The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 26, 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; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance Department; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that a published Addendum No. 1 had been added to the agenda. She further noted that the First Budget Hearing to be held at 6:00 p.m., as indicated on the agenda, was an error and that the First Budget Hearing was actually scheduled for September 9, 1997 at 6:00 p.m.
MINUTE APPROVAL
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 17,1997 (Special Meeting-Budget Workshop), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of July 24, 1997, (Special Meeting-Budget Workshop), Commr. Hanson requested the following changes:
Page 5, Line 16 - insert in regard to state and federal grant dollars. after "board".
Page 5, Line 18 - insert in regard to state and federal grant dollars. after "years".
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Barbara Lehman requested that Item C. Transfers: (1) Transfer No. 97-326 and (2) Transfer No. 97-327 be pulled from the Consent Agenda and rescheduled later in the meeting this date.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the following requests with the exception of Item C. Transfers:
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers/Resolutions
Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 from the Office of County Finance, as follows:
A. Resolution:
1. Fund: Law Enforcement Trust Fund
Department: Constitutional Officer/Sheriff
Revenue: Confiscated Property $3,944
Expenditure: Machinery & Equipment $3,944
Amendment #: 97-312
Justification: Resolution to receive unanticipated revenue from confiscated property. Per Florida Statutes, all funds from confiscated property shall be budgeted to the Sheriff.
B. Authorization to Pay:
1. Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officer/Property Appraiser
Account: Communications and Freight $45,000
Justification: The Property Appraiser has requested the budgeted amount of $45,000 for the mailing of the 1997 Notices of Proposed Property Taxes.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Grants/Community Services
Request for approval and execution of Pre-Application/Letter of Intent for the Primary Care for Children and Families Challenge Grant. The anticipated fiscal impact was a $125,000 award amount.
Affordable Housing/Reports
Request for execution of Certification Form that accompanies the Annual Report for the Affordable Housing Program for State Fiscal Years 1994/95, 1995/96, and 1996/97. This report is due September 16, 1997, to the Florida Housing Finance Agency.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Deeds
Subdivisions
Request for acceptance of final plat for Royal Highlands Phase I-B PUD; approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for Performance of Improvements between Lake County and Pringle Communities; acceptance of a Letter of Credit for Performance, in the amount of $710,226.00; and acceptance of a Conservation Easement Deed from Pringle Communities, Inc.
Purchasing/Grants/Solid Waste
Request for approval to procure on a sole source basis a diesel tire cutter from Tire Resource Systems, Inc. for Solid Waste. The requested tire cutter is the only such machine identified that is both mobile and will cut passenger, truck, and large off-road tires up to 23.5/25, 12 ply tires. The noted features are necessary as the landfill needs to process the larger 12 ply off-road tires not only at the landfill but also at their remote locations. The manufacturer of the tire cutter, Tire Resource Systems, Inc. will sell directly to the County at the same price they sell to their distributors, so obtaining competition is not feasible in this instance. Funding for this project is from Account #420.45068400.537.8600640 (Waste Tire Grant) which expires September 30, 1997.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Grants
Request for approval and execution of 1997/98 Planning Agreement, AE726, between Lake County and the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged for planning related activities for the non-sponsored.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PARKS & RECREATION/STATE AGENCIES
Representative Stan Bainter appeared before the Board to present a check, in the amount of $100,000, to Lake County for Lake Idamere Park Improvements from the Department of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Recreation Development Assistant Program.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/GRANTS
STATE AGENCIES
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Lake Idamere Park Project Grant Agreement between Lake County and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program for a $100,000 grant for Lake Idamere Park improvements.
Commr. Cadwell expressed appreciation to Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, and to staff for their efforts in writing the grant for Lake Idamere Park improvements.
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 847 - LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS - EUSTIS AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 847 by Donald C. Anderson and Thomas R. Anderson to vacate right-of-way, Lakeview Heights, and explained that, at the time that the original plat was drafted, the right-of-way in question was a portion of the lake; however, Lake Nette has receded over time and the property owners want to eliminate Lake Nette Drive and vacate the right-of-way. Mr. Stivender displayed an aerial map of Lakeview Heights on the monitor and discussed same.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Ms. Dee M. Myslik, Real Estate Agent for the property owner that abuts the parcel to the north, appeared before the Board and explained that a wooded area was directly to the east of the parcel and that the County has a drainage easement that runs through the wooded area along Kentucky Boulevard which ends before reaching the shoreline. She stated that there was no access to the parcel in question without accessing through private property.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 847 by Donald C. Anderson and Thomas R. Anderson to vacate right-of-way, Lakeview Heights, Section 12, Township 19, Range 26, Eustis area - Commissioner District 4 - Resolution No. 1997-141.
PETITION NO. 848 - LAKE COUNTY CENTRAL PARK PHASE I - GROVELAND AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 848 by Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Lake County Facilities and Capital Improvements, to vacate utility easement, Lake County Central Park Phase I.
It was noted that this request would be tabled until such time that County staff was available to address this request.
PETITION NO. 852 - CAMMA TOWN WARD - MOUNT DORA AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board to present Road Vacation Petition No. 852 by Camma Town Ward to vacate drainage easement, and explained that this request was to clear title to an existing structure. Ms. Stivender displayed on the monitor a detailed site plan of the area in question and noted the location of a 20 foot easement that runs along the north side of the property and indicated where the drip line of the garage was encroaching into said easement. He explained that the legal description was based on the drip line of the house. He stated that the adjacent property owners have expressed concern with maintenance of the drainage easement and that the County was responsible for maintaining said easement, and that clearing the title on the property did not interfere with the County's ability to maintain the property or interfere with the flow of water.
In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, responded that the County had the ability to approve the vacation subject to an agreement by the property owner to hold the County harmless for any damage to the structure caused by the maintenance of the drainage ditch.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Ed Clement, Attorney, representing Camma Town Ward, appeared before the Board and explained that Ms. Ward granted an easement to the County in 1971that provided the right to clear, excavate, construct, and maintain the outfall and drainage ditch. He stated that an addition was added to the home by Ms. Ward ten years ago and the vacating process was not done at that time. He explained that Ms. Ward was now selling the home and the new purchasers have discovered a problem with the title. He further explained that the easement in question was 25 feet wide, 274 feet long, and there was approximately an eight (8) foot difference in the elevation of the property from where the house was located on the easement versus where the actual water was continuing to run. He stated that the area being vacated would never be used for drainage because of the elevation.
Mr. Patrick Anthony, the new purchaser, appeared before the Board and stated that they would be willing to work with the County in resolving this issue.
Mr. Leonard M. Zubko, a resident on Laurel Drive, appeared before the Board and requested clarification on the exact location of the current easement with reference to the petitioner and other properties in the area. It was noted that a letter from Mr. Zubko had been distributed prior to the start of the meeting this date. He briefly discussed the history of the easement in question, and stated that the County has not maintained the easement for ten years and that the neighbors have cleaned out the back side of the Ward property to allow for adequate drainage to Lake Dora. He expressed concern that the property owners would continue to have the responsibility of cleaning the drainage easement, and that the County may have a problem keeping the easement clear with the elevation problem.
Commr. Swartz discussed County road improvements along Lakeshore Drive and associated stormwater drainage issues. He stated that the stormwater that was coming from the area in question was the type of stormwater that the County plans to address and that it was imperative that the County has the ability to deal with the drainage.
Mr. Stivender stated that staff would check the legal description for accuracy and would vacate only the drip line of the house.
Mr. Minkoff stated, for the record, that the name, Camma Town Ward, was familiar to him and his name might appear in the chain of title, and he wished to declare that he was not aware of any connection to this case.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 852 by Camma Town Ward to vacate drainage easement, Section 35 and Section 36, Township 19S, Range 26E, subject to a correct legal description, reverification of the encroachment of the property being similar to that which has been portrayed, and not interfering with the drainage easement, Mount Dora area - Commissioner District 3 - Resolution No. 1997-143.
Commr. Good requested that staff note on the maintenance schedule to look at the maintenance of the drainage easement.
PETITION NO. 848 - LAKE COUNTY CENTRAL PARK PHASE I - GROVELAND AREA (CONTINUED)
Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, and Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, appeared before the Board to present the request to vacate utility easement, Lake County Central Park Phase I. Mr. Anderson explained that Lot 8 and Lot 9 have been combined into one lot and that the utility easement in question was located on the lot line between the two lots.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, 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 approved Road Vacation Petition No. 852 by Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Lake County Facilities & Capital Improvements, to vacate utility easement, Lake County Central Park Phase I, Section 29, Township 21, Range 25, Groveland area - Commissioner District 2 - Resolution No. 1997-142.
REZONING
It was noted that the following staff members were present for the zoning hearings: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management; and Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Division of Planning and Development Services.
PETITION NO. CUP#635C-4 - AMENDMENT TO CUP#635-4 A&B -
BILL BLACKHAM
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the applicant was requesting a sixty day continuance of Petition No. CUP#635C-4, Bill Blackham, Holmar Marina, United Southern Bank.
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 continuance of Petition No. CUP#635C-4, Bill Blackham, United Southern Bank (c/o William Kicklighter) for sixty days.
PETITION NO.PH#38-97-2 - AR TO RA - PETER & OLGA CICCIO
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from Peter and Olga Ciccio for rezoning from AR (Agriculture Residential) to RA (Ranchette) for placement of a mobile home on a five (5) acre parcel. She stated that staff recommends approval for the placement of a mobile home based on the Lake County Land Development Regulations, and the development trends in the area being in the transitional land use that would be subject to a five (5) acre parcel, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request. She noted that there was opposition to this request. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area.
At this time, 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 this request.
There being no one present who wished to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had previously opposed this rezoning because it was incompatible with the adjacent developments and future development. He stated that he would not support this rezoning today because the Board would be creating mobile home zoning immediately adjacent to predominately conventional housing, which is not the intention of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 3 - 2 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from AR (Agriculture Residential) to RA (Ranchette) for placement of a mobile home - Ordinance No. 1997-56.
Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.
Commr. Good directed staff, in the future, to indicate in the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission which Commissioners voted in opposition to a motion.
PETITION NO. 35-97-3 - A TO R-1 - DOROTHY C. SHIPES, TRUST
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from Joe W. Shipes for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential) for development of a 20 acre parcel into approximately 12 one (1) acre to one and one-half (1.5) acre single family lots in the rural village land use category with access from Lake Jem Road and C.R. 448. She explained that Mr. Shipes was taking advantage of the existing county maintained roads subject to a joint driveway requirement from Public Works. She stated that staff recommends approval of the request based on the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth Management, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) and a site plan (County Exhibit 2) of the area.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Joe Shipes, the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that he was agreeable to the joint driveway requirement. He discussed the marketability of the concept before the Board and explained that this request was for estate purposes and that they were not interested in a higher density.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Swartz stated that he supported the concept of the rural village and the densities that would be allowed under the rural village in this area, and he would support this request because he could not find any reason in the current code not to approve it other than he did not think it was the best concept.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential) for development of one (1) to one and one-half (1.5) acre single family lots - Ordinance No. 1997-57.
PETITION NO. 42-97-1 - RP TO A - A.A. MOUKHTARA, INC.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from A.A. Moukhtara, Inc. for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) to A (Agriculture) for construction of a single family residence and a barn for the keeping of horses on approximately an 8.6 acre parcel. She stated that staff recommends approval for construction of a conventional home and barn and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
At this time, 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 this request.
There being no one present who wished to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) to A (Agriculture) for construction of a single family residence and a barn for the keeping of horses - Ordinance No. 1997-58.
In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz, Ms. Farrell noted that this request would be straight tag zoning with setback requirements in the code for the barn.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote.
PETITION NO. 36-97-4 - A TO CFD - BILL & HODA HUGHES
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request for revocation of CUP#408-5 to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) to allow the applicants' continued use of the property for the purposes of operating an existing church facility, parsonage, and associated uses. She stated that staff recommends approval and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request. In response to a question by Commr. Cadwell, Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant would be required to come back before the Board for approval of other CFD (Community Facility District) uses and that staff would review the proposed ordinance to assure that it specifically addresses those CFD uses. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Division of Planning and Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area. Ms. Farrell directed the Board's attention to the Ordinance, Section 1. Terms and stated that language referencing CUP#408-5 would be deleted. She explained that the land uses allowed would be a church, associated uses, and future expansion of the church.
Extensive discussion occurred regarding language under Section 1. Terms, (A); at which time, Commr. Gerber expressed concern with language referring to future expansion of the church including a fellowship hall and accessory uses related thereto. She stated that accessory uses could be considered to be a school, or day care.
Commr. Swartz stated that the ordinance needs to clearly outline the accessory uses that are not included. He requested that staff clarify land uses but not limit the appropriate expansion of accessory and church uses that are currently allowable uses.
Ms. Farrell stated that language would be added to clearly state that accessory uses do not include a school or day care under Section 1. Terms, A. Land Uses.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
It was noted that Mr. Bill Hughes, the applicant, was present in the audience.
Ms. Irene Terry Locke, representing those whose signatures appeared on a petition that had been distributed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, appeared before the Board in opposition to this rezoning. She stated that they have no objection to the church or the parsonage; however, they do have a concern with the accessory uses to be allowed. She stated that the residents want to keep the area rural and agricultural and that they would oppose uses such as a school, day care, halfway house, or a soup kitchen.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 a request for revocation of CUP#408-5 to rezone from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District) for the existing church, parsonage, and associated uses; with changes to the Ordinance under Section 1. Terms, A. Land Uses, deleting reference to CUP#408-5; deleting reference to County Manager and inserting Board of County Commissioners; and adding language, as follows: associated uses excluding school, day care, halfway house, and homeless shelter - Ordinance No. 1997-59.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for fifteen minutes, and reconvene at 10:40 a.m.
REZONING (CONTINUED)
PETITION NO. 39-97-4 - AMENDMENT TO CP - SAM WIGGINS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from Sam Wiggins for an amendment to existing CP Ordinance #10-84 to include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, excluding bars, taverns, adult entertainment and kennels. She stated that the 1984 CP Ordinance limited the use of the site to a well dwelling business and related sales. She explained that this was a five (5) acre parcel located in the suburban land use category and, based on the land use criteria, staff has recommended denial for C-2 (Community Commercial) and has recommended approval for an amendment to CP Ordinance #10 -84 to include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to the existing ordinance to include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses excluding bars, taverns, adult entertainment, and kennels. She stated that there was no opposition to this request, and that Public Works has indicated that development would be subject to the Access Management Ordinance and other transportation planning requirements. At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the applicant, Sam Wiggins, appeared before the Board and explained that the applicant has had a well dwelling facility located on the parcel since 1984 and that current zoning provides him no other uses, and he wishes to use the unused portion of the parcel for an undetermined purpose. Mr. Crawford displayed on the monitor a site plan (Applicant's Exhibit A) and noted the location of other zonings in the area. He stated that C-2 (Community Commercial) would be appropriate for this area.
Commr. Hanson request that staff provide a status report on the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of S.R. 46 and Round Lake Road.
Mr. Crawford explained that the allowable permitted uses within the Lake County Comprehensive Plan was a difficult issue and questioned if staff was indicating that all C-2 (Community Commercial) uses were prohibited by the Comprehensive Plan at that location.
Ms. Farrell responded that it was an association that the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses are a neighborhood use and that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan directs staff to use the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. She stated that C-2 (Community Commercial) was a more intense use and also requires a greater number of residents in the area or a greater need.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Planning and Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area.
No one wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Extensive discussion occurred regarding the staff recommendation for an amendment to include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), and the recommendation for denial of C-2 (Community Commercial).
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for an amendment to existing CP Ordinance #10-84 to include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, excluding bars, taverns, adult entertainment and kennels. Commr. Good directed attention to the list of C-2 (Community Commercial) uses not allowed in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) that had been previously provided by the applicant, and questioned if staff concurred with said list. Mr. Richardson responded that said list includes all uses that are not otherwise permitted in both, and that the applicant would have the ability to amend the CP Ordinance for a self storage use in C-1 (Community Commercial).
Commr. Gerber stated that she would support the staff recommendation because of the thought put into said recommendation and that there were other avenues that the applicant could pursue.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed by a 2 - 3 vote.
Commr. Gerber, Commr. Good, and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of staff and approved amendment to CP Ordinance #10-84 to include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) - Ordinance No. 1997-60.
PETITION NO. 32-97-4 - A TO CFD - CITY OF EUSTIS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was for revocation of CUP#828-4 to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) to bring into compliance the existing operation of the City of Eustis spray field, lift station and accessory uses, which includes a warehouse, barn, and mobile home. She stated that this request was to bring the Ordinance up to date and that there was no opposition to this request. She stated that staff recommends approval and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing potion of the meeting.
It was noted that the applicant's representatives were present in the audience.
No one wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There being no one present who wished to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for revocation of CUP#828-4 to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) to bring into compliance the existing operation of the City of Eustis spray field, lift station, and accessory uses, which includes a warehouse, barn, and mobile home - Ordinance No. 1997-61.
PETITION NO. 97/7/7/1-4 - CUP IN A - LEONARD UNDERWOOD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from Leonard Underwood for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) for a marine outboard motor repair shop on a 12.3 acre parcel located on Bear Lake. She stated that this request was unique because the applicant requires a body of water to test the repairs. She explained that this request initially was made as the result of a code compliance issue, and that the applicant was wishing to resolve the issue and bring his site into compliance through a CUP (Conditional Use Permit). She stated that staff recommends approval, as conditioned, for operation of a marine outboard motor repair shop with incidental sales of marine parts, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not cause to be more than ten (10) boats kept on the site for a period of more than 72 hours. Kept inside, the applicant shall be allowed to keep for keeping forty (30) outboard motors total.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
3. The applicant shall keep all equipment and parts within an enclosed structure.
4. All flammable (Gasoline and oil) material shall be kept in approved containers.
5. Used motor oil shall be removed on a basis which shall not allow for an accumulation of more than six (6) gallons.
6. The applicant shall enact measures which will prevent the escape or cause to collect any petroleum products accidentally introduced into the Lake.
Ms. Farrell noted that there were three (3) letters of support. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Planning and Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the parcel.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Leonard Underwood, appeared before the Board and noted that the applicant was present in the audience. He discussed the definition of marina and allowed uses and stated that a marina was listed as a conditional use within the Land Development Regulations. He stated that the applicant maintains the road and that there was no opposition to this request. He explained that Mr. Underwood repairs 2 cycle motors only and does not advertise. At this time, he noted on the aerial map the location of homes in the area and stated that all of the individual parcels were mobile homes or small stucco and concrete block homes. He stated that the fifth-wheel trailer being used as a residence, and the tractor/trailer that was being used for a storage shed, have been removed from the premises and the applicant was now in compliance. At this time, Mr. Crawford presented a video (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the property in question.
Mr. Leonard Underwood, the applicant and owner of Ranch Marine, appeared before the Board and explained that his hours of operation were from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. week days and that they were not open on Saturday and Sunday.
No one wished to speak in opposition to this request.
There bring no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that this request was no different from pump management, agricultural equipment repair, welding, well dwelling, bus repair, semi truck repair, septic tank business, woodworking and grove equipment. She stated that this type of business was not objectionable to the residents in the area and that it was the type of business that the Board needs to encourage throughout the County in the County's economic development efforts. In response to a question by Commr. Cadwell, she stated that she would have no objection to changing the hours of operation to 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with no Saturday and Sunday hours of operation.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), as conditioned, changing the hours of operation to 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; no hours of operation on Saturday and Sunday; and no organized boat sales for operation of a marine outboard motor repair shop with incidental sales of marine - Ordinance No. 1997-62.
Commr. Swartz expressed concern that the applicant had clearly obtained an occupational license for a phone use only operation, and that this request does not appear to have been the operational intent or operational standard at the time.
Commr. Good requested that staff add, as an agenda item at the next Board Advance, discussion on the issue of commercial sitings as they become home business type sitings.
Commr. Gerber expressed concern that the applicant opened his business under false pretenses and stated that the Board should recognize that this was an after the fact permit. She suggested a six (6) month inspection of the CUP for two years.
Commr. Swartz stated that home businesses have traditionally been those that are in the home and this was not a home business. He stated that he was not confident that the County has the ability to require a six month or one year review.
Commr. Cadwell noted, in response to Commr. Swartz's comments, that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan would limit the densities in the Lake Mack area.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 4 - 1 vote.
Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.
PETITION NO. CUP#97/8/2-2 - CUP IN A - WARREN BUTTS/RYAN HORSE FARMS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from Warren Butts /Ryan Horse Farms for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) for operation of a horse boarding facility to include riding lessons, horse shows, and training of horses not to exceed 20 horses. She stated that this parcel was in the suburban land use category and was very rural in nature and surrounded by agricultural properties. She stated that staff recommends denial of the request to hold horse shows on the site and, based on the position of the access road, staff recommends approval for a CUP for a horse boarding, training and riding stable. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval based on the following conditions:
1. Riding Stables: horse rental (lease shall be limited to15 animals.
2. Riding Lessons: Lessons shall be given between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., with the number of lease animals allowed at 15.
3. Horse Boarding: The total number of non-family owned horses shall be limited to ten horses.
4. The total number of horses allowed to be leased, rented or boarded shall be no more than 25 animals.
Ms. Farrell noted that there were seven (7) letters in opposition to this request.
Mr. Tommy Leathers, Chief Code Compliance Officer, appeared before the Board and confirmed that an Order of Fine was issued to the applicant after receiving one complaint by a citizen. He explained that there was one original horse show at which time an adjudication was issued by the Code Enforcement Board, and that the Code Enforcement Board issued a one day fine for a second show.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Warren P. Butt, owner of Ryan Horse Farms, appeared before the Board and stated that the County informed him that, based on what he was doing, all he had to do was obtain an occupational license and there would be no problem. He explained that they were notified by the County that a compliant had been filed with Code Enforcement after they had done extensive marketing of the horse show, and they made the decision to move forward with said show. At this time, Mr. Butt presented three photographs (Applicant's Exhibits A, B, and C) taken at the horse show to illustrate that the ranch was created for his children and children in general as a means or conduit to bring family units together. He stated that the prizes were ribbons and small trophies and that the entry fees were $3.00 and $5.00. He stated that they are by no means trying to create a rodeo. At this time, he read a letter from Dwaine Zagrocki, DVM, expressing his support of the request before the Board and stated that the proposal would provide the opportunity to experience equine opportunities without necessitating immediate ownership of horses or the property necessary to conduct such activities. Mr. Butt stated that he would like the ability to have the horse shows and, with the proposed zoning, he would be allowed to enjoy his arena, to ride on his property, and to invite friends over to his property. He stated that he would like to work with the neighbors to determine what could be done to improve the road for everyone, at his expense, just as he has maintained the road in the past.
Ms. Donna Merritt appeared before the Board in opposition to the horse shows and rodeos at Ryan Horse Farm and explained that she owns the property on the lake and adjacent to the property in question. She distributed two photographs (Opposition's Exhibit A and B) illustrating the location of her home.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Donna Meritt, Edwin and Maria Traxel, and Richard T. Durkee, appeared before the Board to speak in opposition to this request and noted
the locations of the property owned by his clients on a site plan (Opposition's Exhibit C). He presented forms in opposition to this request from Carl O. Gutmann, Jr. (Opposition's Exhibit D and Exhibit I); Maria Traxel/Gary M. Powell (Opposition's Exhibit E); A.E. Langley (Opposition's Exhibit F); Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Beck (Opposition's Exhibit G); and Ron C. Braithwaite (Opposition's Exhibit H). He stated that this request was an inappropriate use for the neighborhood and discussed the requirement of a minimum 66 foot right-of-way for commercial uses as outlined in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and the 20 foot easement on this property. He briefly discussed the location of the wetland along the easement and stated that to improve the easement would violate the wetland setbacks; therefore, it was difficult to understand how to meet the Lake County Comprehensive Plan requirements of a 66 foot ingress and egress to a commercial property and not violate wetland setbacks in addition to obtaining additional easements that were not available. At this time, he presented a video (Opposition's Exhibit J) of the property in question and the wetland. He distributed a copy of the flier (Opposition's Exhibit K) that was distributed for the first horse show, and a copy of the flier (Opposition's Exhibit L) that was distributed for the second horse show on June 28, 1997. He stated that horse boarding, and riding lessons were appropriate uses in A (Agriculture) zoning and that the applicant should be able to use his property for those uses; however, the opposition would like a limit on the number of horses allowed on the parcel, and the commercial intensity of the use for horse boarding, riding, and lessons.
Ms. Maria Traxel, representing several homeowners, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and stated that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting and asked the homeowners how they would feel about a rodeo; at which time many of the homeowners expressed opposition to a rodeo. She stated that the only concern was with the commercial use of the land for this particular activity, and the flow of traffic. She noted that an average of 76 cars per day were using the road at this time.
Ms. Donna Merritt reappeared before the Board and stated that her property was currently for sale and those that have looked at the property have stated that they were not interested in the property because Mr. Butt has signs and potable toilets adjacent to her front yard.
Mr. Crawford stated that the 20 foot easements granted for this property were granted for residential property, and that the general law was that the burden on an easement could not increase beyond what was contemplated. He noted that Mr. Tom Chapman, a local resident, was unable to attend the meeting; however, requested that Mr. Crawford voice his opposition to this rezoning.
Mr. Edwin Traxel appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and expressed concern with the traffic on the road.
Mr. Tim James appeared before the Board and requested clarification on the issues being discussed this date. He stated that the key issue was to live in harmony and asked that the Board use their best judgment in this matter.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
At this time, Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Planning and Development Services, displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the area. In response to a question presented by Commr. Hanson, Ms. Farrell illustrated on the map the location of the original variance.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that previous minutes indicate that there were two (2) variances granted and one variance was to allow an easement length of more than 2,640 feet in lieu of 1,320 feet and to allow a 20 foot wide easement in lieu of a 50 foot wide easement.
Commr. Swartz stated that the applicant was aware that an occupational license was required, and he was informed by Code Enforcement not to have the horse show. He expressed concern that there was a pattern of the applicant not adhering to County rules and that, given the nature of the background of this request, he was not confident that the applicant would comply with a CUP and the neighbors would have a continuing type of intense activity other than what was appropriate for a rural residential lifestyle.
Commr. Good stated that he was in agreement with the recommendation of staff to approve a CUP in A for the operation of a horse stable for boarding, training and riding stable not to exceed 15 horses for those operations.
At this time, Ms. Farrell directed the Board's attention to the Ordinance, Section 2. Terms, A. Land Uses, at which time discussion occurred regarding the conditions.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture), subject to the following conditions, for a horse stable, boarding, training, and riding - Ordinance No. 1997-63.
1. Riding Stables: horse rental (lease shall be limited to15 animals.
2. Riding Lessons: Lessons shall be given between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., with the number of lease animals allowed at 15.
3. Horse Boarding: The total number of non-family owned horses shall be limited to ten horses.
4. The total number of horses allowed to be leased, rented or boarded shall be no more than 25 animals.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would not support this request because she was not confident that the applicant would abide by the conditions.
Commr. Good noted that Code Enforcement would take appropriate action as necessary if situations arise and the neighbors report a complaint.
Commr. Swartz reiterated previous concerns regarding the easement and the applicant's disregard to County regulations.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 3 - 2 vote.
Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 12:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
REZONING (CONTINUED)
PETITION NO. 33-97-2 - R-1 TO R-2 - STANFORD REALTY INC/
R.F. STONEROCK
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this was a request from Stanford Realty, Inc./R.F. Stonerock for rezoning R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-1 (Estate Planning) for a single family residential housing development. She stated that this was a 17.22 acre parcel in the urban expansion category and meets the test for the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations. She stated that staff recommends approval to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential) and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request. She stated that central water and individual septic tanks would be present on the site. She directed the Board's attention to a petition with 70 signatures, in the backup, requesting a Developer's Agreement to assure that the development meets the architectural and building standards of the adjacent community, and stating that the developer's proposed guidelines would cause a decrease in property values to the Lake Ridge Club community.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney, representing Timothy Diachun, the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that Mr. Diachun meet with the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association several times over the years to discuss their intentions with regard to this property, and the concerns have always been by Lake Ridge Club that Mr. Diachun build something equal to or greater in quality to Lake Ridge Club. He explained that the applicants have prepared a proposal to have the fifteen (15) acres join Lake Ridge Club and be subject to Lake Ridge Club restrictive covenants and their architectural review committee, which would allow the proposed 24 homes to utilize the facilities, pay the dues, and the assessments of Lake Ridge Club. He explained that, as an alternative, if Lake Ridge Club chooses not to want the fifteen (15) acres as part of their community, the applicants have agreed to draft restrictive covenants to be equal to or exceed Lake Ridge Club's restrictive covenants and place said covenants in the public record. He stated that both options have been presented to the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association and that the documents would be drafted to allow the two above noted options and the option to join at a later time when platting has been completed. At this time, Mr. Richey explained that the fifteen (15) acres were to be developed in approximately 24 lots subject to going through concurrency, and the requirements of the Lake County Development Regulations. Mr. Richey noted that Mr. Diachun, and Mr. R.F. Stonerock were present in the audience and were available to testify.
In response to a question presented by Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it was his recommendation to postpone this request until such time that a Developer's Agreement with Lake County has been prepared and executed.
Mr. Richard Pendergast, Treasurer, Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Board and explained that he presented the petition with 70 signatures to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and stated that said petition expressed the concern of the community that Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' restrictions be meet by the adjoining property, and that the rezoning be contingent upon meeting the architectural and building standards of Lake Ridge Club. He stated that the R-2 (Estate Residential) zoning was considerable less than what they have as restrictions on the Lake Ridge Club deed restrictions. He explained that the size of the house under R-2 (Estate Residential) was 1,500 square feet, and Lake Ridge Club deed restrictions require 1,800 square feet with a minimum setback of 35 feet from the front, and minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear. He stated that those were the issues that they wished to have addressed.
Mr. Richey presented on the monitor a preliminary site plan (Applicant's Exhibit A), which illustrated the layout of the lots on the fifteen (15) acres and the layout of the easements, and stated that he would not object to the Board continuing this request to allow sufficient time to draft documents to reflect the lot size for R-2 (Estate Residential) zoning.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the documents be drafted for R-3 (Medium Residential District) to allow for the same lot sizes as in Lake Ridge Club, and suggested that the difference in land be put in open space which would provide approximately five (5) acres of open space other than the park/water retention areas.
Commr. Good questioned if consideration had been given to the impact of this project on Anderson Hill Road and if the Level of Service would be considered in the concurrency review; at which time, Mr. Ken Stewart, Public Works, responded that the Level of Service would be considered in concurrency review. He stated that he would prepare a report on the impact that this project would have on the area prior to the next public hearing.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to postpone for thirty (30) days Petition No. 33-97-2, Stanford Realty, Inc./R.F. Stonerock.
PETITION NO. CUP#96/3/3-4 - CUP ORD.#1996-28 - SIX MONTH REVIEW
JERRY AND NANCY NEWTON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, explained that this request was a six month review of CUP Ordinance #1996-28 for Jerry and Nancy Newton, per the request by the Board on January 28, 1997, during the first six month review of this application, to ensure that the applicant was complying with the terms and conditions as approved. She explained that Mr. Newton has planted a buffer and that the only outstanding issue at this time was the requirement under Operation Standards that the kennel structure be sound-proof to prevent excessive barking noise from being heard outside of the structure. She noted that there has been discussion between the applicant and the Code Enforcement Officers as to the intent of the code.
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner I, appeared before the Board in the capacity as a previous Code Enforcement Officer and explained that complaints were received regarding barking dogs after 4:00 p.m. and before 9:00 a.m. He stated that Code Enforcement instructed Mr. Newton to keep the doors to the kennel shut during those hours to maintain the sound proof integrity of the building. He explained that, due to the heat and comfort of the dogs, Mr. Newton has been keeping the doors opened. He stated that Mr. Newton has put in a vegetative buffer and has enclosed the area outside of the chain link fence with a eight (8) foot board stockade fence around the kennel to provide an additional sound proof buffer and to improve the integrity. He stated that Mr. Newton was complying with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit other than the issue of the sound proof integrity. He stated that Mr. Newton's dogs were not the only dogs in the area that were causing the noise, and that the neighbors that were complaining agreed that there were dogs running lose in the neighborhood. At this time, Mr. Hartenstein displayed photographs (County Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) on the monitor illustrating the stockade fence, the vegetative buffer, and the kennel area.
At this time, Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Jerry Newton, the applicant, appeared before the Board and distributed a series of eighteen (18) photographs (Applicant's Exhibit A) illustrating his property, the stockade fence, and neighbor dogs running loose. At this time, Mr. Newton presented a video (Applicant's Exhibit B) illustrating the area, neighborhood dogs barking, and packs of dogs running loose in the neighborhood.
Ms. Molly Green, an adjacent neighbor, appeared before the Board and stated that she was representing herself and Mr. Dennis Smith. She explained that Mr. Smith was requested by the Board to document each time that he heard Mr. Newton's dogs barking, which he has presented to Code Enforcement for their records, and he has indicated a violation of the rules of the CUP. She stated that the barking dogs could be heard in the evenings and in the early morning hours. She expressed concern with the disposal of the dogs' waste and requested that the Board discuss this issue.
Mr. Charles Fatova appeared before the Board and stated that his property was adjacent to the Newtons' property and that he has no complaint with Mr. Newtons' dogs barking or running loose; however, he has had a problem with the neighborhood dogs running loose and barking. He stated that the problems being discussed today were not as severe as portrayed by Ms. Molly Green.
Mr. Lee Moorhead, a friend of the Newton's, addressed the Board and explained that the Newton's dogs were champion show dogs and companions. He stated that the neighborhood has numerous dogs running loose, which presents a hazard to horses, horseback riders, walkers and children in the area and that the Board was focusing on the wrong issues. He stated that there should be a humane concern for the Newton's dogs in the hot kennel.
Ms. Nancy Newton, the applicant, addressed the Board and presented a copy of the ARK American Rottweiler Club 1997 National Specialty Supplement magazine (Applicant's Exhibit C) which illustrated on the cover one of their rottweiler champion top 20 award winners.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the applicants were making a genuine effort to comply with the Conditional Use Permit and that he would like for the Board to approve the request and place it on the regular yearly schedule of CUP inspections. He stated that the requirements on the original CUP for a sound proof kennel should remain unchanged.
Commr. Good stated that it was his intent at the time of approval that the kennel be sound proofed and that the doors remain shut between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. He stated that an effort needs to be made to control our animals, and the applicant has made an effort to comply with the CUP.
Mr. Newton requested that the Board consider an extension of the hours to allow them to leave the doors of the kennel opened until 6:00 p.m.
Commr. Swartz stated that the applicants have not complied with keeping the doors closed to the kennel because of the convenience to them and because of the discomfort from the heat to the dogs. He stated that he did not think approval of this Conditional Use Permit was the right decision which was the reason why it was necessary for the Board to review the CUP every six (6) months.
Commr. Gerber noted that her concern during the last six (6) month review was the issue of sales, and it was evident that this has not been a commercial venture.
Ms. Farrell responded to the concern expressed regarding disposal of animal waste and noted that the Conditional Use Permit did not have a provision to deal with disposal of animal waste; however, state code does address disposal of animal waste for commercial kennels, and she would bring back to the Board information regarding this issue.
Commr. Good stated that there was a significant effort on the part of the applicants' to comply with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit and to be good neighbors and that he would support an extension of the hours of operation to 6:00 p.m.
Commr. Swartz indicated that he would not support this request, however, noted that Code Enforcement had the ability to bring the Conditional Use Permit back before the Board at any time if there was an indication that the applicants were not complying with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. He suggested that the Board require a one year review of the Conditional Use Permit.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve the continuation of CUP Ordinance #1996-28 for breeding and rearing of dogs; to approve extension of the hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the animals in the building with the doors and windows shut at all other times to provide the sound proof integrity of the building; and subject to a 12 month review of the CUP to be brought back to the Board.
Commr. Good stated that he would be more comfortable with a six month review, however, would support the motion based on the fact that Code Enforcement could bring this CUP back to the Board at any time.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 4 - 1 vote.
Commr. Swartz voted in opposition to this request.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
FIRST BUDGET HEARING
Commr. Good announced that the First Budget Hearing, scheduled on the agenda for 6:00 p.m. this evening, was not correct and that the First Budget Hearing would be on September 9, 1997.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the request for approval of a Settlement Agreement, dated August 11, 1997, between Lake County and James and Lara Dale, and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. He explained that Lake County approved a lot line deviation/adjustment on February 13, 1997 indicating to the owner of three (3) lots that the lots could be built upon in the Replat of Postal Groves, located in the Rural/Conservation area of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. He explained that James and Lara Dale, the subsequent owners of a five (5) acre parcel requested a building permit and were denied because of a ten (10) acre minimum lot requirement. He stated that the Settlement Agreement before the Board at this time provides for two (2) dwelling units on approximately 17 acres, and further explained that James and Lara Dale have purchased an extra five (5) acres to give them a ten (10) acre parcel.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval of a Settlement Agreement, dated August 11, 1997, between Lake County, James and Lara Dale, and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS
WORKSHOP - TOWER ORDINANCE
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board to present the ordinance amending the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations; amending Section 14.00.03(D)(1), Mail; Amending Section 6.06.03(B)(5), Mining Site Plan Application; Amending Chapter II, Definitions; amending Chapter III, Zoning District Regulations, Section 3.01.03 - Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses, Section 3.01.04 Key to Conditions in Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses #19. Towers; Amending Section 3.11.03, Continuation of Nonconforming Uses and Development, Amending Section 3.11.04 Termination of Nonconforming Uses and Development, Creating Sections 3.13.00 through 3.13.17 Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Equipment Facilities; Amending Chapter X, Accessory and Temporary Structures and Uses; Amending Section 10.01.04, Satellite Dish Antenna. She noted that Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development Services; and Mr. Dale Griner, Building Services Director, Planning and Development Services, were present to address questions from the Board. At this time, Ms. Farrell directed the Board's attention to the revised ordinance, dated August 25, 1997, and provided a page by page review of the recommended changes that had been made since the last workshop. At this time, the Board briefly discussed the recommended changes and the following additional changes were requested:
Section 4. Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses:
Page 10, Line 8 - b. Amateur Radio - include HM and MP as permitted uses.
Section 3.13.05Amateur Radio Station Operators/Receive Only Antennas:
Page 17, Line 17 - D. "No other provisions of 3.13 shall apply to amateur radio station operators/receive only antennas with the exception of 3.13.02, and 3.13.04."
Review why Section 3.13.02 pertaining to fire code review should be applicable.
Section 3.13.07 Setbacks:
Ms. Farrell presented various examples on the monitor of towers in Lake County and how the proposed setback requirements would affect said towers.
Commr. Good expressed concern that the requirement for a 50 foot setback from any single family or duplex residential unit for a camouflage tower was not adequate. He discussed aesthetics versus engineering and requested that language be written in the ordinance prior to the final public hearing indicating that engineering would prevail over aesthetics.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, under Section 3.13.03 Structural Design, a provision would be added that would require evidence to show that, if the tower did fall, it would fall within the property in which it was permitted.
Section 3.13.16 New Wireless Communications Towers:
Page 22, Line 13 - "Before receiving a building permit for construction of a tower, the applicant shall provide: A twenty-year performance bond or other security approved by the County Attorney which shall be posted with the County in an amount sufficient to remove the tower structure upon abandonment.
Discussion occurred regarding a twenty year performance bond for new wireless communications towers and the cost for removing a tower structure. Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Communications Systems Director, stated that the cost for removal of a lattice type tower structure would be between $25,000 and $50,000.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if Section 3.13.16 were removed from the ordinance, a provision would be added to the ordinance that states that a tower no longer in use would be removed within six months.
It was the decision of the Board to remove language as noted above under Section 3.13.16 New Wireless Communications Towers.
Ms. Farrell stated that Land Development Regulations, Section 3.01.02 (E) Community Facility Uses does include utilities major and utilities minor which would include towers, transmission stations, telephone and cable companies. She stated that a strike through would be required to remove towers as a use under CFD (Community Facilty District) as a permitted use.
Section 3.13.05 - Amateur Radio Station Operators/Receive Only Antennas (Continued):
Commr. Hanson stated that the tower height for wireless communications towers, antennas and equipment facilities owned and operated by a federally-licensed amateur radio station operator or which are used exclusively for receive only antennas should be changed from one hundred (100') to one hundred and fifty (150') feet in height to be permitted in all zoning districts.
Mr. Dale Griner, Building Services Director, Planning and Development Services, explained that he has been working with an engineer and with amateur radio operators on an agreement with the amateur radio operators that would serve as a master file that would handle all of the engineering in the Rohn catalogue. He stated that he would be refining the agreement prior to the final public hearing.
Commr. Hanson stated that it has been suggested to her that the Board consider establishing an advisory committee comprised of amateur radio operators to help police the operators. She explained that changing the requirement from up to one hundred (100) feet to one hundred and fifty feet (150') would address the controversial issues for all of the amateur radio operators with the exception of three (3) operators.
Commr. Swartz stated there was a trade off between the concerns expressed on behalf of the amateur radio operators and the concerns that might be expressed on behalf of the residents that were concerned about the proliferation of towers in residential neighborhoods. He stated that both issues would have to be considered.
Section 3.13.08 Separation between Towers (Continued):
Commr. Gerber brought up for discussion the Co-Location Reduction chart, under Section 3.13.08 (B), and questioned if the County Attorney had spoken with industry people in regard to the number of service providers on a tower. She stated that she was hoping to provide real incentives for co-location on a tower and expressed concern with the proposed numbers of four, five and six in the chart.
Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development Services, responded that the language was not indicating that the number of service providers on a tower had to be wireless telephones. She noted that there were numerous other companies that utilize communication towers.
It was the decision of the Board to leave the Co-Location Reduction chart as written, and to readdressed this issue at a later time.
Section 4. (Continued):
Commr. Swartz directed the Board's attention to the Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses, Towers & Equipment and noted that the conditional use in the residential zoning districts were only conditionally allowed in the suburban and rural land use districts. He noted that it does reference Section 3.13.09; however, clarification should be made on the page in addition to the reference.
Section 3.13.07 Setbacks (Continued):
Commr. Swartz directed the Board's attention to the setback chart under Section 3.13.07 Setbacks, and requested that the first column include "ridge" and "transitional" and that the second column indicate "From any Single Family or Duplex Residential", removing reference to "Unit".
Ms. Farrell stated that she would review suburban areas in the County and bring this issue back to the Board.
Commr. Swartz brought up for discussion the requirement chart under Section 3.13.07, Setbacks, and suggested that language addressing a monopole 150 feet or greater and a monopole 150 feet or less from any single family or duplex residential be changed, as follows:
Page 18, Line 11 - 660' or 440%, whichever is less.
Page 18, Line 13 - 175' or 440%, whichever is less.
He stated that the second column was actually dwelling units and the first column was land use designation, and he was satisfied with the lattice and guyed requirement of 1320 feet; however, he was concern that the 330 feet and the 175 feet for the monopole may not be sufficient.
Mr. Minkoff stated that lowering the 330 feet and 175 feet requirement noted above would be eliminating towers in urban, urban expansion, rural village, and Mt. Plymouth Node Ridge. He stated that the federal act states that the County must allow the towers and cannot prevent them from coming into an area. He stated that when staff looked at numbers they tried to look at circles to allow adequate room to place towers, and that staff wrote the lesser number hoping to get significantly smaller towers. He stated that Commr. Swartz's suggestion would take away the incentive for the smaller towers because the required distances have been greatly increased.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff would prepare two (2) examples for monopoles in the rural and suburban land use category for the Board's review at the next public hearing. In response to a question presented by Commr. Cadwell, Ms. Farrell stated that she would review the issue of performing a balloon test prior to the next public hearing.
Mr. Minkoff stated that staff plans to advertise this ordinance for public hearings on September 9, 1997 and September 23, 1997 and, at the second public hearing, the eleven pending applications for the zoning towers would be presented to the Board. He explained that the Board would enact the Tower Ordinance prior to the zoning cases and would apply these standards to the eleven pending cases.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Florence Roberts to the Transportation Disadvantage Coordinating Board representing the position of a person over 60 years of age representing the elderly of the service area; with her term expiring October 12, 1999.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Joseph P. Godfrey, Jr. to the Board of Building Examiners representing the category of Section 489.105(3)(a)-(c), General Contractor, with his term expiring January 14, 1999.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Helen Jones to the Board of Building Examiners representing the category of Consumer Member, with her term expiring on January 14, 2001.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of John A. Patterson representing the category of Consumer Member, with his term expiring on January 14, 1999.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT NO. 2
COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY MANAGER
Commr. Good brought up for discussion the annual evaluations for the County Attorney and the County Manager, and noted that a copy of the annual reviews and a copy of the County Manager and County Attorney Cost Center for personal services, had been distributed prior to the discussions this date. Commr. Good noted that the overall rating for the County Attorney Review was 3.70, and that the overall rating for the County Manager Review was 3.74.
Commr. Swartz noted that a comment on the County Attorney's Review pertaining to laser printers and correcting the Commissioners' spelling was in jest and requested that said reference be stricken from the record.
Discussion occurred in regard to the percentage of pay increase and the cost centers for the County Attorney and the County Manager. Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board should take into consideration the salaries of the Constitutional Officers to assure that the County Attorney's and County Manager's salaries were in line with the salaries of the Constitutional Officers.
Commr. Good requested that the Board take into account the additional contractual compensation for retirement and dependent insurance coverage for the County Manager, and retirement and added insurance for Life insurance premium for the County Attorney when considering a merit increase, and also the car allowance for each. He stated that he was recommending a one (1%) percent to one and one-half (1 1/2%) percent merit increase based on the above noted compensations, and a cost of living increase of three (3%) percent.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved a merit increase of two (2%) percent, a cost of living increase of three (3%) percent, and a car allowance in lieu of a County vehicle for the County Attorney and County Manager based on the annual reviews.
COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT NO. 5
ZONING/CODE ENFORCEMENT
Commr. Cadwell requested that Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, review Vietnamese potbellied pigs as pets while reviewing the issue of ratites as pets. Ms. Farrell interjected that they would review any outstanding code enforcement cases in reference to a pet that might require a Conditional Use Permit or might be considered an agricultural animal such as ratites, Vietnamese potbellied pigs, and wolfs.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
BUDGETS/RESOLUTIONS
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, presented the request for approval of refinancing terms, approval of budget transfers, and authorization for the Chairman to execute closing documents relating to the $8 Million Line of Credit, including a resolution. She explained that two proposals were presented and First Union National Bank was the favorable proposal with a term of four years, interest only payable semi-annually for the $5,900,000 with the County's plan to pay the amount off by the end of the four year period.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval of refinancing terms; budget transfers; authorization for Chairman to execute closing documents; and approval of Resolution No. 1997-138 for the extension of the $8 million line of credit.
CLERK'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONTINUED)
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGET TRANSFERS
Budget Adjustments for FY 96/97 from the Office of County Finance, as follows:
C. Transfers:
1. Fund: Central Industrial Park
Department: Facilities and Capital Improvements
From: Work in Progress $1,014,000
To: Principal $1,000,000
Capitalized Interest $ 14,000
Transfer #: 97-326
Justification: In accordance with the refinancing plan prepared by our financial advisors for the $8 million line of credit, a principal payment of $1,000,000 from the Central Industrial Park Fund will be made at the closing on August 28, 1997. In addition, interest must be paid from the last interest payment date, June 1, 1997, to the closing date. The transfer is necessary to make this payment. After the closing, the amount outstanding on the line of credit will be $5.9 million.
2. Fund: Sales Tax Capital Projects
Department: Facilities and Capital Improvements
From: Buildings $ 78,000
Capitalized Interest $1,022,000
To: Principal $1,100,000
Transfer #: 97-327
Justification: In accordance with the refinancing plan prepared by our financial advisers for the $8 million line of credit, a principal payment of $1,100,000 from the Sales Tax Capital Projects Fund will be made at the closing on August 28, 1997. The transfer is necessary to make this payment. After the closing, the amount outstanding on the line of credit will be $5.9 million.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
The following vested rights determination has been issued.
Vested Rights Determination Regarding Subdivision Variance (SV) No. 20-88-3 dated August 14, 1997
Lake County will not deny the owner of the subject property, acting in good faith, the right to continue development of the property as two (2) distinct buildable lots, as established via Boundary Survey, dated March 15, 1989, provided:
1. This vested rights determination is recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, within three (3) months from the date of this vested rights determination;
2. deed restrictions obligating the property owner(s), and releasing Lake County from any obligation, to maintain the easement described as part of Tract "A" and Tract "B", are recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, within three (3) months from the date of this vested rights determination; and
3. a building permit is obtained from Lake County for a dwelling unit for Tract "B" within thirty (30) months from the date of this vested rights determination and the building permit does not expire.
Otherwise, Lake County shall consider the original lot of record, containing approximately 10.16 acres and incorporating both Tract "A" and Tract "B", as one (1) lot for the purpose of issuing building permits.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONTINUED)
RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution No. 1997-139 offering the greetings of Lake County to Ube City, Japan; and Resolution 1997-140 offering the greetings of Lake County to Kumamto, Japan by Friendship Force of Lake County, Florida.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
____________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
msf\boardmin\8-26-97\9-5-97