A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 22, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 22, 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; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

It was noted that there were no changes to be made to the agenda.

MINUTES

Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of June 7, 1995, Regular Meeting, with the following corrections being made:

Page 13, Line 10 - Add: majority of the Board



Page 45, Lines 10-12: Commr. Hanson requested that the Clerk's Office check the tape to see if she had questioned whether Ms. Whittle had actually issued any vested rights determinations, and if so, to add wording as such.



Page 58, Line 21 - Correct: motion seconded by Commr. Swartz



On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of June 7, 1995, Regular Meeting, as corrected.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of June 12, 1995, Budget Workshop, as presented.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of June 14, 1995, Budget Workshop, as presented.



ADDENDUM NO. 1

PRESENTATION

Commr. Gerber read into the record Proclamation 1995-147 Commemorating the 75h Anniversary of the Ratification of the 19th Amendment Assuring the Right of Women's Suffrage, with the following individuals being recognized: Commr. Hanson, Commr. Gerber, Emogene Stegall, Valerie Cooper, Mary Fletcher, Mary Todd, Bonnie Roof, Elizabeth LeFevre, Mary Bodanza, Rita Lorraine, Helene Marie, and Carol Lenahan.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

BONDS/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator, addressed the Board and stated that Silver Springs Citrus Cooperative was planning a 6-8,000 square foot expansion creating approximately 33 new jobs. He stated that they came before the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), and the IDA recommended that the industrial development bond be issued. Mr. Jackson stated that, after discussions with legal counsel and Silver Springs Citrus Cooperative, the County had indicated that its bond counsel would need to review the documents, and Silver Springs Citrus Cooperative would pay the costs. It was noted that this was the way that it has customarily been done in the past.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County would go on and agree with the price and counsel chosen by Silver Springs Cooperative, and it would get someone to look at the documents on behalf of the County, from a bond perspective.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following, subject to review by bond counsel:

A Resolution expressing the intent of the Lake County Industrial Development Authority to Issue an Industrial Revenue Bond pursuant to the Florida Industrial Development Financing Act, Chapter 159, subsection 159.25-159.53 of the Florida Statutes for the acquisition, construction and equipping of a manufacturing facility to process citrus and recover its by-products in Lake County, Florida; providing for the lending of funds for such purpose to Silver Springs Citrus Cooperative, a Florida agricultural cooperative and Toyota Tsusho America, Inc., a New York Corporation or their successors of assigns; providing for the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds of the authority in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,400,000 for the purpose of making a loan of funds to finance all or a portion of the cost of such project; authorizing the execution of a memorandum of project; authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement pertaining to the issuance of such bonds; and providing certain other details with respect thereto.



ADDENDUM NO. 1

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS - EMOGENE STEGALL

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ELECTIONS

Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, informed the Board that she had been notified by American Information Systems, Inc. that, if the County submitted a contract that was signed by August 31, 1995, the County would be able to purchase two scanners in the amount of $70,000, with a savings of $7,000.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the Equipment Purchase/Software License Agreement with American Information Systems, Inc. for computer system upgrade at a cost of $70,000, with the Agreement being executed by August 31, 1995, which would allow for a savings in the amount of $7,000.

CLERK OF COURTS - JAMES C. WATKINS

COMMITTEES/PROPERTY APPRAISER

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to set the dates of September 27, 28, and 29, 1995 as the meeting dates for the Value Adjustment Board (VAB), and appointed Commr. Good, Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz to serve on the VAB.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ZONING/BONDS

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff had gone back, at the request of the Board, and reassessed the current procedures for review of the temporary non-conforming uses. He stated that the average was two years for actual completion of most of the homes. He stated that the Board had received information that there was a 1991 case that was active, and that this was incorrect. The mobile home had been removed within the last year. There was also one case that was still active, which began in 1993, and had gone beyond 30 months. He stated that these were rare cases, and there were not many that went beyond 20 months. Mr. Stubbs stated that the procedures were reviewed, and in 1992, staff came back to the Board and discussed the issue regarding the Land Development Regulation (LDR) requirement in Chapter 3. At this time, he reviewed the requirements established in the LDR. Mr. Stubbs stated that a LDR amendment was going to be done in September, and a one year requirement would be proposed for the Board's consideration. He stated that a minimum of one acre of land was not required, but an individual was required to be in R-1, AR, RA, or Agriculture zoning, but if the Board wanted this to be a requirement, another LDR amendment would have to be proposed. The request before the Board today involved Arlie and Linda Jarrell. Mr. Stubbs stated that it appeared there had been a mobile home moved to the site within the past week, with staff being notified yesterday, and they do no have a permit to place it on the property.

Discussion occurred regarding the requirements in the Code (Land Development Regulations) and whether a six month policy could be established, with this issue coming back before the Board for review.

Ms. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that six months would probably be too restrictive, because he understood that the Building Code requirements almost allowed for a first time automatic extension, if there had been some progress on the site. He stated that a year would be more of a likely time period. Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that he had suggested, at the staff meeting, a requirement being included in this particular agreement, before the Board changed the Code, so that, if there were going to be extensions beyond a year, to make the issue come back to the Board, so that it could be determined whether there was neighborhood opposition, or if the individuals were truly proceeding in good faith with the construction. It would require them to come back to the Board, before there was a second extension on the building permit, which would be at the discretion of Mr. Jack Bragg, Building Official.

Mr. Stubbs stated that there had been some mis-communication between staff and Ms. Pam Lee regarding her request to review the application for permit, and the construction documents, for the Jarrells, but that she has since had the opportunity to do so. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and staff was proposing to amend the agreement to reflect the six month period, with a renewal to come back to the Board.

Mr. Arlie Jarrell addressed the Board and stated that his wife, Linda, was present in the audience, as well as one of his builders, to discuss the issue. Mr. Jarrell explained that their request had been for one year, even though it may not take that long to complete the construction.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board adopted the agreement, it would be with the language that gives the applicants one year, and any extension beyond that would have to come back before the Board, and unless there were some really extenuating circumstances, he would not be likely to extend that ability to keep the mobile home in a non-conforming use.

Mr. Jarrell explained that he had spent the money and purchased a building permit, but he had not posted it on the property yet, because the construction had not started. He stated that more paperwork needed to be turned into the Building Department, but the septic tanks, well, underground utilities, and wooden fencing have all been installed. He stated that the mobile home had been moved to the property, but it had not been set up. Mr. Jarrell explained the hardships he and his family have encountered during this process and stated that he felt they had done all that had been required of them.

Ms. Pam Lee appeared before the Board and stated that it seemed as though a lot of misunderstandings had been addressed, but as a taxpayer, she needed to discuss her concerns with the Board. Ms. Lee stated that she had found that there was no real limit on non-conforming uses. She stated that, on one hand, the construction was an asset, because jobs were being provided, materials were being used, and a tax base was being created, but on the other hand, it could be very detrimental, because it could affect the surrounding property values, the quality of life for those living in the area, and there could be lost revenues. She appreciated the Board wanting to limit the application to one year, but to someone who was forced into a situation, a year could be a very long time. She requested that the Board consider her situation, and her request for a six month limit, because she felt that six months was plenty of time to disrupt the area, the wildlife, and the traffic, and she felt that six months was plenty of time to build an average sized home. Ms. Lee stated that the mobile home was right next to her house, and her house was up for sale, and this was going to limit her ability to sell it quickly, and for the best price. She felt that a six month period was more than fair.

Commr. Swartz appreciated Ms. Lee bringing to the attention of the Board some issues that needed to be addressed. He stated that, whatever language was determined by the Board and staff, it would be included in the agreement, which would assure some of those things that needed to be there. He appreciated Ms. Lee's six month suggestion, but six months did not really conform with the County's building regulations, with regard to the building permit, which was six months and allowed for a six month extension. He felt that six months with a six month extension would be reasonable, as long as there was some commitment for closure.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to accept and execute the agreement between the Board and Arlie and Linda Jarrell for a Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a mobile home on property located at 18248 S.R. 19, while the conventional home was being built, and that, in the Agreement, it include language that it be approved for six months, with a six month extension, which conforms with the County's building permit application process, and to direct staff to bring forward language to amend the County's review process, so that it was an active County initiated review process based on those time limits.

Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff explained that it was not an automatic extension, because the individuals would have to come back and renew the building permit, and in order to do this, they would have to have one successful inspection within the first six month period. He stated that a second renewal of the building permit would not be granted by staff without having them come back before the Board.

Mr. Jarrell explained that they were going to meet with the building staff, once they left the meeting today, because new plans had been developed for the house. He stated that he understood the motion being made by the Board.

It was noted that the building permit, in this case, had been issued on July 13, 1995.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the effect would be 11 months, but the building permit and agreement would run parallel, because the agreement stated that, anytime you do not have a building permit in force, you would have to immediately remove the mobile home.

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



PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 795 - R. Scott Hutcheson - Lady Lake Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and explained Road Vacation Petition No. 795, by R. Scott Hutcheson. He stated that all of the side lot utility easements were being vacated, with most of the rear lot easements remaining, because they were part of the drainage system for the subdivision. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Catherine Hutcheson, representing Harbor Hills, appeared before the Board to answer questions regarding the request.

There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 795, by R. Scott Hutcheson, Harbor Hills Country Club, to vacate utility easements, Harbor Hills Unit 2A, Sec. 18, Twp. 18, Rge. 25, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 797 - Joe Swiderski - Leesburg Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and explained Road Vacation Petition No. 797, by Joe Swiderski. Mr. Stivender stated that a letter of objection had been received from Ms. Janet Miranda, CSX Railroad, opposing the closure of Madison Street to the north of the railroad, so that they could have legal access to the property from U.S. 441. He explained that Swiderski had the east part of the easement, and Purdum had the west part of it, so half of the easement could be closed, in order to leave it open from the railroad track to the north. He noted that the Board could always vacate less than what was advertised. Mr. Stivender stated that he had received some inquiries from the Purdums, who he initially understood were not in opposition, but no letter had been received from them. He stated that the Purdum's property was a part of the property to be developed next to the airport, and there was some question about the new owner of property not necessarily favoring the vacation; however, he had nothing on record today in opposition to it. Mr. Stivender explained that Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, was interested in preserving any access to the lake.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Charles Sellar, Attorney representing Mr. Joe Swiderski, appeared before the Board to discuss the vacation request. He explained that the east-west street, Harris Avenue, bisected Mr. Swiderski's property, and that on the east side, the street ended at a picket fence owned by someone who submitted a letter of no objection. The other roadway was Madison Street, which ran north-south. Mr. Sellar discussed the revised and corrected plat of Silver Lake Estates, which was filed in 1934, and stated that he was concerned with this plat, because it apparently platted over the other plat. He further stated that this plat also contained no formal dedication of any streets. Mr. Sellar explained his attempt to post the property and stated that there was no definable width of the street. He stated that he did not feel that there was a valid objection to the request, because there was access, from any number of ways, to U.S. 441. Mr. Sellar requested that the roadways be vacated, and that the matters be considered separately, because of their differences.

Mr. Stivender explained that there may be some question about individual lot access, but they all access to U.S. 441.

There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stivender noted that there was a proposed development on the Swiderski property.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney who was working on the site plan of the development, presented an aerial of the property in question for the Board's review, and discussed the locational criteria and details of the access.

Mr. Stivender explained that, if the Board did not close the west half of Madison Street north of the railroad, the railroad would have access to U.S. 441, and this would not affect Swiderski's development. If the Board left open Harris Avenue, it would separate the Swiderski property.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would be concerned about creating a landlock situation for the Purdums to the south.

Mr. Stivender stated that historically the surveyors use 30 feet in this area, 15 feet on each side, but there was no real measurement on the plats.

Commr. Swartz explained that he could not see any positive reasoning for vacating only 15 feet, because, with 30 feet, you would have the ability to have at least some reasonable ingress and egress.

Mr. Sellar felt that Mr. Swiderski would be satisfied, if the east half of Madison Street was closed all the way from where it started.

It was noted that the approved development included the Swiderski property, and the land on the east half of the easement all the way north and south.

Mr. Richey explained the secondary preliminary site plan of the proposed development on the Swiderski property and stated that the easement being vacated would be the eastern half of Madison Street, and the other easement was Harris Avenue.

Commr. Gerber stated that the request was in her district, and she had no opposition to the east side vacation.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had not problem with approving the vacation of the whole area being requested.

Commr. Hanson discussed vacating to the north, east and south and leaving the one point at the railroad opened where the railroad had access.

Mr. Sellar stated that he was not too concerned with the west one-half of Madison Street, but more concerned with the east half.

Mr. Richey explained that Commr. Hanson was suggesting vacating the east half of Madison Street all the way down both sides, except for the strip where the railroad was located, and there you would only vacate the east half of that portion.

Mr. Stivender informed the Board that the City of Leesburg was adamantly opposed to anything that would go between Lake Harris and the airport.

Commr. Gerber stated that, in an abundance of caution, the Board should, at the most, and to the greatest extent that it could, give the petitioners what they were requesting and leave the rest, in order to avoid future entanglements.

Mr. Minkoff stated that Commr Hanson's point may be well taken, and that it would be hard to know whether or not the easement had priority over the railroad, but none of the Purdum lots would have access to the lake front, if the railroad right-of-way was there, and they could go across the easement. He stated that there would be no harm in vacating the eastern portion to the application.

Mr. Richey stated that it would be acceptable to him, for the eastern portion to be vacated.

Mr. Stivender explained the legal description, as follows: the east-west road, Harris Avenue, would be vacated entirely, and just the east portion of Madison Street.

Mr. Sellar indicated that the vacation, as stated by Mr. Stivender, would address his concerns.

Mr. Stivender noted that the Purdums did receive notification of the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to vacate the east-west road, Harris Avenue, and the eastern half of Madison Street.

Mr. Minkoff clarified the motion by stating that the Board was vacating all portions of these roads that lie on Mr. Swiderski's property, and none of which lie on the Purdum property, or the railroads.

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

PETITION NO. 798 - Sharon S. Hoffman & Sidney Smith, III

Clermont Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and explained Road Vacation Petition No. 798, by Sharon S. Hoffmann and Sidney Smith, III.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Hatcher, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board and stated that this was a part of the State's acquisition, with the closing being scheduled for the end of the month.

There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 798 by Sharon S. Hoffmann and Sidney Smith, III, to vacate right-of-way and tracts, Monte Vista Park Homes, Sec. 21, Twp. 23, Rge. 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 799 - Rex McPherson, II, Clermont Groves, Inc.

and Betty Keene Crane - Clermont Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and explained Road Vacation Petition No. 799, by Rex McPherson, II, Clermont Groves, Inc., and Betty Keene Crane, to vacate the underlying plat. Mr. Stivender informed the Board that he had received two letters in opposition to the request, one from Mr. Bosserman, and one from Mary Ellen Barden, and both were relying on legal access in the plat of Monte Vista Park Farms. He noted that the dedication included the property owners within the plat, with no public dedication being on the plat. He noted that the Bardens and Bossermans never had legal access through the lots and rights-of-way in this subdivision.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reviewed the plat and stated that there may be a problem, because the dedication did grant the public an easement for the benefit of use of the roads. He stated that it could be arguable that there was possibly a dedication for use by the public.

Mr. Steve Barley, Farner & Barley, representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that his topo surveys indicated that the Bosserman's property was below the 100 year flood plain, and that the Bossermans currently drive around the southeast side of Lake Felter. He explained that the paths on the map were grove roads where citrus was hauled in and out of the groves, and as far as he knew, none of the roads had ever been used for access to the adjoining property. Mr. Barley noted that he had not talked with the Bardens.

Mr. Stivender stated that the Board could ask the petitioner to respond to the legal access issues, as part of their development, and delay action until this could be done.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if Mr. Bosserman owned all the way to U.S. 27, as reflected on the plat, he could not understand why he had any particular concern, but Mr. Bosserman was questioning the closing of the road that lies south of his property from U.S. 27.

Commr. Cadwell discussed postponing the issue, until further research could be done on the two property owners' access.

The Chairman called for opposition to the request.

Mr. William Smith addressed the Board and stated that he owned ten acres to the north of Lake Felter. He stated that he had a letter from his attorney that explained that he had several access points from his property, and if the Board closed the roads, as explained by staff, he would be landlocked.

Mr. Stivender stated that there were easements coming off of some of the back lots, such as the ones owned by the Mizelles and Sams, but there was not one coming from Mr. Smith's lot.

Mr. Smith explained that he had been accessing off of property owned by people who had given him the authority to do so, and he was now being told it was not a dedicated road.

Mr. Farley stated that, until some of the legal issues could be addressed, he would like to look at revising the petition by removing some of the roads from the original petition.

Commr. Swartz discussed leaving the east-west easements and vacating whatever lots, rights-of-way and easements that were below those that do not seem to affect Mr. Smith, the Bardens, or Bossermans, and this would allow the Board to find the actual access points and rights-of-way. After further discussion, Commr. Swartz explained that he would not vote to close it, if there was a potential for the County to need that right-of-way into the future, and whether or not the County would be able to work out some agreement with the property owner, which might be another issue. He stated that, with the exception of the north-south section on the far eastern boundary of what was being requested, and the east-west portion, it seemed there was no opposition, and it would not be causing anybody difficulty. He further stated that it would aid the petitioner in the development phase that he was in right now, to at least vacate the other lots and rights-of-way, with the exception of what he just said.

Mr. Farley stated that, after talking to his client, he would like to request a two week postponement, in order to address the legal issues.

Commr. Hanson recommended that Mr. Smith approach the property owners to see if he could work out some arrangement to get a dedicated easement for access.

There being no further opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Road Vacation Petition No. 799, by Rex McPherson, II, Clermont Groves, Inc., and Betty Keene Crane, to vacate streets and tracts, Monte Vista Park Farms, Sec. 4 and 5, Twp. 23, Rge. 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, until September 19, 1995.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

ZONING

The following staff members were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services; Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III/Supervisor Development Regulation; and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering. At the same time, the following individuals were sworn in: Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, and Mr. William Baldry.

PETITION #177A-85-4 - Miller Enterprises - Variance from LDRs

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, informed the Board that staff had received a letter dated August 18, 1995, from the applicant, Mr. Charles Foreman, regarding the Handy Way variance. The letter was requesting a continuance to the September 26, 1995 meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Case #177A-85-4, Miller Enterprises, until the September 26, 1995 meeting, as requested.

PETITION #32-95-4 - WLW Construction - R-6 to CP

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, informed the Board that this case had been postponed at the last Board meeting, due to an advertising error. At that meeting, the Board voted to allow the applicants to enter into a Developer's Agreement to go forward with the request for rezoning. The applicants have pulled the building permit and were doing some interior work in the building. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff had recommended approval to rezone the site to CP (Planned Commercial) for the development of an office not to exceed 5,000 square feet, with access to the site restricted to Mary Street, and variances to Sections 9.02.04B and 9.03.05 I. The CP Ordinance shall be limited to office use and may not be expanded to include storage. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, as amended, to limit the storage building to 2,000 square feet with no storage of heavy equipment, and a variance from Section 9.02.04 (B) "Landscaped Buffer Area" and Section 9.03.05 (I) "Parking Design Standards". Mr. Stubbs stated that staff had a specific objection to a storage building, because it did not feel that it could meet staff office development criteria. He noted the Memorandum from Mr. Mark A. Knight, Chief Planner, in the backup material dated November 14, 1994. Mr. Stubbs stated that Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicants, had communicated to him today that they just wanted to use this for a garage. He stated that staff had no objection to them using it for a garage, but a storage building was a specific objection, and staff made its recommendation based on the Memorandum.

Commr. Hanson stated that she had a concern about requiring the commercial locational criteria within the urban node of Mount Plymouth and Sorrento, because it was a town, and commercial growth was wanted within those areas, so from a policy standpoint, the Board needed to look at this requirement within this area, because the Mount Plymouth and Sorrento node was unique from any other area in the County.

It was noted that this was not in the Wekiva Basin, and that commercial locational criteria was being applied everywhere in the County.

Commr. Hanson was concerned that, in this particular area, the County located commercial only near the intersections, when everywhere along the two mile stretch to SR 46 was actually commercial. She further stated that she would like to come back and look at this particular one and other areas that might be similar.

Discussion occurred regarding the Memorandum received from Mr. Knight, which pertained to Establishments to be considered as Office Development, and some of the intense uses that had been listed, with it being noted that further discussion was needed about commercial locational criteria.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that she was representing William and Rebecca Baldry, owners of the property in question, and WLW Construction, who had contracted to purchase the property, and who was currently leasing the property, pursuant to the Developer's Agreement. Ms. Campione stated that the applicants were requesting approval for the renovation of an existing home, and the applicant was proposing to remove old sheds and a swimming pool, and to use the existing home at the present time for a corporate headquarters for WLW Construction. The applicants were proposing, at some point in the future, to add additional office space that would be detached from the home. Ms. Campione presented additional information about the applicants' future plans. She clarified that the applicant's intent was not to use the building as storage, but to use it to place their trucks with the WLW logo, and for their employees to be able to park their cars. She explained that discussion had occurred regarding what would be stored in the building, with it being only items that would be associated with the business, and no machinery, or heavy equipment. Ms. Campione noted that she had submitted another rendering of the plans, which reflected a 30 x 60 foot structure, which would be under the recommended 2,000 square feet. She stated that the applicants wanted to do a conventionally constructed building, if and when they expanded. Ms. Campione stated that a variance was being requested, to allow buffering only around the buildings, instead of the whole 2.4 acres, because they wanted to be able to leave the property in agricultural, which was consistent with the property to the south of it. The applicants were also requesting a variance for a mulch parking lot, because there would be no traffic generated from other than the three employees, and the concerns associated with asphalt would not have to be addressed. The mulch parking would be consistent with the rural nature of the Sorrento area, and Ms. Campione requested that the mulch parking be allowed for a one year period, because it would fit into the plans for expansion. Ms. Campione discussed the access from Mary Street and stated that currently there was a driveway that the Baldrys have used to access their home. The applicants were requesting the ability to continue to use the driveway, until the property to the east was developed, and to add to the Ordinance, that the applicants be required, at that point, to use Mary Street as their access, and to cut off the other access and not utilize it. The Commissioner reviewed photographs of the area in question, which were supplied by Ms. Campione. The photographs were not entered for identification, or as exhibits.

Ms. Campione stated that she would like the opportunity to comment, if the Board got into a discussion of the locational criteria and how it applied to this site. She had gotten the impression that the earlier discussion had been aimed at future reviews of that particular policy, but in this particular situation, and being in the urban node for Sorrento and Mount Plymouth, that policy may not even be applicable. If it was, in fact, applicable, staff had certainly made a case that, with the distance of 1,300 feet from one intersection, and 1,140 feet from another section, if you had to meet the strict locational criteria of a commercial or retail development, you would be in pretty close proximity to those intersections. Ms. Campione stated that the zoning made sense for Sorrento and would be an improvement to the property, and it would allow WLW Construction to continue to do business in Lake County. She requested that the Board approve the request with the conditions, as outlined.

The Chairman called for opposition to the request.

Ms. Campione requested that the public hearing portion of the meeting be left open, so that, in the event questions were raised of staff, she would have the opportunity to redirect.

Commr. Gerber stated that the public hearing could be closed, with Ms. Campione still having the opportunity to redirect and clarify issues.

Commr. Swartz explained that he viewed the commercial locational criteria as a way that Lake County could try to avoid stripping commercial and commercial light on the roads. He stated that he had supported the commercial/other types of commercial locational criteria, and when he saw that staff had restricted the access to Mary Street, he felt that this was a good approach in trying to allow a use in this area. He stated that, with the access to Mary Street, you would not be faced with the commercial locational criteria, because the commercial was actually on Mary Street. Commr. Swartz stated that he would support the request, if the access were as staff had recommended and restricted to Mary Street, and he would vote for the variances, perhaps with a different clause related to improvements that would need to be made to Mary Street, when the adjacent property developed, or when the activity within this business reached a certain point where it needed to be done.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board and discussed the relocation of the driveway and stated that, when the property to the east was developed, the access would be from the same point. After the applicants receive approval by the Board, they would come through he Technical Review Committee (TRC) and the site plan approval process.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, if giving them the access temporarily off of SR 46 was not going to cause any significant problem, as long as they understood that when the other parcel developed, they would have to come off of Mary Street, he did not see a downside to it.

Mr. Griffey explained that the potential downside would be staff getting the people to comply. He stated that staff was not wanting the applicants to pave a portion of Mary Street, but to have a turn out apron at that location. It would be likely that, when they come through the site plan approval process, they would be changing from a residential to a commercial use and would probably have to get re-permitted by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Griffey stated that it was staff's recommendation that the apron be put in now.

Ms. Campione addressed the Board and stated that the applicants felt comfortable agreeing to the condition that they use the Mary Street access, if in fact, they do not have to do any paving, and just have to meet the DOT requirements and get an apron in there.

Commr. Hanson made a motion for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential to CP (Planned Commercial), with the access coming off of Mary Street; allowing for the variance of the buffer to be around the building as proposed; and the mulch parking lot.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she was not so much in favor of limiting the mulch parking lot to one year, and usage would determine whether it needed to be paved.

Commr. Swartz stated that the one year on the mulch parking lot was not that important, although at some point, depending on their growth and traffic, it needed to be reviewed. At this time, Commr. Swartz seconded the motion.

Discussion occurred regarding the amendment to limit the storage building to 2,000 square feet with no storage of heavy equipment.

Commr. Hanson included this in her motion, and Commr. Swartz included it in his second to the motion.

Commr. Good called the question. The motion was carried unanimously.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COUNTY MANAGER/RESOLUTIONS

Discussion occurred regarding the request for approval of a Resolution establishing the fee schedules for Fiscal Year 1995/96 for County departments.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that each year before October 1, the Board had to approve its fees, by Resolution, for the upcoming fiscal year. She noted that the proposed fee schedules had come to the Board during the budget workshop process, and they were used in developing the revenue forecast for departmental operations for the 1995/96 Fiscal Year. Ms. Whittle stated that they were before the Board today for consideration.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board to discuss Exhibit "F" - Page 1 pertaining to the proposed fee schedule for Public Services. Mr. Stivender explained that the current fee for public record vacations was $400, and staff was recommending $400.00 for title clearance only on an existing lot with an existing structure, and $1,200 for all others. He noted that the $1,200 figure was taken from the David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) study, and staff did not do a comparison of other counties.

Commr. Swartz discussed how the DMG number was calculated in the study and stated that some counties were charging by the hour for services.

Commr. Cadwell stated that charging an hourly rate would not allow staff to be able to make a reasonable estimate of costs for the applicant. He suggested charging $400 plus so much per hour, with a maximum of $1,200, so that people would know at least the minimum and maximum charge for the application.

Discussion occurred regarding the fees being based on the average cases, with it being noted by staff that some cases would exceed $1,200, and that the proposed costs were based on splitting two types of research.

Commr. Gerber discussed the possibility of having the MAGIC Team review this item.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not want to postpone the issue before the Board today and suggested that the Board continue to review the proposed fees and adopt them, with staff coming back with adjustments that may be necessary to certain fees.

Commr. Swartz agreed with Commr. Cadwell and stated that the Board could adopt the proposed fees and require staff to come back and try to propose a graduated fee schedule, or a fee per hour. He stated that the Board could continue to review the proposed fees even though some modifications may be needed, because they do not become effective until October 1, 1995, which would give staff over a month to look at a few modifications and bring them back to the Board in September.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding Exhibit "A", the proposed fee schedule for the Division of Environmental Management.

Mr. Jack Bragg, Building Official, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding Exhibit "B", the proposed fee schedule for the Building Department. Mr. Bragg explained that a fee was never charged for a non-conforming use, such as a temporary manufactured home, or travel trailer, because it was never a permitted use. Commr. Swartz suggested that, between now and the time that the Board got back some of the other questions, a fee for the initial inspection be established and brought back to the Board before October.

Commr. Hanson addressed Page 13 and the proposed $1,500 fee for an Appeal to Vested Rights Determination and stated that it needed to be clarified that this fee applied to all parties including any aggrieved party.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the fee for an Appeal to Vested Rights Determination be reviewed between now and October 1, in regards to the aggrieved party, as opposed to the applicant who was appealing the determination, in order to see how this was going to be handled with the vested rights ordinance.

Discussion occurred regarding the $525 fee established for a Vested Rights Determination.

Commr. Swartz stated that the appeal process may be another area where the Board may want to have a fee plus an hourly rate, because it would depend on the complexity of it. He suggested that both of these fees needed to be reviewed, in light of the vesting ordinance, and for staff to look at a fee plus an hourly rate, both out of Planning and the County Attorney's Office.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Homebuilders Association, addressed the Board and stated that the whole idea of adopting by Resolution gave absolutely no advance notice to those who may be affected by the issue. She stated that, while it may not be a requirement, it would certainly be a consideration, at least a week or two in advance, to place on the agenda some information about the proposed Resolution. Ms. Kaminski stated that she had brought a point up at a budget workshop that the County had a Citizens Review Committee in place, and it seemed a bit premature to raise fees, until the Committee had a chance to complete its task. She stated that the percentages for the fees for Development Regulation Services showed a 30-67 percent increase, and that a clarification was needed on some of the fees.

Ms. Whittle explained that the fee schedules have been adopted by Resolution, for at least the last five years, in August or September of each year, with the fees being effective October 1 for the new budget year.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney with McQuire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., addressed the Board to discuss the fee being established for the Vested Rights Appeal and stated that it seemed somewhat unfair to make a successful appellate pay a $1,500 fee, when a successful appeal was really a recognition that the County had made the correct decision in the first place. He requested that the Board consider a successful appellate not having to pay the fee.

Mr. Stubbs explained that the County may be opposed to the result of the appeal, but staff would still have to put the time and effort into the appeal made by any applicant, and the County needed to get reimbursed. He stated that the County was trying to make development pay for itself in the County.

Mr. Crawford stated that he would like to see the old fees, in order to compare them to the new proposed fees.

Ms. Whittle noted that the current fees had been provided to the Board members as part of the budgetary backup material.

Commr. Swartz addressed the Citizen Review Committee and stated that the last recommendations did not really deal with adding positions, but dealt with some of the services. During that budget year, there were a number of new positions created both in the Planning and Zoning and the Development area. He stated that, whether these numbers were the right ones or not, the fact was those people were over there today, and the County was trying to get a fee structure that would at least come closer to paying for that review process. He did not know if the Committee was going to end up with something that was necessarily going to immediately reduce the number of the people over there, even though it may realign some of them. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had included in this year's budget some positions that were based on the fee schedules and funded from the schedules, in order to try and improve the review process.

Chief Craig Haun, Fire and Emergency Services, addressed the Board to answer questions regarding the proposed fee schedule, as presented in Exhibit "C" for Animal Control.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, if the County had not already done it, there needed to be some communication with the municipalities again about the procedure of how they dealt with issues at times when the County's Animal Control Office was not open. He stated that the procedures needed to be made clear, or perhaps an interlocal agreement could be developed.

Ms. Whittle explained that staff was requesting that the Board adopt the fee schedules, with specific answers to the questions of the Board being brought back. Ms. Whittle informed the Board that the fees being proposed for the Fairground/Expo Center had not changed a great deal, and the fees were based on discussions during the budget review.

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed fees in Exhibit "E" for the Division of Probation and Court Services. Mr. Smith informed the Board that the unsupervised probation fee, the placement fee, and the community services insurance fee were all one time fees.

It was noted that the proposed fees for Public Services had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

Discussion occurred regarding the proposed fees in Exhibit "G" for the Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page 3, Line 19 and stated that there had been an effort made to set a rate, and a tentative fee had been established, for the ash from outside County waste, and that Ms. Barbara Lehman, Finance Director, Finance, Audit & Budget, was going to look at this issue as well. He stated that there was not a rate to exceed in the Service Agreement, but it stated that the rate shall be what it cost. He further stated that a fee needed to be set, because Ogden Martin had agreed to pay, back into the past, whatever that fee was determined to be. Commr. Swartz requested that Ms. Whittle check with Ms. Lehman to get the status of the issue.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 2, and the definition of construction, demolition and land clearing debris. Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, informed the Board that the definition was taken by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from the Florida Statutes.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 5, (E), and the Board's authorization to hire a Solid Waste Specialist. Mr. Minkoff explained that this was an issue that Ms. Whittle and he have had on their list to discuss. Commr. Swartz stated that, if Mr. Minkoff had a difference in opinion, as to the County going outside for professional services, the Board would be willing to consider another option.

Commr. Cadwell referred to Exhibit B, Page 7 and the greenhouse building permit fees. He stated that setbacks needed to be inspected, but there were no other things that staff was required to check.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff come back with a set fee for greenhouse building permits, with perhaps some minor extra charge for over a certain size. He suggested that the Resolution establishing the fee schedules be rescheduled to the first meeting in September, and he stated that he would like to see the existing zoning fees along side the proposed fees, with a brief justification of time frames and work, but that staff not duplicate work that had already been done.

Ms. Whittle noted that staff had provided the current fees to the Board during the budget review, and that the department had performed an extensive review with groups of users.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board postponed the Resolution establishing the fee schedules for FY 95/96 for County departments until September 5, 1995.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/COMMITTEES/RESOLUTIONS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed Resolution that would change the membership on the Wetlands Ordinance Committee. He noted that this had been a unanimous decision of the Committee.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution amending Resolution 1995-121, which would change the membership on the Wetlands Ordinance Committee from nine members to ten members and appointment of the additional member.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Steven M. Cook to the Wetlands Ordinance Committee to fill the tenth position.

REPORTS - Commissioner Cadwell - District #5

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES/AMBULANCES-HOSPITALS

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, Chief Craig Haun, Fire and Emergency Services, and he have met with the cities, in regards to the North Lake Ambulance, and they were still working on the issue and were close to finalizing it.

REPORTS - Commissioner Swartz - District #3

AGRICULTURE MUSEUM/COMMITTEES

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board needed to make sure that it had given staff adequate direction with regard to the Agriculture Museum. He noted that the County had appraisals, and staff had been given direction to look at those sites, and it was his understanding that, and if staff needed further direction, it was to try and finalize, at least some tentative options, on some of those parcels, so that the County would be in the position to forward them to the Florida Agricultural Museum Board.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that it was her understanding that staff was to try and get some options, after reviewing the appraisals.

Commr. Gerber stated that the Agricultural Museum Committee was trying to look at everything possible that could be presented at a reception to be held in September. She stated that there were other property owners who were talking about donations of land to the Florida Agricultural Museum Board and others.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County had four appraisals, which consisted of one willing seller, and the County needed to explore getting options on the parcels, at the appraised values, and if it could get those, to try and have those available to go to the Committee meeting in September. He stated that the County Manager and County Attorney could try and put together these options, and to bring something back to the Board to review.

Commr. Hanson stated that it was unfortunate that the Board was not looking at properties that it could get without paying for them in the same location. She felt that it was a mistake that this was not being done, and time was critical. She stated that she sits on the State Board, and she understood the competition.

Commr. Swartz stated that one of the owners was willing to sell at the appraised value, and that the site alone, with some of the County's land, was approaching what was needed, and all the County needed to do was get either a portion of, or one more of the other three sites, and at those appraised values, they were not terribly significant amounts.

Ms. Whittle noted that this issue would be coming to the Board on September 5, 1995.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

ATTEST: RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN



JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\8-22-95\8-28-95