Present:

Chairman Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

Vice Chairman Randy Morris (District 2) (Late)

Commissioner Grant Maloy (District 1) (Late)

Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

Commissioner Daryl McLain (District 5)

County Manager Kevin Grace

County Attorney Robert McMillan

Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann

Pastor John M. Holloway, Church of God, Longwood, gave the Invocation.

County Attorney Robert McMillan led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-12, as shown on page _________, proclaiming the month of March as "Red Cross Month".

Districts 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Assistant County Attorney, Stephen Lee, addressed the Board to discuss Governor Bush's proposed budget, which shifts State costs to Counties. Alert Paper regarding same was received and filed.

Commissioner Morris entered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner McLain stated that it disturbs him to see the State government applaud themselves on tax cuts, but in the background passing on more costs to local government.

Chairman Van Der Weide agreed with Commissioner McLain.

Commissioner Henley stated the public needs to be aware of the fact that there is a shift in costs.

Discussion ensued with regard to the shift of the cost to counties for predisposition detention of juvenile suspects.

Commissioner Morris recommended sending a letter to the Legislative Delegation and to the respective finance committees in the house who deal with the budget. The Board voiced no objections to same.

Attorney Lee discussed request by the Emergency Management Preparedness people to send a letter to the Legislature with regard to the Legislature using money from the Emergency Management Trust fund on projects, which are not of an emergency management nature; and to voice concern that if this practice continues, the fund will not have the ability to provide funding for emergency management. Copy of Memorandum regarding same was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize the Chairman to execute Letter, as shown on page ________, to the Legislature concerning the protection of the Emergency Management Preparedness Trust Fund.

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

- - -

Attorney Lee discussed proposed legislation with regard to the Florida Livery Act. He said he has reviewed the proposed bill and there are several issues that are a concern from the staff's viewpoint.

Commissioner Maloy entered the meeting at this time.

Attorney Lee advised the proposed bill does include ambulances and preempts all regulations for livery vehicles and ambulances. After some discussion, Attorney Lee stated it has been indicated that the sponsor would have no problem with removing ambulances from the bill.

Attorney Lee also stated the proposed bill has no provisions for rate regulations either at the State or local level; and there would be no rate regulations for hired vehicles at all. He said this is another instance of erosion of the County's home rule power. The last concern is that other counties and cities do have a regulatory system for this already in place.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he does not believe there is enough information on the proposed bill to make a decision on whether to support or oppose it. He suggested Mr. Lee individually brief Commissioners on the bill and to meet with the Livery Association representative to identify concerns, and to bring this back at the next BCC meeting.

Commissioner Maloy requested a copy of the draft bill be provided to the Board.

- - -

DCM, Frances Chandler, addressed the Board to advise of a request from The Grove Counseling Center for the Board to support their request for a State grant to provide 100 additional treatment slots for criminal justice offenders.

Community Assistance Director, Phil Stalvey, addressed the Board to answer questions. He advised the State has been very cooperative with The Grove and he believes they will be able to obtain this grant.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize the Chairman to execute a Letter in support of The Grove Counseling Center's grant request for an additional 100 treatment slots for criminal justice offenders.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley requested staff emphasize the need for a certain number of beds to be reserved for the Drug Court. Whereupon, Mr. Stalvey stated he will pass the Board's request along to The Grove.

The Board determined that a motion was not necessary; therefore, Commissioners Morris and Henley withdrew the motion. Copy of Letter in support was received and filed.

Ms. Chandler advised of letter (copy received & filed) which was sent to community leaders requesting support of a local option surcharge on rental cars in order to fund transportation improvements in the area.

The Board requested that in the future, copies of such letters be provided to all Commissioners.

Mr. McMillan advised the County obtained the final parcel with regard to the acquisition on Silver Lake Road - all acquisition for this road is now completed.

The Consent Agenda was presented for action.

Discussion ensued with regard to Item #9, BCR #01-30, Supervisor of Elections.

County Attorney, Robert McMillan, advised the attorneys to defend the Jacobs lawsuit were hired by the Supervisor of Election, which is her authority. He further advised that even though the County funds the Supervisor's budget, it does not give the BCC the authority to decide who represents her.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated that in the future, if the Supervisor expects the Board to pay her attorney bills, it would be prudent for her to consult the County's legal department and the County Manager.

Commissioner Morris stated the issue is not the lawsuit; but the recouping of costs. He expressed concern that the attempt to recover costs will lead to more attorney fees.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to direct staff to draft a Letter, as shown on page _______, to the Supervisor of Elections, expressing the Board's concern with her attempts to recover legal fees in the Jacobs' lawsuit.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Henley expressed his concern with Item #18, City of Oviedo Community Park Interlocal Agreement for the Winter Miles facility. He stated the agreement states that the park will be substantially completed if three multi-purpose fields are lighted. He suggested the agreement be changed to state that substantial completion will be two multi-purpose fields lighted and the installation of a covered pavilion and playground equipment.

Director of Library and Leisure Services, Susie Goldman, addressed the Board to explain the logic staff used was that the greatest value was the three-lighted fields.

Commissioner Henley stated it is important to him to have the playground in place.

City of Oviedo Councilman Bob Dallari, addressed the Board to advise there is a commitment from the City Council to have a playground at the Winter Miles facility. He explained that they agreed to the three-lighted fields because that is the biggest demand not only in the County but also in the City.

Gene Williford, Oviedo City Manager, addressed the Board to advise the City Council approved the interlocal agreement and as part of the discussion there was a consensus to include an equestrian element in the future development of the park. Copy of letter from Mr. Williford to Commissioner McLain was received and filed.

Mr. Williford stated it is less expensive for the City to do the playground equipment instead of the one-lighted field.

Commissioner Morris requested the interlocal agreement with the City of Oviedo be pulled for a separate vote.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to authorize the Chairman to execute the City of Oviedo Community Park Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _________, for the Winter Miles property, including the commitment (letter dated January 22, 2001) from the City to include a playground and an equestrian element.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

DCM, Jim Marino, and Director of Administrative Services, Jamie Croteau, addressed the Board to present request for authorization with regard to the Owner's Representative for the Courthouse Expansion Program.

Mr. Marino advised staff has talked to the private sector as the Board instructed at the last meeting; and they have received the response that the County should go with an owner's representation for the courthouse program. Therefore, staff recommends the Board authorize proceeding with an owner's representative. He stated staff would like to get someone on board within the next 90 days.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Croteau advised staff is requesting an RFQ to put out instead of an RFP. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Henley stated he hopes staff closely looks at the scope of work outlined in the agenda packet because he is concerned with some of the tasks listed.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he believes the owner's representative is the way to go.

Commissioner Maloy suggested staff look into the possibility of adding the Juvenile Justice Center project to this.

Mr. Marino stated the tasks listed in the agenda packet are only suggestions. He said staff will go through these before putting them in the contract.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to authorize staff to proceed with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Owner's Representative Services for the Courthouse Expansion project.

Under discussion, the Board directed that the RFQ be brought back to the Board for review as soon as possible.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris left the meeting at this time.

-------

Director of Economic Development, Rob Nixon, addressed the Board to present the Economic Development Five Year Strategic Plan for consideration. He requested the Board approve the update to the plan, as it has not been updated since 1998. He also requested approval to establish the 2001 Economic Development Task Force for the update.

Commissioner Maloy suggested possibly appointing a member from small business and the hispanic business association to the task force. Whereupon, Mr. Nixon stated he will make sure there is a broad mix of members.

Commissioner McLain stated he would think Commissioners could make appointment recommendations.

Commissioner Henley stated he does not believe enough attention is given to the impacts (such as housing) when incentive dollars are given to companies. He said he would like to see this worked into the analysis.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to authorize the Economic Development Department to update the County's Five Year Economic Development Strategic Plan; and as part of the strategic planning process, authorize the creation of the 2001 Economic Development Task Force.

Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Department of Public Works Manager, Pam Hastings, and Director of Planning & Development, Don Fisher, addressed the Board to present the strategy for implementation of the Trails/Natural Lands Referendum Program.

Ms. Hastings stated staff is proposing two bond issues. One in May 2001 in the amount of $5 million for natural lands acquisition and $12.5 million for trails. The second would be in May 2006 in the amount of $7.5 million for trails. She advised legal and acquisition services are recommended to be outsourced. She said that will come back to the Board for consideration. She also advised that the creation of three permanent full-time staff positions is needed to implement the trail program.

Commissioner McLain stated in talking with the Sanford City Manager and Mayor, they would like to see the timing for the Riverwalk project moved up. He requested that Ms. Hastings review the timeline with the Mayor and City Manager to make sure they are in agreement.

Commissioner Morris thanked the staff for coming up with a good conservative outline.

Commissioner Henley requested staff provide the Board with a comparison of the cost to outsource attorneys for trail acquisition versus using in-house attorneys.

Ms. Hasting advised staff will be coming back to the Board before proceeding with the financing.

Commissioner Maloy stated there is a park that Orange County will be opening on the southern portion of the trail off of Aloma Avenue. He said he would like to see, if at all possible, that portion of the trail be put in place to coincide with the opening of the park.

Ms. Hastings advised that design of the park, which is a trailhead on the Orange County portion of the trail, will be started later this year. No construction funding exists until fiscal year 2001/2002.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve the capital projects financing structure for the implementation of the Trails/Natural Lands Referendum Program; and approve the creation of three permanent full-time staff positions as specified in the Agenda Attachments A & B.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Planner, Amanda Smith, addressed the Board to advise during the past year she has had an opportunity to work with the Historic Village at Goldenrod. In 1999, the Historic Village became a member of the Main Street Program conducted by the State. She further advised that the Village hired a landscape architect to design a conceptual plan for the community. In addition to working with the consultant, the Orange County Planning staff has been assisting the Village to develop guidelines to uniform landscaping standards.

Ms. Smith stated the Village learned in July 2000 that they will no longer be able to participate in the Florida Main Street Program because the Goldenrod area has few historic resources and no traditional town center. However, they still intend to participate in the Main Street network through quarterly meetings and conferences. She requested Board consensus for staff to continue to work with the Village.

Mrs. Miller, representing the Historic Village at Goldenrod, addressed the Board to commend Ms. Smith and County staff for their assistance. She requested the Board allow the County staff to continue to work with them. She also requested that the Seminole County staff work with the Orange County staff to assist in developing a landscaping plan. In addition, she requested funding assistance.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated the funding the County will give will be the staff time given to the Village.

Ms. Miller also requested periodic code enforcement sweeps in the area.

District Commissioner Maloy thanked Ms. Miller for coming to the Board meeting and for her hard work on this project.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to direct County staff to continue to be involved and to assistant in coordination with the Orange County Planning staff in addressing codes and landscaping for the Historic Village at Goldenrod.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris suggested the County's grant writer assist the Village.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to approve proceeding with a Wall Reconstruction MSBU for the Sunrise Subdivision as a pilot project utilizing tentative Wall Reconstruction Procedures.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize staff to file an application to the current Special Exception for Sylvan Lake Park.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Goldman advised that staff will be contacting the area residents and holding a community meeting for same.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Assistant County Attorney, Stephen Lee, and Director of Fiscal Services, Cindy Hall, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed resolution to the issues related to cost increases for Court Appointed Attorneys.

Commissioner Henley requested staff to give quarterly or semi-annual reports on this.

The Board, by unanimous consensus, directed staff to give frequent updates on the new process for Court Appointed Attorney costs.

-------

Mr. Grace presented the funding request from the United Arts. He stated that in looking at all the County's other needs, he would recommend not providing any funding at this time. He said funding can be considered in the upcoming budget year.

Commissioner Morris suggested funding this for one year and then reviewing how that funding was used.

Commissioner Henley stated he believes everyone on the Board is in support of the arts; however, he said he is sensitive to Mr. Grace's recommendation. He questioned that since a portion of the fiscal year has already passed, is the County required to fund the full $100,000 in order to be a trustee.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Grace advised the Contingency Fund is at $3.4 million at this time.

Commissioner Maloy stated he believes the County Manager has taken the prudent course by recommending assessing all funding needs during the budget process.

Mr. Massey, United Arts, addressed the Board to advise for Seminole County to be a trustee, the funding would have to be the full $100,000. He stated, however, that the County would not have to pay based on the fiscal year. He said he could work with Mr. Grace on a payment schedule.

Commissioner Morris clarified with Mr. Massey that if the Board chose to fund United Arts beginning February 2001, they could pay the $100,000 over the next 12 months until February 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize funding in the amount of $100,000 for the United Arts so that Seminole County can become a trustee and have a seat on the Board; and to stipulate that the County's representative will be appointed at a later date.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated the staff can come back to the Board with a funding agreement and payment schedule.

Commissioner Henley advised that he received a letter from the Seminole County Art Council in opposition to the County funding United Arts.

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Maloy voted NAY.

The Board requested staff to review the Community Service Grants funded by the County to identify any that may be funded through United Arts.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve and authorize the following:

Andrew Lord, #00002310MM - $200

Meagan A. McGratty, #00006798MM - $200

Carlos Rafael Ortiz, #95010055MM - $100

Erika L. Pagliuso, #00008360MM - $200

Yennan Y. Perez, #00007709MM - $200

Damien F. Quevedo, #00002062MM - $200

Christopher Lee Roccia, #96002971CFB - $300

Nelson Roman, #99002027CFA - $350

Hermes Santiago, #00010070MM - $200

Petrina Simmons, #98013171MM - $200

Esek H. Taylor, #98005042CFB - $300

Ronjoneen Thomas, #95001958CFA - $350

Arnaldo Torres, #00002011MM - $200

Margaret C. Turner, #00010017MM - $200

Raymond Eugene Wade, #00003801MM - $200

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk's "received & filed":

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize expenditure in the amount of $200 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund for a contribution to Milwee Middle School's drug-free, alcohol-free eighth grade graduation celebration.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 11:59 a.m., reconvening at 1:32 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to authorize filing the proofs of publication for today’s public hearings.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Continuation of a public hearing from November 28, 2000 and January 9, 2001, to consider Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of SR 436, approximately ½ mile south of Howell Branch Road, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Ginny Markley, Principal Zoning Coordinator, addressed the Board to present the staff report. She said the Land Development Code Ordinance does not exclude signs located within municipalities when determining the separation requirements.

Ms. Markley advised that Zoning Section Chief John Dwyer was unable to attend the meeting today as he was testifying in court.

Deborah Leigh, Code Enforcement, addressed the Board to answer questions by Commissioner Maloy regarding what sign is close to this subject sign and how close it is.

Attorney Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen, representing Oxford Outdoor Advertising, addressed the Board to state in his letter dated October 3, 2000, he expressed his understanding, which was reached with former Assistant County Attorney Rob Gebaide, that these two hearings could be consolidated so he could make one presentation.

Whereupon, County Attorney Robert McMillan advised that might mean there are two motions, but the public hearing can be held for the same issue as long as the Appellant does not have a problem with it.

Continuation of a public hearing from November 28, 2000 and January 9, 2001, to consider Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of Highway 17-92, approximately ¾ mile north of SR 434, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, County Attorney Robert McMillan advised that the two hearings could be consolidated because they are the exact same issues.

Ms. Markley presented the staff report. She reiterated that the Land Development Code is clear when it states from any sign within Seminole County whether in unincorporated areas or in a municipality.

Mr. McMillan advised Commissioner McLain that in his opinion the Land Development Code Ordinance is enforceable whether inside or outside the city limit. He said the separation requirement applies for any sign and it has always been interpreted that way, and he doesn’t know of any situation where it has not ever been interpreted that way.

Commissioner Morris noted that these are similar circumstances but not identical situations.

Mr. Groot stated the Board did not have, as he requested in his letter of appeal, all the materials presented to the Board of Adjustment, nor a draft development order in favor of the property owner. He said there should be an alternative development order presented to the Board. He said this is not a case about billboards but one relating to the proper way the Land Development Code should be construed or interpreted. He reviewed the history of private property rights and said they are regulated in two ways, by easements and the law of nuisance. He said the courts have said throughout history that when you look at land development regulations, those are in derogation to common law, so they are construed strictly against the government and in favor of the property owner. Staff has concluded that the word "any" means any sign. He read from "Florida Jurisprudence" that ". . .since zoning regulations are in derogation of private rights of ownership, words used in a zoning ordinance should be given their broadest meaning when there is no definition or current text to the contrary and verbiage should be interpreted in favor of the property owner."

Attorney Groot explained what the literal interpretations of the Land Development Code and the word "any" in the Code mean. He also explained the literal interpretation with reference to the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. He said if they take the most literal interpretation of the word "any" in terms of signage, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He made the point that the Land Development Code should have been written more clearly. He read from the City of Longwood’s Code specifying beyond the city limits of Longwood. Attorney Groot read from Section 30.1363, Subsection B of the County's Land Development Code and said it is clear and precise with no ambiguity. He said the word "any" in the subject Code’s interpretation is ambiguous. He referred to a court case in Charleston County, South Carolina, where the County interpreted their Code like he is asking the Board to do today. (Attorney Groot submitted to the Board a copy of this case in his materials.)

Attorney Groot reviewed comments by Mr. Pennington, Mrs. Buchanan, and Mr. Rozon which were made at the last hearing before the Board of Adjustment. He said three of the five BOA members agreed there was ambiguity in the Code, and at that point somebody should have said that was a majority of the Board and the standard shows there is ambiguity, and the BOA should rule in favor of the applicant. Attorney Groot reviewed Mr. Bushrui’s comments that said he was not an attorney and gets confused with the legal language. Attorney Groot said the question before the BOA was a legal interpretation. He reiterated that there was enough of the BOA members at the second hearing to clearly determine that there was ambiguity and there should have been a ruling in favor of the applicant. Attorney Groot stated he is asking the Board to take the rule of law and apply it fairly and objectively in favor of private property owners and rule in his client’s favor. He submitted to the Record the materials that were presented to the BOA, transcript before the BOA, unofficial minutes of the BCC, BCC agenda for November 28, 2000, correspondence with the BCC, E-mail, and notice of objection relative to due process issues.

Commissioner Morris questioned if Attorney Groot was expecting the Board to review the additional materials not presented to the BOA and make a determination so they could vote. Whereupon, Mr. McMillan stated he didn’t think Attorney Groot was questioning the facts. He explained all the BCC is dealing with now is the interpretation of the Code and that is purely a legal determination. It doesn’t seem to him that the facts admitted and legal argument that has been made would be relative to what the BCC is hearing.

Attorney Groot responded that although those documents were requested to be presented to the BCC, they were not and the fact that the Board could draft an order in favor of the applicant is his point. He said if the Board could prepare an order that construes the Code in their favor, then the Board should rule in their favor.

Commissioner Morris asked Attorney Groot if, in the 15 years he was a County employee, he ever made the proposal to the Board that he is now making on any items that came before them. Attorney Groot answered that he made many recommendations that never got to the Board. Upon further inquiry, Attorney Groot said he thinks it would have been fair to have a development order prepared in the event the BCC ruled in favor of the property owner.

Mr. McMillan said if this is going to be an issue, the Board could continue the hearing until they can review the information.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Markley advised that those property owners within 300 feet in Casselberry were notified of the hearing today, and she said staff did not receive any other letters besides the one from Dr. Carlton.

Commissioner McLain stated it seems all this boils down to is whether the County’s ordinance is clear and concise without any ambiguity. He thinks Attorney Groot is challenging that the use of "any" is very broad. He asked why did staff not make the ordinance concise.

Mr. McMillan said the ordinance could have been done that way. He said some sections could have been written five years ago; the Code is not written all at one time.

Ms. Markley discussed with Commissioner McLain the definition of "sign" in the ordinance.

Commissioner Henley said if the Board interprets how Attorney Groot said the ordinance should be applied to any disagreement, then there would be no need to have the codes because the BCC would have to rule in favor of the landowner. He said he doesn’t think the code is ambiguous, but you can take things in isolation and make them sound ambiguous. What they have designed is an ordinance to govern signs and he believes they have the right to do that. They have attempted to regulate the amount of signs and their locations in order to avoid them becoming a nuisance and cluttered. He said the fact that Attorney Groot has an arbitrary, invisible line does not make it mean it is any less cluttered to have the two signs in those distances. He doesn’t think the sign located on the other side of the imaginary line rules out the Board’s ability to use it in terms of its impact.

Commissioner Morris said the cross-jurisdictional issue has been discussed before. He read from Webster’s Dictionary, 10^th Edition, that the meaning of "any" is "one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind." He said this is without specificity. He said the zoning code is a severable document and when you look at it, it has sections that could be confused with another section and that is why it is severable.

Grey Wilson, 1468 Shadwell Circle, addressed the Board to state this is not a property rights issue. He said he agrees with staff that it is a separation issue. He thinks the Board should move ahead at some point and rule on these issues.

Attorney Groot explained further about construing the code. He referred to Section 1.11 D.

Mr. McMillan clarified that both sections that read about measuring from the sign say from any other sign on the same side of the road without reference to the county or city or both. He said with the Charleston County case, the city had a long-standing interpretation of their code that it did not include signs within the cities. That’s how their code was interpreted and enforced. After the permit was issued, the city decided later it wanted the sign down and changed the interpretation of the code to say it included measuring from within cities. The city was sued and was told the sign could stay based upon a principal in the law, which allows a government to be estopped by the actions of its staff. He said Florida does not have that rule. He advised that Seminole County has a long-standing policy of how the County measures and this has been done every other time. He said Seminole County would be doing the same thing that the City of Charleston did if they had not adopted another interpretation. He said there is a standard statutory rule which says how you have interpreted your code throughout its history is evidence of what it means.

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 2:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2:40 p.m.

Mr. McMillan reported that he reviewed the documents submitted by Attorney Groot and there were a lot of cases. He suggested the Board close the public hearing, continue this item and he will provide each Board member with a packet of the information for review. At the next BCC meeting, they can take a vote.

Chairman Van Der Weide closed the public hearing at this time.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition. The Speaker Request Form for Mr. Grey Wilson was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris, on the advice of the County Attorney, to continue to February 13, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of SR 436, approximately ½ mile south of Howell Branch Road; as described in the proof of publication, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Under discussion, Mr. McMillan advised Commissioner Maloy that the public hearing has been closed and at the next meeting, the Board would only discuss the materials reviewed and take a vote.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley, under the advice of counsel, to continue to February 13, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of Highway 17-92, approximately ¾ mile north of SR 434; as described in the proof of publication, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen; and that includes that the input portion of the public hearing will not be included.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Consideration of a Dock and Boathouse Permit where applicant is requesting approval to construct a 1,366 square-foot dock and boathouse structure; property located at 606 Sylvan Reserve Cove in the northeast quadrant of Lake Sylvan, Albert Cichra Builders for owner Karen Robertson.

Mr. Grace advised this item was not advertised properly and, therefore, will not be heard today. He said he has discussed this with Mr. Fisher and staff is working to make sure this is not a problem in the future.

The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:

Chairman Van Der Weide recommended the appointment of Keylor Chan to the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study Citizens Advisory Committee; and adoption of Resolution to Dennis Dolgner for services rendered on the Committee.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to appoint Keylor Chan to the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study Citizens Advisory Committee for a four-year term ending January 1, 2005; and adoption of appropriate Resolution 2001-R-17, as shown on page _______, of appreciation to Dennis Dolgner for his services on the Committee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Chairman Van Der Weide gave his recommendations for District 3 reappointments/appointments.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to reappoint/appoint the following:

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley asked if it was true that the Code Enforcement Board requires appointment of members with expertise and are the Commissioners responsible for finding the people with the stated expertise.

Mr. McMillan explained that each seat on the Code Enforcement Board has a specific designation and technically the Commissioners are supposed to make appointments accordingly, unless it is impractical to do so.

Chairman Van Der Weide requested staff to issue a single page instruction sheet relative to requirements for appointments.

Commissioner Morris said the issue of rotating appointments on the Code Enforcement Board was brought up at the last meeting. He asked Mr. Grace to check on that also.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-----

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to reappoint Gertrude Lucas to the Agriculture Advisory Board for a one-year terming ending January 1, 2002; and appoint Ned Johnson to the Natural Lands Committee for a two-year term ending January 1, 2003.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Henley discussed the issue of the City of Maitland’s 10 acres on Kewannee Park and the staff’s attempt to place a Public Works facility there. He commended Planning & Development Director Don Fisher for his efforts in working with the citizens and staff of Maitland. Commissioner Henley said that issue has been resolved and the City of Maitland is no longer pursuing it. He asked the Board to join in instructing staff to work with Maitland to determine how the land could be used so the citizens could get some return on their investment, but at the same time not be a detriment to the citizens of Seminole County surrounding the park.

Commissioner Henley stated in the park area, staff has run into a problem not anticipated with the parking and may have to look into locating the parking elsewhere.

-------

Commissioner Henley discussed a code enforcement issue that has been going on for 10 years. He distributed pictures (received and filed) of the site located at 349 E. Alpine Street to the Board for review. He said in an effort for the County to be more effective in enforcing its codes, he met with the County Manager, staff, the Sheriff and State Attorney and they have agreed to form a unit that meets once a month to consider these extreme code violations, coordinate efforts, and develop a strategy to implement a code to get compliance. He said they have started applying nuisance laws to code violations as well as others. He stated DCM Frances Chandler will be chairing the Board and coordinating the work.

-------

Commissioner McLain reported he received a letter yesterday from Sanford Mayor Dale that the Board consider bike lanes on the Lake Mary Extension around the Airport. He asked Mr. Grace to comment tonight at the public hearing on whether the decision to use bike lanes or sidewalks would affect the typical section alignment.

-------

Commissioner McLain asked about the document he received about homeowners associations and speed humps. Commissioner Henley advised most of that is in Commissioner Maloy’s district and part is in his district. He said there is a coordinated effort in Orange and Seminole Counties to get the speed humps removed. He stated he will meet tomorrow with the individuals.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to reappoint/appoint the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to adopt Resolutions and appoint the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Commissioner Morris discussed that he believes the County employees need an alternative way of contributing through payroll deductions, other than the United Way, because of the recent discrimination actions against the Boy Scouts. He requested that the Board instruct the County Manager to look for alternative organizations or come up with an alternative procedure for the employees to donate.

Commissioner McLain stated he agrees with Commissioner Morris. He said if they are going to find an alternate, they need to make that agency as accessible as in the past with United Way.

Commissioner Henley stated he could support this effort because United Way stated they could not condone discrimination and that is what they are doing. He said they would be moving the exclusivity United Way has had with the employees, and he supports moving to open this up to other choices.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated there is more discrimination than most people realize in United Way with certain agencies having a higher priority than others. He said he does not have any trouble supporting Commissioner Morris’ request.

Commissioner Maloy said he had no problem giving an alternative to the employees. He asked if there were other organizations that do the same sort of thing.

Commissioner McLain suggested the Board consider having the Boy Scouts as an alternative or having both agencies.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to have the County Manager report back to the Board in 60 days on an alternative method and implementation to the County employees’ current charity contribution method to United Way.

Under discussion Commissioner Maloy suggested sending a letter to United Way of the Board’s intentions. Commissioner Morris had no objections.

Chairman Van Der Weide directed the County Manager to write the letter (copy received and filed).

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to appoint Linda Batman to the Historical Commission.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 voted AYE.

-------

Commissioner Morris reported that he and Chairman Van Der Weide attended the Presidential Inauguration and it went very well.

No report.

--------

The meeting recessed at 3:22 p.m., reconvening at 7:02 p.m., this same date with all Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.

Kevin Grace, County Manager, stated the rezone portion of this item was incorrectly advertised and because of that, this item will have to be continued to February 13, 2001.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to continue to February 13, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Planned Development to Planned Development; and Rezone from R-1AA (Single-family Dwelling Unit) and PUD (Planned Unit Development) to PCD (Planned Commercial District); property located south of SR 436 and east of Bear Lake Road, approximately 9.3 acres, as described in the proof of publication, John Percy.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider a request for an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in denying a Special Exception to permit a dog kennel for up to 50 dogs on a 5-acre tract located on the south side of Shawnee Trail; approximately 660 feet south of Osceola Road, as described in the proof of publication, Jeannie Cope.

Ginny Markley, Principal Zoning Coordinator, addressed the Board to advise that Ms. Cope breeds purebred dogs and operates a dog kennel/adoption facility for stray or abandoned dogs that people leave with her. The kennel is located within an open chain link area with igloo insulated doghouses for the dog shelters. She stated the property is assigned Rural 5 land use designation and the A-5 zoning classification allows kennels including the commercial raising and breeding of dogs upon granting a Special Exception. The BOA denied the request based on the kennel being detrimental to the character of the area, it is not compatible with the concept of low density rural land use and it does have an unduly adverse affect on the area and the people that live there. She said Ms. Cope submitted a petition with signatures of 34 Geneva residents who support the dog kennel/adoption facility. She reviewed the standards for granting a special exception as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

Ms. Markley stated staff concurs with the decision of the BOA based on the following: (1) A dog kennel/adoption facility open to the general public would not be consistent with the general zoning plan of the A-5 rural zoning classification; (2) A commercial dog kennel/adoption facility would not be consistent with trends of development in the area or neighborhood. This area of Seminole County has developed as 5-acre single-family residential home sites, located on private roads that are not maintained by Seminole County; (3) A dog kennel/adoption facility with up to 50 dogs located in open dog runs would be highly intensive in nature; (4) The dog kennel/adoption facility would have an unduly adverse affect on existing traffic patterns, movements and intensity. Shawnee Trail is a private, substantial road that is maintained by the residents who live within the Osceola Bluff South Development and not Seminole County; (5) The dog kennel/adoption facility is served by well and septic system; and (6) The dog kennel/adoption facility would not be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan due to compatibility issues with the surrounding residential dwellings and the private substandard road utilized for non-residential uses. Staff recommends that the Board deny the appeal request and enter a notice of denial. She stated she received an e-mail (received and filed) from Richard Call indicating that he is in support of the facility.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Markley advised she does not know the names of the residents on Shawnee Trail that will be impacted by this request.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Markley advised Ms. Cope’s property is approximately 5 acres and the kennels go right up to the property line. She stated staff does not recommend any open dog runs as it will be a nuisance to the neighbors. She added staff does not know how long the kennel has been in operation.

Mike Wittmer, Seminole County Animal Control Supervisor, addressed the Board to submit copies of pictures and documents containing code and ordinance information (all were received and filed).

Commissioner Morris left the meeting at this time.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. Wittmer advised he is representing Seminole County Animal Control’s point of view.

Mr. Wittmer stated the first document is Chapter 20 of the Seminole County Ordinance relating to commercial kennels and the second document shows what the state law is for offering animals for sale. He stated his first concern is if this is allowed it cannot be changed. Ms. Cope indicated that she would like to have a special exception for a commercial kennel so that she can apply to the IRS for a nonprofit status. The state law indicates that if you are a humane organization, then you are exempted and that is why Seminole County Animal Control does not come under this rule. Ms. Cope is unable to care for the animals herself, therefore, her brother does most of the work. Therefore, one person is doing all the work and it is almost a full-time job. If the Board allows this special exception, there will be more dogs coming to the shelter. One neighbor on Shawnee Trail objects to this as well as the ones across the street. The neighbor to the west of Ms. Cope indicated that he is not against this, as the dogs’ barking does not bother him. The Animal Control Division used to get calls from the neighbor who used to live west of her. For these reasons, he doesn’t think this is a good idea for the Board to grant the special exception.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Wittmer advised the dogs seem to be pretty healthy, but they are not sterilized before they are adopted. He stated there have been no problems with the dogs getting loose.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Wittmer advised there is a requirement of showing evidence that the animals are being taken care of and Ms. Cope has produced certificates. He stated Ms. Cope does have a vet that works with her.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Wittmer advised under this case, it would fall under the definition of commercial breeding as the animals are being sold. He stated Ms. Cope has had a total of 92 ads in the newspaper since before Christmas and the ads indicate a selling price from $50 to $500.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Wittmer advised if the Board denied the request, the Animal Control Division would give Ms. Cope time to adopt out the dogs. He stated his department would monitor her and, at that point, he would require her to stop the procedure. If the Board would put a number on how many animals she can keep, staff would have to monitor it. He said if an animal kennel is allowed in this area, sooner or later, there will be problems with the neighbors.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Wittmer advised if an individual breeds a dog once or twice a year and sells them, that is not a commercial business. If an individual buys a dog and then decided not to keep it, the contract usually says that they will have to bring it back.

Jeannie Cope, appellant, addressed the Board to state she has been doing this for seven years without any written complaints. She stated the main reason the neighbor to the west moved had nothing to do with her dogs but with him abusing his wife and children. The neighbors currently around her are in support of this kennel.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Ms. Cope advised the number of dogs have crept up a little over the years but not a lot over the last 3 years. She stated the dogs have water bowls in their pens and they have a pond where they can drink that water and swim in it.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Cope advised the vet furnishes her with a state-required certificate (received and filed) and this certificate is required before you can sell a dog or adopt it out. All of the animals go through the same veterinary procedures and the vet issues a health certificate on each animal.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Cope advised the nearest pen from a neighbor is approximately 300 ft. She stated if she receives this designation, she would be able to solicit donations, volunteers and put people on a work program. She said if she could get help from the people and the County, the dogs would not have to be put to sleep. The animals are kept in big open fields and they seem to be happy being able to run around and play. She added they will not take in more animals than they can take care of.

Commissioner Morris displayed some of the pictures and Ms. Cope explained where the dirt piled on the property came from; why there are trailers on the property as well as a school bus and a vehicle; why a junk pile is inside one of the enclosure; and why a smaller pen is located on the property.

Scottie Prince, 474 Tullis Ave., addressed the Board to state he has been involved with dog rescuing for almost ten years and he is here tonight opposing this request on the grounds that Ms. Cope is not functioning as a dog rescuer or an adoption center. He stated Ms. Cope is a commercial dog breeder and adoption centers require that all dogs must be spayed or neutered before adoption. A reputable rescuer uses a preadoption application to screen potential homes, reserves the right to refuse any applicant for adoption, and has a good working relationship with the veterinary. He said he is speaking solely on the concerns of the animals.

Jean Sargeant, 409 W. High St., addressed the Board to submit pictures (received and filed) of the animal pens showing dirty water in water bowls, scummy water in a pond, and igloos for shelters. She stated she counted 47 dogs and many of them were purebred dogs. Most of them looked like they just had pups. There was hardly any straw in their igloos and there was no shade for the animals to keep cool during the summer. She said she had to tiptoe around the yard as there was so much feces laying around. She submitted a complaint (received and filed) with the Humane Society filed in October 2000. She added the pens are not enclosed and they are open to the elements. She stated she believes Ms. Cope is selling the dogs and this is not a rescue operater.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Sargaent indicated that the pens are fiberglass and none of the dogs looked like they were starving.

Guy Thomas, 1275 Arapaho Trail, addressed the Board to state everyone who lives in the city usually abandons their animals at the dump. He stated he doesn’t understand why the County doesn’t work with Ms. Cope instead of against her.

Ms. Cope stated she has placed more shavings in the doghouses. She stated she has two purebred dogs and the rest are mixed breeds. She said she will find good homes for the pups. She stated Mr. Wittmer is concerned that these animals are not neutered or spayed, and she would like to know which animals in the Animal Control facility is spayed or neutered before they go out the door.

Mr. Wittmer stated the County has a program where all dogs and cats being adopted will receive a redemption certificate and the adopter can take it to any vet to get it spayed or neutered. This is a project that they try to monitor but everyone does not comply with the procedures. He stated staff is in the process of increasing the cost of the certificates so that they can get more people to comply with it.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated he has three dogs and he believes a person should have a certain amount of freedom to raise animals. He stated the two things that are working against Ms. Cope is the BOA denied it and staff does not support it. He stated all seven requirements must be met in order to get a special exception. He said he feels that Ms. Cope has a commercial activity when she displays 90 or more ads in the newspaper. He added that what Ms. Cope has is high intensive in nature and if she wants to run a kennel, she will have to have land that qualifies under the current zoning or under the special exception. He stated he feels that 47 dogs is too highly intensive in nature for the land use and zoning, therefore, she is running a commercial enterprise.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision in denying a Special Exception to permit a dog kennel for up to 50 dogs on a 5-acre tract located on the south side of Shawnee Trail; approximately 660 feet south of Osceola Road, as described in the proof of publication, Jeannie Cope, and approval of the Denial Development Order, as shown on page ________.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Commissioner McLain advised Mr. Wittmer indicated that staff will work with Ms. Cope to phase this down and to find a way to allow her to continue doing part of what she is doing but not with that much intensity. Commissioner McLain stated he will get involved with staff in phasing this down.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner McLain recommended that Ms. Cope contact his office to schedule a meeting with him in discussing this issue. He stated he feels they can come up with a solution that is acceptable to Ms. Cope.

-------

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 8:03 p.m., reconvening at 8:17 p.m., with Commissioner McLain being late.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request for design of new alignment and four-lane typical section for East Lake Mary Blvd. from Ohio Avenue to SR 46 at SR 415, as described in the proof of publication.

Heather Bradshaw-Ells, Engineering Dept., addressed the Board to state the original typical section was adopted in 1994 and staff had planned on buying the right-of-way for four lanes but two lanes initially would be constructed. The staff is now recommending building the road as a four-lane road. Grant money has been approved to build four lanes. There are plans to construct four lanes to the existing East Lake Mary Blvd. to the west, and FDOT is planning to four-lane SR 415 on the other side of the project. The typical section includes sidewalks on both sides as well as bike lanes. She stated the original alignment cut through the Brisson landfill and that is why staff began the realignment process. She explained why staff did a realignment process. She stated Mayor Larry Dale, City of Sanford, is here to answer any questions regarding his request for the bike trail.

Commissioner McLain entered the meeting at this time.

John Berkett, Dyer Mills & Precourt, addressed the Board to state the project is about 4 miles in length and it begins at Ohio Avenue, past the Orlando Sanford Airport and ties into SR 46 and SR 415. He reviewed the different alignments being proposed on the aerial map and the problems that came about with the numerous alternatives. He stated the project’s main emphasis was to avoid the Brisson Landfill and they eventually came up with the yellow alignment (2C) which avoids Brisson as well as the eagle nests in the area. This alignment also accommodates the City’s proposed treatment plant.

Commissioner McLain stated he has met with homeowners on the northern portion of the alignment and they are in favor of alignment 2C.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Bradshaw-Ells advised staff and the consultants have been working the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and they feel confident that the slight encroachment with alignment 2C will be acceptable to them.

Commissioner McLain stated the Orlando Sanford Airport has indicated that alignment 2C is acceptable to them.

Letters from Attorney Kurt Garber and City of Sanford Mayor Larry Dale pertaining to East Lake Mary Blvd./Silver Lake Drive were received and filed.

Bill Tipton, Jr., 760 Maguire Blvd., addressed the Board to state based on what was presented, he will pass on speaking.

Attorney Kurt Garber, 437 N. Magnolia Ave., addressed the Board to state he is speaking on behalf of property owners T.K. Wiley and Treena Kay. He stated they are in favor of staff’s recommendations since the alignment will not displace any homeowners. A memorandum to Mr. Garber from William Tipton, Jr. relating to problems with alignment A and alternatives was received and filed.

Jim Morgan, 740 Florida Central Parkway, addressed the Board to state he will pass on speaking.

Howard Phillips, 391 Tulip Trail, addressed the Board to state since the alignment has been moved south, he would like to know if there will be any zoning changes in that area.

Commissioner McLain stated if the property owner would like to change the zoning, he would have to submit an application for that and the Board would hold a public hearing based on the request.

Commissioner McLain stated that Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, could inform Mr. Phillips what the current land use is and what will be acceptable as a reasonable zoning in that area.

Bill Kirchhoff addressed the Board to state runway 27L that the airport is proposing shows that it is going to be 7200 ft. He stated he believes this type of runway will have jet planes taking off and landing on it and the residents in the area will not be too happy. Therefore, he doesn’t think that runway should be that long. It will not be in the best interest of the County to allow that runway to be that long. He stated the blue alignment is a little further away from the active eagle’s nest. He said he has concerns about limited access of this highway for the people who own in the area. He added he feels that the old Anderson farmhouse should be left standing. If that runway is going to be used for jet take-off and landing, then the value of the adjacent property will devalue.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels Mayor Dale should address the issue of the proposed runway.

Mayor Larry Dale, City of Sanford, addressed the Board to state the new runway is for private aircraft and the expansion of it would still be for private and corporate aircraft. The FAA has a primary east/west runway and that has been the critical part of the alignment.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mayor Dale advised the minimum length the FAA would allow on that runway is 6000 ft.

Commissioner McLain stated he would like to thank the airport and Mayor Dale for working with the County in accommodating some of the problems that has occurred in that area.

At the request of Commissioner McLain, Mayor Dale addressed the issue of bicycle lanes, stating he is satisfied with the plan as presented.

Melynda Bodiford, 4120 Moores Station Rd., addressed the Board to state this is the first notice she has heard about this design. She stated her land will be impacted even if the County goes with the blue, yellow or white alignments.

Mr. McMillan stated the final design will have to be done as well as appraisals and the homeowner will be contacted.

Chairman Van Der Weide informed Ms. Bodiford that if her property is impacted, the County will have to purchase it and that will go through the process.

Ms. Bodiford stated if there is going to be further hearings, she would like to be notified.

Commissioner McLain stated part of Ms. Bodiford’s property will be in the right-of-way and the remaining portion of her property will have a substantial increase in value. He stated he will be happy to meet with her, and staff can also go over with her detailed mapping showing where the alignment actually is.

Richard Holcomb, 3880 Bridges Rd., addressed the Board to state the County chose the area that will impact four houses. He stated Bridges Road has been named after his grandparents and is a County-maintained dirt road. He said the property has been in the family for 60 years.

John Moore, Engineering Dept., addressed the Board to state staff is at the preliminary stage and if there is a slight adjustment in missing homes, they will try to do so.

Commissioner Morris stated he would like to know if they could go up to the old blue alignment and then go on the green alignment. This will avoid all of the homes in that one portion.

Mr. Berkett stated they would not be able to make the 60 to 70 degree turn if they follow the conservation line and the airport.

Commissioner McLain stated once staff can look at better designs, the County might be able to make some adjustments. They may be able to go through areas where they can shift so many feet one way or the other and still stay within the same parcel.

Mr. Moore stated staff will look at the house relative to the base line and they will adjust the alignment if feasible.

Mr. Holcomb referred to an eagle’s nest in the area of alignment two.

Ms. Bradshaw-Ells stated the consultants did a field review in that area and they did not find an eagle’s nest there.

Mr. Kirchhoff stated if runway 27L is pushed back 500 ft., then they could use the blue alignment on the north/south. If staff and the engineers could look at that to see if they could go around the original blue alignment, it could save the County some money.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt the new alignment (2C) and four-lane typical section for the design of East Lake Mary Blvd. from Ohio Avenue to SR 46 at SR 415, with staff comments and to try to accommodate requests as they come forward.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 9:08 p.m., reconvening at 9:17 p.m., with all Board members in attendance.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Outdoor Advertising Sign Moratorium Ordinance, received and filed.

John Dwyer, Zoning Section Chief, addressed the Board to advise the Board held the first public hearing on January 9, 2001. He stated the moratorium is proposed for a period of 180 days and applies to applications under review on the effective date of the ordinance and also prohibits filing of new applications after that date. The proposed ordinance does not prohibit bringing non-conforming signs into compliance and does not extend the date for compliance of non-conforming signs beyond February 1, 2001 as required by Ordinance #99-5.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Debbi Leigh, Code Enforcement, addressed the Board to advise there have seen applications submitted to rebuild nonconforming boards and approximately four more applications have been submitted including one on SR 434 and Lake Markham Woods Road. She stated five applications are pending and two are on appeal.

Grey Wilson stated he is speaking in favor of the moratorium ordinance. He submitted and reviewed fact sheets (received and filed) on billboard control, traffic safety and hazards, and billboard industry myths. He encouraged the Board to consider talking to the Florida League of Counties as well as the City of Orlando during this time period. He stated he hopes that this ordinance passes and the Board considers the expert advice that is given on it.

Dee Dee Speirs, 105 Sunsat Drive, addressed the Board to display cartoons of billboards (received and filed) in Seminole County and she read her comments supporting the moratorium.

Attorney Lonnie Groot addressed the Board to state he represents Oxford Outdoor Advertising. He stated he would like to ask the Board to amend the ordinance as follows: Page 3, Section 2 to include "except those which relate to applications that are pending on the effective date of this Ordinance," after the word "permit" in the second line; and add "except those" before the word "which" in the ninth line of Section 2, same page. He submitted his proposed amendments to the Board. He stated moratoriums are not new to Seminole County and he referred to four ordinances that were passed in 1995 and 1997. He said all four of those ordinances have specific findings that are consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan and the objectives that are set forth in that plan. An analysis has never been done and there is nothing that distinguishes that use with any other use in the commercial land use designation. He referred to and read Comp Plan Policy 2.12.3. He said an ordinance that stops a certain type of land use is the land development regulation. He stated he doesn’t believe such an analysis has been accomplished as to the effect of M-1, C-3, and C-2 properties in the unincorporated area of Seminole County.

Mr. McMillan stated that is an issue that the Board can decide and they could allow the ones that are in the process on the date the Board decides to consider a moratorium. It is certainly legal to do what has been proposed and if the Board wants to do something else, that is something that needs to be discussed by the Board.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. McMillan advised the purpose of the moratorium is to keep the status quo until such time that issue is evaluated.

Commissioner Morris stated in order to keep the status quo, the Board would have come up with some type of analysis on the impact of the zoning. He added that basically a moratorium is a time out.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Ordinance #2001-2, as shown on page _________, adopting the Outdoor Advertising Sign Moratorium for a period of 180 days.

Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated he will not be supporting the motion as he feels there is a lot more important things that staff can be spending time on. He stated he feels it will be interesting to see what the next six months will bring.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he feels that the County has a good ordinance with one exception. The County ended up with something they didn’t anticipate and that was never the intent. He stated what the County is trying to do is get control over the total number of boards in the County and not allow proliferation, therefore, he will be supporting the motion.

Commissioner Morris stated at the first public hearing the business industry and public supported the moratorium. He stated he considers this very important business and the Board wouldn’t have spent as much time on it if they didn’t feel it wasn’t important. He said there is a problem and it needs to be corrected. He said he hopes this is not something that will take 6 months to do.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he is not planning on having a lot of work sessions on this issue and based on coordination with staff and the opinion of each Board member, they could go to public hearing and take public input.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Commissioner Morris advised the Board could lift the moratorium by enacting an ordinance.

Commissioner McLain stated he has been here through all the moratoriums and debates. This is a unique situation as he has not heard anyone opposing the moratorium. It is surprising to him that there has been a lack of opposition. The Board needs to work and solve this problem quickly.

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Maloy voted NAY.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Planned Development to Low Density Residential; and Rezone from PCD (Planned Commercial District) to R-1A (Single Family Dwelling); property located on the west side of Brantley Drive at the north end of the road, approximately 0.2 acres, Dwight Barron, received and filed.

Cindy Matheny briefly reviewed the staff recommendations as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

Dwight Barron, applicant, addressed the Board to advise he supports what staff is recommending.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Ordinance #2001-3, as shown on page _________, approving the Small Scale Land Use Amendment to Low Density Residential; property located on the west side of Brantley Drive at the north end of the road, approximately 0.2 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Dwight Barron.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

- - -

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Ordinance #2001-4, as shown on page _________, approving the rezone to R-1A for property located on the west side of Brantley Drive at the north end of the road, approximately 0.2 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Dwight Barron.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST_____________________Clerk____________________Chairman

slw/cc/er