The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, at 6:00 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Reverend William Fraker, First United Methodist Church, Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
STATE AGENCIES
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved a Settlement Agreement for the Department of Community Affairs versus Swiss Fairways, Inc.; Pierre and Dennis Grimm; and Lake County, as requested by Planning and Development.
Commr. Bailey declared a Conflict of Interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 717 JOSEPH P. GODFREY
SILVER LAKE AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant was present in the audience.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition
No. 717, by Joseph P. Godfrey, Summit Landings Partnership, to vacate portions of Julius Road and Gorman Road, Silver Lake Estates, Section 14, Township 19, Range 25, Silver Lake Area, Commissioner District 3.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 718 CLYDE PURYEAR GROVELAND AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant was present in the audience.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition
No. 718, by Clyde Puryear, to vacate road, Villa City Plat, Section 31, Township 21, Range 25, Nearest Town: Groveland, Commissioner District 2.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Deeds/One-Stop Permitting Center
Request for approval of a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed for
LLS 93-28, Raymond C. and Zelda L. Crafton, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney, as requested by the One-Stop Permitting Center.
Deeds/One-Stop Permitting Center
Request for approval of a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed for
LLS 93-128, Terry W. Edwards, Jr., subject to review and approval by the County Attorney, as requested by the One-Stop Permitting Center.
Deeds/One-Stop Permitting Center
Request for approval of a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed for
LLS 93-29, Stephen and Collean D'Acquisto, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney, as requested by the One-Stop Permitting Center.
Subdivisions/One-Stop Permitting Center
Request for approval of the final plat of Plantation at Leesburg, Heron Run, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney, as requested by the One-Stop Permitting Center.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, requested a 30 day postponement of Case No. 5-93-4.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a 30 day postponement for Rezoning Case No. 5-93-4, N. I. Richburg, as requested by staff.
The following individuals appeared before the Board and were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations
Mr. John Brock, Senior Director, Planning and Development
Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner II, Planning Division
PETITION NO. 18-93-2 A TO CP W/C-1 AND C-2 USES
JOHN P. AND ANN D. ADAMS
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Nick Jones, Architect, Clermont, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He then reviewed the Master Plan (submitted as Applicant's Exhibit A) for the shopping center in question (Skyview Plaza) and answered questions from the Board regarding same. He noted, for the record, that the applicant concurs with staff's recommendations.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. John Brock, Senior Director, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board to respond to a concern by Commr. Swartz that Development Regulations' recommendation for approval of this request was contradictory to the comments made by the Planning staff, in that they feel corridor commercialization of S.R. 50 may be occurring and that it may be premature to approve this request until supporting populations have located in the area.
Mr. Brock stated that the rezoning request would be compatible with surrounding zonings and the Urban land use designation, however, the Planning staff is concerned that a pattern may be emerging of strip commercial development along S.R. 50. He stated that, whether or not it is occurring, would be a judgment call.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the criteria staff used as the basis for the recommendation of approval is the existence of the Greater Hills Subdivision, to the east of the proposed site; the proposal for the Greater Pines Subdivision, to the south of the proposed site; and the fact that the intersection of Hancock Road and
Hwy. 50 is going to be used for commercial, supporting the residential population that presently exists there and that which is proposed.
Discussion occurred regarding whether or not the shopping center in question overlapped the service area of existing shopping centers; the fact that the Planning staff stated that it might be premature to approve a commercial zoning for the property in question until both the supporting population is in existence or until Hwy. 50 is reclassified, as would be required to meet the County's criteria; whether or not the County had been notified of any concerns from the City of Clermont, since the property in question is located across the street from its city limits; and the fact that some of the policies are going to continue to have to be revisited, as staff is going to find that they are not flexible or realistic.
Commr. Swartz stated that the request does not meet all the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and does not result in an orderly and logical development pattern. He stated that he felt it was leap frogging a commercial facility to an area that presently has a shopping center located within a little over two miles of the proposed site and another one, approved by the City of Clermont, located just under two miles of the proposed site. He stated that the Board is going to have to decide whether or not it is going to apply the criteria that has been adopted in the Comprehensive Plan or not. He also stated that he was troubled by the fact that the Board had before them a recommendation from staff where they contradict one another.
Commr. Bailey stated that this Board was to decide land use, not the market, therefore, he was going to support the request.
Commr. Hanson suggested that the Board postpone the request for 30 days, to allow staff to get together and present a better recommendation to the Board; to meet with representatives from the City of Clermont, to see if they have any objections to the
request; to allow staff to look into the issue of Hancock Road and decide whether or not to reclassify it; and to look at the population figures, noting that she felt they need to be adjusted. She stated that, if the Board was going to follow the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, it would be difficult to approve the request.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, logically, the property in question is the place for a shopping center, but, felt that the Board needed to make sure that the request falls under the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he would support the request for a 30 day postponement.
Commr. Bailey stated that he would not want to see the request be postponed for any longer than 30 days, because he felt the applicant deserved a decision, and requested staff to work with the applicant, to ensure that it not be delayed any longer than 30 days.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board postponed action regarding Petition No. 18-93-2, John P. and Ann D. Adams, for 30 days.
PETITION NO. 32-93-4 AMENDMENT TO CP ORD. NO. 9-89
TO ADD C-1 & C-2 USES HAL LIVELY AND LEE MERCER
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hal Lively and Mr. Lee Mercer, applicants, appeared before the Board and were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, at which time they were questioned as to whether they would have a problem with the square footage being limited to 5,000 square feet, if the CP zoning was approved, with C-1 and C-2 uses, to which they replied that they would not.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to CP Ordinance No. 9-89, to add C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses to the existing CP zoning, with the conditions as noted by staff.
PETITION NO. 30-93-3 HM TO CFD RED-CAT ENTERPRISES, INC., TRUST (PRAISE TABERNACLE CHURCH)
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had a problem with the comments from the Planning staff in which they state that, if the day-care facility in question provides day-care service to individuals other than members of the church it is associated with, the portion of the site that houses the day-care facility may require a commercial zoning, noting that that is not her interpretation of a CFD. She stated that her interpretation is that the day-care facility can be for the community, regardless of whether or not it is utilized by the members of the church, to which she was informed that that was correct. She stated that, in the future, staff needs to be careful of their interpretation of same.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter.
The applicant was present in the audience.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, 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 HM (Heavy Industrial) to CFD (Community Facility District), to conform with the zoning designation for the operation of a day-care facility with an existing church and school, with the conditions as noted by staff.
PETITION NO. 31-93-5 R-1 TO A DOROTHY L. SUMMERSILL
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agricultural), for the placement of a mobile home on five (5) acres.
PETITION NO. 33-93-5 R-1 TO RA JAMES W. WILLIAMS
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant was present in the audience.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to RA (Ranchette), for the placement of a mobile home.
PETITION NO. 35-93-3 R-1 TO R-6 RICHARD SCOTT
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the applicant purchased the property in question with the intent to build a small home on it for his mother-in-law, who is elderly, at which time she submitted
an aerial (Applicant's Exhibit A) and a legal description (Applicant's Exhibit B) for the record. She stated that he would not need any setback variances. The only variance he would need would be for the creation of an actual lot and he has petitioned the Board of Adjustment for a variance to do so. She stated that the applicant was satisfied with the R-2 recommendation by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), rather than to R-6 (Urban Residential), as requested by the applicant, with uses that are consistent with the City of Eustis' R-T zoning, for the development of one (1) single-family residence.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that they cannot condition a rezoning request to be consistent with the zoning of a particular city.
Commr. Swartz noted that the County's R-2 zoning is consistent with the City of Eustis' R-T zoning, so the R-2 classification would be satisfactory.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
PETITION NO. CUP93/5/2-2 CUP IN A BRIAN M. MCGREW
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that she had supplied Mr. Stubbs with a modification of the language (County's Exhibit A) contained in the original CUP, which she noted they would like to have added, at which time she reviewed said language, contained in Paragraph A.
Land Uses; Paragraph D. Signage; Paragraph F. Site Plan Approval and Paragraph G. Additional Parking of said document. She then submitted six (6) pictures (Applicant's Exhibit A) showing the location of the applicant's home on his property and the area proposed for parking.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the area in question begins building up and parking becomes a problem, or, there is a concern about expansion, that it needed to be made clear to the applicant that the CUP is for a residential use.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that, in the proposed language modification submitted by the applicant's attorney, regarding Paragraph F. Site Plan Approval, it states that the Coordinator of the One-Stop Permitting Center shall review building plans, site development plans, and operational plans and that it should state the County shall review same.
Mr. Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, responded to Ms. Lustgarten's request for a change in the language alluded to above, indicating certain things that he would like to be done, before any modifications or additions are approved, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that any subsequent modifications or additions would come through Mr. Stubbs and he would have a chance to determine whether or not they are consistent with the residential use.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for the operation of a small computer software mail order business from the home, with conditions, as noted, and a stipulation that any requests for site plan approval be reviewed by the County.
PETITION NO. 5-93-4 AR TO CP, C-1, OR C-2 N. I. RICHBURG
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, informed the Board that this case had been postponed for 30 days, per request (letter submitted as County's Exhibit A) by the applicant's attorney, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay.
PETITION NO. 21-93-5 R-6 TO R-1 GERALD & ANNE DONATELLI
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
Ms. Beryl Thompson, Attorney, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board stating that the reason her clients were requesting that their property be rezoned from R-6 to R-1 was to enable them to have horses, which the R-6 zoning does not allow. She noted that they presently own two horses which they would like to house on the property next to their home, which is located within the East Umatilla Subdivision.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Thompson, representing the applicants, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She reviewed an aerial map (Applicant's Exhibit A) indicating the Donatelli property, as well as a one mile radius of surrounding property. She also reviewed a plat of the East Umatilla Subdivision (subdivision in which the property in question is located) and pictures of various properties and homes within the subdivision, (Applicant's Exhibit B) including the Donatelli property, to show how rural the area is. She briefly discussed the timeliness criteria, with respect to this case.
Ms. Roof stated that over 50% of the East Umatilla Subdivision is zoned R-1 and felt that, in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, the request was consistent and compatible with the County's Comprehensive Plan and should be approved.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether there were any deed restrictions prohibiting horses on the property in question, to which Ms. Roof responded that there were not.
Mr. Bob Skinner, a local realtor and resident of Umatilla, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned Ms. Roof regarding whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Donatelli had informed her that there are deed restrictions in the subdivision, to which she responded that she had been informed that there are restrictions, however, they do not prohibit horses.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. Patrick Connett, Connett Construction Company, questioned Ms. Roof about her background in land use planning and about the timeliness criteria which she had alluded to.
Mr. Mike Croak, Attorney, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Thompson, representing the applicants, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He addressed the issue of deed restrictions, at which time he read into the Minutes and submitted, for the record, the recorded Declaration of Restrictions (Applicant's Exhibit C) that applied to animals, noting that same had been recorded in April of 1974 and that they did not restrict horses.
Mr. Skinner reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Croak regarding whether the Declaration of Restrictions that he had read into the Minutes were the only set of deed restrictions that pertains to the subdivision in question, to which Mr. Croak responded that there was a second Declaration of Restrictions, recorded in June of 1991, that did not specifically address any issue with regard to horses. He stated that he did not know the purpose and intent of the second set of restrictions, noting that same talked in general language about noxious and offensive activities and about particular construction of residences, however, did not discuss animals whatsoever.
Ms. Jean Angelo, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Thompson, representing the applicants, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. Ms. Angelo stated that she lives across the street from where the horses are presently housed and that she does not object to them being around. She noted that she was not aware of the deed restrictions noted earlier when she purchased her property.
Ms. Anne Donatelli, applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that, when she and her husband purchased the property in question from Mr. Connett, they were asked to not clear the property totally of trees, which they did not have a problem with, however, they were never made aware of any deed restrictions. She stated that they only became aware of the restrictions when this process started.
Ms. Thompson, Attorney, questioned Ms. Donatelli about the fact that, if her property was downgraded to R-1, as part of that downgrading, whether she would be willing to only maintain two horses, to which Ms. Donatelli replied that she would.
Ms. Gail Bariteau, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Thompson, representing the applicants, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she has lived across the street from the property where the horses are presently housed, in the East Umatilla Subdivision, for approximately four and a half years.
Ms. Thompson, Attorney, questioned Ms. Bariteau as to whether she had ever heard any complaints about the horses or the nature of the area, to which Ms. Bariteau replied that she had not.
It was noted that Ms. Bariteau's property consists of 1 3/4 acres and that she has horses that are kept on a parcel that is less than one-half acre.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. Connett, questioned Ms. Bariteau as to whether there was any grass on the one-half acre where her horses are housed, to which she replied that there is
very little. Ms. Campione then questioned whether Ms. Bariteau had any problems with flies, to which she replied that she did not.
Ms. Thompson, Attorney, submitted, for the record, a letter (Applicant's Exhibit D) from Ms. Barbara Johnson, Barbara L. Johnson Realty, Inc., the realtor that sold the house to Mr. and Mrs. Donatelli, supporting their request to rezone the property, noting that it was a very logical request and in character with the area. She then noted that there were 26 letters and a petition with 46 signatures on file, in support of this request.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. Connett, stated that she felt the Board had been provided with a very poor picture of the facts and the true situation of what actually exists. She stated that the whole matter is complicated by the fact that the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map states that the area in question is suburban. She stated that when Mr. Connett purchased said property the land use designation was urban expansion.
Ms. Campione updated the Board as to what has transpired over the years with the property in question, at which time she reviewed a subdivision plat (Connett's Exhibit 1), indicating how the subdivision was platted at the time that Mr. Connett purchased the property, in 1978. She stated that no development occurred for a number of years, however, in 1974 a development company came in, purchased a large portion of the subdivision, which they had rezoned to R-6, and recorded the deed restrictions which were discussed earlier. She stated that, in 1991, Connett Construction Company purchased a large portion of the lots (which she pointed out on the plat) and began actively developing them. She pointed out roads that Mr. Connett had paved within the subdivision, the parcels of property that Mr. and Mrs. Donatelli originally owned, as well as the property in question, where their present home is located.
Ms. Campione then addressed the issue of whether or not the rezoning request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she felt the rezoning was going to have an adverse effect on those properties that are in and around the direct vicinity of the property in question, as it will create potentially inconsistent and incompatible land uses. She discussed the issue of trees acting as a buffer between properties, noting that they cannot act as much of a buffer, when one is talking about such small pieces of property.
Ms. Campione discussed the fact that this rezoning was inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map, at which time she referred to Section 1.02.21, in the LDRs, which states that a plat recorded prior to January 1, 1976, for which a building permit has been issued for a principal structure or for which a principal structure has been constructed and a road is currently dedicated and maintained by the County, is vested for potential development rights and shall not be considered as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that to not rezone the property in question would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Campione stated that this case is referred to as a spot zoning situation and is not warranted by the surrounding conditions. She stated that although down zoning is considered to be a good thing, in this particular situation, down zoning would create inconsistent and incompatible land uses. She stated that her client, Mr. Connett, has not only invested a lot of money in developing the East Umatilla Subdivision, he has invested himself, in trying to keep the subdivision a nice place to live and that individuals who have purchased property in the subdivision would like for the property values to be preserved.
Mr. Skinner reappeared before the Board stating that he did not feel the Board should change the neighborhood complexion of the East Umatilla Subdivision by allowing the residents to house livestock animals, as it will downgrade the subdivision.
Ms. Thompson, Attorney, questioned Mr. Skinner as to whether he owned a home in the subdivision, to which he replied that he did not.
Mr. Croak, Attorney, representing the applicants, reappeared before the Board stating that something he failed to point out when making his previous presentation was the fact that the Declaration of Restrictions recorded in 1991 were restrictions that Mr. Connett had enacted on property that he owned at that time. He stated that said Declaration of Restrictions made reference to an Exhibit A, which he noted was the legal description of said property; however, Exhibit A was never recorded, therefore, there is no legal description with that Declaration of Restrictions. Due to this fact, he feels that said restrictions cannot be enforced, because they do not describe the parcels of property that they are imposed against. He submitted said Declaration of Restrictions (Applicant's Exhibit E), for the record, noting that, as part of the exhibit, he was submitting the next document recorded on that date, to show the Board that Exhibit A was not the next page in the public records, with regard to that specific Declaration of Restrictions.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. Connett, submitted, for the record, the plat of the East Umatilla Subdivision (Opposition's Exhibit A) which was reviewed earlier in the meeting and 15 pictures (Opposition's Exhibit B) showing the road under construction that Mr. Connett had constructed through the subdivision and various homes adjacent to the Donatelli home within the subdivision, however, noted that said homes were not homes that Connett Construction had built.
Ms. Roof, representing the applicants, reappeared before the Board and clarified the issue of when the rezoning alluded to earlier took place, at which time she submitted, for the record, a handout (Applicant's Exhibit F) containing four pages of copies of various documents from public records pertaining to the rezoning
issue. She stated that when the East Umatilla Subdivision was originally platted, it was zoned agricultural and R-1. In 1961 and 1962, it went through some zoning changes where the agricultural zoning was rezoned to
R-1 and the R-1 zoning districts were rezoned to R-1-7, which she noted is now R-6. She stated that all the rezoning took place in the 1960s, noting that she did not think any of the rezoning took place in the 1970s.
Ms. Roof stated that the majority of the subdivision is presently zoned R-1 and people can have horses in those sections of the subdivision. She stated that the property in question is considered as urban sprawl, however, as part of the County's Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs, the State has required the County to put the area in question back to suburban and the down zoning is a requirement of that stipulation. She stated that the subdivision would be vested, to where the existing Lots of Record could be used. She stated that those lots in the R-1 zoning district currently have to be aggregated together, so she does not feel that the area in question is leaning toward being a high residential area, noting that the people who live across the street from the property in question are still going to be in a rural area, so the request is consistent with the characteristics of the overall picture.
Ms. Thompson, Attorney, representing the applicants, reappeared before the Board stating that her clients' request was consistent with the present characteristics of the area, at which time she referred to Policy 1-1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which she read into the Minutes. She referred to a memorandum, dated May 17, 1993, from Ms. Susan Deines, Planner III, Planning Department, in which she states that the rezoning to R-1, which allows for a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre, would be more compatible with the Future Land Use designation of suburban than the current zoning classification of R-6, and that, based on 1993 aerial photos, it
appears that the 40% criteria may be met, thus, this rezoning meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. She requested the Board, in light of the evidence presented, as well as the comments of Ms. Deines and the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Donatelli are willing to limit themselves to two horses, to approve the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz requested the County Attorney to comment on the Lots of Record Ordinance and how it pertains to this case.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the plat in question is an old plat which would be covered by the Lots of Record Ordinance and would be required to aggregate up to the existing zoning. She addressed the issue of the Restrictive Covenants, stating that they are out of the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners, as they are private covenants, and the only parties that can challenge them are adjacent property owners or individuals that are effected by violation of same. She stated that it is not a consideration that the Board should use in their deliberation. She stated that the only issue before the Board, this date, was a rezoning request.
Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, as to what the setback requirement for horses would be in an R-1 zoning, if it were approved, to which Mr. Stubbs replied that it would be 25 feet and, if the individual had three or more horses, the feeding areas and/or barns that housed the horses would have to be set back 200 feet from abutting property lines.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for the construction of a single-family residence.
The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, noted that the commissioners would have to state their findings of fact.
Commr. Cadwell stated that his motion was based on the recommendations of staff, concerning the findings of fact, and the standards listed in his backup material.
Commr. Hanson stated that the determination would still need to be made, however, felt that the subdivision would be vested, because there are presently houses in place. She noted that the 40% timeliness criteria, alluded to earlier, applies to new subdivisions. She stated that she felt, if the Board rezoned this property, they would need to rezone what is left of the entire subdivision and not start picking out parts of it, to be rezoned.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would not vote for denial, because she was very familiar with the area. She stated that she was going to go with Ms. Deines' recommendation, which allows the compatibility to be more in line with the Future Land Use designation of suburban.
Commr. Bailey stated that he would not vote for denial because, even though the area in question is a mixed use community, he sees it as rural in character. He also stated that he does not feel the Board should be in the business of enforcing deed restrictions.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would support Commr. Cadwell's motion for denial, as he feels the Board has to maintain the general development patterns that are occurring in the subdivision and he did not feel that they were occurring in such a way that would allow horses to be introduced into it. He stated that he was not sure the applicants could meet all the setback requirements, however, if they could, felt that it would just be marginally so. He stated that he would vote in opposition to the rezoning, based on staff's recommendation, the fact of not adversely affecting the development patterns which have occurred in the subdivision, and on the Lots of Record, as it has developed in that area.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.
Commrs. Gerber and Bailey voted "No".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 8:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PETITION NO. 36-93-2 A TO PUD WITH WAIVERS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BATTAGLIA PROPERTIES, LTD.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the only real issue in this case is the density calculation and her interpretation of how it should be calculated versus staff's opinion as to how it should be calculated. She stated that the project has been given a recommendation for approval and that it meets all standards for review. She reviewed a plat of the development (Eagleridge) in question, which was on display.
Mr. Bob Huffstetler, Genesis Design Group, Inc., appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, representing the applicant, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Ms. Bonifay referred to Page 7 of the staff report, at which time she discussed requested waivers to the Land Development Regulations, noting that no waiver is required for (A) Maximum Road Grade; for (B) Selective Tree Clearing - the interpretation is that the applicant can do what he wishes to do, under the terms of the LDRs; and that the applicant will accept staff's recommendation for (C) Road Surface, (D) Right-of-Way Width, and (E) Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way Width. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved (F) Driveway Setback and (H) Reverse Curves and requested the Board's approval of same, as well. She noted that no vote was necessary for (G) Traffic Impact Analysis.
Ms. Bonifay briefly discussed the issue of density stating that she disagreed with staff's calculation of same. She stated that her understanding was that all acreage classifications were to be made on gross acreage, which means all lands contained within the geographic confines of the development. She stated that staff bases its case on Policy I-12.2 Interpretation of Residential Density Designation, which she read into the record. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was leaving the policy interpretation up to the Board.
Ms. Bonifay referred to Page 12, Paragraph B. 3., of the staff report stating that staff has indicated that they want the connection on Thousand Trails Road to line up directly across from the proposed access of Glenbrook PUD, however, the alignment that the applicant is proposing is not the same as that indicated by staff. She stated that the alignment of the development in question is approximately 100 feet to the east of the Glenbrook PUD, noting that the applicant feels said alignment is the better alignment, for purposes of circulation and allowing access to other projects.
Mr. Huffstetler appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and reviewed the plat of Eagleridge (development in question) indicating the point where the developer plans to connect said development with the Glenbrook PUD, as well as the location of the connection that staff is requesting, noting the reason for the difference in the proposed alignment.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the roads connecting the two developments should line up and he was satisfied to let whichever developer puts the road in first to do so, but, to then require the second developer to align their road up with same.
It was noted that neither development had gone through the preliminary plat process, to date.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of the transfer of density of wetlands, as it pertains to this case, at
which time the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, referred to Policy I-2.1C Wetland Density Transfers in the Green Swamp, of the Comprehensive Plan, which she read into the record, noting that it was the most recent change to the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion continued regarding the matter.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved waivers (F) Driveway Setback and (H) Reverse Curves for the Eagleridge development.
The Board addressed the issue of the language contained on Page 12 of the staff report, under Paragraph B. Transportation, Item 3., at which time discussion occurred regarding same.
Upon being questioned as to how he felt the matter should be handled, Mr. Jim Stivender, Director, Public Services, stated that he felt it should be based on first come, first served.
Mr. Rick Anderson, Condev II, the owner of the property in question, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and addressed the issue of the request from staff that the connection on Thousand Trails Road should line up directly across from the proposed access of the Glenbrook PUD.
Further discussion occurred.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, 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), including waivers F and H to the Land Development Regulations, as noted, and that the language contained in Paragraph B. Transportation, Item 3., of the staff report, be amended to read that the access be provided consistent with the LDRs, so that the flow of traffic is the most efficient, and that it be consistent with the County's design standards, for the establishment of a 261 single-family residential development.
PETITION NO. CUP93/5/1-5 CUP IN A ROBERT W. MAXWELL
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations, explained this request. He submitted, for the record, three (3) letters (County's Exhibit A) from individuals opposed to the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Donald Channel, President, North Lake County Four-Wheel Drive Club and Mr. Robert Maxwell, applicant, appeared before the Board and were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Mr. John Weatherford, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and submitted a site plan (Applicant's Exhibit A) for Mud Run Park (property in question), which he reviewed with the Board. He discussed the mud run and how it will be operated. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Channel answered questions from the Board regarding the operation of the mud run.
Mr. Larry Allen, Jr., a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned Mr. Channel as to whether it would be side-by-side racing or one truck at a time, to which he was informed that it would be one truck at a time.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson stated that she once ran a mud run and knows that there is a demand for this type of activity, however, noted some concerns she had with it, such as drinking and the monitoring of same, as well as the issue of traffic, as people arrive and exit the facility. She stated that she would support the request, however, felt that it should be monitored on a very frequent basis.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would support the request, however, noted that he had some concerns with it, as well, which he discussed. He stated that he felt the matter should be brought back before the Board, for review, after six months, rather than one year.
Commr. Bailey stated that he would support the request, however, concurred with Commr. Cadwell in that the mud run should be monitored every six months, rather than once a year.
Commr. Swartz stated that he also felt the six month review was important. He stated that he felt staff was under estimating the issue of traffic, at which time he referred to Paragraph D. Transportation Improvements, on Page 5 of the CUP, stating that it only requires the applicant to improve the access to the site. He stated that he did not feel comfortable with approving the request, without having a traffic study done first, at which time he suggested that, before the request is approved, a traffic study be done by the applicant and be provided to staff, to determine whether or not any other road improvements should be done.
Further discussion occurred.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), with conditions, as noted, as well as a stipulation that the mud run be reviewed by the Board after six (6) months, to permit the operation of a mud run amusement facility twice a month. Commr. Swartz voted "No".
PETITION NO. LUPA 93/5/1-2 AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1-1.13 (3) AND 1-1.15 (5) OF THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE "RURAL" TO "EMPLOYMENT CENTER"
CHARLES E. BRADSHAW, JR.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation, explained this request. He then submitted, for the record, a packet (County's Exhibit A) containing a letter from the Clermont Chamber of Commerce in favor of the request; a letter from Ms. Linda Chapin, Chairman, Orange County Board of County Commissioners, opposed to the request; three
(3) letters from local residents in favor of the request; and (10) letters from local residents opposed to the request.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board had before them, this date, two proposals, being (1) a transmittal of an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of Lake County and (2) a proposed text amendment. She stated that the Board will not be able to consider final approval of the development order for this project until an application for development approval is submitted, for review by the Regional Planning Council, as well as Lake County. She stated that, once it goes through that process, which she noted is a time consuming process, it will come to the Board with a recommendation from the Regional Planning Council for conditions to be placed in the development order that the Board will ultimately issue.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board has the ability, pursuant to State Statutes, to process an amendment that is directly related to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) out of sequence, noting that the Board is only permitted to amend the Comprehensive Plan twice a year. She stated that this is the first step, noting that an application for development approval must be submitted and reviewed and must come back to the Board for a development order on the DRI, in addition to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that would be directly related to that DRI.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that, in speaking with the Department of Community Affairs' legal department, this date, the text amendment that is before the Board, for approval, has countywide applications, thus, it is not directly related to the DRI. She stated that the Board has the ability to fit it into the normal amendment process time frame, by adding it to the set of amendments that is currently being considered, for the County's second amendment process this year, which she noted will be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in August. She stated
that the change to the Future Land Use Plan Map may be transmitted at this time.
Mr. John Smogor, Chief Planner, Orange County Planning Department, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He then submitted a packet of information (Opposition's Exhibit A) containing a letter from Mr. Bruce McClendon, Planning Manager, Orange County Planning Department, in opposition to the request, stating concerns over the compatibility of the proposed request, as well as concerns about transportation, utilities, the environment, and intergovernmental coordination; a Question and Answer sheet from the Department of Community Affairs listing the most often asked questions concerning the adoption of plan amendments; the letter from Ms. Linda Chapin, Chairman, Orange County Board of County Commissioners, alluded to earlier, opposing the request; and a formal request from Orange County to Lake County that they enter into an interlocal agreement that is consistent with both counties' Comprehensive Plan, to address what is going to happen not only in Lake County but within the impacted area of Orange County.
At this time, the following individuals were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, as requested by Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant:
Mr. Bill Bentley - Bentley Architects & Engineers
Mr. Chuck Aldrin - Capital Motorsports
Mr. Jim Dwyer - Dwyer & Associates
Mr. Sam Watkins - Central Florida Sports Car Club of America
Mr. John Scott - Capital Motorsports
Mr. Harry Brumley - Bentley Architects & Engineers
Mr. Gene Harrington - Capital Motorsports
Mr. Mark Hardgrove - Planning Innovations, Inc.
Mr. Richard Wells - Planning Consultant for Florida Raceplex
Mr. Ken LaRoe - Resident of Lake County
Mr. Larry Lennox - South Lake Development
Mr. J. M. Vander Meer - Resident of Clermont
Mr. Howard Stockton - Clermont Chamber of Commerce
Ms. Wanda Coxe - Chain-o-Lakes Auto Parts
Mr. Don Coxe - Chain-o-Lakes Auto Parts
Mr. Mitch Grant - Resident of Clermont
Mr. Mike Rudolph - Resident of Clermont
Mr. Darrell Gotthard - Resident of Winter Garden
Mr. Rob Boyatt - Resident of Clermont
Mr. Dave Fagen - Resident of St. Petersburg
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and noted some concerns she had about the way that the County's legal staff handled the issue of the text amendment before them this date. She stated that she did not concur with Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, with regard to the text amendment and that she did not know who Ms. Lustgarten had spoken with at DCA. She discussed two alternatives that she felt the Board had regarding the issue of the text amendment.
Ms. Bonifay then discussed the issue of the transmittal of a land use plan amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, concerning her client's (applicant) project known as Florida Raceplex, at which time she reviewed an overhead of a map indicating the location of the proposed project and the surrounding topography. She stated that other uses in the area are the proposed West Reliever Airport (Greater Orlando Aviation Authority) and Conserv II.
Ms. Bonifay introduced the following individuals, stating that they were members of her consulting team:
Mr. Bob Huffstetler, Design Consultant
Mr. Dick Wells, Planning Consultant
Mr. Bill Bentley, Bentley Architects & Engineers
Mr. Harry Brumley, Bentley Architects & Engineers
Mr. Jim Modica, Environmental Consultant
Mr. Mark Hardgrove, Planning Innovations, Inc.
Mr. Dave Fagen, Noise Level Consultant.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she felt it was not appropriate to address issues such as transportation and noise, at this time, as they are appropriately addressed through the DRI review process and at the time of the rezoning request. She submitted, for the record, a handout (Applicant's Exhibit A) containing duplicates of overheads which would be reviewed and discussed concerning the project in question.
Mr. Chuck Aldrin, Capital Motorsports, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and discussed what the raceplex project consists of and how it will be structured and operated, at which time he reviewed a site plan (on display) of the project
stating that it will be located on a 500 acre tract of land east of Hwy. 27. He discussed the design and landscaping of the facility, noting that it will handle from four to six major events during the year, with the amount of spectators ranging from 50,000 to a maximum of 120,000. He stated that the seating capacity will be for 60,000 spectators and that certain events would allow them to be either in the infield, or on the outside road course, at various locations around the facility. He stated that they are planning to use trams to take spectators from their cars into the facility, so that they can stage both the arrival times and discharge times. He stated that they plan to run a multi-lane boulevard from the center of the parking area directly out to Hwy. 27 with a "Y" that would direct traffic north and south around Hwy. 27, which they feel will help with the traffic flow and also create some commercial and light manufacturing and industrial development along that corridor. Mr. Aldrin stated that the plan that is in the design phase, at the present time, does not include any utilization of roads to the east of the facility. He stated that the site in question was chosen as their primary site because of its elevation changes, which would allow them to design a facility that is spectator friendly, which he elaborated on, as well as provide some natural noise abatement qualities that would reduce their expense in having to go through the man made abatement process. He stated that the site does not contain wetlands of any large nature and that they would be utilizing the facility for water and wastewater treatment, at which time he noted that they have been in contact with the City of Clermont, in trying to coordinate those efforts.
Mr. Calvin Corbitt, a resident of Volusia County who recently purchased some property in Lake County near the property in question, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned Mr. Aldrin as to what type of races will be held at the proposed site, to which Mr. Aldrin
responded that the facility has been designed to accommodate just about any kind of racing, which he elaborated on.
Mr. Dick Wells, one of the planning consultants on the project, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and discussed, at length, the economic impact that the facility in question will have on the County, which he noted would be very significant. He stated that they had taken a look at the impact, based on expenses at similar facilities around the country and on standard economic modeling procedures.
Mr. Wells stated that there are two major areas where the impact will come from being (1) the operational cost of the facility itself, such as fuel, insurance, labor, advertising and promotion, and other necessary operational expenses, totaling approximately $4.3 million, which would be injected into the County's economy on an annual basis (reviewed an overhead indicating same) and (2) tourist dollars, which he noted would total approximately $22 million, also injected into the County's economy.
Mr. Wells reviewed a chart comparing what one would receive from the property in question from citrus production ($1 million) versus what one would receive in income from the Raceplex ($49 million); a chart indicating that the cash benefit to the local economy, during the construction phase of the project, would be $55.7 million and would yield approximately 400 jobs; a chart indicating that the annual tax yield from the property for the raceplex would be approximately $403,000 versus approximately $4,480 from the property for citrus production; a chart giving a breakdown of the distribution of estimated annual ad valorem tax dollars ($402,966) from the raceplex (which he noted are conservative figures) toward the School District, the St. Johns River Water Management District, the South Lake Hospital, the County's General Fund, and the Oklawaha River Water Conservation District.
Mr. Aldrin reappeared before the Board to respond to some questions from Commr. Swartz about the proposed raceplex, one being what the figures contained in the charts that were reviewed by Mr. Wells were based on, to which he responded that they were taken from a publication that is done by the Good Year Tire & Rubber Company every year, where they compile attendance records at a select number of races (6) that are held throughout the United States. He stated that they then discounted those numbers to arrive at some conservative estimates for the proposed raceplex. Commr. Swartz then questioned Mr. Aldrin about the number of employees that would be needed for the various events held at the raceplex, to which Mr. Aldrin noted that, for a major type of event, such as the Indianapolis 500, they project that between 2,500 and 3,000 part-time people would be employed, over the course of a weekend, for such jobs as security, food and beverage, souvenirs, parking attendants, and individuals in the Grandstand area assisting with reserved seating. He stated that the facility will generate approximately 60 full-time jobs.
Mr. Wells reappeared before the Board to respond to further questioning.
Mr. Tom Ross, Attorney, representing the Avalon; Deer Island; Lake Hickory Nut, and Greater Groves Homeowners Associations, questioned whether Mr. Wells was aware of the average income of the residents who live in the area of the site in question and whether he had checked into what the average price of the homes in that area are, to which Mr. Wells responded that he had not.
Mr. Ross stated that the average price of the homes in the subdivisions that he was representing ranged from $90,000 to $110,000, at which time he submitted, for the record, a six page letter (Opposition's Exhibit B) from same stating concerns that they have about the proposed project.
Mr. Ross questioned Mr. Wells as to whether he had considered what benefits it might have to the County to utilize the property
in question for single-family residential homes, rather than burned out groves, to which Mr. Wells responded that the comparison was not to a burned out grove, but to a productive grove. Mr. Wells noted that he had not compared what the economic value to Lake County would be from single-family residential homes.
It was noted that the property in question is presently zoned for one dwelling unit per five acres.
Mr. Aldrin reappeared before the Board and was questioned by Mr. Ross regarding the number of jobs that he stated would be created from the proposed raceplex, at which time further discussion occurred regarding same.
Mr. David Mazurek, a property owner in opposition to the request, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned Mr. Wells about the appropriateness of using the six events alluded to earlier in calculating the figures contained in the charts which Mr. Wells reviewed and what would happen if the amount of people that has been estimated will come do not come, to which Mr. Wells responded that the assumptions were based on the fact that people will come. Mr. Mazurek then questioned how may people will be employed for the smaller events that will be held at the facility, to which he was informed that it would be a couple of hundred.
Ms. Bonifay interjected that she would challenge any of the speakers, in that the County's own administrative rules governing quasi-judicial hearings state that, unless one is an affected property owner and can demonstrate that he or she is more affected than any other average citizen, they do not have standing to cross-examine.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded to Ms. Bonifay's comments.
It was noted by the County Attorney that an affected party is one who owns property adjacent to a particular facility and has
received notice, that will be substantially affected, other than the general population.
Commr. Swartz questioned the County Attorney as to exactly what the County's rules say, at which time she read same into the record.
Mr. John Kiely, a resident of Greater Hills Subdivision, appeared before the Board to question Mr. Wells about the issue of the raceplex. Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, objected to Mr. Kiely's potential questioning, noting that the Board had not inquired as to where Mr. Kiely's residence was located, in relationship to the project.
It was determined by the Chairman that Mr. Kiely was an affected party and would allow his questioning, at which time Mr. Kiely was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Mr. Kiely stated that, during Mr. Wells' presentation, he kept referring to a regional impact and requested Mr. Wells to define what the benefits of the raceplex would be to Lake County, as opposed to the region, to which Mr. Wells responded that they would estimate approximately 50% to 70%.
Mr. Kiely then questioned Mr. Wells about the trickle down effect that he had alluded to during his presentation and the fact that he stated there would be no impact to the local schools, to which Mr. Wells responded that there would be no impact to the local schools because residential development is not a part of the project in question.
Mr. Calvin Corbitt, a resident of Volusia County, appeared before the Board to cross-examine Mr. Wells about the project in question, however, the Chairman would not allow it, due to the fact that he did not consider Mr. Corbitt as an affected property owner. The Chairman noted that Mr. Corbitt would be allowed to testify, on his own behalf, later during the public hearing.
Mr. Gene Harrington, Capital Motorsports, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board, as
requested by Ms. Bonifay, to discuss some of the issues concerning the raceplex. He stated that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what types of individuals attend this type of function, at which time he reviewed a chart indicating that 58% of the spectators are male; 42% female; 83% range in age from 21 to 49; 33% earn over $50,000 per year; 30% are high school graduates; 31% have some college; 35% are graduates or post graduates; 54% are married; and 59% own their homes. He stated that it is a more sophisticated type of audience that attends this type of function.
Mr. John Malcovich, a local resident and property owner, questioned the Chairman about the guidelines that must be followed concerning individuals having the right to cross-examine witnesses. He questioned what the ruling is predicated on.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, read into the record what the ruling provides, pursuant to the Florida Statutes.
Mr. John Scott, Capital Motorsports, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, stating, for the record, that Capital Motorsports has the financing to do the project in question and that the principals involved have had long-term relationships with each other, some of which exist since college days, therefore, they have the commitment to develop the project.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Scott regarding the funding for the project, at which time it was noted that the project would be funded totally by private enterprise and that no government monies would be used for the facility.
Mr. Ross, Attorney, questioned Mr. Scott as to whether he had a problem with making it public and providing a copy of the financing commitment, to which Mr. Scott stated that he would not be willing to do so at this time.
Mr. Imre Szabo, a resident of Avalon, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He then
questioned Mr. Scott regarding the issue of environmental health problems that he felt may be generated by the raceplex, which he thought Mr. Scott had addressed earlier in the meeting, however, it was pointed out by the Chairman that Mr. Scott had not discussed said issue.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she and her consultants had tried to give a generalized presentation this date, realizing that the request will involve a long development review process that is going to take several more public hearings to resolve. She stated that the actual plans for the project are presently in the process of being developed, as part of the DRI review process.
Mr. Smogor, Chief Planner, Orange County Planning Department, reappeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and was cross-examined regarding a document (DCA Technical Memo) that he had submitted to the Board, for the record, earlier in the meeting. She questioned the date of said document, to which he replied that it was April, 1993. She then questioned Mr. Smogor, at length, concerning various aspects of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan, amendments to same, and their compliance with DCA.
Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Mr. Smogor had approached Lake County in the past about any intergovernmental cooperative agreements, to which he responded that, under their Comprehensive Plan, they had not, noting that the Comprehensive Plan requires them to approach Lake County by 1994. She then questioned him as to when Orange County started working on their Comprehensive Plan and when it was adopted, to which he stated that the initial Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1980, with a major revision in 1985, and the final Comprehensive Plan that is in effect at the present time was adopted in 1991.
Mr. Aldrin reappeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and addressed the issue of noise that will be generated by the raceplex, noting that the site was chosen due to it having a natural bowl in the center of the site, which he noted will provide
some natural abatement of noise. He stated that, in addition, the large oval of the facility will be banked and the track will be raised around the infield so that it forms a cone, with grandstands surrounding the track, so there will be official noise barriers, as a result of the design. He stated that the rolling terrain and existing trees in the area will also help to abate noise and that they anticipate putting in additional noise barriers, such as berms, fences, trees, concrete walls, billboards, etc.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
PETITION NO. LUPA 93/5/1-2 CHARLES E. BRADSHAW, JR. (CONT'D.)
Mr. Sam Watkins, Central Florida Sports Car Club of America, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, stating that the Central Florida Sports Car Club of America is approximately 30 years old and that there are approximately 2,300 members throughout the Central Florida area. He stated that they participate in racing and one of the things that they have recognized and have addressed is the noise problem, noting that they have noise measuring devices and a set of regulations in the competition rules that states very specifically what the noise level can be from a race car and, if a race car exhibits a level higher than what is allowed, said race car is pulled off the track and he is not allowed to compete until that situation is rectified. He stated that they bring a family-oriented type atmosphere to the complex.
Mr. Jay Vander Meer, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board and pointed out the fact that the site in question is a remote area with the closest house to the property being approximately one and one-half miles away. He stated that Lake County needs jobs and that this facility is going to create activity for the mom and pop motels, some of which are really struggling. He stated that he feels the project will be
good as a tax base for the County as different agencies within the County will be collecting monies from it. He stated that he did not see the complex having a detrimental effect on the County and that he feels it will be a good utilization of the land and is a proper thing for the area.
Mr. Keith Zelesky, a local resident, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he lives approximately 7/10 of a mile from the site in question and questioned Mr. Vander Meer as to whether he had ever been out to the site in question; whether he had measured the proximity of the homes in the area to the site; and whether he had measured the distance from the aviation towers to the site, to which Mr. Vander Meer responded, stating that he had been to the site, however, had not measured the proximity of the homes in the area to the site or the distance of the aviation towers to the site.
Mr. Howard Stockton, Executive Director, Clermont Chamber of Commerce, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board stating that the Board of Directors of the Clermont Chamber of Commerce endorses the raceplex project and hopes that the Board will move forward and approve the project.
Mr. Richard Honeycutt, a local resident, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, a petition (Applicant's Exhibit B) containing 1,146 signatures, in favor of the raceplex project.
Mr. Larry Lennox, President of the South Lake Development Council, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board, in favor of the request, stating that the business community in Clermont is very much behind the raceplex project and supports it wholeheartedly. He discussed the economic situation in South Lake County and the need to do something about it and get the tax base up. He stated that the business community feels the raceplex is very much needed in Lake County.
Ms. Amanda Bass, a local resident, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board, stating that she owns a small business in Lake County and feels that the raceplex will be an important revenue for the County, therefore, is in favor of it.
Mr. Glen Denman, Flag Chief, Central Florida Region of SCCA Racing, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he has been involved with the SCCA Racing Club for 7 years and has been personally involved with racing since 1968. He briefly discussed the issue of the noise level and requested the Board to approve the project, as he feels that it is in the best interest of the County, economically.
Mr. James Bass, a native of Lake County and local plumbing contractor, who has been in business for 19 years, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board stating that he has seen the County go through a lot of change, with respect to the citrus industry, and feels that the County needs to have a diverse industrial base, therefore, is in favor of the raceplex.
Ms. Lori Lohse, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She questioned Mr. Bass as to where he lives in relationship to the racetrack, to which he responded that he lives in Grand Island, approximately 30 miles from the raceplex site.
Mr. Rob Boyatt, a local resident who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, appeared before the Board stating that he lives four miles from the raceplex site, however, wished that he lived closer. He stated that he is a drag racer and travels to cities all over the southeastern part of the State and that the people are very glad to see them, because they spend tons of money wherever they go. He briefly discussed the issue of the noise level, noting that he did not think it would be a problem, due to the design of the track.
Mr. Billy Ray Clark, Jr., a local resident, appeared before the Board, to cross-examine Mr. Boyatt, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned Mr. Boyatt as to what time a track opens and closes and how many days out of the week races are held, noting that he is concerned about the noise that will be generated from the track and how it is going to affect the sleep habits of the local children.
Mr. Imre Szabo, reappeared before the Board to cross-examine Mr. Boyatt, at which time he questioned Mr. Boyatt as to how long tires and brakes last on the race cars, noting that when the drivers slam on the brakes or make fast starts dust from the tires and the brake linings are emitted into the air and can be hazardous to people's health.
Mr. Steve Hunt, a local resident, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board stating that he feels the raceplex is one of the best things that could happen to Lake County. He submitted, for the record, a petition (Applicant's Exhibit C) containing approximately 60 names of individuals who are in favor of the raceplex.
Mr. Ross, Attorney, representing several homeowners' associations who are opposed to the raceplex, reappeared before the Board to cross-examine Mr. Hunt. He questioned Mr. Hunt as to where he lives and how close his residence is to the proposed raceplex site, to which Mr. Ross replied that he lives in Minneola and would probably not be able to hear the noise from the track from his residence. Mr. Ross questioned whether Mr. Hunt would purchase a home next to the proposed raceplex, to which he replied that he would.
Mr. David Triplett, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he has lived in Lake County for most of his 23 years and that Lake County has nothing to offer people in his age group. He stated that he is a drag racer, who has been racing for four
years, and that he has had to drive outside the County in order to participate in the sport. He stated that he is definitely in favor of the raceplex.
Mr. David Daughtry, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that his company builds motors for cars and that the proposed raceplex would help their business, which he noted is presently struggling a little. He feels that the raceplex would be good for the County.
Mr. Paul Allen, a resident of Minneola, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, appeared before the Board stating that he considers himself to be an avid race fan and is in favor of the proposed raceplex, noting that he feels it will be good for the County.
Mr. Ross, Attorney, representing several homeowners' associations who are opposed to the proposed raceplex, reappeared before the Board to cross-examine Mr. Allen. He questioned Mr. Allen as to whether he had ever attended some of the races at the Daytona International Speedway and whether there were any homes located in close proximity to the speedway, to which Mr. Allen responded that he had attended said races and that no homes were located near the racetrack, that businesses were located near it.
Mr. Tim Lydon, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that racing in a complex such as the proposed raceplex is not limited to the region where it is located, that it could be used by teams, not only from the United States, but from all over the world, which would further development in the Lake County area.
Mr. Tyler Tooker, a resident of Orlando and crew member of a racing team, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he has been involved in racing for approximately four years, with a couple of different teams, and that racing teams spend a lot of money in the areas where they are racing, therefore, the businesses in those areas are very happy to see them come into their area.
Mr. Danny McManus, a resident of Tavares, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was in favor of the proposed raceplex, noting that he has been involved in motor sports for the past six years. He stated that he feels racing generates a family oriented atmosphere and that he anticipates local high schools participating in high school drag team events and things of that nature. He briefly discussed the noise level, indicating that he did not feel it would be a problem.
The Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, sworn in the following individuals, who were to be called as witnesses for Mr. Ross, Attorney, representing several homeowners' associations who are opposed to the proposed raceplex:
Mr. Tom Lewis
Ms. June Noblitt
Ms. Anita Bloom
Mr. Lewis appeared before the Board stating that he was not a resident of Lake County, that he lived in Winter Garden, however, was present to speak on behalf of the Deer Island; Lake Hickory Nut; Greater Groves; and Avalon homeowners' associations (which are near the raceplex site). He stated that they had written a letter to the Board, on May 24, 1993, requesting them to deny or defer the request before them this date, to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan, at which time he read said letter into the record. The letter states that the above stated homeowners' associations feel that the Board has not been given sufficient information or conducted the necessary intergovernmental coordination activities appropriate for them to know whether the amendment in question is what the Board actually intends to do to the Lake County plan. It also states that the two most significant reasons for their request are (1) that there is potentially more harm than good to be served by premature judgment of the request and (2) they feel that the
County's recently amended Comprehensive Plan contains policies which would be violated by approving the amendment. The letter states, at length, various concerns that the homeowners' associations have with the proposed raceplex and notes various Comprehensive Plan policies that they feel the request violates.
Mr. Lewis stated that he feels the request does not have Lake County's best interest at heart and if the Board does not have sufficient information before them this date to make an appropriate and reasonable analysis and fully comply with the Florida Statutes and rules, that they should not take action on the request.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, wished to cross-examine Mr. Lewis, however, he would not comply with said request, noting that he would answer only "No Comment" to any questions that she asked. Ms. Bonifay stated that she wanted the record to reflect that Mr. Lewis would not make himself available for cross-examination, which she noted is a violation of the County's own administrative proceedings and felt that it may constitute error at a later time.
Mr. Lewis did respond to some questions from Commr. Bailey concerning some comments he had made during his presentation.
Mr. Ross, Attorney, discussed some misunderstandings that he felt had occurred, this date, concerning the request, being (1) a misunderstanding about a premise that the site in question is not suitable for low density residential, due to a proposed reliever airport that GOAA (Greater Orlando Aviation Authority) is to put in and (2) that it would be inappropriate to have a residential community around Conserv II (an industrial activity). He stated that the site being considered for the reliever airport is one of four (4) or five ((5) alternative reliever airports, one of which happens to be in the area in question, and that Conserv II is not an industrial activity, it was specifically put in the area in question because it was remote and rural and was near to wide
spread agricultural, providing an opportunity for disposal of treated effluent, for irrigation purposes.
Mr. Ross discussed the issue of DCA's 9J-11 Rule and the compliance of same, as well as several policies which he felt the Board would be violating, if they approved this request. He stated that it seemed to him that the Board had an opportunity to question themselves as to what the vision is, or ought to be, for that part of the County where the proposed raceplex is to be located and to ask themselves whether or not what he perceives to be relatively temporary and modest economic benefits are worth the divisiveness and disharmony that can inevitably flow from approval of this request, as opposed to a thoughtful, careful, mature development of an economic plan for Lake County. He stated that, if the Board approves this request, it may come back to haunt them in ways that they may seriously regret. He submitted, for the record, the letter (Opposition's Exhibit B) which Mr. Lewis had earlier read into the record, stating the concerns of the homeowners' associations he was representing.
Ms. June Noblitt, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board and read into the record a statement indicating her feelings about the proposed raceplex, at which time she submitted, for the record, a copy of a newspaper article (Opposition's Exhibit C) that she had written for The Lake Sentinel, dated June 20, 1993, stating the fact that she felt the raceplex would destroy her peace and quiet. She noted that she lives in Greater Groves Subdivision, which is located near the proposed raceplex.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, questioned Ms. Noblitt as to whether there was an organized homeowners' association for Greater Groves and whether same had registered with the Secretary of State's Office, to which Ms. Noblitt responded that the association was new, noting that they had only held one meeting, thus far. Ms. Bonifay questioned Ms. Noblitt regarding various other issues, at
which time it was noted that Ms. Noblitt had been a resident of Lake County for less than 6 months.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a short recess.
Ms. Anita Bloom, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board stating that she and her father were race car drivers who had attended and participated in races for many years. She discussed several incidents that she had witnessed while attending some of the races and stated that drugs and alcohol are a part of the race car driving scene.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, questioned Ms. Bloom as to how far she lived from the proposed raceplex, to which she responded that she lives in Greater Groves Subdivision, which is approximately 6 miles from the site.
Mr. John Kiely, President of the Greater Groves Homeowners' Association, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, a copy of an article from the January 24, 1993 edition of The Orlando Sentinel (Opposition's Exhibit D), which shows a map of subdivisions and proposed subdivisions in the area of the proposed raceplex, containing single and multi-family homes, consisting of a number in excess of 30,000 families. He stated that the growth in Lake County and south of Lake County is inevitable, noting that there is no way that it is going to be stopped. He stated that the Board has the opportunity to control the type of growth that there will be within the County, at which time he discussed some of the problems he anticipates with said growth. He discussed the response time that it is taking for the Sheriff's Department to respond to calls and how the additional influx of people to the County, as well as additional traffic which the proposed raceplex would generate, will further exasperate the problem. He requested
the Board to stop, look, and listen before considering the request before them.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Kiely as to how long he had been a resident of Greater Groves and which side of Hwy. 27 he lived on, to which he responded that he had lived in Greater Groves for one year, noting that it is a new development, and that he lives on the west side of Hwy. 27. She then questioned Mr. Kiely as to whether his homeowners' association had done any traffic analysis or traffic impact studies, or whether they had hired any consultants or attorneys, to which he responded that they had not done any studies, however, he had access to one that he would make available to her, if she desired. He noted, however, that they had hired an attorney (Mr. Ross).
Mr. Imre Szabo, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, reappeared before the Board stating that he was a medical doctor who had been in practice since 1952 and that he had belonged to many research societies, some of the most foremost in the world, at which time he listed, for the record, the various societies that he has been associated with. He again discussed the substances that are emitted into the air from the tires and the brake linings on the race cars, when the drivers slam on their brakes, and what health problems it can cause, not only for the present generation, but for future generations, as well, which he is very concerned about.
Ms. Charlotte Lehner, a resident of Howey-in-the-Hills and a member of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that, on March 18, 1993, the developers of Florida Raceplex met with the ECFRPC staff, as well as County staff and representatives from other groups, to go over the general concept of the project and to touch on some of the regional issues that will come up again, during a more intensive review later on, if the Board transmits to DCA the request before
them, for an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. She discussed criteria which the ECFRPC uses for assessing the impact, whether it be negative or positive, of DRIs which come before them.
Ms. Lehner stated that the only employment that will be generated from the raceplex will be those jobs associated with four to six major events per year and that it is a very short term limited opportunity for anything more than service type jobs and not an opportunity for an increase in the permanent employment situation in Lake County. She stated that she is in agreement with the arguments and concerns noted by the Orange County Planning Department. She discussed the issue of traffic that will be generated in the area of Hwy. 27, from vehicles entering and exiting the raceplex, and the impact that said traffic will have on Hwy. 27.
Ms. Lehner urged the Board to pay close attention to the letter they received from Ms. Linda Chapin, Chairman of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, noting that it is based on the input of the Orange County Planners and reflects Ms. Chapin's sensitivity toward regional concerns and issues. She also urged the Board to pay attention to Mr. Ross's comments, as well.
Mr. Egor Emery, representing the Lake County Conservation Council, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that the property in question is on the CARL list and that some day the State may purchase said property for preservation, since it contains several plant species and sand hills in their undisturbed state.
Mr. Emery stated that the Council does not support nor oppose the project in question, they just want to make sure that all the environmental concerns that were discussed will be covered by the DRI process. He stated that the Council supports the current Comprehensive Plan and they are concerned about amending the plan, for one project. He questioned whether the project meets the definition of "Employment Center" and whether it is close enough to
a population center to meet said definition. He submitted, for the record, a Land Use Map, dated 1990 (Opposition's Exhibit E) and an aerial map (Opposition's Exhibit F) indicating the area in question.
Mr. Bobby Butler, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned whether the raceplex facility could be used for flea markets, concerts, etc. during the time that races are not being held, to which Commr. Swartz responded that, if it should be designated as an "Employment Center", the decision as to what conditions may be placed on the actual use will come at a later date.
Mr. Bart Wilson, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that Ms. Bonifay had stated that there would be experts to testify about the noise level, however, no experts had testified, to his knowledge. He questioned whether the issue could be addressed at this time, to which Commr. Swartz responded that there was some general discussion about the issue earlier during the meeting, however, there had not been any expert testimony. Mr. Wilson stated that there are thousands of acres in the 100 year flood plain, in Brevard County, that would be suitable for the raceplex to be located and requested the Board to weigh the information they had received this date very carefully, before considering approval of the request.
Mr. John Amelkovich, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he felt the raceplex would have a negative impact on the area in question, which he discussed.
Ms. Lori Lohse, a local resident, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, reappeared before the Board and discussed the issue of access from the raceplex site and safety hazards that she felt it might create, as well as the fact that the principals of Florida Raceplex had indicated that the site in
question was the only site that they had looked at. She stated that she felt it might be in the interest of all involved if they checked out some other sites and that she felt Lake County was being deceived by thinking that all the money from the raceplex is going to go into Lake County, because a lot of it has the potential to go into Orange County.
Mr. Stuart Lohse, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he is currently building a home near the proposed site and feels that, if the planning is handled properly for that area, more people like him will come to Lake County and build, spending a lot of money, and utilizing local contractors. He stated that the area in question could be made into an area that one would be proud to live in and one that could improve South Lake County.
Mr. David Mazurek, a local resident, who had been sworn in earlier by the Deputy Clerk, reappeared before the Board and discussed the potential of a rise in the crime rate, if the raceplex is approved.
Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and gave some closing comments, noting the reason why the property in question was chosen for the raceplex facility and what effect it could have on the County, with respect to quality of life and employment. She stated that there has been no rush to beat the wire, as was alleged, and that she felt, if the Board waits to make a decision, that they will be making a mistake. She stated that she feels the request is timely and that she did not think Lake County needed Orange County to tell them what they can and cannot do with their Comprehensive Plan, or that the request before them does not meet the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. She requested the Board to approve the map amendment this date and to defer the text amendment and take it up as part of the second Comprehensive Plan amendment process that the County is moving into, at the present time.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, addressed the issue of whether the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan amendment was appropriate, at this point in time, noting that the 9J-11 Rule permits transmittal and that she had verified with DCA that transmittal at this time would not be counted as one of the County's twice a year amendment processes.
Commr. Bailey stated that he had looked at this issue very objectively and the thing that stands out the most to him is the economic impact that this project will have on the County. He stated that he felt some of the concerns noted this date will be addressed, as the project goes through the DRI process. He briefly discussed the issues of traffic and the noise level. He concurred with Ms. Bonifay's comments concerning the issue of Orange County telling Lake County what to do with their Comprehensive Plan and stated that he felt it was unfair to single out car racing as an area where drugs are a problem, as alluded to earlier. He stated that he felt the Board should approve the request and transmit it to DCA.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there are a lot of questions that are unanswered, however, he felt that the DRI process and the process that will bring the issue back to the Board will answer those questions.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board did not allow enough industrial land in the Comprehensive Plan and, if the County is not careful, it will become just a bedroom community to Orange County, which she does not feel is a sustainable community. She stated that the Board needs to look for diversification and that the County cannot always pick and choose just the type of project that they want at a particular time, because that project may not be there later. She stated that sometimes the Board has to make some tough decisions, when the opportunity arises. She stated that
she felt there was room for intergovernmental cooperation and that the Board needs to work toward that. She recommended that the Board submit the amendment to DCA.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was in favor of economic development wherever and whenever the County can get it, however, she was not going to vote for transmittal of the map amendment to DCA, because she feels that the Board needs to conduct a more intense intergovernmental coordination activity concerning same.
Commr. Swartz stated that he could not, in good conscience, recommend that the map amendment be submitted to DCA, until a more thorough review is made of many, many unanswered questions. He stated that the Board needs to make sure, if the site in question is where the raceplex is going to go, that it is the right place and that it works for more than just the owner of the land and those who propose to put it in. He stated that the Board owes it to those people who have invested, very often, their life savings in a home in an area where they now feel threatened by what is proposed for that area.
Further discussion occurred.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to transmit to DCA Land Use Plan Amendment No. 93/5/1-2, changing the "Rural" Land Use Designation to "Employment Center" on the Future Land Use Map.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board direct staff to incorporate the text amendment, changing the "Employment Center" policy in the Comprehensive Plan, and include same in the transmittal to DCA, in August.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 a.m.
________________________________
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/6-22-93/7/30/93/boardmin