The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 18, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Don Bailey, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; Catherine Hanson and Michael J. Bakich. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Bakich gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Gregg.

MINUTES

Regarding the Minutes of November 29, 1990 (Special Morning Meeting), changes were requested as follows:

On Page 14, Line 32, change B to D.

On Page 15, Lines 23 and 24, reword the language so that it is a little more clear.

On Page 8, Line 26, change the name Trawick to Traywick.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of November 29, 1990, as corrected.

Regarding the Minutes of December 4, 1990 (Regular Meeting), changes were requested as follows:

On Page 1, Line 26, note that the vote failed 3 - 2, with Commrs. Bailey, Swartz and Bakich voting "No".

On Page 1, Line 29, note that the vote carried 3 - 2, with Commrs. Gregg and Hanson voting "No".

On Page 10, Line 14, change the name Wapkowitz to Yapkowitz.

On Page 1, it should be noted somewhere between Lines 19 and 20 that a vote was taken concerning the nomination of Commr. Bailey as Chairman, and that it was a unanimous vote.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of December 4, 1990, as corrected.

Regarding the Minutes of December 11, 1990 (Special Meeting), changes were requested as follows:

On Page 2, Line 16, change south to north.

On Page 4, Line 5, delete the word incinerator.

On Page 5, Line 21, change the name Mike to Max.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of December 11, 1990, as corrected.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

CLERK'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Accounts Allowed

Request for payment of Warrant No. 129194 through Warrant No. 129549, for the following:

Landfills County Transportation Trust

Northwest Fire District Countywide Fire District

General Revenue Bassville Fire District

Mosquito Control Animal Shelter Trust Fund

Emergency 911 Fund Aquatic Weed

Private Industry Council Mt. Plymouth Fire District

South Lake Fire District Countywide Library

Northeast Hospital Commissary Trust Fund

Sales Tax Capital Outlay

Pasco Fire District Paisley Fire District

Road Impact Section 8

Miscellaneous/Gas Fund Northeast Ambulance

Northwest Ambulance

Bonds - Contractor

Request for approval of Contractor Bonds, as follows:

New

1422-91 Elmer Bolling (Roofing Contractor)

1490-91 Ed Lynum Builders (General Contractor)

1498-91 Rolf Anderson d/b/a Anderson Electric

4480-91 Roger Facemire (Roofing Contractor)

4923-91 Greg Meyer d/b/a Meyer Construction (General)

4924-91 Jerry Hutchison d/b/a Hutchison Aluminum

Cancellations

209-90 Ozell Smith

2016-90 Paul T. Meyers, Jr.

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Request for approval of Satisfaction of Assessment Liens (17), for the following subdivisions, and authorized proper signatures on same:

Hilltop Subdivision

Charles N. Cobb $ 3,666.27

Harbor Shores

Elva J. & Kenneth P. Lee 573.75

Howard P. & Susan Underwood 466.88

Robert F. Hayden 516.67

Mt. Plymouth Subdivision

Flagship Bank of Orlando 1,058.34

Flagship Bank of Orlando 1,312.68

Astor Forest Campsites

Patricia L. Branch & Curt C. Joa, Inc. 1,341.61

Patricia L. Branch & Curt C. Joa, Inc. 1,341.61

Arthur & Karen C. Muns, Jr. 1,753.38

Gerald D. & Mary M. Rowden 1,235.94

Gerald D. & Mary M. Rowden 1,235.94

Haines Creek Heights Subdivision

Marshall H. & Betty Gaard 841.36

Carl E. & Vivian M. Shelfer 944.88

Harry E. & Charlotte Reed 956.49

Clark Road

Gary J. & Michelle M. Thompson 992.83

Sorrento Village

Clarence & Barbara Parmalee 1,698.95

Hilltop Subdivision

Rev. Walter & Doris Kufelot 1,249.15

Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges

Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for James Edward Curley, in the amount of $250.00 - Case No. 87-98CFA; and Satisfaction of Judgment, in the amount of $250.00 - Case No. 86-1055CFA.

Accounts Allowed/Reports

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending November 30, 1990, in the amount of $122,162.81.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Gregg and

carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Administrative Services-Budgets/Bids/Budgets

Request for approval of specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized, payments to be made and other services that do not require bids or quotes, as follows:

The Requisitions for the Corrections Division have been processed in the same manner as they were done prior to Lake County Board of County Commissioners assuming responsibility. At present, the Jail Administrator is in the process of bringing these procedures in compliance with County purchasing policy and procedures. Request permission to waive the bid and quote process at this time.

Communications

Request to acknowledge receipt of new pricing structure for Cablevision Industries, to be effective January 1, 1991.

Communications/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Jails

Request to award bid and execute contract with R.C.& A, for inmate telephone service, for the Department of Corrections.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements

Environmental Services

Request by Agricultural Center Division, for lease of one (1) S1205 duplicating machine, from Eaton Financial, at a cost of $193.38 monthly, for a period of one (1) year.

Bonds/Ambulances-Hospital Districts/Health & General Services

Request for acknowledgment and acceptance of bonds for the six (6) members of the North Lake County Hospital District Board of Trustees.

Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Subdivisions

Request for approval of final plat of Green Meadows Subdivision; accepted a Letter of Credit, for maintenance, in the amount of $3,400.00; and accepted the following road into the County maintenance system: Tara Wood Drive (1-5236), subject to execution of the Maintenance Escrow Agreement.

Roads-County & State/Signs

Request to reduce the speed limit on Westmont Road (1-5136) from 30 m.p.h. to 25 m.p.h.

Deeds/Roads-County & State

Request to release the following Murphy Act Deed Reservations:

Deed No. 2797 - Henry Metz - East Umatilla and Mt. Plymouth, Section "A".

Reserve 40 ft. from centerline on St. Andrews Boulevard

Deed No. 1262 - Janet B. Register and Dale E. Bartholomew, Atwater Avenue, Eustis.

Deed No. 2817 - Robert C. Rosenthal and Dorothy L. Rosenthal, East Umatilla.

Right-of-Ways, Roads & Easements/Roads-County & State

Request to accept the following Drainage Easements:

Barbara J. Witherow - Old Eustis Road (4-4672)

John P. Adams Properties, Inc. - Mohawk Road (5-1548)

Deeds/Right-of-Ways, Roads & Easements

Request to accept the following Right-of-Way Deeds:

Lot Approval

Joy D. Huntley and William Wentworth - Lake Griffin Road

(1-7611) and Grays Airport Road (1-7310)

Site Plan

Silver Springs Citrus Cooperative - Number Two Road

(3-3024)

Road Vacations - Request to Advertise

Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 630, from Charles and Shannon Schell, to vacate roads - Fruitland Park area.

Road Vacations - Request to Advertise

Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 632, from N. R. Bridges, to vacate road and tracts in Lake Highlands Company Subdivision - Montverde area.

Road Vacations - Request to Advertise

Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 633, from John McNamara, to vacate road and lots in Harbor Hills, Unit 1 - Lady Lake area.

Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers

Request for a transfer of funds in the Sales Tax Bond Construction account, from Capital to Operating Expenses, in the amount of $1,422,000.00.

Budgets/Resolutions

Request for Resolution providing for year-end expenditure adjustments to the County Budget, for FY 1989-90.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COMMITTEES/LANDFILLS

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, referred to a memorandum (dated December 10, 1990) which had been distributed to the Board, prior to the meeting, giving the Board an update and some background information on solid waste providers outside the County. He stated last summer, in accordance with Board direction, Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, and a representative from Ogden Martin, contacted the counties and selected cities in Lake County's regional area to see if they had solid waste disposal needs, of which several of the counties indicated they would be interested in bringing solid waste to the Lake County facility. It was the staff's goal to arrange for sufficient waste materials to meet all of Ogden Martin's needs to test their plant from August, 1990, to March, 1991, when the facility is scheduled to be placed on permanent operation.

Mr. Thelen's memo noted that Lake County is required to furnish waste to meet the test needs of the plant, determined by Ogden Martin; however, is not required to provide more than 130,000 tons, per year. Lake County is required to pay Ogden $20.57, per ton, for the waste that the County delivers during the test period. The staff's goal was to generate sufficient funds from outside waste, to pay the $20.57 per ton fee, so that the County's budget would not be impacted during the test period. Mr. Thelen stated that, at one time, it appeared the County might receive up to $30.00 per ton from other counties that were interested; however, many of them lost interest, due to the impact a contract with Lake County would have on the revenue side of the operating budget of their present disposal operation.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated that when the County saw they could not meet the requirements, they decided to contact some

of the private haulers, particularly in Sumter and Marion Counties. He stated that, during that time, staff identified the fact that the City of Leesburg was still using their existing landfill, therefore, felt that if the County was going out at a lesser rate, that the City might be enticed into utilizing the incinerator. The City of Leesburg stated they would be willing to close their landfill early, if they could come in at a $20.00 per ton rate (which was the agreement that was reached between the City of Leesburg and the County).

Discussion continued, at which time Mr. Thelen discussed Ogden Martin's dealings with Hillsborough County, regarding their incinerator. He also referred to letters from the City of Tavares and Clermont, regarding tipping fees which are due to be charged them.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board of provisions in the Florida Statutes regarding tipping fees. She stated the County is in a pre-service period, at this time, noting that the service agreement requires that the County provide waste to the facility during the interim period, for the testing process. She stated there is a provision in the Statutes that provides that the County may charge reasonable fees, for a County designated facility, however, it cannot charge less to private haulers than to municipalities. She stated there is a provision in the Statutes that does permit a varying fee schedule, based on a number of factors. The County would have the option of creating a varying fee schedule, and one of the factors to be considered would be that of recycled material contained in the wastestream; however, other factors could be considered, as well, which could apply to municipalities, as well as other haulers. She stated that, during the interim period, while the County is required to provide a certain amount of waste, as requested by Ogden, Ogden has the authority, as the owner of the facility, to also provide waste during the interim period, and could contract with municipalities in order to do so. She stated Ogden is not precluded from bringing

waste in, at the same time that the County is bringing waste in, during the pre-service period. She stated there is no limitation on the fee Ogden charges for the waste they bring into the facility. She noted that she had consulted with Mr. Ed Sledge, the County's bond counsel, at length, and would do some further research and provide the Board with a memo regarding the various options available to them. She stated the contract between the County and Ogden Martin states that there will be a cooperative effort between the County and NRG to provide out-of-county waste, when that need arises, to meet the County's minimum requirement.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the language in the contract between Ogden Martin and the County, at which time Ms. Lustgarten stated that there is no penalty, if the County is not able to meet the requested tonnage - that it will be a cooperative effort between Ogden and the County.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether that same cooperative attitude would extend to tonnages below the County's 130,000 ton requirement, to which Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that this would be a policy decision that administration and the Board would address.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated that this is a major issue and felt that, in terms of this issue, if the County switches beyond March 1, 1991, this would be a more serious problem, because the contract clearly says, based on the County Attorney's interpretation, that the County cannot bring in waste from outside. He stated the County has been planning, and has developed enough wastestream to meet the requirements, noting that it would be a cooperative effort on the part of Ogden Martin.

Commr. Swartz questioned what the County's situation will be March 1, 1991, regarding varying charges for solid waste, to which Mr. Thelen responded that it has been staff's understanding that Leesburg will start paying $40.00 per ton at that time, as will the rest of the County.

Mr. Bob Pool, Mayor of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that, according to the County Attorney's interpretation, he felt all municipalities should be charged the same fee ($20.00 per ton) as the City of Leesburg.

Discussion occurred regarding the fee charged to the City of Leesburg, at which time it was noted that the reason Leesburg was being charged the fee they were was due to the fact that they did not participate in the landfill, as some of the other municipalities did.

Commr. Gregg stated the City of Leesburg has maintained their own landfill - they did not haul to the County's landfill, therefore, should not have to pay to close it.

Mr. Hal Turville, City Commissioner with the City of Clermont, appeared before the Board and discussed the fact of residents not being able to take their garbage out of the County, as it all belongs to the County. He stated that residents can take their garbage out of the County, for less than $20.00 per ton, however, are not allowed to. He also informed the Board that Clermont had signed an interlocal agreement with the County, concerning the issues being discussed this date, however, they never received a response to it.

Mr. Tom Windram (past Commissioner), appeared before the Board stating that he was very concerned about what was taking place, regarding the incinerator, due to the fact that he was very involved in the issue for a long period of time. He reminded the Board that the County has a legal contract with Ogden Martin, and it should be honored. He stated there is an obvious effort, on the part of a few individuals, to make this project as expensive and difficult as it possibly can be made. He stated if something legally improper was done, then that needs to be rectified, but, if one is talking about equity, he stated that, in the past, Lake County never kept score of what the various municipalities got, but worked in a cooperative effort, and it worked rather well. He stated what was being discussed this date was equity, because two

or three of the County's communities feel they are not being treated fairly. He stated the reason Leesburg has been negotiated a better rate than some of the other municipalities, is due to the fact that it is going to cost Leesburg approximately $1.3 million to close their landfill, plus, the County has not been providing them landfill space, nor has the County been handling it, had the overhead, or supervision involved in what the City of Leesburg is doing. He stated it concerns him that this project is not going to work. He stated it is going to take the efforts of everybody involved in the issue to make it work - to make it function properly, produce more electricity, and be more efficient, thereby, reducing the cost involved. He stated it is going to call for an attitude of cooperation - of working together for something - not against something.

Mr. Rex Taylor, City Manager of the City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board informing those present of what had transpired up to this point, regarding the issue of the contract with Ogden Martin, and the present situation with the landfill. He stated the City of Leesburg feels they should not have to pay for the closing of landfills which they did not use, especially, since they have their own landfill to close and costs involved with doing so. He stated the City of Leesburg has been consistent in saying that they should pay their fair share of costs associated with the operation of the waste-to-energy plant, the new ash landfill, the proposed landfill that waste will be going to, recycling efforts, etc.; however, they should not have to pay the costs associated with closing former landfills which they have not used. He stated either the City of Leesburg should receive a credit, or the County should take over the total cost (and everything else associated with it) of closing their existing landfill, and they will pay the $40.00 per ton, just like every other municipality.

Mr. Dan Eastwood, a resident of Tavares, appeared before the Board stating that if they evaluated the net cost of burning, versus the net cost of landfilling, versus the net cost of

recycling, versus the net cost of composting, they would come up with a figure of $1.00 per ton. He stated when one hits a cost level of $80-100.00 per ton and one knows they can recycle for $20-30.00 per ton, one has to evaluate the financial implications of this process, noting that it is no fault of the incinerator, of Ogden Martin, nor of the County, but, it is a fact of life that the County is going to have to face, to prevent its demise, financially.

Mr. H. H. Hartman, a resident of Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board stating he had not heard anything about those individuals living in the unincorporated areas of the County, noting that only a small portion of the unincorporated areas are into recycling and gaining any benefits from the savings of hauling the leftover waste. He questioned, when the County gets into mandatory garbage collection, what method has been devised to insure that those individuals in the unincorporated areas of the County will not be paying a greater percentage of the cost of running the incinerator than those individuals living in the cities.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, responded to Mr. Hartman's question, stating that the cities pay a tipping fee, which most of them charge back to the customers monthly. He stated the County does the same with private haulers which charge their customers not only for the collection part, but the disposal part as well. He stated the plan is, beginning next year in October, at the beginning of the fiscal year, unincorporated areas will pay the tipping fee on a special assessment, once a year, and it will include a fee both for the collection and the disposal. He stated the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, and Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, are currently negotiating with the four franchises involved, regarding a rate.

Commr. Swartz discussed the issue of inequality concerning waste hauling and fees being charged, and stated how he felt the problem could be resolved. He questioned the legality of charging unequal fees, after March 1, 1991, noting that, in his opinion, it

is a real problem. He suggested that the Board get the cities back together and see if this problem cannot be resolved, to which Commr. Windram interjected that, if the Board intends to do this, they look at the issue of equity in all the County's agreements.

Commr. Bakich stated the County and the City of Leesburg entered into a mutual agreement which was done in the open and was not done to deceive anyone, or to hide any facts. He stated he hoped the County would be able to sit down with the cities and resolve the matter, or the citizens of Lake County could lose altogether.

Commr. Gregg stated he felt this Board has made an honest attempt to cooperate with the cities, however, wanted to remind them that it works both ways. He stated staff has known all along that there was going to be a shortfall of waste going to the waste-to-energy plant, as well as the fact that there would be varying rates. He stated he, personally, feels that what has been worked out with the City of Leesburg, and what staff did with private haulers, was an effort to make up the shortfall in the County's fixed cost of operations, noting that it will be more so after March, 1, 1991. He stated the Board instructed staff to act in this direction and do not feel they had any need to come back to the Board - that they did what they were requested to do.

After further discussion regarding the matter, it was the consensus of the Board to turn the issue over to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, to come back to the Board with a recommendation.

Mr. Welton Cadwell, City Manager of Umatilla, appeared before the Board representing the Lake County League of Cities, stating that Mr. Thelen, County Manager, attended their Board of Directors Meeting last Thursday, December 13, 1990, at which time the issue was discussed in detail. He stated the cities would be more than happy to sit down with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and discuss this issue again.

PUBLIC HEARING - ROAD CLOSINGS

PETITION NO. 623 OSCAR M. WOODALL CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 623, by Oscar M. Woodall, to vacate a right-of-way, in the plat of Clermont Farms, Clermont area.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED

Mr. Tom Hury, President of the Florida Freewheelers Bicycle Club, appeared before the Board stating that his club held its 11th Annual Horrible Hundred Bike Ride in November, 1990, in Lake County, noting that 475 cyclists participated and enjoyed the hills and roads of Lake County. He thanked the Board for their cooperation in allowing the event to be held and presented them with a donation, in the amount of $300.00, from the Florida Freewheelers Bicycle Club, in appreciation of the Board realizing the growth of cycling as a sport and mode of transportation and for hiring a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator.

PUBLIC HEARING - ROAD CLOSINGS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 626 BEULAH H. LOBALDO MONTVERDE AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 626, by Beulah H. Lobaldo, to vacate road, Edgewater Beach Subdivision, Southeast of Montverde.

PETITION NO. 628 DOTTIE KEEDY/MR. HUFFSTETLER ASTATULA AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 628, by Dottie Keedy for Mr. Huffstetler, to vacate road and tract, Astatula area.

PETITION NO. 631 LAKE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY LEESBURG AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 631, for Lake County Water Authority, to vacate road, Leesburg area.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)

ANIMAL CONTROL/FIRE PROTECTION/HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES

Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health & General Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Public Safety/Animal Control Policies/Procedures modification.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to authorize, award, and execute an agreement on Project No. 14-90, McKinley Road (5-6661) "Part", to Art Walker Paving, and to encumber funds, in the amount of $69,042.60.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Change Order No. 1, to Project No. 14-90, McKinley Road (5-6661) "Part", in the amount of $9,526.04.

ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to cease County maintenance on a portion of Cherry Lake Groves Road (2-1923). New length of maintenance is 0.57 miles (approximately 3000 feet).

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGETS/RESOLUTIONS/WATER AUTHORITY

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a resolution requesting amendment to the General Fund budget, in order to receive $179,629.00 from the Lake County Water Authority, for boating improvements at Marsh Park, Singletary Park and Tavares Park.

COUNTY PROPERTY

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board regarding a request to accept an exchange of property between Ms. Ruth Dean and Lake County. He stated that Ms. Dean had requested that the matter be postponed, at this time.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to postpone the exchange of property between Ms. Dean and the County until the Board Meeting of January 22, 1991.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, updated the Board on a couple of suits involving the County that were pending. (1) She stated the County is challenging the Teamster's Union designation of a Correctional employee, noting that the Department of Corrections filed a motion to amend their certification to substitute Lake County for the Sheriff, and that the County is challenging that motion. She stated an evidentiary hearing has been scheduled, however, noted that a pre-hearing conference was taking place today and tomorrow, at the Ag Center, on the County's

motion and the motion of the Teamster's Union. She stated the County is challenging the makeup of the units and the process that they have proceeded with. She will keep the Board up-to-date on the matter.

(2) The second matter she brought to the attention of the Board was an act by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and a Verified Complaint filed by an adjacent property owner (Morris family), pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. She stated the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld a vested rights determination and granted a variance for a setback, as well as a number of other actions. She stated the normal practice is that the Verified Complaint is filed and the County simply responds to the complaint and treats it as any other type of litigation. She stated her office is reviewing the Verified Complaint, and will respond to it as they would to any other pleading. She stated the County is at the procedural stage, at this point in time, so litigation has not yet been filed.

Ms. Jamie Nye, complaintant, appeared before the Board stating that her understanding of the Statute was that the complaint was to go to local government, to decide where inconsistencies were with their decision, based on the ordinances that were written. She assumed that "local government" would be the County Commissioners, thus, submitted a Verified Complaint to them. However, she found that the County Commissioners had not received her complaint, nor had been allowed to read it, yet the gentleman that owns the adjacent property had gotten a copy of it a week after it was filed.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the reason they had not received it was due to the fact that it had been forwarded to her office, which is standard practice with any pleadings filed in the County Commissioners' Office. She stated it would be provided to the County Commissioners this date, with a cover memo, explaining what the status is regarding it.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Ms. Lustgarten informed the Board that it is a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that is being appealed (the Board of County Commissioners has no jurisdiction in that matter) and that Ms. Nye is proceeding pursuant to the State Statute, and her office is properly responding.

No further discussion occurred.

BONDS/HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY

Ms. Lisa Fisher, Executive Director of Orange County Housing Finance Authority, appeared before the Board and requested them to consider the approval of a resolution authorizing the issuance of not-to-exceed $75 million, in single family mortgage revenue bonds. She stated that Lake County is a part of the region six allocation process, noting that Seminole and Osceola Counties have each approved this resolution, and she hoped that Lake County would do the same. She stated it would be very helpful if the Board would have some Lake County lenders contact her office, as in the past they have only had two to three lenders in the County participate.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff put together a letter, for the Chairman's signature, to the various lending institutions describing the program and indicating that the County is participating. He stated it would be helpful if staff received additional information from Ms. Fisher's office indicating what the lending institutions need to do, as well as what time frame is involved, in order to enable maximum utilization of the funds available.

Ms. Fisher noted that her staff would be at the Department of Community Affairs on January 2, 1991. After that, as soon as her office receives their allocation, they will be testing the market to see how quickly they can go in. It is her opinion, at this point, that if the market is in their favor, they will try to move very quickly, either in January or the first of February.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a resolution, requested by

the Orange County Housing Finance Authority, authorizing the issuance of not-to-exceed $75 million, in single family mortgage revenue bonds, and directed staff to draft a letter, as soon as possible, for the Chairman's signature, to the lending institutions in Lake County, as well as providing a local phone number and information, in order to help the lending institutions qualify.

CODE ENFORCEMENT/ORDINANCES

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board a request for approval of an ordinance setting standards for noise decimals in residential, single-family residential, and multi-family residential areas during certain fixed hours, noting that there are a number of exemptions for normal kinds of activity. She stated there is a provision which permits a variance to be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, for not more than a year, to permit excess noise levels over and above those set forth in the ordinance. She stated it provides for enforcement by the Sheriff's Department or Code Enforcement. She pointed out the fact that this ordinance does not set standards within industrial/commercial districts.

Discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time the matter of vested rights, as well as the cost of enforcement and implementation of the ordinance, was briefly discussed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to provide vesting language for existing commercial/industrial uses in the noise abatement and control ordinance; directed staff to review the ordinance, in terms of cost implementation, in conjunction with the Sheriff's Department and Code Enforcement; and to set a date for advertising, to consider the ordinance.

Commr. Bakich requested that, in the future, any time the Board has an ordinance come before them, that staff provide them with costs involved with the ordinance.

Commr. Gregg requested staff to provide the Board with some verbiage, on the forms they presently use, informing them as to

what fiscal impact a request would have on the County, if any, as well as some suggested language on how to derive revenue, in those cases where there is a charge involved with the ordinance.

OUTDOOR RECREATION/WATER AUTHORITY

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and brought them up-to-date on the Singletary Park boat ramp, Tavares Recreation, Johns Lake and a couple of other park projects which are presently ongoing in the County.

Mr. Kent Lindemann, Bicycle Coordinator, appeared before the Board to discuss the Rails-to-Trails project. He distributed letters from CSX Real Property, Inc. and Mr. Greg Diehl, Trails Planner, Bureau of Park Planning, Division of Recreation and Parks, as well as maps showing an overview of the Central Florida trail proposal, noting that the portion between Apopka and Winter Garden is basically completed, as far as property acquisition. He stated it is now just a matter of moving the trail. He stated the portion between Coleman and Auburndale has also been acquired by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), noting that they are trying to connect it with the Winter Garden trail as best they can. He then reviewed the second map, showing the Lake County portion of the Winter Garden trail, noting that there are 86 different parcels that have been identified so far. He stated that the property from Mascotte, west to the Coleman/Auburndale line, is owned by CSX Real Property, Inc., and the portion between Clermont and Orange County is owned by five additional individuals. He stated that DNR is willing to reimburse the County for all costs involved in acquiring the property in question, if they decide to purchase said property from the County.

Mr. Lindemann was questioned as to whether he had checked with Farmer's Home Administration (FHA) to find out if there are any property owners along the corridor that could benefit from the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, by granting an easement across their property, to which he stated that he had, however, they were not very cooperative, due to having staff cutbacks. He stated that

it would basically concern those individuals who have agricultural mortgages outstanding, therefore, would be willing to donate land in order to receive a tax credit.

Commr. Swartz stated that several months ago the Commissioners received a letter from the Mayor of Minneola, discussing the abandoned T&G railroad line. He stated there was some question as to who had ownership to it, and questioned whether Mr. Lindemann was checking into it, to which he replied that he was; however, he noted that the T&G line is only applicable from Orange County to Minneola.

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, informed the Board that it has been suggested that CSX is getting impatient and wants to sell their properties to whoever wants to buy them. He stated there is a need for a letter from the Board indicating that if CSX gives the County until early Spring, the County will be able to make a determination as to whether or not they can put together the individual private ownerships. He stated that, as far as he knows, this is the first letter where the State has stated they would reimburse the County, if the County is able to acquire the needed property, noting that he felt it was a result of the Preservation 2000 Program.

Mr. Lindemann informed the Board that the letter he distributed to them from CSX Real Property, Inc., states that they are going to start selling the property in question to private individuals in the near future.

Commr. Swartz requested Mr. Stivender and Mr. Lindemann to look at the matter of the property exchange between Ms. Ruth Dean and the County, which was postponed until the Board Meeting of January 22, 1991, as it deals with some abandoned right-of-way which is wide enough for a road and a trail.

Commr. Bakich suggested that staff check with the Forestry Service, regarding the property in question, noting that if there is no charge for construction of the path, it might be worthwhile, as it would be a natural area for horseback riding, hiking, etc..

Ms. Eloise Fisher, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that, regarding the Umatilla area, she understood Mr. Chuck Pula, Director of Outdoor Recreation, in cooperation with the Forest Service, did a grant proposal to the State regarding the possible joint purchase of the three mile corridor in question. She stated contact had been made with the owner; however, he wanted too much money. She felt if a task force was formed in Lake County, with people involved in that part of the County, it would make it more official and give it more visibility, therefore, the project would move along. She stated that Orange County wants Lake County to agree on the signs, rules for the trail, etc., but, eventually it would become one long line from Orange County to Sumter County, and should be consistent. She felt the County is going to have to have the cooperation of property owners in the area, although they realize that all land owners are not going to want the line. She noted that the T&G line has fewer land owners, therefore, there will be fewer problems. She feels the County is going to have to cooperate later on by having a trail along some of the County roads to where it is known that paths are going to have to be purchased off land owners. She stated another thing is that they need to know that the County will be willing to put forth some money for the legal work that it takes to acquire the properties in question. She stated the State wants the land in Lake County as it is a very necessary link, therefore, if the County foots the bill for the appraisal and background work, they need to have written assurance that the State will reimburse.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, suggested possibly using some Tourist Development Council funds for the purchase of some of the property in question, since it will be reimbursed, noting that it is only a matter of interim financing.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff come back to the Board with a recommendation, and perhaps a resolution, establishing the type of task force that Ms. Fisher alluded to.

No action was taken at this time.

COMMISSIONERS/FINANCE

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved ratification of the Board on financial items which needed to be paid prior to this Board Meeting.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m. for Rezoning.

REZONING

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to withdraw the following case:

#146-90-4 W. J. Wingler

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for a 30 day postponement of the following cases, until the Board Meeting of January 22, 1991:

FQD Consideration Robert Chapman

CUP#90/8/3-5 Brownlee Burris

#158-90-3 McKinnon Groves

#161-90-3 Grafton Groves

#162-90-3 Grafton Groves

#151-90-5 Albert Yurko

#185-90-2 Dale Bartch

#183-90-1 W. Barbieux

#172-90-3 Barnett Bank, Tr./Carl Ludecke

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, appeared before the Board and explained each of the Rezoning cases before they were heard.

PETITION NO. 144-90-3 A TO RR MARK E. HOBSON

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that his client had initially applied for RR (Rural Residential); however, the case was postponed at the first Planning and Zoning Meeting when that Board suggested that AR (Agricultural Residential) would be a better zoning district. He stated his client would accept that, although they would still prefer the RR zoning, if they could get it. He stated

that RR is compatible with the County's Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the surrounding zoning. He requested the Board's consideration of their request for RR.

Mr. Dennis Horton, Attorney, appeared before the Board representing the Apshawa Homeowners' Association. He stated the residents of Apshawa are concerned about the effect the proposed zoning would have on their quality and way of life in an agricultural area, and want the area to remain agricultural. He reviewed a map indicating various five and ten acre parcels in the area with residences on them, noting that Apshawa is a platted, developed, agricultural subdivision.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RR (Rural Residential) or AR (Agricultural Residential), for construction of one acre homesites.

Commrs. Bakich and Hanson voted "No".

PETITION NO. 142-90-3 A TO PUD NARBI INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT, INC./CORINTHIAN PARK

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, informed the Board that the Pollution Control Department had made some general comments, for inclusion in the PUD before the Board at this time, and requested to have those comments included in the motion, if the Board approved this request.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that this project was a previous PUD which had expired, due to lack of action. He stated the previous PUD allowed for a one unit per acre density; however, this project has been reduced down to .74 units per acre, and there is no golf course. He stated it is strictly open space with nature trails and boardwalks, and noted that the project has a central water system, inclusive within the development, and the client has no problem with tying into a central sewer system, if and when it is available by the County or other entity. He stated the project

is of very low density and is included, and has been included, in every draft of the Future Land Use Map, as an urban expansion area, allowing for up to four units per acre; therefore, this project is below the density numbers for that general area.

A motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), and waiver of a variance of the Green Swamp Ordinance, as amended.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board representing the petitioner, stating that there is a provision in the PUD that states if the petitioner builds a central water system, that it be provided to the County at no expense; however, he requested that the water system be provided to the County, upon its operation, under the terms and conditions the County requires at the time it is built, due to the fact that, by that time, the County may want to go to a private provider.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, responded to a question from Commr. Bakich regarding whether there was any impact on the wetlands surrounding the property in question, stating that there was not, as far as staff could tell; however, they would do a more thorough review when they receive the actual plans and get down to the construction.

Mr. Beliveau interjected that, as the plan is designed, there is no wetland impact, nor 100 year flood impact.

Commr. Swartz stated that this request expired, because the Board voted to deny extension of the PUD, noting that he felt the Board did it for several reasons, one of which was that the original PUD was totally incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan as it was then stated, and the request that is before the Board this date continues to be incompatible with the current Comprehensive Plan, and is in the Green Swamp. He stated the only thing the applicant has done, is remove some of the commercial that was there, and reduce the total number of units from approximately

104 down to 80; however, it is still close to one unit per acre. He stated to go into the critical area of State concern, being the Green Swamp, and say that four units per acre is going to be appropriate through there is not so. He stated there are serious water concerns relative to the Green Swamp, and this is exactly the type of development that the County should not be putting in the Green Swamp. He stated this development is just marginally different from what the first one was - it is going into the Green Swamp and is just one and one-half miles from Hwy. 27. He stated if the County is going to develop in the area of critical State concern and high water recharge areas, the County ought to be doing it in the areas along the Lake Wales ridge along Hwy. 27, noting that this is the place that can stand it, if any area can. He urged the Board not to approve this request, as it is totally inappropriate for the area in question.

Commr. Gregg stated that he, as well as staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, disagrees with Commr. Swartz and finds the request in compliance.

At this time, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried 3 to 2, with Commrs. Swartz and Bakich voting "No".

PETITION NO. 157-90-3 A TO R-1-5 OR ER CHERRY LAKE FARMS

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Mr. Dave Clapsaddle, Springstead Engineering, Inc., representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that his client has no problem with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, of ER zoning. He distributed a handout containing a map showing the site in question, noting that the site consists of 87 acres, with 81 acres being uplands, and the only wetlands being a small section in the northeast corner. He stated that the City of Clermont has no problem with this request, noting that it is within the Clermont Joint Planning Area. He stated that this request is compatible with what has been in the area in the past, what is there today, and what they feel is going to be in the

area in the future. He also stated that the Economic Development Council has no problem with the project.

Commr. Swartz stated he did not feel this request was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, would not support it.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Bakich to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1-15 (Residential Estates) or ER (Estates Residential), for single-family residential development.

Under discussion, Commr. Bakich stated the site in question would not be within the sphere of the DRI for a number of years yet, therefore, could not support it.

Commr. Bailey stated he could not support the request for ER, however, considering the compatibility of zoning which this request would entertain, would consider supporting an RR zoning.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gregg to amend Commr. Swartz's motion, and deny the request, without prejudice, which allows the applicant to bring the request back, within 90 days, and go through the County's PUD procedures.

The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried 4 to 1, with Commr. Swartz voting "No".

The Chairman then called for a vote on the amended motion to deny, without prejudice, the request for rezoning, as stated above, which was carried unanimously.

PETITION NO. 165-90-4 R-1-15 TO R-1-7 LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Commr. Swartz stated it required a variance.

Mr. Gregg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, stated he had sent the request to the Variance Board and they recommended denial and that it be rezoned.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Swartz to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny a request for rezoning from R-1-15 (Residential Estates) to R-1-7 (Urban Residential), for residential construction.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion to deny the request, and Commr. Swartz withdrew his second.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1-15 (Residential Estates) to R-1-7 (Urban Residential), for residential construction.

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

PETITION NO. 187-90-5 A TO AR O.C. MAY

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential) and RR (Rural Residential), as recommended, for residential construction. A portion of the property will be AR and the other portion RR.

PETITION NO. 188-90-5 A TO AR JAMES W. HODGES

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for single-family development.

PETITION NO. 171-90-4 A TO AR CARLUS D. PINKNEY

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning

from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for construction of a single-family residential home.

PETITION CUP#90/11/1-4 CUP IN A AMIR BADAKHSAHN

Ms. Susan Whaley, East Lake Realty, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and responded to a question by Commr. Swartz regarding the fact that the intention of this request was to build a 15 stall barn. She noted that the request should be under the name of Walter Royal, rather than Amir Badakhsahn.

Discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time a motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Bakich to postpone the request, and defer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission, for a subdivision variance from the large lot waiver.

Commr. Swartz stated that the ordinance concerning agricultural zoning presently allows a 600 sq. ft. guest house, noting that something the Board might want to consider would be to still limit the guest house to 600 sq. ft., however, allow a separate efficiency type apartment, and in a case where there is a caretaker's situation, one could use it as a caretaker's home.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that a guest house is permanently attached to the principal dwelling unit. She stated that what Commr. Swartz is recommending would require an amendment to the Land Development Regulations.

At this time, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion to postpone this request, which was carried unanimously.

PETITION NO. 180-90-3 AMEND CP ORD. NO. 29-79 RANJIT BASI

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend CP Ord. No. 29-79, to delete land, and rezone from CP (Planned Commercial) to PFD (Public Facilities District), for construction of a church.

PETITION NO. 193-90-3 A TO RP CLERMONT COMMERCIAL, LTD.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, stating that the area in question is an area that is highly mixed in zoning classifications. He stated the site will have central water and sewer, which will later be provided to the County, in whatever arrangements are in effect at that time. He also noted the site has direct access to Hwy. 27 and has very little soil problems.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Bakich to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RP (Residential Professional), without prejudice, for construction of multi-family dwellings.

Commr. Swartz recommended that the applicant come back to the Board with a PUD, addressing the requirements for open space.

Commrs. Swartz, Bakich and Gregg noted they had a problem with the on-site package plant, considering the density of the project.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

PETITION NO. 60A-90-3 RR TO RE CARL & BEULAH LOBALDO

Mrs. Carl Lobaldo, applicant, appeared before the Board stating that she and her husband had acquired an additional 5,000 sq. ft. of property, so that when her property is divided, her home will be located on what equals an acre of land, and the remainder of property will equal an acre, to enable the construction of a second dwelling.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone this request for 30 days, in order to enable staff to research the square footage involved in the request.

PETITION NO. 169-90-3 A TO AR CARMELITA O. NICDAO

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the

Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), to subdivide into two 2-1/2 acre lots.

PETITION NO. 175-90-3 A TO R-1-7 JAMES D. & DIAN PHILLIPS

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that this request calls for an additional piece of property being added to property already zoned R-1-7, with C-1 uses. He stated the property in question is in the Bramalea Urban Compact Node and is in compliance with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied, without prejudice, a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1-7 (Urban Residential).

PETITION NO. 150-90-2 A TO AR R. L. WALDRON

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for single-family residential homesites.

PETITION NO. 176-90-2 C-2 & RMRP TO CP CHARLES & JUANITA SIMS

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Mr. Emory Sims, representing his brother, the applicant, was present in the audience.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from C-2 (Community Commercial) and RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), with conditions indicated, for propane gas bulk storage and retail outlet.

PETITION NO. 192-90-2 A TO PFD PACKING HOUSE-BY PRODUCTS CO.

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PFD (Public Facilities District), with conditions indicated, for a golf course and club facilities.

PETITION NO. 181-90-1 A TO RR GEORGE GREEN

Mr. Bob Cyrus, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that this request fits into the overall Comprehensive Plan, as it currently exists, and all the proposals for the new Comprehensive Plan seem to be in conformity with this use.

Ms. Darrell Jackson, a local resident, appeared before the Board, in opposition, stating that if the Board approves this request, it needs to address all the acres which are going to come up in front of them next month, in relation to the road.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RR (Rural Residential), for construction of single-family residential homesites.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

PETITION NO. 173-90-1 RM & RR TO R-1-15 ALVIN & AMY ECKENRODE

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) to R-1-15 (Residential Estates), to split a parcel of land, for construction of two single-family residential homes.

PETITION NO. 179-90-5 A TO PFD C. C. WILLIAMSON

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PFD (Public Facilities District), for a church and related accessory uses.

PETITION NO. 191-90-1 DELETE LAND & REZONE CP TO CP W/C-1 USES TERRANCE J. CARNEY & RICHARD GURNEA/LAKE SQUARE ALUMINUM

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend CP Ord. No. 31-80, to delete land and rezone CP (Planned Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) uses, for an ABC package store.

PETITION NO. 184-90-1 R-1-7 TO CP LESTER & LEONA M. ANDERSON

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), for equipment sales and service for fire extinguishers.

PETITION NO. 178-90-2 R-1-7 TO RM OR R-1-5 ORIN K. HERR

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to RM (Mobile Home Residential), for placement of a mobile home on the site.

PETITION NO. 172-90-3 BARNETT BANK, TR./CARL LUDECKE

Commr. Swartz noted that this case had been postponed for 30 days, however, directed staff to have Public Works determine whether there is any ability to provide alternate access into the development, rather than dumping everything onto Shirley Shores Road.

PETITION NO. 154A-88-3 AMEND MP ORD. NO. 79-88 MARGIE FREEMAN

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Commr. Swartz requested that, if this request is granted, there be a common access for the two parcels involved, so that there will not be a second access coming out right at the intersection of SR 19 and C-561, and that said access be determined in relationship with how the new intersection lines up.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend MP Ord. No. 79-88, to delete land and keep existing business.

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

PETITION NO. 190-90-3 MP TO PFD MARGIE R. FREEMAN

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Commr. Swartz requested that, if this request is approved, language be included in the motion regarding transportation improvements, relative to the single access, in coordination with the improvements of C-561 and SR 19, alluded to in the prior case.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from MP (Planned Industrial) to PFD (Public Facilities District), for construction of an adult congregate living facility (one building with six units), as amended by the Board.

PETITION NO. 167-90-4 A TO RP RAY GATCH

No one was present in the audience in opposition.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., representing the applicant, appeared before the Board indicating on a map various points where the applicant has access to his property. He noted the applicant is prohibited from entering his property directly from the intersection of SR 19 and C-44 (Bypass).

Commr. Swartz suggested that, if this request is approved, it be done subject to coordinating an access management plan, relative

to the road involved, in order to provide an intersection where the residents of the development can best access the property, and not destroy the integrity of the Bypass. He suggested that the applicant do what he wants to do through a PUD, rather than an RP, which the Board, at this point, has no effective control over.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) and RP (Residential Professional) to RP (Residential Professional), for future residential purposes.

PETITION NO. 177-90-3 A TO PUD RICHARD LANGLEY/FAIRWAY OAKS

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, requested that, if the Board approves this request, they approve the waiver of the wet detention, subject to the Pollution Control Board approving it, as well.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, appeared before the Board stating that this was an interesting situation, where the applicants asked for a waiver to the subdivision requirements of the stormwater; however, it does not waive them from the requirements of the Pollution Control Board. He stated he does not have enough detail, as far as stormwater calculations, to determine whether or not they will need the variance. He stated, if the applicant can meet the total retention requirements, through wet detention, they will not need a variance from the Pollution Control Board, it can be determined through the subdivision plans. He stated if the subdivision regulations were waivered, then the applicant would have to go through the variance process, of the Pollution Control Board, for the retention pond.

Mr. Herman Weinberg, H.E.D.J. Engineering, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the buildings on the site will be designed to County standards. He stated the request on the drainage was that, in the subdivision ordinance, it specifies dry detention only; however, the applicant wanted to use

wet detention, as part of the golf course layout, to create water hazards in the golf course.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the commercial aspect of the development in question, at which time Commr. Swartz stated he could not support the request. He also noted that he had a concern in that there was no open space set aside, other than the wetland and golf course. He stated he was not sure what the Pollution Control regulations would do about the wet detention areas, but, was concerned about the water quality in that area.

Upon review of the development plans, Commrs. Gregg and Bailey stated they felt the developers had done a good job, in planning to work around the wetlands and conservation areas, noting that they felt it was a good plan.

Mr. Barker reappeared before the Board and responded to a question regarding wetland soil lines and as to whether his staff establishes said lines for Lake County, stating that what his staff does is take information from the engineer, and the development, and reconfirm the lines on the ground. He stated his staff would do spot samples and make sure the soils are correct, through the Soil Conservation Service, due to the fact that they have a licensed soil scientist.

Mr. Weinberg reappeared before the Board and responded to a question by Commr. Swartz regarding whether stormwater would be put directly in the wet detention areas, stating that wet detention is used quite a bit throughout the State, and the first flush must be filtered, before it is allowed to leave the detention area, therefore, all the pollutants that come forth on the first flush will remain in the wet detention area. He noted they will retain water quality, as per requirements of both Lake County and the Water Management District.

Mr. Bill Kalb, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and responded to a concern Commr. Swartz had regarding the number of units involved with the development, as well as the open space issue.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), and waiver of the stormwater requirement, to allow wet detention instead of dry detention, with a stipulation that the wet detention has to be approved by the Pollution Control Board. The motion also included other amendments and waivers made by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

PETITION NO. 189-90-3 A TO PUD CONDEV LAND FUND II, LTD.

Mr. Bob Whidden, R. J. Whidden & Associates, appeared before the Board and displayed the plans for the proposed project.

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he could not support the concept which appeared on the plans that Mr. Whidden displayed, as it was contrary to what the County has the opportunity to do in south Lake County. He stated it was the classic pod design and suggested that, if the applicant wanted to come back before the Board with a different design, then he would wholeheartedly support the project, but, in its present form, could not.

Commr. Gregg stated that, as far as commercial goes, he did not agree with Commr. Swartz that the County ought to turn the back of commercial to the highway and internalize it, in an area like the one before the Board at this time, although he did agree that, when there is a PUD in a more rural setting, one has limited commercial when they internalize it. He stated that when one is in more of a commercial area - an intersection zone like this one, he feels that individuals go there and locate in a retail establishment, so that their products and names can be seen from the road. He stated his main concern was that accesses be limited into and out of the development, so that there are not driveways every 100 to 200 feet, noting that this development does do that.

Commr. Swartz stated that his concerns do not involve anti-growth versus pro-growth because he is not squabbling about the

number of units. He stated he could accept the units, he was just asking for a better design. He suggested that the developer come back to the Board with something similar to his last project, noting that he would approve the PUD, in concept, but would in no way approve the design which was shown. He stated he wanted to see the developer come back with the total concept.

Discussion occurred regarding the fact that the plan before the Board this date was a vague one, to which Mr. Whidden stated that it was supposed to be vague, because it is a concept plan. He noted that it would cost approximately $300,000.00 for full-blown architectural renderings and detailed site plans, for every single pod.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Bakich to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and variances, as amended, but, that the proposed preliminary development plan that is before the Board at this time is not necessarily that which will be accepted by the Board. The Board wants to see a preliminary development plan that creates more mixed uses and less of a segregated use category.

Mr. Whidden requested that the Board approve this plan, since commercial is in the last phase of the development, and allow him to come back before the Board, prior to any construction or site approval, with the commercial aspect, as this would give the Board the opportunity to approve it.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

At this time Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, questioned the Board as to what he can tell developers regarding straight subdivision plats versus planned unit development submittals. He stated he had gotten the impression that, if an applicant comes into his office with approximately 50 acres or less, and wants a straight subdivision zoning, and it is

not too dense, like perhaps ER one-half acre, he does not recommend that it go PUD. He stated that, generally, he listens to the applicant and discusses his project with him and what he intends to do. He stated that the developments with a lot of open space generally have a lot of wetlands on the site, to be used for open space calculations, therefore, the applicant does a PUD. However, on high and dry property, with 50 acres or greater, he is getting the impression from the Board that, basically, he needs to give the applicant direction that a PUD is probably more acceptable, because the Board generally likes to see what the road systems are going to look like, as well as what the lots are, therefore, they can tell what the compatibility is adjacent to the property.

Commr. Bakich stated he would be more comfortable along those lines, noting that he felt this was something that the Board needed to have a better feel for - an idea of what the development is going to be.

Commr. Swartz stated he agreed with what Commr. Bakich had stated, however, there was an additional reason for him, being the fairness issue, noting that the Board grants one individual with a hundred acres RR, and on the other side grants an individual a PUD, who may have the same density, but has to set aside different things, and thinks this is unfair. He stated he felt the Board should not accept any large rezonings that are straight zoning.

Commr. Hanson stated she feels there has got to be an incentive for clustering - that it is more the clustering she is looking for than the golf courses. She wants to see clustering, whether it is in the recharge areas or in the wetlands, or low areas.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

___________________________

DONALD B. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_______________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

SEC/12-18-90/1-3-91/BOARDMIN