A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

APRIL 24, 2001

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Robert A. Pool, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney/Acting County Manager; Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

AGENDA UPDATE

It was noted that there were no changes to the agenda for today.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 1 through 4, the County Manager's Consent Agenda, as follows:

Communications Systems/Resolutions



Request for approval of Resolution 2001-81 setting the annual Wired Line E9-1-1 Fee at $0.50 pursuant to requirement of Florida Statute 365.171.



Community Services/Grants



Request for approval for the Board of County Commissioners to serve as the coordinator for local governments in Lake County in the Byrne State & Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant application process, signature on the "Certificate of Participation" document and for the designation of Robbie Hollenbeck to coordinate the local application process.



Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Growth Management



Request for approval of Special Masters Settlement Agreement for Richard T. Durkee.



Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Growth Management



Request for approval of Special Masters Settlement Agreement for Shamrock Homes.



PUBIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATION

PETITION NO. 951 - PAULA REYNOSO - YALAHA AREA - DISTRICT 3

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Petition Number 951, by Paula Reynoso, to vacate a road located in the Yalaha area. Mr. Stivender reviewed an aerial showing the location of the road and stated that there are several old plats of this area, and right-of-way and surveying have been issues in this area for years. He stated that there are several Unity of Titles that go along with this road closing that will take care of these issues, and staff is recommending approval of the vacation. Mr. Stivender stated that there are no drainage or road issues interfering with this request.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not present, and there was no opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 951, by Paula Reynoso, to vacate a road located in S15, T20, R25 in the Yalaha Area - Commission District 3, Resolution 2001-82.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATION

PETITION NO. 957 - CRAIG BISHOP - CLERMONT AREA - DISTRICT 2

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Petition Number 957, by Craig Bishop, to vacate an easement located in the Montclair, Phase I Plat in the Clermont area. Mr. Stivender stated that the Board approved a similar situation adjacent to this one, where there is a large easement in the back of these lots. He explained that the house is encroaching in the easement, and staff is recommending approval of the vacation.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and there was no 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. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 957 by Craig Bishop to vacate an easement located in S2, T23, R25 recorded in the Montclair, Phase I Plat in the Clermont area - Commission District 2, Resolution 2001-83.

PUBIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATION

PETITION NO. 958 - KENNETH E. BOSSERMAN -

CLERMONT AREA - DISTRICT 2

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Petition Number 958, by Kenneth E. Bosserman, to vacate portions of right-of-way, lots and tracts in the Clermont area. Mr. Stivender reviewed an aerial of the property, which showed Highway 50 to the north, and the school site that is being excavated at this time, and noted that Paloma is a County maintained road. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the vacation.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not present, and there was no 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. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 958 by Kenneth E. Bosserman to vacate portions of right of way, lots and tracts in S28, T22S, R26E recorded in the Lake Highlands Company Plat in the Clermont area - Commission District 2, Resolution 2001-84.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board does not normally have citizen question and comment period on zoning days, but if the Board would allow her, she would like to have Mr. Roy Hunter and Mr. George Hovis approach the Board to make a brief statement on the Shoreline Ordinance. She noted that Mr. Hunter will be out of town the first of May, so he had asked to speak to the Board today.

Mr. Roy Hunter addressed the Board and stated that he and Mr. Hovis have been on opposing views for a shoreline ordinance, but they have reached an agreement, and at this time, they believe it would be most effective if the Board passed a shoreline ordinance that is the mirror image of the State Ordinance Mr. Hunter stated that he hoped that one of the Commissioners would make a motion to put this item on the agenda, and that the Board would pass it now, because it will take time for it to get to Tallahassee. He noted that there is someone in Tallahassee right now trying to get amendments to it, and they feel that this should be approved before those amendments are done.

Mr. George Hovis extended his appreciation to the Board for allowing them to appear today.

Commr. Hanson stated that she was not sure that the County could have an ordinance that could go into effect "when and if", because it would be an ordinance on the books and be in effect.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Acting County Manager, stated that a couple of months ago, the Board had asked staff to draft an ordinance, and one has been drafted, and there is an agenda item coming to the Board for approval to advertise the ordinance, to be heard at one of the next Board meetings.

Mr. Hunter stated that they were trying to get a mirror image of the State Ordinance, so that there will be no direct expense to Lake County government, as long as the State Ordinance is in effect the way that it is now.

Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated the comments made by Mr. Hunter, and the Board has received his recommendations, and she feels that it is appropriate to take those comments into consideration on the day that the Board comes back with the County proposed ordinance.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONINGS

CASE NO. PH#22-01-3 - COX HOLDING CORP. (HARLOW MIDDLETON)

A TO CFD - TRACKING #33-01-Z



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, informed the Board that staff has received one request for a change to today's agenda. Ms. Farrell stated that the request is for Tab 5, Cox Holding Corporation, PH#22-01-3, and Mr. Harlow Middleton, Attorney, is here today requesting a continuance of 60 days.

Commr. Hanson asked if anyone was in opposition to a continuance for 60 days.

Mr. Scott Morales addressed the Board and stated that he would like to request that the case be postponed 90 days, in lieu of 60 days, because it will be necessary for him to be out of town on business, and he would be unable to attend the meeting.

Commr. Stivender stated that she talked to Mr. Middleton yesterday, and he stated that 90 days would be fine for the continuance.

Mr. Morales requested that he also have access to the results of the study a couple weeks before the hearing.

Mr. Harlow Middleton, Attorney representing Cox Holding Corporation, addressed the Board and stated that he did not have any objection to the 90 day postponement and allowing Mr. Morales to see the study, which will be public information for everyone.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 90 day postponement, as requested by the applicant, for Case No. PH#22-01-3, Cox Holding Corporation of Lake County, Harlow C. Middleton, Tracking #33-01-Z.

CASE LPA#01/4/1-2 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - DOUGLAS S. DOUDNEY, DOUDNEY INVESTMENT CO., SCOTT D. & PAMELA F. GREENWOOD, BEN J. SCHROEDER



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, informed the Board that staff has received a change to Tab 9, Comprehensive Plan Amendment LPA #01/4/1-2, Doudney Investment Company and stated that Ms. Cecelia Bonifay is here today to request a 60 day continuance.

Commr. Pool stated that he spoke to the City of Clermont this morning about this issue, and they will have this issue before them, at a retreat, the first of June. In talking to Mr. Wayne Saunders and Mr. Barry Brown with the City, they asked if a 90 postponement would be possible. Commr. Pool was asking that the Board postpone the request for 90 days in lieu of 60 days, as a date certain.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt, P.A., stated that the problem is that the County only has two Comprehensive Plan amendments in the cycle, and in talking with staff, they do not think that, even if they have 60 days, they could submit it late to DCA, and it could still stay on the same adoption date, however, if they try to go 90 days, she does not think that will work, because it will put it in the next cycle, which means it will not be coming back to the Board until September, for adoption in December.

Commr. Pool stated that the City will be meeting the first of June, and they cannot take official action that day, and they need to have a meeting scheduled and advertised, so that is why they were looking for 90 days. He stated that 60 could conceivably work, but 90 days would be perfect, and he questioned whether there was a window between those days that could help Ms. Bonifay get to an advertised meeting.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the request was set for a date certain for one of the Board meetings other than the fourth Tuesday, since it is not a rezoning, but a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it would probably work, because it would put it on one of the July agendas, which might work with DCA.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Acting County Manager, stated that he has not had a chance to talk to Commr. Hanson about this yet, but staff is going to be recommending that the Board meet only twice in the month of July, on the 10th and the 24th, because the first Tuesday is right before the holiday, and the last Tuesday is the same date as the NACo meeting.

Ms. Bonifay felt that July 24, 2001 would be okay, but she feels that the problem is going to be with DCA, and maybe they could talk to the DCA, because the Battalias do not want to be held up while they are considering this issue. She stated that, with the DCA's new approach to Comprehensive Plan Amendments, perhaps they would not have any problem in giving them a little expedited review in keeping with the same group.

Commr. Cadwell asked Ms. Farrell to contact the DCA and tell them what kind of time frame the Board is on and make sure that they are in agreement.

Commr. Pool stated that, if they can schedule it for the 10th of July, if the 24th does not work, it would be find with him.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to table LPA #01/4/1-2, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Douglas S. Doudney, Doudney Investment Co., Scott D. & Pamela F. Greenwood, Ben J. Schroeder, until July 24, 2001, if possible.

CASE NO. PH#20-01-3 - BILL ARROWSMITH - PETER M. PENDERGAST

THE PENDERGAST GROUP - R-M TO R-7 - TRACKING #31-01-Z



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is requesting rezoning from R-M (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential district) to provide the flexibility for a single family, or a mobile in this particular park. Ms. Farrell stated that it is on Lake Dora, staff is recommending approval of the request, and there is no opposition.

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

Commr. Stivender disclosed that she talked to Ms. Dottie Keedy, City Manager, City of Tavares, since this request is in their area and their utility, and she had no problems with it.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case No. PH#20-01-3, Bill Arrowsmith, Peter M. Pendergast/The Pendergast Group, a request for rezoning from R-M (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential district), Tracking #31-01-Z, Ordinance 2001-66.

CASE NO. PH#18-01-4 - MARY ODOM - R-1 TO A - TRACKING #29-01-Z

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is requesting rezoning from R-1 (rural Residential) to A (agriculture district). She stated that staff is recommending approval for this down zoning, and the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not present, and there was no opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson noted that the request was in District 4, and she had no objection.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, 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 Case No. PH#18-01-4, Mary Odom, R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agriculture district) to allow for those uses permitted in the Agricultural zoning district, Tracking #29-01-Z, Ordinance 2001-67.

CASE NO. CUP#01/4/1-2 - MARY P. & RICHARD K. LEISNER

SANDBAR HORSE FARM - CUP IN A - TRACKING #35-01-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is requesting a CUP in A (Agriculture), in a very rural area of the Green Swamp, on 40 acres, for the Sandbar Horse Farm. Ms. Farrell stated that the ordinance in the backup provides the terms of the land use, there is no opposition, and staff was recommending approval of the request. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the request.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and there was no 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. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved CUP#01/4/1-2, Mary P. & Richard K. Leisner, Sandbar Horse Farm, CUP in A (Agriculture) for a horse farm to allow for boarding, breeding, training and riding facility and those uses permitted in Agriculture zoning, Tracking #35-01-CUP, Ordinance 2001-68.

CASE NO. CUP#01/4/4-3 - SPRINT PCS/JEFF YOUNG

SELWAY FARMS, INC. - CUP IN A - TRACKING #38-01-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that a representative was present from Sprint PCS today. Ms. Farrell explained that this request involves a 175 foot monopole tower in the Yalaha area, and staff is recommending approval of the request. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that staff waive the landscape requirement, and that the setbacks for the existing homes be recognized. She stated that there is an existing CUP on the property, and it will not be altered with this particular Ordinance.

Commr. Cadwell noted that, whenever a request like this is being made on a piece of property that is larger than five or six acres, the Planning and Zoning Commission is asking for the waiver every time. He stated that there is always the question of what is going to happen with the property, after the fact, with the surrounding property, which concerns him.

Ms. Farrell explained that the first position that staff takes is always to discourage a waiver of landscaping requirements, even if they just get the trees, but staff is comfortable with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation.

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

Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Case No. CUP#01/4/4-3, Sprint PCS/Jeff Young, Selway Farms, Inc., for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of 175 foot monopole tower, with equipment shelter and ancillary facilities, Tracking #38-01-CUP, Ordinance 2001-69, with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as follows: without any landscaping requirement, and with the setback exception for the existing mobile homes only.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell discussed the location of the tower, and it was clarified by staff that it will be in the center of the property. He stated that he was concerned about the landscape requirement, but with the understanding that it will not be located on the edge of the property, he will support the request.

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

CASE PH#21-01-5 - WEDGEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - AMEND PUD ORD. - TRACKING #32-01-PUD/AMD

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that this was a request from Wedgewood Homeowners Association and stated that they have a one-half acre parcel that fronts County Road 448 where they want to construct an office for the Association, and the utility service provider. Staff is recommending approval and there was one letter of opposition in the backup. The Ordinance will limit it to a 1,440 square foot office building, and the use just for the public, or community facility use. She noted that this was the area that was originally set up as overflow parking for the golf course, but was never used.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the Homeowners' Association, stated that he would like to address the letter of opposition. Mr. Richey stated that the individual had expressed concern that this issue had not been authorized appropriately, and it was authorized appropriately through the Homeowners' Association more than eight years ago. He explained that the Association has been saving money, to build an office for its utility, and its Association. He explained that the Board met again and reaffirmed the fact they wanted to proceed to do this and is prepared to abide by the conditions of the Ordinance, as proposed by staff.

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. Cadwell, 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 Case PH#21-01-5, Wedgewood Homeowners Association, Inc., Steven J. Richey, P.A., a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance #110-89 to utilize Tract "B" within the development for construction of an office building for the homeowners' association and utility system provider, Tracking #32-01-PUD/AMD, Ordinance 2001-70.

CASE NO. PH#15-01-2 - RV TO CP - STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.

FRANCISCO ALONSO AND ARMANDO ALONSO, TRUSTEES



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that this was a piece of property that the Board rezoned from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to RV (Recreational Vehicle Park District) in 1998, and the applicants are back today to rezone the property back to C-1 and C-2 for some commercial residential uses in the urban land use. The property is located near the US 27 and SR 19 intersection. Ms. Farrell explained that the Ordinance in the backup provides for all of the uses agreed upon by both staff and the applicant, with one exception. Staff has left out RV sales and service, which was negotiated at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the request for the noted uses, and there was no opposition.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and explained that the property in question is located next to one of the largest RV sales and service centers in Central Florida, and this will allow the applicants to have an opportunity to expand and utilize the land next to it, in addition to providing some services that are available to about 2,000 residential people that live in the RVs during the year. Mr. Richey noted that the County's fire department shows that approximately half of those people live there year round, and they are paying the full assessment on fire. He stated that they will be providing them with some commercial amenities, in addition to expanding the RV sales and service. Mr. Richey explained the location of the current access to the RV sales and stated that the Ordinance limits their access to the two existing curve cuts that are there and provides that, through site plan review, they will do frontage roads and other access, and as a specific condition of the CP zoning, they have provided for the access management, as part of what they are proposing to do, not what the County extracted from them. In addition, they have added some conditions that provide that, in site plan review, they will use interconnects to the residential community behind them, to allow those folks to be able to access whatever develops there commercially without having to go out on US 27. In addition to that, they will need buffer requirements for whatever particular use is put there. Mr. Richey stated that they met with the Clerbrook folks that surround them on two sides, and they do not oppose what they are proposing to do. Mr. Richey noted that the request does allow the applicants to have sales and service. He also noted that the utility service has a facility in the area to provide central water and sewer, which also provides the County's industrial park with central water and sewer. So with the exception of maybe expanding the current service facility, the rest of the commercial would be on central water and sewer, as part of the overall site plan for the CP.

Commr. Hill stated that she wanted to disclaim, for the record, that she did speak to Mr. Richey about this case on April 4, 2001, and he related the merits of his case. She questioned whether the request would include Mr. Richey's amended list of proposed uses, and his list of conditions.

Mr. Richey responded that the request would include both lists.

Commr. Stivender disclosed that she talked to Mr. Richey on Friday about the same issues.

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. Hanson clarified that staff was recommending denial of the request, if it included all uses, but staff was recommending approval of the request, with the applicant's list of proposed uses, as modified.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case No. PH#15-01-2, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Francisco Alonso and Armando Alonso, Trustees, a request for rezoning from RV (Recreational Vehicle Park District), Ordinance #1998-94) to CP (Planned Commercial District) with limited C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial District) uses, which included the amended list of proposed uses and conditions, as listed in the backup, Tracking #23-01-CP, Ordinance 2001-71.

CASE NO. CUP#01/4/2-5 - WINSTON BRASWELL - CUP IN A

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that the applicant has a little over five acres on CR 452 and Emeralda Island Drive. He is requesting a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) to allow stockpiling of materials, to include clay, gravel, and miscellaneous equipment. Ms. Farrell stated that, unfortunately, this came to staff through a Code Enforcement case. She explained that the applicant has an ongoing business, and since stockpiling is considered as mining in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), staff had some concerns about this particular use, in this particular area. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the request, and she noted that there is some mechanical equipment involved and, even though the area is rural, it is residential in nature. There are some visual and traffic impacts on the site, and in the backup, there is one letter of opposition. Ms. Farrell presented the following pictures, which helped explain why they received the complaints: Emeralda Island Rd Looking North; Corner of Emeralda Island Rd & North EM & EL Rd Looking Northeast; and Emeralda Island Rd Looking Northwest. Ms. Farrell stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request 7 to 1, but with conditions, as follows: the applicant would be allowed to continue his operation for only five years; at the end of the five years, everything will be returned back to its original condition; and staff would work with him on resolution. She noted that it would be a little difficult to work with him on the resolution without adopting some minimum landscaping and buffering, and site plan reviews. Ms. Farrell stated that staff is recommending denial of the request, and in the backup is an ordinance, if the Board approves the request. She stated that there were no obvious environmental concerns with this particular use.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and there was no opposition to the request.

Mr. Winston Braswell, applicant, addressed the Board and indicated that he would be able to accomplish his needs in five years.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Braswell was aware of the conditions in the proposed Ordinance, if the Board chose to approve the request.

Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant was aware that there would be some buffering involved, but she did not know if he had the actual costs for the buffering and screening of what would basically be visible from the street. She noted that there would also be an annual inspection.

Mr. Braswell stated that he understood that there would be an annual inspection on the property, but staff has ruled out the buffering, because it would take too long for something to grow that big, and if you buy something big enough, it would be too expensive. He noted that, if the pecan trees ever grew up enough, they could be a buffer.

Ms. Farrell stated that she would take out all requirements for shrubs, and there is some language in the Landscaping Code that allows staff to work with an applicant, even though they would be using the Type D, or Type C, and have him plant what would serve the neighborhood best, and they could also take out any reference to a double row of shrubs.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, under C. on Page 2, Buffering/Screening, where it calls for Type D, he would like to know if the Board could change the wording to say that buffering and screening will be required and a site specific plan worked out between staff and the applicant.

Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, explained that it would allow discretion and it could cause problems in the future, so she would suggest that there be some type of specific requirements in the Ordinance.

Ms. Farrell explained that staff can basically take out Type D along the site's western property, and the buffer shall be 30 feet in width, and then staff can take out a double row of shrubs, and perhaps do either walls or fences with the trees. She stated that staff will develop the appropriate language, before the Chairman signs the Ordinance.

Commr. Hill stated that she did a drive by site visit, and she does not know when the photos were taken, but it seemed like he had a lot of that cleaned up, but she does not believe that a bush is going to hide it. She stated that she does not see putting in 16 canopy and three ornamentals, because he would have to irrigate, which would just about negate the cost of his property, unless staff can work with some language here, she does not see any buffering needed that is not going to make any difference in the five years that he is going to have left for his occupation.

Mr. Braswell noted that earlier he had only received one complaint, and now he has received another letter from that same individual.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board needs to be real sensitive to the neighbors, because there are some concerns, and it could get worse. She noted that pine trees do not take much water and they grow tall, and they will be there beyond the five years, and at least it would be an effort, but staff can work with the applicant on this issue

Commr. Cadwell stated that the shrubbery and the trees will be an investment to the property.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, 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 Case No. CUP#01/4/2-5, Winston Braswell, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) to allow stockpiling of materials (clay, gravel, equipment, etc.), Tracking #36-01-CUP, Ordinance 2001-72, with the change in the buffering language.

LPA#01/4/2-2 - CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE, AKERMAN, SENTERFITT, P.A.

BATTAGLIA FRUIT CO., INC., GENERAL PARTNER - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that this is a transmittal hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ms. Farrell stated that this particular 30 acre parcel is in the urban expansion area, and the request is to go from Urban Expansion to Urban, and staff is recommending approval of the request. She noted that this is a consistent request with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with what is happening with that area. Ms. Farrell stated that there are water and sewer provisions, there is no opposition, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request.

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

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt, P.A., addressed the Board and reviewed a map of the area showing the Battaglia property and the entire corridor, which reflected everything that has developed around it. Ms. Bonifay explained that the applicant was requesting a change from Urban Expansion to Urban with the idea that there may be a mix there of multi-family and/or commercial uses. She explained that there is already multi-family in the area along with conventional single family. Ms. Bonifay stated that the Battaglias participated with the developers of Eagleridge where Eagle Drive goes through their property. They have also entered into a utility agreement with the provider there, and they have also done the stub-outs and have all of the necessary infrastructure in place. She noted that it also meets all of the other concurrency requirements, and they had a unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Bonifay stated that, for those reasons, they would ask that the Board move the staff recommendation and transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as an infill project in the area.

Commr. Pool questioned whether this entailed some type of affordable housing.

Ms. Bonifay explained that, even though the surrounding use is urban expansion, it is actually developed at urban density, so what you have is something in excess of four units per acre, maybe five, six or seven units per acre, so as staff has indicated in its staff report (Page 3) when they apply the density point rating system, they can actually get to a standard that is similar to what is surrounding it, or if they did affordable housing, they would get additional bonus points. She stated that, at this point, the Battaglias have not teamed up with an affordable housing developer for that area. Ms. Bonifay explained that this parcel has now been totally surrounded by high density development.

There being no opposition to the request, and no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson stated that the request is consistent and it is certainly infill and is an enclave that has been created.

Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve LPA#01/4/2-2, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Akerman, Senterfitt, P.A, Battaglia Fruit Co., Inc., General Partner.

Under discussion, Commr. Stivender disclosed that she talked to Ms. Bonifay yesterday about this case.

Commr. Hill disclosed that she also talked to Ms. Bonifay yesterday about this case.

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

CASE NO. PH#24-01-5 - MARK D. COOK & FRANCES F. COOK - R-1 TO CFD

TRACKING #34-01-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that this is a request for rezoning on a 10.5 acre parcel of property. The land use is suburban, and the request is to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for a residential group home. Ms. Farrell explained that there is an existing home on this ten acre parcel that they propose to use to provide family shelter and counseling, with no more than 14 individuals being permitted on site. She stated that the staff report presents the position of staff, as far as recommending approval of the request. They found it to be consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and a compatible use of the property. Staff reviewed it as residential in nature, in a rural residential area, and in the backup, there are letters of support and letters of opposition. There was a lot of discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, with the final recommendation being made for approval, by a 7 to 1 vote.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was sure that everyone got copies of the letters of opposition, and today his office was hand delivered a copy of a letter from The Haven along with letters in support.

Commr. Hanson noted that all of the Commissioners received a copy of a letter from Mr. David L. MacKay, Attorney, requesting that this case not be heard before 1 p.m. She noted that Mr. MacKay is the attorney representing those in opposition.

It was noted that the public hearing was advertised for 9 a.m., or soon thereafter, and it was the feeling of the Board that it should move forward on hearing this case, at this time.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney with Potter, Clement, Lowery & Duncan, Mount Dora, addressed the Board and stated that he was representing The Haven of Lake & Sumter Counties, Inc., and their request for a rezoning to a CFD, to allow for a domestic abuse shelter. Mr. Duncan stated that they had submitted, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a petition that had a little over 700 signatures. He stated that he would now like to submit to the Board a petition that has well over 1,000 signatures in support of this project. At this time, the petitions were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Duncan stated that he was just told that there is an additional almost 100 petitions at his office that he was not able to bring back here with him this morning. He stated that those who signed the petitions are primarily residents of Lake County, and they filed the petitions to make a point that there are a number of residents that live in this County that recognize the need for this type of shelter in Lake County. He stated that clearly they are sympathetic with the neighbors that have concerns, and he feels that those concerns will be adequately addressed today. At this time, Mr. Duncan submitted a letter from Ms. Allison Thall, who is with the Central Florida Health Care Development Foundation, Inc., which confirms that the application submitted by Haven of Lake & Sumter Counties had been approved for funding, in the amount of $400,000.00. The letter was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit A-2.

Mr. Duncan stated that he had a letter of support from William O. "Bill" Farmer, Jr., Sheriff of Sumter County, and noted that he had requested a second letter from him, in response to some concerns that the residents had about safety, which is in staff's file. Mr. Duncan stated that there is currently a domestic violence emergency shelter in Sumter County, Florida, and the letter from Sheriff Farmer dated April 16, 2001 states the following:

"The existence of Haven's Emergency Shelter has created no safety issues for adjacent neighbors and no incidents of injury of Law Enforcement officers, domestic violence residents or shelter staff at their site.

At the inception of the shelter program there was some initial apprehension from prospective neighbors, but the many shelter safety features including police protections, soon abated any real or imagined fears."



Mr. Duncan stated that he also had letters from the following in support of the rezoning for the program: George E. Knupp, Jr, Sheriff of Lake County; Randall A. Story, Chief of Police, City of Clermont; H. Charles Idell, Jr., Chief of Police, City of Leesburg; and Ed Nathanson, Chief of Police, Lady Lake.

Mr. Duncan stated that the letter from Tiffany Carr, Executive Director, Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, states the following:

"As you may be aware, there are many shelters in very rural communities throughout the state. At no point in those communities has there been an issue of safety for community members. The domestic violence centers are experts in developing security measures at shelters to ensure the safety of those individuals within shelter and those that are in the proximity."



At this time, Mr. Duncan submitted the letters in support, which were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit A-3 (composite - 6 letters).

Mr. Duncan explained that the shelter will be utilized to house victims of domestic violence and their children. There will be no additional construction at the shelter, but there will be some renovation to one of the structures, as noted in the photographs that he presented, which were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit A-4 (composite - 7 photographs).

Mr. Duncan discussed some of the concerns, which dealt specifically with the sale of the property and the change of use. He stated that he has no objection to the Community Facilities District (CFD) Ordinance that has been drafted by staff, which specifically states that any change in use would require a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Duncan stated that there is a lot of support for the program itself from the opposition, but they do not want it next to them, or "in their backyard". He stated that it has to be somewhere, and that is indicative by the support that it has received from the community, and from the law enforcement officials in the area. He stated that they are sympathetic to their concerns, but the location that has been chosen meets their needs, as well as the need for the County. Mr. Duncan stated that this location is obscure and difficult to find. He pointed out that the State Legislature has passed laws to protect the disclosure of these facilities, and he noted that Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, specifically says that they are exempt from the public records law. He also addressed the concern of property value diminution and stated that they submitted a report to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is part of the record, that was conducted specifically dealing with group homes, and the effects that those homes have on surrounding property values. He stated that it resulted in a finding that there was no impact on surrounding property values. Mr. Duncan stated that the primary concern is safety, and he had suggested that these folks begin meeting with their neighbors, and about half of the adjacent neighbors did not have any opposition to it, but the other half did and many of those folks are here today. Mr. Duncan stated that the publication that this project has received has caused them discomfort with the fact that there is a lot of information out there that they had hoped would not be released. Mr. Duncan wanted to make it clear that there have been successful civil cases against individuals that publish the location of these shelters, as provided by the Florida Statutes, and they are going to take every measure available to ensure that the location of this shelter is protected, and if there are attempts to disclose the location of this shelter, they will be dealt with pursuant to the law. Mr. Duncan noted that Ms. Ruth Harvey Gilligan, Executive Director of The Haven, is present and will answer any questions of the Board. He further noted that there are others present who are in support of this project, and he will not have them testify, unless the Board desires. At this time, Mr. Duncan reserved his right to rebut at the conclusion of the opposition.

At this time, the Chairman called for remarks by the opposition. The record noted that eleven individuals addressed the Board and stressed that no one is opposed to the service provided by The Haven of Lake & Sumter Counties, Inc.

A resident addressed the Board and explained that the residents were opposed to a change of zoning in the rural residential neighborhood and felt that a CFD would be inconsistent with the initial Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The resident explained that they were concerned that, in the event that the property is sold, the zoning would go with the property, and once commercial zoning is allowed in rural residential neighborhoods, the residents felt that the Board will be opening the door for other commercial uses. The residents felt that the proposed facility needed to be located in an urban area, not suburban area, where the staff can better serve their patients by being close to police protection, fire protection, medical facilities, shopping, and in a location where there were no immediate rural neighbors. They wanted the Board to know that Ms. Lynette Barba, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of The Haven, informed them that it was their intention to place 40 patients in the proposed facility, even though the current application is for seven to 14 persons, and that the residents wanted the Board to know that they were aware that the proposed facility can amend the number by applying to the County office. The residents were also concerned with the number of additional cars, vendors, and visitors, which could add about 100 or more cars a day on the road. In addition, there will be ambulances and police cars arriving all hours of the day and night. They also raised safety issues, even though the proposed facility offers fencing, surveillance cameras, and security alarms. The resident speaking at this time submitted two photographs to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked as Exhibit O-1, which reflected the location of the site, in relation to the neighboring property line, and stated that, in regard to the property value issue, even though Mr. Duncan had presented documentation on group homes for the mentally impaired, there were no comparisons to domestic violence centers, in relation to property values. The resident noted that, through a conversation, before the hearing, some individuals had indicated that they were considering purchasing something in this area, but they will not buy anything, if the Board approved this request. At this time, the resident speaking submitted the following to the Clerk, an Agent Detail Report - Residential Property, which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-2. The resident stressed that the proposed zoning change and facility absolutely affects the value of the adjacent and nearby property owners, and for the amount of money involved, The Haven could purchase three or four shelters in strategic locations throughout the County. The resident would be more than happy to help the facility find more suitable alternate locations.

Another resident addressed the Board and wanted to go on record as saying that none of the residents in opposition to the request have harassed The Haven in any way. The resident stressed that this is a rural area, and the majority of the homes noted on the aerial indicate their displeasure with the proposed rezoning. At this time, the following items were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked, as follows: 38 additional petitions in opposition to the rezoning - Exhibit O-3; and an aerial - Exhibit O-4.

A resident addressed the Board to explain that, if some of the residents had known about the rezoning, they would not have built their homes in this area. The resident explained that the proposed facility has no access to municipal water or sewage hookup. The resident was advised that the present well and septic system would not be adequate and would have to be replaced for an estimated cost of $23,000 (sewage) and $20,000 (water). The resident explained that there are no fire hydrants in the area, and a pumper truck would have to be brought in, but there was doubt that the truck could make the turn onto the nine foot driveway.

Another resident addressed the Board to stress the concern she had with the location of the site, in relation to her child's bedroom, which was only about 80 feet away, and she noted that her porch would only be about 330 feet away from one of the proposed property structures, and the backyard would be even closer. The resident discussed the electronic cameras, the 24 hour staff, and the privacy fence, and stated that these things would be used as security for the facility, not for the residents. The resident was concerned that her wooded property was being used as a buffer, and she asked that the Board consider the health, safety and welfare of the present property owners. At this time, the resident read into the record a letter from another resident urging the Board to stop this and all future attempts to commercialize this area. The letter was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-5. She also reviewed photographs depicting the location of her home, in relation to the proposed site, which were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-6.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

CASE NO. PH#24-01-5 - MARK D. COOK & FRANCES F. COOK - R-1 TO CFD

TRACKING #34-01-CFD (CONTINUED)



A resident addressed the Board in opposition to the request for rezoning and presented a diagram of the property, in relation to specific roads, and stated that, because of the width of the concrete road, and the size of the easement, he did not feel that an emergency vehicle could effectively enter this area without having problems. The resident explained that he was concerned about the safety for his family, because of the wooded area and the narrow roads, and because no one can tell him who has the jurisdiction to provide protection to the residents. He was also concerned that the facility may not be brought up to the current codes. The diagram was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-7.

A resident addressed the Board and expressed his concern about the location of the site, in relation to his home, and he questioned whether he and his neighbors would be allowed to change their rural residential to commercial zoning, to build out their properties financially, if the request passes.

Commr. Hanson clarified that this was not a request for commercial zoning, and it is not a commercial use, and therefore, the answer to the resident's question would be no.

The resident questioned why the facility needs all of the amenities that the site has today and stated that he could only think that they would be used for future development of this piece of property.

Another resident addressed the Board and explained that no one would want this type of facility next to their home, and she found another alternative place that was better and cheaper for The Haven. She also wanted the Board to know that spot zoning is illegal in Florida, and even though this was not commercial, it was still considered as spot zoning.

Another resident addressed the Board and expressed his concern for the rezoning and stated that he has lived in his house since 1972, and he was afraid that, if the Board passes this request, it will open up the area to more rezoning, and then the serenity and rural atmosphere will be a thing of the past. He wanted to go on record as saying that he was not against The Haven, but he was against the zoning.

A resident addressed the Board and expressed her concern about the location of The Haven and stated that, if they are going to have a surveillance system and privacy fence, she assumed that they are expecting trouble. She was concerned about her family, and even though she was not against The Haven, she felt that there may be another location that would be better suited for the facility. She stated that her main concern was the access in and out of the property, the narrow road, and the possibility of someone being able to get to the victims of abuse.

Two other residents addressed the Board and reiterated concerns regarding the narrow road, the traffic, and their desire to keep the area rural.

Mr. David MacKay, Attorney from Ocala representing those in opposition to the request, addressed the Board and stated that this particular request would be inconsistent and inappropriate for this low density area. Mr. MacKay stated that he had spoken with staff yesterday and discussed some of their concerns. At this time, he discussed several photographs of the neighborhood, which showed the location of the homes, in relation to the site in question. The photographs were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-8 (4 photos -composite). Mr. MacKay stated that, when he met with staff yesterday, they reviewed the application, and there was no site plan. They did include a floor plan of the house, but they did not show where they were planning on putting 14 people, or the other improvements that they intend to make on the property. They discussed the issues of the intensity of the use, and noted that there were some concerns with the language regarding the number of residents, because presumably they would have staff people. He explained that there was the issue of people coming and going from the property, because there was a 660 foot driveway, which was 15 feet wide, and this would be the access used by all emergency services and individuals. Mr. MacKay stated that the site is clearly visible from the structures around it. The Comprehensive Plan seems to indicate that it would prefer that a CFD be placed in an urban area, unless there are other extenuating circumstances, such as a need specifically related to a location, in a different category. He stated that this is not an urban area, but it is suburban area that is zoned for low density residential. He further stated that this particular facility would be much more suitable in a more intense area, in an urban area, or perhaps even in a commercial area, where services could be readily available, with very easy ingress and egress. He noted that, in the floor plan, they showed four offices in a separate office building, and there is no restriction against them bringing other people to the site for services. Mr. MacKay stated that essentially the Board is creating a commercial enterprise in a very low density residential area. The CFD takes into account a broad range of potential uses, and a residential group home has a specific definition, under the Florida Statutes, and it does not fall within that definition, or the statutory requirement. He stated that, other than the restrictions that the Board places on the property, they could come back, in the future , and ask for an increase in the number of residents. He referred to the comments made to the residents by Ms. Barba, in terms of 40 residents, and stated that they have now filed a formal request for a limit of 14 individuals, but clearly their intention is to maximize the use of this facility, and at some point in the future, this is going to come back. He stated that, under Objective 1.1, planning for residential quality and neighborhood cohesiveness, under 1-1.3, it provides that, when they are located in residential areas, they shall be permitted, so long as they comply with the criteria set out in the plan. It also provides that, when there is adverse impact from different land uses that require buffering or screening, they will provide those and that would not fall on the existing uses. He noted that filing a site plan is a preliminary requirement under the Land Development Regulations ( LDRs), which they did not file, and there is no outline as to how they intend to protect the surrounding land uses. Under Section 1-1.6, under the Land Use Categories, Mr. MacKay pointed out that the suburban is limited to less than three units per acre, and the zoning, in this particular location, allows a maximum of one unit per acre. He stated that they would be putting a multi-family use in a low density one unit per acre residential area. As far as the associated professional services, under the land use category for suburban, professional services may be allowed within that land use, provided they meet locational criteria for a commercial activity center, and they meet all of the other requirements and criteria within the policies of the Plan. Under Section 1-1.6 (d), it states that, as one of the criteria, the County shall maintain the viability of existing residential neighborhoods. The issues of water and sewer are critical and should be addressed during the development phase. Mr. MacKay noted that 14 people cannot be housed in the four bedrooms, because they have already shown on their plan that they intend to take two bedrooms and convert them into office space. He stated that they were concerned about the use of the other ten acres, and further restrictions are needed in the proposed ordinance. He addressed the issue of fire services and police protection and stated that he found out that it would be strictly up to the Sheriff to provide the services, unless this group signs an interlocal agreement with a municipality, which they have not done. Mr. MacKay stated that the road that was discussed only has one way in and one way out, so there would be no discretion as to how to arrive at the facility. He noted that the surrounding land values is a critical issue, because these people have invested a lot in their properties. The density has shown that the rezoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses, and the fact that the maximum capacity is single family residences, on one acre or larger. He cannot find anything that has changed under the circumstances that would require this to be located at this specific location. Mr. MacKay stated that none of the public facilities, as noted, are available in the immediate vicinity, and it has been said that The Haven wanted to move from Sumter County, because there was not a hospital, yet even though they will be closer to a hospital, it is still not suitable access. He stated that the natural environment is extremely rural and extremely low density, and with as many as 40 residents, as being proposed, it will have some adverse impact on the natural environment of that particular property, and probably on the surrounding properties, and the question of whether this is a logical place for the project, they will be increasing the intensity of the uses, because of the anticipated number of people and additional traffic.

Commr. Stivender requested clarification of the location of the easement, and all access points to the property in question, which was provided by Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Duncan noted that there had been some testimony that he felt he needed to rebut, and at this time he called a witness to testify before the Board.

The individual testified that she did have a conversation with someone who addressed the Board in opposition to the request, and she did indicate that she and her husband were looking to buy property in the area. She further testified that in no way would a domestic violence shelter prevent them from purchasing property in that area.

Mr. Duncan clarified that this is not commercial, but a Community Facilities District (CFD), and there are other CFDs and Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) in the area, and the CUPs do allow for commercial practices in this area. He pointed out that the Ordinance restricts what can and cannot be done on this site. Mr. Duncan addressed the comments made by Ms. Barba about 40 individuals being at the site and stated that they will not exceed what is in the Ordinance, the victims are not allowed to have vehicles on site, and no visitors are allowed on site, so the concerns of cars on site are unfounded. A six foot privacy fence will be placed around the entire parcel, as there will be landscaping requirements contained in the Ordinance. He feels they have addressed the property values issue with competent substantial evidence, by the study that was done specifically dealing with group homes, and their impact on surrounding residential properties. In regards to water and sewer, Mr. Duncan clarified that, once the zoning is granted, they will have to submit a site plan and meet all building codes and requirements at that time. Mr. Duncan further clarified that they have been very open with the residents, in terms of what they were proposing to do at the site, and they have met and talked with all of them. He explained that the garbage pickup will continue in the same fashion, and he assured the residents that staff is trained to handle safety concerns. Mr. Duncan stated that the lack of fire service cannot be used to deny this project, because none of the other residents have a fire truck next to them, and this would not be a valid argument. He stated that he would not believe that they would have the letters of support and petition signatures, from the law enforcement officials throughout the County and in Sumter County, if they felt there was a safety concern. He explained that there are security measures provided by law, and stated that, for instance, the transcript of this hearing, any location mentions, or mentions of the facility itself will be redacted out of this principle, because it is protected under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, which specifically exempts locations of domestic criteria from public records requirements. Mr. Duncan stated that he was amazed that some of those in opposition feel that these people are not entitled to the amenities that everyone else has the opportunity to enjoy, simply because they are victims of domestic violence. He noted that no staff will live on the site, and the center that provides the counseling for these victims is located in Leesburg, and there will be no outreach services, or facilities, on this site. It will be a shelter only for victims of abuse. Mr. Duncan stated that the case law is very clear, and testimony that they do not want it in their backyard is not sufficient evidence that this Board can utilize to deny such a request. He stated that they have provided the Board with competent substantial evidence, and staff has gone through the Code and assured them that it is in compliance with the Code. He stated that they have provided the Board with evidence to show that there is no impact, from the purposes of property value or resale ability of the properties located adjacent to the site. They have also provided the Board with support from law enforcement, which is an indication that there is no safety concerns for this particular facility, and they feel they have presented competent substantial evidence upon which the Board can base a decision, to support the request. Mr. Duncan clarified that they will not be any additional structures on the site, and there will only be some renovation to the existing site, and under this Ordinance, they cannot change the rooftop footprint without coming back before the Board. He further stated that there will be a gated entry, security cameras on site, and silent alarms tied into the public safety facilities, and they are concerned about protecting the neighborhood. Mr. Duncan stated that there are some victims present today that are willing to testify, if the Board would like to hear them.

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

Commr. Hanson stated that this is a residential use, although it does have more individuals in the home.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they would hope that they lived in a society where these types of facilities were not needed, but that was certainly not the case. He stated that a CFD is not a commercial district, and it is basically a district created to do these types of things, such as churches and other community facilities. He stated that people going through these personal and horrific times in their lives need a haven, and he believes that a ten acre parcel in a rural setting is a good place for these people.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Case No. PH#24-01-5, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for construction of a residential group home, Tracking #34-01-CFD, Ordinance 2001-74.

Commr. Pool seconded the motion for discussion.

Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that she would like to disclose that she spoke to Mr. Duncan on March 19, 2001, to discuss this case, and he knows that she is very familiar with the mission of The Haven. She did ask him if there was opposition, and there was not, but he was going to the neighborhood, and since that time, the Board has had numerous calls and letters pro and con. Commr. Hill stated that, on April 21, 2001, she spoke to a local Chief of Police, and he said that he did not have jurisdiction of this area, but that he would enter into any type of mutual aid agreement with the Sheriff, if that was deemed necessary. She also talked to Captain Mark Palmer with the Lake County Sheriff's Office on April 21, 2001, and he indicated that the Sheriff supports The Haven's mission, and their endeavors within this community, and that he would work with any and all law enforcement in the area. She stated that staff has recommended approval of the request, and she commended staff, because they looked at a lot of issues, and they did an excellent job. Commr. Hill stated that they must remember that they have a duty to the community. She knows that the safety issue is a major concern, and tragic accidents and events can happen anywhere, but she would not be opposed to having such a facility in her neighborhood. She stated that the facts of this case tells her that, in her opinion, it does not affect the character, and the value, of this community.

Commr. Stivender disclosed that she talked with Mr. Duncan on April 17, 2001, and he explained the project to her. She also talked to several resident who explained that they were not against the facility, or The Haven, but just the location, because they were concerned about the safety of the residents in the community. Commr. Stivender stated that she also has that concern, but she does believe that The Haven will address this concern. She stated that this is a facility that is needed, and there are a couple in other locations, in residential areas, and these are residences for the people.

Commr. Pool disclosed that he had a brief conversation with Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, in the lobby, and she said that she supported the project, and other than that, he had no contact from the other side. He stated that he is sympathetic to the concerns of the residents, but it would not bother him, if he had such a facility in his neighborhood. He stated that, if it became a nuisance in his neighborhood, then he would have a concern. Commr. Pool stated that there is a lot of support from people who are trying to help provide this safe haven. He hoped that the residents would understand that this is not an easy decision, but he feels there is a need in the community, and he will support this effort and this endeavor. He questioned whether, in the event that they should prove to not be the good neighbor that they say they are going to be, there a way to address this issue.

Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that there is Code Enforcement, and also the citizens themselves have nuisance rights, under a civil action.

Commr. Hanson stated that, not only is there a need in Lake County, but it is serving local women and children, and they are their neighbors and part of their community. She stated that she would not be supportive of the application, if it did include additional homes, so she hopes there are no future plans for more homes. She stated that it is consistent and in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, as determined by staff, and she would support the motion.

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

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS



Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Communications Systems Director, addressed the Board to discuss the request to cancel the existing Sprint local service contract. Mr. Thorburn explained the request and noted that he is requesting Board approval to enter into a new five year contract for Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Services in the amount of $3,828.00, and this will be in keeping with one of the goals and objectives of the Board, to utilize technology to its upmost and best. He stated that, after the non-recurring cost of approximately $3,000 to $4,000, which is a deficit of about two months of the recurring savings, the County would end up with 58 months of savings, or about $109,000.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve the request to cancel the existing Sprint local service contract and enter into a new five year contract for Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Services, in the amount of $3,828.00.

Under discussion, Commr. Hill extended her appreciation to Mr. Thorburn for coming before the Board and explaining this request. She stated that he did talk to her yesterday about it, and it thrills her to be able to say that they have a savings and will be more efficient.

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

CASE NO. PH#24-01-5 - MARK D. COOK & FRANCES F. COOK - R-1 TO CFD

TRACKING #34-01-CFD (CONTINUED)



Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, recommended that, on the tape for the public hearing today, staff will make sure that they keep confidential and exempt from public records, in connection with The Haven request, any mention of the location of the request, pursuant to Chapter 39.908, Florida Statutes, confidentiality and exemption from public records. She explained that this will include any maps, surveys, minutes, or other public record.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Acting County Manager, stated that it will be difficult for staff to do this, so with the Board's permission, he would like to have staff cut out that portion of the tape, so that when they air it, staff will air a disclaimer that the Board had another case, but it is not shown, because it is not a public record. He stated that, in addition, staff will take out the maps and the locations contained in all of the materials in the Clerk's possession, as well as the files in the County offices, when they have a request to look at them.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the tape will include the comments and the vote itself, after the disclaimer.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, this could be done, but it will be difficult for staff to do the editing significantly. He noted that they could keep the last ten minutes of the Board discussion to reflect that they had a hearing. He stated that, if this can be done, they will proceed with it in this manner.

Commr. Hill questioned how the Board will handle any live taping of the hearing.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, technically, when an individual placed a map on the dais and gave it to the Board, it became a public record. He noted that staff will contact Ms. Patti Michel, Community Outreach Coordinator, and ask for her assistance in this matter.

MUNICIPALITIES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT/RECREATION

Commr. Pool informed the Board that several lives have been claimed at the hole, which is right off of the shoreline, at the Clermont Waterfront Park, and the City of Clermont, the Lake County Sheriff's Department, and the Water Authority have worked in cooperation and are going to get a permit to fill that hole. He stated that the City Manager would like to know whether, in the event there are extra expenses, since it is not City property, and it is Water Authority and County property, the County might help participate and share in those expenses.

No action was taken on the issue.

TAXES

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she attended a function last night in Seminole County, and they have looked at their sales tax revenues expected for the County. She stated that they were expecting a 7% increase, but instead, they are getting a 3% increase. She noted that they have put a hiring freeze in place. She asked Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Acting County Manager, to talk to Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Director of Fiscal and Administrative Services, to make sure that the County revenues are where they anticipate that they will be.

MISCELLANEOUS

Commr. Hanson noted that all five Commissioners were at the ribbon cutting for Turning Point Ranch.

MEETINGS/FIRE SERVICES

Commr. Cadwell noted that he had a meeting with the Southside Pastoral Alliance, and with Mr. Tom Poole's help through the NAACP, they have reached a plan of action on the Southside Fire Station, and once that is in writing, he will get this to the Board. He appreciated their help in resolving this issue.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:



JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR/BOARDMIN/4-24-01/5-9-01