A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

APRIL 25, 2000

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Robert A. Pool; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Commr. Welton Cadwell, Chairman, was not present, due to another commitment. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

It was noted that the Vice-Chairman, Commr. Catherine Hanson, would be acting as Chairman in the absence of the Chairman, Commr. Welton Cadwell.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that she would like to discuss the Board Meeting schedule for July with them, under her County Manager's Report, and noted that, under Tab 5, Vacation Petition No. 925, by Daryl M. Carter, the applicant was requesting that the vacation be postponed until a later date, therefore, requested that said petition be pulled from the Agenda. She further stated that, with regard to Tab 2, under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, there has been a name change from Holly Hill Subdivision, Phase I, to Orange Tree Subdivision, Phase I; and that a change has been made to accept a Letter of Credit, for Performance, in the amount of $684,763.00, rather than a Performance Bond, in the amount of $535,181.28.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Public Works/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for authorization to accept the final plat for Estates at Black Bear Reserve Subdivision, formerly known as Upson Downs, Phase II, which consists of 131 lots - Commission District 4.



Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for authorization to accept the final plat for Orange Tree (f/k/a Holly Hill) Subdivision, Phase I; execute a Developer's Agreement, for Construction of

Improvements, between Lake County and The Greater Construction Corporation; and accept a Performance Bond, in the amount of $684,763.00. Subdivision consists of 96 lots - Commission District 2.



Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Contracts, Leases and Agreements

Public Works/Resolutions/Subdivisions



Request from the County Manager for authorization to accept the final plat for Courtyard Villas Subdivision; execute a Developer's Agreement, for Maintenance of Improvements, between Lake County and Carcer Enterprises, Inc.; accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $23,997.20; and execute Resolution No. 2000-58, accepting Courtyard Lane (2-1528B) into the County Road Maintenance System. Subdivision consists of 42 lots - Commission District 2.



Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION

RESOLUTIONS/PUBLIC WORKS

VACATION PETITION NO. 922 - SHARON FORD - YALAHA AREA

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a portion of Lemon Avenue, south of CR 48. He stated that there were no letters of opposition and that staff was recommending approval of the request.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

Mr. Schneider displayed an aerial of the property in question, at which time he pointed out the fact that there was an access road located at the back of the property.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2000-59 -Vacation Petition No. 922, by Sharon Ford, to vacate street and lots recorded in the Plat of Yalaha, located in Section 15, Township 20S, Range 25E, Yalaha area - Commission District 3.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION

RESOLUTIONS/PUBLIC WORKS

VACATION PETITION NO. 926 - MOTAMEDI MANOOCHEHR - PINE LAKES

CASSIA AREA

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a drainage and utility easement, located between Lots 11 and 12 in the Royal Trails Subdivision, which the applicant owns. He stated that the applicant, Mr. Motamedi Manoochehr, would like to construct a home on the site, therefore, staff visited the site and did not see a detriment to the area, as far as drainage or public utilities is concerned. He stated that the applicant is willing to grant a portion of the corner of Royal Trails and Coconut Avenue to the County for right-of-way; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request. He stated that there were no letters of opposition on file.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Motamedi Manoochehr, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he was planning to build a large home on his property, at which time he displayed a survey and plat of his property, for the Board's perusal. He noted that his home is being built well above the minimum requirements for the flood plain.

Mr. Frank Baggetta, representing the Royal Trails Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that his subdivision has a Declaration of Restrictions covering drainage easements, which prohibits any altering of the easements. He stated that the residents do not have any qualms about the applicant building his house, noting that he builds quality houses, their only concern is the altering of the drainage easement. He submitted, for the record, a petition containing signatures of various homeowners in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz clarified the fact that, even if the drainage easement going down the center of what was previously two lots were to be vacated, there would still be drainage easements on either side of where the house is going to be constructed. He questioned whether staff was addressing drainage issues, when looking at building permits, particularly on older lots, noting that they contain drainage easements, but are not necessarily designed with the stormwater requirements that are in place today.

Mr. Schneider stated that the County is not requesting additional drainage easements, when a building permit comes in, with regard to old platted areas, such as Royal Trails or Mt. Plymouth. He stated that staff is currently working on Chapter 14 of the Land Development Regulations and one of the things they are looking at is requiring that drainage be shown on the plot plan and that it be indicated how it is going to work, when someone applies for a building permit. He stated that it is not currently in place, however, noted that staff will be bringing it forward in the near future.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2000-60 - Vacation Petition No. 926, by Motamedi Manoochehr, to vacate a drainage and utility easement, located in Section 18, Township 18, Range 29, in the Royal Trails Subdivision, in the Pine Lakes/Cassia area - Commission District 4.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

It was noted that any future drainage easement vacation requests for the Royal Trails Subdivision would have to be brought before the Board on a case-by-case basis and would not interfere with any deed restrictions that are currently in place for the homeowner's association.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONINGS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ZONING

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that a few changes needed to be made to the Zoning Agenda. She stated that there had been a request for a 30 day postponement for Agenda Item No. 10, Barbara G. Harmon, by Mr. Jimmy Crawford, the Attorney representing the case (letter requesting postponement contained in the Board's backup material); and that a 30 day postponement had also been requested for Agenda Item No. 5, Sandra F. Heyman, by the applicant, due to an illness in the family.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Gerber to postpone Agenda Items No. 5 and 10 for 30 days, as requested.

Due to the fact that there were some individuals present in the audience that wished to give testimony regarding Agenda Item No. 10, Commr. Pool amended his motion to only postpone Agenda Item No. 5.

Commr. Gerber seconded the amendment.

The Vice-Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

Regarding the issue of Agenda Item No. 10, Ms. Ann Saraceno, an adjacent property owner to the property in question, addressed the Board in objection to the requested postponement. She stated that she felt postponing the request would create more hardship for everybody who was making an attempt to be at the meeting. She stated that the applicant tries to rezone the property at least once a year, for different reasons. She stated that she would like to voice her objections to the proposal and noted that she did not receive notice that a postponement was going to be requested.

It was noted that there were other property owners that were on their way to the meeting, to voice their objections to the request, as well, who had not received notice of the request for postponement.

Commr. Pool apologized to those individuals who were present in the audience for attending the meeting to only find out that there was a request for postponement, however, noted that he felt a postponement was in order, due to the fact that the applicant and/or the applicant's representative could not be present for their presentation. He stated that he felt it was only fair to grant them the 30 day postponement.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool to grant a 30 day postponement for Rezoning Case No. PH9-00-2, Barbara G. Harmon/Jimmy Crawford, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, as requested.

The Vice-Chairman, Commr. Hanson, passed the gavel to Commr. Pool and seconded the motion.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether this case had been requested to be postponed at any point during the public hearing process - either with the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Board of County Commissioners.

Ms. Farrell informed the Board that the property in question had been before them in the past, for other requests; however, to her knowledge, it had never been requested to be postponed.

It was noted that the applicant was not present in the audience and that the applicant was aware that a request for postponement could not be approved by staff, that it had to be approved by the Board.

Commr. Pool passed the gavel back to the Vice-Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 2-2 vote.

Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "No".

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP00/4/1-3 - CUP IN A - GARRY PAT ADAMS

TRACKING NO. 24-00-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a 12.7 acre site in the Rural future land use category, in the Astatula area, and that it was a request for secondary housing for agricultural. She stated that a letter from the applicant explaining the need for the housing was contained in the Board's backup material and that the Ordinance contained in the backup material addressed the land uses. She stated that there was no opposition to the request at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that staff was recommending approval.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-19 - Garry Pat Adams, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/4/1-3, Tracking No. 24-00-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for keeping a mobile home on the site for agricultural housing purposes.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH13-00-5 - RM TO R-7 - EDWARD AND JANICE SCALZO, TRUSTEES - TRACKING NO. 26-00-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to take what was originally designed as a mobile home subdivision to site built homes. She stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone to R-7 (Mobile or Mixed Residential), to allow site built homes, or mobile homes. She stated that there were no letters of opposition on file.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether the property in question was located in the flood plain, noting that it was in a very wet area.

The applicant, Mr. Edward Scalzo, appeared before the Board, in response to Commr. Gerber's concern, noting that he, as well as the builder, was aware of the fact that he would be building in a very wet area. He noted that the adjacent property, as well as several other properties in the area, were rezoned last year.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-20 - Edward and Janice Scalzo, Trustees, Rezoning Case No.

13-00-5, Tracking No. 26-00-Z, a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mobile or Mixed Residential), for construction of a single-family residence.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH11-00-4 - R-1 TO CP TO AMEND EXISTING CP ORDINANCE

SAM AND RUTH WIGGINS - TRACKING NO. 16-00-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the property in question was a 6.2 acre parcel located in the Sorrento area. She stated that the applicants wanted to amend an existing CP, to add some uses. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however, noted that they limited the uses listed on Page 2 of the Ordinance, contained in the Board's backup material, but were recommending to expand and amend an existing CP Ordinance at the intersection of CR 46 and Round Lake Road.

It was noted that the limitations of the C-1 uses is what the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, as well.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant was adding additional land to a CP that had already been approved and that he was adding the same uses that were approved in the original CP.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-21 - Sam and Ruth Wiggins, Rezoning Case No. 11-00-4, Tracking No. 16-00-CP, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), to amend the existing CP Ordinance, to include additional land and change permitted uses to the following: existing well drilling business and related sales and single-family residence, bed and breakfast inn, plant nurseries, roadside farm stands, automotive service station, banking, carwash, personal care services, professional office, retail (convenience and general), self-service laundry, church, community residential home, cultural institution, day care centers, family day care home, family residential home, primary or secondary school, utilities (limited and major), wireless antennas, towers, and parks and recreation (passive).

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP00/4/2-4 - CUP IN A - JOHN AND TAMMY NEGRI

TRACKING NO. 23-00-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for the care of the infirm. She stated that it involved five acres in the Bay Lake area and that staff was recommending approval. She stated that it would be consistent with what is currently in the area.

It was noted that a physician's affidavit had been provided to the County, as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-22 - John and Tammy Negri, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/4/2-4,

Tracking No. 23-00-CUP, a request for rezoning from RA (Ranchette) to A (Agriculture).

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH 6-00-2 - A TO PUD - WILLIAM CONOMOS "WINDSONG AT LEESBURG"/JIMMY CRAWFORD, HOVIS, BOYETTE & CRAWFORD

TRACKING NO. 13-00-PUD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 70 acres in the Leesburg area, near Highland Lakes. She stated that, at the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, staff determined that the project did not meet timeliness, however, subsequent to that hearing, some issues have been worked out and the project now meets the 40% developed lands quantitative test, as well as all tests regarding timeliness. She stated the project was consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and there was no opposition to it on file. She stated that the request was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, noting that a lot of the discussion at said meeting was basically some of the issues that were hammered out between staff and the applicant, over the last two weeks. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Ordinance contained in the Board's backup material reflects 185 lots, 25% open space, and 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the project has central facilities provided by the City of Leesburg and noted that the PEAR Project is being counted as open space.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that his confidence level on the issue of timeliness was not very high, noting that, during last month's zoning hearings, staff indicated that only one out of four cases had met timeliness, yet they still recommended approval of said cases. He stated that one issue that had initially been decided had not been met was the quantitative criteria, yet staff was now saying that it had been met. He questioned the fact that staff was counting the PEAR project and the spray field, in order to make the numbers work.

Ms. Farrell stated that they were not counted the first time around; however, staff concurred with the applicant that, per the County's Code, they qualified to be counted.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and asked Mr. Tim Green, the consultant that was hired to do the timeliness criteria, to appear before the Board and answer questions regarding this case.

Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board and was questioned as to his familiarity with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations, with regard to timeliness in the Suburban land use. He reviewed an aerial of the property in question, stating that the timeliness criteria only involved the southern 18 acres of the project, noting that the rest of the project is Urban Expansion and not subject to timeliness.

COMMISSIONERS

At 9:45 a.m., it was noted that the Vice-Chairman, Commr. Catherine Hanson, as well as Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, had another commitment and would have to leave the meeting; therefore, it was suggested that this case be postponed until later in the meeting, when Commr. Hanson and Mr. Richey returned from their commitment.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to continue this case until approximately 10:15 a.m.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

The gavel was passed to Commr. Swartz, who would act as Chairman, until such time as Commr. Hanson, Vice-Chairman, acting as Chairman in Commr. Cadwell's absence, returned from her commitment.

PETITION NO. 12-00-2 - C-1 TO CP - TOM GRIZZARD/GERALD SMITH

TRACKING NO. 27-00-CP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it pertained to what was known as the old Ramada Inn, located at Hwys. 27/19, which she noted is currently a vacant motel. She stated that it involved 4.5 acres that is currently zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), which the applicant is requesting to have rezoned to CP (Planned Commercial), to add additional uses, to make the property more marketable. She stated that there was one letter of support and one letter of opposition on file. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request and staff was recommending approval, as well. She listed the uses that staff was recommending.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the property in question is the subject of litigation that the County is involved with, in trying to collect taxes, and that the receiver, pursuant to that litigation, is the applicant.

Commr. Swartz, acting as Chairman, opened the public hearing.

The applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-23 - Gerald Smith/Tom Grizzard, Rezoning Case No. PH12-00-2,

Tracking No. 27-00-CP, a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial), for proposed commercial uses of a bar or tavern; hotel or motel; medical services; personal care services; professional offices; restaurant; general retail; self service storage; wholesale and warehouse; warehouses; church; and independent or assisted living facilities.

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

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP00/4/3-2 - CUP IN A - GEORGE, RODNEY AND RICKEY LYON/P. BRUCE KING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (AT&T)

TRACKING NO. 29-00-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the placement of a 200 foot monopole tower on 3.5 acres. She stated that the proposed tower for this case is to be located along the same stretch of highway as the tower being proposed in the next case on the Zoning Agenda (Nextel), which is Hwy. 27. She stated that the request met the basic requirements found in the County's new Tower Ordinance; however, staff was leaning towards the side of caution and recommending denial, because of their concern with the tower's location, which is in close proximity to what could be an evacuation route in an extreme weather condition. She stated that the Board's backup material contained a letter from Mr. William Lindemann, P.E., WTL Engineering, Inc., who confirms the fact that there could be some issues, with regard to severe weather. She submitted, for the record, an aerial indicating the AT&T site and the Nextel site (County Exhibit A), as well as the Site Development Plan for AT&T (County Exhibit B).

Commr. Pool stated that there were two different types of towers being proposed this date - one a monopole and the other a lattice and questioned whether one was superior to the other, with regard to how they were engineered or designed.

Ms. Farrell stated that she could not comment on the matter, however, noted that the letter from Mr. Lindemann covers both types of towers. She stated that he indicated there is more massive base foundation with free standing towers, however, noted that the overturn of the tower about its base is still a possible failure mechanism. She stated that, if the tower were to fall, it is anticipated that it would fall within the right-of-way and possibly the highway. She stated that the County's Code does not have language to cover distance from evacuation routes for towers; however, staff was hoping that both this applicant and Water Services, Inc. d/b/a Ellis Well Drilling/Nextel North Schoolhouse/Cheryl J. Pence (the next applicant on the Zoning Agenda) would request a postponement and get together and try to find a more suitable site. She stated that putting the tower between the Florida Turnpike and Hwy. 27 did not give staff a good level of comfort.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Tower Ordinance requires some separation from other towers and separation from residential; however, he felt the whole emphasis of the Ordinance was to limit, overall, the number of towers in the County and to encourage co-location. He stated that, with regard to this case, while the applicant may meet the distance requirement of the Ordinance, it seems to be the type of case that the County was trying to avoid.

Commr. Swartz, acting as Chairman, opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bruce King, Planning and Development Services, representing AT&T Wireless Services, addressed the Board stating that he would like to clear up a few issues concerning this case. He stated that AT&T originally proposed to build a 250 foot lattice tower, in compliance with the County's standards, at a site different than the one being proposed; however, they chose to move up the hill to another location on the same parcel of property. He stated that, due to the increase in ground elevation at the second site, they could meet their radiation center requirements for the antenna location, therefore, only needed to construct a 200 foot facility. He stated that, rather than build a lattice tower, they changed to a monopole. He stated that the application submitted to the County for this case calls for a 200 foot monopole. He stated that AT&T feels very strongly that their site location can be engineered and designed to accommodate the radio frequency engineering requirements of Nextel. He stated that AT&T made a commitment to Lake County, when they presented their request to the Planning and Zoning Commission, that even though their site meets all the County's standards, they would agree to co-locate on the Nextel tower, should Nextel's tower be approved. He stated that staff identified the fact that there is an issue associated with the approval of that application and he was concerned that the application may not get approved.

Mr. King stated that AT& T has been working on the site in question for approximately 10 months and is prepared to move forward with a building permit. He stated that they can make a commitment to the County that they will re-engineer their structure to a 270 foot lattice tower, prior to seeking a building permit, giving county staff ample opportunity to ensure that their tower location meets all the County's standards. He stated that the primary issue staff provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission, for recommending denial of the AT&T application, strictly focused on the fact that they felt it was too close to Hwy. 27 and the Florida Turnpike. He stated that the County's Code has a separation requirement that the tower must be 100 feet from the property boundary and noted that the closest dimension is 105 feet. He stated that they requested the tower manufacturer to certify that the proposed facility would be over-designed so that, in the event of a collapse, the top 80 feet of the tower would fall, preventing it from falling onto Hwy. 27 or the Florida Turnpike. He stated that the towers are designed to the same wind load standards as any other building in Lake County, in that they can withstand 120 mph winds, however, noted that the tower in question, for all points except the 80 foot section, would be stronger than that requirement. He stated that, based upon the proposed height for the AT&T tower, their application was designed to accommodate three co-locators, however, noted that, if they were able to extend the height of the tower, it could be designed to accommodate at least four total carriers. He stated that AT&T has 60,000 customers in Lake County and noted that a lot of tourist traffic for the greater Orlando area passes through the County. He stated that people are dependent upon the tower, not only for convenience, but for public safety, as well.

Mr. King referred to the letter from Mr. Lindemann, WTL Engineering, Inc., stating that it addressed cable stayed communication towers, or what is referred to as guide towers, however, noted that AT&T's application was for a monopole tower. He stated that the County needs to communicate clearly to the industry what its minimum design standards are, so that the applicant knows when they locate a site that they are working off the same page of music and have some certainty as to the outcome of the process.

Commr. Swartz stated that all the tower applications that Mr. King has presented to the Board, thus far, have been approved. He stated that he did not feel any towers have been denied under the County's Tower Ordinance, since it has been adopted. He stated that there may have been some that were required to be moved a little, but, ultimately, they were approved. He stated that the County has tried to ensure a fair Ordinance that meets with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the congressional requirements. He stated that there has been no intent in Lake County to deny, or unduly delay, anybody's tower. He stated that, aside from safety, he feels there is a legitimate question about a tower being placed between two major north/south arterials and what would be evacuation routes. He questioned whether AT&T had looked at any other sites in the County and was informed that they had looked at a site on the north side of the Florida Turnpike; however, it was not known as to why that site did not materialize.

Ms. Cheryl Pence, City Planner/Attorney, representing Nextel Communications, addressed the Board stating that Nextel has discussed the issue of co-locating with AT&T at great length and have agreed that AT&T can co-locate on their tower, if it is approved, or that Nextel can co-locate on the AT&T tower, if it is approved. She stated that the problem they are faced with is which site to go with. She stated that they are willing to co-locate on the AT&T tower, should it be approved; however, they need 270 feet, rather than the current 200 feet being requested by AT&T, in order to be able to communicate with their existing sites. She stated that their problem is one of capacity, noting that, like AT&T, they have thousands of users in the Central Florida area, however, have run out of the ability for someone to maintain their calls, thus, the reason for their being able to communicate with their existing sites. She stated that AT&T has agreed that they will redesign their tower to a lattice tower, in order to accommodate the required 270 feet.

Ms. Pence informed the Board that there was something about this request that was very troublesome to her and one that she wanted to address, for the record. She stated that AT&T, as well as Nextel, provided the County very site specific, tower specific, manufacturer specific specifications that say where the towers will fail and how they are designed to fail, within the property in which they are located. However, staff solicited an opinion from someone who wrote a very generic letter that has no application to what AT&T or Nextel is proposing to build. She questioned whether the Board wanted the two companies to co-locate on the Nextel site, or the AT&T site, however, noted that there is a slight flaw on the Nextel site that has recently come up. She stated that the Nextel site slightly misses the 5,000 foot separation requirement between it and an existing prison tower. She stated that Nextel originally thought they were 5,045 feet from the prison tower, therefore, felt they were safe. However, in an abundance of caution, she had the distance remeasured twice, which came out at 4,481 feet the first time and 4,688 feet the second time, both of which are slightly shy of the required 5,000 feet.

Ms. Pence stated it was her understanding that, under a CUP, the Board has the ability to waive that slight discrepancy, however, noted that, if they were uncomfortable with it, urged them to approve the AT&T location and allow both companies to go forward and increase the height of the AT&T tower. She stated that, if the Board was willing to waive the slight discrepancy in the required distance between Nextel's proposed tower and the prison tower, AT&T is willing to co-locate on their tower. She stated that they cannot co-locate on the prison tower. She stated that staff's soliciting of the generic opinion alluded to earlier, which does not apply to either one of the towers being proposed to the Board this date, is a fallacious argument, to say that there is a public safety concern, based on a letter that she considers to be "baloney". She submitted, for the record, a drawing from American Tower Corporation (Applicant Nextel's Exhibit A), indicating the footage from the prison tower to the proposed Nextel tower and the fact that it lacks 519 feet from being in compliance with the 5,000 foot requirement.

Mr. Frank Caputo, a member of the City of Clermont Planning and Zoning Board, addressed the Board stating that he was in favor of the AT&T tower, noting that, based on the testimony given this date, he felt that AT&T had met all the requirements of the County's Tower Ordinance and, if that was the case, did not see how the Board could vote in opposition to the project, based on hypotheticals. He stated that a tornado could pick up any building and deposit it on the Florida Turnpike or Hwy. 27. He stated that, if AT&T has met all the County's requirements and the Planning and Zoning Commission voted, by a 5-5 vote, on the application, felt there should be some serious consideration in favor of the request.

Mr. King readdressed the Board stating that, during Hurricane Andrew, the monopole towers withstood the hurricane force winds. He further stated that, during events of natural disaster, time has proven that wireless communication is the single source of communication available to emergency personnel. He requested the Board to give due consideration to those facts, along with their application, and grant them approval of their request, subject to their modifying their application from 200 feet to 270 feet, in order to accommodate the Nextel co-location.

It was noted that the present application from AT&T was for a 200 foot monopole, which is what was advertised.

Commr. Swartz, acting as Chairman, closed the public hearing.

Commr. Pool stated that he felt it was important that the two companies be co-located, however, due to the fact that the current advertisement states that the tower will be 200 feet, questioned whether this request should be postponed, to allow AT&T to come back before the Board with a request for a 270 foot tower, to enable the co-location with Nextel, which cuts the number of towers down to one rather than two.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff would like to see the application changed, to where it would not be located between Hwy. 27 and the Florida Turnpike.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested that, if the Board wanted to exceed the 200 foot tower currently being requested for approval and change from a monopole tower to a lattice tower, that the request be readvertised and heard next month.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. CUP00/4/3-2, George, Rodney and Rickey Lyon/P. Bruce King, Planning and Development Services, Tracking No. 29-00-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the placement of a 200 foot monopole tower with equipment shelter and ancillary facilities for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of May 23, 2000, to allow AT&T to come back with an application for a 270 foot lattice tower, for the purpose of co-location.

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

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP00/4/4-2 - CUP IN LM - WATER SERVICES, INC. D/B/A ELLIS WELL DRILLING/NEXTEL NORTH SCHOOLHOUSE/CHERYL J. PENCE

TRACKING NO. 30-00-CUP

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that staff was recommending denial, noting that it involved a .23 acre parcel of property in the same area as the proposed AT&T tower. She stated that staff was recommending denial for the same reasons that they recommended denial of the AT&T tower, however, pointed out the fact that staff missed the prison tower, which she noted was located within the radius of the two communications towers being proposed. She stated that the proposed tower is approximately 90 feet short of the required distance from the prison tower. She stated that staff was recommending denial of this request, because of the safety issue, as well as the fact that it does not meet the Code requirement for separation of lattice towers.

It was noted that the prison will not allow co-location on its tower.

Ms. Cheryl Pence, Attorney, representing Nextel Communications, addressed the Board and questioned whether they could waive 500 feet of the separation requirement from other towers, since the prison will not allow co-location on its tower.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could not grant the 500 foot waiver alluded to. He stated that it has been done before, however, noted that it takes a variance from the Board of Adjustment to do so.

Ms. Pence stated that she had been misinformed, noting that she was told it was possible for the Board to grant such a waiver. She stated that the letter which staff submitted from Mr. William Lindemann, WTL Engineering, Inc., was not credible evidence; however, she did not have a problem with the County bringing in a licensed Florida engineer, to testify to the facts of this case, because that would be credible evidence. She stated that, if the Board would talk to the engineers who are manufacturing the tower, they would see whether there was a public safety issue or not. She requested the Board to direct staff to be prepared with an expert, to ask questions of their expert, because she feels the issue of safety is a bogus one and feels they can provide evidence that is factual on their part. She stated that, due to anti-trust laws, Nextel and AT&T were not allowed to talk to each other, therefore, did not find out until a couple of weeks prior to this meeting that they both were coming before the Board with sites within a very similar search range. She stated that staff knew about the sites for two months and suggested that, in the future, if they know they have two sites coming before the Board within close proximity to each other, that they communicate that fact to the two parties involved, at the earliest possible moment, so that said parties will have time to work out any issues there may be in advance. She stated that the communications industry is very much in favor of co-location at this point in time.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Gerber to deny Rezoning Case No. CUP00/4/4-2, Water Services, Inc./Ellis Well Drilling, Nextel North Schoolhouse/Cheryl J. Pence, Tracking No. 30-00-CUP, a request for a CUP in LM (Light Industrial), for placement of a 270 foot lattice tower for four (4) providers with appropriate equipment facilities, due to the fact that a flaw was found in the required distance between the proposed Nextel tower and the prison tower, as well as the fact that the Board would not be able to approve the request without a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he had received a letter at his home regarding the issue of setbacks and distances, however, did not know what it was related to, until this case. He stated that, apparently, it was regarding the distance separation between the proposed Nextel tower and the prison tower. He stated that he was disclosing the fact that he had received said letter, for the record, however, noted that it would not have an impact on his vote. He called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote.

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

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Hanson, Vice-Chairman, returned to the meeting.

REZONING (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. PH 6-00-2 - A TO PUD - WILLIAM CONOMOS "WINDSONG AT LEESBURG"/JIMMY CRAWFORD, HOVIS, BOYETTE & CRAWFORD

TRACKING NO. 13-00-PUD (CONT'D.)

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, resumed questioning Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, Inc., Mt. Dora, regarding the timeliness issue involving this case. He displayed an aerial of the property in question, noting that it was the southern 18 acres of said parcel that Mr. Green performed the timeliness criteria on and noted that there is a parcel located to the north of said parcel that is Urban Expansion and another parcel located to the east that is Rural. He clarified the fact that the Rural was left at one dwelling unit per five acres and that the Suburban was developed, based on the criteria of meeting timeliness.

Mr. Green discussed how he determined that the parcel in question met timeliness, however, noted that there was a disagreement between how county staff calculated the 18 acre site and how he calculated it. He stated that, either way, it meets timeliness, with a base number. He stated that, if one were to take the 18 acre site, the one mile radius is 2,734 acres, but, if one were to take the entire 73.35 acre site and do a one mile radius, the number jumps to 3,075 acres. He reviewed how staff calculated it, noting that their figures left a total amount of land that could be developed within that one mile radius at 2,152 acres, of which 40% has to be developed, in some manner. He stated that there is several criteria of how that can be developed in the Code, one of which is existing development, which includes parcels that are developed at one acre or less, and the other is non-residential structures within that one mile radius.

Mr. Green stated that lots that are created within that area under one acre are counted, however, lots over one acre are not counted, even if they have a home on them. He stated that the next criteria to be looked at is non-residential structures, including roads, of which the rights-of-way of said roads are lessed out within the developments. He stated that parks are lessed out, as well as similar improvements. He noted that, counting the PEAR Project, the timeliness would be greater than 47%. He stated that, if the parks are not counted and one just counts the homes and rights-of-way, one would still come up with 865.4 acres of developed land, which is 40.2% of the 2,152 acres in question.

Mr. Richey clarified the fact that, if one does not count the spray field as being developed, or does not count the PEAR Project as being a park and therefore developed, the project in question would still meet timeliness, based on the rooftops and roads that are in place, within a one mile radius, as required by the Suburban criteria. He stated that there was other criteria that had to be met and questioned whether Mr. Green had had a chance to evaluate the other criteria, in addition to the objective criteria.

Mr. Green stated that he had, noting that there was four other criteria that had to be met, being function and proximity to proposed development and other development; adequacy of a collector/arterial road network; fire, police and EMS; and proposed land use compatible with adjacent or adjoining land uses.

Mr. Richey clarified the fact that the proposed density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre was less than the surrounding properties and that there was a substantial buffer of wetlands along the east boundary of the proposed development. He further clarified the fact that it was Mr. Green's opinion, as well as that of staff, that the proposed project met the timeliness criteria.

Commr. Swartz questioned where Mr. Green got the timeliness criteria and was informed that it was developed by staff and given to him to use as the methodology for determining timeliness.

Mr. Richey clarified the fact that the only area where this project has to meet timeliness is the southern 18 acres of the project, however, noted that Mr. Green calculated timeliness based on the entire parcel and, either way, it meets it.

Mr. Rick McCoy, McCoy & Associates, Engineers and Land Planners, who prepared the PUD Conceptual Development Plan for this project (Applicant's Exhibit A), which was submitted, for the record, appeared before the Board and was questioned by Mr. Richey about the project.

Mr. Richey clarified the fact that the project consists of 73.35 acres and is at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, with 185 units total; that Mr. McCoy set aside a wetlands setback consisting of 100 feet, which is far above what the County requires; that the project will have central water and sewer, served by the City of Leesburg; that it will have private streets, as indicated in the PUD, with access from Hwy. 27; that it will be conventional construction; that it has a community park recreational area; and that there would not be a problem with having one lot adjusted, in order to have the park be contiguous to the open space. He further clarified the fact that Mr. McCoy did not transfer development from the Urban Expansion area to the 18 acres that is Suburban and that the Urban Expansion lots are 50x100. He stated that the 100x100 lots are in the Suburban area

Mr. Green reappeared before the Board and noted that when doing the calculations, it is not the number of units that is considered, it is the number of acres those units contain. He stated that they used to count rooftops, but has since been told not to count rooftops, but rather the number of acres that the rooftops cover. He stated that, if it is four units per acre, they only get credit for one, not four.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the County had changed the way it normally did calculations. He stated that, in terms of counting built-out development, a one mile radius requires that 40% be developed within that one mile radius and, since they were talking about a Suburban parcel, that would be less than 100 acres.

Mr. Green stated that, if they counted units within the one mile radius, their calculations would be well above the timeliness criteria.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, reappeared before the Board stating that the PEAR Project, the spray field, and the wetlands are properties that either cannot be developed, or are as developed as they are going to be, so they were not counted against the application. She stated that staff was comfortable with the PUD, as submitted, noting that wetlands are always lessed out, whether staff is doing site plans, net density, etc. - they always less out the wetlands first.

Commr. Swartz stated that the legislative intent was to determine the level of residential development contained within a one mile radius.

Mr. Richey stated that it has taken 10 years for the property to meet the required timeliness criteria. He stated that in lands contiguous to Urban Expansion, where services are available and development has occurred, some of those parcels are meeting timeliness, as defined by staff and as explained by the Code. He stated that, if the project met Suburban, they would not have to go through the PUD process, because one is allowed to develop in Suburban that meets timeliness at one unit per acre, without going through the PUD process, but, because of the overall project, this project went through the PUD process, giving 25% open space, which would not have to happen on the southern 18 acres, if it were developed into one acre lots. He stated that, if there was a great deal of confusion, with regard to this project, and a majority of the Board did not feel comfortable with it, he would like to have direction as to how to proceed. He stated that there was no opposition to this request at the Planning and Zoning Commission and, since staff recalculated their figures and concur that the project meets timeliness criteria, requested the Board to approve the PUD, with the minor modification proposed by staff, that the lot alluded to earlier be adjusted, in order to have the park area be contiguous to the open space, which he noted they can accommodate, when they adjust their master plan.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

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

Commr. Pool questioned whether Ms. Farrell was comfortable with the applicant's calculations and the formula that was used.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff was, noting that the overall density of the PUD is 2.5 dwelling units per acre and that the majority of the parcel was in Urban Expansion. She stated that, had the applicant gone to the maximum, with regard to central water and sewer, there would have been a lot more lots on the parcel in question, therefore, staff was comfortable with the request and were glad to see it as a PUD. She noted that the County is getting its 25% open space.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel the method the County was using to apply the timeliness criteria was the legislative intent, noting that he did not feel, by lessing out all the wetlands, along with the spray field, it was meeting the intent of timeliness.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff's calculations, with their understanding of the timeliness criteria, was 47% for this project. She stated, however, that it is not something that staff deals with a lot, noting that, over the six years that she has been with the County, her office has only had three or four such cases come through and that only two or three had met the timeliness criteria. She stated that the County's Code is not the model of clarity, either in the Comprehensive Plan, or in the Land Development Regulations. She stated that there might be some historical or legislative intent, but staff tries to work within the black and white of the text, as it reads today, which she noted gets difficult for both staff and the applicant. She submitted, for the record, an ortho photography aerial map (County Exhibit A) for the project in question.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2000-24 - William Conomos, "Windsong at Leesburg"/Jimmy Crawford, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH6-00-2, Tracking No. 13-00-PUD, a request for rezoning from A( Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for construction of a single family residential subdivision.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 61-99-2 - R-1 TO PUD - DALE LADD/SOUTHLAKE LAND TRUST

PINE RIDGE - TRACKING NO. 87-99-PUD

Mr. Dale Ladd, Applicant, addressed the Board and withdrew this case.

PETITION NO. 9-00-2 - A TO CP AND A TO R-2 - BARBARA G. HARMON

HOVIS, BOYETTE & CRAWFORD, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 18-00-Z/CP

Commr. Hanson, Vice-Chairman, informed those present that the Board had voted to hear this case, even though the applicant had requested a postponement and the applicant or the applicant's representative was not present in the audience, due to the fact that surrounding property owners had not been notified that the case had been requested to be postponed. She stated that she was not aware of the Board ever hearing a case where the applicant had requested a postponement and was concerned about that fact.

Commr. Swartz interjected that the Board had voted to move forward with a request and hear it in the past, on several occasions, in similar instances.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the property in question is located in the Green Swamp, in the Transitional land use category. She stated that it is a small parcel, consisting of a little over eight acres. She stated that the request was to rezone it from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial), for some commercial uses, with the remaining part of the parcel to be rezoned to R-2, for residential construction. She stated that staff was recommending denial of both the CP and the R-2 requests.

The Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Ann Saraceno, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board stating that staff was recommending denial of this request, based on numerous criteria, one being that the County's policy requires that neighborhood convenience centers in the Green Swamp have a minimum market area of two miles, however, noted that within less than one-half mile from the property in question the applicant has plans to break ground for a gas station and does not have to come before the Board for approval to do so, because it is part of the Susan's Landing development. She stated that it is in conflict with the County's Land Development Regulations and would place undue risk and adverse impact on the natural environment. She stated that the parcel is located between Crescent Lake and Lake Louisa; therefore, if the applicant is allowed to put a gas station on the property, it could cause untold damage to said lakes, should there be any type of leak. She stated that the change in zoning is not in harmony with the public interest in the surrounding community, which is residential. She stated that the County's Staff Report indicates that 11 letters have been submitted to the County, in opposition to the request, along with a petition containing 38 signatures, however, she had in her possession copies of 40 letters that were submitted to the County, in opposition to the request. She stated that she had a receipt for two additional letters that were mailed to the County, as well, therefore, feels that the report does not give the Board a true picture of the total opposition to this project. She stated that her community is a great one and that many of the residents decided to move into the community, because they wanted to get away from the growth that is going on in Orlando. She stated that they did not want to live next to strip mall after strip mall and communities that have zero lot lines. She asked the Board to deny the request.

Commr. Pool pointed out the fact that a vegetable/produce stand used to exist on the property in question and asked whether Ms. Saraceno had ever shopped at the stand and whether she felt such an operation would be accepted by the community.

Ms. Saraceno stated that she did shop at the vegetable/produce stand and would support such an operation again and that she felt the community would support it, as well.

Ms. Crystal Plussa, a resident of Crescent Bay Subdivision, which is located across from the property in question, addressed the Board stating that she was strongly opposed to the request, noting that she does not want a convenience store across from her subdivision, as she feels it will greatly reduce the value of her home, as well as the value of the remaining homes in her subdivision and in the surrounding communities. She stated that she would be against the produce stand alluded to by Commr. Pool, because she would like to keep the area in question residential only.

Ms. Marsha Simek, a resident of Crescent Bay Subdivision, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she has seen the area in question go from orange groves and vacant land to homes. She stated that, although there is a lot more traffic on Lakeshore Drive now, the area itself has not changed, in the essence that it is a residential area. She stated that she feels safe walking her dogs after dark in her subdivision, however, would not feel safe doing so if a gas station, store, or other commercial establishment were located directly across the street from her subdivision. She stated that she was opposed to the commercial zoning being requested and noted that Lakeshore Drive is the only access road into Orlando, Clermont, and the rest of Lake County for all the residents of the area, all the way to Lake Nellie. She stated that it was one lane in each direction, with a curve and rise at the point where the property in question is located. She stated that the road is already a danger to the residents turning out of their subdivisions and adding a commercial establishment at that location will only contribute to the problem.

Mr. Frank Miller, a resident of Susan's Landing, addressed the Board stating that he had been approached about the fact that a restaurant or small business of some type would be constructed on the site in question, which is located near his home. He stated that he was not too concerned about one commercial business going in at the site, however, there is now a proposed business planning to go in on the other side of the property. He stated that he would be against another commercial business going in at the site, especially a convenience store, noting that such a venture ruined his old neighborhood in Orlando.

Mr. William Smithson, a resident of Crescent Lake Club Subdivision, addressed the Board stating that he was representing the Crescent Lake Club Homeowners Association. He stated that the residents of his subdivision respect the rights of the property owners to rezone their property and realize that, after owning the property for some length of time and paying taxes on it, they should receive the most compensation for whatever they plan to do with it; however, they do object to the commercial rezoning of the property, as well as any other property along Lakeshore Drive, for the same reasons that were stated earlier. He stated that, because there were no commercial buildings on the site at the time they purchased their homes, they felt the subdivision would be a nice place to live, even though they realized they would have to go some distance for whatever they needed, due to the fact that it was all residential. He stated that they would like to see the area stay residential and feel that putting any kind of commercial building on the site could deteriorate the neighborhood and jeopardize the safety of the young people in the neighborhood. He requested the Board to keep the area residential only.

Mr. Frank Caputo, a resident of Kings Ridge, which is a subdivision in the vicinity of the property in question, addressed the Board stating that he had looked at purchasing a home in Susan's Landing, before purchasing his home in Kings Ridge, and one of the things that deterred him from doing so was the fact that he would have to travel so far to shop. He stated that he felt, by allowing a commercial business to operate on the site in question, it would keep people off Hwy. 27, SR 50, and Lakeshore Drive, which are all overcrowded. He stated that planners are now designing neighborhoods that include commercial entities within a development itself, to allow the residents to walk to a grocery store, etc., and he felt it was important for the Board to consider said facts, when they look at the overall picture.

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

Commr. Hanson reiterated the fact that the Board had heard cases, when a request had been made to deny, however, she could not recall the Board ever hearing a case when the applicant was not present at the meeting. She stated that she had a problem in moving forward with the case, however, noted that the Board voted to do so. She asked that, if there was a motion for denial, it be without prejudice.

Commr. Pool stated that, while the request would be convenient and nice, in reality, it does not meet the commercial locational criteria of the County's Comprehensive Plan.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Swartz to deny, without prejudice, Rezoning Case No. PH9-00-2, Barbara G. Harmon, Jimmy Crawford, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, P.A., Tracking No. 18-00-Z/CP, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial), for future commercial uses, and rezoning from Agriculture to R-2 (Medium Residential), for residential construction.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that there have been cases in the past that, for one reason or another, the applicant requested postponement, but did not show up and there were people in the audience who had taken time out of their busy schedules to attend the meeting. He stated that the Board heard the cases and, in some instances, denied them. He stated that the applicant knows they have to be present at the meeting. He stated that they can request a postponement; however, until the Board grants the postponement, the case is still scheduled for a public hearing. He stated that he felt this case needed to be heard, but denied, for the reasons indicated by Commr. Pool and to prevent those people who addressed the Board from having to come back at a later date.

Commr. Pool stated that he was disappointed that the applicant, or the applicant's representative, was not present at this meeting. He stated that, even though he did not feel their testimony would have changed his decision in any way, based on the information presented this date, he felt they should have been given the opportunity to be heard.

It was noted that the motion included "without prejudice", at which time Commr. Swartz withdrew his second to the motion, noting that he did not want to see this request come back before the Board again.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that a motion made "without prejudice" allows the applicant to come back before the Board within 90 days and "with prejudice" allows the applicant to come back within one year.

The Vice-Chairman questioned whether there was a second to the motion, at which time she stated that she felt it was the right thing to do, however, she was not so strongly in favor of the motion that she would be willing to pass the gavel and second the motion. She stated that she did not know what kind of legal problems the County would be opening itself up to.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if Commr. Pool would make the motion with just staff's recommendation of denial, he would support it.

Commr. Pool stated that he wanted it to be very clear that his opposition was to the commercial aspect of the request, noting that the residents feel they could support residential, if it went to that at some point in time. He withdrew his request for denial "without prejudice" and made a motion to deny the request.

Commr. Swartz seconded the motion.

The Vice-Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

Commr. Hanson noted, for the record, that she too was not in favor of the commercial rezoning of the property in question.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County should have a procedure for dealing with requests for postponement. He stated that staff should be required to inform an applicant, or the applicant's representative, that should they request a postponement, whether or not it gets postponed will depend on whether the Board decides to do so and that it was important that they have a representative present, should the Board decide to hear the case.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested that it be put in the Code, rather than require staff to deal with it.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff bring something back to the Board, at a later date, regarding same.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this request pertained to the Watson property in Fruitland Park, noting that the County listed said property six months ago with Neil Fischer Realty. He stated that the listing has expired; therefore, staff was requesting that the Board renew the listing agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for authorization to renew a real estate listing agreement with ERA Neil Fischer Realty, for the purpose of selling a parcel of property located in Fruitland Park.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

MEETINGS

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the first Tuesday in July was July 4th; therefore, due to the holiday, the Board would not meet that day. She stated that the next regular meeting would be July 18th; however, the NACO Conference is held during that week. She suggested that there only be two meetings in July - July 11th and July 25th. She stated that July 25th would be a Rezoning Meeting, however, any pressing items of business could be scheduled for that day. She noted that Budget Hearings are scheduled to be held during the month of July, as well.

It was the consensus of the Board to set the meeting dates for the month of July as indicated by the County Manager.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GERBER - DISTRICT 1

ORDINANCES/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Commr. Gerber informed the Board that she had been requested to bring the Shoreline Ordinance back before the Board, for further discussion and/or action, with regard to changing the present 25 foot minimum requirement to a 50 foot minimum. She noted that the remainder of the Ordinance would not change.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

A motion was made by Commr. Gerber and seconded by Commr. Swartz to bring the Shoreline Ordinance back before the Board, in the same fashion that it was originally brought before the Board, changing the 25 foot depth requirement to 50 feet, making it consistent with the Department of Environmental Protection's 50 foot requirement, allowing one to clear a 50 foot stretch of lakefront property, which was originally set at 25 feet.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that there is pending legislation regarding this matter, which could impact it one way or another.

Commr. Pool clarified the fact that Commr. Gerber was talking about the depth that one can clear out from their shoreline, not the width of the shoreline.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the Board should readdress the issue of mechanical harvesting.

Commr. Gerber stated that she felt the Board should discuss whatever is currently contained within the Ordinance.

It was noted that the County Manager would have staff bring a report back to the Board, with regard to all the issues surrounding the Shoreline Ordinance, for the Board's review, to enable them to decide whether or not to readvertise the Ordinance and hold another public hearing regarding it.

After further discussion regarding the matter, Commr. Gerber withdrew her motion to readvertise the Shoreline Ordinance and place it on a future Agenda for further discussion and consideration, at this time.

Commr. Swartz withdrew his second to the motion.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2

LAWS AND LEGISLATION

Commr. Pool informed the Board that he would like to thank Representative Randy Johnson and Senator Anna Cowin for their amendments to the Lake Lowery issue, noting that he understands a deal has been struck in both the House of Representatives and the Senate where Lake Lowery will be maintained and will continue to remain in the County's jurisdiction. REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2000-57, recognizing May 4, 2000 as a National Day of Prayer in Lake County.

Commr. Cadwell was not present at this meeting.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she would like for them to consider that the determination for the waiver of impact fees for the Affordable Housing Program be allowed to be made by staff, rather than having it come before the Board for approval, noting that she was concerned about the time delay for applicants of the Affordable Housing funds. She requested Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, to look into the matter.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

Ms. Nancy Fullerton, representing the Save Our Lakes Committee, addressed the Board regarding the issue of bringing the Shoreline Ordinance back before the Board for further discussion and/or action.

It was noted that the issue would be brought back before the Board at the Board Meeting scheduled for May 16, 2000, at which time they can make a determination as to how they would like to proceed.

Mr. Frank Caputo, a resident of Clermont and member of the Clermont City Council, addressed the Board regarding the issue of the Hooks Street Extension and whether it was going to remain a top priority, if the School Board chooses not to build a school at the Bosserman site, and whether they would be going forward with it in the same timely fashion and expend as much energy, without the school going in at the site. He stated that, for every month that goes by that the school is not built, it costs the taxpayers $86,000.00.

Commr. Hanson stated that the priority of said road would be determined largely by the City of Clermont, because it deals with impact fees.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.







______________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/4-25-2000/5-10-2000/boardmin