A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DECEMBER 20, 1994

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 20, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Commissioners not present at the meeting: Catherine C. Hanson. Others present were: Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Pete Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

PRESENTATION

Commr. Gerber presented Mr. T. H. Poole with Resolution 1994-249, which was approved by the Board on December 6, 1994, acknowledging his retirement as the prime motivator for the Tri-City Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Mr. Poole addressed the Board and reflected upon his service over the years to Lake County.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

It was noted that Ms. Kaye Orr was not present to accept her certificate acknowledging her service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Code Enforcement Board from 1993-1994.

Ms. Suzanne K. Reynolds appeared before the Board, and Commr. Gerber presented her with a certificate acknowledging her service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Rails to Trails Task Force from 1993-1994.

Ms. Eloise Fisher appeared before the Board and commented on the dedication displayed by Ms. Reynolds over the years while she served on the Task Force and informed the Board that Ms. Reynolds had accepted another job position and was leaving for Detroit, Michigan.

Ms. Reynolds addressed the Board and extended her appreciation to all of the people in Lake County for allowing her to be a part of the success of Rails to Trails.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RESOLUTIONS/ASSESSMENTS/SOLID WASTE

Commr. Gerber announced the public hearing on the Notice of Intent for Muncipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs). At this time, the public hearing was opened to public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Notice of Intent Resolution 1994-260 to Use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments for Muncipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs) pending approval by the County Attorney's Office.

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Gerber discussed any changes or additions to the agenda. There being none, the Board continued with the scheduled agenda.

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 770 - Ralph & Ann Rodgers - Groveland Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and stated that there were no letters in opposition, or in favor, of the petition. He stated that staff found no reason to object to the request.

It was noted that the petitioner was present in the audience. No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 770 by Ralph and Ann Rodgers, to vacate roads, Groveland Farms, Sec. 30 and 31, Twp. 23, Rge. 25, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.



PETITION NO. 771 - William H. Gibb, Jr. - Clermont Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained the complexity of the closing. After further discussions with the City of Clermont, Mr. Stivender informed the Board that the City did not feel it had all concerns addressed and would like to have the request postponed. Mr. Stivender stated that he would like to have the opportunity to explain the petition to those present today, and to get direction from the Board. He explained that Jacks Lake Road was a County maintained road, and the 80 acres to the north had been annexed to the City, and a subdivision had been proposed on that site. As part of the proposal, the City and developer wanted to relocate Jacks Lake Road and vacate all rights-of-way. They also wanted to vacate the platted rights-of-way along the south side and the north section by Willow Lake, so that they could approve the plat to be recorded without showing the right-of-way across the area where there would be lots, with the understanding that Jacks Lake Road prescriptive rights would remain until the developer constructed a road through their subdivision, which would access the east side and connect back to Jacks Lake Road, with the road being of better quality. He stated that the County would not accept the agreement unless this was done. Mr. Stivender stated that the County could not put conditions on a road closing. Therefore, he felt that the City needed direction from the Board.

Commr. Good discussed the public access to the conservation area and lake and stated that he wanted the County, during the process of review, to make sure how much of the road on the Jack Lake side would be in the plat, and whether there would be any high dry lands in there, and to determine whether the conservation easement would actually touch up against the road itself. He stated that he wanted to maintain public access to the lake as much as possible.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Board could not give the City direction, if the Board agreed to a postponement. He stated that, if the Board was going to give any direction to any further discussions between the City and the property owner and the residents who live in the area, the Board needed to have a public hearing. He stated that, at a minimum, the Board should hold the public hearing and hear the discussion, and at the end of the discussion, the Board may choose any number of options.

Mr. Lanny Harker, Planning Director, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board and explained that the roadway was in the County, and the City wanted to make sure that there was another viable means of ingress-egress to the homes within the interior of the roadway before the road was changed. Mr. Harker stated that this would be a three phase project with almost 200 units. The first phase would install the new roadway, which would be out of the 100 year flood plain. He stated that the engineering data and information the City received on their improvement plans showed that the prescriptive right-of-way totally lies within the 100 year flood plain. He stated that this would be contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan, because it does not allow construction to encroach within a flood plain. He further stated that it would be a good trade off, with the City taking the roads and traffic out of the flood plain and putting it in another area, but it wanted to make sure that the residents had a means of ingress-egress.

Commr. Good stressed that, for years, there has been public access to the lake, and he wanted to make sure, no matter how this issue got resolved, the public maintained access to the lake, and that this would be his direction to staff.

Mr. Stivender explained that the County would request that the area being vacated be dedicated to a conservation easement.

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

Mr. Rick McCoy, Project Engineer, appeared before the Board and explained that the applicant was very far into the project. He discussed the issue of the 100 year flood plain and explained that everything would be dedicated back to conservation easements. Mr. McCoy discussed the retention areas, and the additional access areas. At this time, there was further discussion regarding the construction plans.

Mr. Sam Wheeler appeared before the Board and explained the location of his property. He stated that he was concerned that by giving up the road, he would be giving up his rights to lake access. He felt that the lake access would be restricted to those residents who owned property around the lake. This would close off access that had been allowed for over 50 years. He questioned the standards for the high water line, and the environmental impact that the community was going to put on it. Mr. Wheeler agreed that this issue should be tabled.

Mr. Adam Swanson appeared before the Board and explained the location of his property, in relation to the issue, and stated that vacating Jack Lake Road for the developer should not be done with government money. He stated that his house was approximately 12 feet from the plans for Jacks Lake Road, and he would not be able to pull his car out onto the road, or out of his driveway, because it was supposed to be developed as a five lane road. He stated that the road was going to be built closer to his house, which he was against, and that everything that was going to be done to the road was going to be paid for by the County, not the developers.

Mr. Stivender explained that the County was not constructing the proposed road, or paying for the construction of the road. The City had been discussing credits on impact fees, because part of this project was part of their priorities of impact fees within their benefit district.

Mr. Swanson stressed that the development would place his house 12 feet from the road. He stated that his neighbors would also be affected by the location of the road. Mr. Swanson discussed the road being proposed, and the need for it to accommodate emergency vehicles and their travel to the hospital.

Mr. Stivender reviewed the road plans with the Board and stated that staff was concerned about the traffic from Highway 50, and the need for an alternative route.

Mr. Swanson explained that he was not aware of any other plans to make other roads any larger, including Pit Road, in order to accommodate the existing traffic.

Mr. Bill Carrier appeared before the Board and stated that his property was located around the backside of the lake. He stated that he did not receive any notification of this meeting, but was informed by one of his neighbors. Mr. Carrier stated that the only access to his property was Jacks Lake Road. He felt that, if the people wanted to have the road, they should put it right through their property and keep it out of the neighborhood. He explained that he had purchased the property, because of its uniqueness and location, and he did not want to have to drive through a subdivision to get to his house. Mr. Carrier stated that, if the road had to be moved, it should not be moved any further than the 100 year water mark. He expressed his concern for another family who bought property next to him and whether they had been notified of the meeting. Mr. Carrier explained that he owned a big truck that he takes to his house on different occasions.

Ms. Virginia Caughell appeared before the Board stated that she lives on the lake. She explained that people walk on the clay road where they see all kinds of wildlife, and if the lake was closed to all others and was allowed only to be utilized by the lake front lot owners, the people who came to Florida would not be allowed to enjoy the beauty of Florida, because it was being wiped out by subdivisions. She stated that the Board would be closing off an area that has been enjoyed over 60 years by many people, and she objected to the proposal.

Commr. Gerber called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stivender stated that there are full construction plans, and St. Johns permits have been acquired for the design. He noted that the plat had not been recorded. Mr. Stivender stated that the Board had the option to approve the vacation; postpone the vacation; deny it without prejudice; or deny it.

Commr. Good addressed the fact that there were unresolved issues and stated that there were certainly opportunities where the residents concerns could be incorporated, and he was ready to make a motion.

Mr. Stivender explained the first phase of the project, which involved the extension of roads and stated that a road vacation would be to vacate plat lands only, not the prescriptive rights to the road. Therefore, Jacks Lake Road could remain as access until the new road was constructed, and at that time, it would come back to the Board to seek the prescriptive rights of that road.

Commr. Swartz felt that it was important that the Board gave some clear guidance today to the landowner and/or the developer, with regards to the issue. He stated that he had some serious problems with the proposal even though he supported the idea of creating additional arterials or collectors that would take some of the traffic off of some of the other roads, but he did not support it in such a way that it puts five lanes of traffic 12 feet from houses. Commr. Swartz stated that, from what he knew of the proposal right now, he would not vote to vacate all of the road. He stated that whether he would vote to vacate some of it would depend on the plan that comes back for the Board to review. Commr. Swartz stated that he would not vote for the vacation petition as it was before him today. He stated that he did not support, under any circumstance, putting five lanes of traffic along the small section of Jacks Lake Road, and that the developer, and the City, as they go back and look at this, needed to have some clear direction from the Board.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board had a problem with the public access, which needed to be reviewed. Therefore, he did not have a problem with postponing the request.

Commr. Good stated that it was important that, when there was a public hearing, the public be heard and their concerns be addressed. He stated that the following were points made during the discussion that needed to be addressed:

1) public access to the lake

2) access for Mr. Carrier for his step van to his existing properties not because of wanting to drive through a subdivision to get to his country property

3) the idea of access in terms of maybe a walking path for people who have enjoyed the aesthetic value of the lake

4) the concern for five lanes of traffic.



Commr. Good made a motion to postpone Road Vacation Petition No. 771, and to have it brought back with possible remediation from comments made by the public in the public hearing.

As a point of order, Commr. Swartz questioned whether the questions presented could be answered in terms of traffic impacts, within 30 days.

After some discussion with those present, it was confirmed that the information could be provided, and therefore, Commr. Swartz seconded the motion to postpone the request until January 24, 1995, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz encouraged staff to get involved, from more than a Public Services aspect, and for Environmental Services and the Planning Department to be involved in reviewing the road vacation. He also encouraged that, when the City and County representatives meet to discuss the request, they provide the opportunity for the residents to be made aware of and be a part of those meetings, to raise the questions that they may not have gotten on the record today. He then encouraged the developer to sit down with the residents to find out, other than in a public meeting, their real concerns. Commr. Swartz stated that the concerns would have to be addressed before he could support any type of vacation, but he would be inclined to see a road that runs along the lake in the future.

Commr. Gerber called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

Commr. Good invited staff to meet with him to look regionally at some of the transportation systems in south Lake County.

PETITION NO. 772 - H. L. and Ruth Wiggins - Umatilla Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stivender stated that the attorney for the petitioner originally asked to vacate an area that encroaches almost 21 feet into the right-of-way, which included not only the house, which was partly in the right-of-way, but also the yard. He explained that a road could not be built, or maintained, by the County in an area that restricted that much of the right-of-way, if a special assessment was proposed in the future. He did indicate, however, that consideration could be given to a 13 x 43 foot area, with the 13 feet being the apex of the corner of the house that intrudes the furthest into the right-of-way, which would be close to the length of the access. That would allow input lanes centered in the right-of-way, with two feet to spare.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, discussed the location of the home and explained that, when someone buys a piece of property, a survey would be required, but the Building Department does not require you to have a survey to put the footers in. Therefore, a house could be built in the wrong place.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing Bert and Ruth Wiggins, the owners of the property, appeared before the Board and stated that the home was constructed in 1974, and it was built in the right-of-way. The road was approximately 12 feet and runs through the center of the right-of-way. She explained that the house does not encroach at all into the road. Ms. Campione stated that the Wiggins discussed this issue primarily because of their age and health, and their concern that the cloud on their title would be inherited by their children. Therefore, they wanted her to research legal remedies to the situation. A vacation, or an easement, would be the only way to remove the cloud from their title short of actually demolishing the house. She explained that this situation was activated by a neighbor who continually backs into their yard. She explained that this situation was discussed with Mr. Stivender, as well as Chief Craig Haun, Fire and Emergency Services, who felt there would be no problem getting in an out of the noted area.

Mr. Russell Minx appeared before the Board to speak in opposition to the request. He stated that his property was located directly north of the property in question. He explained that the road had recently been wider than 12 feet, because he had filled in his side of the road, because when it rained, the applicant's driveway would flood into his yard. He opposed the vacation, because this would be right in front of his driveway, and it was the only way that he had access to his property. Mr. Minx explained that he had a conversion van, because he had an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) in his home. He addressed the issue of the applicants operating a commercial fruit business on their property. Mr. Minx explained the problems that existed with backing his 12 foot rowboat out of his property and noted that he also had a utility truck. He discussed the three sides of the applicants' property that have been encroached upon by additional construction. At this time, Mr. Minx submitted the Real Estate Notice, in the name of Herbert L. Wiggins, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit A for Mr. Minx. Mr. Minx addressed the petition that the neighbors signed and stated that he did not feel the residents knew what they were signing.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz requested that staff review the permitting policies of the County, in order to keep these types of issues from becoming a continuing problem for the County, and for staff to bring back recommendations. He questioned whether the Board could vacate on this issue, with a reverter, which would indicate that, if the home should ever be destroyed and had to be rebuilt, the right-of-way would revert to the County.

Mr. Hoban explained that a reverter could be done, if the appropriate document was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. If this request was approved, Mr. Hoban requested that the documents for the vacation not be recorded, until the reverter document was in the County Attorney's Office.

Ms. Campione explained that she would like to review the language further regarding the destruction of the home, because of the intensity of the situation.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the 37 feet was enough for this area and that he felt strongly that the vacation should be granted.

Commr. Good addressed the number of names on the petition, which was approximately ten, and which included all of those individuals in the neighborhood.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 772, by H. L. and Ruth Wiggins, to vacate E. Thirteenth St., Assembly Heights, Sec. 5, Twp. 18, Rge. 27, Umatilla area - Commissioner District 5, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 773 - Frederick & LuAnn Antonio - Umatilla Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board.

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

Mr. Wayne Reynolds appeared before the Board and explained the location of his property. He questioned the purpose of the vacation and stated that he utilizes the road that gives him access to State Road 46 through the backside of Camp Challenge. He explained that his amount of travel was reduced from 2 1/2 miles to 1/2 mile by utilizing this part of the road, which he has used for approximately five years.

Mr. Stivender explained that the road being used for access was the private driveway to Camp Challenge.

Mr. Fred Antonio, applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that the section of Duxberry being petitioned to be vacated was the northern terminus of the last 100 feet of Duxberry Avenue. He explained that the vacation would give him more site options to build on that particular property. He further explained that the prescriptive road that runs from Sandwich Place onto the property at Camp Challenge was a separate issue. If the portion of Duxberry was to be vacated, the prescriptive road would cross the very corner of the vacated portion of Duxberry.

Mr. Hoban explained that the issue regarding the prescriptive road would be related to the request, because a prescriptive road would not be a prescriptive road until a judge says it would be. Right now, part of the dirt path goes to private property, and part of it goes to the County road right-of-way. If the vacation was granted and nothing was done about the prescriptive road, the property owner would have every legal right to fence off the prescriptive road.

Mr. Jesse Shumen, Executive Director, Camp Challenge, appeared before the Board and stated that it was his understanding that this was a separate issue, the closing of Duxberry versus the closing of the existing road. He explained that Duxberry was non-existing even though it was platted. He discussed this issue with a few individuals and explained that, once Duxberry was deeded over, the Camp would give up the entire section to them. As far as the existence and use of the dirt road, he stated that it would be to the benefit of Camp Challenge to close the road, because it was a danger to the campers. Mr. Shumen explained that it would turn the road into a cul-de-sac and would close the road going down the middle of Camp Challenge's property. He discussed the wooded area and stated that this has provided an area for people to park and steal items from the Camp.

Mr. Dale Ballard appeared before the Board and stated that he lived on Sandwich Lane. He stated that his landlord, who was his neighbor, was 94 years old and has owned property there since 1953. In 1974, Camp Challenge tried to close the road, and his neighbor got deeded access to his property on Sand Lake Road. Mr. Ballard presented Mr. Stivender the legal document, which was then reviewed by Mr. Hoban, and it was determined that the document would protect Mr. Harmon's prescriptive rights.

Ms. Katrina Pierson appeared before the Board and explained that her property was located on the corner lot of Sandwich Place. She discussed how utilizing the road in question saved travel time for her and other individuals.

Mr. Antonio addressed the Board and stated that this was an emotionally charged issue with some history to it. He would like to keep the vacating and prescriptive right-of-way as separate issues.

Commr. Swartz felt that the vacation and prescriptive right-of-way were intertwined issues. He stated that the District Commissioner was not present today and questioned whether a 30 day postponement would be agreeable to him. It was noted that there would be no additional fees for the applicant.

The Chairman called for further comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board postponed Road Vacation Petition No. 773, by Frederick and LuAnn Antonio to vacate Duxbury Ave., Plat of Mt. Plymouth, Sec. 28, Twp. 19, Rge. 28, Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4, until January 24, 1995, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter.



PETITION NO. 774 - Robert I. Stokes - Altoona Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board.

Mr. Robert Stokes, applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that originally there were seven lots, with vacated roads in between the lots. The 100 foot portion was to access the lots. The lots were unified and now there was one lot.

Mr. Chuck Bernecker appeared before the Board and stated that he was a newcomer to the area, less than two years. He explained the location of his lots, as shown on the map. Mr. Bernecker stated that he lived at the dead end of the road, and there was very little access to his lake side lot. He stated that he got a lot of traffic in this area even though there was a traffic sign after you leave Highway 19 indicating that this was a dead end, but noted that it was not stated in those exact terms. Mr. Bernecker explained that, once a vehicle turned onto this road, it was committed and would have to search for a turnaround. He stated that the vacation might eliminate some of the traffic from coming to his property.

Mr. Stivender addressed the signage on the road and stated that he would place the appropriate signs in the area.

Mr. James Luznar appeared before the Board and explained that he was one of the original property owners that put the road in and dedicated it to the County. He stated that the road was put in for two reasons, to access the lots, which has now been closed into one parcel, and because the County required a turnaround on the road other than the one at the end. He stated that it may not need to be 100 feet, but it should still be maintained as a turnaround point. Mr. Luznar noted that he was aware of this problem, because he sold Mr. Bernecker his home.

Mr. Stivender discussed different alternatives the County might be able to do, in order to address the problems being presented.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like Mr. Stivender to first place the appropriate signage in this area before anything else was done. If the problem continued with the turnaround at the dead end area, he directed staff to look at some type of solution at the other end. Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel that closing the area would make the problem any worse.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 774, by Robert I. Stokes, to vacate road, Ravenswood Subdivision, Sec. 20, Twp. 17, Rge. 27, Altoona area - Commissioner District 5, as advertised.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

REZONINGS

The following staff and individuals were administered the oath by the Deputy Clerk: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation; Paul Bergmann, Director of Planning & Development; Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning & Development; Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management Division; Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II; Mr. Walter Wood, Water Resources Branch Supervisor; Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director of Information Services; Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group; and Mr. Tim Green, Land Planning Group.

PETITION #23-94-2 Harvey Erp Tracking #47-94-CP

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, informed the Board that a request had been received from the applicant for a 90 day postponement, based upon the County's appeal of the vested rights determination.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Case #23-94-2, Harvey D. Erp, Project Spruce Creek, until the next regular scheduled meeting, March 28, 1995, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter, as requested by the applicant.

PETITION #18-85C-3 Bella Vista, Harry K. Kim

Tracking #95-94-AMD/PUD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, informed the Board that the applicant had requested withdrawal of the request.

It was noted that the Board recognized those present for the hearing.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that no action was needed by the Board, due to a timely request being made by the applicant.

PETITION #44-94-1 R-1 to RP Joe Swiderski

Tracking No. 87-94-Z

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board. The applicant was proposing to provide for a planned residential community consisting of 38 lots. The original request encompassed and included a commercial portion along U.S. Highway 441, as well as the southern piece on the lake. After going through the process, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 9-0 for RP (Residential Professional). It was noted that the C-2 zoning was not a portion of the request. The applicant revised their legal description to leave that portion out of the request. There were no letters for or against the request. Mr. Stubbs noted that the applicant had provided him with a layout of the project.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Greg Beliveau and Mr. Tim Green were present from Land Planning Group. Mr. Richey stated that the piece of property in question would be served by central water and sewer from the City of Leesburg. He stated that he had submitted a Developer's Agreement which did two things, one, it provided that the units south of the old railroad right-of-way would be built at 2,000 square feet, and two, any common area for the rest of the lots would be located from the center of the property to the western property line, not on the property to the east. Mr. Richey stated that he would like to request that the Board add some additional conditions to the Developer's Agreement to include that the RP zoning would be utilized for residential only, and not be subject to the professional, because the applicant was anticipating building houses on the property, and Mr. Swiderski was anticipating living on this piece of property. Secondly, he wanted the Board to place, as a condition, the preliminary site plan, because it sets forth the maximum uses and some of the conditions that straight zoning does not automatically give the Board. At this time, Mr. Richey called Mr. Beliveau to testify as to his evaluation of the property.

Mr. Beliveau, who was previously sworn, addressed the Board and presented testimony on the property in question. Mr. Beliveau explained that there were six cottages located on the property all utilizing individual wells and septic tanks. He described the location of those cottages and stated that there was an existing dock that goes into Lake Harris, which was on the eastern side of the property and was usable. The property in question was going to be hooked up to the City of Leesburg utilizing their water and sewer system, which runs along U.S. Highway 441, and the dock would be relocated from the eastern property to the western property.

Mr. Richey presented the following documents, which were entered and marked as exhibits for the applicant:

Exhibit 1 - Site Plan

Exhibit 2 - Location Map

Exhibit 3 - Soil Map

Exhibit 4 - Flood Prone Areas Map

Exhibit 5 - Topography Map

Exhibit 6 - Land Use Map



Mr. Stubbs presented the following documents, which were entered and marked as exhibits for the County:



Exhibit 1 - Photograph - Buildings on Lake;

Exhibit 2 - Photograph - Buildings on Lake;

Exhibit 3 - Photograph - Looking from Lake to 441, site to left (vacant)

Exhibit 4 - (Composite - 6 pages) - Future Land Use, Land Use/Land Cover, Wetland Vegetation, Topography, Septic Tank Limitations, Hydrologic Soil Groups



Mr. Beliveau presented testimony while referring to Exhibit 1-6 presented in behalf of the applicant. He discussed the environmental assessment made on the property and stated that Mr. Swiderski does not have to worry about any endangered species. Mr. Beliveau discussed the wetlands that were detected from the assessment and explained that the site plan took all of this into consideration. At this time, he presented further details on the wetlands.

Mr. Richey explained that he put Exhibit 1 in the Developer's Agreement simply to show the schematic of what was being proposed and stated that this was what he wanted referenced in any of the approvals given by the Board.

Mr. Beliveau testified as to the zoning classifications surrounding the property in question. He continued to discuss the issues reflected in Exhibits 1-6 for the applicant, and referenced several policies in the Comprehensive Plan that allow residential development within this commercial corridor classification, as follows: 1-1.13 (5D), 1-1.15 (2), 1-3A.1, and 1-3.6.

Commr. Good addressed the proposed Resolution, Page 3, D. Floodplain, and questioned whether he could be assured that the water retention areas were going to help resolve flooding, since the Resolution indicated that the property was subject to the 100 year floodplain, Zone A.

Mr. Beliveau addressed Commr. Good's question and explained that the engineer would have to comply with all requirements for the ponds, and they would be reviewed by the County staff and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

Commr. Swartz stated that it was very important that the County recognized the flood prone areas, and to stay out of those areas where possible. He encouraged staff, in its review, to not put people in flood prone areas.

Mr. Richey explained that he had suggested putting the site plan into the Developer's Agreement for illustrative purposes only.

It was noted that Mr. Richey, along with the applicant, had discussed the request with the neighbors, and the conditions before the Board were developed.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Gerber explained that the request was in her district, and she had no problem with it.

Commr. Swartz addressed the notes on the conceptual plan, and Mr. Hoban clarified that he was not going to reference the conceptual plan in the Resolution.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), subject to final review of the Developer's Agreement by the County Attorney's Office.

Mr. Richey stated that the conditions he proposed were for residential only, and the conceptual plan was for the purpose of illustrating the maximum density that would be allowed on the site, and would be used in the Developer's Agreement, and not in the Resolution.

Mr. Hoban explained that he was going to include residential only in the Developer's Agreement and not reference the plan.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the motion included the Developer's Agreement subject to final review by the County Attorney.

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

PETITION #48-94-3 Cox Holding Corp. of Lake County

A to R-2 Tracking No. 91-94-Z

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs noted that the property was rural village at one time, but had since moved and been reduced in size to the south. Since the County had accepted the new minimum rural village and changed this to a rural designation, staff was denying the request based upon the fact that it did not meet the current Comprehensive Plan requirements for density purposes. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff had met with Mr. Harlow Middleton earlier to discuss the issue, and staff did not realize that the property would be moving south when the rural village was adjusted. He stated that Mr. Middleton had been addressing the issue with Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney. At this time, Mr. Stubbs presented the history of the site and stated that staff had two single-family homes on the 1.68 acre site showing up in the 1930s, and the third building was built in 1963. Mr. Stubbs stated that the intent was to put one more building on the property and create a lot split for the three existing homes.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the issue and explained that the applicant had a 1/2 acre lot adjacent to the 1.6 acres with three houses on it. He stated that he wanted to be able to cut out three houses and sell them separately. Currently they are legally existing non-conforming uses. If the applicant wanted to put a front porch, or an addition onto a house, he would have to get a variance from the Board of Adjustments to put expansion on a non-conforming legally existing use. A series of possibilities have been offered to Mr. Middleton. It was noted that the 1/2 acre adjacent to the property was zoned R-2.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, because of the change in the rural village, staff was recommending denial of the request. The request was sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which approved it 7-0 even though it did not meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements for density purposes.

Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Middleton had not requested a vested rights determination and staff did not go through the entire procedure for one. He stated that Mr. Middleton had a problem with the following: if the houses are burned down, he must rebuild them in one year; if he wanted to expand them and put a bedroom on one of the houses, he would have to get a variance. The County offered to do a County initiated variance to the legally existing non-conforming use section of the Code to allow expansions on the three houses. Mr. Middleton explained that this was an unacceptable proposal, because he had a fourth lot. Under the Lot of Record Ordinance, he would have to aggregate the fourth lot.

Mr. Hoban explained that the applicant requested to go through a lot split process, he spent $1,500.00 in surveying the property for the lot split, and then had the map moved on him.

Discussion occurred regarding the time period when the application was filed for the minor lot split, in terms of the status of the Land Use Plan Amendment. Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner was present and explained that he was made aware of the situation three days prior to the appeal time frame for the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Harlow Middleton appeared before the Board to discuss the request. He explained that he had no plans for the property at this time. Mr. Middleton discussed how he obtained the property and stated that, when the rural village was moved, the northern boundary was dropped down to the southern boundary of the property. He then explained the process that he took to get to this point in time, and the amount of money he has spent. Mr. Middleton requested that the Board table the request and allow him time to go through the staff and develop a small development amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, if the Board denies the request, nothing changes in the use. He suggested that, as a solution, he be allowed to pursue the small area land plan amendment. Mr. Middleton informed the Board that he acquired the property approximately 7-8 years ago.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz explained that the applicant always has the ability to ask for a land plan amendment. He stated that he did not feel the rezoning would be proper, because it would be a classification that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there are now, just as the County had before the Plan, legally created non-conforming uses. He felt that the applicant had two courses, either to determine whether or not there was vesting that allows something, and which would have to be reviewed on merits, or get a land plan amendment. He stated that he was reluctant to see the Board do the latter, because the County just had a land plan amendment in this area to relocate the rural village. He discussed the property in question being under common ownership and noted that the other properties around the Lake Jem area were not under common ownership. He explained that he would not mind denying the request without prejudice, but unless the Board was going to start looking at all of the lots throughout the County that have non-conforming legally created residences, he did not know if this would be justification to take such action.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he discussed the request with staff, and he did not feel there would be anyway to rezone the property. He hoped that the applicant would do something else with the property, but he would not be able to vote for the rezoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board was going to look at small plan amendments, he could not see looking just at these three lots. He did not feel there was any need for aggregation except maybe for the 1/2 acre of property.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-2 (Estate Residential), based on staff's finding of it being incompatible and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation.

PETITION #87B-85-2 DRI McIntosh Associates Inc.

The Plantation of Leesburg Tracking No. 96-94-AMD/PUD/DRI

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. He sated that this was a request to revise the project phasing, extend the buildout and down-zoning dates, reduce the number of residential units, and revise the Master Plan. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that, in the backup, there was documentation from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) indicating that they have no objection to the proposed change. He stated that the letter dated October 26, 1994, from J. Thomas Beck, Chief, Bureau of State Planning, indicated that DCA had found the request to be consistent with Section 380.06,(19)(e)3., F.S. Mr. Stubbs directed the Board's attention to Exhibit "B", Revised Phasing Program. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the request, and there were no letters for or against it. He noted that the original Ordinance, which was prepared in 1990, as well as the signed Vested Rights Certificate, was in the backup for review.

Discussion occurred regarding the letter dated October 26, 1994, from Mr. Beck, which indicated a substantial change. Mr. Stubbs clarified that this was the first correspondence received, when the applicant had a seven year extension plan. Mr. Stubbs noted that the plan had been reduced to five years, and further correspondence had been received from DCA.

It was clarified, for the record, that the revised Master Development Plan marked Exhibit B was presented to the Board for review, and was submitted to DCA, to staff, and to the Regional Planning Council and was made a part of the Resolution.

Mr. Don McIntosh, McIntosh Associates, Inc., consultants for The Plantation at Leesburg, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. McIntosh stated that he was before the Board with a recommendation for approval. He concluded that this request was not a substantial deviation, and it had received not only the Lake County's staff, but the Regional Planning Council, and DCA's recommendation for approval. At this time, he explained the revised plans for the project, and noted Ordinance 1990-10 in the backup material.

Commr. Gerber called for opposition to the request. It was noted that no one wished to speak before the Board.

Discussion occurred regarding the waste water treatment plant, and the requirement to go to public access standards to use it for watering the golf course.

Commr. Swartz discussed whether the developer would consider moving the commercial into the interior, so that it would become more of a community commercial, in order to be more accessible to the rest of the development. He requested that Mr. McIntosh take this suggestion back to the owners, and if they would like, the County would be glad to have staff meet with them. He explained that it may even prove to be financially better, in terms of the new Access Management Ordinance.

Mr. McIntosh stated that he would be happy to take the suggestion made by Commr. Swartz back to his client.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Good stated that he had no problem with revising, extending, or reducing these particular areas presented to the Board. He stated that the reduction in the residential units, and the incorporation of commercial space, would enhance the community nature of this particular project and help to integrate and incorporate that into the community, and it would reduce a lot of the traffic miles back and forth.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the Notice of Proposed Change to The Plantation at Leesburg Development of Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to Section 380.06 (19)(e)(3), Florida Statutes, to revise the project phasing, extend the buildout and down-zoning dates, reduce the number of residential units, and to revise the Master Plan.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz offered to meet with Mr. McIntosh and the developers to share some ideas, and if they were open to making some modifications, he felt that the Board would be willing to make it as easy a process to get through as possible.

Mr. McIntosh noted, for the record, that he would take this offer back to the applicant, H. Smith Richardson Family Trust.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, addressed the Board to discuss the proper interpretation of Lake County's Land Development Regulations for a proposed Seaplane Base by Mr. Oliver Kennedy on Lake Lucy. Mr. Stubbs explained that, when he received the notice, he immediately sent a letter to the District Director of Planning and Public Transportation objecting to the proposal, based upon the fact that the County does rezone those seaplane operations that are on, or adjacent to lakes and involve property. It was his understanding that the seaplane would be moved up onto land into a garage, or hanger, for the plane. Once the plane touches land, the County has jurisdiction, and a recommendation would be made for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Agriculture, if it was an agricultural application, or a CFD (Community Facilities District) zoning for the actual airport hanger site. The County has not, in the past, rezoned or attached, or done anything to lake front property. He stated that waters of the State are out of zoning local jurisdiction. Mr. Stubbs stated that he did meet with Mr. Kennedy, after he had sent the letter of objection to the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, represented the Development Regulation Office at the public hearing in Groveland that was held by DOT, which was more of an informational hearing. Mr. Richardson put DOT on notice that the Board would be hearing this issue today.

Mr. Jeff Richardson appeared before the Board and stated that the main objections proposed by the citizens dealt with basically four subjects, as follows: 1) the number of planes that Mr. Kennedy would permit to use the lake; 2) whether Mr. Kennedy would be the sole voice as far as granting or denying other pilots rights to land on the lake; 3) how big can the planes potentially be and the potential dangers to other boaters or users of the lake; and 4) property values as well as the orientation of the landing strip for the lake. Mr. Richardson explained that a private seaplane base has been proposed, for Mr. Kennedy's own use, to be based solely on the lake, and he would not be using it for any commercial uses. Mr. Kennedy did not elaborate as to where he would be maintaining his boat, but he was planning on anchoring the boat.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, clarified that this was not a zoning case, and the Board was simply giving staff an interpretation of the County's Land Development Regulations. Mr. Hoban stated that the interpretation would be, under Chapter 3, if someone simply lands in the lake and takes off from the lake and never once steps a foot on land, or gets near land, the County's regulations do not regulate him, and the issue would fall under DOT. If someone brings the plane on land, he maintains it on land, then the issue would fall under Chapter 3.

Mr. Stubbs stated that Mr. Kennedy has communicated to him that he would have maintenance performed on land, which would require rezoning to a CFD.

Commr. Swartz reviewed the definition of seaplane base, which was defined under airports and has classifications which require certain zoning. He noted that it appeared this proposal would need to go through the review process, and the Board needed to stay away from being in a public hearing on zoning.

Mr. Hoban stated that the County's position on the pending application for a sea base was based on the code complaint that was received. When Mr. Kennedy came to the County to pull a permit, after the fact, staff informed him that he needed to get a sea base permit from DOT. He now has to go through the zoning process, and from that point, the Board would consider the approval of a CFD, and if he gets the zoning, from that point the County would give some kind of approval to DOT that the Board was in agreement to issue a sea base permit at that time. Until such time, no recommendation would be sent to DOT for an approval of the sea base permit.

Commr. Swartz stressed that this was not the time to get into a public hearing, but noted that the public and the applicant would have the opportunity to be heard during the public hearing process when it was scheduled.

Mr. Hoban explained that anyone within 150 feet of the proposed rezoning would be notified, and any individuals beyond the 150 feet could give their name to Mr. Stubbs, so that they could be notified of the public hearing.

No action was needed by the Board on this issue.

COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY PROPERTY/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that, in November, 1994, his predecessor sent a letter to Mr. Leonard Phillips offering to purchase his property for $42,000.00, pursuant to an appraisal by Mr. Leon Strickland. A response was never received. On December 9, 1994, Mr. Reed sent Mr. Phillips a letter requesting a response. A letter was received from Mr. Leonard L. Phillips rejecting the offer, and no counter-offer was made. Mr. Reed directed the Board's attention to the Memorandum from Mr. Ron Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, briefly explaining the importance for the County to acquire the land.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not remember the Board directing the attorney to say anything about adverse condemnation, and that this type of action has never been taken in Lake County. He felt that the atmosphere of the letter sent to Mr. Phillips, by Mr. Reed, would stop any negotiation from this point.

Discussion occurred regarding the County having until September 1, 1994, to accept the first offer made by Mr. Phillips to sell the property to the County for $100,000. It was noted that there had been an appraisal in the amount of $42,500.

Commr. Swartz explained that the County had gone through an extensive process of creating a list of qualified individuals to do various surveying and engineering, but a list of appraisers had never been put together for the County.

Mr. Wahl stated that usually the County advertises for every acquisition and each one would be done depending upon qualification and price. It is a proposal process. It was noted that Mr. Leon Strickland submitted a proposal and presented an appraisal in the amount of $42,000.

Commr. Swartz suggested taking the same approach that the Lake County Water Authority uses when they have one or two appraisals done, which would be to ask a third appraiser to review those appraisals and recommend a course of action. He stated that it would be worth while to have a second opinion, of not only the appraisals, but the recommended course of action from someone who has been involved in appraisals, and in condemnations. Commr. Swartz clarified that he was not recommending another appraisal, but was recommending an evaluation of the appraisals, and an independent recommendation to the Board.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and discussed the process taken by the Board in 1986 when the County was building a jail, at which time the Board authorized the County Attorney to negotiate a price at a certain higher percentage than the appraised value, in lieu of condemnation. This process achieved the purchase of several properties.

Mr. Ron Phillips, Executive Vice-President, Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation, and lead negotiator for the County on this issue, appeared before the Board to address some inconsistencies, as well as misinformation, that he felt the Interim County Attorney had provided to the Board. Mr. Phillips stated that there had been negotiation conducted with the former County Attorney, since the November 16, 1994 letter. He explained that negotiations were done between himself and the County Attorney, and on several occasions he had the opportunity to speak with the County Manager, as well as individuals from Planning and Zoning, and Waste and Disposal Services for the County. Mr. Phillips explained that Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation has owned the property in question for several years, and the Corporation has been approached by the County numerous times on the purchase of the property. Mr. Phillips stressed that, each time the Corporation was approached, it was amenable to sell the property. He further stressed that the Corporation has never rejected the County's offer to purchase the property. At this time, Mr. Phillips reviewed the history of events that have taken place since 1988 regarding the communication between Lake County and Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation. Mr. Phillips noted that the County sent a letter in November, 1994, indicating an amount of $42,000. Mr. Phillips referred to the Memorandum dated December 7, 1994, from Mr. Ron Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management, which established a new price for the property, in the amount of $52,500. He then referred to the letter dated December 9, 1994, from Mr. Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney, which indicated a need for a response to the offer of $42,000 by the close of business on December 15, 1994, or he would seek authorization from the Board to proceed promptly to adverse condemnation. Mr. Phillips noted that the Corporation was never notified of the $52,500 appraisal. He stated that the Corporation has dealt with the County in extremely good faith, it would continue to negotiate, but it was prepared to go to condemnation, if that was the choice of the County.

Mr. Roche appeared before the Board to discuss his Memorandum dated December 7, 1994. He explained that the new appraisal was due to a request by the County Attorney's Office to respond to Mr. Strickland's appraisal.

Mr. Wahl noted that there has been no road vacation, in regards to the easement on the west side of the subject property.

Commr. Swartz referred to the letter dated December 13, 1994, from Mr. Leonard L. Phillips, which indicated that the property was of greater value, and the offer of $42,000 was not acceptable. He suggested that the Board ask another independent appraiser, not to do a new appraisal, but to evaluate the two appraisals that have been done and make a recommendation to the Board.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the suggestion made by Commr. Swartz meant spending more of the taxpayers' money and was being suggested because of the letter sent to Mr. Phillips by Mr. Reed, and he felt that the negotiation ended when Mr. Phillips received that letter. Commr. Cadwell stated that an alternative would be to write a letter to Mr. Phillips apologizing for the letter dated December 9, 1994, and asking him to make a counter-offer and give him a date to respond, which was exactly what he had interpreted as the previous direction of the Board.

Commr. Swartz stated that the other alternative would be to ask Mr. Strickland to give the Board his recommendation as well.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to write a letter to continue with the negotiations, and to solicit further counter proposals from Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was uncomfortable with this concept of negotiation without some basis for negotiating. He suggested using the two appraisals as the basis for the negotiating.

Mr. Reed volunteered to write a letter of apology to Mr. Phillips, in regards to the letter he sent to him on December 9, 1994, and to ask him for a written response to the County's offer to buy his property for $42,000.

Commr. Gerber noted that the motion on the floor stands.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, if a counter-offer was made, and the issue was placed back on the agenda, the Board invite Mr. Strickland to attend the meeting to discuss what action to take, as a result of either of the counter-offers.

Mr. Phillips addressed the Board and explained that the Corporation has been in the position where it would like to have the close of this matter within this calendar year, for tax purposes upon the Corporation. The December 9, 1994 letter clearly asked for a response to the offer by the County, which the County received on December 13, 1994. Mr. Phillips stated that the Corporation was willing to negotiate a counter-offer, but that a response was made to the County's offer.

Commr. Good clarified that his motion was directing the County Attorney to write a letter to Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation soliciting a counter-offer based on the increased proposal. After clarification of the response made by the Corporation, Commr. Good stated that his motion would stand as it was previously stated by him.

Discussion occurred regarding the time frame involved with the negotiations on the property. It was noted that Mr. Phillips indicated that it would be possible to receive a response to the County's counter-offer by the end of the week.

Commr. Swartz suggested that a letter be drafted during the recess of the Board, and it be delivered and placed in Mr. Phillips hands today, in hopes of getting a response by Friday, the end of this week.

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

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:15 p.m.

TIMES CERTAIN - WORKSHOP

STATE AGENCIES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the Board needed to decide whether it wished to continue with the court case DCA vs. Lake County for a Declaratory Judgment that the Board authorized the County Attorney's Office to file earlier this year. The issue on the septic tanks relate to some ongoing discussion that occurred between the County and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) over the last couple of years. The County staff's concern related to adding some language with the intent to preclude any claim by any property owner of a "taking" of property, because they were not able to qualify for a septic tank. He noted that staff had met with DCA on more than one occasion. A question had arisen as to whether or not DCA, as a result of the ELMS III Legislation, had the authority to require of the County language more restrictive than that which was provided in Chapter 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code, which was administered by the Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Mr. Wahl stated that this was the question before the court. He noted that this issue had been continued by the Board, and a hearing had been scheduled for January 17, 1995.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, addressed the Board and noted that the ELMS III Legislation took effect on July 1, 1993.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Board would be challenging DCA on an Act that took effect after the language in the County's Comprehensive Plan was agreed upon, and a Settlement Agreement was entered.

Mr. Knight stated that there was still a finding of non-compliance, with the former County Attorney being of the opinion that it was still under a negotiation phasing, which was adopted and found not in compliance. He noted that the 13-20 Rule was still out of compliance, and there was never a Statement of Intent issued that found the County's Comprehensive Plan in compliance.

Mr. Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney, noted that it was October 18, 1993, when an accumulative Notice of Intent was issued, and DCA favored the entire document despite the fact that the County had adopted it in March.

Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Planning Manager, Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (GSACSC), and Mr. John Baker, DCA, was present to discuss the issues presented.

Ms. Jetton stated that DCA would be willing to drop the oversize and dual septic tank requirements. She stated that DCA would ask that the County establish a minimum of one acre for a septic tank for lots that were created after the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan. It would also like the County to continue on the track of March 1995 for the septic tank inspection and repair program, and that the County establish a 75 foot setback from wetlands, as well as from mean high water, and any lots that were created prior to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan that could not meet that setback would be eligible for an Administrative Adjustment. Ms. Jetton stated that there had been some dialogue between DCA and the County about coming up with a list of lots that would be eligible, and DCA understands that would be very labor intensive to put that together. She stated that DCA would be willing to accept a list of the approved subdivisions and PUDs, and then anything other than that, such as lots splits that have occurred over time would apply for an Administrative Adjustment, if they could not meet the 75 foot setback. Someone would have to be delegated the responsibility of giving that adjustment, and they would not have to go before the Board of Adjustment to get a variance, because it would very timely and expensive to the property owner, but someone, the County Manager, or a designee, would be responsible for issuing that adjustment, and the drain field would be placed at the most landward extent of the lot.

Mr. Wahl explained that the listing being suggested by DCA would not present the County with any kind of problem. The other two issues that are outstanding would be the inspection program, with staff's position being that a septic tank would be a subsurface system. He stated that staff would not have an objection requiring an inspection of mounted systems, but the problem with a zero horizon subsurface system would be having no effective way to inspect a tank. The second issue had to do with the 75 foot setback and DCA's request that the County setup a variance procedure. The staff had recommended that the County use the Septic Tank Variance Board that already exists in the State of Florida, because in many instances where someone found themselves in need of a County variance, they would also, because of 10 D-6 regulations, have to get a variance under HRS as well. The County was suggesting that DCA incorporate that as part of the HRS procedure.

Discussion occurred regarding Chapter 10 D-6, which does not reference a setback for wetlands.

Mr. Russ Melling, County Public Health Unit (CPHU), appeared before the Board and explained the procedures currently being used for inspecting tanks.

Ms. Jetton explained that DCA would be willing to wait until March, 1995, to put together an inspection and repair and pump out program. She was aware that Mr. Melling had been tracking the septic tanks in the Green Swamp.

Mr. Melling explained the procedures being used for notifying individuals who would be contacting a licensed certified septic tank pumper.

Ms. Jetton stated that, if the proper documentation was not submitted showing that an individual had the inspection pump out, he could be referred to Code Enforcement.

It was noted that the issues discussed would meet the requirements of the inspection program that would need to be developed by March, 1995, if they were enacted into Code.

Mr. Melling questioned what authority did his department have to go onto the property when the system was not fit.

Ms. Jetton discussed the possibility of the County adopting an ordinance to that effect.

It was noted that Mr. Melling indicated that his agency would be willing to accept some responsibility under the ordinance for review, if the procedure was not performed, it would become a Code Enforcement issue.

Clarification was made regarding the need for a State variance versus the need for a County variance, with it being determined that these processes would be dual.

Discussion occurred regarding who would be identifying the jurisdictional wetland line and making the determination for the placement of the septic tank on a lot of record with the necessary setback. It was noted that it would be the responsibility of the applicant to have someone make that determination.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and stated that currently a wetlands affidavit was required to insure no disruption of the wetlands, which could be taken and used in conjunction with a Geographic Information System (GIS).

Mr. Will Davis, Lake County Water Authority, was present and explained that the process addressed above by Mr. Barker was the same as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100 year flood plain process.

Ms. Jetton stated that the Soil Conservation Service would provide some assistance in determining wetland soils according to the new wetland Statute.

Commr. Swartz encouraged staff to step forward if there were any problems with what had been presented including the concept of providing a list; the inspection program, as outlined, that ccould be made workable through cooperation with CPHU and Mr. Russ; and a duel track variance either through the State system, or a County Administrative system.

Mr. Hoban addressed concerns evolving around a particular property owner in the Green Swamp who was facing a "taking" situation, if the County did not issue a building permit.

Ms. Jetton explained that a house had already been permitted on Firemans Canal, and if the property owner addressed by Mr. Hoban came in and applied for a permit, DCA would not appeal his permit.

Mr. John Baker, DCA, explained that DCA would not have a problem working with the County to develop language that would prevent the "taking" issue during the variance process.

The issue of allowing for clustering in a PUD in a transition district down to a 1/2 acre was noted to be acceptable by DCA, but not for the rest of the County.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to instruct staff to develop a Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the major points of the discussion to include the resolution of the problem with the inspection care program; developing a list of subdivisions and PUDs in the Green Swamp area; one acre minimum lots; in-house administrative hearing variance procedure for wetland setbacks; and any other salient points in the discussion.

Under discussion, the Board clarified that, in exchange for those issues stated in the motion, DCA would be dropping the oversize tank requirement, and the listing of every lot of record in the Green Swamp area.

Commr. Swartz explained that the motion included consistency with the discussion and clarification of issues made with those individuals present.

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

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to withdraw the Declaratory Judgment Court Case, DCA v. Lake County.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell explained that he did not agree with the motion, because he felt that ELMS III was clear, and DCA did not have the right to take this process. He would have liked to have seen the County take this issue through the necessary process to find that out, but since that was not the direction of the Board, he was glad that the Board was moving forward with what it was doing.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in the interim of developing the amendment, the Board would begin to try and implement what it could in terms of the discussion today.

It was noted that, as the Board tried to review the cases in the interim, based on the understanding made between the County and DCA, no appeal would be made by DCA on these cases.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no".



ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, E9-1-1, appeared before the Board to discuss the request for approval of the contract between Lake County and Mr. Jimmy Lin for the re-write, installation, and implementation of new E9-1-1 software. Mr. Thorburn explained why a sole source was necessary in this case, which included the fact that Mr. Lin worked for the County for a number of years, and he worked for four years on the 9-1-1 project. He explained that it took the initial sub-contractor by GTECC 18 months to write the original source code. The County's proposal with Mr. Lin indicates that it would be done before September 30, 1995. The County has been put on notice, by its computer main frame manufacturer, Sequent Computer Systems Inc., that it will not support the County's computer. He explained, in further detail, the urgency of this issue, and noted that, if the County did not treat this as a sole source provider, the estimated cost would be $250,000-500,000, including 3-4 months of his time to train whoever would be chosen by the Board.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff had inquired about software that exists for 9-1-1 systems with any software vendors.

Mr. Thorburn explained that, for the system chosen for Lake County, both Manatee and Sarasota Counties are the only two counties in Florida using a similar system. He stated that, for an operative 9-1-1 system with data base management software, to the best of his knowledge, there was no software available anywhere. The only other software that runs this type of system is the software that is being used on main frames just as Lake County.

Discussion occurred regarding the proposed Custom Software Development Agreement between Lake County and Mr. Jimmy Lin.

Commr. Swartz expressed his concern with item 16. Warranties on Page 5 of the Agreement dealing with a sole source contract.

Mr. Thorburn noted that the contract before the Board was prepared by Mr. Lin and his attorney, and he and Mr. Gaylord met with them to discuss it.

Commr. Swartz felt that the contract put all of the costs on the County and removed from the developer of the software, to a very great extent, any responsibility. He would rather see the County find out that there are no software programs that would work on the County's type of platform that the County was contemplating for the future.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he met with Mr. Thorburn and discussed his concerns, and he was basing his opinion on the leadership shown by Mr. Thorburn, and on his professional opinion that there was no one else out there that can provide what the County needs. He noted that the County paid $141,000 in 1988, and $100,000 was being requested for 1994, which would be a good deal and would take care of the time constraints involved with the issue.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to approve the contract between Lake County and Mr. Jimmy Lin for the re-write, installation, and implementation of new E9-1-1 software.

Commr. Good expressed concerns that he had regarding this issue and questioned whether an additional week or two would make a difference, so that more research could be done.

Commr. Gerber called for a second to the motion. The motion failed for the lack of a second.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to postpone action on the request, until January 3, 1995, with Mr. Thorburn bringing to the Board any correspondence information he may have available and checking for last minute upgrades on other systems that might work with the PC system.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell noted that Mr. Thorburn had brought to the Board the best proposal based on his professional opinion.

Mr. Thorburn explained that he would write letters to marketing staff at Southern Bell, GTE, Sprint United Telephone, and to the Division of Communications, in order to provide additional information to the Board.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no".

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, requested that Tabs 14 and 15 be pulled for discussion.

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

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development

Approval to accept a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from Mr. Harry Bynum, and Mr. and Mrs. Louis Haubner, Jr. for the creation of six lots in Agricultural Zoning on an easement off of East Second Street (4-8898-5) in Commission District 4.



Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development



Request for acceptance and execution of an Agreement Between the Board of County Commissioners and Manoochehr Motamedi for a Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a travel trailer on property located on 30309 Painciana St., Eustis, while the conventional home is being built - Commissioner District 4.



Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development



Request for acceptance and execution of an Agreement Between the Board of County Commissioners and Carl Davidson for a Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a travel trailer on property located on Gopher Road while the conventional home is being built - Commissioner District 2.



Road Vacations



Approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 775 by Raymond and Bonnie Peterson to vacate drainage and/or utility easement, Orange Blossom Gardens, Unit 3.1B, Sec. 6, Twp. 18, Rge. 24, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5.



Road Vacations



Approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 776 by Tommie and Susan Powers to vacate road, East Umatilla Sub., Sec. 8, Twp. 18, Rge. 27, Umatilla area - Commissioner District 5.



Road Vacations



Approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 777 by David Buckles to vacate drainage and utility easement, Madison Park, Sec. 13, Twp. 23, Rge. 25, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2.





ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PURCHASING

Ms. Kelly Soucy, Purchasing Manager, appeared before the Board to discuss the request to award Bid #B-4-5-03, Computer Equipment, and the issuance of Purchase Orders within budgeted funds, and to answer questions of the Board. Ms. Soucy explained the reasons for the recommendation made by the Computer Committee to accept New Age's bid as being the low, most responsive bidder that met the bid specifications.

Commr. Swartz requested that, when going through the next budget cycle, staff look at a less expensive printer for those uses that do not need a heavy duty printer.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to accept New Age's bid as being the low, most responsive bidder that met the bid specifications, not to exceed $75,000, and to award Bid #B-4-5-03, Computer Equipment to New Age and issue Purchase Orders within budgeted funds.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SOLID WASTE/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

Mr. Ron Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, appeared before the Board to explain the request to amend the contract with Industrial Water Service, Inc. Mr. Roche informed the Board that he would be back before it with an economic approach to the leachate situation, which would include a complete presentation about leachate and what can be done with it.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board authorized the amendment of the contract with Industrial Water Service, Inc.; authorized the Chairman to sign said amendment, which will be active through September 30, 1995; and authorized to encumber and expend funds in the approximate amount of $175,000, and to perform any needed budget transfers, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.

The motion was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Good voted "no".

Commr. Good explained that this was a large amount of money to be spent on an avoidable problem. He felt that, if the County had looked at the leachate problem earlier, it could have been avoided. Commr. Good stated that he hoped in the future the County would not have to contend with these kinds of volumes of leachate. Commr. Good stated that, with the computer technology, the County could thoroughly analyze a situation, so that it does not end up with these types of expenditures.

Mr. Roche addressed the Notice of Intent for MSBUs and stated that this was the first year that the County had done a composite in the Intent Resolution, and the County saves $900 per MSBU by doing a composite.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff find a way to address the cost, in the notice that is sent to individuals.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Committee consisting of Mark Knight, Don Roof, Kelly Soucy, Norma Showley, and Bobbie Denlinger to review proposals for surveying for the CDBG and establishing a short list and recommending a surveyor for selection by the BCC.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Commr. Cadwell addressed the statement of policy concerning application of the Timeliness Requirements of Policy 1-1A.1 (Suburban) to PUDs and PMUDs and stated that he talked to Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, and because there were additional concerns being expressed about this issue, and Commr. Hanson was not present for the discussion, he requested that the issue be postponed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the above issue until January 3, 1995.

COUNTY MANAGER

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board of a letter received from the US Department of Justice, which was indicating that "your jurisdiction has been authorized to hire 3 officers under the provisions contained in this letter and the COPS AHEAD Application Kit, which has been sent to your jurisdiction by mail." Mr. Wahl noted the footnote in the letter that indicated the following: "This authorization does not constitute a final commitment to provide funds for officers hired in response to this letter." Mr. Wahl stated that he would suggest to Sheriff George Knupp that the County go ahead and submit the application, but the County does not use their authorization to hire deputies that are requested.

No action was taken by the Board.

LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION/MEETINGS

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that information had been received from Representative Stan Bainter's Office that the Legislative Delegation would be meeting on December 29, 1994, with Lake County being scheduled for 1:30 p.m. He talked to the Chairman about the presentation, and a package has been forwarded to the Legislative Delegation, as the Board directed last week. The meeting would be held at the Paul Williams Center, Lake Sumter Community College.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that a request had been received from the Deputy Commander of the Florida Chapter of Submariners to have a commemoration ceremony on January 5, 1995, at 11 a.m., at the main flag pole in front of the Administration Building. This issue had been discussed with Commr. Gerber and staff was moving forward with the request.

No action was needed by the Board.

COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY PROPERTY/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Commr. Good requested that the Board readdress the discussion it had earlier on the Phillips land acquisition. He stated that the Interim County Attorney had additional information for the Board.

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, reported to the Board that a counter-offer had been made by Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation, and Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, would present the offer in behalf of Mr. Phillips.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that had discussions with Mr. Leonard Phillips and Mr. Ron Phillips regarding the acquisition of the property in Lady Lake. He explained that the proposal talked about may or may not be what the value of the property would be, because his clients felt it was worth far more than the proposal, but in looking at the tax situation that his clients face, and in looking at the ability to resolve this issue without any litigation, a price of $62,500.00 net to Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation has been courter-offered, with an understanding that this proposal would be required to close in this calendar year. He suggested that $62,500.00 net to his client would be reasonable to resolve an issue that has been going on since 1983. Mr. Richey noted that he received a hand delivered letter dated December 20, 1994, from Mr. Reed, which expressed his apology for any prior letters, which led to misunderstandings.

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, clarified that it was his understanding that the claims asserted on behalf of the nursery against the County would also be withdrawn, or waived, in the proposed settlement.

Mr. Richey acknowledged that his client would waive all action, and it would be a total resolution to any outstanding claims, in regards to the identified piece of property in Lady Lake.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to accept the counter-offer of $62,500 net to Green Thumb Garden Center Corporation.

Under discussion, Mr. Ron Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, explained the position of the easement, in relation to the landfill and property being acquired by the County.

Commr. Swartz clarified that all other outstanding issues, with regard to the property and the landfill adjacent to it are also worth the value of the property. He understood that there were two appraisals, and that the County would be paying $10,000 more than one appraisal, but it was doing so with the understanding that the County would be relieved of other outstanding issues, and the County stands to benefit approximately a $500,000 savings to the landfill closure.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the motion and the second were contingent on the dropping of all other claims to the property, and for staff to proceed to close the deal as necessary to get it done within the time specified

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

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.



RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\12-20-94\1-24-95