MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tuesday – december 21, 1971
The Board of County Commissioners convened in regular session in the Commissioners’ Room in the Courthouse, Tavares, Florida, on Tuesday, December 21, 1971 at 9:00 A.M., with the following members present: J. M. Hoskinson, Chairman; James R. Carson, Jr.; C. A. Deems; Thomas J. Windram; and Kenneth VanAuken. Others present were: Frank E. Owens, Clerk of the Circuit Court; Christopher C. Ford, County Attorney; and Bernice P. Conner, Deputy Clerk.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, J. M. Hoskinson, and the Invocation was delivered by Thomas J. Windram, after which the Pledge of Allegiance was given.
Chairman Hoskinson reported to the Board that he had met with the Clermont City Council, and discussed the landfill program. The City has a contract with the Board of County Commissioners, where they leased land for $1.00 per year, and the Board specified that the City would be given free use of that land for five years, and an option to renew for another five years. The Clermont City Council suggests that the County buy land, and can then charge as they wish, and that they feel that it is up to the Board to make some kind of proposal. The Clerk was instructed to send a copy of the Lease Agreement, dated in May of 1970, with the City of Clermont to Commr. Deems and Chairman Hoskinson.
Commr. Windram advised the Board that there will be a meeting with the City of Eustis here in the Commissioners’ Room at 10:00 a.m., December 28th, for the purpose of discussing garbage disposal and landfill problems.
roads – state
Chairman Hoskinson reported to the Board that he had received a letter from the Department of Transportation with reference to the resurfacing and rebuilding of the shoulders of roads numbered S-466-A, S-44-A, and S-470; and that Marion Construction Company and Ocala Lime Rock Corporation of Ocala, Florida is apparently the low bidder for the job.
Bonds – misc.
On motion by Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, Bonds for contractors for certificates of competency were approved for the following:
#672 – W. C. Newsome, doing business as Willford Plumbing
#673 – Richard Groesser
At this time, there was some discussion as to whether or not to approve a bond for John Lloyd Massey to carry a firearm, since according to the Sheriff he is deputized and at the present time permitted to carry a gun anywhere in the State of Florida; and that if the Sheriff should let him go and he should need a gun permit, then he can come back before the Board and ask for it. The Clerk was instructed to inform Mr. Massey of these facts and to return his $1.00 fee for the gun permit.
Letter from C. Welborn Daniel, Senator, advising the Board that the provision with regard to corporate and municipal bonds being subject to the corporate tax had been eliminated.
Letter from Mrs. Myrtle M. Pelkey, Clerk of the Town of Montverde, in which the Mayor and Council of Montverde requested that stop signs be installed on Temple Street and Broad Street at their intersection with Railroad Avenue and Osgood Avenue; and also requested that 25 MPH signs be posted on Broad Street, Temple Street, and Osgood Avenue. This matter was referred to the County Engineer to determine if the said streets are city streets or County maintained.
Mrs. Katherine Baker, Mrs. Imogene Stegall, and Mr. Walton Hunter appeared before the Board at this time with reference to precinct boundaries. Also, James C. Watkins, Director of Planning, came in at this time.
At this time, the proceedings were as follows:
Referring to a map which was used in the following discussion, it was pointed out that the old district boundary lines were outlined in blue and that the proposed new district boundaries were outlined in orange.
Hoskinson: District 1, the old District 1, was altered in this fashion:
Precinct 28 was removed from it; Precinct 34 was added to it; Precinct 41 was removed from it; then Precinct 27 was divided, and a small portion of it was moved to District 1, presumably to be merged into Precinct 10. District 2 changed. Precinct 28 was added to District 2; Precinct 41 was added to District 2; Precinct 21 was removed too, removed from it a small portion of 27 east. District 3 had added to it Precinct 21, and had removed from it Precinct 35; had removed from it a portion of Precinct 39. This is the second Precinct that was divided by the redistricting. The Eastern portion of Precinct 39, it was felt this would be the logical place to put it. District 4 had removed from it, Precinct 36; added to it, all of Precinct 35, and the Eastern portion that was severed from Precinct 39. District 5 had added, all of Precinct 36; removed from it, Precinct 34, which had gone into District 1. These changes were all necessary for us to divide the County as nearly as possible into five equal population Districts.
Hunter: Do you have the populations of the new districts?
Hoskinson: The new population of District 1 will be 14,550; District 2 will be 14,900; District 3 will be 13,800; District 4 will be 13,000; District 5 will be 13,100; This constitutes a total population of 69,350. It is a 1900 spread between the lowest and highest. Variation is about 1,000 above and less than 1,000 below.
Hunter: I have a photo of a sheet that was typed up listing precinct numbers and population. My sheet gives the same totals that you have given. It does not list a portion of 27, and give a figure for that.
Hoskinson: The population in that area is 400.
Hunter: Do you have the population in the old precinct before it was changed?
Hunter: 39, what is the population in the eastern portion of 39?
Hunter: And it goes into District 4?
Hunter: Mrs. Baker objects to the change for one reason. Three laws are involved. One is the Constitution itself. It provides that they have the right to redistrict; did have the duty to do so in 1971, to redistrict if they are out of proportion. The other two laws refer to odd years. One of the laws has to do with election districts only. The other has to do with redistricting. You shall redistrict, and there shall not be one election precinct in two Commissioners’ districts. That must be done only in odd years. Sections 98 and 98.031. Upon recommendation and approval of the Supervisor of Registration. The precinct or districts shall not be changed thereafter, without the consent of four members of the Board of County Commissioners and the Supervisor. Passed in 1967; passed in first of the laws that there shall not be one precinct in two Commissioners’ districts. The reason for the requirement of odd years with reference to election precincts is not to conflict with elections on even years. If the commissioners anticipate a division of election districts wanted to create new lines for their commissioners’ districts, Mrs. Baker thinks this should have been done back in July or August and not in December. Her first notice was long after it was brought up before the Board of County Commissioners. But the Constitution does not say, it does say you must redistrict as equal as possible, but it says as equal as practical. She thinks it should be done in a manner as to not split election precincts. There are a number of changes that could have been made that would not have necessitated one election district in two commissioners’ districts. All of 27 in 2, except this little tip (indicating), and not divide the election precincts. You could have taken all of 13 and put it into 3. You have divided an election precinct by taking 400 people out of 2 and put them in 1, taking away from 2, 500 people, and putting it in District 3, and then you have made the districts more equal.
Hoskinson: One of our problems was in, Mr. Windram could discuss it even more. We have duties if it affects all five precincts. You took 400 from District 1 and added the 400 to District. Took away 500 from 2 and given them to 3. I would presume they carried this further then you would not be splitting 39 which would add 750 people back into District 3 which would make it 14,500 people.
Hunter: 39 you can leave all in 3, but here’s 18 that is now in 3. You can put it in 4. 18 fits exactly with 4. Now 18, that is in 3 at the present time has 500, while that portion of 39 that you were changing in 4 has 750. So that one change is only adding now 350 to 3.
Ford: You are trying to tell the commissioners how to redistrict, whereas only the Board of County Commissioners has the right to do it.
Hunter: Can you do that job required, and not need to have the vote of four commissioners and the supervisor, on the change of election districts?
Ford: A district or precinct shall not be changed thereafter in odd numbered years. They change the districts. The law is very clear by Case Law and you will see that you cannot sever a voting precinct. If it has severed a voting precinct, the Attorney General’s opinion which is analogous to this (at this time, Mr. Ford quoted) thinks it is mandatory under the statute. The Constitution says you have to change the districts so they will be as nearly as practical equal in population. You have made the districts as equal in population as practical. You have changed the districts. There is one exception to this, and that is 41 that was changed, the only one changed apparently not because of a split. All others were changed because of a split in the precinct. Florida Statute 98.031, upon recommendation and approval of the supervisor may, in any odd numbered years, change the districts. You did sever some voting precincts, which becomes a mandatory requirement to change those voting precincts to make them as nearly equal in population. It is impossible to come up with an absolute equality.
Hunter: The Constitution says as nearly equal in population as practical. Is it practical to split these election precincts just before an election? I can create five districts more equal in population than your present split by shifting nothing by complete election precinct. I can go ahead and redistrict without splitting an election precinct. One split is only 400 and one only 750 people.
Hoskinson: With the thought in mind of having to do the least amount of shifting of precincts as possible.
Hunter: She will have to set up new books. If she had had more notice, she may have been able to work something out.
Windram: There was no intent to ignore Mrs. Baker, and I extend an apology. This Board took this approach as far as this redistricting, rather than become bogged down in a political hassle, to come up with what we felt would comply with the law, with a minimum of changes and inconveniences, and has done this.
Hunter: When Mr. Watkins was instructed to make up this plan, was he instructed to follow the Chapter 98?
Windram: This Board has taken the action which they thought was proper.
Baker: There are no hard feelings. It is a down right hard proposition.
VanAuken: May I ask if it would take more help?
Hunter: It would definitely take more help, because of the work involved. She would have to locate every person’s address.
VanAuken: In the proposed resolution, the boundaries are drawn. I believe they are all on the east or west side of a major road.
Carson: The lines are drawn in relation to streets.
VanAuken: Since it is specifically stated, they should be able to locate the voters.
Hunter: You say 27 is in 2. Leave it all in 2. Leave 39 in 3. All you would have to do is put 13. Leave all of 27 and 39 where you have got it. You are going to take 13 out of it, which is simple.
Hoskinson: You are adding another 500.
VanAuken: District 4 would have less than District 5.
Hoskinson: You would be having well over 15,000 people in District 3. With 2800 split between the highest and the lowest, we have a split of 1900 people. To my knowledge, there was no instruction given to us that we were not able to split the precinct.
Ford: Probably following the Constitution, a total ignoring of precincts, just to come out with the population as nearly equal as practical, and sever as few as possible. It is a redistricting, and not consideration of precincts, and was to be done with as nearly equal population as practical.
Hoskinson: We told him (Mr. Watkins) not to split precincts, as nearly as possible to give a more even split to the number of people in the precinct, and the Board decided they did not want to make this many changes at this late date, so we did try to minimize the changes.
Hunter: You have to have Mrs. Baker’s consent.
Hoskinson: The Board decided at this time it would have been too much to make this many changes in the precincts, even though we weren’t conversant with the statute. We were in the spirit of trying to minimize it.
Ford: If it were additional help needed to accomplish this, I think the Board would probably try to accommodate Mrs. Baker with it.
Hunter: Additional help and additional expense.
Ford: We recognize that, and that a very expensive legal advertisement is necessitated by this. It will be advertised for four times, and will be very expensive. Mrs. Baker, will this job require additional office personnel?
Baker: I am not in a position to give the Board an answer at this time.
Ford: Are you refusing to answer?
Hunter: She is not. I don’t want to answer that today. She was not notified until last week. She was not put on notice that an election precinct was going to be involved at all.
Ford: If it splits a precinct, that is a result of the redistricting, and the redistricting is mandatory. Additional expenses or otherwise, this is a necessary result of following the Constitution.
Hunter: If the Commissioners wanted it---. I am employed by Mrs. Baker. You have got to do this in December, and if you would like to see what I proposed a while ago, I would be willing to prepare specific populations in each district.
Ford: I think that Ad has to get running. It is my opinion that when you redistrict, there would be another resolution passed to get it on record. I still think you are talking about doing something. You are going right back to notices that were on redistricting.
Hunter: One advertised, and one showed up.
Ford: The public hearing that was advertised, and only one person showed up.
Hunter: No one knew about the map.
Ford: All that he had to do was come up and review it. I would like to see the first advertisement of adoption go into the newspaper in December. It has to run four consecutive weeks. There is no law that requires an advertisement in advance. No law requires publication of notice to the public.
Ford: (To the Board) I think you have a constitutional obligation to redistrict. You have accomplished this. In doing it, it has split a couple of voting precincts. It effected a change in the voting precincts. From the Attorney General’s opinion, it would appear that it became mandatory to change those voting precincts to make them so they will all lie within only one district, County Commissioner’s District. It would be my recommendation, if the Registrar needs another individual employee for six months, the cost would certainly have to be borne for advertising, stamps, employees, printing, etc. It is a necessary expense.
Hoskinson: As far as Precinct 41, the elimination of this precinct, I can take the complete blame for that. I was of the impression that this was a change she would welcome, and that I believe there is less than 100 registered voters in the precinct, and previously when ordering voting machines for such a small precinct, and I would certainly withdraw that proposal of recommendation, saying that I was in error.
Ford: Mrs. Baker, we would like to know at your earliest convenience if you are going to refuse to go through the process necessary to change the voting precincts.
Baker: Mr. Hunter is my attorney. He will answer the question.
Ford: Mr. Hunter does not run your constitutional office. You do.
Hunter: Joining 41 with an adjoining precinct does not involve merely what splitting this precinct does. It does not create a problem, but the others do.
Ford: If there is no objection, at least Mr. Hunter felt ---.
Hoskinson: Do you have any recommendations, Walton?
Hunter: No. I think the only thing I would say is that Mrs. Baker objects to change at this time. As far as 41 is concerned, she has no objection. Her objection is on the split of the two election precincts. If she is forced to put a portion of one district into another, then she would not object to combine 41 with another one. Her objection is to the splitting of two precincts, 27 and 39. She would be glad to consult with the Board year after next. A representative of the Board can meet with Mrs. Baker and make any changes in the election precincts they want to, providing four members of the Board go along with it.
Hoskinson: But the most nearly equal plan that we came up with was with these two differences. We can have district boundaries that were not quite so equally divided. That might be satisfactory.
Hunter: If you will give me until next Tuesday to see if I cannot submit a plan that will divide it just as equal as it is now, and not split either one of these precincts.
Windram: I think the action is proper, and I would move adoption of the Redistricting Resolution as drawn.
Carson: Second the motion.
Carson: We found in the brief you gave us, and the authorization under which Mr. Watkins was working, that the Constitution requires nothing except as to population.
Ford: That is correct. The Constitution provides that “after each census (this was a quote) as nearly equal in population as practical.” The areas could be taken into account by the population, and that is the standard to go by.
Watkins: We took the 1970 figures. It was done by computer. We took that, and tried as nearly as possible to get equal population distribution. We also tried to take areas into consideration and tried not to cut up election precincts.
Ford: Mr. Duncan reviewed the legal descriptions in the districts. The Engineer’s Office prepared the legal descriptions.
Hoskinson: The question was called for. All those in favor of the adoption of the Redistricting Resolution as drawn, please signify.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The Clerk was instructed to write a letter to Mrs. Baker, attaching a copy of the resolution, telling her that the Board understands from the discussion that this may place an added burden on her office, and would she advise the Board if it is necessary to provide her with further assistance, additional personnel, or whatever else might be necessary for her to accomplish this.
Ford: If she is going to refuse to do this, it is going to necessitate a lawsuit to determine this point. If she is going to do it, the problem is over. If she is going to refuse, then we can have a court decide whether it can be done or not. Unless this Board hears from her to the contrary, it is assumed she is going to proceed with the necessary changes.
The Board authorized and directed the Clerk to publish the resolution as adopted in the Daily Commercial, Leesburg, for four consecutive weeks, and to include in said publication, the map showing the changes in the voting precincts, and the County Commissioners’ Districts.
Tom Bell, representing an independent company that services elevators, appeared before the Board at this time with reference to automatic elevator maintenance. The matter was referred to the Engineer, who is to discuss it with Attorney Ford and report back at the first meeting in January.
planning and zoning
At this time, Mr. Herbert Gillis, representing Tyler Crusades, and Mr. Tyler appeared before the Board with reference to the Petition for Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction against trailer homes, trucks, etc., which petition had been filed against Tyler Crusades by Attorney Ford for the Board. Mr. Gillis asked if something could be worked out so that Tyler Crusades would be in compliance with the law. Commr. Carson stated that Tyler Crusades did not do the things they were supposed to do, and told to do, and were in absolute violation of the zoning ordinance, and that he considered it a flagrant violation; that they knew what they were supposed to do, and were well aware of the rules and regulations; and that the rules and regulations were absolutely disregarded by Tyler Crusades. Carrie Reams also appeared before the Board with reference to this matter, and stated that they thought they could use the property church purposes, but had been refused and turned down on every point; that they had asked for permission to remodel, and had been refused a permit. Attorney Ford stated to Mr. Gillis and Mr. Tyler that the feeling of the Board seemed to be that they cannot do anything at this point; and that they would have to comply with the order. He stated that the Board has no alternative except to proceed with a contempt citation. Mr. Gillis stated to the Board that he would discuss the matter with Attorney Ford, and try to work out something that will be acceptable to the Board.
With reference to the Petition for Closing Portions of Platted Streets in Mountain View Subdivision, it was the recommendation of the Engineer and the Planning Director, that the street closing be predicated upon the vacation of the plat, or that portion of the plat affected by the closing. Upon motion of Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Deems and carried, a resolution was adopted vacating the following described portions of platted streets and avenues in Mountain View Subdivision:
All of that portion of Palmer Avenue and Highview Avenue lying between Lake Drive and Eastview Avenue;
All of Eastview Avenue;
All of Lake Drive.
All of the above description being according to that plat described as Mountainview Subdivision, which plat is filed and recorded in the public records of Lake County, Florida, in Plat Book 5, page 44, public records of Lake County, Florida.
That certain dedicated street described as follows:
33 feet on all sides of the following described tract of land: Commencing at a point 24 chains east and 10 chains north of the quester section corner on the west boundary of Section 19, in Township 19 South, Range 27 East, thence east 13 chains, thence south 7 chains and 50 links, thence west 13 chains, thence north 7 chains and 50 links to point of beginning. Less and except that portion of the aforesaid described dedicated street, lying within U.S. Highway No. 441.
recess and reassembly
The meeting recessed at 12:10 p.m., and reconvened at 1:35 p.m., to take up the remaining items of business.
Maps and plats
The Engineer reported to the Board that the owners of the subdivision Dexter Estates want the County to take over the maintenance of the subdivision roads. The Board had indicated to these people that it would accept their subdivision plat when they brought it in. Upon motion by Commr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the Board gave preliminary approval to the Dexter Estates Subdivision Plat, and consider it as coming under the preexisting subdivision and plat requirements. It was suggested that they bring in their subdivision plat at the special meeting next Tuesday.
At this time, the Planning Director requested that he and Mr. Oatman be allowed to carry over the balance of their vacation into next year.
Upon motion by Commr. Deems, seconded by Commr. VanAuken and carried, the Board approved of Mr. Watkins’ and Mr. Oatman’s vacations being carried over into next year.
Roads – county
The Engineer presented a request from District 1 that the name of road which was originally named Moody Road by resolution on December 2, 1968 be changed to South Lake Hiawatha Drive. Upon motion by Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. Deems and carried, the Board granted the request to change the name of Road #1-6811 from Moody Road to South Lake Hiawatha Drive.
With reference to Buckhill Road (2-2539), in Districts 2 and 3, which is to be constructed, the Engineer recommended that the Board retain a consultant engineer for the designing of the road; the final design and specifications to be done by the consultant engineer. I would then be put on bid. The Engineer was directed to interview possible consultant engineers and have them appear before the Board for an interview.
With reference to bids on a dragline and heavy duty dozer, the Board directed the Engineer to contact the vendors and see if the bids are still in effect.
Planning and zoning
It now being the time advertised to hold a public hearing on zoning regulations and on recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and motion of Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, a resolution was adopted altering and amending the Zoning Rules and Regulations as they pertain to the following described tracts of land, to the classification designated after each description.
Legal Description: Sec. 36, Tp. 21 S.R. 25 E.; Begin 343.5 ft. South of NW corner of SE ¼, run North 89°25’ East 170.1 ft., South 7°55’ East along Hwy. to South line of NE ¼ of SE 1/4 , West 900 ft., North 1188.5 feet, SE 660 ft. to POB.
Change in Zoning Classification: The Zoning Classification was RR (Rural Residential), and is hereby changed to C-1 (Rural Commercial).
Legal Description: Sec. 36 Tp. 21 S.R. 25 E.; West 1/3 of S ½ of SW ¼ of SE ¼ of SW ¼.
Change in Zoning Classification: The Zoning Classification was RR (Rural Residential), and is hereby changed to A (Agricultural Rural Enterprises).
Public Hearing 90-71-3
Legal Description: Sec. 34, Twp. 21S, Rge. 26E. East 262.5 ft. of NE ¼ of NW ¼ north of RD and W 165 ft. of N 264 ft of NW ¼ of NE ¼ and W 165 ft. of E 1155 ft. of N 264 ft. of NW ¼ of NE ¼ and E990 ft. of NW ¼ of NE ¼ less road.
Change in Zoning Classification: The Zoning Classification was A (Agricultural Rural Enterprises) and is hereby changed to R-3 (Mobile Home Park/Subdivision).
Public Hearing 91-71-5
Legal Description: Sec. 16, Twp. 19S, Rge. 25E. That part of Lots 18, 19 and 20 in Block 33 in Silver Lake Estates, a subdivision in Lake County, Florida, according to the revised and corrected plat of resubdivision of Subdivision of Silver Lake Estates recorded in Plat Book 10, pages 66 to 69, inclusive, Public Records of Lake County, Florida, bounded and described as follows: From the most southerly corner of Lot 24 in Block 34 in said Silver Lake Estates, run thence south 50° 56’ 20” west along a straight extension southwesterly of the southeasterly line of the said Lot 24, a distance of 110.1 feet; thence north 69° 20’ 30” west 505.22 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereby designated as line “A”; thence south 16° 34’ west 680.95 feet to the northerly line of the right of way of U.S. Hwy. 441 and the end of said line “A”; thence westerly, northerly and westerly along the northerly line of the right of way of U.S. Hwy. 441 to a point that is 50 feet westerly of the easterly line of Lot 18 in Block 33 when measured at right angles thereto; thence north 16° 44’ 10” east, parallel with and 50 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 18, a distance of 349.88 feet to the point of beginning of this description. From said point of beginning run then north 16° 44’ 10” east, parallel with and 50 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 18, a distance of 150 feet; thence south 69° 20’ 30” east 618.14 feet, more or less, to a point that is 33 feet westerly of the above designated line “A” when measured at right angles thereto; then south 16° 34” west parallel with and 33 feet westerly of the said line “A” a distance of 150 feet, more or less, to a point that is south 69° 20’ 30” east of the point of beginning; thence north 69° 20’ 30” west 618.14 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.
Change in Zoning Classification: The Zoning Classification was RR (Rural Residential) and is hereby changed to C-2 (Commercial).
Public Hearing 92-71-5
Legal Description: Sec. 16, Twp. 19S, Rge. 25E. That part of Lots 18, 19 and 20 in Block 33 in Silver Lake Estates, a subdivision in Lake County, Florida, according to the revised and corrected plat of resubdivision and Subdivision of Silver Lake Estates recorded in Plat Book 10, pages 66 to 69, inclusive, Public Records of Lake County, Florida, bounded and described as follows: From the most southerly corner of Lot 24 in Block 34 in said Silver Lake Estates, run thence south 50° 56’ 20” west along a straight extension southwesterly of the SE’ly line of the said Lot 24 a distance of 110.1 feet; thence north 69° 20’ 30” west 505.22 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereby designated as line “A”; thence south 16° 34’ west 680.95 feet to the northerly line of the right of way of U.S. Hwy. 441 and the end of said line “A”; thence westerly, northerly and westerly along the northerly line of the ROW of U.S. Hwy. 441 to a point that is 50 feet westerly of the easterly line of Lot 18 in Block 33 when measured at right angles thereto; thence north 16° 44’ 10” east, parallel with and 50 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 18 a distance of 499.88 feet to the point of beginning of this description. From said point of beginning, run thence north 16° 44’ 10” east, parallel with and 50 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 18 a distance of 60° 12’; thence south 67° 12’ 20” east to a point that is 33 feet westerly of the above designated line “A” when measured at right angles thereto; thence south 16° 34’ west parallel with and 33 feet westerly of the said line “A” to a point that is south 69° 20’ 30” east of the point of beginning, thence north 69° 20’ 30” west to the point of beginning.
Change in Zoning Classification: The Zoning Classification was RR (Rural Residential) and is hereby changed to C-2 (Commercial).
Also in the above motion, the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission were upheld in approving the following Conditional Use Permit: #345-4.
With reference to Cases #93-71-1 and #94-71-2, on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and on motion of Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. VanAuken and carried, the applications were denied without prejudice.
With reference to Case #88-71-3, a letter from Dr. John H. Hicks was read into the record, in approval of the rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to C-1 (Rural Commercial). Appearing before the Board in favor of the rezoning was Mary Rocker of Rocker Realty, representing Bryson Groves. On the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and on motion of Commr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the application was denied.
With reference to Case #91-75-1 and Case #92-71-5 requesting a change of zoning from RR (Rural Residential) to C-2 (Commercial District), Robert Cyrus, representing the applicant, Richey-Buick-Pontiac, appeared before the Board. Also appearing before the Board was Robert N. Tuller, opposing the approval of the rezoning. On recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and on motion of Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the application was approved with Commr. VanAuken dissenting.
With reference to CUP #344-3, the applicant Paul Wolf appeared before the Board. On recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and on motion of Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the Board approved said permit and eliminated from the requirements the provision for a bond.
Pursuant to notices, it now being the time to hold a public hearing on zoning violations in accordance with Lake County Ordinance #70-1, the following violations were brought to the attention of the Board:
1. Violation of Waunita Rice, Property Owner, and David Rowe, Tenant, having junk, garbage, junk autos and automotive scrap, junk household appliances; also living in unauthorized structure without septic facilities, in violation of Lake County Zoning Regulations. On motion of Commr. Deems, seconded by Commr. VanAuken and carried, the Board declared it a public nuisance, and the owner in violation and recommended that proper action be taken.
2. Violation of Howard Soun and G. R. Desautels, owners, in the operating of a mobile home park or travel trailer park-campground facilities without clearance on sewage and water facilities, or required permits from the Health Department, and Building Division, to cover five mobile homes. On motion of Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. Deems and carried, the Board declared the owner in violation and recommended that proper action be taken.
3. Violation of Elmer D. Warren, Owner, having junk cars and truck. On motion of Commr. VanAuken, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the Board declared the owner in violation and recommended that proper action be taken.
4. Violation of Kenneth E. Oberstadt, Owner, having junk car, four junk trucks, junk household appliances. On motion of Commr. VanAuken, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the Board declared the owner in violation, and recommended that proper action be taken.
5. Violation of Holiday Mobile Home Park, Inc., in the operation of a travel trailer park and campground in a C-2 zone. Mr. Dewey Burnsed, representing the owner, Mr. Elmore, who also appeared, appeared before the Board to explain the situation as it exists, and offered to begin the immediate removal of the trailers in violation. On motion of Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. Deems and carried, the Board declared the owner in violation and gave him 75 days within which to correct the violation.
Mr. Robert N. Tuller appeared before the Board, with reference to a hearing on the rezoning of a sand mine to be extended, said mine being owned by Mr. Pringle. A survey showed Mr. Tuller’s allegation to be correct, that Mr. Pringle was mining illegally on Lots 14 and 15. Attorney Ford stated that he thinks the Board decided not to get involved in this suit, but would let the individuals carry the suit on. The County Engineer had a survey made for the County, and it appears that Mr. Pringle had extended his sand mining operation into the restricted areas. Attorney Ford suggested to the Board that it could do one of two things. It can join into the same lawsuit, and try to get the court to hold them in contempt for violating a court order, or it can cite him for violation. Mr. Watkins stated that he does not have a CUP to mine sand, and suggested to the Board that it go through the contempt route, since there has already been a judgment made. Commr. Windram asked what the County stood to gain, or what did they stand to lose. Attorney Ford stated that Mr. Pringle could fill in the property and purge himself from contempt. If the Court felt strongly enough, a citation for contempt could be soft or severe. Or the Board could write a letter to Mr. Pringle, and tell him that the Board has been requested to take action on his violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Roads – county
Mr. Kauffman appeared before the Board at this time, stating that he would like to have the Board authorize the removal of minimum speed reducers from the road in front of his property. He was advised by the Board that the request is already in the Engineer’s Office.
Clerk Owens advised the Board that Local Bill Hearings will be held by the Legislative Delegation on December 22nd at 5:00 p.m. at the Lake County Courthouse in the Commissioners’ Room.
There was a general discussion at this time on the proposed Article V with reference to the court system.
The following reports were filed with the Board:
A. MVI report for November, 1971.
B. Road & Bridge report.
C. Engineering (Survey-November, 1971).
On motion by Commr. VanAuken, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the Board authorized a maximum amount of $100.00 (subject to funds being available in the budget), for the raising of the antennae for Civil Defense.
On motion of Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the Board approved the purchase by the Pollution Control Department of a 9.8 hp Mercury Motor from Mercury Motors Company, in the amount of $292.15 and freight charges from Orlando; and also approved the purchase by said department of two filter holders from Milliport Corp. in the amount of $190.00.
On motion of Commr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Carson and carried, the Board authorized payment of the statement presented by Mr. Watkins for a zoning book in the amount of $910.43.
On motion of Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. VanAuken and carried, the Board authorized payment of $33,071.00 to State Tractor & Equipment Co., for a Dragline, in accordance with the lowest bid price for said equipment.
On motion of Commr. VanAuken, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the Board authorized acceptance and payment of the lowest bid price of $211.00 to Southern Printing Co. for three filing cabinets for the Planning and Zoning Department.
On motion of Commr. Carson, seconded by Commr. Deems and carried, the Board authorized the Engineer to replace the door to the Minneola Barn at an estimated cost of $190.00.
There being no further business to bring before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.