A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

CDBG Partnership Agreement/Town of Montverde

Request from Community Services for approval and signature authorization on the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 CDBG Partnership Agreement between the Town of Montverde and the County in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00, granting the Town CDBG funds to improve accessibility to the Montverde Community Building, and to direct the Community Services Department to execute the Agreement and oversee completion of the project covered in the Scope of Services.

Apiary Pointe/Developer’s Agreement

Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Apiary Pointe and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Apiary Pointe final plat; accept a Cashier's Check in the amount of $1,650.00; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and MI Homes of Lake County, LLC d/b/a Shamrock Homes.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

LogistiCare/Medicaid HMO

Request from Community Services for approval to negotiate with LogistiCare to provide transportation services for the Medicaid HMO customers.

Gordon and Marilyn Wiser/Offer Settlement

Request from Employee Services for approval of an offer to settle Gordon and Marilyn Wiser’s claim for property damage, subject to the County Attorney’s review and approval.

AGENDA PROCESS

Commr. Hill noted that, because there are some folks here, the Board would like to go a little bit out of order with the agenda.

REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS/RESOLUTION

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the request for approval of a Resolution for issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds by Florida Development Finance Corporation. Mr. Minkoff stated that this bond is being issued for Florida Foods, in the amount of $3.5 million. There is one correction to the agenda item; this Resolution did not go through the Industrial Development Authority (IDA); this was a pooled fund so the IDA is not issuing bonds. Staff did get comments and changes to the Resolution from Mr. Tom Giblin, Nabors, Giblen & Nickerson, their outside bond counsel.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2005-174 for issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds by Florida Development Finance Corporation.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PUBLIC HEARINGS: VACATIONS

PETITION NUMBER 1060 – ROBERT M. AICKEN – UMATILLA AREA - COMMISSION DISTRICT 5

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Department of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1060 and a request for approval and execution of Resolution by Robert M. Aicken, Representative Leslie Campione to vacate a right of way, in the Plat of Dream Lake Poultry Ranches, located in Section 05, Township 18 East, Range 26 South, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5. Mr. Schneider explained that the request is to vacate a stretch of right-of-way along Lake Dream; previous vacations have taken place along the south side; the property owners have also donated 40 feet from the center line right-of-way on CR 452; and staff is recommending approval.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, stated that she is here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Aiken owns the lots adjacent to this right-of-way, and he is requesting vacation because the lots actually go down to the lake; the road is not used; it would not deny public access to any of the lots; all of those lots have access to CR 450; there have been unity of titles filed on two of them; and two of them have gone through the lot line adjustment process and have been joined to the lots that are adjacent to CR 450.

Commr. Cadwell clarified that he had a couple of calls, and he tried to explain the issue to the folks, and Ms. Campione, being the attorney for this case, certainly should clarify this has nothing to do with any road vacation relating to the land that has the sand mine on it.

Ms. Campione clarified that this request is not related to that site, as noted; it just happens to be in the same area.

Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, 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 approved Petition Number 1060 and the execution of Resolution 2005-175 by Robert M. Aicken, Representative Leslie Campione to vacate a right of way, in the Plat of Dream Lake Poultry Ranches, located in Section 05, Township 18 East, Range 26 South, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5.

PETITION NUMBER 1061 – ALI MANJI – REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HALL – GROVELAND AREA - DISTRICT 2

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Department of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1061 and a request for approval and execution of a Resolution by Ali Manji, Representative Donna Hall to vacate an easement, in the Plat of Groveland Farms, located in Section 31, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Groveland area – Commission District 2. Mr. Schneider explained that the petition is to vacate the easement through the center of the property along CR 33. The right-of-way along Mill Stream Drive was 24 feet; this property owner has donated enough right-of-way to create a 50 foot right-of-way along their property frontage next to Mill Stream Drive. Staff received no letters of opposition or support of the request; and staff is recommending approval.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they are always doing vacations in Groveland Farms, and he wanted to know if there has been any discussion about doing an area wide vacation.

Commr. Stivender stated that the Board talked about this idea a few years ago because she vacated a couple of them in this area, and it never went forward so it might be something that staff wants to look at.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that problems exist because it is an extremely large plat and the access rights would be very difficult to do on a blanket type vacation; some of the people rely on the rights-of-way for access to their property and others do not; and it would be difficult to do it all at once.

Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present. 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 1061 and execution of Resolution 2005-176 by Ali Manji, Representative Donna Hall to vacate an easement, in the Plat of Groveland Farms, located in Section 31, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Groveland area – Commission District 2.

PETITION NUMBER 1062 – DENNIS A. MULHOLLAND – FRUITLAND PARK AREA - COMMISSION DISTRICT 1

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Department of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1062 and a request for approval and execution of Resolution by Dennis A. Mulholland, Representative Noelle Phillips to vacate a drainage and utility easement, in the Plat of Picciola Harbors, located in Section 01, Township 19 South, Range 24 East, in the Fruitland Park area – Commission District 1. Mr. Schneider explained that this particular right-of-way easement area is currently passing through a newly constructed home; staff is recommending approval. He reviewed the survey of the property and noted that staff has no letters objecting to the request; and staff is recommending approval.

Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hill noted that the request is in District 1, and she has no objection to it.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1062 and execution of Resolution 2005-177 by Dennis A. Mulholland, Representative Noelle Phillips to vacate a drainage and utility easement, in the Plat of Picciola Harbors, located in Section 01, Township 19 South, Range 24 East, in the Fruitland Park area – Commission District 1.

REZONING

Commr. Stivender disclosed that she has discussed Agenda Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 with the applicant or opposition; Commr. Hanson disclosed that she met with Number 6 and has talked to pros and cons; Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he did not meet with anybody but had phone conversations with folks on Numbers 4 and 6; Commr. Pool disclosed that he met on Agenda Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; Commr. Hill disclosed 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services Division, stated that there is one last minute requested change to the rezoning agenda, for Agenda No. 2, Public Hearing No. PH#54-05-5, Blount & Meyer, LLC, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking #67-05-Z; a verbal request from the applicant’s representative for a 30 day postponement. Staff has no problem with the request and noted that this is the first request for a postponement.

Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for postponement. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for postponement for 30 days, until November 22, 2005, PH#54-05-5, Blount & Meyer Properties, LLC, Owners; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #67-05-Z.

REZONING CASE PH#64-05-2 – JACK AMON, OWNER – LAKE APOPKA SOUND/JUNE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., APPLICANT – A – PUD – TRACKING #82-05-PUD

Ms. Jennifer Debois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#64-05-3, Jack R. Amon, Owner; Lake Apopka Sound/June Engineering Consultants, Inc., Applicant; to rezone from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), Tracking #82-05-PUD. As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicant is seeking to rezone the 61.05 acre subject parcel currently zoned agriculture and designated Urban Expansion on the Future Land Use Map to PUD for the creation of an age restricted single-family residential subdivision. The property is located in the Clermont/Montverde area south of Lake Apopka, north of the Florida Turnpike, and west of the Orange County line. As further noted, a preliminary subdivision plan submitted by the applicant reveals that this is a multi-jurisdictional project; approximately 10.71 acres of the proposed development are located within neighboring Orange County. As the Lake County acreage (61.05 acres) is bounded by Lake Apopka to the north, a substantial non-isolated forested wetland system to the west, and the Florida Turnpike to the south, the Orange County section would provide the sole means of access to the subdivision. The applicant has been informed that paved access approved by both Orange County and Lake County shall be required. The applicant has requested a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre; central sewer service is presently unavailable but Oakland or Montverde may potentially supply potable water; however, they have not participated in formal negotiations with the applicant to date. The lack of municipal sewer service shall necessitate the installation of a package wastewater treatment plant or connection to an existing plant. Once a public sewer system becomes available, connection to that system shall be mandatory. The applicant has submitted an amendment to the original application which states that the development will be an age restricted community; therefore, it would have little if any impact on the severely overcrowded public schools in the area. Prior to development, deeds and covenants shall be recorded to restrict occupancy to individuals 18 years of age or older. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the age restricted community. Ms. Debois explained that, for an age restricted community, they would be required to comply with the requirements of the Florida and Federal Fair Housing Acts. If they seek to change the community from an age restricted development in the future, it would require an amendment of the PUD, therefore, it would have to come back to this Board. She noted that, with the original application, capacity was the issue.

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

Mr. Randy June, June Engineering, stated that he was present on behalf of the applicant and would answer any questions of the Board. Mr. June stated that he has discussed the water issue with Montverde and Oakland noting that Montverde is unable to provide water; they are right next to Oakland, which has water, and they are in discussions with them about providing water in lieu of them having a separate water plant on their site. He explained that Oakland is negotiating with Winter Garden on a large project on the eastern portion of their town to get sewer from Winter Garden; they are on the far west side now. If it does become available, they will get it, but right now it is not available.

Commr. Hanson wanted to know what their intent was on the western side and whether it is low land and, if it is going to be lower density, do they plan to have clustered development through the rest of it and set aside that portion.

Mr. June explained that they have one-half acre lots proposed along that entire stretch of lake frontage and wetland frontage; it is a forested wetland that they are not proposing to impact at all; it will be set aside. The PUD requires 25% of open space, and they are proposing at least 25%; they would like to have a park on the lake site, as proposed in their plan.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like staff to work through that issue and try to develop some kind of activity in that area. It was noted that the applicant will be required to have some additional setbacks because of the Apopka shoreline, as noted on Page 3 of the proposed PUD.

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

Commr. Pool stated that the Lake Apopka Planning Initiative Steering Committee placed many rules and regulations upon Lake Apopka and those that wanted to develop land around it, and the applicant will have to meet all of those. He believes it will benefit the area, and an age restricted community is the only way that the Board at this time can help the applicant.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#64-05-3, Jack R. Amon, Owner; Lake Apopka Sound/June Engineering Consultants, Inc., Applicant; Tracking #82-05-PUD; Ordinance 2005-89; with the restriction that it is age restricted and does not impact the schools, and with all the conditions that are in the PUD including the additional language regarding compliance with the Federal and State Fair Housing Acts.

REZONING CASE PH#90-05-5 – ROBERT F. REARDON, JR. AND VIRGINIA REARDON; CLIFFORD R. AND ETHEL L. MACDONALD, OWNERS – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – A & RA TO R-1 -TRACKING #102-05-Z

Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#90-05-5; Robert F. Reardon, Jr. and Virginia Reardon/Clifford R. and Ethel L. MacDonald, Owners; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #102-05-Z; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) and RA (Ranchette) to R-1 (Rural Residential). As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicants wish to rezone the ten acre parcel presently zoned RA and the 15 acre parcel presently zoned A to R-1, to create a single-family residential subdivision, at a density of one dwelling unit per acre consistent with the four dwelling unit per one acre maximum density of the Urban Expansion land use category, and the maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per acre of the requested R-1 zoning classification. As noted, they are required to have central potable water services; however, the Town of Lady Lake has stated that central utilities are currently unavailable in the area; a community well shall be required to serve the development. The requested density does not exceed four dwelling units per acre; therefore, an interim wastewater system shall not be required. However, in accordance with Policy 1-1.6B, once a public system becomes available, the development shall be required to connect to the system. The comments from Lake County Public Works state that the County has not record of right-of-way connecting the subject property to Lake Griffin Road, and this will need to be addressed during the Development Review Staff (DRS) process for preliminary plat, if this request is approved. The developer will be required to provide 66 feet of right-of-way for swales, or 50 feet of right-of-way for curb and gutter. The Lake County Schools Growth Planning Department noted that the rezoning has the potential to add ten new single-family dwelling units that will contribute four new students to the school system. The backup contained the schools that would be adversely affected, based on the current school attendance zones.

Commr. Stivender pointed out a discrepancy in the school information shown in the staff report as compared to the information presented by the School Board; Mr. Hartenstein noted that this information will be verified for accuracy. She also noted that there is additional property next to Carver Middle School, and she wanted to know if the School Board sold that property to the City of Leesburg; Mr. Hartenstein noted that staff did not have that information.

Mr. Hartenstein continued with his presentation stating that staff conducted a GIS analysis of the site, which revealed that there is a small wetland on the north side of the property; a portion of that area lies within the 100-year floodplain; and these issues will be addressed during the DRS meeting. The Zoning Board recommended approval 4-0 to R-1; and staff is recommending approval.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, in April, they filed a request to rezone ten acres in the name of Mestrioni, which came through and is contiguous with this piece of property, and their access to Lake Griffin is through that ten acre parcel that they previously rezoned and that is going through the platting process; that parcel is being developed into large lots as well as this parcel. In his review of correspondence that had been submitted in Tabs 2 and 3, there is a discrepancy in numbers but, in this case, based on history, this amount of students in these schools would be a diminimus effect based on what the Board has ruled on before. In the prior case, Mr. Richey stated that he misunderstood the staff report, and he misunderstood the staff report in this case with regard to central water and sewer; Lady Lake has indicated to them that there is no central water and sewer available for this site, and there will not be any to this site. In the last case, he asked the Board to allow them to build it on septic tanks and individual wells, but he misread the information, and the information in this case. He feels that the Board has the ability to allow them to build this on septic tanks and individual wells. In discussing the cost to put in a community well, it would be far beyond the ability of this small subdivision to support it. He respectfully asked the Board to approve this request to R-1 and allow them to develop on central septic tanks with individual wells, which he believes the Comprehensive Plan allows them that flexibility. He noted that everything around them is on wells and septic tanks, and there is no central service available. There were folks that spoke at the Zoning Board meeting and raised some concerns about access through an easement, and they represented to them that all of their access will not go through that private easement; it will go through the existing subdivision.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, when the applicants do their subdivision application, staff will then determine what kind of utilities are required; this is a straight rezoning case so the Board cannot condition pro or con; he thinks that Mr. Richey is hoping their comments will influence staff at subdivision review time.

Mr. Richey stated that requiring central water or central sewer under these circumstances is something that is not appropriate and he would like the Board to look at that and, even though he is not asking for the Board to condition it, it is problematic for these kind of developments, low density in areas that are rural that happen to be Comprehensive Plan urban expansion.

Commr. Stivender stated that this she has meet with Mr. Minkoff and Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, numerous times about this item, and she has gotten different interpretations.

Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, stated that it is a difficult point in the Comprehensive Plan and staff is working on trying to resolve the issue in the new Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Mr. Richey makes a very good point; you do not necessarily want to put sewer on something that is one to five; but staff needs to work on that issue.

Mr. Richey referred to the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1-1.6A, Water and Sewer Requirements for Developments within Urban and Urban Expansion Areas, and submitted this information to the Deputy Clerk; it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.

Ms. Lynn Walker-Wright addressed the Board and stated that she represents Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Bloodworth. She stated that they are here today, as well as some other individuals who are concerned about the easement. Ms. Walker-Wright first clarified the Bloodworth’s residence address, which is 3211 Lake Griffin Road. In looking at the aerial map, the easement has a name, Brookfield Road; it originated from the MacDonalds; and it was actually an access for the MacDonald family and the Bloodworth family to get to and from their residences off of Lake Griffin Road. It has been utilized that way for many years, and now that the MacDonalds will be selling it and the rezoning will occur, the Bloodworths are concerned that this easement, which is the Brookfield Road easement, will be used for construction purposes. She stated that there are two concerns. The Bloodworth’s property is zoned so that they have goats, and there are horses out there in some of the area right by the Brookfield Road easement; it is a different way of life; and it is a 50 foot easement. She also understands, but will not represent to the Board today, that there have been at least six very bad traffic accidents at the Brookfield Road easement and Lake Griffin Road, so there has been some concern about construction from a traffic standpoint. They are not saying that they are opposed today; they just want to make the Board aware of their concerns; and they would also like to be an instrumental part of the planning process. She noted that approximately four or five people use Bloodworth Road as access to their property; Mr. Bloodworth is an artist and has his studio on five acres.

Mr. Richey clarified that it is a private easement; it is not a public easement; they are a part of the easement but it does not give them the right to use it for purposes of development. They will be coming in through the property that they already own and will be using Griffin Avenue.

Commr. Stivender noted that Ms. Walker-Wright has asked to be involved in the planning process.

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

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Rezoning Case PH#90-05-5, Robert F. Readon, Jr. and Virginia Reardon/Clifford R. and Ethel L. MacDonald, Owners; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #102-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-90; a request to rezoning from A (Agriculture) and RA (Ranchette) to R-1 (Rural Residential).

Under discussion, Commr. Hill wanted to know if the Board had made a determination about the water and sewer.

Commr. Cadwell responded that he is not going to comment on this item, because that is not the Board’s job; Commr. Stivender pointed out that this may not be their job but she does think it needs to be addressed; Commr. Cadwell indicated that the applicants can wait until there are new Land Development Regulations (LDRs), or they can go under the interpretation of the Board and the rules that exist.

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

REZONING CASE PH#87-05-5 – CHAD L. AND KRISTIE L. PENLEY, OWNERS – CHAD PENLEY, APPLICANT – TRACKING #104-05-Z – A TO R-3

Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley, Applicant; Tracking #104-05-Z; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential). As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the subject property is presently vacant; the applicant wants to create a single-family residential subdivision; central water and sewer will be supplied by the City of Umatilla; the maximum allowable density is 5.5 dwelling units per acre; R-3 zoning permits a maximum of three dwelling units per acre and takes precedence over the point system density; the Future Land Use designation is Urban Expansion, which has a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre; the applicant is requesting three dwelling units per acre. As shown on the map, if the rezoning is approved, they will be granting an easement to the City of Umatilla where they are able to run water lines and connect to Peru and Maxwell Roads, and that will also address the sewer issue; water and sewer will be provided by the City of Umatilla. In terms of access management, the Public Works Department stated that dedication of additional right-of-way and turn lanes may be required, which will be addressed during the Development Review process for a preliminary plat, if this rezoning is approved. In regards to schools, the proposed project will impact the current school enrollment, as outlined in the letter from Lake County Schools; the proposed rezoning has the potential of adding 27 new single-family dwelling units that will contribute 11 new students. There appears to be no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; the subject parcel consists of an old burned out orange grove; environmental assessment would have to be performed prior to the time of preliminary plat review; any environmental issues would have to be addressed prior to construction plan approval; there is no indication that it will adversely affect the property values in the area; it would result in a logical development pattern in the area. Mr. Hartenstein noted that staff received seven letters of opposition; one letter of concern; zero for support. The Zoning Board recommended approval 3-1 to R-3 zoning; and staff is recommending approval to R-3. He clarified that, in R-3 zoning, they could get up to three dwelling units per acre.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he has ridden this parcel a couple of times in the last month and, being very familiar with it, he thinks that they can come to a compromise on the density that the community can live with; the thing he has not been able to resolve is that, at Maxwell Road and SR 19, you have to be in the southbound lane to see either way, and the County does not have any right-of-way there. He has talked to Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, about it, and he does not know how they would ever make that intersection safe.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board and stated that he visited the site; Maxwell Road is an under-designed, under-width, under-built roadway. He stated that normally they require the developer to improve the roadway out the nearest intersection and, after visiting the intersection, he found that it would be very difficult to make that improvement. He showed the Board pictures of the intersection noting the problems that currently exist there. It was his understanding that Maxwell Road does not have the traffic volume there today; they have not been receiving the complaints that they should be receiving regarding that site distance; and the right-of-way is not available at that location.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the house on the corner and one more probably utilize that intersection; everybody else is going to go the other way just because it is so unsafe but, even if you did a right-in, right-out only design, they still may not have enough room.

In the discussion of Maxwell Road, it was clarified that the entire section is a sub-standard road; going east to west and north to south, it is about 15 or 16 feet wide; in order to go south for them to use it, they would have to improve Maxwell Road; staff would require the developer to make that improvement; in this case and with the intersection problem, staff would have requested and required that they bring it out to SR 19, which is a shorter distance.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board just approved AR zoning on a piece of property located on the little lake going south on Maxwell to Peru. When looking at the R-2 zoning, this is what he calls the new part of Silver Beach Heights and it is developed at a different pattern than the rest of Silver Beach Heights. The only way to get to the R-2 is through Silver Beach Heights so, even though this property will back up to those properties, you are actually a mile or so away from them by road and, even though he is getting more comfortable with R-2 zoning, it does not answer the intersection problem.

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

Mr. Duane Booth addressed the Board and stated that he is with Farner, Barley & Associates, he is the Project Engineer, and he represents the Penley family. Mr. Booth stated that they are requesting R-3 zoning on the property. As pointed out by staff, they do meet the point system for 5.5 dwelling units per acre; it is urban expansion; but they are requesting R-3 for three dwelling units per acre. They have put together a couple of concepts with 25 to 26 homes versus 27, which puts them at 2.7 to 2.8 units to the acre. In regards to the water and sewer issue, Mr. Booth stated that there is water about 1,200 feet south of them inside the city limits at their water plant. After talking to Mr. Tim Scobie, Council Member, City of Umatilla, this is one piece of property that the City wants to get through in order to loop their water system. Mr. Booth stated that he lives in Silver Beach Heights in the R-3 section and knows that water pressures are fair at best, so this would certainly help the whole community; sewer is available at about 1,600 feet south of the project. They do have water available by the City’s definition, so they could go potable water and septic but, by going to R-3 they could get a couple of extra home sites in there to pay for the lift station. In speaking to Mr. Scobie, he found out that sewer is not available and, if they did not get the R-3 zoning, they would be back to request septic tanks for the site, so it does not make it feasible to go that far south. As far as access, his staff has not brought forth concerns about the intersection, as being described. He discussed the speed limits in this location and noted that this is a very dangerous intersection and, with either R-2 or R-3, they will have to address that issue.

Commr. Hanson wanted to know if it would help if they had time to address that issue, because she felt that the Board would be more comfortable if they knew the location of the access and addressed it.

Mr. Booth stated that he knows there has been discussion on four-laning up to Altoona, and he would need to contact the Department of Transportation (DOT) but knowing that it may be a long time before that happens.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there is no sense in rezoning something if you know that the project is not going to make sense, and if they are going to have to spend a million dollars on an intersection. He wanted to make them aware that he thinks even with R-2 it is going to take some drastic changes to that intersection to satisfy the Public Works’ staff, and he is concerned about making that intersection any worse.

Mr. Elliot Seabrook addressed the Board and stated that he is representing Fred and Margaret Yancey, Dalton Yancey III, and Sue Yancey Seabrook, his wife. Mr. Seabrook stated that these individuals own 30 acres of property directly south and across Maxwell Road from the property in question. His brother-in-law, Dalton Yancey, owns the property that is contiguous on the west and runs down to Lake Billy Boo Hoo a.k.a. South Twin Lake. He stated that they are opposed to this rezoning based on the density, and they do not agree that it is consistent with what is in the area. The City has talked to his brother-in-law, Dalton Yancey, about completing this water loop across his property, which they had given verbal approval. He would think that, based on this application, he probably would not live with that although they could probably run that loop over across Mr. Penley’s property; it is not likely that it will run across Dalton Yancey’s property as far as water availability.

Ms. Helene Peterson addressed the Board and stated that she lives on Grand Ridge Drive in Grand Ridge Estates, the new part of Silver Beach. Ms. Peterson stated that they are not against a rezoning; they know change is coming; but it is the density. The people in Grand Ridge are comfortable with R-2 zoning; however, she is here today on behalf of the two families that live on Maxwell Road, and they feel that R-1 zoning would be much more compatible with this area, R-1 zoning with a variance for septic and even wells, because most of the area is wells, and all of it is septic. At the October 5, 2005 meeting, the point was made by Mr. Booth that the City of Umatilla would require sewer; however, after speaking with Mr. Scobie, the City cannot require sewer, so she does not see where a septic system would be any problem. They also brought up that, if R-3 was denied, Mr. Penley could not continue with this project but, as noted in the letter from the Mulhollands, Mr. Penley has stated that no matter what happens here, he was not going to stop developing his property. She stated that R-1 density would satisfy Policy 1-12.4, which is Density Allocations. She noted that they have agriculture on three sides; Grand Ridge is R-2; and R-1 would be a nice transition. With R-1 zoning, it would drop the density on Maxwell Road; it would not impact the schools very much at all; Mr. Penley will retain his right to develop his property; and these couple of residents will retain their right to enjoy their lifestyle.

Ms. Cindy Barrow, Voters Organization Involved in Children’s Education (VOICE), addressed the Board and affirmed that she sent a letter to the Board last Friday stating that they need to begin to look at level of service and what other counties have used in regards to the level of service that has been accepted with concurrency. The highest level she has heard about is 10% over capacity. With this current development, Umatilla Elementary School is 19% over capacity; Umatilla Middle School is 10% over capacity; and Umatilla High School is 10% over capacity. When the Board approves even small developments, they are adding students to already overcrowded schools. They have to begin to think about levels of service and mitigation for adding those new students. Ms. Barrow stated that she is here to remind them that the schools are impacted and, even though she is not going to address the Board on the other developments, when the Board sees something that is over 10%, she would request that they look even further into the situation and begin to think about how those school needs are going to be mitigated by developers.

Commr. Hanson asked for the actual number that the Board would be looking at with concurrency for diminimus impact, with staff noting that they have not established anything at this point.

Mr. Sam Seger addressed the Board and stated that he lives on Grand Ridge Drive and, with the way the situation is now with the homes, it is very compatible to people. He condensed his property from 102 acres to little over a half acre at his residence now, and he has wonderful neighbors. Mr. Seger stated that Mr. Booth had said earlier that he had no objections because he lives on Grand Ridge Drive, but he is building somewhere else on acreage, so he did not think that should be brought into the fact either. Mr. Seger stated that he does think that R-1 would be compatible.

Ms. Michele Bodzioch addressed the Board and stated that she is also with VOICE, and she wanted to address roads and bus safety for the children. The pictures shown by Mr. Schneider were of an intersection; she would not want her child on a bus that was taking a turn out of that intersection. She stated that the safety of their children would be negatively impacted in addition to the already overcrowded schools.

Mr. Phil Blackwell addressed the Board and stated that he lives on Grand Ridge Drive, and the traffic issue is terrible. He lives adjacent to the land, which is full of weeds, and he would like to see some property developed there, but he would like to see it as R-1 with one family per acre. It was noted that there are nine lots in Grand Ridge.

Mr. Russ Aldridge addressed the Board and stated that he lives on Grand Ridge Drive, and he fell in love with this area and wanted to buy some property that was for sale not far from where they are talking about. The property he wanted to buy was over three acres, and they would only let him put one house on it, and he is concerned about the density. Mr. Aldridge explained that he was out walking and came to the intersection that they are discussing and found it to be scary, so he drove it, and it took him forever to get out of that intersection; but he is really concerned about the density.

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

Discussion occurred regarding the property in question being developed in R-2, with it being noted that, from gross acreage, it was nine acres and, in R-2, it would be 18 lots. In terms of road requirements, to develop in R-2, it would be difficult to make a lot of improvements. On occasion, staff has required someone to do the improvements along the length of the subdivision, but staff has not had a road like this particular case that currently does not meet minimum widths, and that is something they would have to look at closely.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he knows staff is concerned that, at some point, it becomes mathematic, and it does not make sense to do just anything, but do not underestimate the value of nice size lots in this area and this type of housing. With this type of housing, if the Board approves this, there will be 15 homes in there. He is comfortable with R-2; he thinks that it is compatible and what is going to take place back towards the city; but he cannot support it until they have some type of plan on that road. He does not know the applicant’s timeframe but he would even suggest that they postpone it until they come back with a plan for that intersection understanding that R-2 is what the Board would probably support. He does not want to approve the R-2 and he cannot condition zoning, but he would like to hear from the applicant to see if that works for them.

Mr. Booth stated that this would put them in a hardship, but they would consider postponing it for 30 days to meet with Mr. Schneider and Mr. Stivender.

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

Commr. Cadwell stated that, in understanding their conversation, the Board would not be comfortable with R-3, but with R-2, so that they do not waste the applicant’s time.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved to postpone this case for 30 days, until November 22, 2005, PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Tracking #104-05-Z; to give the applicant time to meet with staff in regards to bringing back a plan for the Maxwell Road and SR 19 intersection.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:39 a.m., it was noted that the Board would be taking a 15 minute recess.

REZONING CASE PH#88-05-4 – VREJ MANOOGIAN, MANOOGIAN JOINT VENTURE, LLC, OWNER – LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A., APPLICANT – PUD TO R-1 – TRACKING #101-05-Z

Commr. Hanson disclosed that she had met with the applicant or representative on this case; Commr. Hill disclosed the same.

Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#88-05-4, Vrej Manoogian, Manoogian Joint Venture, LLC, Owner; Leslie Campione, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #101-05-Z; a request to rezone from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R-1 (Rural Residential).

Mr. Kruse stated that it has just been brought to his attention that there is a scrivener’s error, and staff would like to correct this error. In going back to the May 22, 2001 PUD Ordinance, this legal description was included in the PUD; however, in going back to that case, this parcel, which is the northern parcel, was sold prior to approval of this PUD. He noted that the maps and the minutes of this case reflect this information. The northern parcel was not intended to be included with the PUD. In addition, there is not an owner’s affidavit in the packet in 2001 from Dr. Manoogian who bought the parcel in December, 2000. Staff is asking that the Board approve to remove this parcel from the existing PUD, due to a scrivener’s error. He explained that, in their review, staff found that the research concluded that the northern five acres, as outlined in yellow in the backup, was never a part of the PUD that was approved in 2001; it is zoned R-1.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he wanted to correct something that has just been presented by Mr. Kruse. In the description of the PUD, the County’s zoning maps currently reflect this being PUD zoning. He explained that this parcel was sold off prior to the PUD application being made and when they came in and made the PUD application, they used the deed that they had when they bought the big parcel, which included this parcel. The PUD description includes this parcel, when it should not have; this property owner did not apply for a PUD; and he probably did not get notice of it because he would have been within the main area, so he would not have been within 300 feet, because he was actually one of the property owners.

Mr. Kruse read a portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from May 22, 2001, as follows:

“Bud Keller said that originally this site was 25 acres and 65 lots were proposed. This plan was submitted, there was a lot of opposition to it. They decided that this was an infill property and felt it might be better to work with the City of Eustis. They withdrew their original plan. The staff at the City of Eustis agreed that it was infill and suggested the applicant submit a plan for four units per acre. They did that but it was denied with no comment. Last year they attempted to develop the property within R-1 zoning. That did not work because their density was .97 units per acre. In December they sold the northern five acres. He submitted a map showing lots in the area where the septic tanks….”

Mr. Kruse showed a copy of the warranty deed dated December 14, 2000 to the Board and submitted it to the Deputy Clerk; it was marked and entered as Exhibit C-1 for the County.

Mr. Minkoff explained that staff has advertised a rezoning from PUD to R-1; technically that is correct because the map shows this as being a PUD, so the appropriate change, should the Board choose to go that way, would be back to R-1. The applicant’s argument has changed from it is appropriate to change from PUD to R-1 to it really should never have been changed from R-1 to PUD in the first place. The advertisement of going to R-1 is satisfactory; it is just the logic behind it that has changed. They are actually changing it to R-1 because on the zoning map it is PUD currently. The County improperly rezoned it, so it currently is a PUD; the only way the zoning maps get changed is either the Board changing them or a judge changing them.

Commr. Hanson pointed out that, even though the records show PUD, the more appropriate action would be to correct the scrivener’s error, and Mr. Minkoff noted that technically it is a rezoning case and they would attempt to give notice in those cases just to make sure they were right, and they have done that today, so everyone has notice.

Mr. Robert Bone, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he represents Mr. Ed Jones, a neighboring property owner, and he did not want to address the rezoning request itself but he wanted to address the issue of handling a scrivener’s error.

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

Ms. Campione stated that, as Dr. Manoogian’s attorney, when he purchased the property in December, 2000, he never signed an Owner’s Affidavit; he was never a party to the rezoning. When it was rezoned on May 22, 2001, it was never his intention to rezone his property. They are asking that the Board correct the zoning map, so it accurately reflects that his property should be shown as R-1. From a notice standpoint, if they were to have come in and applied and asked specifically that this be corrected, it would have had to be advertised; the County Commission cannot correct a scrivener’s error administratively when it is a rezoning case; they would have had to advertise it just the way it has been advertised. The only change is that the evidence that would be presented to them today would not include any evidence about the appropriateness of the zoning, the compatibility, or any of those issues; it would just be a correction.

Mr. Bone stated that there are probably others that are here to speak but he wants to address the procedural issue. Because this is a new issue, he stated that this is exactly why this is a matter that he is going to ask the Board to continue and re-advertise as it should be advertised. He stated that, if they are here to change the zoning on the property based on a scrivener’s error, then that is how it should be advertised. He does not know when the County staff became aware that there was a scrivener’s error but that is not why they are here today. He stated that this is not how it was advertised; they are here today and prepared to argue against the rezoning of this property to R-1 from PUD; not to argue about a scrivener’s error. He would ask that the Board continue this hearing and, if this is the approach that the Board is going to take today, to address it as a scrivener’s error, he is requesting that it be re-advertised to change the zoning as a result of a scrivener’s error in a previous case so that there is due process in this matter. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding; the affected property owners are entitled to due process as this is going to affect their property; and he knows that any time they are going to do anything that is going to affect that zoning map, it requires due process; it requires the two hearings; and it requires proper notice to the affected property owners. He explained that this is a situation where this property is on the zoning map as PUD; it has been admitted that the application for the rezoning to the PUD included this piece of property; and for all purposes, this property is zoned PUD; it is not a question of a scrivener’s error; there needs to be another hearing on this issue; and it needs to be properly advertised as to how it is going to be addressed. Mr. Bone stated that, if the Board is to consider this today, then it should not be addressed as a scrivener’s error but as it was advertised for a rezoning from a PUD to R-1.

Commr. Hanson stated that she agrees and, even though Mr. Minkoff indicated that the Board did not have to do that, she thinks that, to be clear and if they would not be changing the zoning, which they have advertised they would be doing and as staff has assured them is the case, then she believes they should re-advertise to specifically address the correction of their zoning maps.

Commr. Cadwell stated that Commr. Hanson is probably right because the person that owns the property relied on what he thought he had but also the people around there over the years have looked at that zoning map and relied on what it said so he thinks those folks should have an opportunity to address this issue.

Mr. Minkoff clarified that there are no parties in this case; Mr. Bone has not filed a Notice of Appearance; and he probably technically has not entitled his client to any due process rights because he has not followed the rules to become a party in the action. Secondly, they never advertise the reason they are changing the map, so this would be a departure. He can understand postponing it to give people more time to look at this argument because it just came up this morning, but it would be a change in their procedure to put a reason in the ad that they are going to change their map.

Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Keeler, the applicant in the original case, is here today, if the Board wants to ask him specific questions about the application.

Commr. Cadwell stated that at least 30 days, not to re-advertise but to give the parties an opportunity to look through the issue and come to a comfort level that what they are saying is correct, would certainly not be unreasonable.

Mr. Minkoff clarified that the Board would just continue the case and it would show in next month’s advertising as a change in the map from PUD to R-1 again just as it did this time.

Ms. Ann Ryan addressed the Board and stated that she bought the second parcel of those five acre parcels and, prior to going into a contract with Mr. Keeler, she came to the look at the zoning in July-August, 2002. In speaking to a staff member at that time, the property was still being shown as R-1. She was surprised when she returned a year or two later to zoning to look at some other issues to find that it was a PUD. When this whole process began, she never got one notice about any of these hearings.

Mr. Ed Jones addressed the Board and stated that he owns the property to the right of Dr. Manoogian’s property. He explained that, when he came to the Building Department to get a permit to build his home, he was told that he could only build one home on those five acres; and he could not build any more than one home.

Ms. Campione explained that Mr. Jones would have been in the PUD; he is directly to the south of the property and, if he had come in and asked how many houses he could build, the way that it was configured, technically he could only build one house but even that was inaccurate information because it was a PUD; there should not have been a building permit issued to Mr. Jones from Lake County; he should have had to come back and rezone his property to R-1.

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

It was noted that the Board is asking that the entire PUD be reviewed and, therefore, they would continue the case.

Commr. Stivender asked that all property owners involved be notified of the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone the request for 30 days, until November 22, 2005, Rezoning Case PH#88-05-4, Vrej Manoogian, Manoogian Joint Venture, LLC, Owner; Leslie Campione, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #101-05-Z; a request to rezone from PUD to R-1.

REZONING CASE CUP#05/10/1-5 – JAMES & KAREN SHEPHERD, OWNERS – MARK & RICHARD SHEPHERD, APPLICANTS – CUP IN A – TRACKING #108-05-CUP

Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case CUP#05/10/1-5, James and Karen Shepherd, Owners; Mark and Richard Shepherd, Applicants; Tracking #108-05-CUP; a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture) to allow for a custom meat processing operation. As noted in the Summary of Staff Determination, the subject parcel is located in the rural future land use category. The owners intend to process cows, hogs, and deer for individual customers; no sales will occur on the premises; all of the animal by-products will be disposed of in a lawful manner on a weekly basis; this type of use “slaughterhouse” is a conditional use in the Agriculture zoning district and is allowed only in that zoning district and the Heavy Industrial (HM) district. Since the property is zoned Agriculture, staff finds the use compatible with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); staff supports this request; the Zoning Board recommended denial 4-0. Mr. Kruse stated that staff received a lot of letters in opposition, ten letters and one petition with 199 signatures; they also received letters in support of this request. Mr. Kruse noted that this type of operation would not be regulated by state of federal agencies, because the meat would not be for retail sales; sanitary issues would be monitored by the Health Department and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In terms of vehicles, the number would be limited to the individuals delivering the animal(s) and picking up the meat after it was processed. He noted that it is similar to Osteen’s in South Lake County off of SR 33 and CR 561; he does not know of any complaints on that operation. It was also noted that Mr. George Hart has a facility in the Groveland area; and Sky Han is located off of South Street behind Glen Haven.

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

Mr. Richard Shepherd, applicant, addressed the Board and introduced his brother, Mark Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd stated that this will be a small custom meat cutting operation, with just the two of them being employed. It will only be private individuals who raise and slaughter their own cattle or hogs. Mr. Shepherd reviewed pictures noting that everything is covered with concrete; the drains are connected to a septic tank; and nothing is put on the ground. The holding pen will hold about eight or nine animals at one time. He stated that his residence is on the front of the property facing Fisherman’s Road, which is a dirt road. The structure is already built as a garage; the coolers are not yet in place. He explained that this is a heavily wooded area and you cannot see the building from anybody’s residence; you cannot hear or smell anything from this site; Griffin Industries will come to the site and pick up the waste; the waste will be kept in the coolers. He explained the surrounding area noting roads and other homes, and the types of trailers that will be coming and going from the site; there will be no semi-trailers. The pictures and site plan were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant (12 pages). The applicant also submitted a Petition in favor of the CUP, which was marked and entered as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant (9 pages).

Ms. Amy Davis addressed the Board and stated that she lives on Fisherman’s Road in Paisley and right next door to the property in question. Ms. Davis stated that she and her husband bought this property nine years ago and has been working hard to provide a home for their five year old son. They are upset about the possibility of a slaughterhouse being next door to them. There son loves animals and they feel that being this close to one will cause emotional problems for him. They are also concerned about several other issues but these issues will be addressed by their neighbors. She stated that the Board needs to consider something like this being in an area with many small children and, if Mr. Shepherd wants to be in the slaughterhouse business, they feel he should find a better location, and he should consider the feelings of the people in the neighborhood. She asked that the Board vote no on this issue.

Ms. Edith Cotton addressed the Board and stated that she lives on the east side of Mr. Shepherd, and her house is off the road and is probably closer to the business than his own home. She feels it is an unwise decision for this location, and she asked that the Board consider this request carefully.

Mr. James Miller addressed the Board and stated that he lives on Fisherman’s Road and has lived there for over 30 years. Mr. Miller stated that he was here to talk about the waste product, because he was involved in it for 40 years with Winn-Dixie as a meat manager. He explained that there is a lot of waste that comes from this type of operation, and you can dispose of it properly but, if things go wrong, this waste product is usually outside because you do not have room to store it inside and, if they come and pick it up when they should, then it probably will not be much of a problem but most of the time that does not happen. He explained how terrible the conditions can be with excess waste including the flies and, even though Mr. Shepherd may not have these conditions, they can happen and it can also draw bears to the site. Mr. Miller stated that he also wanted to address the traffic issue. When you come off of CR 42, you come to the commercial section that he calls downtown Paisley, and the road has 22 big curves in it, so the road really cannot support a lot more traffic and having this operation will increase the road usage. He also felt is would be setting a precedent for this area. There used to be a pig farm in this area, but it is no longer there. The land at the end of Fisherman’s Road changes the setting in this area, and he believes it will impact the road, and the general condition of the area. He is not against him having a slaughterhouse and, in fact, he has even thought about it, but there is a big problem getting rid of waste. It was noted that there were approximately 25 people present who are opposed to the request, and Mr. Miller stated that the Board cannot ignore that many hands.

Mr. Dave Holloway addressed the Board and stated that he does not live on Fisherman’s Road, but his daughter (Amy Davis) just appeared before the Board, and his grandson is being raised on Fisherman’s Road. Mr. Holloway stated that he was asked to talk to the residents about some of the dangers involved in this type of operation. He has 35 years experience in wastewater treatment and utilities, and he knows the dangers associated with fecal coliform bacteria, which he explained is very dangerous and causes a lot of diseases. The disposal of waste, which was explained by the applicant, will be done by storage in barrels and removed from the site once a week. Mr. Holloway wanted the Board to realize the condition of that waste after it sits for a week and, under the best of housekeeping, there is a chance that there will be waste on the ground, and it will be spilled when it is loaded into trucks. Once it is on the ground, all it will take is some rain, and the fecal coliform will be in the groundwater. Every resident in that area is drinking from shallow wells; therefore, they will be drinking fecal coliform. He wants them to look at all of the other problems associated with such an operation, and the possible contamination of every well in that area. He does not want his grandson raised next door to a slaughterhouse. He does not have anything against them having a business, but he does wonder why the Board was shown a building that has already been completed and was started even before the Zoning Board heard the issue.

Mr. Fred Hunter addressed the Board and stated that he has a Paisley address, and he came to the meeting to give the Board some input about his feelings on this request. Mr. Hunter stated that he and many others participated in the sale of over 800 acres to the State; the property goes from CR 42 to the top of the five acres that are across the road that go up towards Snag Lake. He stated that he is the local environmental “wacko” and he is interested in preserving the scrub and maintaining that corridor. That is why they sold that land cheap, below appraised value. He explained that bears are sensitive and are attracted to the smell of food, and they applicants will not be happy with bears coming across their property, because they are dangerous. He stated that any time something comes up that affects this corridor, he would like to come in and address that matter. He would like Paisley to remain selfishly a rural community. He came to that area to get as far away from Disney as he could and still get back to Orlando, and he counted on the national forest to protect him from development, as he counted on the land that is owned by the State not ever having a prison or anything that would impede the progress of the creatures that live there. He noted that the property they sold was part of the Wekiva/Ocala greenway, and it had about one and one-third miles on CR 42.

Mr. Bill Dowdy addressed the Board and stated that he lives directly behind Mr. Shepherd’s piece of property on 27 acres shown on the map as rural. He and his wife raise cows and horses, and their biggest concern is the contamination from whatever goes into the ground, and whatever could affect his cows or horses. He explained how costly it is to maintain his livestock. Mr. Dowdy stated that the back of his house is what they use for their front yard, and they can see the top of the applicant’s building.

Mr. John Davidson addressed the Board and stated that he lives next door to Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Davidson discussed the winding road noting that there are a lot of kids that play in the road, especially on the dirt road, which is not a County maintained road. The picture shown by Mr. Shepherd looking down Paisley Road was probably taken last night, and he has never seen Mr. Shepherd maintaining that road. The road is approximately 14 feet wide from one end to the other; barely big enough for two vehicles to pass, and he explained how the trailers would have to maneuver around one another to be able to travel on this road. After the hurricanes last year, Mr. Davidson stated that there were a lot of trees in the road, and the ambulance and fire trucks could not get into that area. He explained how the County could not assist them with the cleanup because the road is not maintained by the County, so he cannot understand how the County could give Mr. Shepherd approval to run a business at this site when the road is not maintained by the County, and it is not being maintained by him.

Ms. Sandy Goodman addressed the Board and stated that she had pictures of the road to show the Board. Ms. Goodman pointed out the curves on road; where the dump trucks got stuck bringing in concrete to the site; how the road was torn up when the truck was finally pulled out; the long wait for the truck to be removed and how it held others up from getting to their destinations; how long it took for the road to be repaired; the location of the applicant’s driveway; and the problems with water seepage onto neighboring properties that caused damage to many fences. The pictures were submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition (20 pictures).

Mr. Charles Norris addressed the Board and stated that he does not live in the Paisley area, but today they are hearing so much about how everyone wants to keep Lake County rural. Mr. Norris stated that, at this time, there are only two small slaughterhouses in the County, and he understands that one of them is in the process of closing down, and people are very limited on where they can take their beef and swine to be processed. He felt that this is a part of their rural necessities to keep this area rural and he would like the Board to give this some consideration. He is involved with the fair and, during the fair, they have about 250 animals that need to be slaughtered and it is getting harder to find a place for these animals to be processed.

Commr. Stivender stated that, in going back to the fair, she had gotten a lot of letters from children who raise animals through 4-H or Future Farmers of America (FFA) at the schools and, if there are not small businesses like this one, she wanted to know where someone would take their animals to be slaughtered, once they are bought at the fair.

Mr. Norris stated that Osteens and Mr. Hart get some animals; there is also South Marion Meats in Marion County that get some; there are costs for transporting the animals; and every other County is having problems, too. He stated that there are a lot of fairs in the State of Florida that have to ship the animals half way across the State to get them done, because there are not that many slaughterhouses.

Commr. Hanson stated that Publix and others purchase a lot of the animals, and they would be limited to those animals going to larger supermarkets.

Mr. Norris explained that about 80 percent of the animals at the fair are bought by individuals and are processed and eaten at home, and it creates a problem, because all of the business for those few slaughterhouses comes during a short period of time. He stated that this operation would have to be inspected on a yearly basis and, if they fail to comply, the operation can be revoked.

Commr. Stivender explained that there could be other stipulations where the operation could be checked more often and the Board can put conditions on a CUP.

Mr. John Rivers addressed the Board and stated that he and his wife bought property in Paisley in February 1957, and he knows how all of this property was before any others came to the area. Mr. Rivers explained that all of them have worked hard to clear and improve their property and make it worth more and he does not believe that anybody has the right to come in there and do something that would devalue their property. He has read a lot of real estate ads and he has never read one yet where they used the selling point of being in the vicinity of a slaughterhouse.

Ms. Sandy Levinston addressed the Board and stated that she lives on Johnson Road in Paisley, and they bought their property in 1987. She concurs with Mr. Miller that, when they first were there, they could drive Fisherman’s Road and not meet a car. Now it is very busy and, in looking at the pictures submitted by Mr. Shepherd (Exhibit A-1), they show two curves right at the beginning of Fisherman’s Road, and they do not show all of Fisherman’s Road. She stated that the Zoning Board denied this request and they denied the waiver and she commends them for taking that action. She stated that there may be a reason that the slaughterhouses are closing down. There has been one closed because of health and safety violations and, even though they can be inspected, she felt it would be better to be pro-active and not put a slaughterhouse in this area where they would have to inspect and also maintain roads. She asked that the Board vote no on this request.

Ms. Pat Anderson addressed the Board and stated that she lives in Sorrento, but she represents her son who is a Paisley resident and lives a few doors from the Shepherd’s property. Her son bought property in this location approximately five years ago and he has enjoyed the peace and quiet and the animals and deer that come up on his land. Her son does have some medical problems, as well as another individual in this group that has major medical problems, and she is concerned with the exposure to insects and germs because of the remains of these animals. The traffic on Fisherman’s Road is constant and the only trucks that the applicant mentioned are residents that are probably on the road a week or two at a time; they come in there and park their trucks for a couple of days. As far as trailers, she has not seen cattle trailers in there; as far as a school bus, that would be a necessity; but it would be difficult for any of these vehicles to get turned around. She stated that James and Mark Shepherd continue to pursue the construction of the building to house the slaughterhouse, and they requested a permit for the building of a garage. She has never seen one that cost $6,000 or more for concrete; it is a huge building; and there have been individuals that have attested to seeing the roof. The laws of the country provide for equal opportunity for all people, which allow them to object to that operation because of health and other reasons. Because of controversial comments made by the family that has recently moved into the location and proceeds to go forward with a business that is controversial to this community, Ms. Anderson wanted it to be a part of the record that she is not a liar. The Shepherds did not in good faith go to all of their neighbors and ask for opinions or a possible agreement. She wanted to know what assurance the resident will have that there will be action taken by Lake County to inspect it for sterilization of equipment, for cleanliness of the grounds, disposal of the remains of the animals to avoid seepage into the groundwater. If they are granted the right to establish the business, she and all of the other residents request not less than monthly, preferably bi-monthly drop-in and unannounced inspections; and that they be held responsible to do the right thing to protect everyone. At the zoning meeting, they were required to dispose of all of the remains within 48 hours, and she feels that is too long before disposal because this will allow for an opportunity to create flies and attract bears and other wild animals, and, because of the warning about diseases, they need to be pro-active. They strongly object to this business operation in Paisley on Fisherman’s Road and, as Ms. Anderson stated in the Zoning Board meeting, let them find property that is conducive to that type of request. They respectfully request that the Board deny the request from the Shepherds.

Mr. Bill Welter addressed the Board and stated that he does not live in Paisley; he is a friend of the Shepherds. Mr. Welter stated that he was asked to come here to observe and he cannot help but feel that most people in this room do not feel that the Board is doing a very good job, because they do not think that codes and safety issues have been put in place for a specific reason. The Shepherds have gone about their request legally and presented their case in full public view. He asked that, instead of listening to all of the negativity that he has heard here today and recognizing that they are all talking about worse case scenarios, he wants to see the Board carry out what they have put in place. He does not think that the standards that the Board has requested are outrageous, or undoable, and they have asked for a chance to do it. He asked that the Board use their consideration on this matter in support of it.

Mr. Roy Hunter addressed the Board and stated that he is only speaking for his wife and himself today. After listening to his neighbors, Mr. Hunter stated that he had to come here and talk today. In replying first to the gentleman that preceded him, if they only went by laws and regulations, there would be no point in having public input, because the five of them are judges (the Commissioners), and they have to interpret the law as it really applies to the people. He lived off of Fisherman’s Road on Sunset Drive for about 12 years and that road has a lot of curves. It also has a lot of places where the road gets chewed up on the edges the same way as Maggie Jones Road where they live now. The more traffic put on that road, the more it is going to get torn up. The County has enough problems keeping the roads repaired now, and they will be adding more work if they approve this request. He feels that the Board needs to really think about those people who live in the area that are immediately affected by this because they need the Board’s compassion and interpretation of the law.

Mr. Ben Cook addressed the Board and stated that he lives across the road from Mr. Shepherd. At the Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Shepherd was talking about bringing in cows on a Friday and killing them on a Monday or Tuesday. He cannot imagine what the people in the area will be listening to all weekend, as those animals will be creating a lot of noise. Also his grandchildren come to visit him, and he would not want them to be down there when they are killing the animals. He noted that the condition of the road has already been addressed so he would not make further comments regarding that issue.

Commr. Hill called for further public comment. There being none the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson wanted to know the sizes of other slaughterhouses that have been approved by the County, and Mr. Kruse noted that the Osteen’s was probably a similar size piece of property.

Commr. Cadwell pointed out that, as the gentleman, Mr. Welter, had stated earlier, they have talked about the worst case scenario, so he wants to talk about the best case scenario. He stated that they have a five acre parcel in a developed subdivision that is two and a half miles off of a main road, on a dirt road, and it is going to be a commercial business. The other businesses they have talked about are on CR 33, CR 439, and CR 561. This Board has always bent over backwards to try to let people have home occupations, and he agrees with that but most of the ones that they have approved have been on major roads, and in an environment where they thought they would succeed. He stated that the Board knows the condition of Fisherman’s Road, and the paved part is very curvy and has a lot of traffic on it; then you have the dirt portion that this business is actually going to be on. Commr. Cadwell stated that two and a half miles from CR 42 to this road with any type of additional trucks that are going to be bringing in animals to be slaughtered just does not work and, even though it is rural, it has developed into a subdivision. It is in Paisley on five acres in the woods, but it still has the feel of a subdivision, and he just does not think there is any way that this business would be compatible by the location and, even if it was run perfectly, it still would not fit in this community.

Commr. Hanson stated that she agrees and there have been points made on both sides that are still very valid. She stated that the point was brought up on what they need to do to keep the area rural; you keep it rural by having farm animals. She stated that you need a place to slaughter them and having had a dairy farm, she absolutely understands the need but she thinks that, in this area, the size of the land is probably too small. It may be appropriate in other areas, but it is too small in this case. She stated that they are going to find it harder and harder throughout the County to find those areas that are appropriate for this type of operation.

Commr. Pool stated that the Shepherds have done an admirable job in trying to portray this as something that would not be a nuisance to the neighborhood, and he knows they would try hard but he agrees that, after listening to both sides of the issue, the location is not right especially when every neighbor around them is in opposition of it; it just does not make it desirable. He has listened intently to the District Commissioner and those that live in the area, and the need is there, but he does not know where you would put it so that it would benefit but not disturb the neighborhood; therefore, he will not be able to support it today based on the information at hand.

Mr. Mark Shepherd addressed the Board and showed them the businesses that are already on Fisherman’s Road. He presented the list to the Deputy Clerk, which was marked and entered as Exhibit A-3 for the Applicant.

Commr. Hill stated that she does feel like Mr. Shepherd intends on making this a first class operation, and he is putting a lot of financial commitment into this and she wanted to know if it would be appropriate for staff to help him to find a location, if this one is not appropriate and if he still wants to pursue this type of operation.

Mr. Kruse clarified that this type of operation is only allowed in either Agriculture through a CUP or Heavy Industrial.

Commr. Hill explained that the County helps small business owners all of the time and tries to encourage small businesses, and the County has a small business development center, and Mr. Kruse noted that staff could forward the applicant to Mr. Greg Mihalic, Director of Economic Development/Tourism.

Commr. Stivender stated that she has the same comments as Commr. Hill and, after listening to both sides, they do need this type of facility, because this County was established on agriculture, not rooftops. Even though it may not be their role, but she thinks it is their role to keep agriculture in the County, she suggested that they help the applicants find another site.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to deny Rezoning Case #CUP#05/10/1-5, James and Karen Shepherd, Owners; Mark and Richard Shepherd, Applicants; Tracking #108-05-CUP, a request to permit a custom meat processing operation.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that, along with that, staff can also work with the applicants on other types of businesses that might be appropriate based on this list of businesses that are already in the area (Exhibit A-3).

Commr. Cadwell clarified that, since they are a quasi-judicial Board, he really thinks they are kind of stretching what they ought to be doing, because they have to hear it and, if they tell their staff to go find them something, it would not be appropriate.

Commr. Hill explained that, within the County government, they have a small business incubator and they could help them with something.

Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion to deny the request, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:15 p.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board would be taking a five minutes recess.

REZONING CASE PH#16-03-2 – ROBERT SHAKAR – JOHN P. ADAMS PROPERTIES, INC. – GREG BELIVEAU, AGENT – AMEND PUD – TRACKING #33-03-PUD

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, presented rezoning case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar (Contracted Owner); John P. Adams Properties, Inc. (Owner); Greg Beliveau, President, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., Agent; Tracking #33-03-PUD; a request to amend PUD Ord. #2003-84 that was enacted on September 23, 2003 by the Board. As noted in the Summary of Staff Determination, on December 11, 2003 the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) filed a Notice of Appeal on the grounds that the ordinance was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On June 30, 2005 the DCA and Lake County entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement to amend Ordinance #2003-84 to include changes that would bring that into compliance. On March 29, 2005, the Board considered the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and approved it, and now staff is bringing the ordinance for those changes. He noted that the language being added is the exact language out of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

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

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that normally the DCA would see this during the platting process, but they are going to see the timeliness study when it is submitted to the County. They support that because, if there is a problem with it, they want to know before they go through the whole platting process and do construction drawings, so this will benefit all. He reminded the Board that this project started at the same time as the school that is contiguous to it.

Ms. Cindy Barrow, VOICE, stated that Pine Ridge Elementary is now 50% over capacity and that school is going to alternative sessions very soon. Ms. Barrow stated that last night at the School Board meeting the Sawgrass property, which was bought to relieve the overcrowding of Pine Ridge Elementary School, was now going to be borrowed against to finish three other schools in the north end of the County.

Commr. Hill stated that Ms. Barrow needs to understand that the Board already approved this request several years ago.

Ms. Barrow stated that, with this understanding, she wanted the Board to know that Sawgrass property is going to be delayed even further and the plans of getting a new elementary school there. She stated that this is something that the Board needs to keep in mind; she knows they cannot do anything about what has already been approved but the Board needs to be informed.

Commr. Hill noted that there is a school adjacent to this property, and Commr. Cadwell explained that this project reminds the Board how important is it that they get the concurrency language done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Richey stated that he wanted to correct one thing that was said by Ms. Barrow, with VOICE, and that is that the School Board did not buy the Sawgrass site; the developer, in conjunction with the neighboring site, gave the School Board the land and the infrastructure to provide that school, with no credit off the impact fees or anything else.

Ms. Michele Bodzioch, VOICE, stated that the school that is adjacent to the property, Pine Ridge Elementary, is 50% overcrowded and, when this started, the school had just opened up with portables. They are now beyond capacity; they do not know where these children are going to go next year. Ms. Bodzioch explained that the Sawgrass property was donated; however, the money to build that school is coming from the School Board, and that money is now being pulled for other projects.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he certainly did not agree and did not vote for this project, but the project passed. Today the Board is strengthening the position of DCA to maybe slow that down if anything. The only thing they are doing today is amending the PUD to add that language that is in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement that says that DCA will review the timeliness before they can move forward.

Ms. Bodzioch just wanted the Board to understand that, when the Board approves something and it goes through this process, it looks good at the time, but now it looks really bad and they cannot have these kinds of delays, because there is no where to put these children. She did not know if Mr. Shakar can delay the process a little longer or wait until the 2007 school year when they may have another school open. They really need the community to work with them.

Commr. Pool explained that this assures them that DCA will review the process and agrees with the numbers to meet timeliness, and Commr. Stivender noted that the Board has another meeting with DCA and the School Board on Friday, October 28, 2005.

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

Mr. Richey stated that they would have been happy to build this project when it was approved and the school had nobody in it. He clarified that they did not appeal to DCA; some of the folks who are not here today but who were concerned about schools appealed to DCA and delayed this for two years; that is what has caused the problem they have now. He stated that everything else was found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the action the Board had taken historically.

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 Zoning Board and approved the request as amended, for Rezoning Case PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar (Contracted Owner); John P. Adams Properties, Inc. (Owner); Greg Beliveau, President, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc. (Agent); Tracking #33-03-PUD; to amend PUD Ord. #2003-84 to include those changes as indicated in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement “General Provisions, #5, a-e”; Ordinance 2005-91.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

WASTE SERVICES, INC./SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Interim Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request regarding the Settlement Agreement with Waste Services, Inc. Mr. Welstead explained that several months ago there was a significant breakdown in their collection services for about a week to ten days. As part of their contractual services, there are fines associated with each individual incident and those fines accrued over that period of time. As part of that agreement with them, Waste Services is allowed to come back and request a hearing on it with the County Manager; that discussion was held about two weeks ago with Ms. Blanche Hardy, Director of Environmental Services, Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, and himself. They presented a proposal where they would have a 90 day period to come into compliance and, after that period of time, they would have to maintain below the 5% consumer citizen complaint line (as shown on the chart in backup). They have agreed and have made a significant number of changes to management; they have acquired a couple of new vehicles; staff has been working with them to try and realign some routes; and they believe they have resolved that issue. Mr. Welstead stated that Waste Services is more than happy to work with the County. The stipulation is that the initial $10,000 of the $65,100 penalty will come out of their December allocation from the County; then a proportionate share of the remaining $55,100 over the following 90 day period; for every percent that their consumer satisfaction was below that, the fine would be reduced.

Commr. Cadwell stated that it is clear that the fines were set up to ensure good customer service, and he thinks this process does that and it is a good way to handle it; it is not a revenue source for the County, and they hope never to impose a fine.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, confirmed that legally he is comfortable with the language.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he thinks it is a great idea to ensure that this customer service is there because, to keep fining them, it does not do anything, and this gives them some incentive to comply and they have made changes to the company.

Commr. Hanson stated that one of the problems that they ran into during this time was the number of complaints; it was not necessarily a valid number because many of those complaints go directly to the company; the County does not have access to those complaints.

Mr. Minkoff explained that Ms. Hardy is going to take some steps to make sure that customers are notified so that they can call the County when they have a problem with service.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement with Waste Services, Inc. to establish payment of fines and improvement of performance schedule.

REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS/FURNITURE COUNTRY WAREHOUSE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that he had added to the agenda discussion on the contract to purchase the building from L. L. Swor, the Furniture Country Warehouse. They have just completed their new building, and they need a few extra days to clean out the existing building and, rather than close and let them be in there after they close, he suggested that the Board delay the closing by four days. He requested approval to extend the closing from October 31, 2005 to November 4, 2005.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from the County Attorney to extend the closing on the contract with L.L. Swor, the Furniture Country Warehouse, from October 31, 2005 to November 4, 2005.

COVANTA BONDS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he added an item to the agenda regarding the Covanta Bonds. Mr. Minkoff stated now that SunTrust is the lender, SunTrust has made a request, as allowed under the documents, for the trustee to be changed from Wachovia to SunTrust. He stated that legally it is their obligation to approve that request; staff is recommending approval of that transfer.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from SunTrust to change the trustee from Wachovia to SunTrust, as it pertains to the Covanta Bonds.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

LICENSE AGREEMENT/FRIENDS OF FERNDALE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, recommended approval of the Revocable Non-Exclusive License Agreement between Lake County and Friends of Ferndale to use the fire station in Ferndale.

Commr. Stivender stated that she would like to thank Ms. Amye King, Assistant Growth Management Director, Mr. Minkoff, and Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager. They have been working with Fred Kramer and Ed Mitchell for some time trying to get this resolved. They have been using it, but it was just not in a formal document.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from the County Attorney for approval of Revocable Non-Exclusive License Agreement between Lake County and Friends of Ferndale.