The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 24, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Robert A. Pool; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Commr. Cadwell noted that there was one addendum, with one item under his business.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, requested that Tab 9 regarding the Ordinance relating to the Sales Tax Revenue Bond (Pari-Mutual Revenues Replacement Program), be pulled from the agenda, to be rescheduled for November 7, 2000.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had two items that she would like added under her reports. The first item was a Resolution honoring Johnny Treadwell. She stated that there will be a celebration for him on November 4, 2000. The other item was a Proclamation for Pornography Awareness Week, October 29, 2000 through November 5, 2000.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the two items, as noted above, to the agenda under Commr. Hanson's business.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
SUBDIVISIONS
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Fernwood Subdivision. Subdivision consists of 4 lots - Commission District 2.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 928 - DAVID CALFEE - CLERMONT AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, stated that this was a request by David Calfee to vacate streets recorded in the Plat of Amberhill, in the Clermont area. Mr. Stivender stated that this issue has come before the Board a couple of times in the past, and the property owner has been working on a resolution. Mr. Stivender stated that one of the questions that came up at the last meeting, prior to the postponement, was the issue of legal access to other properties and how this would restrict that legal access. The parties have been negotiating a resolution, which he has before the Board today. Mr. Stivender noted that he and the County Attorney have reviewed it, but staff was recommending denial, based on the current situation. He stated that it needs to remain open until something occurs on the property, which eliminates the need for the access, because there still needs to be public access to the properties.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing the Amberhill Homeowner's Association, explained that this issue has come before the Board several times under zoning and road closures. Mr. Crawford explained that the issue in question is how to construct the old Bornstein parcels into a subdivision, if and when they are approved by the Board, to allow them sufficient access to build their subdivisions and still preserve neighborhood rights. The original plan showed a cut through coming from Lakeshore over to U.S. 27. Mr. Crawford stated that he has reviewed the Board minutes, which directed the parties to settle the issue, pursuant to noted terms, and to come back to the Board. He explained that the Resolution would close these roads pursuant to the Developer's Agreement He reviewed the following development limitations:
Section 2, Development Limitations
A. The portion of Opal Lane described on Exhibit "B" is closed and vacated effective immediately and automatically upon approval of the Final Plat of the Trust Property when developed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; however, Opal Lane shall remain open solely for purposes of a bicycle/pedestrian path, and a utility easement allowing the installation and maintenance of only underground utilities.
(Mr. Crawford noted that South Lake Land Trust is going to request a zoning approval for a subdivision in accordance with the Agreement, and when that occurs, Opal Lane will be closed when they finally plat that subdivision.)
B. The portion of Garnet Drive described on Exhibit "B" is closed and vacated, effective upon the connection of the southern portion of the Trust Property to a county road to be constructed along the southern boundary of such Trust Property; however, Garnet Drive shall remain open solely for purposes of a bicycle/pedestrian path, and a utility easement allowing the installation and maintenance of only underground utilities. Amberhill shall grant a private easement for ingress and egress to the owners and/or operators of the existing water plant that utilizes Garnet Drive for access.
(Mr. Crawford noted that the county road is the South Lake connector that has been discussed for years. He further noted that Mr. Steve Richey represents the owners of the water plant, and he has been provided with a copy of the agreement for review.)
C. Residential development on the Trust Parcel shall proceed in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A", conceptual site plan, which is incorporated herein. The Trust shall request rezoning to R-2, in accordance with Exhibit "A" and the terms of this Agreement, and Amberhill agrees to support such rezoning.
(Mr. Crawford noted that the County is not agreeing to do anything with regard to the rezoning.)
D. Without limitation to the above, development of the Trust Parcel will specifically be limited as follows:
(1) No construction traffic associated with the construction of the Trust Parcel infrastructure or homes within the Trust Parcel shall be allowed within the Amberhill Subdivision or the Sunshine Hills subdivision.
(Mr. Crawford noted that there is a prescriptive County Road called East Lake Louisa Road, which will be used for construction traffic to the south parcel. The developers have agreed to put up "no construction traffic" signs, and they are not expecting the County to enforce them. Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it was his understanding that the developer will enforce this section of the agreement, because it will be his sub-contractors.)
(2) If prior to the closure of Garnet Drive construction to the phase of the Trust Parcel immediately South of Amberhill has commenced, Garnet Drive will be physically blocked by the developers of the Trust Parcel, to prevent construction traffic from utilizing Garnet Drive. However, such physical blockage may be removed by the developer of the Trust Parcel when necessary for sales and marketing of lots and homes.
(3) The lots to be developed on the eighty acres of the Trust Parcel lying South Amberhill will be a minimum of 125 feet wide and 140 feet deep. Further, a sixty-foot buffer containing the natural pines existing immediately South of Amberhill will be left as a buffer between the subdivisions. Lots developed within the fifty acres of the Trust Parcel lying East of Amberhill shall be similar in size to Sunshine Hills and Anderson Hills, except the western row of lots of such fifty-acre Trust Parcel abutting the Amberhill to the East will be a minimum of 110 wide feet by 140 feet deep.
E. Setbacks for the Trust Parcel immediately South of Amberhill shall be 30 feet for the front, 15 feet for the sides, 30 feet for the principal structure rear setback.
(Mr. Crawford noted that the 25 feet for the front had been corrected to read 30 feet.)
F. Nothing herein shall prevent the Trust from connecting the Trust Parcel south with the Trust Parcel east subsequent to the closure of Garnet and Opal.
(Mr. Crawford noted that Section F., as stated above, has been added to the agreement.)
Commr. Swartz asked Mr. Crawford to explain why Opal and Garnet will be treated differently than Sunshine, because it appears that Sunshine stays open.
Mr. Stivender explained that staff has been discussing the subdivision with Mr. Crawford, and it will change the alignment of Anderson Hill, which will go right through the middle of their subdivision rather than go where it connects now to U.S. 27.
Mr. Crawford explained that there were 80 acres of the 130 acres that were originally contemplated to be a part of Amberhill.
Mr. Stivender explained the history of the development in this area for the past 20 years.
Commr. Hanson noted that the real concern was not so much connecting to an adjacent subdivision, but the potential alignment as a cut through all of the way to U.S. 27.
Mr. Stivender explained that staff is looking at taking Anderson Hill and actually curving it to the south and tying it back behind the commercial in Spring Valley, which will mean it will come out at a light rather than at the existing access point.
Commr. Swartz stated that, back to his point, if the two subdivisions, as noted, are connected together, he wanted to know what the impact was going to be on Sunshine.
Mr. Stivender explained that the shortest distance to U.S. 27 is going to be through Spring Valley.
Commr. Swartz stated that, even though staff has explained that this scheme has been common practice, it is flawed, because the roads that were designed for all of these inter-connects are simply neighborhood streets. There are not sufficient rights-of-way, the roads are not wide enough, and the homes are designed to be built with people living on neighborhood streets, not for people to use them as a minor collector, or more than just a neighborhood street. He stated that he was still concerned about Sunshine, and he does not understand why, at some point, if the Spring Valley connection occurs, the other connection between the two subdivisions ought to occur, because the outlets for those two subdivisions ought to be on roads that are designed to handle that much traffic, not on neighborhood streets. He questioned why Sunshine should be in a position where all of that development, presumably, could go that way.
Mr. Crawford explained that the developer was saying that he does not have a problem with taking all of the traffic out through either Spring Valley, or the South Lake connector, when those two are built, and as long as those two connections are made, then his need for Sunshine is gone, and they can get the traffic out of all of the neighborhood streets.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if Sunshine is not dealt with as part of this agreement, he thinks that the whole agreement is weakened, and it would harm the people who live in Sunshine and Anderson Hill. He feels that there ought to be a requirement for these two subdivisions to connect and that the roads that connect them provide for all of these people, (approximately 260 homes), because what is being shown continues to flaw development design that is leading them to the impasse that they have been over the last six months. He stated that the idea of possibly having a connection between these two needs to be part of the agreement. These two need to connect and they need to provide for access, ingress and egress for these 260 approximate homes that get them out on other than neighborhood streets.
Commr. Pool stated that he understands the concerns being expressed by Commr. Swartz, and they need to try and address this issue, because Garnet and Opal will close, once it is platted, and they need to determine how the people will get out to U.S. 27 in a timely manner, not on neighborhood streets.
Commr. Swartz stated that the answer to this issue would be not until a connection through Spring Valley and a connection to the south exists, and then it would be the appropriate time to develop and not take the traffic through any of the three roads that are being contemplated.
Ms. Nancy Fullerton, Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that it was her understanding that this was the subdivision of Pine Ridge that is being discussed.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the road vacation was brought forth by the Amberhill residents, not the developer.
Ms. Fullerton stated that the Board is overlooking the basic problem, which is doing something before they have anything to do with Pine Ridge. She explained that their complaint at that time was based on the fact that this continues this whole super growth deal going on in South Lake County. She stated that, if the 260 units are added that are based on Spring Valley, she would question whether there has been communication with the City of Clermont. She stated that this is Lakeshore Drive mayhem that is going to be impacted by this decision. Ms. Fullerton stated that they were in complete sympathy with the Amberhill people, but to the extent that this road problem solves their immediate concerns, but their concern is this whole issue. She stated that this may not be applicable, at this point, in changing these roads to make this more acceptable to the Amberhill people, but it seems like this is an agreement that, if this goes through, then Pine Ridge is okay, and she knows that this is not the issue. She questioned whether they discussed this with the City of Clermont, because of the County's interlocal agreements, and the tremendous impact on the City. Ms. Fullerton noted that she is speaking in behalf of the Save Our Lakes Committee, as well as private citizens, but their opposition to Pine Ridge was in terms of the full sprawl growth demands on South Lake County, because they are not in favor of any rezonings and any additional development.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the agreement says that, if there is a development, they will not be using these roads, and the people that presented the petition are concerned about their roads, Garnet and Opal, which is what the Board is discussing today.
Commr. Swartz stated that Opal is the only one effectively being closed, Sunshine is not even on the table, and Garnet stays open until the southern connector exists.
Mr. Crawford stated that he would like to address Ms. Fullerton's comments, because they are valid concerns that they have heard several times. He explained that the agreement does solve two very contentious issues that have been before this Board many times, and the subdivision being shown is as consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods as possible, and from a legal perspective, the County is not binding itself into approving any kind of zoning on this property.
Commr. Swartz stressed that the people need to understand that what is being planned today will be affecting them in the future.
Mr. Crawford noted that the construction plans for Spring Valley are being reviewed by the County right now.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Lake Utilities, addressed the Board and stated that the agreement being proposed by Mr. Crawford goes through and reserves some rights-of-way and easements for utilities. Mr. Richey stated that he had spoken to the County Attorney, because his concern is that they are not a party of this agreement, and they want to rely on the County rights-of-way, and therefore, the resolutions, under this agreement, need to set forth the County reserving their rights with regard to utilities and egress and ingress. He explained that the resolution that is attached is the standard resolution that does not necessarily do that, but ties to this document, and in talking to the County Attorney, he wants to make sure that his client is protected, based on the County's rights to utilize those rights-of-way for the public, which is the public utility that they will be providing for the area. He felt that this could be done by resolution.
Mr. Doug Gibson, resident of Amberhill, addressed the Board and stated that he was in support of the closure of both roads, which he feels would benefit the community the most, and it would be in a way that would support a lot of the goals of getting the traffic off of Lakeshore Drive, and not creating a cut through for traffic through the neighborhoods. He noted that he had at least ten items that he would be showing to the Board, which he felt were pertinent to the case. Mr. Gibson stated that one of the things that the Board is completely ignoring is the 5,000 houses and residents of Clermont that, if you build the commercial center in Spring Valley, their tendency is going to be to go up Anderson Hill Road and down Sunshine, so they do not have to get on U.S. 27, because they have to come back into their development, in order to get to the commercial development. He stated that they are actually creating a cross traffic pattern, which no one ever anticipated. He further stated that the traffic patterns are totally inadequate for Sunshine. Mr. Gibson extended his appreciation to Board members who had voted in the past to close several of the roads. He discussed Item #1, which was a copy of language from the County Development Regulations (I-13), which stated that the intent is to foster and protect the public safety, health and welfare. Mr. Gibson discussed Item #2, which was The Math, which shows that there are 60 existing homes in Amberhill on 45 acres, which amounts to 1.33 dwelling units per acre. If you apply this to the Bornstein 80 acres for Phase III of Amberhill, it would amount to 107 homes on one-half acre lots. If you take the 120 acres being discussed today, there has been a 150% increase of what was supposed to be. If you take the difference between 260 and 107 that was originally allowed on the property, it would amount to a 250% increase over the original intent. Mr. Gibson stated that this development was started with expressed intent for one-half acre lots. In 1994, David Bornstein came back to the County and said he did not want to put 107 units on the property, he wanted to put 146 and change all of the requirements, because he was required by the County to connect to Spring Valley, and today they were discussing 260 units. Mr. Gibson referred to Item #3, which was the Planning Commission recommendation, where Commr. Homan said that the County will approve the number of houses that should have been in Amberhill, but if they tried to build one more house after that, then they will have to close the road and go in another direction. He stated that this put the developer on notice that, if he was going to build the neighborhood out, he was going to have alternative means of getting his traffic in and out. In looking at Item #4, Mr. Gibson explained that it was his understanding that the construction traffic has to come up East Lake Louisa Road. For seven years they have heard there is no access. Mr. Gibson stated that this is another reason that the people feel it is very imperative to close both of these roads today. He stated that a developer wants to put a 260 unit subdivision in South Lake County, but he does not want to pay a penny for infrastructure, and there has not been one mention of upgrading any of the roads in Amberhill, or Sunshine Hills, or creating infrastructure to tie into the south.
Commr. Swartz stated that he cannot imagine the people in Amberhill or Sunshine wanting to see those neighborhood streets widened and upgraded to handle the traffic, so that has really not been an option, because it would be totally inappropriate.
Mr. Gibson stated that, with the added traffic to these roads, as a result of having to put this development in, it is the County saying that it is going to let subdivisions run on inadequate roads and create neighborhood collectors out of neighborhood roads.
Mr. Stivender explained that East Lake Louisa Road is a clay road that is County maintained, and it goes from Lake Louisa Road to the site in question, and there is no right-of-way on that road.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the road is not 66 feet wide, and you cannot pave it, and you cannot provide storm water, so you cannot improve it. He stated that it is impossible to pave a prescriptive clay road where the only right the County has is the maintenance of the clay.
Commr. Swartz questioned the status of the construction plans for Spring Valley, and whether they show connections to any of these properties.
Mr. Stivender responded that the plans have been approved, and they have planned on requesting that Anderson Hill Road be moved, which he explained at this time.
Mr. Gibson referred to Item #6, which was an portion of the BCC minutes of June 8, 1995, and stated that, on January 25, 1994, when they were vacating the easements, Mr. Stivender pointed out that the people that owned the property knew about this and knew that they would not have the legal access, and they said they were okay with it at the time, because there would be joint access to it. Since 1994, the County and everyone else had intended to tie that in and use that, and it has become a County requirement for the development of that property to connect to the east. He read the following from Item #6: "he read into the Minutes the portion of the Minutes from the January 25, 1994 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, in which Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services stated, "...individual lot owners will technically not have legal access with this closing (Road Vacation Petition No. 746), but they have been noticed and are aware of this." He went on to read that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicants in said case, stated the following, "...the individual lot owners are part of the petitioners who have joined into the petition and they understand that, when they vacate part of the overall petition, the individual parcels may not have access, but the joint application is to provide joint access to the entire parcel."
Mr. Stivender explained that he remembers when they were vacating it, staff was in opposition to it, at that time, because everything was not worked out yet. He stated that nothing has occurred on these sites, therefore, staff does not know if the development processes are going to occur even the way they are being described today.
Discussion occurred regarding the construction plans that had been submitted and approved by the County.
Commr. Swartz stated that the inner-connect concept fought for by Public Works is a good concept, but in the implementation of it, the County has not provided the necessary design for the roads that would provide normal traffic, other than on normal neighborhood streets.
Mr. Crawford stated that he completely agrees with what was stated by Commr. Swartz that this is better, because you only have three lots worth of a local road carrying the traffic, and under the plan that they proposed, it really goes out two ways, and it dilutes the number that goes down each way.
Commr. Pool stated that the key is that is protects the residents of Amberhill and Anderson Hills.
Commr. Hanson stated that the only thing the Board can consider today is what is on the petition to vacate, and she thinks the County should have done it several years ago. She thinks the Board should move forward with the two vacations and deal with Sunshine some time later.
Mr. Crawford explained that there was a homeowner's meeting, and Mr. Ladd attended that meeting. He stated that they got a vote of the homeowners, that came to that meeting, to approve this agreement.
Mr. Gibson stated that he would disagree with the comment made by Mr. Crawford that a majority of Amberhill had voted in favor of the agreement. He clarified that he was speaking in support of the closure of the two roads, and he was speaking against the agreement.
Mr. Gibson referred to Item #7, a memorandum from Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, and stated that Mr. Schneider basically said that he would be real concerned, if any additional traffic was dumped onto Lakeshore Drive. The memorandum stated that he studied Lakeshore Drive, and he was finding that it will operate at a level of service (LOS) D with existing and vested developments, but if they included all approved developments in this scenario, the projected LOS would be a very low D. It also stated the following: "I would be concerned of adding additional traffic from Pine Ridge PUD west to directly access Lakeshore Drive instead of taking it east through Spring Valley to U.S. 27. This condition could drop us below the adopted LOS." Mr. Gibson stated that he was basically saying that, in this case, they are going to allow this developer to put up to 260 houses, tie them into Lakeshore Drive, lower the level of service beyond its capacity, and the only way to get out of it is for the County to pay to put a road in for the developer, which he finds is totally inadequate. He stated that, going back to the meeting of June 8, 1995, Item #8, when Mr. Stivender was talking about the impact of this type of development, he stated that, in tying in through these neighborhoods, it would be such that they would change the character of local roads into neighborhood collectors. He noted that they would be looking at 2,600 additional trips going down two roads. Mr. Gibson referred to Item #8, which included the following information stated by Mr. Stivender: "Sunshine and Amber Avenue are local roads, which function as Neighborhood Collectors. This class of road is normally expected to accommodate a daily volume of 500 - 1,500 vehicles per day." Mr. Gibson felt that overloading the roads will be unfair to the community. He explained that one of the requirements of Amber Hill is that, before they release any lot, they have to have 75% of the homeowners voting to do this, as shown in Item #9.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether 75% of the homeowners association applied for the vacation of these two roads.
Mr. Gibson stated that, according to the documents that he read, there was 75% support, but he would defer the question to Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney.
Mr. Gibson stated that Item #10a shows about 3/4 a mile of straight road that is being created, where 1,700 cars will be traveling every single day, and which he feels is totally inadequate. He stated that Item #10b is a standard real estate contract, which states the following: "Are you aware of any existing conditions or proposed change in your neighborhood that could adversely affect the value or desirability of the property" and "Is there anything else that you feel you should disclose to a prospective buyer becasue it may materially and adversely affect the value or desirability of the property, e.g.,...zoning changes, road changes etc.?" He explained that he has been working on the issue before the Board today for almost seven years, and he was going to show the Board an alternative to the issue that has basically been ignored. He referred to Item #11, which loops Garnet and Opal and provides a buffer between Amber Hill and future development, and where the same type of houses can be put on Sunshine, Amber Hill and the Lake Ridge side, and the density is 161 units. He noted that Mr. Bornstein only wanted 146 units, so there are alternatives that have been ignored by the developers. In looking at the Developer's Agreement, Opal and Garnet will be closed, and the developer is going to connect into the south. He did not feel that the people of Sunshine have been fairly represented in this matter, and he was embarrassed that his homeowner's association would try to do this to these people, and he apologized to them. Mr. Gibson stated that they have done everything possible to work within the system to no avail. He stated that, if the Board does not vote to close both roads today, they are going to find that the problem is continuing. He stated that the Board has the right, the responsibility, and the moral obligation to do what is right for this community.
Mr. Joe Flannery, Vice President of the Amber Hill Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Board and stated that this issue has been ongoing for many years, but they are working in cooperation with the developer, and they have had a lot of success working back and forth in trying to get a reasonable resolution to this issue. Mr. Flannery stated that they have supported the issue and have had open meetings inviting input from the homeowners in the neighborhood, and they have come to this conclusion with support from everyone that attended the meetings.
Mr. Steve Richey stated that he is respresenting The Land Trust and wanted to clarify, for the record, their position on behalf of the Ladds and The Land Trust. Mr. Richey stated that they support the agreement, because it provides them protection and provides them continuing access to property they own. They would oppose the Board vacating their access to their property where they have lots of record, without the agreement. He stated that it is their critical access to their property and, if they vacate these roads, they will land lock them. They rely on the accesses that are subject to this agreement, and they will continue to do so, and they are requesting that the Board not vacate the legal access to their property absent an agreement that protects them, and the agreement that protects them is the agreement they have agreed to with the Amberhill's people.
Ms. Pat Smith, Amberhill Subdivision, addressed the Board and stated that their attorney, their board, and Mr. Ladd, worked very hard to reach a decision. Ms. Smith stated that she was very verbal at the meeting and questioned the merits of the agreement, and it was her understanding that Sunshine would eventually be closed. She stated that the roads already in Amberhill are not big enough to even allow buses to come through their subdivision, which means the children in the subdivision have to be with a parent and waiting at Lakeshore Drive for a bus. She stated that there will be 140 homes behind them with the same problem, when buses cannot reach the estimated 150 to 300 kids. She would like this Board and future boards to concentrate on getting that southern extension open, because at that point, it would seem that all of their problems would really be taken care of. Ms. Smith noted that her lot is located at Topaz and Saphire, which is a three way intersection, and if the 140 homes are developed, she will be backing into a three way intersection. She stated that she supported the agreement, after what she had heard at the meeting, but at the time, she did not understand that buses could not go back there. She supported in on the basis of what she was told, that if they do not accept this agreement, they are not going to get anything better, and it was only going to get worse. Once the agreement is made, it is no longer on the developer's back, it is on the Commissioners' back to come through with that road.
Mr. Crawford stated that, in closing, the homeowners association agreed with the closing of these roads, and his direction from this Board was to try and work something that was legal and acceptable by all parties. He feels the agreement is a good start, even though it does not end the issue. Mr. Crawford stated that, as far as having to give notice of the roads that are going to be used for neighboring subdivisions, if there is a recorded Developer's Agreement, then he does feel that you have a duty to give notice to a potential seller, but he disagrees with having to tell someone that the roads may connect to a neighborhood subdivision someday. He further stated that, as far as school buses not going in there, he believes it is by School Board policy that they do not go in there, because the roads do meet the standards. He stated that the school bus stop needs to be improved, and they would like to work with the School Board and/or the County to improve it to make it better.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Stivender explained that this is a road vacation, and the first issue is legal access and public use. The agreement is speculative in a lots of cases, but at least it identifies adjacent property owners agreeing to certain conditions associated with the vacation. It was his understanding that vacations will occur at certain times in the future, but not today, and he was concerned about the vacation occurring today, and whatever this person wants to do with his property is hindered by that decision. He stated that he agrees, in concept, with the agreement and what the homeowners and The Land Trust are trying to accomplish with both Garnet and Opal. Mr. Stivender explained that all of the roads in the subdivisions are local roads.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in the Board minutes that have been referred to by Mr. Gibson, Mr. Stivender has said that a neighborhood collector should accommodate between 500 and 1,500 vehicles per day. He would assume that the variation between the 500 and 1,500 is going to be that the less suitable it is as a neighborhood collector, it is probably going to be the lower number, and if it was to meet all of the County standards, it would be the higher number. If it is less than a neighborhood collector, the Board would have to assume that it would be less than 500 for a local road.
Mr. Stivender explained that there could be an overlap, and it could go between zero and 1,000, because there are a lot of variations in transportation. He further explained that the traffic can be handled better, if the road is straighter and wider.
Commr. Swartz stated that what the Board is looking at here with Garnet and Opal, they would have to say that it is tended to be the lower than the higher number.
Mr. Stivender stated that the County likes to have 20 foot roads, and if the number passes 50 to 100 lots, it likes to have 24 foot roads.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if there are well over 50 homes that are using these local streets, then chances are those streets have about as much as they can handle, and if you added a bunch of additional homes, they would negatively impact those roads.
Mr. Stivender explained that the Board chose an alignment a couple of years ago, which is being shown on the map, and they have been working with the developer to basically donate right-of-way and plan a road, however, they have not come to a resolution themselves, and they are not interested in talking to the County, unless it buys the right-of-way, and the County is not in the posture to buy the right-of-way. When the Board approved the road program in August, Hook Street became number one on the list.
Commr. Cadwell questioned how many people were present in the homeowner's meeting where the homeowners approved this agreement
Mr. Crawford noted that 14 homeowners were present at the meeting, and there are 55 homes. They met pursuant to the by-laws, and the meeting was advertised, and he felt that the Board of Directors probably could have done this by themselves without a homeowner's association meeting.
Commr. Pool stated that obviously the agreement before the Board is not a perfect agreement, and he would agree that it is not perfect, but he did think that it was the best agreement they have today to help the residents to close Opal and, as time progresses, to eventually close Garnet, so it eliminates that transportation corridor. Today the Board is addressing only Opal and Garnet per the agreement of the homeowners and South Lake Land Trust.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve Petition No. 928 by David Calfee to vacate streets recorded in the Plat of Amberhill, S31, T22S, R26E located in the Clermont Area, Commission District 2, Resolution 2000-184, per the Developer's Agreement between Lake County, South Lake Land Trust, and the Amberhill Homeowner's Association, Inc.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson seconded the motion with the same concerns regarding the Sunshine Hills Subdivision, and the impacts of that development on those very small roads, which is something that staff needs to look at very closely, when they approve the plats.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in defense of his vote seven years ago, he voted not to close the roads, because he believed that they had to provide some legal access, and he still believes that is the case. However, he said at that meeting that he would never vote to approve development on those properties that would negatively impact those roads, because he understood then that those roads were not well designed as even the neighborhood collector that perhaps they should have been, and in some instances, more. He still believes there is some requirement for legal access to a parcel, but he has finally come to the conclusion that the real solution is not to approve a vacation that is subject to this agreement for several reasons. Commr. Swartz stated that he cannot support an agreement that does not take into account the access that is going to continue on Sunshine, and Sunshine will probably be the one that is most negatively impacted in this development plan. He stated that the other one would be Opal to a lesser extent, and Garnet to the least, so what is being done does not seem consistent with the concept. Commr. Swartz stated that what he believes they should be doing here today will solve the problem for the people who live in those subdivisions and on those streets of Sunshine, Opal, and Garnet and the additional streets. He stated that, based on the comments made by the County's Public Works Director, it looks like those streets already have more traffic on them than they were designed for, and to put anymore on them would be inconsistent with the County's road policies and would be inappropriate. He explained that those subdivisions will continue to develop, and they will have some minor additional impact to the traffic, so it seems to him that what they should be doing is saying that the County would propose closing Sunshine, Opal and Garnet, at such time as the number of dwelling units that are constructed exceed that number, whatever that number may be. This would say very clearly to the property owners that yes, you have legal access, but at such time as you develop more than whatever that number is, you cannot build anymore, and you can continue to use those streets, but if you ever want to build more than that, those streets will be closed. Commr. Swartz stated he will not vote for this motion that has this agreement, because it is a bad deal for those people in Sunshine Hills.
Commr. Pool clarified that his motion was to approve the agreement that has been presented, which includes the change to Section 2. E., from 25 feet to 30 feet, and adding F., as noted.
Commr. Swartz clarified that his alternative would be to have a road vacation agreement back before them that is subject to a determination of the number of trips and the number of dwelling units that could be put on those before it absolutely trips the capacity on those local streets, and at that time, they are closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she understood that this subdivision has not been approved by the County Commission, so a lot of these issues would come forward at that time, and it may not be approved with the accesses that are available.
Commr. Gerber stated that what Commr. Swartz was suggesting is sort of a variation on Commr. Homan's comment, and she was not going to support the agreement. She stated that under Section 9. Termination, in the Developer's Agreement, she has never seen language like this in anything that the Board has done, and the County Attorney does not know how that would be implemented, but it looks like, if the development is not approved, the Board will have to come up with a resolution that the Developer's Agreement is null and void. She does not see that this is something that the Board needs to start making a template of, and she feels it is bad government.
Commr. Pool stated that the homeowners have asked the Board time and time again to close these access roads, and they have begged them for some opportunity to give them relief for the future growth in that area. The developer, land owner, and the homeowners have come together to ask for this plan, even though it is not a perfect plan. He stated that the Board does need to try and help Sunshine in the future and hopefully get more access points east of U.S. 27., but the key is that it begins a process of not allowing cross through traffic from Amberhill into the new project that may or may not be approved by the Board. It does not stop Garnet, but it does stop Opal immediately, and then when they do have other connections, then Garnet will be closed, so those cross through traffic patterns will be eliminated.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commr. Swartz and Commr. Gerber voted "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
PETITION NO. 929 - JOY RUTH COLLINS - LEESBURG AREA - DISTRICT 1
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, stated that this is a request by Joy Ruth Collins to vacate roads (Humphrey Avenue and Pershing Road) recorded in Silver Lake Estates Plat S14, T19S, R25E located in the Leesburg Areea, Commission District 1. Mr. Stivender explained that there were some issues concerning property ownership to the east and this being their only legal access. He stated that staff has the agreements in hand, and they have worked out all of the legal access issues, and they can proceed with this road vacation.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that this is the piece of property that was zoned R-1-7 and they rezoned it to PUD, or mixed use townhouses and single family residences. In the PUD, it provided for them to provide access through the property owned by the Kehdes and the Cannons. They have entered into an agreement that provides them access to Kehde and Cannon coming in where the roads will eventually be reconfigured, and they have an easement, until such time the roads are reconfigured. It is going to be gated, and they have agreed to the gating and being provided access through the gated community. Mr. Richey stated that agreements have been signed by the Kehdes and the Cannons.
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.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition No. 929 by Joy Ruth Collins to vacate roads (Humphrey Avenue and Pershing Road) recorded in the Silver Lake Estates Plat S14, T19S, R25E located in the Leesburg Area, Commission District 1, Resolution 2000-185, with the agreements aforementioned by Mr. Richey.
PETITION NO. 937 - KEITH AND REBECCA HUNTINGTON
GROVELAND AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, stated that this is a request by Keith and Rebecca Huntington to vacate easement recorded in the Groveland Farms plat, S35, T22S, R24E located in the Groveland Area, Commission District 2. Mr. Stivender stated that he has a letter in opposition from the Smiths. He referred to a aerial of the site and stated that the runway of the airport was extended to the north. Mr. Stivender stated that the original request was to vacate just the section where the airport is located, but staff recommended that they vacate from corner to corner. He noted that everybody has legal access.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Board and explained that he filed for the zoning, and the road vacation, at the same time, but Public Works wanted to postpone the hearing on the road vacation, so they could gain the other neighbor's approval to vacate more than just this little strip. He stated that this is the same airport that he just got the CFD zoning on last month, and he would like to listen to the neighbor's concerns and reserve a couple of minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Robin Smith addressed the Board and stated that he is Executor of the Robin Smith Trust that owns the property directly on the west side of the property in question. Mr. Smith stated that this is not a matter of vacating an easement, but it is a matter of closing the end of the airport. He stated that, when he bought the property a little over a year ago, there was a mowed field, which was owned by Mr. Huntington. The owner of the airport allowed him to have access to the runway at that point. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Huntington erected a fence to prevent him from going across to that property and cutting off the access at that point. He stated that Mr. Huntington is attempting to deny him access to the runway, which is used by the public, by vacating the easement. He stated that it will lower the value on his property, if he is not able to have access to the runway, and if he is not able to have access to the easement, it will lower the value. Mr. Smith stressed that this is not a private airport, even though it is privately owned and opened to the public. He explained that he is in the aviation business, and he has a home in Clermont. He has owed the property for a year and a half, and he was going to build a home on the property, until Mr. Huntington fenced it. Mr. Smith stated that he offered Mr. Huntington $10,000 for the access to the runway, and he would not object to the vacation of this easement. He explained that Mr. Huntington is attempting to extend the runway 1,300 feet, which will have an impact on the people at the end of it, as well as the people of the community, because right now he is limited to the size of airplanes that can come in there. He explained that Mr. Huntington bought the property in 1992, and he recently put in runway lights, fenced the property, and extended the runway in the last several months, and he does not mind him doing any of this, but it will cut off his access to the runway.
Mr. Crawford called Mr. Donald Huntington, the petitioner, to present testimony.
Mr. Donald Huntington, petitioner, testified that he bought the property in question in 1992, and at the first of the year, he bought the rest of the airport. Before 1992, the property in question was used as a overrun area. After buying the property, he leveled and seeded it. The fence on the east side has been there for 14 years, and Mr. Huntington testified that he did not put the fence up, as referred to by Mr. Smith, but the previous owner put it up. Mr. Huntington identified his Airport License, which states "for private use" and testified that he told Mr. Smith that they would not give deeded access to him or anybody else. He explained that a discussion had taken place about breaking the property up into three lots to make three building lots with airport access, and when they discussed this with the neighbors, they promised that they would not expand the airport. Mr. Huntington stated that a friend of his bought the property on the south end of the runway, and they will not sell him deeded access either.
Commr. Swartz questioned how the runway got expanded over what is an easement.
Mr. Huntington explained that the lights will be moved back to where the easement is located, because that gives the glide path over the trees, as recommended by the FFA.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Pool stated that there appeared to be a difference of opinion with the neighbors, and as he reads on the license "private use", the key is that the County would not want to have an easement across any runway and/or an opportunity for overflight of that area.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve Petition No. 937 by Keith and Rebecca Huntington to vacate easement recorded in the Groveland Farms Plat, S35, T22S, R24E located in the Groveland Area, Commission District 2, Resolution 2000-186.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he hopes that County staff will look at the issue, because it sounds like the petitioner is having to bring the overrun, or the runway, back and have lighting adjusted, and he would suggest that this would require a permit, which probably should have been done at some point when it was extended and lighted. He stated that he understood the complaint being made by Mr. Smith against the vacation, because he wants access to the airport, and he was not sure that it was a valid reason for not vacating.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. 940 - PAUL WHEELER - CLERMONT AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, stated that this is a request to vacate an easement recorded in S11, T23S, R26E located in the Clermont Area, Commission District 2. Mr. Stivender stated that staff is opposed to the vacation, and there is one letter of opposition from Ronald and Jeanne Mendelson. Mr. Stivender explained that this is a 90 degree turn south of the sand mine on Hartwood Marsh Road. He stated that the east-west section goes straight back to U.S. 27 where a Publix building is being constructed, and then it goes north, and then east into Orange County. Mr. Stivender stated that this has always been a heavily traveled road with a lot of truck traffic. He stated that these lot splits went through administratively, and staff would not have approved them off of this intersection. He further stated that right now this easement is the alternate access that is about 600 or 700 feet away from the north of the intersection. Mr. Stivender stated that, in regard to long term, it could be justified as a vacation, because staff has discussed this being a major east-west road parallel to Highway 50, but at this time, if this was eliminated, it would be a an unsafe situation.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Paul Wheeler, petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that, in regards to the safety concerns expressed by staff, he has two photos that show the approach to this curve from both directions, and they both show that there is quite a bit of visibility. Mr. Wheeler stated that currently about 99% of the traffic goes through Easement 2, and Easement 1 goes down the side of his property and has minimal usage. He explained that this approach, in his opinion, is much safer than the approach onto Foxhole Road, which leads into Easement 1, because there is no visibility of oncoming traffic from either direction. He further explained that the curved section is currently a bus stop for South Lake County buses, and it is also a mail route, and a garbage collection point. Mr. Wheeler stated that Easement 2 is being used by all traffic right now, so it is not a matter of funneling traffic one way or another. It was noted that the easement in question is not improved in any way. Mr. Wheeler explained that the easement ties up approximately 15% of his property, and he would like to have it available for future use as pasture lands. His home is relatively close to the easement, and he has three children, so he would like to limit that access.
Discussion occurred regarding the letter of opposition from the Mendelsons, with it being noted that they would have quicker access using Easement 2, which goes out to Hartwood Marsh Road.
Mr. Stivender stated that staff looks at each location, and the signage at the curve identifies a corner, and there is access coming in two different directions. He explained that staff is looking at this issue today, as well as long term, because staff sees a public use of this easement some time in the future.
Mr. Cleveland Lee addressed the Board and stated that he lives down the clay road from the Wheelers. Mr. Lee stated that the easement runs across the Wheeler's property and everybody that comes to his property either comes in behind his property, or they come in straight off of the curve. Mr. Lee stated that vacating that easement would not interfere with them at all. He stated that he worked for the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and Mr. Wheeler has had some problems in the past with people approaching his house, and he understands why he would like to close it off and install fences for safety reasons. Mr. Lee recommended that the Board approve the request to close the easement. He stated that he would be concerned with the easement coming off of the curve and making sure that it is a dedicated public easement, so that, in the future, they are not landlocked. As far as the safety issue of that curve, Mr. Lee stated that there is good visibility approaching that curve, either coming from Orange County, or coming from Highway 27. He noted that there are mailboxes sitting at this intersection, and at Foxhole Road, and he knows that mail carriers will not install mail receptacles in areas that are considered hazardous. Mr. Lee stated that, as Mr. Wheeler has explained, there is a school bus stop, and he does not feel that the School Board would recommend having children load and unload buses in a hazardous area. He noted that he can access his property by way of Flat Lake Road or Foxhole Road, and nobody uses the easement across Mr. Wheeler's property.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff would ever actually propose to put a road down Mr. Wheeler's property.
Mr. Stivender stated that he did not believe the Board would be involved with a decision for the road, but the property owners may want to do this some time in the future. He explained that they would not qualify for a special assessment, but they could very easily put in a paved road. Mr. Stivender explained that staff was opposed to the lot splits, because of the curve.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there has been any discussion by staff of Public Works to do something at that intersection for safety, beyond this vacation request. Commr. Swartz stated that it is probably not terribly safe, and it is going to get worse as the traffic increases in this area, but he is not sure that accessing it through this north-south easement is a decent solution. He questioned whether there was any other way to solve this problem, assuming it is a problem
Mr. Stivender explained that there has been no discussion about doing something at the intersection for safety. He stated that, if the road is improved, the curve may be moved, and it would be more of a local road than the main east-west road, and at that time, it would not be a problem.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in the interim, unless you are going to stop people from accessing it, that easement is immaterial, because nobody seems to use it other than Mr. Wheeler, because it looks like he uses it to get back and forth to his house.
Commr. Pool stated that he appreciates Mr. Stivender's position on this issue, and he realizes what he is trying to accomplish, but in looking at the curve, both to the west and to the north, per the photographs, and from driving out that way, there is visibility. He stated that, because it does not play heavily into an east-west Hartwood Marsh improvement at the corridor, and because of Foxhole Road and Flat Lake Road, he doubted that the County is going to need Mr. Wheeler's easement across his property.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve Petition No. 40 by Paul Wheeler to vacate easement recorded in S11, T23S, R26E located in the Clermont Area, Commission District 2, Resolution 2000-187.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated, if there is not signage at this location, staff needs to get some signage there, to make sure that the access onto the road is as good as the County can reasonably get it.
Mr. Stivender stated that the area is well marked, and staff will make sure they identify a roadway in there.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. 941 - DANIEL J. AND MONICA CONNOLLY
ASTOR AREA - DISTRICT 4
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, stated that this is a requst to vacate streets recorded in S30, T25, R28E located in the Astor Area, Commission District 4. Mr. Stivender stated that this is to vacate one-half of a right-of-way, and staff is recommending approval of the vacation. He noted that the other half has been vacated, and the right-of-way is only a little over 40 feet wide.
Commr. Swartz questioned why the entire right-of-way was not vacated at one time, because the County has the ability to vacate it without the adjoining property owner being a part of the vacation. He felt that, if the County never expects to see a road in there, it ought to be vacated.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the petitioner, Mr. Connolly, stated that they have already vacated the southern one-half of this right-of-way, and they have already done some other rezonings in this area for him. Ms. Bonifay stated that they have plenty of photographs showing the density of the area, but from the aerial, the Board can see that these are paper roads, and none of them have been utilized. She stated that they have a letter from Mr. Ramsey, a nearby property owner, who is not opposed to this request, however, he is in South America. Ms. Bonifay stated that none of this right-of-way has ever been utilized, but Mr. Connolly is here, and he can answer any questions of the Board. She requested that the Board move the staff recommendation for approval.
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.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition No. 941 by Daniel J. and Monica Connolly to vacate streets recorded in S30, T25, R28E located in the Astor Area, Commission District 4, Resolution 2000-188.
PETITION NO. 942 - BYRON A. AND MARGARET R. PETERSON
CLERMONT AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, stated that this is a request to vacate an easement recorded in the Clermont Farms Subdivision adjacent to the Plats of Oak Hill Estates and Rose Hill Subdivision all in S12, T23, R25 located in the Clermont Area - Commission District 2. Mr. Stivender stated that, when this was platted years ago, they left a lot of large rights-of-way, and the development pattern does not use those rights-of-way anymore, and staff is recommending approval of the vacation.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Board. He noted that the southern portion is only 30 feet, because the other half has already been vacated.
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.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to vacate an easement recorded in the Clermont Farms Subdivision adjacent to the Plats of Oak Hill Estates and Rose Hill Subdivision all in S12, T23, R25 located in the Clermont Area, Commission District 2, Resolution 2000-189.
MISCELLANEOUS/MEEETINGS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, informed the Board that he will be meeting with Metro-Plan Orlando (MPO) and Brevard County and some alliances this afternoon.
REZONINGS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that Tab 9, PH#18-00-2, Montverde Junction, Tracking #34-00-PUD, has been withdrawn by Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney.
CASE PH#43-00-2 - JOHN OLAH/SUSAN ARKIN - TRACKING #76-00-Z
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that staff was recommending approval of the request for a rezoning from CFD (Community Facility) zoning district to the AR (Agriculture Residential) for 12 acres in the Montverde area, which is a compatible and consistent use on septic tank. It was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission 10 to 0, with no opposition.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a rezoning from CFD (Community Facility) zoning district to the AR (Agriculture Residential), Case PH#43-00-2, John Olah/Susan Arkin, Tracking #76-00-Z, Ordinance 2000-97.
CASE PH#45-00-2 - JAMES GANT & CHARLES BOLES
GROVELAND CHRISTIAN CHURCH - TRACKING #77-00-CFD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) for construction of a church and associated uses on a little under six acres. Ms. Farrell stated that staff could not find a comfort level with this particular request and is recommending denial basically to introduce some more urban land use in a rural area. They are concerned with the growth involved with a church, and they did not see a lot of residential support for this particular use. It is in a more industrial/commercial area, and staff could not find a comfort level through the Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to recommend approval. Ms. Farrell noted that there was no opposition, but it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission 8 to 2.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Mr. Charles Eversole, a member of the Groveland Christian Church, addressed the Board and explained that they are a small congregation, and they are limited with their budget. Mr. Eversole stated that they have looked all over the County and been unable to find anything that they could afford. He stated that Mr. Boles and Mr. Gant have offered them a piece of property that they feel is suitable, and they would very much like to have the zoning. He respectfully asked the Board to give them favorable consideration.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Eversole if he understood that it limits the square footage of the building.
Mr. Eversole stated that he did understand the square footage requirement. He stated that he lives in Leesburg, and most of the congregation is from Groveland. He further stated that they feel they can build a building that would be attractive and would not be a detriment to the community, and it would actually enhance the property values in that area.
Commr. Cadwell noted that, in the backup, the Planning and Zoning Commission eliminated the square footage requirement.
Mr. Eversole stated that they would prefer not to have a limitation on the footage, but they will be growing, and they will be asking for additional consideration for a larger auditorium, which may be years down the road.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that he was not concerned about the square footage, as long as they know they have to come back to the County to expand for anything other than church services, such as a day care, or school.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that the CFD can be approved anywhere in the County, and she did not know that it had to meet the commercial locational criteria.
Ms. Farrell explained that it was not commercial location criteria, but it more of introducing uses in the suburban land use category.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff's lack of comfort is based on the fact that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan definition and CFD in rural areas.
Commr. Hanson stated that this is why the County allowed CFD's to be in those rural areas, whether it is a school, or whether it is a telephone station, or whatever those needs might be in the rural areas, because CFD's are allowed anywhere in the County, even in the rural areas.
Commr. Swartz disagreed with Commr. Hanson and stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not say what she is suggesting.
Commr. Pool stated that he understand the recommendation of staff, and he believes the Board has approved several churches in rural neighborhoods, and he believes it will serve the community and the area.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) for construction of a church and associated uses, without the restrictions on the square footage, Case PH#45-00-2, James Gant and Charles Boles, Groveland Christian Church, Tracking #77-00-CFD, Ordinance 2000-98.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff has outlined it in their report, and that is why they recommended denial, and he will vote against the rezoning.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz voted "no".
Under comments, Commr. Hanson stated that she voted for the rezoning, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
CASE CUP#00/10/3-4 - ROBERT WOLFF - TRACKING #78-00-CUP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the rural land use for a little over one acre in the Paisley area. Ms. Farrell stated that Mr. Wolff came to staff a couple of months ago and was basically going to replicate something he was doing back home before he retired in Florida. Staff got to a level of comfort with the request for small engine repair and equipment, lawn mowers, chainsaws, and trimmers. She noted that there was a very good letter in the backup from Mr. Wolff outlining what he wants to do on the property. Ms. Farrell stated that staff is recommending approval of the request, with conditions in the Ordinance, as follows: UPS delivery type trucks only; hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and no testing in the water body. She noted that there was some concern from a nearby property owner, as to introducing such a use in a rural subdivision, but staff did get to a level of comfort and are recommending approval. She further noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7 to 3.
Commr. Gerber questioned how staff got to a comfort level with this request, because to her, it would not be a commercial use.
Ms. Farrell explained that staff does not anticipate a lot of traffic, because it is a pretty difficult site to find. It is basically going to be very small scale, and it is something the petitioner is doing as a supplement to retirement, and it is limited to one external employee. She stated that, when looking at the property, there are several out buildings already there that will be utilized. Ms. Farrell stated that it is a unique CUP that staff sees often that staff is comfortable with after visiting the site and meeting with the applicant. At this time, two photographs were shown to the Board.
Commr. Gerber referred to Paragraph 4 in the letter from Mr. Ernest Palmer and questioned whether staff checked to see if the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was actually purchasing this area as part of the black bear corridor.
Ms. Farrell stated that she did not know whether staff followed up on that particular request, but if DEP is pursuing the purchase, then this use would cease to exist, if DEP purchased his property.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Robert Wolff, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he did not get the initial letter stating the terms of usage until half way through his hearing, and for legality purposes, he did not know if the Board could change any of the wording, as far as the land use. He stated that there are three things that he would like to have changed in the proposed ordinance, as follows, under 2. Terms: A. Land Uses:
3. Delete "equipment testing", so that the equipment testing will be done outdoors.
4. Delete "parts".
5. Amend to read "No external or outdoor signs shall be permitted on the property."
Mr. Wolff explained that the privacy fence is going to be reduced by approximately 20 feet back towards the building, and all of the trash has already been eliminated from that area. He has planted shrubs along the front of the property, and the privacy fence is in place, and according to his deed, his property is 2.5 acres plus or minus. He explained that most of the property is in the lake, so there is about 1.2 acres of dry land. He further explained that the parcel to the left of him is deeded as public access to the lake, and the closest neighbor is half a mile away.
Mr. Fred Hunter addressed the Board and stated that the property was laid out in 1960. He stated that he feels Mr. Wolff should be able to do his work on the property, but his concern is that the CUP goes with the owner. He explained that he and his partner have a vested interest, or ownership in over 30 of the lots, and the lake is in the bear corridor. Mr. Hunter explained that the 1.2 acres is stretching it, because when you look at the original survey, all of the lots went to the center of the lake. He stated that the State declared ownership of all of the lands under the water. Mr. Hunter stated that the previous owner absolutely abused the property in question, and he has made many complaints to Code Enforcement. He stated that Mr. Wolff bought the property without doing enough research on it. He would like to take a representative to the site and show them his concern. He stated that he is not giving up on the fencing and the illegal fill in the lake. Mr. Hunter stated that the property is in the bear corridor, and they are number one on the State's list of property to purchase (37 lots) and all of the land, which is over 1,300 acres. He stated that, until the State is willing to purchase that piece of property, and the other two lots, he would not consider selling them, because he will not allow something like that to be on the lake and then have the State come along and have an opportunity to do something with it. He stated that he was not saying that the Board should reject the request, but to give him a chance to talk to someone about it, because there is much more to the issue.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Wolff had in mind a repair facility or repair shop when he bought the property.
Mr. Wolff stated that he had hoped to have a repair facility, and he knew the property was zoned agricultural. He bought the property in a matter of two weeks, because he liked the property, and he knew there was a business on the property at that time, but he did not know it was an illegal business. Mr. Wolff stated that he also was totally unfamiliar with Florida zoning laws, because where he came from, this type of business was totally acceptable as what is called a home occupation business, and he needed no special zoning, or special requirements in his previous location. He became aware of the requirement for rezoning when he was inquiring about permits and getting a sales tax number.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that these issues are tough because you certainly want to respect a neighborhood, but it is so hard for folks to make a living now, and it bothers him to think someone cannot do that in their own home. He stated that, as long as it is not intrusive to the other neighbors, and he is cleaning up the property, the CUP gives the County some guidelines to allow people to do this type of thing.
Commr. Swartz stated that the large majority of home occupations that are approved by the Board are ones where the business does not have people coming and going from it. He does not feel the request today is something that should be going in this area, and it is inconsistent, and whatever was there to begin with should not have been there, and it was created illegally, and to put the stamp of approval on that would be a mistake. If Mr. Wolff was mislead in his purchase, he might very well have recourse against whoever sold him this property, whether it was an individual, or through a real estate organization. Commr. Swartz felt that the most compelling evidence is Mr. Palmer. He did not know if his position at all is influenced by the possibility of selling to the State, and he did not see how this could impact that position, because that would go forward regardless, but his letter is really right on point with the issues that are involved in this matter.
Ms. Farrell explained that staff is recommending approval for repair of weed eaters, lawnmowers, farm type rural residential equipment. Staff also looked at the SIC Code, and there is a CUP for golf course maintenance, because it is related to an agricultural activity. She stressed that all of these types of requests are unique, and staff has to visit the site, and with the conditions and the area, staff was comfortable with the request.
Commr. Pool stated that he was trying to find a comfort level, because he can lean in either direction. If people have the knowledge to repair small engines and motors, they will beat a path to his door eventually, and without signs, and without being able to advertise outwardly on this project, he did not feel this would be happening. The fact that he is internal and inside the building says to him that it is probably going to happen anyway, and for the Board to approve this request, it will allow repairs to go on this site. Commr. Pool noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request 7 to 3, and staff is recommending approval, and to deprive the applicant of an opportunity to utilize the property in that capacity, he does not think it is hurting the land, or the property, and he is trying to help this gentleman to keep it in a low operation.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County gives land uses, not individual uses, even though sometimes the Board can limit them in time and say the CUP is only valid for so many years, but they cannot condition them upon an individual.
Ms. Farrell clarified that, if there are complaints, the CUP can be revoked.
Commr. Hanson stated that Mr. Wolff may very well be delivering rather than having people come to his house, which may limit the traffic. She questioned whether staff had a problem with testing being conducted outdoors.
Ms. Farrell stated that, as long as the testing is kept within the hours of operation, it should not be a problem. She suggested that the Board remove the word "parts", in order to deal with the retail sales issue.
Commr. Hanson made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) to allow for a home-based repair shop for small engines and outdoor power equipment (i.e. lawnmowers, chainsaws, trimmers, etc.), with the restrictions that the County staff has put into place dealing with the testing, and with the retail sales and hours of operation.
Commr. Hanson stated that she does not believe the approval of the request will interfere with the purchase of the property, if that were to happen.
Commr. Pool seconded the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz voted "no".
Commr. Hanson stated that she would accept the offer by Mr. Hunter to tour the area.
CASE CUP#00/8/1-5 - RAYMOND & BETTY RICHARDSON
TRACKING #61-00-CUP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for a CUP in AR (Agriculture Residential) for a wholesale plan nursery and garden center on a little over seven acres in Lady Lake. Staff is able to recommend approval with conditions. Ms. Farrell stated that there is some opposition to the request and concerns as far as the future development of the property. She does feel that it would help with the addition of no semi-trailer on the site, and no heavy equipment. She stated that staff is not supportive of any waiver of the landscape requirement, because over a period of time, property owners change. The request for the landscaping is less than one-third of the perimeter of the property, and it is a wholesale nursery. Ms. Farrell noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request 10 to 0, with the landscaping buffer not being required, but staff would like to see this condition remain in tact in the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that they have addressed some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Louis Meucci who is an adjacent property owner that wrote a letter of opposition. Mr. Duncan stated that there will be no debris on the property. He had some concerns about an existing facility that is owned by Mr. Richardson, but they can assure Mr. Richardson that this will not be the case on this site. There will be no operable vehicles or semi-trailers stored on the property, and the only equipment that will be existing on the property will be small tractors and employee vehicles. Mr. Duncan explained that they will have to submit a site plan to the County for approval, and ingress and egress issues and transportation issues will be addressed in that plan. He stated that transportation impact fees will have to be paid by Mr. Richardson, if they are required by the County. Mr. Duncan explained that there is a commercial driving range, with additional equipment sales and golf course management, on the corner of County Road 466 and the frontage road, which generates a lot of traffic. The property is properly zoned, and the project is in compliance with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Duncan stated that, as to the landscape buffer, it is not required by the County Code, but it was something that staff wanted to add to the ordinance. He submitted a letter from David C. Richardson, Mr. Richardson's nephew, who is an adjacent property owner, which stated that he has no objection to not requiring that landscape buffer, which is the purpose for them asking that it not be required by the Board. He noted that the following language was deleted from Page 1 of the Ordinance, 2. F. "Fire sprinkled buildings or a 10,000 gallon storage tank for fire protection shall be required.." Mr. Duncan stated that they pointed out to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they will have to comply with the Fire Code, and they did not want to be limited to these two options. He noted that Mr. Richardson's son owns nearby property. There will be a buffer required across the front of the property. Mr. Richardson will be selling his other nursery on CR46, and this will be replacing his existing nursery.
The Chairman called for further public comment. It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the request was in his district, and he had no problem with it.
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 for a CUP in AR (Agriculture Residential) for a wholesale plant nursery and garden center, Case CUP#00/8/1-5, Raymond and Betty Richardson, Tracking #61-00-CUP, Ordinance 2000-100, with the modifications for the buffer on the front side of the property, and the deletion of 2.F. on page 1 of the proposed Ordinance, as noted.
Ms. Farrell requested that the "no tractor-trailer parking and no heavy equipment" be added to the motion, with Mr. Duncan noting that he had no problem with the request.
Commr. Pool amended his motion to include the language "no tractor-trailer parking and no heavy equipment", and Commr. Hanson amended her second to the motion.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned staff on their analysis of commercial locational criteria.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff did not look at this request in regards to commercial locational criteria, because of it being a wholesale nursery operation in a kind of quasi agricultural area. There are a lot of similar permitted uses in agriculture, and it was just some of the retail use. She stated that the idea of it being retail use and wholesale making it commercial came into their discussion at staff level, but with the conditions, and the fact that it is also a nursery on the site, staff was comfortable with it. She noted that it would not meet the commercial locational criteria there.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if you raise it and sell it on the site, then the agriculture still works.
Commr. Swartz noted that he voted against Mr. Richardson's last nursery and commercial, because it was on County Road 466, and it did not meet commercial locational criteria there, and it represented strip commercial, and that is actually the better location for what he wants to do than this site today, because this is probably less appropriate for the type of commercial activity, so he will once again vote against this rezoning.
Commr. Gerber stated that there would probably have more problems with the request, if it was not surrounded by family members.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Swartz vote "no".
COMMISSIONERS
At 12:30 p.m., it was noted that Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz left the meeting.
CASE PH#55-00-4 - EAST LAKE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TRACKING #87-00-CFD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to CFD (Community Facility District) on 2.8 acres in Sorrento to include use of a public library and East Lake County Chamber or Commerce.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff would have a problem rezoning the property back to commercial in the future, with Ms. Farrell stating that, at that particular intersection, they would have no problem
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition of the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to CFD (Community Facility District) to include use of a public library and East Lake County Chamber of Commerce, Case PH#55-00-4, East Lake County Chamber of Commerce, Tracking #87-00-CFD, Ordinance 2000-101.
Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz were not present for the discussion or vote.
CASE #46-00-4 - CLAUDE OUELETTE - TRACKING #80-00-Z
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, noted that Tabs 6 and Tab 7 actually go together. Ms. Farrell stated that Tab 6 is a request to rezone 64.5 acres in the Pine Lake area from A (Agriculture) to A-1-20 (Wekiva River Protection Area Overlay District 2) to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to allow for a CUP, as noted in Tab 7, for a 190 foot four carrier-potential monople tower on the leased parcel with the overall 64.5 acres. She stated that staff is recommending approval for the tower, but they are not recommending approval for the waiver of the landscaping. There was no opposition, and it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission 10 to 0. Ms. Farrell noted that, in Tab 7, it states the following in the proposed ordinance, on Page 2, D. Buffering and Screening: "The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate buffering in accordance with Section 3.13.11 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as amended." She stated that the ordinance was not changed subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but staff was only looking for landscaping along that area where there is residential use.
COMMISSIONERS
At 12:35 p.m., it was noted that Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz returned to the meeting.
CASE #46-00-4 - CLAUDE OUELETTE - TRACKING #80-00-Z (CONTINUED)
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. 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 the request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to A-1-20 (Wekiva River Protection Area Overlay District 2) to allow for those uses permitted in the proposed zoning district, Case #46-00-4, Claude Ouelette, Tracking #80-00-Z, Ordinance 2000-102.
CASE CUP#00/10/4-4 - CLAUDE OUELETTE - VOICE STREAM WIRELESS -
APT TAMPA INC. - TRACKING #82-00-CUP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, noted that this request pertains to the tower on the 64.5 acres, as noted in Tab 6.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether any of the Board members had any questions pertaining to the tower.
Ms. Mary Dodie, Legal Counsel for Voice Stream Wireless, appeared before the Board and stated that she would like an opportunity to address the Board on the landscape waiver issue.
Ms. Dodie stated that this is a 65 acre piece of property, and the tower is centered in the middle of the property, as noted on Zoning Plan (Exhibit 1), and on the aerial (Exhibit 2). There are three mobile homes on the location that are all occupied by the property owner, or his relatives, as noted. She explained that they are over 1,000 feet from the location of the tower to Mr. Ouelette's north property line, and the closest home to the north off of Mr. Ouelette's property is approximately 1,600 feet away from the tower. Staff has required that they continue to place landscaping on the north side of the tower lease parcel to shield, or buffer, this tower from the residences to the north. Ms. Dodie referred to Exhibit 1 and noted that the dirt mound is located directly north of their tower site, and the dirt mound is ten feet tall. She explained that it will be years before you see landscaping above that dirt mound. Ms. Dodie explained that her clients routinely beef up landscaping around the sites, and they offer it time and time again, but in this particular instance, they do not see that it serves any useful purpose. Ms. Dodie stated that the proposed ordinance that is attached to the staff report indicates that duel lighting would be required on this tower, and they have not been required by the FAA to light this tower. This issue was brought forth at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and staff agreed that the language would be taken out of the ordinance. She explained this tower is not over 200 feet, and it does not require lighting, so they would like to have the mandatory lighting language taken out of the ordinance.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would agree on the landscaping, because she did not feel it would serve the public in any way to have the landscaping, and since the owner is not requesting that landscaping, and it will never be seen from State Road 44.
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. Swartz asked staff to discuss the staff recommendation on the landscape issue.
Ms. Farrell stated that it was her understanding that the mound is not on their leased property, and it could be removed sometime in the future. She stated that staff was trying to protect the property owners with the landscape ordinance, and there were some concerns to the north about the mound. Ms. Farrell stated that it is a concern, because property changes hands and people remove trees for some activity, and then there would be a question about why staff did not put something in the ordinance.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve to waive the landscape requirements, in Case CUP#00/10/4-4, Claude Ouelette, Voice Stream Wireless - APT Tampa Inc., Tracking #82-00-CUP.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned wether staff could envision, at some point, that this case ought to have landscaping.
Ms. Farrell stated that she could only foresee the mound being removed, but future development would be slim.
It was noted that the property owner could break the property up into three units and sell it today.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case CUP#00/10/4-4, Claude Ouelette, Voice Stream Wireless - APT Tampa Inc., Tracking #82-00-CUP, Ordinance 2000-103, and waiving the landscape requirements, as noted above.
CASE CUP#00/10/2-2 - DAVID & BEVERLY MOULTON
NEXTEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS - TRACKING #83-00-CUP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that this is a request for a CUP in HM (Heavy Industrial) on less than ten acres in the Okahumpka area, to allow construction of a 227-foot monopole wireless telecommunication tower. Staff was recommending approval of the request, and it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission 10 to 0. Ms. Farrell noted that there was one letter of opposition and one letter of support.
Commr. Pool stated that, if a light is required by the FAA, he would like to request that it be the red pipe light at night, not the bright strobe light.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in HM (Heavy Industrial) to allow construction of a 227-foot monopole wireless telecommunication tower, Case CUP#00/10/2-2, David and Beverly Moulton, Nextel Telecommunications, Tracking #83-00-CUP, Ordinance 2000-104.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the following cases had been withdrawn:
PH#18-00-2, Montverde Junction, Tracking #34-00-PUD
CUP#00/8/5-2, John Silcox, #64-00-CUP
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/INDIGENTS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, was present to discuss the request for renewal of an Agreement with Jodi Anderson. Mr. Minkoff stated that the County is required to provide counsel when an involuntary guardian is appointed for people who cannot handle their own affairs.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request to renew the Agreement between Lake County and Jodi Anderson relating to Legal Representation of Indigents in Adjudication of Incompetency Cases.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER GERBER - DISTRICT #1
RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place on the agenda a request for a Resolution in support of the Toys for Tots for the VFW.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2000-180 in support of the Toys for Tots.
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 Resolution 2000-181, "Life of Johnny Treadwell".
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2000-182 for Pornography Awareness Week October 29 - November 5, 2000.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN - DISTRICT #5
RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2000-183 proclaiming November as Epilepsy Awareness Month in Lake County.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR/BOARDMIN/10-24-00/11-9-00