A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 27, 1996

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 27, 1996, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that she would like to add to the County Manager's Consent Agenda a request from Public Services to accept a Final Plat for Reagan's Run Subdivision; execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Amdev Corporation, for maintenance of improvements; accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $16,546.29; and execute a Resolution accepting Constance Way (2-0739A), Kathleen Court (2-0740A), Kipling Court (2-0839D), and Reagans Run Drive (2-0840B) into the County Road Maintenance System.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the County Manager's Consent Agenda.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that she would like to exclude CUP 992-4 from the list contained in Tab 6 of the County Manager's Consent Agenda, with regard to a request from Public Services for approval of voluntary revocation of Conditional Use Permits that have been invalidated, due to annexation or rezoning of the subject property.

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

Accounts Allowed/Economic Development/Funds



Request from Economic Development for approval to award Job Growth Incentive Trust Fund monies, in the amount of $10,000.00, to Water Works Plumbing Corporation.



Growth Management/Ordinances



Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of revised Ordinance No. 1996-16, for Hawthorne Properties, Ltd.



Growth Management/Ordinances



Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of revised Ordinance No. 1996-38, for Florida Rock Industries, Inc.



Growth Management/Planning/Resolutions/Zoning



Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of Resolution establishing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Schedule for Calendar Year 1997.



Growth Management/Planning/Zoning



Request from Growth Management for approval of the voluntary revocation of Conditional Use Permits that have been invalidated, due to the annexation of the rezoning of the subject property.



Accounts Allowed/Public Services/Subdivisions



Request from Public Services for approval to release a Letter of Credit, for performance, in the amount of $627,000.00, for the Grove at Harbor Hills Subdivision.



Public Services/Subdivisions



Request from Public Services for acceptance of the Final Plat for Avalon Estates Phase I Subdivision - Phase I consists of 8 lots off Hartwood Marsh Road (2-0854) - Commissioner District 2.



Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Contracts, Leases and Agreements

Public Services/Resolutions/Subdivisions



Request from Public Services for authorization to accept the Final Plat for Reagan's Run Subdivision; execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Amdev Corporation, for maintenance of improvements; accept a maintenance bond, in the amount of $16,546.29; and execute a Resolution accepting Constance Way (2-0739A), Kathleen Court (2-0740A), Kipling Court (2-0839D), and Reagans Run Drive (2-0840B) into the County Road Maintenance System.



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 821 - MACKAY FISHER PARTNERS - LADY LAKE

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by MacKay Fisher Partners to vacate an easement in Sections 1 and 2, Township 18, Range 24, in the Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5. He stated that the easement in question was originally laid out as part of a lot split, however, because of the way the lots were sold, the easement is no longer necessary.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 821 (Resolution No. 1996-118), by MacKay Fisher Partners, to vacate easement, Sections 1 and 2, Township 18, Range 24, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5.

PETITION NO. 825 - MARY SMITH - MT. PLYMOUTH

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from Mary Smith to vacate a road rights-of-way in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth, Section 23, Township 19, Range 28, in the Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4. He referred to a plat, contained in the Board's backup material, stating that, based on the numerous number of access points for other lots throughout the subdivision, staff felt the road in question was an additional road that was not necessary, therefore, would recommend approval of the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned whether Ms. Smith would be required to meet current setback requirements.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that staff would consider existing development patterns and would request that the setback be 50 feet as landward as possible from the jurisdictional line.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 825 (Resolution No. 1996-119), by Mary Smith, to vacate a road rights-of-way in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth, Section 32, Township 19, Range 28, in the Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4.

PETITION NO. 826 - JIM STIVENDER, JR. - MT. PLYMOUTH

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from the Public Services Department to vacate a drainage easement in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth, Section A, Section 32, Township 19, Range 28, in the Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4. He stated that the road in the area of the easement was vacated some years ago and staff did not know what drainage was necessary, at that time, so they reserved a 50 foot easement. He stated that he had asked the County's stormwater engineers to look at the easement and see if there was any practical reason for keeping it in that location and they found no reason for doing so, noting that it was a surplus easement and would not be practical to use. He recommended approval to vacate the easement.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 826 (Resolution No. 1996-120), by Jim Stivender, Jr., Lake County Public Services, to vacate a drainage easement in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth, Section A, Section 32, Township 19, Range 28, in the Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

PETITION NO. 33-96-2 - A TO CFD - FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF CLERMONT/NORMAN CUMMINS/CAREER ENTERPRISE

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Mr. Norman Cummins and the First Christian Church of Clermont to rezone approximately 22 acres in the Clermont area, to establish an education facility and church complex. She stated that the future land use designation is Urban Expansion and the current zoning is Agriculture. She stated that the property in question is located just off Hwy. 27, down an unimproved easement, and that one of the conditions of the request is that the church improve that easement. She stated that the request is to establish a church some time in the future, between a time frame of 1-5 years, and that the applicants wanted to get their zoning in place and move forward with construction of the facility.

Ms. Farrell reviewed an aerial map of the property in question. She stated that staff found the request to be consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the applicants will be working with the City of Clermont, with regard to water and sewer, if it is available. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved it, by a 9-0 vote. She then answered questions from the Board regarding the request and submitted, for the record, the aerial map (Applicant's Exhibit A).

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board stating that they were anticipating purchasing the property in question, located on Steve's Road, for future expansion and that, if the road is not improved at the time that the applicants come in for site plan approval, they will make the necessary improvements at that time. He stated that he would like for same to be reflected in the ordinance, because that is their intent and the intent that they have made to staff, from day one. He noted that the applicants will be coordinating central water and sewer, as well as access, with the City of Clermont.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

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 a request to rezone property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to establish a church facility, with additional uses, as listed:

Phase I: Multi-use facility for church and school; 18 classrooms; gymnasium/auditorium; kitchen and cafeteria; several modular buildings for offices and classrooms.



Phase II: 20,000 sf worship facility; main auditorium; additional classrooms and offices.

Phase III: softball field; basketball courts; and running track.



PETITION NO. 28-96-5 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE NO. 99-89 - JOHN B. WHITAKER, ET AL

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend PUD Ordinance No. 99-89, consisting of approximately five acres. She stated that the applicant has a PUD that was approved in 1984 and granted an extension in 1987. She stated that five lots were recorded in July of 1990, with a duplex constructed on each lot, and, rather than move forward and construct two additional duplexes, the applicant would like to remove the five acres from the PUD and place one mobile home on the property. She stated that, basically, the applicant is exchanging two duplexes for one single family residence. She stated that the applicant came in to pull a permit for the single family residence and, because of the PUD, the County could not issue a permit. She stated that staff would like to pull the five acres out of the PUD and allow the applicant to move forward as an agriculture zoning district. She then answered questions from the Board regarding the request and presented, for the record, a plat (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, 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 a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance No. 99-89, to less out 5 +/- acres and rezone it to A (Agriculture).



PETITION NO. 40A-94-3 - AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 1994-220

LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from the Lake County Board of County Commissioners for an amendment to Resolution No. 1994-220, to add to the existing CFD (Community Facility District) uses a work farm for the Lake County Correctional Facility, to be operated by Jail inmates, and to utilize one acre for SWAT and In-Service Training for the Sheriff's Office. She stated that it is a 10 acre parcel located in the landfill area of Tavares, north of Frankie's Lane. She stated that the site would front SR 561 and Astatula Landfill Road and would be utilized by non-violent, misdemeanor inmates only. She stated that there was no opposition to the request from surrounding landowners and that she had spoken with Mr. Gene Molnar, a representative of the Lake County School Board, and he did not verbalize any concerns, based on the distance from the Middle School site. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She then presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a plat (County Exhibit B) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Officer Robert Tretter, Lake County Sheriff's Department, appeared before the Board stating that the request contained a clause stating that the only inmates who would be utilizing the facility would be non-violent, misdemeanor inmates, however, felons would be utilizing the facility, as well, and he wanted to make the Board aware of that fact. He stated that each inmate is taken on a case-by-case basis and that the Sheriff's Department has not had any problems with the ones selected, thus far.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Officer Tretter answered questions regarding same.

It was noted that the language alluded to by Officer Tretter would be changed to correspond with the Sheriff's classification system currently utilized for inmates working outside the facility.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, 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 a request for an amendment to Resolution No. 1994-220, to add to the existing CFD uses a work farm for the Lake County Correctional Facility, to be operated by Jail inmates, and to utilize one acre for SWAT and In-Service training for the Sheriff's Office, with the stipulation that the language contained in Paragraph B, on Page 3 of the Ordinance, be changed to correspond with the Sheriff's classification system currently utilized for inmates working outside the facility.

PETITION NO. 34-96-4 - LM TO CFD - GENE SMITH

TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a parcel of land .82 +/- acres in size, located in the Mt. Dora area, at the intersection of Old U.S. 441 and Bay Road (DR4-4260). She stated that the applicant was formally known as the Family Bible Church and was present to request a CFD (Community Facility District), to operate a Montessori School on the site. She stated that the school currently has a CUP, so it not only makes the school more consistent with the County's land use classification, but it will also get the school out of the annual inspection provisions for CUPS. She stated that there was no opposition and that staff was recommending approval of the request. She noted that staff had a video, for the Board's perusal, if they chose to view it, and presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, 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 request for rezoning from LM (Light Industrial) to CFD (Community Facility District), to use an existing church building for a Montessori School, with accessory uses related thereto.

PETITION NO. 27-96-2 - A TO CFD - H. R. KIRKLAND

BAY LAKE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant wants to add nine acres to its current site, for recreational uses and possible future expansions. She stated that the church is located off Lake Erie Road, in the Bay Lake area, in south Lake County. She stated that staff found the uses to be compatible with the area, therefore, were recommending approval. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. 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 a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a recreation area adjacent to an existing church.

PETITION NO. CUP96/8/1-2 - CUP IN LM - GEORGE AND LOIS MCGUIRE

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in LM (Light Industrial). She stated that, some months ago, the County approved a tower on the Dundee Citrus property and noted that, at that time, a house was located on the property that was utilized as a caretaker's residence. She stated that the house has deteriorated and the applicants would like to replace it with a mobile home, to be utilized as a caretaker's residence. She stated that the applicants store trucking equipment on the site and that they have had some problems with vandalism. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it, by an 8-0 vote. She presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. 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 a request for a CUP in LM (Light Industrial), for the placement of a mobile home on the site, for watchman/security guard living quarters, with an existing "Equipment Storage" business.

PETITION NO. 30-96-1 - AMENDMENT TO PFD ORDINANCE NO. 87-88

HOLY TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH/THE LAND PLANNING GROUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from the Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Fruitland Park for an amendment to PUD Ordinance

No. 99-89, which involves a 5 +/- acre parcel of property. She stated that the applicant wants to add the use of a school and, because it was not specifically listed in their PFD (Public Facility District) ordinance, staff requested that they come before the Board for approval to add said use. She stated that, on the matrix, there are a number of uses provided for a PFD, but the County takes PFD ordinances on a case-by-case basis so, if an applicant wants to add something new, they will have to come in and amend their ordinance, so the Board will be seeing more PFD ordinances coming in for specific uses. She stated that the applicant gave the Board a list of anything and everything that they might be doing in the future, so that they will not have to go through this process again. She stated that she had a video of the site, for the Board's perusal. She stated that the only concern staff had was the reference to the thrift shop, but, other than that, they were recommending approval, noting that the request is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.

At this time, the Board viewed said video.

Ms. Farrell submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question and the video (County Exhibit B).

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that he was a member of Holy Trinity Episcopal Church. He stated that the church has been in existence for over 110 years and that it has offered the services listed on the list that Ms. Farrell alluded to, in some form or fashion, during the entire 110 years. He stated that they are not adding any new buildings, equipment, or facilities and that there will be no impact to the area. He stated that the church has had a thrift shop, on and off, for over 20 years. He stated that this request is strictly for the purpose of bringing the church into conformance, noting that they thought they had done so the last time they went through the process, which he elaborated on. He stated that, since the church was not a wealthy institution, the applicant was requesting the Board to waive the filing fee, due to the fact that this request is strictly a cleaning up of the language and uses that the church has had for years.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commr. Gerber and seconded by Commr. Good to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for an amendment to PFD Ordinance No. 87-88, to expand an existing church and accessory uses to include: a new sanctuary, pre-school, club/organization and business meeting place; crisis center; summer camp; counseling center; food bank; temporary housing shelter; community benefits; recreational facilities; thrift shop; political and family gathering; community benefits; senior citizen center/organization; income tax preparation center and voting center; safety meetings; parents day/night out programs; and youth organizations (4-H, Scouting, etc.), and to waive the application fees for the amendment change.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz suggested that staff research the waiving of the application fee, noting that he was not sure the Board had approved such requests in the past.

Commr. Gerber interjected that staff had already researched said fee.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the request should be handled in two separate motions and that there should be some discussion, with regard to the waiving of the fee.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff researched the Minutes and what they had on file and were not comfortable with considering a school and an accessory use, without bringing it to the Board. She noted that the fee in 1988, which the applicant originally paid, was $150.00, however, it is now $760.00.

Mr. Beliveau, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Board and clarified the fact that the previous PFD contained a clause, which the applicant thought it was working under, that allowed staff to make the determination on its own, however, after three months of trying to decide whether or not staff had that authority, staff did not feel they could make a decision and brought the matter back before the Board. He stated that this was the reason the applicant was requesting a waiver of the fee.

Commr. Gerber rescinded her motion and Commr. Swartz rescinded his second to the motion.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for an amendment to PFD Ordinance No. 87-88, to expand an existing church and accessory uses to include: a new sanctuary, pre-school, club/organization and business meeting place; crisis center; summer camp; counseling center; food bank; temporary housing shelter; community benefits; recreational facilities; thrift shop; political and family gathering; community benefits; senior citizen center/organization; income tax preparation center and voting center; safety meetings; parents day/night out programs; and youth organizations (4-H, Scouting, etc.).

It was noted that the request for waiving the application fee would be brought back to the Board, with staff's recommendation, for the Board to consider, as an agenda item, at a later date.

PETITION NO. 29-96-3 - R-1 AND LM TO LM - LYNN WALKER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a parcel of property .6 +/- acres in size, in the Tavares area, on Old U.S. 441. She stated that the applicant has an industrial type building that has an old zoning line running through it. She stated that the site in question is zoned LM (Light Industrial) and the applicant wants to correct the zoning error, noting that said property is located in the Urban zoning district. She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone it to LM (Light Industrial) and expand the land use. She stated that there were no letters of opposition, or letters of support, on file and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote. She showed a video of the property in question and presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A), a plat (County Exhibit B), and the video (County Exhibit C).

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, 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 request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) and LM (Light Industrial) to LM (Light Industrial), for the use of an existing storage building for storage purposes.



PETITION NO. 32-96-2 - A AND R-2 TO R-4 - DAN DECKER

MAGNOLIA POINT DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a straight rezoning for 132 acres in the Urban Expansion land use category. She stated that the property in question is burned out groves, located on the south side of S.R. 50, in the Clermont area. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that they found the project to be a good one for the south Lake County area. She stated that the only letters on file were letters of inquiry, noting that there has been no opposition to the request. She stated that there was a voluntary Developer's Agreement involved, however, noted that, if the Board chose to record it with the ordinance, felt that it contained some language that the County might want to revisit. She stated that the purpose of the Developer's Agreement was for the applicant to make sure that he addressed all the concerns of the adjacent property owners. She submitted, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the ordinance contained in their backup material needed to be amended slightly, because it did not rezone the property to R-4 (Medium Suburban).

Ms. Farrell interjected that staff had a "clean" ordinance in their possession.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and distributed a handout (Applicant's Exhibit A), containing pictures of various subdivisions that the applicant has developed in Lake County, and a letter (Applicant's Exhibit B) from Mr. Bryan Krantz, a neighboring property owner, thanking the applicant for allying concerns he had about the request. He stated that the Developer's Agreement was not necessary, however, the reason he proposed it was because the applicant has been working very closely with the surrounding neighbors and the agreement was simply to demonstrate to them that the commitments that the applicant made will be fulfilled, which he elaborated on. He then showed a video (Applicant's Exhibit C) of the property in question.

Mr. Dan Decker, Applicant, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the request.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of open space, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned whether the 50 foot setback would be part of the property owners' lots.

Mr. Hoban stated that that has not been determined. He stated that the only thing the developer is committing to is that there will be at least 50 feet between the property line and the houses, which he noted will probably be part of a common open space, to be maintained.

Mr. Dale Career, a resident of Magnolia Island, and Mr. Joe Stokes, an individual who is building a home on one of the lots in Magnolia Bay (two other subdivisions that the developer has developed in Lake County), appeared before the Board in support of the request and answered questions from Mr. Hoban regarding same.

Mr. Lanny Harker, Planning Director, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that the development before the Board lies in the Chapter 180 utility service area adopted by the City of Clermont and that it is located in the Joint Planning Area that the City of Clermont has been working on for the past year. He stated that the City of Clermont is a regional provider of utilities and that the system they will provide to the development will be a natural extension of same. He stated that the City of Clermont has had good cooperation from the developer and noted that they had discussed annexation. He stated that the City of Clermont will be glad to provide utilities to the development, because they feel it will be a win/win situation. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request, at which time he noted that it will probably cost $400,000.00 to $500,000.00 to run sewer from the existing plant, in the City of Clermont, to the development.

It was noted that all the homes in the proposed development will be on septic tanks.

Commr. Hanson stated that this was the first time she could recall a city official coming before the Board in support of a development and that she felt it was good to have that kind of relationship.

Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Decker has developed two quality subdivisions in Lake County and that they both sold out and are now assets to the County. He stated that Magnolia Point will be his third quality subdivision. He stated that, by Mr. Decker agreeing to pay for Clermont's extension of the water lines, all future development along S.R. 50 will be within 300 feet of the City of Clermont's water. He stated that the surrounding neighbors of the development do not oppose it, because the developer has committed to meet each and every one of their concerns. He requested the Board to rezone the 132 acres to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) and stated that, if staff feels the Developer's Agreement is not necessary, the applicant will withdraw it.

Commr. Swartz stated that, ideally, this project will end up on central sewer, noting that it will be beneficial to the City of Clermont and, ultimately, to the residents and the lakes in the area, due to the fact that the development consists of 300 units, which he felt was a lot of septic tanks. He questioned whether there was a way to resolve the matter, to ensure that it does go on central sewer.

It was noted that the developer could enter into a pioneering agreement with the City of Clermont, which would allow him to get the line in and recover some of the costs involved with doing so.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if the developer is going to have to put in sewer and water, it will be very difficult to make the project work, doing all the nice amenities, to have a high end and be capped at 300 units. He stated that the developer would have to be capped by the Comprehensive Plan, which is four units per acre. He stated that the developer would have to have clarification that he could have lots that are below the R-4 density requirement, to make the project work.

Commr. Hanson stated that this request involved a change in the County's traditional thinking, to go to clustering for straight zoning in smaller than quarter acre tracts, rather than a PUD.

It was noted that the developer's first development (consisting of 39 units) was a PUD, however, the second one (consisting of 40 units) was straight zoning.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the Board should go beyond what the County's regulations require for sewer, at the present time, noting that to require sewer is going over and beyond what the County's regulations require.

Mr. Hoban stated that the developer will have to pay $800,000 to extend water and sewer lines from the City of Clermont to the development - $400,000 for water and $400,000 for sewer.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this case is strictly a rezoning case and that the availability of water and sewer may be important to rezoning the property, but those issues will come up at the time of development review.

Commr. Swartz stated that he has consistently said that large scale developments should be done under a PUD, because it allows the County to look at all the issues.

Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, reappeared before the Board stating that the reason staff did not go with a PUD is because there is no other use on the site, except for the single family residential use, and that staff was not saying to throw away the Developer's Agreement, they just wanted the Board to visit the agreement, because it contains a lot of information that the Board may not want the County to be part of a commitment to.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the problem with Developer's Agreements is that (1) in the past, developers have used them against the County to claim vested rights and claim that they do not have to file an ordinance, because the County entered into an agreement with them, and (2) a Developer's Agreement probably would not be worth anything, should the property be sold and the new developer gets into financial trouble and gets into bankruptcy. He stated that the Court would look only at the straight zoning and would probably disregard all the conditions in the agreement. He stated that, if the Board wanted to impose the conditions of this agreement, it should be in a PUD and the Board should view this request as a straight zoning case.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt it would be problematic to enter into the Developer's Agreement, under the circumstances. He stated that he felt the best way to ensure that the property develops in accordance with the way that the developer intends and with what would be consistent with the County's Code and requirements, would be to convert this rezoning request into a PUD and bring it back to the Board, as soon as possible, and address those issues that need to be addressed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the issue of sewer was one of concern to him, as well, noting that he felt the residents of the development would be better served with having water and wastewater.

Mr. Hoban, Attorney, stated that the applicant would be willing to voluntary commit to amend the Developer's Agreement to include the fact that he will reach an agreement with the City of Clermont, regarding the issue of sewer.

Commr. Good questioned the County Attorney, Mr. Minkoff, as to whether the Developer's Agreement would hold legal authority and be enforceable, if the Board approved this request under a straight zoning, and was told that it would not be enforceable.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he was not suggesting that straight zoning was improper or incorrect, he just wanted to alert the Board to the fact that the Developer's Agreement may not be the absolute protection that it was being recommended that it might be.

Mr. Hoban stated that construction plan approval would be the one thing that would ensure that the applicant follows the Developer's Agreement, noting that, under the Developer's Agreement, the applicant would not be able to get construction plan approval from staff until he has done everything that is required and, if he has done everything that is required by the time the development gets to the final plat stage, there is nothing else to occur. He stated that, if the termination language in Section 12 of the Developer's Agreement is causing a problem, the applicant would be willing to change it to say that it runs with the land. He stated that, if they need to put in the agreement that the applicant will reach an agreement with the City of Clermont, with regard to running their sewer lines to the development, they will do that, as well, but would like to do it this date, noting that the applicant has the right to come to the Board with a straight zoning request. He stated that the applicant is offering any kind of assurance he can that he will do what he has stated he will do.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that his office could revise the Developer's Agreement to make the changes indicated and have it become a binding contract; therefore, if the Board wished to approve the rezoning this date, with that condition, he felt that he, staff, and Mr. Hoban could come to an agreement and, if they do not come to an agreement, then it can be brought back before the Board at a later date. He stated that the rezoning could be conditioned upon the Developer's Agreement being agreed to.

Mr. Hoban interjected that that would be acceptable to the applicant.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hoban stated that, if the applicant was going to have to go with the stipulation that sewer be provided to the development from the City of Clermont, he would suggest that the Board remove the 300 unit cap and have the applicant be bound by the Comprehensive Plan, because it would be difficult for the applicant to provide water and sewer to the development, for only 300 units. A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of open space, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned staff as to whether the County was requiring open space for straight zoning.

Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the County was not.

Commr. Swartz questioned why the County was not requiring it and requested staff to show him where it states in any policy, or the Land Development Regulations, that open space is not required under straight zoning.

Ms. Farrell stated that the reason Developer's Agreements are used so often in straight zoning requests are to get the fire impact fee, minimum open space requirements, and anything else that might pertain.

Commr. Good stated that he would like to see this request be brought back to the Board at the next Zoning Meeting, with cleanup language, rather than trying to act on it this date.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board could approve the request, with the stipulation that the County Attorney and staff will draw up a Developer's Agreement that will include the language noted this date, and the Board could approve the Developer's Agreement at the next meeting.

It was noted that the rezoning request would not be effective until the Developer's Agreement is signed.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem approving this request, with the County Attorney and Mr. Hoban, Attorney, representing the applicant, working out an agreement. She stated that, if they cannot come to an agreement, then they can bring the matter back before the Board at a later date. She stated that the County Attorney has a good idea of what the Board would like to have included in the agreement and she felt it could be worked out without requiring the applicant to come back before the Board, which she noted may be three weeks from this date.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page 2, Section 3. Commitments to Neighbors, Paragraph C., of the Developer's Agreement, and suggested that the 50 feet that shall be required between Magnolia Pointe's houses and the property lines of the neighbors from Suburban Shores and Citrus Cove be set aside as part of a common open space and not be included in the lots.

Mr. Hoban agreed to same.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page 3, Section 5. Water and Wastewater, and suggested that central water and sewer with the City of Clermont be included as a requirement in the Developer's Agreement.

Mr. Decker, Applicant, questioned the fact that, if the City of Clermont says that it will not be possible for them to provide water and sewer to the development, whether he would be allowed to develop the subdivision.

Mr. Harker, Planning Director, City of Clermont, reappeared before the Board stating that he felt confident that the City of Clermont will be able to find a way to provide water and sewer to the development.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page 3, Section 6. Open Space, stating that he would like to ensure that in said section "open space" is defined as the County's open space definition in the LDRs, to exclude a golf course as part of the open space requirement.

Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant will do the park, in addition to the 19 acres, plus the 50 foot common area, which is included in the open space.

Discussion continued regarding the matter of open space, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board was pushing the issue too far. She stated that the applicant has shown good intent, in trying to provide open space and also find a way to make the community family friendly.

Commr. Good reviewed the points that were agreed to this date, being (1) that water and sewer is to be provided to the development from the City of Clermont; (2) that the applicant is going to address the issues of "active recreation" and "open space" in the Developer's Agreement; (3) that the site preparation is scheduled to be done away from the existing neighborhoods; and (4) that the applicant will delete Section 12. Termination, on Page 5 of the Developer's Agreement, and make it run with the land.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that he felt staff had received enough direction, with the exception of modifying Section 2. Density Limitation, on Page 2 of the Developer's Agreement, which limits the overall density of the development to 300 or less dwelling units.

Commrs. Hanson, Gerber, and Good noted that they did not have a problem with lifting the 300 unit cap from the development.

Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant needed direction that he could have lots smaller than a quarter acre in the R-4 zoning, as long as the overall density remains in the Comprehensive Plan, since he has to provide water and sewer to the development. He stated that the 300 units gave the applicant 2.3 units per acre, however, he would now like to put in 400 units, which would still be under the 4 units per acre.

Commr. Good reiterated that he would like to have the request for rezoning and the Developer's Agreement brought back to the Board on September 17, 1996, for action.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the County Attorney was given direction as to exactly what to put in the Developer's Agreement and that the Board was confident that he would do so, therefore, he saw no reason to make the applicant spend additional money and have to come back before the Board for another hearing, therefore, he did not feel that it needed to be brought back on September 17, 1996.

Discussion occurred regarding the R-4 zoning and what size lot it requires, at which time the County Attorney stated that R-4 does not require a minimum lot size.

Commr. Swartz stated, however, that it does require a maximum number of units.

A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Swartz to postpone action regarding this request and bring it back to the Board on September 17, 1996.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that, although he has complete confidence in staff, he would like to see on paper what the Board has actually agreed to, thus his reason for asking that it be brought back to the Board on September 17, 1996.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, in a public meeting, the spoken word is as powerful as the written word. He stated that the Board has stated exactly what they want in the agreement and are confident that the County Attorney is going to take care of the County's interest and he saw no reason for making the applicant spend more money and have to come back before the Board for another public hearing.

Discussion continued regarding the matter.

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

Commrs. Hanson, Gerber and Cadwell voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) and R-2 (Estate Residential) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), for construction of a subdivision, to include single family residences and recreational uses (i.e., playground, basketball court and two tennis courts), subject to a Developer's Agreement being worked out, as expeditiously as possible, with the points indicated by the Board this date being worked out to the satisfaction of the County Attorney, staff, and the applicant.

Commr. Good voted "No".

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

PETITION NO. 13-96-4 - A TO CFD - EDWARD GLOVER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and stated that staff and the applicant had requested a postponement of this request for 30 days, due to some new information that had come up during the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, with regard to the easement, as well as the fact that there are some specific questions that the applicant has not answered. She stated that staff wanted to work with the applicant and bring this request back to the Board next month.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson to approve a postponement of 30 days for Petition No. 13-96-4, a request to rezone property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to create and operate a Boy's Camp, to include a house, chapel, cafeteria, kitchen, dormitory, and maintenance building, with no limitation on the number of boys allowed, for Edward Glover, however, Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion, due to the fact that some individuals were present in the audience in opposition to the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant was not present in the audience.

Mr. Gary Zimmerman, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board, in objection to the postponement, stating that he was not notified of the request for postponement.

Ms. Susan Davis, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board, in objection to the postponement, stating that she was told the case might be postponed, however, was under the assumption that whether or not the case was postponed she would be able to address the Board and give her opinion of the case.

Ms. Kathy Orm, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the postponement, stating that she, as well as the other two individuals before her, had taken off work to be present at this meeting and was disappointed that they would not be able to discuss the case.

It was noted that, if the Board chose to approve the request for postponement, that it would be the first item on the agenda for the next Rezoning Meeting, to be held on September 24, 1996.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request for a 30 day postponement of Rezoning Case No. 13-96-4, a request to rezone property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a Boy's Camp, for Edward Glover.

PUBLIC HEARING

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PLANNING/ZONING

Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development Services, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the purpose of this public hearing was for the Board to consider and, if they approve, direct staff to transmit Land Use Plan Amendment No. 96/7/1-4 to the Department of Community Affairs for their review and approval. She stated that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Department of Environmental Protection will also be asked to give their approval, as part of the normal Comprehensive Plan Amendment review process. She stated that, if approved, this amendment will be brought forward again at the November 19, 1996 Zoning Meeting, for a final public hearing and adoption.

Ms. Strum stated that the site under consideration is 28 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of S.R. 44 and C.R. 44B, just east of the City of Eustis. She stated that approximately 10 acres is within the Neighborhood Commercial Center land use designation and that the requested action is to change the existing future land use designation from Suburban to Urban Expansion. She stated that the owner has prepared a site plan for the commercial property and has submitted same for review by the development review staff in early May. She stated that the owner wants to develop the remaining 18 acres for residential purposes. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the proposed request.

Ms. Strum stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission, at their meeting on August 7, 1996, voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the applicant's request. She stated that the main issues to be addressed within the request for amending the Comprehensive Plan are: (1) is this site appropriate for a change in classification and, if not, (2) what is the appropriate classification? She stated that the applicant has proposed commercial development for approximately 10 acres, on the front of the site, on S.R. 44. She stated that the commercial designation is consistent with the designation of Neighborhood Activity Center. She stated that the 48,000 square feet of commercial development proposed is consistent with the criteria for commercial development in both Urban Expansion and Suburban land use classifications, therefore, the Department of Growth Management accepts the Neighborhood Activity Center designation as appropriate at the intersection for the ten acres designated as commercial. She stated that, as a result, only the remaining 18 acres currently designated as Suburban has been considered in this analysis.

Ms. Strum stated that the primary function of Suburban is to serve as a transition between Urban, Urban Expansion, and Rural land uses, to protect native habitats, and to allow for the continuation of existing agricultural uses. She stated that, as such, absent the availability of centralized water and sewer, the densities permitted under the Suburban designation are appropriate. She stated that Urban Expansion is to contain urban sprawl, economically provide for public services, and provide for the efficient use of the land. She stated that the site in question is within the City of Eustis Utility Service Area and that the City of Eustis is willing and able to provide centralized services to the site. She stated that the City of Eustis water is available from a 12" waterline at SR 44 and CR 44B. She stated that the City of Eustis sewer is available at the southwest corner of SR 44 and CR 44B, in Park Place, and the City is in the process of extending said service to the intersection. She stated that, with centralized public services provided, the designation of Urban Expansion on the site is appropriate.

Ms. Strum stated that meeting timeliness is not a requirement for approval of the Comprehensive Plan to Urban Expansion, however, staff feels much more confident about its recommendation to approve the request, knowing that there is sufficient existing development within a one mile radius of the subject property, to alleviate any concerns of premature development at this location. She stated that staff conducted a timeliness study, with the assistance of the Lake County Water Authority and that a representative of the Water Authority was present to discuss the process used.

Ms. Kitty Cooper, GIS (Geographic Information System) Analyst, Lake County Water Authority, appeared before the Board and explained the process that was used to conduct the timeliness study, at which time she reviewed a map (contained in the Board's backup material) that she had obtained from the Property Appraiser's Office, which she used to conduct the study.

Ms. Strum further elaborated on this request, stating that the surrounding area is developing rapidly and that utility services are available to the site. She stated that there are no constraints on capacity, no adverse impacts on the natural environment anticipated, staff anticipates no adverse impact on property values, urban services are available, residential properties of one acre or less are becoming very prevalent in this area, staff anticipates no negative effects from this proposed development, it is not in conflict with the public interest, and it is consistent and in harmony with the LDRs, therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request. She then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that five things have changed over the past few years, which she reviewed with the Board. She requested approval of the request and for the Board to transmit the request to the Department of Community Affairs, to allow a future land use that will permit up to four units on 10 acres, for the residential portion of the property. She stated that the applicant was not asking for Urban Expansion on the commercial portion of the property, noting that the applicant is quite satisfied with the designation of Suburban, for purposes of the square footage that is being proposed.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Ms. Strum informed the Board that staff was recommending that the entire 28 acre parcel be designated as Urban Expansion and that the Neighborhood Commercial plat remain.

Commr. Swartz commended Ms. Strum for an outstanding presentation, noting that, during the 8 years that he has served on the Board of County Commissioners, this was probably the most outstanding presentation of a land use case that has ever come before him and he appreciated it, noting that it makes it far easier for the Board to understand it and make a decision. He stated that he hoped to see more of these types of presentations and felt that that should be one of staff's goals.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding this request.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt this case was a perfect one for the reevaluation of the Suburban land use designation and that it should make it very clear to the Board and to staff that the County needs to move forward in many of these areas with the Cities, noting that the City of Eustis supports this land use change. She stated that, if that had been done, the applicant would not be going through this process.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gerber to approve a request from the Department of Growth Management to transmit the 1996 Second Amendment Cycle to the Comprehensive Plan and change the future land use designation from Suburban to Urban Expansion for the entire 28 acre parcel in question and to transmit same to the Department of Community Affairs.

Under discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor, for its first reading, by title only, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN TO URBAN EXPANSION, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTION 08, TOWNSHIP 19, RANGE 27, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION SR 44 AND CR 44B; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



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

OTHER BUSINESS

DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The Board acknowledged the issuance of the following vested rights determinations:

Twin Tree Estates Subdivision - Vested Rights Issued July 31, 1996



Lake County denies any vested rights associated with the Twin Tree Estates Subdivision



Renniger's Florida Twin Markets, Inc. - Vested Rights Issued

August 12, 1996



Lake County denies any vested rights associated with Renniger's Florida Twin Markets, Inc.



Clar-Mart Subdivision - Vested Rights Issued August 14, 1996



Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with the Clar-Mart Subdivision. Lake County will not deny the owner of the subject property the right to develop the property at a density such that each single family dwelling unit lot contains a minimum usable land area of one (1) acre or more.



In addition, Lake County will not deny the property owner, acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the opportunity to continue development of the subject property in accordance with the preliminary site plan, as approved by the Subdivision Advisory Committee on June 9, 1988. Comments made by the Subdivision Advisory Committee shall be addressed pursuant to current land development regulations, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.



For the purpose of this vested rights determination, acting in good faith upon governmental acts shall mean that:



a final plat, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, has been recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, for all residential development associated with the subject property, within two (2) years from the date of this vested rights determination.





MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 11, 1996 (Special Meeting - Budget Workshop), as presented.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 12, 1996 (Special Meeting - Budget Workshop), as presented.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 23, 1996 (Regular Meeting), as presented.

DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC SERVICES

GIS (GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM) PRESENTATION

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and presented, along with Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Services, and Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director, Public Services, a presentation of the Geographic Information System and how it will be utilized during future Board Meetings to better present cases coming before them, for approval, using the following cases as examples:

Former Road Vacation Petition No. 812



Former Public Hearing

Rezoning Case No. 24-96-1

(Osmond and Lottie Bernard)



There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m.



_______________________________

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/8-27-96/9-4-96/boardmin