 2001 (contained in the Board's backup material), in which he addressed concerns he and his wife have about water quality; the impact on the wildlife that inhabit the wetlands; the additional traffic and ensuing dust and dirt in the air; the noise; the lighting; and the overall change in the atmosphere of the area from a quiet rural setting to the ever encroaching commercial enterprises. He stated that he was concerned about the safety of the school children in the area and possible chemical spills on the site, as well.

Ms. Katherine Peres, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and submitted, for the record, a petition (Opposition's Exhibit E) containing five signatures in opposition to the request. She noted that additional petitions were contained in the Board's backup material that had been submitted to the County, prior to this meeting, opposing the peat mine. She stated that, at some point, the County has got to stop doing case-by-case assessments and the granting of permits of any sort and look at the big picture. She stated that there was an article in today's newspaper stating that a water crisis may strike the area by 2006, noting that the St. Johns River Water Management District has been saying that they thought the area had until 2020, before having to be concerned about not having drinking water, but, now they are saying we have to be concerned about it in five years. She stated that, if the County continues to handle cases on a case-by-case basis, five years from now there will be no drinking water, or water of any quality, and the County will be scrounging around trying to do something about it. She asked the Board to step back and think about the bigger picture and the potential that a project like the one in question, like many others that the Board considers week to week, have on the quality and quantity of the County's drinking water. She stated that the petitions that were submitted to the County contain approximately 235 signatures and that every two signatures on the petitions represent five acres. She stated that many represent ten and some represent twenty and even larger tracts of land, which amounts to 600 acres or more. She stated that the residents in her area have invested their life savings on property that they could afford and a lifestyle that they thought they were choosing and are now being presented with a situation where that lifestyle is gradually being eroded. She stated that they are doing everything they can to hang on to a bit of rural lifestyle and keep it as rural as possible, but not very successfully. She asked the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Todd Clark, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he and his family moved to the area five years ago for the lifestyle. He stated that the residents of the area are fighting for a lifestyle that they have worked very hard to achieve. He stated that he found it hard to believe that the applicant's representatives would state that they are going to be able to perform the peat mining operation without disturbing any of the wildlife. He stated that he was concerned about the number of trucks that will be using the roads in the area and questioned who was going to enforce the number of trucks on the roads, the hours of operation, the routes that they will utilize, or the depth of the mine, noting that it could very easily be mined to a deeper depth and no one would be the wiser. He stated that he was concerned about property values, as well, noting that he spent his life savings purchasing his property.

Ms. Linda Carranza, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she fell in love with the natural beauty of the Clermont area and spent her life savings purchasing her property. She stated that she now has Kings Ridge Subdivision in her back yard, so she is in search once again for a piece of rural property where she can raise her children. She stated that, had she known that a peat mine was going to go in, in close proximity to her home, she would have had second thoughts about purchasing it. She asked the Board to let the residents of the area preserve the wonderful rural piece of Clermont that they have invested in.

A large aerial (Opposition's Exhibit F) of the property in question was submitted, for the record.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and responded to the comments that were made by the residents of the area in question, with regard to the issues of possible contamination of the water supply; disturbance of the wetlands; hydrology; and safety of the local children, during the time that the school buses are loading and unloading, at which time he stated that Hyponex would not have a problem with inserting a condition in the permit that they will not run trucks during the time that the school buses are loading and unloading children on North Libby Road. He stated that the applicant will not be utilizing the County's clay road, but will be maintaining its own road, to access and exit the site. He addressed concerns that were noted about an odor being omitted from the site; the fact that strobe lights will be used, rather than a backup beeper; a safety concern about the peat trucks entering Hwy. 27 and the potential hazard they may cause; the number of petitions that were signed in opposition to the request and the fact that the residents were not given accurate information about it; a loss of wetlands and the fact that the applicant will be taking what is considered a disturbed, nasty wetlands and re-establishing it into a functioning, sound wetlands; the fact that there will be no lights or activity on the site at night; that there will only be 12 to 25 trucks entering and leaving the site on any given day; the fact that the peat extraction is seasonal, because it is only removed during the dry season; the operation will not consume water, but move water within the site's current wetlands from one place to another, as the peat is extracted; the fact that, as the peat is extracted, the applicant will start rehabilitating the site immediately so that, at the end of the six years, the project will be restored to a functioning wetlands. He stated that Hyponex has a financial responsibility that they will meet and noted that they have asked for only one variance, which is a 25 foot setback on one side, to keep off-site activities from taking place. He stated that the request is to excavate peat and restore the wetlands and, with the appropriate conditions, the applicants feel they can do it, for the better.

Ms. Farrell readdressed the Board stating that an agricultural site the size of the one in question could have agricultural uses that the surrounding neighborhoods might have an even bigger issue with. She addressed the concerns that were noted about the trucks not being allowed to travel North Libby Road during the hours that the school buses run, as well as the hours of operation. She stated that the site in question is not in a high recharge area, so staff was comfortable with it. She noted that the specific location of the 25 foot variance needed to be in the motion, so that staff could add it to the Ordinance.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that someone could come in and build 123 homes on the site, which would use even more water, and that they could do so without having to come before the Board for approval. She stated that there could be all kinds of farms in the area that would be more objectionable and permanent. She stated that the request before the Board this date was a temporary use of the land and, rather than being considered a mine, she feels it should be considered a reclamation plan. She stated that the County will be monitoring the plan and the activities and reminded those present that the County has one of the toughest mining ordinances in the State of Florida, which will be in place for this request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt a six year operation that will be reclaimed at the end of that six years is not even close to a sand mine operation. He stated that, for the land use that is present on the site, he feels a peat mine is about as good as it gets.

Commr. Pool stated that, when one looks at the index that the Government uses and the fact that the request is for a temporary agricultural use that does not consume water, he feels the mining operation will not be the bad neighbor that the residents feel it will be, or the end of their rural lifestyle, once the operation is completed.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2001-150 - Hyponex Peat Mine/J. D. Eggebrecht, Rezoning Case No. MSP01/9/1-2, Tracking No. 133-01-MSP, a request for a Mining Site Plan in A (Agriculture), to allow a peat extraction operation, with a stipulation that the trucks not be allowed to operate on North Libby Road during the hours that the school buses run; that a 25 ft. setback be put in place between the mine and an adjoining property owner, as noted; and that the mine be operated during daylight hours only and be shut down by 7:00 p.m. during daylight savings time.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the proposed mining operation was the environmental thing to do.

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

PETITION NO. PH77-01-2 - C-1 TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that Lake County was the applicant and that it was a request in the south Lake County area for a fire station. She stated that it meets the County's Land Development Regulations and its Comprehensive Plan; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Hill questioned whether there would be any possibility of a joint use, contiguous with the other counties in that area.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Lake County has agreements with Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties and will continue to have them, however, noted that he feels the areas have grown so rapidly that the County is likely to see three, or possibly four, fire stations in that area, as time goes on. He stated that, currently, the County is working mostly with Osceola County, who has the closest fire station. He stated that the County has also talked with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) regarding this site and offered them the use of it, but the County does not know what they are going to do yet.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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. 2001-151 - Department of Emergency Services, Rezoning Case No. PH77-01-2,Tracking No. 149-01-CFD, a request for rezoning C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a fire station.

PUBLIC HEARING

SCHOOL SITING CRITERIA ORDINANCE FOR TRANSMITTAL

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was the transmittal hearing for the School Siting Criteria Ordinance. She stated that staff had made all the changes (contained in the Board's backup material) that were requested by Mr. Don Turpin, with the Lake County School System. She stated that this particular draft has gone back and forth with the Department of Community Affairs and staff is 100% confident that they will accept this language, as presented. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote.

Commr. Cadwell questioned why representatives of the School Board were not present at this meeting, since they had indicated an interest in being present at the Board of County Commissioner's Meetings, to oversee any action the Board takes regarding the School Board.

Ms. Farrell stated that she had received correspondence from the School Board regarding the draft Ordinance before the Board this date and noted that staff has been corresponding with Mr. Turpin on a regular basis.

Commr. Stivender questioned whether the School Board understood and approved the regulations set forth in the draft Ordinance and will work with the County's staff, before purchasing land in the future.

Ms. Farrell stated that she could not guarantee that.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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 approved to transmit the School Siting Criteria Ordinance, as amended, to the Department of Community Affairs, as required by Florida Statute 163.3177(6)(a). Commr. Stivender stated that she felt the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners should work together for a common goal.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Cadwell left the meeting.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS AND EASEMENTS

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney to release the areas, other than those set aside for conservation, with regard to the legal description involving the conservation easement for the Lakes and Springs Subdivision.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2

PARKS AND RECREATION

Commr. Pool informed the Board that a newspaper reporter from the Daily Commercial had quoted him to say that he wanted to use millions of taxpayer dollars on park lands, however, noted that the reporter acknowledged that he had made a mistake, in that said dollars were pari-mutual dollars, not taxpayer dollars. He stated that the reporter apologized for his mistake and he just wanted to set the record straight.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT 3

MEETINGS

Commr. Stivender brought up for discussion the issue of the Tentative Agenda for the upcoming Board of County Commissioner's Meetings, noting that the January 8^th meeting needs to be a short one, due to the fact that the Commissioners are due in Tallahassee by that evening for Lake County Days, and that they might need to cancel the Board Retreat, scheduled to be held January 11^th, due to the fact that Commr. Hill will not be able to attend that meeting.

It was noted that Commr. Hill would check her calendar, regarding the matter, and get back with the Board at a later date.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

________________________________ CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/11-27-2001/12-14-2001/boardmin