The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 24, 1995, 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; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Pete Wahl, County Manager; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Gerber gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
AGENDA UPDATE
The Chairman questioned whether there were any revisions to the agenda before the Board this date.
Commr. Hanson noted that she would be bringing a Resolution honoring the 20th anniversary of the Mt. Dora Arts Festival before the Board, for approval, under her Commissioner's Business.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, requested that Item No. I. A. 2., under the County Manager's Departmental Business, on Addendum No. 1, a request for approval of the First Amendment to Line of Credit Agreement with First Union National Bank of Florida, for Draw Number 2, and approval of the authorizing Resolution, be moved up to the first item of business this date, due to an urgency in obtaining needed signatures on the Agreement and Resolution.
Commr. Cadwell noted that he would be making an appointment to the Solid Waste Study Committee, under his Commissioner's Business.
It was the consensus of the Board to honor said changes.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the First Amendment to Line of Credit Agreement with First Union National Bank of Florida for $8 million, for Draw Number 2, for the acquisition and construction of water and sewer capital improvements at Lake County Central Park, and the authorizing Resolution and authorized proper signatures on same.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Audits/Budgets/Fire and Emergency Services
Office of Finance, Audit and Budget
Request from the Office of Finance, Audit and Budget for approval of the following:
A. For Discussion:
Fund: County Fire Control Fund
Department: Fire & Emergency Services
From: Machinery & Equipment $2,000
To: Promotional Activities $2,000
Justification: Transfer pending Board approval to expend
County funds for supplies, including food items for public
events sponsored for public awareness on fire safety,
education, and volunteer recruitment.
B. For Information:
In accordance with Board direction, items, as attached to the Clerk's Consent Agenda, approved by the County Manager, based on a policy adopted by the Board on
March 1, 1993, increasing the transfer limit of the County Manager from $10,000 to $25,000.
Recommendation: Approve
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 771 - WILLIAM H. GIBB, JR. - CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it had been postponed from the Board Meeting of December 27, 1994. He stated that it was a request for approval to vacate roads, Lake Highlands Company, in Clermont, and that it involved an 80 acre tract of land north of Jack's Lake and east of Grand Highway. He stated that he had met with representatives from the City of Clermont several weeks ago and they discussed what they had planned for said area and would now like to discuss the matter with the Board and answer any questions there might be regarding same.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.
Mr. Rick McCoy, Engineer, McCoy & Associates, Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that he had met with Mr. Stivender and Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, regarding the property in question. He stated that he felt they had a good project and noted that the only modification made to the project was the reducing of the five lane intersection (which seemed to be an issue) down to four lanes. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Ms. Virginia Caughell, a resident of Clermont who lives on Jack's Lake, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request. She noted concerns she had about the endangerment to animals in the area, the residents of the area losing access to Jack's Lake, and the vacating of a clay road which accesses the lake. She submitted photos (13) that she had taken of the lake and surrounding properties, for the Board's perusal, and showed a video that she had taken of the traffic situation at the intersection of Grand Highway and Jack's Lake Road, indicating the danger of said intersection. She then answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Mark Swanson, a resident of Clermont who lives in the vicinity of Jack's Lake, appeared before the Board stating that he was not opposed to the proposed development, however, feels that little or no consideration has been given to minimize the impact of the development to existing area residents. He stated his main concern is that the plans of the project show the road in question will be built so close to his house that he will not be able to park a car in his driveway. He submitted a letter, which he read into the Minutes, stating concerns he has about the project. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Claude Smoak, a former County Commissioner and resident of Clermont who lives in the vicinity of Jack's Lake, appeared before the Board stating that he owns property to the north of Willow Lake (a lake located north of Jack's Lake) and that he had no objection to the road in question being closed, provided there is a provision for him to access his property, as the road in question is the only access he presently has to same. He asked the Board to request a commitment from the owner of the land in question that he not be landlocked, should the request be approved. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
Mr. Bill Carrier, a resident of Clermont, who lives on the backside of Jack's Lake, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request. He discussed the dangerous situation that presently exists at the intersection of Grand Highway and Jack's Lake Road and the fact that he feels the road needs to be moved further up Grand Highway, by approximately 200 to 400 feet. He noted a concern he has about the elimination of wildlife in the area and that he feels the proposed development will take away from the pristine beauty of the lake.
Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that he was not present representing the developer of the proposed project, nor the residents in the vicinity of Jack's Lake. He stated that he was present representing the City of Clermont's interest in what is occurring in the area in question. He answered questions from the Board regarding this request, at which time he stated that the road project at the intersection of Grand Highway and Jack's Lake Road has been on the City's drawing board of long-range plans for several years, probably back as far as the mid to late 1980s. He stated that the City of Clermont is trying to connect the new part of Clermont to the old part, therefore, this link is very important to them.
Mr. Saunders stated that he understood there were two issues that were paramount at the last Board Meeting in which this matter was discussed, which he was not able to attend, being (1) the intersection of Grand Highway and Jack's Lake Road and (2) the extension of the clay road access around Jack's Lake. He stated that the City of Clermont had planned to do both projects long before the developer of the project in question came to town. He stated that, if the Board decided to deny the road vacation before them this date, it would not change the City's plans. It would, however, cause the City to go back to the drawing board and try to acquire the needed right-of-way in front of the intersection, to complete the job. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
Mr. Stivender, Director, Public Services, reappeared before the Board and answered further questions regarding this request. He stated that the County has contemplated this road vacation project as an impact fee project for the last three to four years and that staff has been working toward that goal for some time with the City of Clermont.
Mr. Ken Norquist, City Councilman, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that the Clermont City Council had looked at the project in question and was unanimously in support of it. He noted, however, that some changes had been made to the original plans, therefore, the City Council would be revisiting the issue.
Ms. Virginia Caughell reappeared before the Board and readdressed the issue of the intersection of Grand Highway and Jack's Lake Road being a dangerous intersection and she felt the City of Clermont would have to do a lot of work on it to make it a safe one.
It was noted that said intersection was one of the intersections that has been planned for signalization in the near future.
The Board requested staff to investigate the speed limits on Grand Highway and do some preliminary traffic counts, at which time it was noted that the City of Clermont does traffic counts, through their Planning Department, on a routine basis.
Mr. Shannon Elswick, Administrator, South Lake Memorial Hospital, Clermont, appeared before the Board stating concerns that the hospital has about the traffic situation on Grand Highway and the fact that they feel the proposed project would improve the situation. He stated that they will work with the City of Clermont and the residents surrounding the proposed project in any way they can to make the situation a better one.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board should approve the vacation, for reasons which he gave, however, wanted to make sure that the motion contained language that would protect Mr. Smoak's property to the west of the property in question.
Commr. Swartz noted that access will not be denied to Mr. Smoak, or anybody else, by action of the Board, until alternate access is in the ground and has been recognized by the County and maintenance of the existing road right-of-way takes place. He stated that, if the Board accepts what is being proposed, rather than look to find ways to modify it, the Board will be taking the problems of the past and moving them to another area and he felt this was the type of thing that the Board should not be doing. He stated that there are two issues involving this request, being (1) the transportation issue and whether or not the County can accomplish the goals that the City of Clermont has and (2) losing public access around Jack's Lake, once lots are purchased and homes are built.
Commr. Swartz stated that he could not support a motion to vacate, if it leaves the status quo of what he sees in the plans before the Board this date. He stated that he would like to see an alternate proposed that will accomplish what the City of Clermont is trying to accomplish, which he feels is worthwhile.
Commr. Hanson stated that, to try and solve transportation problems that have been created over the years does not have anything to do with closing the right-of-way before the Board this date.
Commr. Good stated that the question regarding public access to Jack's Lake is one that he is concerned about, however, he sees the area in question becoming the jurisdiction of the City of Clermont within the next few years. He stated he was disappointed that a meeting with the residents of the area did not happen, however, he would accept part of the responsibility for that.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request that the section of road (shown on the map in the Board's backup material for this case) north of Willow Lake be vacated, with a stipulation that it not be vacated until such time as an alternate access is available to the Smoak property.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 771, by William H. Gibb, Jr., to vacate roads, Lake Highlands Company, Section 20, Township 22, Range 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, with a stipulation that the County retain the County maintained prescriptive rights presently existing, until the payments end for that road, and authorized proper signatures on the Resolution.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
REZONING
CUP#94/8/1-4 - CUP IN A - DAVID AND BARBARA SHELLEY
Commr. Hanson brought to the attention of the Board the fact that staff was recommending this case be postponed for six months, therefore, she was recommending approval of said postponement.
Commr. Cadwell declared a Conflict of Interest, due to the fact that he owns property adjacent to the property in question.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board postponed Rezoning Case No. CUP#94/8/1-4 for six months, as recommended by staff.
Commr. Cadwell had declared a Conflict of Interest, therefore, abstained from the discussion and vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 773 - FREDERICK AND LU ANN ANTONIO - MT. PLYMOUTH
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval to vacate a road (Duxbury Avenue), Plat of Mt. Plymouth, in Mt. Plymouth. He stated that there were two alternatives, which he had discussed with the petitioner, being (1) vacate less of the right-of-way in question and only vacate the north portion, up to the lake shown in backup material provided to the Board, or (2) agree to grant a similar ingress and egress for the prescriptive road and still vacate the right-of-way in question.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fred Antonio, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating he would like to go on record that, if the vacation is granted, he would respect ingress and prescriptive rights that go across his property that were formulated by Camp Challenge.
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 approved Road Vacation Petition No. 773, by Frederick and Lu Ann Antonio, to vacate road (Duxbury Avenue), Plat of Mt. Plymouth, Section 28, Township 19, Range 28, Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4, subject to prescriptive rights, as granted in OR Book 559, Page 685, and authorized proper signatures on the Resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 775 - RAYMOND AND BONNIE PETERSON - LADY LAKE
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval to vacate a drainage and/or utility easement in Orange Blossom Gardens, in Lady Lake.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the petitioner, or his representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 775, by Raymond and Bonnie Peterson, to vacate drainage and/or utility easement, Orange Blossom Gardens, Unit 3.1B, Section 6, Township 18, Range 24, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5, and authorized proper signatures on the Resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 776 - TOMMIE AND SUSAN POWERS - UMATILLA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval to vacate a road (West Eighth Avenue), East Umatilla Subdivision, in Umatilla. He stated that his office had received two letters in favor and three letters in opposition to the request, to date. He stated that he had been informed that a Code Enforcement violation was involved with this case, with an individual blocking access to said road.
Commr. Swartz questioned what staff's recommendation was regarding this request.
Mr. Stivender stated that staff was not opposed to the vacation.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Buz Bowen, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before the Board stating that the road in question is nothing more than a cow trail. He stated that the petitioner and another family (Dodd) are the sole property owners adjoining the road and that they would like to have the road closed, for safety purposes. He submitted ten letters, for the record, in favor of the request for vacation, noting that it makes a total of twelve (two presently on file) individuals who not only support the request, but have joined in with the petitioner. He noted that there are eight letters supporting the request, who have not joined in with the petitioner. He submitted pictures (5) of the road and property in question, for the Board's perusal, and reviewed an aerial map, indicating where the road in question is located. He requested the Board to approve the request.
Mr. Randy Dean, a resident of East Umatilla Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, stating that the road in question is a widely used road. He noted problems that he and other residents have been faced with, over the past several months, in trying to use said road. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Ms. Amanda Cox, a resident of East Umatilla Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request. She stated that she used the road in question at least once a day, before ditches were dug and trees were downed in an effort by the petitioner to prevent people from using it. She stated that the road in question is a much safer entry and exit road into and out of the subdivision for the children and residents of the area to use. She requested the Board to deny the request.
Ms. Linda Gussler, a resident of East Umatilla Subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request. She stated that she had damaged her previous car in trying to use the road in question, therefore, does not use it at the present time. She addressed a comment which was made, by Attorney Buz Bowen, that there was no logical need for the road. She disagreed with said statement, stating that the logical need for the road is safety. She stated that there is another access, being West Third Street, however, there is a definite danger, as far as a 40 degree curve, a hill, and the amount of traffic that utilizes Hwy. 450. She stated that a lot of the residents in the area would use the road in question, if it were open and not damaged.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Staff was asked whether any improvements could be made to the intersection of West Third Street and Hwy. 450, to make it a safer one.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Stivender noted several things that the County could do, to make the intersection a safer one.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had discussed the closing of the road in question with both parties involved numerous times and, at different points, had agreed with both parties. He stated that he felt there would not have been as much opposition to this request, had some of the things that happened in the right-of-way not occurred. He stated that he was concerned about the safety factor for the children, therefore, suggested that the County turn the right-of-way into a conservation area, prohibiting vehicular traffic, but still allowing the children in the area to use it.
Commr. Swartz suggested a second alternative, being to have staff look at all the interconnecting roads in the subdivision that are being used as access roads and have them come back to the Board with a long-range solution to the problem.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board denied Road Vacation Petition No. 776, by Tommie and Susan Powers, to vacate road (West Eighth Avenue), East Umatilla Subdivision, Section 8, Township 18, Range 27, Umatilla area - Commissioner District 5, however, directed that road be closed to vehicular traffic, as a temporary solution, and that it be marked as such, and that staff look at all interconnecting roads in the East Umatilla Subdivision, including the road in question, and bring a recommendation back to the Board at a later date, for discussion, at which time the road in question will be readdressed.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 777 - DAVID BUCKLES - CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a drainage and utility easement, Madison Park. He stated that there was an encroachment problem, however, it did not affect the drainage of the area. He stated that there were no letters on file for or against the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the petitioner, or his representative, were present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 777, by David Buckles, to vacate drainage and utility easement, Madison Park, Section 13, Township 23, Range 25, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, and authorized proper signatures on the Resolution.
Commr. Swartz was not present for the discussion or vote.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COURTS/COUNTY PROPERTY/FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request, stating that Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, had spent some time with representatives from the Lake County Guardian Ad Litem Service Office showing them properties that are available to them, for rent. He stated that staff was suggesting they be put in the least costly facility, at the present time. He stated that he had spoken with Judge Jerry Lockett about the matter and that Judge Lockett stated, from the Courts' respective, that would be acceptable, and directed the payment for same to come out of the Contingency Fund.
Mr. Anderson appeared before the Board stating that the County did not have space available at the present time, within its facilities, for the Guardian Ad Litem Office, however, noted that space would be available following renovation of the Historical Courthouse. He stated that the present move to set the office up in rental property (all of which are in relatively close proximity to the Courthouse, as required by the Courts) would be on an interim basis, until such time as the renovation project is complete.
Ms. Jolene Cazzola, Program Director, Guardian Ad Litem, appeared before the Board stating that she had distributed information to the Board, prior to the meeting, addressing some needs of the Guardian Ad Litem service, in establishing an office for themselves. She distributed a packet of information about the program, for the Board's perusal.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of a request from the Courts to have Lake County provide office space, as well as needed furniture and equipment, for the Guardian Ad Litem service.
REZONING
The following members of staff were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development Services
Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner, Planning and Development Services
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, noted
that the Board had approved a request from staff that Petition No. CUP94/8/1-4 (Agenda Item No. 5) be postponed for six months. He stated that there were no further changes to the Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 1-95-4 - A TO CFD - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PINE LAKES
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facilities District), as well as amending the existing CFD on 7.8 acres in the Pine Lakes area. He stated that it was in the A-1-20 Sending Area No. 2 of the Future Land Use Plan Designation. He stated that the petitioner was proposing an addition to the existing church facility and that staff reviewed it against the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and found it to be consistent with CFD Ordinance No. 16-89. He noted that the Resolution for this case was in the Board's backup material, for their perusal.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval, by a 7-0 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the petitioner, or the petitioner's representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), to add property adjacent to the existing church property.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 2-95-4 - R-1 TO A - MICHAEL AND GAIL ADAMS
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agricultural), for the placement of a mobile home on the site (7 acres), in the Paisley area. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations and recommended approval.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval, by a 7-0 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the petitioner, or the petitioner's representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good 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 the site.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 4-95-2 - A TO R-1 - MONTVERDE GROVES, INC.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for the construction of three (3) single family homesites on three (3) acres, in the Trails of Montverde subdivision, in the Montverde area. He stated that there presently exists pasture land and a stable area for horses. He stated that the property is located within the Suburban Land Use Plan category and is subject to the timeliness criteria, as found in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, in review of that policy and this case, staff found that this property could not meet the timeliness criteria, as established in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, therefore, recommended denial of the request, even though the lot sizes would be consistent within the subdivision. He then answered questions from the Board, regarding this case, and submitted an aerial map (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record, which he reviewed with the Board.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval, by a 5-2 vote. He stated that his office had received two letters in opposition to this request, this date, making a total of four letters in opposition.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Frank Bouis, Petitioner and President of Montverde Groves, Inc., appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He questioned Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, as to whether there was any piece of property in the suburban area of Lake County that could meet the timeliness criteria.
Mr. Stubbs stated that he; Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and the County Manager, Mr. Pete Wahl, tried to find a piece of property that might meet it, however, were not able to do so, to date.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner, Planning and Development, submitted two pictures (County Exhibit B) of the property in question, for the record and the Board's perusal.
Mr. Bouis requested Mr. Stubbs to identify and enter into the record a copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, dated January 4, 1995.
It was noted that said Minutes were already included in the Board's backup material for this case, therefore, did not need to be submitted as evidence.
Mr. Bouis requested Mr. Stubbs to identify and enter into the record a copy of a verbatim transcript (Petitioner's Exhibit A) of the same Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, dealing specifically with timeliness, as well as some discussion that was raised at said meeting.
Mr. Bouis submitted, as evidence, an aerial map (Petitioner's Exhibit B) of the property in question, as well as a corrected copy of the Future Land Use Plan Map (Petitioner's Exhibit C), for the record. He then read into the Minutes a five (5) page statement regarding the rezoning of the property in question, which he submitted as evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit D), for the record.
Mr. Kayton Scarboro, President, Trails of Montverde Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was present representing the majority (80%) of the homeowners. He read into the Minutes a statement indicating that this request involves a three (3) acre section of land, which is part of the fifteen (15) acre Trails of Montverde paddock and horse barn area presently owned by the developer. He stated that, in accordance with a recent court approved settlement reached between the Homeowners Association (HOA) and the developer, said three acre section, rezoned to R-1, will be divided into three nominal one acre building lots, which the developer will offer for sale. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this rezoning request at its January 4, 1995 meeting.
Mr. Scarboro stated that the above referenced settlement was reached in order to end costly and unresolved legal actions which were initiated in 1992 and that disapproval of this request will negate the HOA/developer settlement terms reached after extended discussions and considerable compromise on the part of both parties. He stated that such disapproval will cause the reopening of legal issues, which have resulted in considerable expense to both the HOA and the developer and have been the source of much discord within the HOA and between the HOA and the developer. He requested approval of this request and submitted, as evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit E), signed petitions from 80% of the homeowners, in support of this request, for the record. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, was questioned, as well, regarding this request.
Mr. Claude Smoak, developer of the property in question, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions regarding that portion of property that must remain as open space, as well as the issue of timeliness. He stated that he felt the issue being addressed this date is a case of government gone awry, which he elaborated on. He stated that the Courts looked at this case and confirmed the settlement alluded to earlier and he was now requesting the Board to resolve the issue in its entirety and approve this request.
Mr. Barry King, a resident of the Trails of Montverde subdivision and member of the homeowners association, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he and his wife had written a letter in favor of this request and was upset that staff had stated that no letters in favor of the request were received.
The Chairman noted that the Board had since been given a folder full of letters in favor of the request.
Mr. King questioned why the Board had not received the letters prior to this meeting and why staff had noted that letters against the request had been received, however, had not noted that letters in favor of the request had been received. He stated that he had received a letter from the Board Office stating that the Commissioners would receive his letter and to then find out that they had not was very frustrating.
The Board directed staff to, in the future, make sure that they received any letters regarding a case in their backup material packets prior to the meeting.
Mr. Joe Stokes, a resident of the Trails of Montverde subdivision, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was in favor of the request and had written a letter to the Board indicating such and wanted to make sure it was on record.
Mr. Chalmer Harper, a resident of the Trails of Montverde subdivision, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was in favor of the request and had made an effort to let the Board Office know, by phone, and wanted it on record that he had done so. He noted that he was upset about the fact that, upon calling the Board Office, was told he could not register a vote in favor of this request and questioned the reason for this.
Commr. Swartz informed Mr. Harper about the quasi judicial law regarding said matter.
Commr. Gerber noted that the Legislature has plans to introduce a Bill this coming Session that, if approved, will enable the Commissioners to once again correspond with their constituents.
Mr. Bouis reappeared before the Board and addressed the issue of interpretation of law and questioned whether the Board could, in dealing with an interpretation that does not work, look for an interpretation that does. He requested the Board to move forward with this request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would vote in favor of this request, because he could not think of any common sense reason not to add three additional one acre lots to a subdivision that is already divided into one acre lots.
Commr. Hanson stated that cases such as this one is what happens when the County turns its Zoning over to Tallahassee bureaucrats. She stated that they are running the show now and it ties the Board's hands in what they can do. She concurred with Commr. Cadwell's comments and stated that she felt the Board should move forward with this request.
Commr. Good questioned Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, as to whether the Board's decision would be a zoning question, or a land use question, and was informed that it would be both. He then questioned whether, if the Board resolved the zoning question, it would be a variance to the Comprehensive Plan, during this time of transition.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Board is not permitted, by state law, to grant a variance to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Good questioned whether the Board could, legally, rezone the lots in question, according to State law and the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Board could not.
Commr. Good questioned what the prescribed legal method would be for the Trails of Montverde Homeowners Association to resolve this issue.
Mr. Hoban stated that they could do a small scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or reach a different settlement agreement.
It was noted that the homeowners association could apply for a small scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at any time and that, if they applied for one, this date, it would be heard within 30 days.
Commr. Good stated that, due to the fact the Board would come into a conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan, if they approved the rezoning request before them, he could not support it. He stated that, if the Board could find the best course of handling this situation, according to the laws of the State of Florida, he felt they should encourage everyone involved to do so, as elected officials.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether it was correct that the Board could approve the rezoning request, however, the petitioner cannot pull the three permits until they receive a land use amendment.
Mr. Hoban addressed the matter, stating that, when an individual owns a piece of property in the suburban classification that does not meet timeliness, the question becomes whether or not it is an action in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the former County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, rendered an opinion that the individual could rezone to R-1, they just could not pull any building permits. He stated that he was not sure whether Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, agreed with that opinion or not, because he never took a public position on it; however, he did not feel that Mr. Rolon Reed, the present County Attorney, agreed with said opinion. He stated that he would meet with the County Attorney and obtain a written statement for the Board, this date.
Commr. Swartz addressed the issue of timeliness, at which time he gave a brief background history of how it came about. He stated that the intent of Policy 1-1A.1 - Timing Residential Development in the Suburban Land Use was designed to make it very difficult for a new development to occur in the suburban designation, unless it met some very stringent conditions; however, that was not what was before the Board this date, noting that this request was not for a new development that was being proposed in the suburban land use category, but an existing development that was approved, prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board could take action on this request in a couple of ways, being (1) to rezone, with an interpretation that states the request is part of an existing platted subdivision, which was platted before the Comprehensive Plan, in the sense that it is not expanding beyond its original borders, or (2) the Board could postpone this request and, in the meantime, correspond with DCA, verbally and in writing, and indicate to them that the language and the issue that the Board is dealing with is not one of timing for new residential development, it is one of dealing with a parcel located within a previously approved development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board should approve the rezoning request and send the decision to DCA, with an explanation of how the Board interpreted the timeliness, as opposed to asking DCA their opinion about the matter.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board could vote to rezone, but to not authorize subdivision of the lots, until such time as the Board can get clarification of that from DCA.
Commr. Good questioned the turn around time, once this case is presented to DCA for interpretation.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, stated that it would be 45 to 60 days.
Commr. Good then questioned how long it would take for the Board to get a verbal tentative interpretation.
Mr. Knight stated that it could be done in a matter of minutes.
Mr. Hoban stated that he felt the Board needed something in writing.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Swartz to direct staff to communicate with DCA and indicate that, in this case, the Board finds a situation which is not easily resolvable, based on the language in the County's current Comprehensive Plan, and that the Board would like to proceed, in this instance, with rezoning the three acres in question as one acre lots, and that it is the Board's interpretation, as a Board, that that is not inconsistent with the intent and that they will follow said communication, in an amendment form, with language necessary to address this case and those like them and make them consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Under discussion, Commr. Good was questioned and provided the Board with the intent of his motion.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would support this motion, however, felt that there would need to be a second motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commr. Good then made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to rezone the property in question to R-1, allowing three one-acre parcels, as requested, recognizing the fact that it is not a statement on timeliness, or that policy, but simply an attempt to meet the needs of this zoning request.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated he had a problem with the motion, because it did not relate back to an interpretation of timeliness that would say the zoning is appropriate.
Commr. Good stated that was not the intent of his motion, however, he was not adverse to adding it to the motion.
Commr. Hanson stated that the motion on the floor was to rezone and suggested leaving it as such and not elaborating on it.
Commr. Good stated that he wanted the motion to include the rational that this rezoning was based on the logic that was stated in the first motion.
Commr. Hanson withdrew her second to the motion.
Commr. Good withdrew his motion.
Commr. Good made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for construction of three (3) single family homesites.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was going to support this motion, because while he supports the timeliness of residential development and land use designation, he believed that it was intended to talk about new residential development and is not appropriate, particularly with the language of existing development, to deny this type of rezoning within the borders of existing development, which is consistent with all the other provisions of the timeliness criteria.
Commr. Gerber noted that she too intended to support the motion.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would support the motion, because she felt the Board needs to make the Comprehensive Plan make sense and this request makes sense.
Commr. Gerber stated that, if the motion makes the existing development that is on the ground internally consistent, it makes sense to her that timeliness should not apply.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Mr. Smoak questioned whether the developer could proceed with the division of the three lots in question and acquire a building permit.
Mr. Smoak was informed that he could, however, until the Board receives a response from DCA, he could not proceed to sell the property.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, clarified that the petitioner could do a lot split, however, the Board will not approve it until DCA agrees with the amended language.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board approved the rezoning, so the petitioner could split the property in question and all DCA would need to do is approve the Board's amended language, to clean it up.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board rezoned the property in question to R-1, based on the Board's interpretation of the County's Comprehensive Plan, therefore, did not understand why the petitioner could not now subdivide the property.
Commr. Good stated that was not the intent of his motion. He clarified that it was his intent, in deciding Petition No. 4-95-2, that the timeliness criteria of Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1A.1 apply and that the developer be allowed only three units on the 15 acres involved.
Commr. Gerber stated that what Commr. Cadwell stated was what she had voted on.
Mr. Smoak stated that the Board had approved the rezoning of the property in question and that he, as the developer, intended to bring to the County an application for three lots, as no conditions were placed on the motion.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 1:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
REZONING
PETITION NO. 46-94-2 - A TO CFD - THOMAS AND THELMA TURNER
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning
from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), to temporarily utilize the property for a modular building for a church and to place a mobile home on the site for pastor living quarters. He stated that it involved a five acre tract in the Montverde area off S. Buckhill Road. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations and found it to be consistent with same. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request, by a 6-1 vote. He stated that staff had received four letters and one petition, with 32 signatures, in opposition to the request and one petition, with 24 signatures, in support of the request. He stated that he had since received one letter, dated November 4, 1994, from Mr. Robert Klimko, and a three page petition in opposition to this request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission had raised some concerns about the nature of the five acres in question. He stated that his client owns an additional five acres contiguous with the property in question; therefore, if the Board would rather have a site plan encompassing the entire ten acres, to deal with those concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission, his client would not have a problem with continuing this case for a period of 90 days, readvertising the entire ten acres, and having it go back before the Planning and Zoning Commission to see if that would allay their concerns, or the Board could proceed to discuss the five acre rezoning case before them this date.
Mr. Richey noted that it would be the petitioner's plan to reposition the church within the entire ten acres and provide additional buffers to the adjacent property. He requested that a Plot Plan which was presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as County Exhibit C be submitted at this meeting, for the record. Said Exhibit was submitted as County Exhibit A.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner, Planning and Development, submitted, for the record, two pictures (County Exhibit B) of the property in question, for the Board's perusal.
Mr. Richey stated that one of the concerns of the local residents is that they do not want a church in their neighborhood and that he could not take away that concern; however, the petitioner could buffer the church utilization, restrict access to it, and meet with the surrounding residents and develop that site plan on ten acres, rather than five acres, in the 90 day time period. He stated that the petitioner was willing to do this and bring the request back to the Board, if they so chose.
Mr. Robert Klimko, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was representing the residents who had signed the petition that was submitted in opposition to the request and that they were opposed to it, whether it was for five acres, ten acres, or thirty. He noted that they did not have a problem with postponing the request for 90 days.
Mr. William Denmark, an adjacent property owner of the property in question, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he and other residents of the area were opposed to the 90 day postponement.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Mr. Hoban read into the Minutes that portion of the Lake County Code dealing with the postponement of a rezoning request and how the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board should handle it, if the request is denied, with prejudice.
Ms. Sherry Griswald, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She addressed the issue of postponing a request and resubmitting it and questioned what would happen if the property changed hands within that period of time.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
It was noted that staff could have the request ready to bring back to the Board in 60 days, rather than 90.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. 46-94-2, Thomas and Thelma Turner, a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), to use a modular building temporarily for a church and place a mobile home on the site for pastor living quarters, for 60 days.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
It was noted that this request would be brought back before the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 1, 1995, and before the Board on March 28, 1995.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, explained this request stating that the County has a Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on Comprehensive Plan Amendments that were found not in compliance. He stated that the first one is a result of the Stormwater Management Program time frame for the County and the second one is a result of the Environmental Resources Management Plan, which he noted provides for a variance for a Lot of Record. He stated that these cases had been brought before the Board earlier; therefore, all that would be needed this date would be approval and execution of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, incorporating the negotiations that have taken place between the County and DCA.
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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the Department of Community Affairs and Lake County, with respect to DOAH Case Nos. 94-0378GM and
94-1209GM, and authorized execution of same.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following request:
Community Services/Grants/Resolutions
A request from Community Services for approval of Resolution for Lake Community Action Agency to apply for the Local Government Share Cycle of the Community Services Block Grant.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval of the Procedural Guideline Memorandum for Wetland Setbacks in areas outside the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and the Wekiva River Protection Area.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, explained this request. He stated that the last change order to Metrics contract was presented to the Board on November 15, 1994, and that this request was for a series of change orders implemented since that time, as well as some proposed changes, in the amount of $561,088.00, for the Board's consideration. He distributed a handout listing the proposed change orders, which he reviewed, item by item, with the Board, and answered questions regarding same.
Mr. Terry Short, Architect, Odell Associates, Inc., appeared before the Board and discussed some of the changes in the F. F. & E. (furniture, fixtures and equipment) budget, at which time he answered questions from the Board regarding same. He made the Board aware of the fact that, in the finalizing of the allowances, there still remains a $500,000.00 restoration allowance for the Historical Courthouse. He stated that said funds are for the historic restoration of the public space in that Courthouse.
Commr. Good stated that, in light of the other items for consideration, he felt $147,000.00 that has been budgeted for future furniture needs ($105,000.00) and installing a corian cap at the atrium wall ($42,000.00) could be put aside until October or November of this year.
The Board suggested that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Short try to do something with what presently exists at the atrium wall, as an alternative to the corian cap, and let the Board see what that alternative may be.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of a series of Change Orders (No. 4 through Upgrading Existing Restrooms in CAB -$42,000.00 - Estimated), including Plaster Repairs at Levels 4 & 5 (CAB) - $30,000.00 - Estimated; Metric Buy & Coordinate F. F. & E. - $43,000.00; Additional Contingency - $100.000.00; and all the changes shown in "blue", as indicated in the handouts distributed to the Board from Facilities and Capital Improvements; and that the F. F. & E. Increase in Scope - $25,000.00 be set aside for the Board to consider at a later date.
The following items were not approved at this time:
Provide Corian Cap at Atrium Wall - $42,000.00 - Estimated
Provide Approximately 10% Additional Furniture for Future - $80,000.00
Mr. Anderson distributed, for the Board's perusal, a schedule listing the various renovation projects with their beginning and completion dates.
WORKSHOP
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Craig Willis, Alternative Transportation Specialist, appeared before the Board and updated them on what had transpired since the last workshop regarding the Rails to Trails project. He noted that the Rails to Trails Task Force had been extended for one year. He stated that the Department of Environmental Protection has undergone some changes and has moved the Trails issue from the Bureau of Recreation and Parks to the Office of Greenways and Trails. He stated that the South Lake Trail Project, as a whole, has been ranked on the Preservation 2000 Acquisition Priority List and that Lake County had secured $1.4 million in ISTEA contingency funds to construct Phase II of the Trail, if the County acquires it.
Mr. Willis stated that the Dykehouse property has been sold to a developer and the City of Minneola has annexed that piece of property into their city limits. He stated that Phase I of the Rails to Trails project, a three and one-half mile section in the Cities of Clermont and Minneola, is in negotiations and it is hoped that it will go into the design phase in April and construction will begin on it next year. He stated that the Carter property is under contract and the trail will be on the abandonment itself. He stated that Lake County received its multi-party agreement in December of 1994 and it was scheduled to be on the agenda, for discussion, this date.
Mr. Willis discussed the Rail Trail Multiparty Agreement and Phase II funding, in the amount of $65,000.00, to be taken out of the Contingency fund, for the purpose of conducting title work and appraisal for the Phase II project, and answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board as to how the County should handle their dealings with the State, with regard to future purchases of property for the Phase II project, .
It was noted that Ms. Karen Kuhlmann, Appraiser/Administrator, Office of Greenways and Trails, Department of Environmental Protection, was present in the audience to answer any questions there might be about this matter.
Mr. Willis reviewed two maps (on display) that he had prepared showing the Phase II portion of the trail and answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Ken Norquist, City of Clermont Councilman, appeared before the Board to discuss that portion of the trail that is within the City of Clermont and that portion that is within the City of Minneola. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Ms. Hope Lamb, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Willis about some opposition that the County has received from 14 property owners along a lake in the vicinity of Hwy. 561. He stated that the trail will proceed up the west side of Hwy. 561 and then cross over the highway, in order to avoid said property owners. He noted that said property would fall under the Phase III portion of the trail.
Ms. Maryann Koos, State Trails Coordinator, Office of Greenways and Trails, Department of Environmental Protection, appeared before the Board stating that in 1990/91 the State entered into a project with the National Park Service to begin to identify the impacts of Rails to Trails, in terms of economic value and impacts to adjacent property owners and communities and to learn more about who the users are, so that they could be better designed. She highlighted some of the economic benefits of Rails to Trails, at which time she discussed sample trails that were used in the study. She further elaborated on the matter and answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Commr. Swartz stated that when the Board committed to moving forward with the project, they identified a number of funding sources, one of which was tourist development funds; however, there was some question as to the tourist and economic benefits of doing so. He suggested that Ms. Koos schedule a meeting with the Tourist Development Council, to go into more detail with them about the Rails to Trails project and its tourism and economic benefits.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it would be very beneficial to have such a meeting. She stated that it is imperative that TDC funds go toward generating overnight stays and as long as it can be shown that the Rails to Trails project does that, she did not have a problem with TDC funds being used for said purpose.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Multi-party Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), for the acquisition and funding of Phase II of the South Lake Trail, in the amount of $65,000.00, to be taken from Contingency, for the purpose of conducting title work and appraisals.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board appointed the following individuals to the Solid Waste Study Committee:
Matt Newby - District 5
John E. Burris, Sr. - District 1
Don Sallee - District 4
MUNICIPALITIES/RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution honoring the 20th Anniversary of the Mt. Dora Arts Festival, to be held February 4 and 5, 1995.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Ms. Wanda Andrews to the Rails to Trails Task Force, replacing Mr. Ron Williams, who resigned.
COMMISSIONERS/LAWS AND LEGISLATION
Commr. Good suggested putting the issue of the Resolution amending the State Constitution, Section 5, Article 1, regarding ex-parte communications, on a future agenda, for discussion.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Commr. Good suggested that the Board recognize one County department per month, describe what they do, and have them bring their achievements to the Board, as well as present said department in the newspaper, for recognition, to be used as a mechanism to educate the community about County Government and that said matter be put on a future Board agenda, for discussion. It was also suggested that said department be recognized on the Commissioner's Corner, a television program which originates from Lake Sumter Community College.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
_______________________________
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/1-24-95/2-17-95/boardmin