The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 26, 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, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Gerber informed the Board that, under her business, she had an issue to present that might require a vote. The issue involved the provision of parking signs and parking spaces for the County Manager and County Attorney.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add to the agenda the discussion of signs and parking spaces for the County Manager and County Attorney.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 8, 1995, Special Zoning Meeting, as presented.

Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of September 6, 1995, with the following correction being made:

Page 8 - Line 17 - Amend: Wee Care to We Care

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of September 6, 1995, Special Zoning Meeting, as amended.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

REGULAR AGENDA

Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Contracts, Leases & Agreements

Approval to amend the contract between Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the Lake County School Board Adopting Children for Excellence Program in the amount of $6,000.

Accounts Allowed/Fire and Emergency Services

Approval for Emergency Management to establish an account to pay known recurring telephone bills at a fiscal impact of $4,200.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies

Planning and Development

Approval and execution of renewal contract agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Pollutant Storage Tank System Compliance Verification Inspection Program.

Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Municipalities/Subdivisions

Approval of release of Maintenance Bond in the amount of $3,592 for maintenance of East 6th Avenue and East 7th Avenue in East Umatilla Subdivision.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development

Approval and execution of the Cooperative Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Lake County for Florida Natural Areas Inventory Mapping.

Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Resolutions/Roads-County & State

Acceptance of Final Plat for Lake Crescent Pines, acceptance of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $36,100, and approval of Resolution accepting the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Crescent Pines Blvd., Alamo Ct., and Lake Ralph Dr. - 104 lots - Commission District 2.

ADDENDUM NO. 2

Fire and Emergency Services/Grants/Contracts, Leases & Agreements

Approval of Modification No. 1 to Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Grant Agreement for Fiscal Year 1994-95.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

ROAD VACATIONS

Petition No. 800 - Frank H. Haas, Leisure Communities, Ltd.

Leesburg Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) gave the developer an option to either leave a very wide easement in the back of the Lots G16 and G17, between them and the marshlands, for natural vegetation, or allow back line swales. There were two lots where the natural wider easement encroached much more of Lot G16 than the SJRWMD would have liked, and therefore, the request was to vacate it, with the understanding that the applicants would build a rear lot swale to prevent direct runoff into the marshlands behind it. Mr. Stivender noted that, within the last couple of weeks, property owners had met with staff and Commr. Gerber and expressed concern over the drainage in the general development. Mr. Stivender stated that there were some maintenance problems, and that there was a letter from the SJRWMD, which addressed the problems and noted that they needed to be rectified, but that there were no structural problems with the actual design. Mr. Stivender stated that the developer, and the Homeowner's Association, met with staff last week about concerns expressed by the property owners. Mr. Stivender noted that the original developer, prior to Leisure Communities, did not have in place the proper procedures and documentation for the Homeowner's Association to take over the maintenance system. He stated that there were issues that needed to be approved by the existing Homeowner's Association, in order for the Association to be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Stivender stated that this was a community issue, but staff was recommending approval of the actual vacation, which was before the Board. He noted that there were easements along the back side of other lots, however, they were right back to the property line and did not interfere with the placement of the home.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing Florida Leisure Communities, addressed the Board and explained that there was one lot, and one lot only, where the applicant was requesting that the easement be vacated. With the other setbacks that were required, the developer could not get the size home he desired to have on the lot. She noted that the project was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), and it had been in Lake County for a number of years. Ms. Bonifay stated that her client was not the original developer of the project, and that the project had gone into foreclosure, when the applicant purchased it from Barnett Bank. She noted that Mr. Haas was present, as well as other homeowners who supported the request. She further noted that the applicant had formally amended the Planned Unit Development (PUD), which underlies the DRI. Ms. Bonifay hoped that the Board would center on the issue of the drainage easement, which was before the Board. She noted that the technical staff had reviewed it and had found it to be within the parameters for review and approval, so that the applicant could accommodate a house. Ms. Bonifay clarified that it did not mean that the drainage would not be handled on the site, but it would be done in the alternative method, which was allowed by the SJRWMD. Ms. Bonifay noted that the applicant had spent an extensive amount of time and money redoing the entire Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit for this particular site and had all of the SJRWMD approvals that were necessary. Ms. Bonifay stated that, because residents had raised some issues, representatives of the SJRWMD had been to the site and had furnished a letter, which she supplied to the Board, that indicated the stormwater system was functioning in accordance with the District's rules, and that the meeting was to alleviate any concerns that the residents had regarding this issue. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant did an on-site inspection, which was not a requirement, at the applicant's and homeowners' request, to alleviate concerns. She further stated that there had been no compelling evidence of any type to determine why the drainage easement should not be approved.

Commr. Gerber declared a conflict of interest on this case, and would not vote on it, because her husband did work with Leisure Communities.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board of a new procedure, which he had implemented, to handle conflicts by the Board. He stated that the conflict form would be distributed to the Board member, at the time the conflict was declared, and would be completed and filed with the Deputy Clerk at the meeting, and be included with the backup information.

Mr. Gustane Knorr, Lot G5, addressed the Board and stated that, as owners that live with the easement directly behind their homes, the property owners could not avoid looking at it from a chain link, because water drained through the easement. Mr. Knorr stated that the property owners had not seen the report from the SJRWMD, as of this date, and as residents, he felt they should be entitled to review the report, before the vacation of the easement was granted, since they had an investment in the development. Mr. Knorr stated that he bought his home in January, and moved into it in June, and he did not recall any indication, on the material that had been given to him by the builder, that there was such an easement behind his property. He felt that there may have been some subterfuge from the beginning, and because of this reason, if the petition was granted without the residents seeing the report, there was a good possibility that the link in the chain could be handled incorrectly and affect other vacant lots in the future.

Discussion occurred regarding the inspection report received from the SJRWMD, which was made on Leisure Communities, with questions being raised by individuals, as to the urgency of the public hearing, when the applicant was aware of the fact that the property owners were awaiting the report for review. At this time, the Board and staff explained the procedures that were used to schedule the public hearing on this request.

It was noted that a letter had been received from Ms. Joan Lowe, on behalf of the residents of Oak Park Drive, requesting a delay of the hearing for 90 days, until the SJRWMD completed its study.

Mr. Oscar Hieber, Lot G8, addressed the Board and stated that he lived on the easement in question. He stated that the property owners did not have any particular argument with the entire drainage system, but was concerned about this particular vacation of easement. He addressed the letter from the SJRWMD and stated that he could not believe that it was a report of the entire inspection of the system. He felt that there were other items and information to be known, and he did not feel the report was complete, therefore, he requested a postponement, until all of the facts, and a complete report of the inspection, were available to the property owners. He explained the condition of several of the lots, in relation to the drainage, and stated that it was the concern of the owners that the easement was not doing its job, and it would not help it, if a part of the easement was vacated.

Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board and iterated that whatever was documented would have to be done by confident substantial evidence, and the property owners had not offered anything in those terms. She stated that the Board had not heard any geotechnical information, no engineering information, and staff has been on the site, as well as representatives of the SJRWMD, who were asked by the developer to come to the property and review the functioning of the stormwater system. Ms. Bonifay explained that the applicant had received the report at approximately 5 p.m. and had provided it to the elected representatives of the Homeowner's Association. Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Frank Haas, the applicant and developer of Pennbrooke, to discuss the impact of the request, and to explain why it was needed and what steps had been taken to ensure the viability of the overall stormwater system.

Mr. Frank Haas, President of Florida Leisure Communities, addressed the Board and stated that the easement, which he was requesting to be vacated, was a part of the old original design of the former developer. He stated that the entire project had been re-designed and that all plans had been submitted to the County and the SJRWMD and had been reviewed and approved. Mr. Haas explained that the issue before the Board first came up when he wanted to get the overall stormwater drainage system into the Association for maintenance. He stated that the original developer had made no provision in the Covenant and Restrictions to make this accommodation. When the changes were processed, there was concern expressed by the residents that he was providing something that would cause future liability, and therefore, he deferred the changes, until he could satisfy the residents' needs. At this time, he requested that the SJRWMD do a review of the system. Mr. Haas stated that there were two representatives of a group that was known as the Ad Hoc Committee that had been a part of this issue at all times. He stated that the Compliance Engineer from the SJRWMD, and two Ad Hoc representatives met on September 13, 1995, as well as the developer's professional engineer, and other representatives, to review and listen to all of the concerns of the residents, and the letter before the Board was the result of that meeting. He explained that all issues were addressed, due to the outcome of the report, and he wanted to vacate the easement on Lot G16, because of the location of the home, and the need to begin construction. Mr. Haas requested that there not be a postponement to the request and explained that he did not have any objection to the residents reviewing the report, but he objected to them holding the request hostage when it was a separate issue from their concerns, which had already been addressed.

Ms. Lora Bailey, Engineer III, addressed the Board and explained that the letter before the Board, from the SJRWMD, was the full report of the inspection. She stated that staff would be looking at a trade off of the drainage easement versus an environmental swale.

Ms. Iris Russell, Lot G22, addressed the Board and questioned

why the residents received a letter about the whole condition of the development, if Mr. Haas was only concerned about Lot G16. She explained that the letters were received from the Homeowners' Association.

Mr. Haas explained that there had been no correspondence from the developer to the residents, and that the official notification had been sent of the hearing, as required by staff. Mr. Haas explained the process that would involve side swales, which would control the water in the area where Ms. Russell lived. He further explained that all of the construction, for the basic improvements, had been completed, and it was now a matter of grading and lot completion. Mr. Haas stated that, as he completed a Phase, it would be turned over to the Homeowner's Association, and he would be responsible to provide services, in conjunction with them, through the fees that the Association collected. He noted that it would be the Homeowner's Association's responsibility to maintain the Phase. Mr. Haas stated that, as each Phase was completed, a supplement would be done to the Covenant and Restrictions, so that the maintenance could be accepted and turned over to the Homeowners' Association.

Commr. Swartz referred to the letter from Ms. Joan Lowe regarding the County being involved in a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) and stated that he did not know whether or not there had been any consideration within the Homeowner's Association.

Commr. Hanson made a motion to postpone the request for vacation for the next 30-45 minutes, or whatever time was needed, for all parties to review the letter from the SJRWMD.

After some discussion by the Board, it was noted that Commr. Hanson would hold her motion, until the completion of the public hearing.

Mr. Oscar B. Hieber, Lot G8, addressed the Board and stated that the residents were here to address a personal and private matter among the people who were affected, and it had nothing to do with the Homeowner's Association. He stated that it was not fair to ask the residents to look at something for a few minutes on the same day of the meeting, and he would certainly not be in favor of such a rapid suggestion.

Commr. Swartz stated that he knew Mr. Haas and Ms. Bonifay would not support a 90 day postponement, which he did not feel would be necessary for the people to have the ability to see the report, but, in an effort to have a reasonable time for everyone to look at it, he suggested that the issue be postponed one week, until October 3, 1995, to give everyone that opportunity.

Ms. Bonifay stated that it would help her client with the planning involved with the project, to have a time certain, as well as give them the opportunity to meet with the people and address issues of concern.

Mr. Art Lester, President of the Homeowner's Association, informed the Board that the members saw the report this morning, and he wanted to see the project go forward, but that no one had approached the Association to discuss the request.

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

Mr. Minkoff clarified that, under the rules, this was not a quasi-judicial hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Road Vacation Petition No. 800 by Frank H. Haas, Leisure Communities, Ltd., to vacate drainage easement, Pennbrooke Phase 1-G, Sec. 19, Twp. 19, Rge. 24, Leesburg area, Commissioner District 1, until October 3, 1995, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter.

Commr. Gerber did not vote on the motion, due to declaring a conflict of interest, as stated earlier.

Petition No. 801 - R. Scott Hutcheson - Lady Lake Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that the request involved an easement that was not being utilized for drainage, or utilities, at this time, and staff was recommending approval of the request.

Ms. Kathryn Hutcheson, representing Harbor Hills, addressed the Board and stated that the request involved two lots that were under contract. She stated that the request was being made, in order to vacate the utility easement, because it was no longer needed for purposes of providing services to the home owner.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 801 by R. Scott Hutcheson, Harbor Hills Country Club, to vacate drainage and utility easement, Harbor Hills Unit 1, Sec. 13, Twp. 18, Rge. 24, Lady Lake area, Commissioner District 5.

Petition No. 802 - Joe J. Swiderski - Fruitland Park Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that there had been calls from the property owners about the intent of the request, but no letters of opposition had been filed. He stated that staff had reviewed the request and saw no need not to approve the request to vacate, because Tract A appeared to be an access to a canal.

Mr. Charles Seller, Attorney representing Mr. Swiderski, addressed the Board and stated that the purpose of the vacation of Tract A was the result of a conflict on the plat itself, in which there was a general dedication in the upper right hand corner of the first page, which stated that, in effect, all tracts, easements, and streets were dedicated to the public. On page 3 of the plat, there was a statement that Tract A was reserved by the developer for future development. Because of this conflict, which appeared after a title insurance examination, it was determined that the only way to resolve the conflict, short of court action, was to bring forth a petition to vacate the tract and start over. Mr. Seller stated that the purpose of Tract A was to give access to the canal, to those people living in the subdivision itself, and not to the general public.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that there were two parts to a vacation, and the action that the Board took would only eliminate public rights. There may be private rights that the owners of these lots have to this tract that may be separate from the public rights. In order to get clear title to the tract, not only would the public rights have to be vacated, but the private rights would also have to be vacated, if they had been established. After further discussion, Mr. Minkoff explained that an individual would have to go to court to legally establish a private easement.

Mr. Joe Swiderski addressed the Board and stated that he was the developer of the property. Mr. Swiderski discussed the recorded plat and stated that he had carelessly signed it with the language that was noted by his attorney. He stated that, before the plat was recorded, it was made clear to the buyers that Tract A was reserved by the owner for future development.

Mr. Bill Farner, Hall, Farner & Associates, addressed the Board and stated that the plat was prepared by Hall, Farner & Associates, and that there was a discrepancy, because Tract A could not be dedicated to the public, and also vacated for future development.

Ms. Kathy Moore addressed the Board and stated that she lived on the property next door to the property adjacent to the tract in question. Ms. Moore stated that she was speaking in behalf of her father who was extremely ill at this time, and who was the owner of the property adjacent to the tract in question (Lot 15). Ms. Moore noted a letter that had been sent to the new property owners regarding lake access and stated that they had some discrepancies about the area in question. Ms. Moore read into the record, and submitted for filing, a letter dated September 23, 1995, which had signatures of nine new home owners. The letter was requesting that the Board rule that Tract A remain dedicated to the public, so as to ensure access to the canal by the residents of King's Cove. Ms. Moore explained that there were three existing docks on the property, and a boat ramp, that were built by the original developer and had been used by the public. She further discussed problems that had arisen between her and Mr. Swiderski regarding the access to her father's property and stated that she wanted to make sure that her father had legal access to his property, and if the property goes out of the family, she wanted to make sure that whoever purchased the property would be able to build on it and have water and sewer possibilities. Ms. Moore explained that she was having access problems, because the developer had paved Wild Cherry Lane at a curve instead of making it straight like it used to be. She noted that her property was located in King's Cove, but was not a part of it, and that the property had always been owned by family before King's Cove was developed.

Mr. Stivender explained that the Moores' property was sub-divided land and not part of a plat. He stated that the access to their property was Wild Cherry Lane, and it appeared that this was the access long before Wild Cherry Lane was developed. He noted that the vacation of Tract A would take away part of their frontage to the northern lot.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the Moores may not have buildable access, under the Lot of Record Ordinance, where now they could extend the paved road, so they could possibly have the paved frontage.

Mr. Dave Webber addressed the Board and stated that he bought his lot (Lot 11) in King's Cove, in 1982, and that he was a realtor who sold real estate in that area. He noted that he was not in the new area of development. Mr. Webber explained that Wild Cherry Lane went straight to the boat ramp and major canal, and when the new area was developed, the developer curved the road. He discussed the history of the access and stated that Mr. Swiderski had put up a chain to block the access. Mr. Webber stated that he knew there had been a problem with people coming from outside of the community to use the boat ramps, so a key to the chain was distributed to all of the residents in King's Cove. He explained that the advertising for King's Cove had always been for lake access. Mr. Webber questioned Mr. Swiderski's ownership along the canal and stated that, since the 1970s, people have been using the boat ramp at the location in question.

Mr. Swiderski explained that his insurance company would not give him the necessary liability insurance, unless he protected Tract B, which was the boat ramp, and therefore, he put up a chain. He further explained the location of his property and stated that no one had the right to travel over his land, because it was privately owned, and it included the small strip to the canal and boat ramps. Mr. Swiderski explained the problems that were occurring at the location of the boat ramps, and the communication that took place between him and the residents and law enforcement regarding complaints. Mr. Swiderski stated that he was trying to give the people, in Tract A, access to the canal.

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

Mr. Minkoff explained that the Board could require that a document be recorded in the public records, which established the access for the residents in King's Cove. He did have a question about King's Cove, because there was a lot of King's Cove, and the Board would want to be definite. Mr. Minkoff explained that, once the Board took away the public rights, the residents would have to go to court to establish their rights, which would make it more difficult for other members of other parts of King's Cove, or the public at large, that may have been using it.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned that the only people that were noticed were the Moores and Mr. Swiderski, who own within 150 feet, and that no one else had been noticed of this action. He further stated that he would be concerned about vacating this without some assurance that the people who bought in here knew what the ramifications might be, or unless the Board could ensure access to the property owners within whatever portion of King's Cove was appropriate. Commr. Swartz stated that he did not want to see the Board do something that would eliminate their rights, or put them in a position where they would have to go to court to get some type of rights. He stated that he would not vote to vacate, unless there was assurance that the property owners were able to maintain their rights, based on the plat that they had been presented.

Mr. Swiderski addressed the Board and explained the location of the 37 lots in Tract A; the lots in Tract B; and the problems that existed with the recorded plat. He explained that he was trying to give the 37 property owners access, and stated that the other residents already had access through Tract B.

Mr. Minkoff explained that he did not see a problem with a motion granting the vacation contingent upon the County getting a document, which staff and the Attorney's Office would review, which ensured that the owners of those 37 lots got the right to travel across Tract A and use it for access, although he was concerned about the fact that there were other sections not having seen the brochure that was shown, because there may be other sections of this development that was promised this access, not by plat, but previously through sales materials. He reminded the Board that, in order to vacate public lands, there had to be a public purpose, and the Board would have to make a finding today that there was a public purpose to do this vacation. He stated that, if there were other people who may have the legal right to use this property, the Board would have to decide whether it was a public purpose to close this access. Mr. Minkoff noted that the courts had ruled that the Board of County Commissioners had to find that it was in the best interest of the public at large to do the vacation.

Mr. Webber submitted the King's Cove On-the-Lake pamphlet for the record and stated that Wild Cherry Lane had gone straight to the water before the developer curved it. He discussed the concrete boat ramp that had been built in the earlier years and stated that he had no objection, if Mr. Swiderski opened up the area to the canal to all of King's Cove.

Commr. Swartz explained that he had always been a little troubled when the Board closed access to waterways, but on the other hand, the accesses that were within plats were not intended for the larger public. He wanted to see this issue re-noticed in such a way that more than just Mr. Swiderski, and the Moores, were aware of it. He stated that the Board could have Public Services, and the legal department, look into this and determine, before the Board closed some public access, what had been provided in prior representations, because he was not prepared to vacate this today, or to vacate it with the understanding that the Board would require something to be recorded that would assure access, because he was not sure who the Board should be assuring access to.

Mr. Stivender noted that a lot of the amenities for King's Cove were built 20 years ago, but the lots were never platted to the amenities.

Discussion occurred regarding the possibility that people in King's Cove thought they had access at both points of the canal, from Tract A and Tract B.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he was not sure that there was access through Tract B, because he had not reviewed the plat, and that Mr. Swiderski indicated that he owned it and it was subject to him giving them access.

Commr. Swartz made a motion to authorize staff to research the legal implications of the plat, and who had access to the various tracts and waterfront access, and that a notice be prepared so that people within the King's Cove subdivision could be advised of consideration for vacating, or replacing this plat.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he could look at Tract B to see if the public, or if anybody of any plat, had the right to go across Tract B, but he could not make a factual determination that somebody in Unit I was sold their lot with the promise that they would get access through this street, or through Tract B. He stated that they have it right now, because of a public right-of-way, but if the County took it away, the only way they could establish it would be by going to court and establishing either a prescriptive right, or a right that was based upon the representations of their sales contract.

Commr. Swartz stated that, based on the comments made by Mr. Minkoff, he felt that there needed to be a broader notification for the people who live in King's Cove, so they could come and participate in the hearing.

Mr. Minkoff stated that this was an advertised public hearing, and if the Board did not take action today, it needed to be postponed to a time and date certain, and the other question would be who to notify, if anybody additionally should be, and if there was additional information that the Board wanted staff, or the County Attorney's Office to get for it to review.

Commr. Swartz stated that, at a minimum, notification should be given to the 37 lots that appeared to be in this particular plat dealing with Tract A, which was his motion. He clarified that his motion was to postpone, for 30 days, to give adequate time to give notice to the 37 property owners within this particular plat.

Commr. Hanson seconded the motion made by Commr. Swartz.

Discussion occurred regarding the notification being given to the 37 property owners in Tract A, and the expense involved with the process.

Commr. Hanson suggested postponing the request without further notification, and giving staff time to come back with pertinent information, and the hearing could be held without any additional costs.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board amended the motion to remove the notice to the 37 property owners.

Commr. Swartz voted "no".

The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion to postpone for 30 days, until October 24, 1995, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter, Road Vacation Petition No. 802, Joe J. Swiderski, and to authorize the legal staff to review the issue, as stated. The motion was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

ZONING

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the 9 a.m. hearing, on Case #177A-85-4, Miller Enterprises.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:17 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess and reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the Resolution appointing Mr. Steven Kolozsvary to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.

Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell were not present for the discussion or vote.

OTHER BUSINESS

COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to authorize staff to modify the December meeting schedule to December 5, 12, and 19, 1995.

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

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT/COUNTY BUILDINGS

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the emergency repair to the exterior of the Sheriff's Administration Building, at a cost not to exceed $150,000.

ZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff was asked to do some effective agenda management at the last meeting, and the schedule today had been amended, with some of the hearings being scheduled for October 5, 1995.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that item #52-95-2, Island Food Store, had been withdrawn.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that staff was requesting a postponement of item #177A-85-4, Miller Enterprises, because the site plan being proposed had been reviewed, and it appeared that it could go through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) without the need for a variance or an amendment. He noted that they would be re-submitting it, and getting new comments, and the case would most likely be withdrawn.

Mr. Stubbs, Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III/Supervisor, and Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.

PETITION #35-95-4 A to RP Kichul Kim

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff had recommended approval to rezone the site to RP (Residential Professional), subject to a Developer's Agreement limiting the projects density to that permitted by the zoning classification in place prior to March 12, 1990. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved RP zoning in the front half of the property, and CFD zoning in the rear half of the property, with a Developer's Agreement for an ACLF. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that there was a Memorandum in the backup dated October 27, 1994, from Mr. Mark A. Knight, Chief Planner, regarding Direct Commercial Development in the Comprehensive Plan for office development. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff felt that office development could go in this location, and that office development was exempt from that criteria, and would be something that staff would be discussing in the future.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Bonnie Roof appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Ms. Roof stated that she was agreeable to staff's recommendation.

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

Ms. Roof explained the conceptual sketch that was shown on the overhead projector.

Commr. Swartz discussed the Memorandum from Mr. Knight dated October 27, 1994, Page 9, the last paragraph, which stated the following: "Please let me know if my understanding of the Comprehensive Plan is legally correct." He stated that he did not know if there was ever a following memorandum responding to this statement, and that he would like to see this area reviewed, because it was an interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Hanson stated that the request involved a variance from the Wekiva Basin amendment, as it has been interpreted in the past. She stated that she had no problem with it, because it was in the urban node, in an area that was developing, and it was a commercial use. She further stated that she had no problem with residential professional, because it was a transition from the residential to commercial, and she felt it was an appropriate use.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not accept the premise on which the Memorandum was based, and the assumptions and conclusions that it drew, because he believed that, in Mount Plymouth and Sorrento, the Board needed to find some way that development could occur in a way that it did not deteriorate and bring down the level of service on State Road 46. He did not see the continuation of commercial all along there as doing anything but being in opposition to what the Comprehensive Plan said.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the rezoning request from A (Agriculture) to RP (Residential Professional), Ordinance 1995-25, subject to a Developer's Agreement limiting the projects density to that permitted by the zoning classification in place prior to March 12, 1990, as recommended by staff.

Commr. Swartz voted "no".

PETITION #41-95-1 R-1 to CFD Southern States Utilities

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and there were no letters for or against it.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

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

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-1 to CFD, Ordinance 1995-26, to bring an existing utility site into conformance with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

PETITION CUP#94/5/2-2 Napoleon Ulloa

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that nothing had occurred on this site, as of this date, and therefore, staff could not inspect a CUP that had not taken place. He noted that the issue had been postponed, with a six month review, and staff was requesting another six months, so that the business could become activated and be inspected by the County.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicant was not present for the hearing, and there was no opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that staff was sending the applicant the bill for the advertising fees.

Commr. Swartz stated that staff needed to confirm whether or not the applicant wanted the CUP revoked. He stated that, as an alternative to approving the request for another six months, the Board could postpone the request and have staff find out whether the applicant wanted to have the CUP extended.

Commr. Good made a motion for the Board to approve to postpone CUP#94/5/2-2, Napoleon Ulleo, until such time the applicant could be contacted, and the County could confirm that he wanted the review period extended.

Commr. Swartz seconded the motion for discussion and stated that, on Page 3 of the original Resolution, Item D., the applicant was to have begun within 12 months, otherwise, the permit was null and void.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

PETITION #47-95-1 RP to A Virdie Graves

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant had requested rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) to A (Agriculture) for placement of a mobile home on 10 acres of property. He stated that staff reviewed the request and recommended approval to rezone the parcel from RP to R-8 (Mixed Residential, with a Developer's Agreement limiting the density to seven dwelling units per acre maximum. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff did not feel that zoning it to agriculture was appropriate in an area that permitted the density, and it did not feel that agriculture was appropriate in the urban land use plan category and intermingled agricultural uses in areas planned for residential use on the Comprehensive Plan.

Discussion occurred regarding the concept described for R-8 zoning and limiting the density to seven dwelling units per acre versus the possibility of allowing RA (Ranchette) zoning for this particular request.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Virdie Graves appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Ms. Graves addressed the Board and described the zoning of the surrounding property and stated that she wanted a trailer placed on the property, so that her grandson could take care of her, and she wanted her property to stay agriculture. She noted that she had 18 acres, and she wanted to take five acres and put a home on it.

Discussion occurred regarding the property in question being zoned RP, with it being determined that RA zoning would give her the ability to do what she wanted to do, and it would be the closest zoning to an agricultural use other than allowing just agriculture.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) to RA (Ranchette), Ordinance 1995-27, for the placement of a mobile home on the property.

PETITION #49-95-2 R-6 to A Fawn and Carlos Lantes

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff had recommended approval to rezone the parcel from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), because the property was located within the Urban Expansion Land Use designation, and it allowed every use established for RA (Ranchette). He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the case and recommended A (Agriculture) zoning.

The Board reviewed an aerial of the property, as well as a picture of the property, as Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III/Supervisor, explained that the applicants wanted to pursue some agricultural endeavors and have horses, and therefore, to pursue non-intensive agricultural uses. She noted that the applicants just purchased the property and wanted to bring it into conformance with the zoning.

Discussion occurred regarding the recommendations that had been presented to the Board versus the possibility of RA (Ranchette) zoning. Mr. Stubbs explained that staff was attempting to limit the intensity adjacent to an area that would become a subdivision in the future.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Carlos Lantes appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Lantes addressed the Board and explained that he was planning to grow organic vegetables and become self-sufficient, and his intention was to do some commercial farming.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being no one present in opposition to the request, or any further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to A (Agriculture), Ordinance 1995-28, to pursue agricultural endeavors on the property, and approved the Ordinance pertaining to the issue.

PETITION #40-95-2 LM to CFD Dundee Citrus Growers Assoc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, had recommended approval of the rezoning from LM (Light Manufacturing to CFD (Community Facility District).

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, even though the applicant was Dundee Citrus Growers Association, her client was Bell South Mobility. She noted that Ms. Olivia Martin, one of the counsel for Bell South, was present for the hearing and was available to answer questions of the Board. Ms. Bonifay stated that this was a straight forward request, it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it was compatible with the surrounding land uses. Ms. Bonifay stated that, after talking with staff, she would request a change to the conditions, which were on Page 3 of the proposed Ordinance, pertaining to Transportation Improvements. She explained that the property did not front on the road, and the applicant was only leasing the site, and therefore, could not donate right-of-way that it did not have, or control. Ms. Bonifay requested that G. on Page 3 be stricken from the proposed Ordinance.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff did not mind striking the wording indicated by Ms. Bonifay.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there was no difference between somebody leasing a parcel, and the owner dedicating right-of-way, when right-of-way was required, because it involved the use of the land and not the ownership.

Ms. Bonifay understood that it was the standard rule to require right-of-way, only if it created an impact, and there would be no impact on the highway to necessitate a dedication of right-of-way. There was no nexus or proportionality test that was met, in terms of the demand of the facility to require the right-of-way. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Griffey, Director of Engineering, explained that the informal rule was that, unless it actually fronted on the road and created an impact, staff did not request right-of-way. For all of the those reasons, she requested that the language be stricken.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being no one present in opposition to the request, or any further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from LM (Light Manufacturing) to CFD (Community Facility District), Ordinance 1995-29, to construct a cellular communication tower, with the language on Page 3, F. regarding Transportation Improvements being stricken.

PETITION #42-95-2 A to C-1 Paul Liau

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, had recommended C-1 zoning limited to 5,000 square feet. Mr. Stubbs explained that, from a planning background, when looking at nine acres of commercial, staff considers 10,000 feet of commercial per acre, which would be 90,000 square feet of commercial. He explained that staff did not require the applicant to survey what he felt he would need for commercial, but it was probably not appropriate to rezone the whole nine acre tract to commercial. He stated that one day he felt that the County needed to limit the applicant to the amount he would really need, rather than rezone the entire piece of property.

Discussion occurred regarding the location of the property in question, in relation to the surrounding development.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, due to changes in the surrounding area, the current zoning did not allow the applicant any decent uses of his property. He stated that it was partly surrounded, and about to be completely surrounded, with mixed use PUDs and residential development. He further stated that Mr. Liau understood the limitation to 5,000 square feet. Mr. Crawford stated that the applicant would like to rezone the entire nine acres, because the convenience store was going to take up 3,000-3,500 square feet.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being no one present in opposition to the request, or any further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson explained that she had no problem with the nine acres being rezoned, because there were many requirements now for uses that may not require a building, but require commercially zoned property.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from (A) Agricultural to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial), Ordinance 1995-30, limited to 5,000 square feet, to establish a convenience center.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:53 p.m, the Chairman announced that the Board would take a short break.

PETITION CUP#95/8/1-5 CUP in A Grace and John Mellado

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff had recommended 50 dogs, and no competition events. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended 60 dogs and no more than two one-day events per year. Mr. Stubbs noted that there was one letter in support of the request, and another letter with 13 signatures in support of the request, and no letters of opposition.

Discussion occurred regarding the nature of the violation, which brought the request to the attention of the Board. It was noted that a complaint had been initiated by a veterinarian who had some concerns.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page 3 of the proposed Ordinance, Item J. Future Amendments to Statutes, Code, Plan and/or Regulations, and stated that the Animal Control Study Committee was working on an ordinance that might change some of the aspects of the Animal Control Ordinance, as it existed today, and questioned whether the applicants would have to be in compliance with those types of changes, if they came into the Code.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that a change in Code may grandfather, or allow non-conforming uses to continue, so to the extent that the Code allowed a non-conforming use to continue, the applicant would also be allowed to continue.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Richardson discussed his visit to the applicant's site and noted that he did not hear any barking, or any other noise. Mr. Richardson described the property and the structures on site.

Mr. Carlos Perez, applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Perez explained that the code violation was due to a report made by a veterinarian regarding the condition of the dogs. He explained that an inspection was made by Code Enforcement, and staff could not find anything wrong with the dogs, or facilities. At this time, he was told that he needed a CUP to operate the business. Mr. Perez stated that he had the dogs for almost two and a half years, and none of the surrounding neighbors had a problem with them.

Mr. Stubbs questioned whether Mr. Perez would have any opposition to limiting the request to small dogs less than 15 pounds.

Mr. Perez explained that the pounds vary depending on the dog. He further explained that a request was made for more dogs, because of their participation in the rescue program for dogs.

Discussion occurred regarding the future construction of a building where the events would be held. It was noted that there would be a County annual inspection fee of $150 that would be paid by the applicants.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being no one present in opposition to the request, or any further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a Conditional Use Permit in A (Agriculture), Ordinance 1995-31, for a canine kennel for purposes of breeding and sales and competition with the added conditions allowing 60 dogs and two one-day events each year.

PETITION #43-95-5 A to CFD St. John's Water

Management District

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, had recommended approval of the request to rezone the parcel from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to develop and conduct a reclamation project on Lake Griffin, and to establish public recreation and conservation lands.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, addressed the Board and reviewed the information presented in the Environmental Management Division Technical Staff Report.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County may be carrying it a bit too far by requiring the applicant to rezone to CFD from A, when the request pertained to very passive recreational uses. She stated that you might call this somewhat of an "overkill".

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was trying to identify and plan for recreation facilities in Lake County, and uses that accommodated them.

Commr. Swartz explained that last week the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Recreation Committee met and that, in the green book, which was presented to the Board by the Mr. Gene Caputo, Intergovernmental Coordinator for SJRWMD, on pages 40-41, it explained what had been planned for the Emeralda Marsh.

Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz explained that, as shown on Page 40, this was an example of what the County should have in some of the Tourist Development publications that would attract people to Lake County for these activities.

Mr. Gene Caputo, Intergovernmental Coordinator for the St. Johns River Water Management District, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Caputo stated that he brought the information, which he had distributed to the Board, in order to emphasize the recreation impact to the County's program, and to the partnership that the SJRWMD has with the County. He stated that the information focused not only on the Emeralda Marsh, but gave a profile of all of the SJRWMD properties throughout the entire district, and the management program. He stated that he shared Commr. Hanson's concern and interest in the so called "overkill" of the project, because there was an approximate $14,000 application fee that went along with the request for rezoning, which was based on the acreage.

Commr. Hanson stated that there needed to be a zoning category that would be recreational in nature, because, if it was not the SJRWMD, but a private individual who wanted to make the same request, he might not be able to do it.

Mr. Caputo stated that the SJRWMD did not contest the application fee, because it had a time frame that needed to be met to move ahead with the restoration. He stated that the County's staff has a time frame on future zonings, and administrative rezonings on properties that were publicly owned that may not necessarily require the applicant to come before the Board and pay and fee and go through the process.

Discussion occurred regarding the administrative process that was taken by staff in reviewing this request, and the need for a maximum charge for cases as such.

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

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), Ordinance 1995-32, to develop a restoration project to improve the water quality of Lake Griffin, and it will also create public recreation lands and conservation areas, and host a District field station.

PETITION CUP#95/9/2-4 CUP in A Robert C. Gruner

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development & Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff had recommended approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to establish a limited use bandsaw mill in Agricultural Zoning on a ten acre parcel concurrently with the establishment of a single family residence. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the request with conditions, as outlined.

Mr. Stubbs presented a video that had been taken on the site in question and noted that the video had not been available for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III/Supervisor, noted that the video had been taken, in order to establish the noise factor involved with the milling process.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he had property in this area, and he felt that the property in question and the milling activity was far enough away that it would not affect the value of it. He disclosed this information and stated that he did not see a conflict in a vote.

Mr. Robert Gruner, applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the applicant. Mr. Gruner explained that he would be taking his bandsaw and traveling to property owned by other people and collecting the wood/logs, and that he would also be doing on-site work. He noted his letter in the backup material, which indicated that he would like to provide a service for tree service people. Mr. Gruner explained that he contacted all of his neighbors about the work that he was doing on his property, and no one was in opposition to his request. He noted that he was hoping to build a home on the property this year depending on his finances.

Mr. Stubbs noted that language had been included in the proposed Ordinance, under Operation Standards, which stated that, the use shall commence concurrently with the occupancy of a single family residence on the property.

Discussion occurred regarding the requirement for a residence under a CUP, because the request was not for a home occupational license, and if this was a silviculture operation, it would be an agricultural operation, as defined in the past.

Mr. Stubbs explained that it was the intent of the applicant to work at one site, and not have to travel with a bandsaw, if he could get a market for fence board, and therefore, there would be more activity on the site. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff would be more comfortable with the Board adding a condition that would require him to get a building permit within a certain time frame.

Mr. Gruner explained that he had owned the property for approximately three years, and he discussed the amount of time that he would have to be away from his property doing on-site jobs.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board would be setting a precedent by requiring a house to be on the site, when it was an agricultural type function. She stated that, by requiring a house, it would put him in a home occupational license situation rather than a CUP, and that she did not have a problem giving a CUP in a rural location like this one.

Commr. Cadwell noted that, to the south and east, there were homes, even though the area was rural.

Commr. Swartz stated that, until the County got some other classification for agriculture that allowed for some type of a quasi commercial agricultural use, then they need to be under CUPs, and under the current Code, they probably needed to be as staff had recommended.

Mr. Stubbs clarified that the applicant would need an occupational license from Lake County to sell what he cuts and makes on his piece of property.

Commr. Good explained that the applicant was making a request to use his mill on his property, and to use it for silviculture, and he did not see the necessity of requiring a residence and making it a part of the conditions.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if you do not have the request associated with some type of residence, then it would be strictly a commercial use. He explained that this was not silviculture, because the applicant was not growing the lumber, and he was bringing it in from other places. He stated that he was not opposed to the request, but he felt that, under the current Code, as it was established, there needed to be some compliance in the future. When the County established a new designation that would allow this type of request in agriculture zoning, then he would not have to have a house.

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

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Agricultural (A) zoning, Ordinance 1995-33, for part time milling of logs, with the following conditions, as amended:

1. Construction of a pole barn up to an additional 2,500 square feet is permitted.

2. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., for six months. Staff can then bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners with no fees for a possible change of hours;

3. Condition #6 of the Ordinance shall be amended to read:

Burning of waste material must comply with State requirements.

4. Condition #3 regarding the landscaping buffer should be deleted.

Under discussion, the Board and staff referred to Page 1 of the proposed Ordinance, and noted that, under C. 1., the language needed to be modified to include some type of time frame.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board amended the motion to reflect language in C. 1. Operation Standards, to require that a permit for the construction of the home be pulled within one year, and that the house be built.

The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

REPORTS - Commissioner Hanson - District #4

RESOLUTIONS

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she had been contacted last week by Mr. Richard Langford, Tallahassee, who was a consultant for the acquisition of lands, and he had requested that the Board approve a Resolution supporting the purchase of land north of the Wekiva Basin. She received a draft of the Resolution to review.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, for a Resolution to be prepared, as stated above, subject to approval by the Board at the next meeting.

Discussion occurred regarding bringing the Resolution back to the Board for review at the next Board meeting, with it being noted that the Chairman did not call for a vote on the motion, because it was determined that action was not needed by the Board at this time.

REPORTS - Commission Gerber - Chairman and District #1

COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY MANAGER/COURTHOUSE

Commr. Gerber passed the gavel to Commr. Good and made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to direct Public Services and Capital Improvements to meet and determine the best possible parking places that were available for the County Manager and County Attorney, and to make signs that would enumerate

those.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the five parking places that the Commissioners had at the front of the Administration Building needed to be identified as short term visitor parking.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would amend her motion to include Commr. Cadwell's suggestion to be included in her motion. Commr. Hanson amended her second to the motion.

Commr. Good called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting recessed at 4:12 p.m., with the meeting being continued to October 5, 1995, at 9 a.m.

RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\9-26-95\10-10-95