The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 28, 1997, 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: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue B. Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested that the Board put on the agenda a discussion about two litigation cases (Carswell and Cretios), which would require Board approval. He noted that the mediation hearings were scheduled for February.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place the item involving the two litigation cases on today's agenda.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Regular Minutes of December 17, 1996, as presented.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Cadwell introduced Mr. Scott Strong who was doing his internship for Leadership Lake County today.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ROAD VACATION - Petition No. 835 - SunTrust Bank

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Road Vacation Petition No. 835 by SunTrust Bank, Central Florida, N.A. as Trustee by Nancy P. Hargadon. Mr. Stivender explained that the property was isolated from the

surrounding property, because the property to the east had already been vacated, and it was isolated on the north, south and west sides by no other rights-of-way. He noted that a letter had been received from Mr. Anand S. Gupta about his access. Mr. Stivender requested that the Board not vacate the right-of-way on the north side of the west half of Tract 4, which was potential legal access for Mr. Gupta, even though this may not give Mr. Gupta clear access to the property. Mr. Stivender stated that the value of the property was one reason all of this was being vacated. As the rights-of-way are closed, the State claims there would be more acreage for the seller.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. R. J. Collins, Eastern Marketing, representing SunTrust in this transaction to the State, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to correct one item on the closing of the plats. Mr. Collins stated that the State requires any public access to be closed, not necessarily for appraisal purposes, but because the State wants no public access to property it owns. He was of the understanding that the County would leave the platted road on the west half of Tract 4, and the owner would have no objection to this action.

Commr. Good called for opposition to the request.

Mr. Anand Gupta addressed the Board and stated that, in the past, the County has approved for vacation of the other tracts of land, and the parcel in question has been isolated. He has been denied access by the State to go to the parcel of land in question in the past few weeks, because of those actions. Mr. Gupta stated that he owns the property and pays taxes on the property, but he cannot get to the property.

Commr Hanson stated that the request before the Board, with the recommendation made by Mr. Stivender, would not change Mr. Gupta's current access to the parcel.

Discussion occurred regarding other action that had been taken on the north side of the property in question where the County had vacated rights-of-way and old plats.

Commr. Hanson stated that Mr. Gupta might have to file for prescriptive rights, which would require a lawsuit, but what the Board was doing today would not affect his access.

Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. He noted that the request was in his district, and he had no problem with it.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 835 by SunTrust Bank, Central Florida, N.A. as Trustee by Nancy P. Hargadon, to vacate land, tracts, and right-of-way, Bowman Realty Co, Sec. 7, Twp. 24, Rge. 26, Green Swamp area/South of Lake Louisa - Commissioner District 2, less the area described by the Public Works Department, which was the west half of the north side of Tract 4.

ROAD VACATION - Petition No. 836 - Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Wilcox

and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Wilcox

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Road Vacation Petition No. 836 by Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Wilcox and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Wilcox. Mr. Stivender stated that the applicant wanted to replace the current easement with an easement on the south side, which would give access to the property owners to the west.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney appearing in behalf of the Wilcoxs, addressed the Board and stated that the present easement was initially dedicated as part of a lot split. There were approximately 27 acres in the tract, and it was divided into two different parcels. At the time this was done, there was no lot line deviation process. Ms. Campione described what had actually be done to the property between the two brothers, in terms of the configuration of lot lines, and the rearranging of boundaries. Ms. Campione stated that the brothers were in agreement to the arrangement being proposed. The issue came about when Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Wilcox were wanting to sell their property to buy another farm, and a perspective owner questioned the present easement that had trees all through it. The owner was concerned that someone would want to come in later and get rid of the trees to use the road. Ms. Campione discussed the Dedication to the Public from the prior owner of the property and stated that the applicants were willing to dedicate whatever rights necessary for the process.

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

It was clarified, through discussion, that the easement went all of the way to the west corner of the property in question.

Mr. Stivender explained that he had not received any opposition to the request, and that ten years ago there had been an issue on the right-of-way on the Gatwick plat. He noted that proper notice had been given to the property owners within 150 feet.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 836 by Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Wilcox and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Wilcox to vacate easement, Sec. 17, Twp. 19, Rge. 28, Seminole Springs area, and acceptance of replacement "dedications to the public" - Commissioner District 4.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT BUSINESS

COMMITTEES/APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS

Commr. Cadwell reported that the request to appoint Mr. Robert E. Snyder to the Lake County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) had been brought through the Nomination Committee and through the IDA, and there would be other vacancies coming forth to the Board within the next two months.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Robert E. Snyder to the Lake County Industrial Development Authority to complete an unexpired term ending March 10, 1997, and to serve a two year term ending March 10, 1999.

ZONING

Petition PH#2-97-2 Gerald Steven Hunt Tracking #1-97-Z

Commr. Good explained that there had been a request to move Tab 6 forward, because of opposition. He disclosed that he had sold rabbits to the Hunts on occasion, but this would not influence his judgment on the case.

The Board members questioned why this particular case was being moved forward, with Commr. Good noting that this was the only one that he had been made aware of, by staff, that had opposition, and staff had requested that it be moved forward.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that, as of the Planning and Zoning meeting, there had been only one case that had opposition, which was Tab 6.

After some discussion, and with it being noted that there were other applicants and people who wished to express opposition to other cases, the Board decided to hear the cases in order, as outlined on the zoning agenda.

PETITION CUP#97/1/1-1 Vernon & Margaret McAninch

(Beach Park Mobile Home) Tracking #2-97-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the request for a CUP in RMRP was made to bring a site built home into compliance, so the applicants could get a permit to add onto the home. Staff presented County Exhibit A, the aerial map of the property in question, for review.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

It was noted that the applicants were present in the audience. 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. Gerber, 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 RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) for renovations and expansion of a site built owner's residence, Petition CUP#97/1/1-1 Vernon and Margaret McAninch (Beach Park Mobile Home), Tracking #2-97-CUP.

PETITION #43-96-5 Patricia Ann Woodby Clanton

Tracking #64-96-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this was a request to replace an existing 10' x 50' mobile home with a new mobile home (14' x 70'). She noted that there was no record of a building permit, and in order to do this, the applicants needed to rezone to R-7. Ms. Farrell stated that there was no opposition at the Planning and Zoning meeting, and the request was approved 9-0. She noted that there were ten letters of support. Staff presented County Exhibit A, the aerial map of the property in question, for review.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney with Richey & Neal, P.A., representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that a year ago, in January, 1996, the Clantons came to the County to see about replacing the mobile home on the property, and they were denied their request in January, and again in March, 1996, because they could not produce a building permit for the mobile home. Mr. Crawford explained that affidavits were prepared and that policy, at this time, allows for affidavits to be produced, and the process waived, at the Board's discretion. Mr. Crawford stated that the applicants have spent more than a year and several thousands of dollars trying to get approval, and therefore, he requested that they be refunded their fees.

Commr. Hanson stated that the issue of a refund would be addressed, but she agreed that, if a mobile home had been there, it would have been permitted at some time in the past, and the burden of proof was on the County.

Ms. Farrell noted that the language in the vested rights ordinance changed, and at one time, there was language that allowed the replacement of mobile homes.

Commr. Cadwell recommended that staff review the case before the Board, and if staff felt it should be brought back to the Board for action on a refund, it would be brought back as a separate piece of business and not handled today.

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

It was noted that, if the applicants had come in today with the request, they would not get approval, because the rules and policy have changed.

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 the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), to replace an existing 10' x 50' mobile home with a new mobile home (14' x 70'), and for staff to research the applicants' fees, to see if there is any need for any consideration of refunding.

PETITION #1-97-4 New Hope Presbyterian Church Inc.

Tracking #46-96-CFD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this was a request

where there was an existing church, and the applicant was going to do some interior renovation to add the use of a school to the site. She stated that staff found no issues, as far as policies, or Land Development Regulations, and was recommending approval. Ms. Farrell noted that the church was served presently by central water from the City of Eustis, and there was information in the backup from the City. She further noted that there was no opposition to the request, and it was approved 9-0 at Planning and Zoning meeting. Ms. Farrell stated that there was no concern from Public Works on the number of trips coming out from the school. Staff presented County Exhibit A, the aerial map of the property in question, for review.

Commr. Swartz stated that there was already an approved site plan from the previous CFD approval.

Ms. Farrell explained that the request involved interior renovation, and all rules and regulations would be applied, if future needs were there.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience. 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.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for an amendment to CFD Ordinance #27-90 to add a school and accessory uses related thereto to the existing church facility.

Under discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, prior to coming with the County, at one time or another, he had done some work for this particular church, but he had no knowledge of these plans.

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

PETITION CUP#96/3/3-4 Jerry and Nancy Newton

Tracking #16-96-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the CUP was being presented to the Board as a six month review for a canine kennel for purposes of hobby, breeding and training. Ms. Farrell stated that Mr. Tommy Leathers, Chief Code Compliance Officer, was present to discuss the review, and that they had both been to the site on numerous occasions in working with the Newtons on their project. Staff was recommending approval for the continuation of the CUP, and as a staff, they found no problems with the site. She noted that there was a copy of the CUP inspection form in the backup material, and the only problem involved the planting of landscape, which their horses had either eaten or damaged. The applicants were investigating other vegetation to plant as the buffer, which would not be destroyed by their own animals. Staff presented County Exhibit A, the aerial map of the property in question, for review.

Mr. Tommy Leathers addressed the Board and stated that, in speaking for Mr. Rick Hartenstein, who conducted the six month review on January 16, 1997, he found that all of the provisions of the CUP were in place including the inside of the barn being completely insulated. He stated that, as Ms. Farrell had indicated, the only provision of the CUP that was not in compliance was the vegetative buffers along the end of the run areas.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether there was a provision where the applicants could not sell the animals, because she thought this issue at been discussed at the original hearing.

Mr. Leathers stated that it was not a commercial operation, and there was no language in the CUP that stated they could not sell dogs.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether there had been any formal complaints that had been filed at the beginning of the year.

Mr. Leathers stated that staff had received one complaint prior to Mr. Harkenstein's inspection, and the complaint involved a lot of barking dogs. Mr. Harkenstein conducted that investigation in conjunction with the January 16, 1997 inspection. He stated that the complainant seemed satisfied at that point, and staff has received no further complaints.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Jerry Newton, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he would welcome anyone to come and examine the premises. Mr. Newton explained that one individual, who was opposed to the original request, had since apologized to him, and Ms. Holly Green was the only one still complaining. Mr. Newton stated that there were a lot of loose dogs in the neighborhood that bother him when he and his wife ride their horses, and those dogs howl all night.

Mr. Dennis Smith addressed the Board and stated that, under Tab 4, there should be a letter from him. He stated that he lives approximately .25 miles from the applicant's kennel, and at 7:45 a.m. this morning, he could hear Mr. Newton's dogs, as well as every night this past week, and the dogs have been out between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. He further stated that, during the summer, they were out until dusk, or 8 p.m. Mr. Smith stated that the buffering was being addressed, but he did not know why the applicant was filling in the lake, or why this was being allowed. Mr. Smith stated that he had been very negatively impacted by the kennel, and he was opposed to this request. He stated that there were a lot of dogs loose in the area, and he has been trying for a week to get Animal Control to come and pick some of them up.

Ms. Holly Green addressed the Board and stated that the dogs were barking at 5:45 a.m. in the morning, and from 5 to 6:30 p.m. in the evening. Ms. Green noted newspaper clippings in the Orlando Sentinel dated July 1, 1996, July 21, 1996, and July 27, 1996 that had advertisements for the sale of rottweilers with the Newton's phone number listed. Ms. Green stated that complaints have been made by the neighbors, and she did not know why they were not being recorded by Code Enforcement.

Mr. Newton responded that the puppies that were advertised for sale were born before they moved to the present property, and that most of his dogs have now been neutered.

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

Commr. Hanson discussed the timing of the inspections made by staff, with Ms. Farrell responding that the unannounced inspections had been made within the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Commr. Swartz stated that there were still two issues that concerned him today, as they did when the case first came to the Board. He had voted against the approval of the CUP when it came to the Board last year, and he was concerned at that time about approving a CUP for 20 animals in an area that had some residential area, as evidenced by the people at the public hearing at that time. He was also concerned that the Board was approving a quasi-commercial activity. Commr. Swartz stated that he did not know to what extent animals were being sold beyond the newspaper ads, or whether there was any other commercial type activity occurring, but he felt it was ill advised at the time. He noted that the Animal Control Ordinance has not come forward, and it would deal with this exact issue, as well as have the language that would determine what is a kennel and what is not a kennel. Commr. Swartz stated that this request has the impact of a kennel, and under the current ordinance, this would not be allowed except as a CUP. He continued to believe that there were problems related to the noise, and he was not at all certain that it did not have some of the aspects of a quasi-commercial activity. Commr. Swartz stated that he would, as before, vote against the renewal of this CUP.

Commr. Hanson discussed collars that are available to control barking dogs, and her concern about the buffer and stated that it should probably be not only a vegetative buffer, but a land buffer, with possibly a fence on either side.

Ms. Farrell noted that the building has been sound proofed, and out of the many CUPs the County has for this use, this was one of the most restrictive. Staff was comfortable with this particular applicant and the progress he has made with the site today, and staff would be working with Mr. Newton on the buffer.

Commr. Gerber explained that she felt the applicant had a problem with his clock and understanding the hours that had been specifically established in the original CUP, and she would be voting against the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that it was unfortunate that the Board did not have the records of the other complaints, because she had gotten complaints. She was not ready to revoke the CUP at this point, but she did feel that staff needed to verify the barking that was taking place before and after hours.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board was going to put the onus of the type of detailed monitoring, that Commr. Hanson was suggesting, on staff, then the Board needed to do what has been done in the past when it had difficult issues of this nature and have the applicant pay for some of the staff review and monitoring.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with the County charging, if violations were found, but she did have a problem if staff consistently went out time after time and no violation was found.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the County has a Code Enforcement department and a procedure for taking complaints anonymous or otherwise. He stated that anyone can call and make a complaint, and the County has a competent staff who investigates the complaints.

Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant was assessed $250 a year for the annual inspection, and staff could increase the number of visits within that fee.

Commr. Hanson stated that the increase in visits would be based on violations that were found, but she did not feel the County could, at this point, say that they were violating the hours of operation, because someone has not visited at the hours being brought forward by the public. She had concerns about this item, as well as another concern, which was the other dogs in that area that have no permits, no kennels and no licenses. She felt there was an enforcement problem in the area.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve an additional six month CUP with the following concerns being addressed: the buffer and the verification of the barking outside of those hours.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that, added to the fact that there have been complaints of barking, there was the matter that the applicant was selling dogs, which she thought was made very clear at the Board meeting when it approved the CUP that he was not to sell dogs.

Commr. Hanson stated that this could be a concern, but by selling the dogs, the applicant was reducing the numbers.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commr. Swartz and Commr. Gerber voting "no".

PETITION #3-97-2 Gerard Vaccaro Tracking #4-97-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the request was being made to allow more uses in the MP Ordinance, to include manufacturing steel stairways, rails and accessory uses. Ms. Farrell noted that there was no opposition at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and the request was approved 9-0. Staff presented County Exhibit A, the aerial map of the property in question, for review.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

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. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for an amendment to MP Ordinance #69-88 to include LM (Light Industrial) uses for manufacturing steel stairways, rails and accessory uses related thereto.

PETITION #2-97-2 Gerald Steven Hunt Tracking #1-97-Z

Commr. Good confirmed his previous disclosure that, from time to time, he had sold rabbits to the applicant, but this would not influence his judgment on the case.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the request was being represented by Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney with Richey & Neal, P.A. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicants had a small piece of property they wanted to rezone from R-6 to R-7 to place a mobile home on the site. It was noted that the applicants had central water from the City of Groveland. Ms. Farrell stated that staff found a number of mobile homes in the surrounding area, the request was consistent with the surrounding land use, and staff was recommending approval of the request. At Planning and Zoning, there were four letters of support, eight in opposition, and it was approved 7-2.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, if a mobile was going to be placed on a piece of property, and it did not meet the zoning district regulations in A and RA, it had to meet the mobile home test, which was an issue that had been reviewed earlier by the members of the Board.

Ms. Farrell explained that proper notification had been given, and this was a mixed use area, as noted in the backup material.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, explained the location of the mobile homes, as shown in R-8 zoning on the map attached to the backup material.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney with Richey & Neal, P.A., and representing the applicants, Steve and Linda Hunt, stated that he would have Mr. Hunt testify and have the Board view a video tape of the proposed site.

Mr. Steve Hunt, applicant, testified as to the history of the lot and stated that he moved into the house in 1978, and in April, 1980, the house burned down. At that time, it was still his dad's house, and in 1995, he acquired the property. Mr. Hunt testified that he wanted to place a double wide mobile home on the property, which would be his residence, because it would increase his living space by one-third from his present residence in Minneola.

Mr. Crawford stated that, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, three sets of plans were introduced for mobile homes, with all of them being approximately 1,500 square feet.

Mr. Hunt testified that, if he was not successful with the request for rezoning, he would probably find something that would fit into the same price range, which would be a modular home about 1,056 square feet, which would be the same size, or smaller, than what he was currently living in, and therefore, it would be developed as a rental. Mr. Hunt testified that a modular home would cost approximately $41,500 for 1,056 square feet.

Mr. Crawford presented the video, Applicant's Exhibit A, and explained that this was a mixed use area with industrial uses to the north, mixed residential to the south, and agriculture about one-half mile down the road. Mr. Crawford stated that the property in question was located at Gano Road and Monte Vista Road.

Commr. Good called for opposition to the request.

Mr. Bob Holman, Gano Road, addressed the Board and stated that he was representing the residents of Grovella Estates. He stated that this was an issue about money, because each resident in this area had an invested interest in what had taken place today. The average house in this area cost approximately $80,000, and the proposal today would place a home in this area that would cost about one half of this price. Mr. Holman showed pictures of the houses in this area, as well as his house, which was appraised at $63,000 in 1993, and $83,000 in 1995. Mr. Holman stated that, in speaking for the residents, they were against the proposed change and would prefer to have the smaller modular. He stated that the neighborhood did not have an association, so the Board would have to be their association.

Ms. Jennifer Viola, Gano Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that currently there were no mobile homes on Gano Road, and she, as well as the other residents, have been trying to establish a nice neighborhood. She felt that mobile homes decreased the value and looks of the property, and because she and the other residents were first in the neighborhood, she felt they should have some rights over what was being requested by the applicant. Ms. Viola stated that she would have no objection to a little house, so that the value would keep increasing.

Ms. Betty Viola addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that her husband was disabled, and they had built their home one year before Ms. Jennifer Viola. When she moved here, the whole area was vacant. There was a mobile home on their lot, and they were told that, if they removed the mobile home, they would not be able to put a new one there, because of the zoning, so they built a small home on the lot. Ms. Viola stated that they also owned another piece of property that was directly behind Ms. Jennifer Viola's lot, and it was vacant. She did not feel that a mobile home would be in their best interest financially or otherwise, and it would not be good for the neighborhood.

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

It was noted that no comments had been received from the City of Groveland regarding the request.

Commr. Hanson stated that, in looking at the total neighborhood and what currently exists, she would be supportive of the mobile home, but when looking at the neighborhood that was zoned R-1-6, she would have a very difficult time changing the zoning that would allow a mobile home within a neighborhood. She stated that the area that was zoned R-1-6 needed to have the integrity protected in that community.

Commr. Gerber agreed with Commr. Hanson and stated that, in regard to the Board being in charge of compatibility in this particular neighborhood, whereas a homeowners association, through deed restrictions, was able to deal with such an issue, it was up to the Board to determine whether these neighborhoods remained compatible when they did not have this mechanism in place. She felt that possibly the modular on the smaller lot would be more compatible with the overall neighborhood.

Commr. Hanson suggested that this particular neighborhood might want to consider creating a homeowners association, because it would add to the community.

Commr. Cadwell stated that his inclination would be to approve the request. He drove through the area and, when looking at the whole general area, it was compatible.

Commr. Swartz stated that he agreed with the general comments made by Commr. Hanson and Commr. Gerber, but if the Board looked at Monte Vista and the dividing line, there was zoning that, at some point, abutted another zoning, and from the pictures and the video, if you were on the east side of Monte Vista, with the exception of one or two old mobile homes, all of the homes were conventional built homes consistent with the R-1-6 zoning. When you get to the west side of Monte Vista, there was either the LM zoning on the north end, or the R-8 which allows mixed conventional and mobile. He viewed this as a spot zoning, because the Board was considering the zoning of one lot in an otherwise area zoned for R-6 conventional homes. Commr. Swartz stated that there was a potential for the residents to see that the applicant may very well put up some type of modular, which would most likely appear to be more consistent with the housing in the area than would a mobile home. If this request was approved for a mobile home, it could remain a mobile home zoning forever.

Commr. Good questioned the argument as to whether or not the double wide would necessarily decrease property values as opposed to having a smaller modular. In this particular case, the information that was presented involved an existing block of zoning and across the street there was the opportunity to put in mobiles. He was not sure that the double wide would have decreased the property values, or been a real negative point for the neighborhood, but it would definitely be a change in the existing zoning, and he did not see that there was some external factor that would cause this request to be brought forward. Commr. Good stated that he would deny the request and have it be available for the use of a modular, or conventional home rather than having a spot zoning.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential).

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson suggested that the people in the R-8 zoning, in a community effort, might want to work together with staff in getting the R-8 zoning removed, because anyone could come in and put in a mobile home.

Commr. Cadwell reiterated that, in looking at the whole area, this would be compatible, and he was not convinced that a mobile home would lower the property values in this area, and therefore, he would vote against the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

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

PETITION CUP#97/1/2-4 James A. Croson/Nextel Communications

Tracking #5-97-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Robert Rosen was present representing the applicant. Ms. Farrell stated that staff was of the opinion that the proposed tower would not be detrimental to the overall surrounding land uses, as noted in staff's Analysis on Page 2 of the backup material, and staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there was no opposition at the Planning and Zoning meeting, there was no opposition in writing, and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request 6-3. Ms Farrell stated that the property was posted and advertised, and she noted that one Planning and Zoning Commissioner had a concern that Lake County had not completed a draft land development code for towers, as many communities were doing now.

Commr. Cadwell stated that some of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners were concerned about the size of the parcel, in relation to the size of the tower. It was noted that the tower would be approximately 250 feet in height. Commr. Cadwell noted that information was being gathered from other counties to assist in formulating and unifying a code for towers.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Robert Rosen, Attorney from Orlando representing Nextel Communications, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Bob Johnson, who was with Nextel, was present to answer technical questions of the Board. Mr. Rosen explained that the request involved a 250 foot telecommunications tower, which would be located north of State Road 46 in Mount Plymouth, at Sorrento Avenue and Long Acres Road, and this was primarily an agricultural industrial type area. Mr. Rosen presented Applicant's Exhibit A, which were photographs depicting the rural and agricultural nature of the site. He stated that the applicant concurred with staff's report for approval, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He further stated that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, and it complied with all applicable codes and ordinances including the Federal Communications Act of 1996. Mr. Rosen stated that there was no evidence on record of opposition to the site, or contrary to the location. He stated that the applicant felt this was the proper location, and the tower would be available for potential other users to collocate on the tower.

Mr. Bob Johnson, Site Development Manager for Nextel Communications, addressed the Board and explained the design of towers, and in particular, the "buckling" process.

Discussion occurred regarding the setbacks that had been established for the request, with it being noted that the tower was 54.3 feet from the western property line and approximately 65 feet from the northern line.

Commr. Hanson noted that she owned the property to the north of the property in question, and she did not have a problem with the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in looking at the surrounding property today, there was nothing within approximately 300 feet, so from the standpoint from what existed there now, and the discussion earlier about looking at some standards of distance from adjacent property lines, it was not necessarily a result of fear of falling, but the view of the towers given some ratio. He did not feel that 54 feet and 65 feet approached the setbacks being established in Orange County, which were 300 feet. He explained that the County did not know about the future development for this area, and it was a part of the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento urban compact node.

Discussion occurred regarding the posting of the property, with Ms. Farrell explaining that it was posted on State Road 46. It was noted that there were residences on Lots 1 through 16 to the north of the property in question. Discussion continued regarding the legal access to those individuals to the north, and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that was approved for this area.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in the staff's Analysis, Page 2, Paragraph 3 of the backup material, it stated the following: "This tower may be able to serve as a facility need for the collocation of cellular and pager facilities." He stated that, in the copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, it stated, in the fourth paragraph, the following: "This tower will be available for co-location so other uses can hook up to this tower." Commr. Swartz questioned whether it was the intent of the applicant to be able to allow other users to use the facility, and did the Telecommunications Act prohibit the County from establishing conditions that would assure this, in order to try and avoid the proliferation of towers all over the County.

Mr. Rosen explained that the tower would be available and would be sized properly to provide for collocation based upon industry standards. He explained that providers were locating on other towers, so that there was no proliferation of sites, and this also provided a cost sharing mechanism.

Discussion occurred regarding whether the County would have the ability to ensure a tower was reasonably available.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not know how the County could ensure a tower's availability in the context of a rezoning case. He stated that, before the County allows a subdivision, it requires a public road, so that anyone can use the road. He stated that the County could say that anyone can use a tower as long as they meet these rules, and the County could establish and approve a set of rules.

Discussion occurred regarding the location of the closest towers to the site in question.

Mr. Johnson stated that the structure was being developed to provide Nextel services to the community, and the carriers of the industry were just as concerned about the proliferation of towers as the communities.

Mr. Rosen explained how the industry was currently operating, and how it involved master agreements, which allow the major carriers to collocate. Mr. Rosen stated that the applicant could accept a condition in the CUP that would provide the tower to be designed to accept collocation.

The Board reviewed County Exhibit A, the aerial of the property in question, and County Exhibit B, the survey of the area.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned that, in an area where the County was already improving the infrastructure and where there were residences, it was considering a tower that would not meet the basic criteria that was discussed at the last hearing, with regard to a ratio and distance from the property line of an adjacent land use, and a different land use, residential in this case. Commr. Swartz stated that he had sent a memorandum approximately two weeks ago to the County Manager requesting where the County was on this issue.

Commr. Good acknowledged a memorandum to the Board from Ms. Farrell, which was the status of the staff effort on telecommunication towers, and it indicated that a draft ordinance was expected in 30 days.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board should also look at the property directly to the west where there was no buffering. She stated that the property was vacant, and it was commercially zoned, but it should be considered for the future. She further stated that, in a case like this, signs of notification ought to be placed all of the way around the property when there are residential areas adjacent to it. Commr. Hanson stated that she would not be voting on the request, due to owning property to the north of the property in question. A Conflict of Interest form was filed with the Clerk.

Commr. Good called for further public comment. It was noted that there was no opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that this request was different than some of the ones that the Board had considered earlier, because there were other antennas in the area, and there was a higher population of people. He stated that this would come closer to a site that the Board would approve.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for a CUP in MP (Planned Industrial) for the placement of a 250 foot tall self-supporting telecommunications tower, with the wording that the tower would be built to accommodate other users.

Commr. Swartz seconded the motion for discussion.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she would like to see staff come forward with an ordinance, before the Board entertained another request like this one.

Commr. Swartz stated that the suggestion made by Commr. Gerber sounded like a moratorium, but even if the Board did not do this, there were some standards that the Board could legitimately apply to the placement of a tower, and some of those standards were reasonable and have been applied in other jurisdictions, and have to do with distance from adjacent properties particularly where they are a different land use. He was more inclined to postpone the request than to deny it, to make sure that the notices were mailed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, as long as the Board was postponing the request until rules and regulations were in place,

he felt that this was a moratorium.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about the adjacency issue and whether the residents were aware of what was taking place in this area.

Commr. Cadwell withdrew his motion, and Commr. Swartz withdrew his second to the motion.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to postpone consideration of the request, until such time as, number one, notification was made to the adjacent property owners with different land uses, i.e. the residential that appears to the north, the commercial that appears to the west, and once that notification has been made and a public hearing can be rescheduled, to bring it back at that time.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell questioned whether it was good policy to set different requirements for one particular zoning case as opposed to any other zoning case.

Commr. Swartz stated that sometimes it would be good policy, and as the Board recalls with the mining ordinance, it set different notification requirements for the ordinance, because the Board very often had a small parcel in a much bigger parcel. He stated that the problem today involved a very fast moving industry that was in need of towers, but the Board still had issues that needed to be considered. Commr. Swartz stated that, in an abundance of caution, the Board ought to make sure the adjacent property owners have been notified, and this should, in no way, be interpreted as a moratorium.

Commr. Hanson stated that notification should have been given to the residents at the northern part of the property, but she was not sure that they would have been notified, because notification was not usually given to anyone outside of the 150 feet.

Commr. Gerber stated that, once the ordinance comes forward, notification should be given to individuals beyond the 150 foot distance.

Commr. Hanson explained that this would be changing policy, if the County notifies those people today.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board may be changing its policy, because a 250 foot tower has a significantly different impact, and a greater distance of impact.

Commr. Cadwell reiterated that it was bad policy to set additional requirements on particular cases when it was not a part of the County's normal ordinances and normal regulations, so he would vote against the motion.

Mr. Rosen stated that he was confused, because the applicant had complied with the Code as it existed today, and the Board was putting the applicant in a position where it was imposing additional requirements that were not placed on other carriers, and notice was provided, as required by law under the codes today. He stated that the Board was delaying the applicant to a time in the future, which would not be proper under the Communications Act. He was concerned that there was still no evidence on record to support anything but an approval of the request. He stated that the Board had the right to impose additional conditions through an ordinance, but they would not apply to this request, because this request was already in the process. The Board could impose a moratorium on future requests, but that would not affect this request, and there was no basis for an objection at this time. He felt that the applicant was entitled to an approval today. The applicant had a firm date to launch a network through the State of Florida, and right now any of the sites that were in process that were delayed would cause a substantial hardship.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if he were to take the alternative to what the motion offered, he would vote against the proposal, because it was very close to adjacent residential land uses. The Board, at its last telecommunications tower public hearing, had denied the use, because it was again in a MP zoning similar to this one, and it was probably further away from residential land use than this one, and if he were to take action just on the merits of this case, he would disagree that there was no reason why he would oppose it. He stated that, if he were to vote today, he would vote to deny it, because it would be too close to adjacent residential land uses.

Commr. Cadwell explained that this particular request was very sparsely populated compared to the last tower that the Board considered, which was the difference between the two cases, in regards to the residential.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board would postpone the request to February 25, 1997.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no", and Commr. Hanson abstained from voting.

PETITION #4-97-2 Florida Power Corporation/Victoria Bucher

Tracking #6-97-CFD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this was a request for a CFD (Community Facility District) for the placement of a 195 foot self supporting telecommunications tower on site with the existing electrical substation. She stated that the analysis outlined the position of staff and its recommendation for approval, and at the Planning and Zoning public hearing, there was no opposition to the request, and it was approved 7-2. Staff presented the aerial map, County Exhibit A, for review.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Victoria Bucher, Energy Delivery Division of Florida Power Corporation, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant's client was Primeco Personal Communications Systems. Ms. Bucher explained that this was a request to rezone the existing Boggy Marsh substation from C-1 to CFD to allow a telecommunications tower, which was shown in Applicant's Exhibit A. Ms. Bucher stated that the tower would be constructed on the north side of the substation, and it would be 97 feet from the north property line; 65 feet from the west property line; 115 feet from the east property line; and 268 feet from the south property line. She stated that the tower would be built to accommodate one additional service provider. The property was properly posted with legal notification on November 21, 1996, and in addition, she notified the two abutting property owners by letter and a telephone call, and there were no objections from them. Ms. Bucher noted that Robert L. Chapman, III., President of South Lake Development Corporation, contacted Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, and recommended support for the application. Ms. Bucher explained that the surrounding land uses were currently unimproved with the exception of a water treatment facility, which was located to the southwest of the substation.

Commr. Good stated, for the record, that he no longer sat on the South Lake Foundation Board.

Ms. Bucher explained that the original application indicated the placement of a 230 foot tower, but it should have been amended to 195 feet.

Commr. Good called for public comment. It was noted that there was no opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the tower was no more offensive than the signs along the highway, and therefore, he would support the location.

Commr. Good stated that this was a different type of case, in comparison to others that were considered by the Board, and he could support it.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 to rezone the property from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the placement of a 195 foot self-supporting telecommunications tower on site in CFD zoning district, with the collocation of the electrical system.

PETITION #5-97-2 Florida Power Corporation/Victoria Bucher

Tracking #7-97-CFD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this was a request for the placement of a 195 foot Lattice telecommunications tower on site with an existing electrical substation. Ms. Farrell stated that, within the staff analysis, staff was recommending approval of the request. There was no opposition at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and it was approved 7-2. Ms. Farrell noted that there was a letter in the backup material from the City of Minneola indicating no objections to the request. Staff presented the aerial map, County Exhibit A, for review.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Victoria Bucher, Energy Delivery Division of Florida Power Corporation, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant's client was Primeco Personal Communications Systems. Ms. Bucher stated that this was a request to rezone the Camp Lake substation from A (Agriculture) to CFD for the purpose of installing a 195 foot tall self supporting lattice tower, as shown in the Applicant's Exhibit A. The tower would be constructed on the south side of the substation, which was the front of the substation, and although the applicant owned 20 acres, there were existing lines impacting the rear of the site. Ms. Bucher stated that there were three abutting property owners, and they were all contacted by her. They also received follow up telephone calls, and they had no objections to the request. Ms. Bucher stated that the tower would be designed for one additional service provider.

Commr. Good called for public comment. 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.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether the applicant would have to buffer the entire perimeter of the parcel.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if the Board rezoned the request to CFD today and there were no changes at all, no buffering would be required, because it would be a pre-existing use. When the applicant expands by adding a tower, then staff would make an evaluation as to whether the expansion was great enough that the entire site needed to be buffered, or only the new area would have to be buffered, and staff would make this decision when it reviewed the site plan to see how much of the new area was impacted.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request to rezone the property from A (Agriculture) + CUP#652-3 to CFD (Community Facility District), for the placement of a 195 foot Lattice telecommunications tower on site with an existing electrical substation, with the collocation requirement language.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that both of the two cases for Florida Power were different from the first case in that he did not see the adjacent land use conflict, or potential for conflict, that he did in the first case. If there was residential in close proximity to the two Florida Power cases, he would have expressed the same concerns.

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

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the issue regarding the Watson/Hill Group property in Fruitland Park and stated that there was a Settlement Agreement where the Watsons came out of a special master agreement with the County, along with the Hills, agreeing to purchase their property. The County and the Hills agreed to resale the property, and it was initially listed at $39,000, and then reduced to $32,000, which was approved by the Board. The County received an offer from the realtor, Mr. Ted Bowersox, in the amount of $24,500. Prior to the special master proceeding, Mr. Minkoff contacted Mr. Larry King, who had appraised the property for one of the parties earlier, and the County had used a figure that was roughly $30,000 for the property as an estimate for the special master. In the Agreement, if the net sale proceeds were less than $26,200, the Hill Group was required to pay the County one half of the difference. On this contract price, the County would perhaps net $23,500 under the agreement; the Hills would have to pay the County $1,500-1,800 in addition to the sales proceeds. Mr. Minkoff noted that the property was currently listed as taxable, and there was an outstanding tax bill, which was relatively small, because both parcels had homestead. He further noted that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present representing the Hill Group.

Commr. Gerber stated that the issue was in her district, and she was not inclined to go with the offer. She suggested that the County offer $26,200.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the offer was written so that the County had to respond by the 30th, and if the County failed to respond, the offer would expire. He noted that the impact fees had been paid on both of the lots, so there was an impact fee credit for whoever should buy the property.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the Hill Group, addressed the Board and stated that, after consulting with clients, it was their inclination not to accept the offer that had been proposed. In discussions with Mr. Hill, they had talked in terms of $28,000 to $30,000 with the $3,000 to $6,000 worth of impact fees, two wells and two septic tanks. Mr. Richey stated that this was their first offer, and he would like to reserve accepting an offer until he had a little more time to see what the market had to bear in the next several months. On behalf of the Hill Group, he would not accept the offer and would request that Mr. Bowersox be allowed to continue marketing.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether, since it was in the trustee account of Mr. Bob Williams, the County could repay the impact fees.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the statement made by Commr. Swartz was taken into account when the amount of $26,200 was determined. He stated that the buyer was aware of the impact fee credits.

Commr. Swartz stated that it might be worth analyzing and considering whether or not the Board wanted to have the County, during this time, reimburse the impact fees.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the County would not reimburse for anyone else, and it would probably be at the County's disadvantage, because if someone bought the property for one house only, then the maximum credit he would get would be approximately $3,000, and so the other $3,000 would disappear.

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve to not take action on the contract offer of $23,500 regarding the Watson/Hill Group property in Fruitland Park.

Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff stated that the County would convey to the realtor that it would like to continue to market the property, and to get an offer closer to the asking price.

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

SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that a mediation hearing has been scheduled for the Carswell case on February 5, 1997, and one has been scheduled for the Credios case on February 18, 1997. He stated that Mr. Steve Lengauer, the County's insurance counsel, was handling both cases. Mr. Minkoff stated that, in both cases, the County was close to, if not already exceeded, the retention limit. He stated that there needed to be a private session to discuss the strategy to be used at the mediations. He requested that the Board meet on February 4, 1997, for the private session.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to schedule a private session, as allowed under the Florida Statutes, at 4:45 p.m. on February 4, 1997.

REPORTS - Commissioner Gerber - District #1

LEGISLATURE

Commr. Gerber noted that the Legislative Delegation was in Lake County on January 23, 1997 and January 25, 1997, and she appreciated the comments made by Commr. Good, in regards to the Sheriff's request.

RECREATION

Commr. Gerber informed the Board that she had the opportunity to go to the West Orange Trail to rollerblade over the weekend, and it was going to be great when the County got its trail finished.

REPORTS - Commissioner Cadwell - District #5

Commr. Cadwell reported that yesterday there was an initial meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board, and the representatives from the Childrens' Service Commission and the Library Board, and many of the service providers. He stated that, at the next meeting, they would be concentrating on transportation. They would be meeting every two weeks, and by the first of April, they hoped to have some information to the Board.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\1-28-97\2-4-97