A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JUNE 27, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 27, 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: Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Sue B. Whittle, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, requested that a request for authorization to proceed with consultant assistance in Solid Waste Management be added to the agenda under Reports.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add under Reports a request for authorization to proceed with consultant assistance in Solid Waste Management.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

County Employees/Personnel



Request for approval of the reclassification/upgrade of the Code Inspector position, pay range 0011 to Licensing Investigator, pay range 0012; and the reclassification/downgrade of the Licensing and Building Technician position, pay range 0012 to Building Technician, pay range 0009.



Accounts Allowed/Insurance/Risk Management



Request for approval of payment of $15.00 per claim to EBP HealthPlans, Inc. to process the self-insured group medical claims, at a total cost of $1,455.00.





COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COUNTY BUILDINGS

Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities and Capital Improvements, appeared before the Board to present a request to make necessary repairs to the exterior brick of the Sheriff's Administration Building where the anchors have pulled away from the building in an amount not to exceed $85,000.00.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to make the necessary repairs to the exterior brick of the Sheriff's Administration Building, in an amount not to exceed $85,000.00 from Contingency.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

ASSESSMENTS/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to present a request to award and authorize project number SA-81 Palm Drive, East Lake Harris Estates, Lump Sum Construction to Professional Dirt, and a request to execute the assessment roll resolution for the Palm Drive Special Assessment. Mr. Stivender discussed a large area of wetlands located north of the project, and the soil types that were present, at which time maps were displayed on the monitor illustrating the location of wetlands and the soil types in the area.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services Division, appeared before the Board and explained that the project was located in the Suburban land use plan category and that there was no possibility that the property in question could meet the timeliness criteria. He stated that very little buildable property was present in the area.

At this time, Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. John Conner, a local resident, appeared before the Board and requested clarification as to why the petition for the assessment was on a per lot basis and not on a per footage basis. Mr. Stivender explained that the road assessment policy requires fifty-five (55%) percent of the property owners to petition in order to figure an assessment on a per footage basis, and seventy (70%) percent of the ownership for a mandatory assessment. He stated that in this case the fifty-five (55%) percent was not achieved for the per footage basis; however, seventy (70%) percent of the ownership was met for a mandatory assessment.

Commr. Swartz stated that the original assessment proposal before the Board at this time was based on a neighborhood street with the County sharing thirty-three (33%) percent of the cost; however, a case could be made for considering Palm Drive as a minor collector road. He suggested that this would be one way to make this road assessment more equitable. He suggested that, if the Board decided to reclassify Palm Drive as a minor collector road, the additional funds that the County would put into the project could be used to reduce the very high assessments on the lots on the north side of Palm Drive.

At this time, discussion occurred in regard to designating Palm Drive as a minor collector, and the present and future density of the area. Mr. Stivender clarified that there was a seventeen (17%) percent difference if Palm Drive was reclassified as a minor collector and, when applied to the north side of the road, there would be a thirty-four (34%) percent reduction in the assessment for the property owners on the north side of Palm Drive.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stivender noted that the Palm Drive Special Assessment program could be brought back to the Board on August 1, 1995.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize staff to readvertise and recalculate the Palm Drive Special Assessments based on the minor collector designation for Palm Drive, with the County sharing fifty (50%) percent additional funds to go into reducing and equalizing the assessments on the property owners on the north side of Palm Drive.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 782 RAYMOND & CAROL JONES GROVELAND AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 782 by Raymond and Carol Jones to vacate road, Groveland Farms Subdivision, and explained that it was the recommendation of staff to deny this request because Mr. Steve Johnson, the property owner to the north of the easement, was not in favor of this closing. He explained that the petition had been extended to the north going into the marsh area; at which time, an aerial map was displayed on the monitor. He stated that one alternative would be to close the easement in question and grant the property owners that were in objection to said closing an alternate easement.

At this time, Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Raymond Jones and Ms. Carol Jones, the applicants, appeared before the Board to discuss the road vacation. Mr. Jones stated that it had been indicated previously that Gary and Dot Johnson, adjacent property owners, were in opposition to this request when, in fact, they support the closing of the road. At this time, Mr. Jones presented on the monitor a pie chart which indicated actual percentage of road frontage along the platted roadway and briefly discussed percentage of ownership of said roadway. He stated that the only opposition to the closing of the road constitutes an actual 12.3 percent of the road frontage. He stated that Mr. Spiros Siokis has joined as joint petitioner, and had purchased his property as one parcel and not as individual lots. At this time, Mr. Jones presented the following items on the monitor and briefly discussed each item: 1) Copy of Mr. Siokis' official recorded deed showing his purchase, and the legal description; 2) statement from Mr. Siokis stating his willingness to deed access, if necessary; and 3) list of owners within 150 feet of unnamed platted roadway petitioned to be vacated. Mr. Jones stated that they are present this date because they have a significant, justifiable cause of action; at which time he presented the following list of reasons for removal of the platted roadway: 1) Not a way of necessity for any persons other than Ray and Carol Jones and Gary and Dot Johnson; 2) to clear up title, property lines and insurance for installation of perimeter fencing for safety of persons, children and pets; 3) eliminate roadway; 4) said platted right-of-way had been a private drive since the platting of the road in 1911 and maintenance of said roadway had been incurred by all past and present property owners of Tract 27 and Tract 26; 5) to restore individual property rights and privacy; 6) restrict future growth in environmentally protected Green Swamp area in accordance with the Lake County Future Land Use Plan Map; 7) the County right-of-way was currently platted, egresses into the environmentally sensitive protective wetlands within 416 feet from point of ingress; 8) liability issue; and 9) contradictory and confusing statements from County staff indicating access must be provided and maintained at the owner's expense. At this time, Ms. Jones presented and narrated a video showing the area in question. Mr. Jones displayed on the monitor a copy of the site plan of the area, a copy of the Lake County building permit for the Steve and Linda Johnson home located on Bay Lake Road; and a traffic projection on the unimproved County platted roadway illustrating the number of traveling adults using the road today, and projections on the number of children that would be driving in the future. Mr. Jones summarized that they wished to see the road closed for liability problems, future constraints, and to be good neighbors with nature and with the surrounding neighbors.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, Attorney representing Steven and Linda Johnson, Arvin and Ester Johnson, and other family members in opposition to this request, appeared before the Board and stated that the Johnson family was present this date to address questions that the Board may wish to present. He stated that Ms. Evelyn Mole, who was not a client of his, was also present in the audience and holds the mortgage on the Jones and Siokis property. He stated that Ms. Mole was opposed to the road closing because she fears that loss of this access would make the property worthless should she have to foreclose. At this time, Mr. Minkoff presented a brief history of the Johnson family property in Lake County, and presented an aerial map on the monitor illustrating the locations of the property. He explained that Steven Johnson owns parcel No. 1 with 167 feet on Bay Lake Road, and the family's intent was to use the property as a pasture, and the road as access. He stated that the lots were conveyed in June 1993, and Steven Johnson began construction on his house and moved in November 1994; at which time, Mr. Minkoff displayed on the monitor a site plan illustrating the family lot split process. Mr. Minkoff presented thirty photographs on the monitor illustrating the road in question and briefly discussed each photograph. He stated that the families of the Johnson brothers were the only people using the road in question at this time as well as the Jones, and there was the possibility that Mr. Siokis would use it further to the north. Mr. Minkoff referred to Mr. Siokis's statement that he could build a road out to Bay Lake Road; however, noted that it would be very difficult without destroying wetlands. He stated that one of the issues cited by the petitioners was that the road was being deteriorated because of his clients. He suggested that, if there was a problem with the roadway being deteriorated, it was from semi-trucks that have been making deliveries to the Jones'

property. He displayed on the monitor a copy of the survey for the Jones' property and noted that the twelve (12) feet of easement would not make a lot of difference with the overall use. He stated that his clients were in opposition to the closing because they have used the roadway for 75 years, Steven and Linda Johnson have planned their home using the roadway as the primary ingress and egress; Bay Lake Road was a high speed road, and Empire Church Road was a low speed road; it provides easy access to family members who reside across the street, and the school bus stop. He presented on the monitor a letter from the school district addressing the bus stop, and a letter from Ms. Mole indicating her objection to said closing. Mr. Minkoff stated that there was no legal benefit to the closing of the roadway, and indicated that he had provided legal counsel with an Attorney General opinion, and a 1991 District Court of Appeal case where the courts and the Attorney General have held that there has to be a general public welfare benefit to close a road.

In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz, Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that the Board must base their decision on the finding that there has to be a general public welfare benefit to close a road.

Ms. Dot Johnson, property owner on Tract 27, appeared before the Board to discuss the lot split and displayed on the monitor a copy of the survey that shows parcel No. 1 as Mr. Steven Johnson, who has access on Bay Lake Road; and Parcel No. 3 as Mr. Arvin Johnson, Sr., who has access on Empire Church Road, and on Bay Lake Road. She addressed the traffic projections that were presented previously by Mr. Jones and explained that said projections took into consideration when the children became of driving age. She presented a letter on the monitor from the Groveland Elementary School which indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Steven Johnson and herself drive their children to school as they are in the Mascotte school zone. She stated that she has a statement from Mr. Fred Skipper indicating that the route that he took to access Tract 22 to grow watermelons was through the front of Bay Lake Road, Tract 21 through Tract 22. She addressed the issue of liability and indicated that they did not want the liability of all of the traffic.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Good stated that this issue was a question of good public policy and was a complicated issue for the people that presently live there. He stated that his responsibility was to keep an eye on the future, the legal aspects that were involved in this issue, and assure that access was available, and the ability for the platted lots to have legal ingress and egress to those properties. He requested clarification that the plats that were done on the Siokis property were done with the idea that this dedicated easement would access those plats; at which time, Mr. Stivender responded that was correct. He stated that to vacate said road was not good public policy or the proper action for the Board.

Commr. Gerber declared a Conflict of Interest and stated that White Aluminum Products, her family business, does business with the petitioner.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not see the public benefit to the road closing, and the potential for not having access to a platted subdivision could cause problems in the future.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was not sure he could see a compelling public purpose for closing the road, and he was also disturbed that the mortgage holder was in opposition to this closing.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board denied Road Vacation Petition No. 782 by Raymond and Carol Jones to vacate road, Groveland Farms Subdivision, Section 33, Township 22, Range 24, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2.

The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.

Commr. Gerber abstained from the discussion and vote.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes, and reconvene at 11:00 a.m.

ROAD VACATIONS (CONTINUED)

PETITION NO. 790 CALVIN & DONNA VAUGHN CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 790 by Calvin and Donna Vaughn to vacate road, Clermont Farms, Lake Crescent View Development and explained that this was in addition to a previous closing and presented on the monitor a site plan illustrating the location of the road in question.

At this time, Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present in the audience wishing to discuss this issue with the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 790 by Calvin and Donna Vaughn to vacate road, Clermont Farms, Lake Crescent View Development, Section 11, Township 23, Range 25, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2.

The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.

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

PETITION NO. 792 ROSE COOK CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 792 by Rose Cook to vacate drainage and utility easements, The Vistas - Second Addition and presented on the monitor a site plan illustrating the location of the drainage and utility easements in question.

At this time, Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present in the audience wishing to discuss this issue with the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 792 by Rose Cook to vacate drainage and utility easements, The Vistas - Second Addition, Section 8, Township 23, Range 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2.

PETITION NO. 793 MORTON AND NANCY BRULE LADY LAKE AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 793 by Morton and Nancy Brule to vacate utility easement, Orange Blossom Gardens and presented on the monitor a site plan illustrating the location of the utility easement in question.

At this time, Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present in the audience wishing to discuss this issue with the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 793 by Morton and Nancy Brule to vacate utility easement, Orange Blossom Gardens, Unit 3.1B, Section 7, Township 18, Range 24, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5.

ZONING

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that on June 14, 1995 the Legislature passed House Bill 2055 and signed into law a new statute which changes the way in which counties are to advertise rezoning cases. He referred to a memorandum received from the Florida League of Cities, Inc., dated June 14, 1995, which included a copy of House Bill 2055 and indicated that the Governor allowed the bill to become law on the above noted date. He explained that, if Lake County had been aware of the new mandates for advertising rezoning cases on June 14, 1995, the County would have been out of compliance. He stated that the cases before the Board this date had not been advertised pursuant to House Bill 2055.

Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney, appeared before the Board and explained that House Bill 2055 affects Florida Statutes Chapter 125 and states that those things that were adopted prior to House Bill 2055 becoming law shall be presumed to be valid unless challenged and shown differently in a court of law. He explained that House Bill 2055 was silent on what occurs if you don't have your advertisements correct at this time; however, it does provide a five year statute of limitations to allow a challenge based on improper notice.

Mr. Stubbs stated that House Bill 2055 was requesting that a map be published along with the legal advertisement showing the general location of the property.

Mr. Hoban indicated that he had not had the opportunity to read House Bill 2055; at which time, it was the decision of the Board to allow County staff and the attorneys in the audience time to review said bill and return with an interpretation later in the meeting.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, directed the Board's attention to a memorandum from David Crowe, Acting Solid and Hazardous Waste Director, dated June 27, 1995, which had been distributed prior to the start of the meeting this date. She explained that the duties and responsibilities of the Program Specialist, within Assessment Management Services, includes the extraction of information from the Customer Information System (CIS) to allow for the first class notices, and for the preparation of the assessment rolls for certification to the Tax Collector. She stated that the Program Specialist has recently tendered his resignation, and it was necessary to contract with Main Line Corporation for additional training until the position of Program Specialist could be filled. She stated that staff would endeavor to perform, as much as possible, those tasks that can be performed in-house, in order to minimize the consultant time required, and that a cross-training program would preclude a future need for this level of assistance.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize the County Manager to utilize existing County staff to perform the functions of the Program Specialist in regard to the assessment rolls; to authorize amendment to Main Line Corporation Services Contract, as necessary, to prepare the assessment rolls on a timely basis; and to authorize the Chairman to sign amendment to said contract.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

COUNTY MANAGER/HUMAN RESOURCES

Commr. Cadwell presented the discussion in regard to the position of County Manager, and express his continued support of Mr. Thomas Frame as County Manager.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was not comfortable with hiring Mr. Frame as County Manager.

Commr. Good informed the Board that he had traveled to Charlotte County and visited with Mr. Frame and several past Charlotte County Commissioners who spoke highly of Mr. Frame; however, he stated that there was controversy that has made him less than comfortable with pursuing negotiations with Mr. Frame at this time.

Discussion occurred in regard to the appropriate action to take in regard to hiring Mr. Thomas Frame as County Manager, and further review of the candidates. Commr. Hanson stated that she was encouraged when there was a strong comment in favor of Mr. Frame before there was opportunity for discussion. She stated that Commr. Cadwell's comments brought back from Charlotte County were overwhelming positive and that Mr. Frame would be a very good County Manager for Lake County.

Commr. Swartz expressed concern that there was no additional review of any of the candidates' backgrounds before the Board ranked the candidates. He stated that the majority of the Board did not feel that Mr. Frame was the appropriate candidate for County Manager and, therefore, he should be notified of the Board's decision so that all involved could move forward.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to enter into negotiations with Mr. Thomas Frame as County Manager.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed by a 2 - 3 vote.

Commr. Gerber, Commr. Good, and Commr. Swartz voted "No".

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the Board postponed any further action until the Board has had the opportunity to contemplate the next step in finding a County Manager for Lake County.

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he had spoken with Mr. David Donaldson, David M. Griffith & Associates, Inc., to determine the status of the other remaining candidates, and Mr. Donaldson had informed him that Mr. Gene Lauer, and Mr. C. William Hargett, Jr. were the only remaining candidates that wished to be considered for the position. He suggested that the Board proceed individually to look into the references of the two remaining candidates.

Commr. Gerber expressed concern that there was not enough advertising done in the professional publications for the position of County Manager and that she would support readvertising said position.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to request further references on Mr. Eugene Lauer and Mr. C. William Hargett, Jr. to be provided through David M. Griffith & Associates, Inc. or directly; and for the Board members to make further background checks and bring forth this issue at the July 11, 1995 Board meeting.

ZONING (CONTINUED)

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior County Attorney, reported that it was the recommendation of the County Attorney's office that all zoning cases for June and July be postponed and readvertized due to House Bill 2055.

At this time, the Chairman called for public comment on the postponement of all zoning cases for June and July.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with McQuire, Voorhis, and Wells, representing Robert Sullivan, Petition No. 16-95-4, appeared before the Board and stated that they were not comfortable with the fact that the County's procedures at this point could sustain a challenge; therefore, her client was requesting a thirty (30) day continuance.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Barbara Shelly, Petition No. CUP#94/8/1-4; and WLW Construction, Petition No. 32-95-4, appeared before the Board and requested that the Board convene for a special meeting to hear the above referenced cases and explained that an extreme hardship would result in the postponement of Petition No. CUP#94/8/1-4, Barbara Shelly. She requested that Petition No. 32-95-4, WLW Construction, be allowed to go forward at this time and that her client would assume the risk of a potential appeal of the case. She explain that WLW Construction was required to move out of their existing office on July 15, 1995, and they have no other place to operate their business if they are not permitted to go forward. She stated that there was no opposition to this request.

Commr. Swartz questioned if the Board had the ability to authorize an agreement with WLW Construction similar to the County's "in lieu of platting" agreements that are done regularly; at which time Ms. Campione requested time to consult with her client to determine if such an agreement would be a feasible option.

Mr. James Boyd, Boyd Environmental, representing Southern States Utilities, Petition No. 30-95-5 and Petition No. 31-95-5, appeared before the Board and explained that these cases were existing water treatment plant sites that were being rezoned to CFD (Community Facility District) designation, and stated that they were not aware of any opposition to these requests. He stated that, for the record, they were stating their position that they would be interested in the same type of agreement alluded to above. He stated that these requests were time sensitive because they were a Public Service Commission regulated company and certain funds were to be spent at a certain time. He stated that it was very important that they proceed with these projects.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, stated that a letter had been received from Dorene Forest, the applicant, requesting a 120 day postponement of Petition No. 27-95-5.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Petition No. 27-95-5 for 120 days.

Mr. Stubbs stated that Petition CUP#94/8/1-4, Barbara Shelly, had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Ms. Mae Nellie Whaley, Petition No. 25-95-4, appeared before the Board and explained that she had a perspective buyer for the property in question who needs to take occupancy by July 28, 1995 and that she had a contract to buy other property and needs the money from this property for the down payment.

Commr. Swartz questioned if a parcel that was a Lot of Record, less than five acres, and meets the mobile home test of fifty-one (51%) percent had to be rezoned. Mr. Stubbs responded that a parcel that meets the mobile home test did not have to be rezoned; however, if a parcel did not meet the mobile home test, it would have to be rezoned to R-8 or R-M, which permits a mobile home in Lake County.

Ms. Whaley was directed to discuss the administrative issues of this rezoning with staff.

Mr. Byron Rhodes, Petition No. 28-95-2, appeared before the Board and requested clarification on who would incur the cost for readvertising the postponements.

Mr. Danny Brown, Petition No. 26-95-5, appeared before the Board and stated that it would be a financial burden on the buyers for the property in question not to proceed with Petition No. 26-95-5.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that August 8, 1995 would be the earliest that the rezoning cases could be presented to the Board.

Commr. Cadwell requested that Mr. Stubbs or Mr. Hoban contact the Association of Counties to determine if the County had been notified of House Bill 2055, and directed staff to prepare a written statement to the Board indicating if the County had been notified or why the County had not been notified of House Bill 2055.

Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board and stated that WLW Construction, Petition No. 32-95-4, was interested in pursuing a Developer's Agreement that would help them to address the situation that they were in as far as needing a location to move into for operation of the business office.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Developer's Agreements for Southern States Utilities, Petitions No. 30-95-5 and No. 31-95-5 and WLW Construction, Petition No. 32-95-4, be approved subject to the final review and approval of the County Attorney's office.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the following Petitions until the necessary readvertising could be accomplished, statutory changes accommodated, and rescheduled for a public hearing on a Board meeting as soon as that could be achieved:

Petition No. 25-95-4 Mae Nelly Whaley

Petition No. 30-95-5 Southern States Utilities

Petition No. 31-95-5 Southern States Utilities

Petition No. 32-95-4 WLW Construction

Petition No. 28-95-2 Byron J. Rhodes

Petition No. 26-95-5 Danny Brown

Petition No. 27-95-5 Dorene Forrest

CUP#95/6/4-3 Ben Benham & Barbara Shelley

Petition No. 16-95-4 Robert Sullivan



On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Developer's Agreement for Southern States Utilities, Petition No. 30-95-5 and Petition No. 31-95-5; subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Developer's Agreement for WLW Construction, Petition No. 32-95-4; subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (CONTINUED)

COUNTY ATTORNEY/HUMAN RESOURCES

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that Mr. David Wagner, applicant for the position of County Attorney, visited Lake County on June 23, 1995 to met with staff in the County Attorney's office for the purpose of addressing his concerns and questions. He stated that Mr. Wagner has indicated that his family would need to remain in Gainsville for approximately one year because of family situations; however, he would locate a residence for himself and move to Lake County.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board authorized Commr. Swartz, the County Attorney, and the County Manager to enter into negotiations with Mr. David Wagner for the position of County Attorney for Lake County.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY/CODE ENFORCEMENT/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, presented the request to hire special counsel for Code Enforcement staff in the case of Lake County v. R.O. Grantham, Case No. 35-95, and stated that the Code Enforcement Officers have requested that Mr. Kirk Warren, Attorney, be hired as special counsel.

Commr. Swartz suggested that a list of qualified attorneys be established and made available to the Board when a special counsel was necessary. He stated that he was not comfortable singling out an attorney when there were other qualified attorneys in Lake County.

Commr. Hanson expressed concern with staff contacting an attorney to act as their special counsel before it was brought before the Board. She questioned if travel expenses for Mr. Warren were included in the proposed $90.00 per hour fee.

Mr. Reed indicated that staff had discussed this situation with Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, and himself and their feelings that they should have special counsel. Mr. Reed responded to Commr. Hanson's concerns and stated that there were other attorneys locally that could perform this task, however, it was doubtful that there were many attorneys who would want to perform this task given all of the facts and circumstances that apply in this situation.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to authorize the County Attorney to contract for outside counsel with Mr. Kirk Warren, as special counsel, for Code Enforcement staff in the case of Lake County v. R.O. Grantham, Case No. 35-95; and to establish a procedure for rotating attorneys in such time of need to be brought back to the Board for consideration.

In response to a question presented by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Reed stated that it was his opinion that there would not be sufficient time to advertise and establish a list of attorneys and still provide them sufficient time to prepare for the case of Lake County v. R.O. Grantham.

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

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes and reconvene at 12:25 p.m.

COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT NO. 2

PLANNING/SUBDIVISIONS/ZONING

Commr. Good brought up for discussion the Board of County Commissioners' position on Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact (DRI) vesting, and stated that the Board did not discuss, at the June 7, 1995 Board meeting, the vesting of Sugarloaf Mountain DRI, and he became aware that the County's position had been represented as Sugarloaf Mountain being vested. He stated that a review of the backup documents indicated that other actions were pending concerning the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI, and he came to the conclusion that the Board needed to discuss this issue further and formulate, as a Board, some decision based on the vesting of this project. He questioned if the Board has stated a position on the vested rights of the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board of County Commissioners did take a stand that Sugarloaf Mountain was vested because the approval of the Development Order was based on the knowledge that it was vested. He stated that it would be premature to take any action on this issue until after the arbitration on the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI. Discussion occurred in regard to the history of the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI, at which time it was noted that the Development Order indicates that the Board approved the Development Order at its hearing on July 26, 1994. It was also noted that the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI would be before an arbitrator on June 30, 1995 at the Lake County Judicial Center.

Commr. Swartz stated that it was his understanding that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was appealing the Development Order issued by the County because DCA viewed it as being inconsistent with statutory vesting in Florida Statutes 380.06.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, with Maquire Voorhis & Wells, P.A., representing Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and stated that she recited, at the June 7, 1995 hearing, a portion of the actual Development Order that was approved at the July 26, 1994 meeting of the Board the Board of County Commissioners that states that the project was approved and found to be vested and, therefore, no comprehensive plan was necessary because it was vested from the provisions of the plan. She briefly discussed the arbitration process which would be held on June 30, 1995 and explained that if Sugarloaf owners prevail, DCA would withdraw their appeal and, if Sugarloaf owners do not prevail, the Sugarloaf owners will go forward with an administrative hearing on all other issues but vested rights. She stated that the Lake County Land Development Regulations state that a vested rights determination previously issued by Lake County shall remain in full force and in effect, and there has been no question that the two vested rights determinations were issued pursuant to Lake County code by the proper officials and that they were official acts of government.

Commr. Swartz stated that a determination was made by the County Attorney's office with reliance from Ms. Bonifay's office on certain aspects of the case. He referred to a memorandum from Mr. Tim Hoban, dated June 2, 1995, which bring the facts that were presented by the applicant's representatives into question, and stated that the Board reviewed this case in light of representations that were made by the County Attorney's office which were based on representations that were made from Ms. Bonifay's office.

Ms. Bonifay responded to Commr. Swartz's comments and stated that the information that was provided to the County was based on the Accountant's information provided to her office by her clients, and that it was absolutely correct to her knowledge. She stated that she has furnished to the County Attorney's office detailed invoices from 1991 through the present time. She stated that her clients have been working on this project for five years, have relied on what Lake County has told them over that five year period of time, and that this was the same test for common law vesting or equitable estoppel.

Commr. Hanson stated that it was inappropriate to continue the discussions on Sugarloaf Mountain DRI before the arbitration goes forward; however, it was very appropriate for Commr. Good to continue discussions with the attorneys, and to review the minutes in regard to Sugarloaf Mountain DRI.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.



___________________________________

RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN







______________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK





MSF\BOARDMIN\6-27-95\7-6-95