The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

Commr. Cadwell noted that today was Student Government Day, and this afternoon the students would be participating in a Mock Board Meeting. At this time, he introduced the students in attendance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that the Board had one Addendum to the agenda.

SOLID WASTE - UPDATE ON CONTAMINATION AT OGDEN MARTIN SITE

Mr. Don Post, Senior Director of Solid Waste, addressed the Board to give an update on the contamination of hazardous waste at the incinerator site. Mr. Post stated that, on January 26-28, 1999, staff was doing stack testing at the Ogden Martin facility, which is done annually. During the event, there was exceedence of mercury in the stacks at the plant. On March 30, 1999, staff got the results which indicated that there was a high level of mercury, and they were also notified on April 9, 1999 that there would be retesting on April 22-23, 1999. Based on the retesting, staff coordinated with the County's consultant to monitor the event, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) was present to supervise the retesting. Mr. Post explained that, while the test was being conducted, one truck arrived and distributed its load on the tipping floor for visual inspection. It was identified by the floor person from Ogden Martin that there was dirt in the garbage pile, and upon closer inspection, it looked like there were thermometers in it. They held up the load, identified where the load came from, and someone from the company confirmed that it was material that had originated, at one time, from their plant. There were packages that looked like a substance that could contain a mercury and was similar in substance, however, even though they did not have the chemical equipment to test it, they were able to do an air emissions test, which indicated that it was a mercury substance coming from that material. Based on this initial evaluation, the floor was shut down to any other new waste, and the material was covered, in order to prevent further contamination. After further contact with the President of Florida Medical, arrangements were made with Safety-Kleen to come in and remove the material. The cleanup started at 10 p.m. Thursday night, and the event was completed Saturday morning. The initial load consisted of 12 tons, and because of the possible contamination, over six containers of material were collected. The cleanup costs will be exceedingly more expensive than just for the original material that came in. Once staff receives the results today on the amount of contamination in the containers, Safety-Kleen will determine the facility that will handle the final disposal. Mr. Post noted that Safety-Kleen is working with FDEP and their laboratory to get those final results. On Monday, there was a conference call with the County Manager, the Chairman, the FDEP, and Ogden Martin, and they evaluated what had occurred, and it was FDEP's opinion that the process had been done appropriately, and the facility, after one more test, could reopen. The testing was finished at approximately 3:30 p.m. yesterday and, as of 4 p.m. yesterday, the garbage was being diverted back to the Ogden Martin facility. During the time that the Ogden Martin facility was closed, all garbage was diverted to the solid waste facility at the landfill. Mr. Post stated that the FDEP has been in contact with the County Manager to review the company where the material came from and there will further meetings today to further pursue that issue.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, explained that the County is working with the FDEP in regards to the waste source, which is a separate issue from the cleanup and reopening of the incinerator.

Commr. Cadwell extended his appreciation Mr. Post and the County Manager's Office for staying on top of this issue.

Mr. Post noted that the paper did a good job in accurately reporting the circumstances as they occurred and providing the information to the public.

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 891 - JAMES NAPIER - GROVELAND AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, stated that staff was recommending approval of Petition No. 891 by James Napier to vacate road, Groveland Farms, Commissioner District 2. Mr. Stivender stated that the road does not serve as legal access to any other property owners. He noted that these were 24 foot easements in the Groveland Farms plat.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

It was noted that the applicants were present in the audience.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition No. 891 by James Napier, Representative Carolyn Bagony, Vallery Realty, Inc., to vacate road, Groveland Farms, Sec. 20, Twp. 23S, Rge. 25E, Groveland Area - Commissioner District 2, Resolution 1999-73.

REZONING

PETITION CUP#99/4/2-3 - CUP in A - RUSSELL & LEA GLASSCOCK

EWB GROVES INC.- TRACKING #23-99-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that staff was recommending approval of the request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for temporary placement of a mobile home for use and assistance with the care of the infirm. She noted that there was a doctor's affidavit in the backup material; the buffering was adequate; there was no opposition; and it was approved at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

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

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

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for temporary placement of a mobile home for use and assistance with the care of the infirm, CUP#99/4/2-3, Russell & Lea Glasscock/EWB Groves Inc., Tracking #23-99-CUP, Ordinance 1999-54.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson explained, for the benefit of the students, that generally, unless there is opposition, the Board will allow this type of request, and it is not a permanent zoning change.

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

PETITION PH#20-99-5 - RM to R-7 - ROLAND E. GREEN

TRACKING #24-99-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that staff

was recommending approval of the request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mobile or Mixed Residential) for the construction of a single-family residence. Ms. Farrell noted that there were about five site built homes in this particular subdivision.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether this was an area where there was a potential for a blanket rezoning.

Ms. Farrell stated that there were about seven or eight lots left in the subdivision. This was one of the subdivisions that staff brought forward when staff proposed the idea to make RM zoning for either site built homes or modular mobile homes. She explained that there was not really any initiative from the neighborhood to come forward to make an overall change.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Roland Green, applicant, stated that it was his and his wife's desire to join this community and build something beautiful and functional that they can all be proud of while obeying all legal rules and regulations of the County and this community and becoming an active member of this community.

Mr. John Rutroff, President of the Homeowners' Association, stated that there are two site built homes in the area, and all of the others are manufactured homes. He stated that they have an upscale community and it has covenants, which state that you will not park a RV on your property for more than 48 hours. Mr. Rutroff stated that they have an Architecture Review Board, and last year Mr. Roland submitted plans, which included a huge carport where he was planning on parking his RV. The Committee refused the plan, and Mr. Roland submitted a second plan, which was also refused. Mr. Rutroff stated that they are concerned that Mr. Green is going to build a home where he is going to be able to park his RV, which is not allowed under the covenants, and they want to make sure that he follows the covenants. He stated that they have no problem with him building a home in the community.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board does not enforce covenants, and it would be a civil action between a homeowners association and the individual.

Mr. Green stated that there would be no way anyone could get a full size motor home in the carport that was shown on the last site drawing of his house. He stated that the association has more than adequate guidelines and enforcement power, and he intends to abide by everything that is legal.

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

Commr. Cadwell noted that the request was in his district, and he had no problem with the request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mobile or Mixed Residential) for construction of a single-family residence, Case PH#20-99-5, Roland E. Green, Tracking #24-99-Z, Ordinance 1999-55.

PETITION #17-99-4 - R-1 to A - SHEILA ARNOLD

TRACKING #25-99-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that staff

was recommending approval of the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A-1-40, which would be the appropriate zoning designation, since it is in the Wekiva River Protection Area. Staff mentioned in the staff report that the appropriate zoning would be A-1-40, even though the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended A (Agriculture). Ms. Farrell explained that the list of permitted uses in the Wekiva Chapter are actually greater, if you are in the Wekiva area, for A-1-40 than they are for agricultural zoning. She further noted that there is a very small piece of the property that would be A-1-20.

Commr. Swartz stated that in agricultural zoning, while it might be allowed, it will not allow them to do what the agricultural zoning will allow, at least in the rest of the County, so they can only do what would be allowed in A-1-40, or if there is a portion that is A-1-20. He explained that, from a density standpoint, they can do one unit per 40, or if there is a portion that is A-1-20, one unit per 20.

Ms. Farrell stated that there would be no changes to the density development potential, and it was an over site by staff to go for the agricultural zoning and not for the A-1-40 zoning. In response to Commr. Swartz's question about how staff is going to handle the difference between A-1-20 and A-1-40, Ms. Farrell noted that the County Future Land Use Map is not parcel based, and that is one of the things it hopes to address with GIS. She further noted that the A-1-20 and A-1-40 uses are the same, and it was the density issue that will have to be addressed with all of the parcels, once staff actually knows where the wetland line is located.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Sheila Arnold, applicant, stated that right now she is restricted to building a house, and she may want to put a mobile home on one of the 40 acre tracts sometime in the future.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A-1-40, and A-1-20 as appropriate, to allow for those uses permitted in the Agricultural zoning district, Case #17-99-4, Sheila Arnold, Tracking #25-99-Z, Ordinance 1999-56.

PETITION #15-99-2 - R-1 TO CFD - ALHYDER PROPERTIES LTD.

SUABI RAMNARAIN - TRACKING #26-99-CFD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a church and associated uses such as religion classes, but with no school or day care on site. Ms. Farrell explained that staff carefully reviewed the request, in regards to the Comprehensive Plan and locating public facility uses, and in Policy 1-5.5, there is some language that states that such uses shall be located in the urban areas to serve the more urban needs, with a few exceptions, that it either is incompatible with the urban uses, which staff could not document; serve an existing need of the immediate area, which staff could not document; or that it serves a regional service, which staff could not document. She stated that, based on the Comprehensive Plan policies and the nature of the request, staff is recommending denial. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request by an 8 to 2 vote. Since it is not located in the urban land use, and staff could not get it to meet the tests, they are recommending denial.

Commr. Pool stated that this was in his district, and there are many churches along Highway 27, and although he appreciated staff's position, he finds that it is inconsistent to deny them an opportunity to put a church where there are other churches and where churches are planning to be built in the future. He did not consider a church an impact, nor a detriment to a neighborhood or a community, and he did not have any problem with this particular situation. He stated that the churches he sees along Highway 27 have not been a negative impact, or created a negative impact to the communities or neighborhoods, and for that reason, he needs to be consistent in allowing what has been approved in the past.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board needs to look at what type of facility is being requested, because he gets concerned when churches come in under the guise of a church and predominantly are schools, or other types of operations.

Commr. Swartz explained that some of the churches referred to by Commr. Pool may actually be in urban designations, not suburban, even though they appear to be in a rural area, and the Land Use Map probably needs to be changed.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Suabi Ramnarain, representative for Mr. Alhyder, addressed the Board and stated that right now the people in Lake County are driving to Orlando to worship. The property is located on Highway 27, which is easily accessible from Highways 50 and 19, and the turnpike and Highway 27, and the church would serve the Lake County community. She was aware that, once they get to site plan review, there may be some highway improvements and other things that will need to be made on the site.

Mr. Ahmad Saidi stated that he is the trustee for his children's property, which is the property immediately to the north of the subject property. He stated that there were 25 acres on Lake Shepherd. He used to own the 26 acres immediately to the west of the parcel, but now a friend of his from Houston, Texas owns it. Mr. Saidi stated that he lives in Orange County, and he had been concerned about the idea of placing a church near commercial property that may allow liquor or wine, because if he should apply for commercial zoning in the future, he was concerned that they would object to it. He discussed this with staff, and he found out that there is no such limitation, however, the church could, on its own, raise this objection. Mr. Saidi communicated with the owner, as well as the applicant, and they reached an agreement that they would not raise such a question in the future. He stated that he has a letter between them indicating that he would also not object to their request, and he withdrew his previous objection before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He further stated that he supports wholeheartedly the rezoning request being presented to establish a worship house for this community.

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

Ms. Farrell explained that the proposed Ordinance states that daycare, school, halfway house, homeless shelter/soup kitchen shall not be allowed as an accessory or primary use of the site without coming back to the Board.

Commr. Swartz stated that there are three criteria that staff considered to determine whether or not such a CFD is appropriate in the suburban land use designation, and the three criteria, as evaluated by staff, determined that this use does not meet those criteria.

Ms. Farrell explained that staff could not get it to meet any of the criteria, or the exception, as indicated in Policy 1-5.5, and therefore, it would be inconsistent with the so noted policy in the Comprehensive Plan. She explained how staff would go about considering a request as a regional service.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would not think the applicant would build a 9,000 square foot church, if the needs were not going to be met for the surrounding community, and she felt as though the customer base was already there.

Commr. Pool stated that, if you take a good look at the denial, based on the church/mosque being an institutional use, he feels that it's all God's land, and to build a church in this location is not a bad location, and in his opinion, this is a fine location for a fine church, and the community will benefit from it. He noted that Highway 27 on a Sunday can handle this church, and he would think it would be an asset to the community, and the fact that there were no denials, or any one in opposition, speaks clearly to this issue.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would probably agree with Commr. Pool, but there are those instances where churches are far more than churches, and the County needs to have those rules in place to protect it from those types of facilities.

Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a church and associated uses such as religion classes, Case #15-99-2, Alhyder Properties Ltd., Saubi Ramnarain, Tracking #26-99-CFD, Ordinance 1999-57.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the request was clearly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Board may take exceptions to a church as being a community facility district, but that is how they have been defined since the Comprehensive Plan has been in place. He stated that, when staff says it fails all three of the exemptions, the Board is making a mistake when it ignores the Comprehensive Plan. He applauds staff for now looking at it in a little more detail and a little more comprehensively with the Comprehensive Plan rather than just focusing on the areas that may indicate approval. Commr. Swartz stated that he would support the staff recommendation of denial, which is the one he feels is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which the Board is to uphold.

Commr. Hanson questioned the applicant as to how far he has to travel to his place of worship at this time.

Mr. Ray Gilley, resident of south Lake County, stated that he lives approximately three miles from the site being discussed. Mr. Gilley stated that he has to travel an hour or more and he would argue the definition of regional, because this facility is going to be for all of the people that live in Lake County that currently have to travel. Mr. Gilley feels that the request does meet one of the criteria, from his perspective.

Commr. Hanson explained that the Comprehensive Plan covers the rules as they exist today, but it is not comprehensive, because the Board does not know what issues are still out there that require some flexibility, and perhaps the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed, which she feels it should in this case, because she believes the need for worship is where the people are going to be. Commr. Hanson stated that the need is there, the use is there, and she strongly feels that the Board should support the zoning change, and it should change the Comprehensive Plan to make it fit with the needs of the people.

Commr. Gerber stated that she did not know if the Board could change the Comprehensive Plan to meet every single situation, but she did see this as a measure that the Board could take to increase the diversity of the County. She did not know if there was a mosque in Lake County, and she felt that the Board needed to be open to these new invitations. She stated that she was going to support the request, and she felt that a 9,000 square foot facility did meet what she considers regional criteria.

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

PETITION PH#18-99-2 - A to CP - IRENE PUREWAL AND GOBIN PERSAUD

TRACKING #28-99-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial) for construction of a mini-warehouse facility, office, retail and commercial. Ms. Farrell stated that this was also presented to the Board in 1996 for a car dealership. The staff, as they went into the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, had originally recommended denial based on it being premature and there not being utilities to serve the commercial uses. The applicant came back with a site plan in 1999 for the CP rezoning, and it was not until after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that staff got confirmation from the City of Clermont that they could serve it with the central water and sewer. Ms. Farrell stated that, although the staff report for denial references other issues, one of the main issues was the utilities. She stated that staff looked at the distance in 1996 and again in 1999, and it is less than 1,000 feet from the intersection of SR 50 and the collector roadway. She further stated that access management directs them to place a driveway at a minimum of 660 feet from such an intersection, and sometimes greater, based on agreements with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the City of Clermont. Ms. Farrell stated that staff is working with a number less than one quarter mile from the intersection, so staff did an addendum on April 12, 1999, to change their recommendation of denial to approval, as it was in 1996. Ms. Farrell stated that there has been a lot of debate over the years as to the actual distances and how to deal with commercial locational criteria, and staff deals with it on a case by case basis. Staff was recommending approval limiting the square footage to 50,000 square feet at this intersection for the uses, as requested. The site plan reflects mini-warehouses and some small retail offices. Ms. Farrell discussed the location of Greater Hills and Greater Pines, in relation to the property in question, as well as the zoning uses of other surrounding properties.

Commr. Pool stated that the Rails to Trails concept is coming through the area, and he questioned whether this, in any way whatsoever, affects that property.

Mr. Fred Snyder, Director of Engineering, Public Works, stated that the applicants were showing on the site plan that they do not claim ownership of the CSX right-of-way in this area. Mr. Snyder stated that, after researching the records, staff has not found anywhere else in that locational area where CSX has deeded to another party.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing the applicants, stated that this was brought to the Board in 1996, with a positive staff recommendation, and it failed by a 3-2 vote by the Board, based on the fact that it was premature, and there was no site plan, and because of the C-2 uses that were being requested. Since that date, the applicants have brought back an application with a site plan requesting mini-warehouses and C-1 uses to eliminate car lots and some of the more obnoxious uses. Mr. Crawford stated that this area has also been the focus of a fairly intensive development activity, and since then they have water and sewer available for the project. He stated that the hospital construction has begun in this area, as well as the Lake Sumter Community College construction, with the UCF construction beginning soon. He discussed the surrounding subdivisions, as well as the industrial development that has continued to develop in this area. Mr. Crawford stated that, if it was premature in 1996, they would submit that it is not now. At this time, Mr. Crawford displayed the site plan and noted the one entrance and frontage road. He also noted that they do not own the railroad right-of-way, but they do want to work with Rails to Trails. They will keep natural buffers where they can and will comply with the landscape ordinance that is in place when they come in with their site plan.

Mr. Crawford submitted the site plan to the Deputy Clerk, and it was entered and marked as Exhibit "A" for the applicant.

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.

Commr. Pool stated that he owns nearby property, and after discussing this with Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, it was determined that he did not have a conflict, which allows him to vote on the request.

Commr. Pool 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 A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial) for the construction of a mini-warehouse facility, office retail and commercial, Case PH#18-99-2, Irene Purewal and Gobin Persaud, Tracking #28-99-CP, Ordinance 1999-58.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he voted against the rezoning in 1996 mainly because it did not meet commercial locational criteria, not because of any issue dealing with water or sewer. He stated that it still does not meet commercial locational criteria, and unless this Board decides to either replace commercial locational criteria with some system that will ensure that the Board does not strip its major roadways with commercial strip development, it will then be dooming Highway 50, with the same result that can be seen along Highway 441. He stated that commercial locational criteria, while not being perfect, was designed to try to place commercial activities at the corners of arterials and/or collectors, in order to try and reduce some of the impacts of those commercial activities. If the Board is going to ignore commercial locational criteria, then the Board might as well accept the fact that it will do to Highway 50 and the balance of Highway 27 exactly what the Board sees on Highway 441, which is increasing traffic problems.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:03 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

PETITION PH#18-99-2 - A to CP - IRENE PUREWAL AND GOBIN PERSAUD

TRACKING #28-99-CP (CONTINUED)

Commr. Swartz continued his comments by stating that the request is inconsistent with the commercial locational criteria, which is absolutely crucial to maintaining the operation of the County's roadways. He stated that there is a piece of land at the intersection of CR 455 and SR 50 that is zoned CP that would meet locational criteria, and it is undeveloped. If the market was demanding commercial activity, it would be for sale. He stated that, in the Comprehensive Plan, this is being classified as neighborhood activity centers, and it says locational at the intersections of collectors, or at the intersection of a collector and an arterial, not within 900 feet. He further stated that he has no doubt that the service area is intended to be far more than a neighborhood activity center, but it is to support the population in the area intended for their shopping needs, and the residents in the immediate surrounding area. Commr. Swartz stated that this is going to be far more than what is needed in the immediate surrounding area, and he will not be able to support the motion to approve it.

Commr. Hanson stated that there is a lot of residential growth in that area, and there is a real need for a warehouse facility. She did not feel that warehouses would generate a large amount of traffic, and she would support the request.

Commr. Pool stated that there was only going to be one curb cut for this ten acre tract. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously supports it, and staff supports it, and the applicants who are wanting to purchase and build this have a track record, because he has seen their two other facilities, and they are first class and well landscaped and buffered.

Commr. Gerber stated that, if staff was going to use 1320, there should be service roads along the front of that entire strip, and she would like to see a service road situation on this parcel. Her previous objection dealt with no water and sewer. She did not mind approving it, but she would prefer to see a frontage road.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the Board cannot just require it, because they have to go through the test to show that the impact from this development is equal to the proposed dedication of a new right-of-way and a road being placed there, since the County does not have the right-of-way or road costs. He noted that, under transportation, the applicant can be required to provide additional right-of-way, if applicable, and a frontage road, if applicable.

Commr. Gerber felt that the Board should ask for whatever it takes to get frontage roads through there, if it is going to go with the 1320 rule, which staff is applying in most of these locational criteria requests. She explained that it should front all along CR 455, so that on SR 50, there will not be 50 driveways developed.

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

PETITION CUP#99/4/3-3 - CUP in A - MAITLAND C. BRASHER

TRACKING #31-99-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for rezoning for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) to allow parking and preventive maintenance care of trucks on property with a primary residence. Ms. Farrell stated that it is in the rural land use designation, and it is not a paved road, and staff has recommended denial. She explained that staff has looked at other requests in the past that were somewhat related to an agricultural endeavor, but they could not make this determination with this particular request, because this was more for convenience and for more of an industrial type use. Ms. Farrell stated that trucking facilities and truck maintenance facilities do go in LM zonings traditionally.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether the repair and maintenance for trucks was being used in conjunction with this particular foliage business.

Ms. Farrell explained that the foliage business is not actually on the site, but it is in conjunction with their agricultural business. She clarified that, even though there was some question about the number of acres, staff has determined that it involves five acres.

Commr. Swartz stated that, as a point of information, should it become an issue, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes show that the applicant said that it was five acres, and Ms. Blazer said the legal description showed 3.4 acres, and she would look into this issue, even though the amount of acreage will not be the weighing factor here, but these are generally five acre tracts that were created in this area.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Maitland Brasher, applicant, addressed the Board and explained that he does not have any other agriculture activity on this parcel. Mr. Brasher stated that he has owned the property for 15 years, and he does preventive maintenance on the trucks as they come in.

Commr. Cadwell explained that, if the maintenance was being done on the parcel where he was doing the agricultural activity, it would give him more of a comfort level.

Mr. Brasher explained that he hauls the foliage plants, and he does not grow plants, and he lives on this property. He noted that Peebles Drive is not a paved road.

Commr. Pool noted that this became a code issue as to whether or not the applicant should be allowed to continue the activity and perhaps be grandfathered-in, because the applicant has been doing this for 14 years. He stated that the code allows one tractor and one trailer per five acre tract.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that theoretically it may be possible, but the ordinance has been in place for many years, and he did not know if staff looked at a grandfathering issue.

Commr. Pool explained that the applicant has about 28 neighbors who are very much in opposition to him continuing the practice of allowing three semis and four trailers on the property. He stated that he would not have a problem with the applicant bringing them in one at a time as he works on the different vehicles, and he would not have a problem if the applicant had been working and growing the plants on site, but he does not have a comfort level allowing this to continue, if it is a zoning violation.

Ms. Thein Castle addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the request. Ms. Castle stated that she has lived in the area for a number of years. She stated that the applicants have been doing this activity for quite some time, and she probably does not have a problem with them as much as she does with it setting a precedent. She does not want a trucking corporation, or a trucking business next to her home. She noted that it is located at the end of the area, and they go down her road, which the County is going to pave, and since the County has taken over the grading, they have used Robbins Road. Ms. Castle explained that, at night, their house shakes, and she was sure this would be taken care of when the road is paved, however, it is a neighborhood with five acres tracts, and they do not want truck traffic. She understands that when Robbins and Peebles are paved, and a portion of Carolyn, there will be a gate at Ranch Road and Peebles Road.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there has been no agreement to close the other road, or to put a gate across it. There was some discussion, but the Board has not taken any action to authorize that occurring at this point.

Ms. Castle stated that she is concerned that Robbins Road will be their only access in and out of their property. She explained that there is another parcel of property next to them that you can see ten trucks there at any given time. She just did not want this to set a precedent. At this time, Ms. Castle pointed out the location of her property on the map.

Mr. Rob Brasher, applicant, stated that he was of the understanding that Ms. Castle has a problem with the truck traffic. Mr. Brasher stated that the traffic will not change, and the County had trucks come down the road to make sure that it was truck accessible.

Commr. Swartz explained that the question is whether on not, on the agricultural parcel, the agricultural enterprise is also occurring.

Commr. Pool stated that, if the applicants grew the plants on the property, and they were in business there, then he would feel like the operation should continue there, but it becomes a code issue.

Mr. Brasher stated that the neighbors in opposition live two miles away from the property in question. He explained that there would hardly ever be over two trucks sitting on the property at one time.

Ms. Carolyn Brasher, applicant, stated that they have a paper with the neighbors' signatures directly around them, and if there had been a problem, she would have thought they would have said something. Ms. Brasher explained that they have a neighbor that has ten acres, and he said they can park one truck and trailer on one of his five acres, and another truck and trailer on his other five acres.

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

Ms. Farrell explained that, on a five acre parcel, there is no time limit to have a truck and trailer on the property, if they live there.

Commr. Swartz stated that the code says that, on any five acres or more, the resident of the property may park the vehicle, so lets try not to take a situation of wanting to park three or four vehicles on one and allow them to disburse to the adjacent ones under this idea as being okay to do. He stated that these are residential five acres tracts, and they are not designed to have multiple vehicles parked on them, and he does not think that the CUP would be appropriate.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval, and to uphold the staff recommendation to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) to allow parking and preventive maintenance care of trucks on property with a primary residence, Case CUP#99/4/3-3, Maitland C. Brasher, Tracking No. 31-99-CUP.

Under discussion, Commr. Pool discussed allowing the applicant two trucks with one tractor, in order to allow him to off load and transfer in a different direction.

Commr. Pool amended the motion to allow two trucks and one tractor, and Commr. Hanson seconded the amendment.

Commr. Cadwell noted that procedurally, he did not see how Commr. Pool could amend the original motion, because the motion is to deny the request.

After some discussion, it was noted that the amendment to the motion would be withdrawn by Commr. Pool, and the second to the amended motion would be withdrawn by Commr. Hanson.

Commr. Hanson stated that, to get to where Commr. Pool was going with his amendment, this motion for denial has to be voted down. She was concerned about this being an agricultural enterprise, even though it may not be the true growing of the crops, or the agricultural commodity, but certainly it plays a major role in getting an agricultural product from one place to another, and there is a need for this activity. She was going to vote against the motion, to be able to look at the option presented by Commr. Pool.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, if it involved less than two acres, you are allowed two hours, and if it is more than five acres, you get 24 hours.

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

Commr. Hanson clarified that she voted against the motion because she felt that there are some possibilities that the Board has not considered that would allow a CUP to do maybe not as much as what the applicant is asking for, but something more than just the one for a 24 hour period that would be satisfactory to both the applicant and those in opposition.

PETITION MSP#99/3/1-5 - MINING SITE PLAN in A - FLORIDA ROCK

INDUSTRIES - MARION SAND PLANT - RONALD MOSS AND MEI MOSS

TRACKING #21-99-MSP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that, in Case #21-99-MSP/Florida Rock Industries, the applicant has requested that it be postponed until May 25, 1999. It will be heard with the road vacation.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the discussion of the Board was to try and hear all of the information at once and then to take up the two separate issues.

Commr. Cadwell noted that the request was in his district, and he had not problem with the request for postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for postponement for Case MSP#99/3/1-5, Florida Rock Industries - Marion Sand Plant, Ronald Moss & Mei Moss, Tracking #21-99-MSP, until May 25, 1999.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/IMPACT FEES/MUNICIPALITIES

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval to reduce the Transportation Impact Fee by fifty percent (50%) for a building developed according to the site plan approved by the City of Clermont for a 3,500 square foot day care facility, and to use interest accumulated via other transportation impact fees collected by the County for payment of the other fifty percent (50%) required via the adopted Fee Schedule. Ms. Farrell stated that there was a standard contract in the backup material, and staff was recommending approval of the request. She noted that this was the third or fourth such request to come before the Board.

Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the request, as stated above.

Ms. Cindy Winkle, owner of Our House Child Development Center, addressed the Board and stated that she would like to note a correction. Ms. Winkle stated that the agenda states that it will be a 3,500 square foot facility, and it is in fact a 6,500 square foot facility. She noted that a waiver had been approved previously, however, they have changed site locations, which she reviewed with the Board. Ms. Winkle stated that she did not understand that the impact fee waiver was attached to a property, and she thought it was attached to the project. When she went to pull the permit a couple of weeks ago, she found out that it was an issue, and she was instructed to reapply and she promptly obeyed. In addition to asking for favorable consideration of the request just to transfer from one property to another, and because she has over 30 children under the age of three that have no place to go, she was wondering if there was any action that the Board could take today to help expedite the construction.

Commr. Cadwell noted that the applicant should be able to get what she needs right after the Board takes action on the request.

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

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of a Settlement Agreement between Standlee & Associates, Inc. and Charles U. Elliott and Susan M. Elliott and Lake County. Mr. Minkoff explained that the property was immediately adjacent to the industrial park, which is now mostly in the City of Tavares at the intersection of SR 561 and SR 448. The property is not served yet by central sewer, and it is not feasible for the City to provide sewer there. The parties came in and asked if they could develop on a septic tank until waste water becomes available, and the agreement allows that condition, and this is caused by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is still pending in Tallahassee that says that no industrial uses can be on septic tanks. The City has written a letter, and the County has accommodated what they had requested, and they are pleased with the agreement as well. Mr. Minkoff noted that the Elliotts are the adjacent property owners, and when they came to the meeting, they asked to be included in the settlement agreement, because their property is also industrial, so the County accommodated them.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether the County was still requiring the sewer system for a warehouse facility.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, stated that the County is still requiring the sewer system for a warehouse facility for a new industrial use. There is usually the issue for fire suppression, so they need the water, and in most cases, if there is water, there is sewer, but staff considers those on a case by case basis. The Comprehensive Plan issue is also one of an urban sprawl issue with the central water and sewer.

Commr. Hanson believes that requiring the sewer, because of the fire flow, does not always make sense.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the agreement does not limit it to warehouses, but industrial uses.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between Standlee & Associates, Inc. and Charles U. Elliott and Susan M. Elliott and Lake County.

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Proclamation 1999-71 recognizing May 6, 1999 as a National Day of Prayer in Lake County.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Proclamation 1999-72 declaring the month of May, 1999 as Law Enforcement Month in Lake County.

COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Commr. Hanson extended her thanks to all of the employees of Lake County who worked very hard in raising this year's total of $3,596.11 for the March of Dimes. She stated that Ms. Jane Reich, County Manager's Office, did an outstanding job helping to put the event together, and she appreciated the support of the March of Dimes Fund by the County employees.

LEGISLATION/TAXES

Commr. Hanson questioned the status of the intangible tax issue, in terms of anything else the County can do to protect the dollars that had been coming into the County.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that the Board can continue to ask that the counties be held harmless.

Commr. Gerber understood that, if the County expected the reimbursement of Article V costs not to cost the County anything, the County was probably mistaken.

Commr. Cadwell explained that staff will continue discussions this week, and if it does come out of the House that way, staff will encourage the Governor to veto it, because he has said all along that he would like to hold the counties harmless.

Ms. Whittle stated that, if the intangible tax was done away with all together, the County would lose about $3 million, which is virtually the entire State Revenue Sharing budget.

Commr. Hanson stated that this is a significant issue, and she suggested putting the issue on the agenda for a Resolution.

Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board has already approved this issue as a legislative item.

At 11:15 a.m., the Chairman noted that the meeting would adjourn until 1 p.m. for the Student Government Mock Commission Meeting.

STUDENT GOVERNMENT DAY

At 1 p.m., the students that were selected from the surrounding County schools to participate in Student Government Day took part in a Mock Board Meeting.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR/BOARDMIN/4-27-99/5-4-99