The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, May, 19, 1992, at 5:05 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

ZONING

The Chairman, Commr. Bakich, opened the meeting.

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, informed those present who was on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Committee and in what capacity they served. He noted that he felt they had done a very good job in preparing the LDRs.

The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and referred to a letter he had forwarded to them prior to this meeting, dated May 14, 1992, that outlined two items which he found conflicted with both the Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs) and the LDRs, being (1) verbiage pertaining to PUDs and (2) percentage ratios pertaining to MUQDs. After a brief discussion regarding the matter, he recommended that the Board do the following: (a) amend the PUD to allow a 100% density transfer and the trading off of conservation easements and (b) reassign the percentages in the MUQD to either delete them totally or delete at least two of the categories.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, responded to Mr. Beliveau's recommendation, stating that what he requested could be done, however, it would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, interjected that what Mr. Beliveau suggested could be beneficial to the County in that (1) the County would have a chance to give some bonus points to the developer for upland clustering and (2) would have the opportunity to put conservation easements over unaltered wetlands.

Mr. Roger Freeman, a local greyhound dog farmer, appeared before the Board stating that the County addresses kennels but does not address a greyhound dog farm, specifically, at which time he stated that he is a licensed greyhound dog farmer with the National Greyhound Association, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the County and noted some problems that the County's definition of a kennel was going to cause him. He stated that this issue (greyhound dog farm versus kennel) needs to be addressed, due to the fact that his facility, and other facilities like his, are farms, not kennels.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded to Mr. Freeman's concerns, stating that she had distributed to the Board an amendment to Chapter III, of the LDRs, which acknowledges the fact that a greyhound dog farm is a farm and lists it as a permitted use in the agricultural zoning district, with a CUP.

Mr. Carl Ludecke, Charlie Johnson Builders, Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board and brought to their attention a scrivener's error in Chapter 3, concerning septic tanks, which he noted would be brought up later in the meeting for discussion and the Board's consideration.

Mr. Joe Hill, Chairman of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), appeared before the Board and requested them to help the SJRWMD enforce the wetlands rule that is presently in place, since, due to severe budget restraints, the State is not able to keep a close watch on development projects to see if they are being handled properly. He noted that Lake County has been a leader in protecting its wetlands since the late 1960s, realizing that if it did not do it, the County was going to lose them, as no one else was protecting them.

Commr. Gregg noted that approximately three weeks ago he requested staff to send letters to the Department of Environmental Regulations (DER), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the St. Johns River Water Management District requesting that they meet jointly with staff and discuss the possibility of delegating authority to Lake County regarding the issue alluded to by Mr. Hill. He noted that the Board has meetings scheduled with DER and DNR this week, however, has not received a response, as yet, from the SJRWMD, regarding the matter.

Mr. Scottie Butler, who serves as general counsel for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation in Gainesville, appeared before the

Board stating that the Farm Bureau is made up of county farm bureaus from around the State, and noted that he was present at this meeting at the request of the Lake County Farm Bureau. He stated one thing that all people in agriculture have in common is utilization of land and that there has been much founded, and some not so founded, trepidation over the potential infringement on their private property rights by the Growth Management Act. He stated that approximately 60% of the audience present this date rely on agriculture as their livelihood and that, in spite of the three devastating freezes suffered over the last decade, agriculture is still a very viable part of the economy in Lake County and, statewide, it is still a $6 billion industry.

Mrs. Ruth Russell Gray, Vice-President of the Lake County League of Women Voters, appeared before the Board stating that the League concurs with what Mr. Hill stated earlier and that they are for the preservation of wetlands.

Mr. Frank Bouis, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he is in favor of local control. He feels that the SJRWMD adopts rules that are unnecessary and undertakes programs that are unnecessary. He stated that the SJRWMD has spent more

money in Lake County than anywhere else, but, that it was spent purchasing some of the most productive agricultural property in the world and taking it out of production, at the cost of thousands and thousands of acres of farmland, and thousands of Lake County jobs.

Mr. Paul Bethune, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he was bothered by the fact that some of the roads in the County had been downgraded, making it possible for developers to develop in areas where they might, otherwise, not have been able to. He felt that, sooner or later, those roads were going to be overloaded and would then have to be expanded, at the expense of the taxpayers. He stated that it was also going to add to urban sprawl, which will cause the County even more problems. He also stated how he felt about developments being allowed to have septic tanks on lots of a quarter to one half acre which, in time, will lead to the need for a sewer system, and, again, taxpayers will help foot the bill. He then touched on the lawsuit against DCA, noting that he feels it is taking up a lot of the taxpayers' money to fight what he considers to be reasonable rules. He requested the Board to give the taxpayers responsible development that is not going to cost them money somewhere down the line, and to put the roads back up to the standards that they were before.

Mr. Hal Turville, City Commissioner, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that he feels one of the major issues that the Board is confronted with is regulation of the wetlands, which he feels the County needs to participate in, as he feels it has got to be at the local level. He discussed, briefly, the large lot rule and what he feels it takes away from the people of the County, as well as the fact that he feels the County should protect its farmers by limiting urban sprawl.

Mr. George Stoltz, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board and questioned whether there would be an interest in closing the Apopka/Beauclaire Canal, if it would benefit the lakes in Lake County, however, no decision was made at this time.

Mr. Jim Bible, Greater Construction Corporation, appeared before the Board and referred to a letter dated May 18, 1992 (submitted for the record), listing 42 items that he felt needed to be revised or clarified, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that he felt the County would be better served if it adopted the regulations set forth by DER, noting that they have been updated over the last three years to reflect current technology.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, upon being questioned by Commr. Bakich regarding the revisions that Mr. Bible requested, responded, stating that staff had looked at his comments and had tried to address some of them, however, to just adopt DER's regulations and then try to do something with them on such short notice was going to be difficult for staff to do.

Mr. Jay VanderMeer, a resident of the Green Swamp area, appeared before the Board stating that he was very much concerned in protecting the wetlands, but, believes the ordinance that the County has had in place for a number of years has protected them. He noted that he would rather deal with local government than state government in these matters. He read into the Minutes the last sentence of the seventh article of the Bill of Rights, as follows: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". He stated that he feels the Board is representing him, as well as the other citizens of Lake County, and requested them to use good common sense in doing so.

Mr. Ed Bergman, a member, and former Chairman, of the Board of Zoning Appeals, appeared before the Board stating that he supports changes that have been made in the proposed LDRs regarding variance procedures, however, only supports procedural changes - the ones that would affect the action of the Board itself.

Mr. John Benton, President of the Lake County Conservation Council, appeared before the Board stating that said organization has grave concerns regarding the County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map and is working to resolve those differences, in

a timely fashion. He stated that since the LDRs is based, in part, upon the Comprehensive Plan, any reservations that they have about the plan, if they transfer to the LDRs, will pursue it through the 9J24 process. He stated that they would prefer that wetlands permitting be done on a local level, noting that it does come with a cost. He presented, for the record, a list of approximately 300 names of Lake County citizens who support the Council's stand on the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Bill Ray, a local resident, appeared before the Board and discussed the wetlands issue and how it has affected the agricultural community, at which time he requested the Board to listen to the agricultural community, when they tell the Board what their needs are, not someone else. He discussed, briefly, the following definitions listed in the LDRs, indicating what he felt was wrong with them: Critical Habitat on Page II-14; Environmentally Sensitive on Page II-19; Kennels on Page II-29; Open Space on Page VI-31. He stated that the farmer is tied to the land, and if the County removes their base value in land, they will not be able to continue to farm. He stated that, if the Board wants to preserve agriculture in Lake County, they need to give the agricultural community flexible uses and alternatives to their land uses, other than agriculture, and allow them to pursue those, when agriculture is no longer feasible.

Ms. Susie Bergman, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that she was in support of the Board of County Commissioners in their lawsuit with DCA and urged them to keep the LDRs from further restricting the property rights of property owners. She stated that, at the last meeting in which the LDRs were discussed, Commr. Swartz stated that land "currently" used for agriculture should not have further restrictions placed on it, to do another agriculture endeavor, and noted that she is concerned about the word "currently" still being in the LDRs, questioning whether this excluded those individuals who have burned-out citrus groves and have not been able to afford to replant. She questioned whether those individuals were going to have new regulations and restrictions to deal with, or whether there is language to protect them. She noted that she did not feel the County has the right to take the use of anyone's property for any reason that is not solidly based on scientific fact that proves that developing it would harm the environment. She noted that she did not feel the word is getting out about property rights and is worried about this fact. She reiterated the fact that she supports the Board in their lawsuit with DCA, and stated that she supports them in their efforts to have balanced and reasonable land use regulations.

Mr. Leon Parrish, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he was concerned about the issue of one's right to privacy, which he elaborated on.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney with the Law Office of Cecelia Bonifay, appeared before the Board stating that she would like the record to reflect that she represents several property owners and businesses in Lake County, at which time she submitted a list, for the record, of said individuals. She stated that, on behalf of her clients, they fully support the position that the Board has taken with regard to wetlands protection and the LDRs, noting that she spent a lot of time reviewing said provisions and feels confident that the LDRs provide more than adequate protection for natural resources, in particular wetlands.

Ms. Campione discussed three recommendations that she noted she had previously given to the Board regarding concurrency management. Her first recommendation was that a committee be appointed to analyze and monitor a Concurrency Management System over the next six months (she feels it would be less of a hassle if this committee is comprised of individuals from both the private and the public sector and that it include individuals from the banking, development, and legal communities, as well as individuals from the County's Planning Department). She stated that this concept of concurrency is new to Lake County and is quite complicated and difficult to administer, and she did not think that

the County could anticipate the problems that it might face in the future until it actually starts implementing the LDRs. Her second and third recommendations specifically relate to the provisions of the LDRs, regarding concurrency management, and the language that is now set forth in the LDRs, at which time she noted said recommendations and which sections of the LDRs they pertain to.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, recommended that Section 5.05.02B, which addresses the fee that must be paid to a developer to reserve future capacity and Section 5.05.01.03, regarding the expiration of this reservation of future capacity, be revised in the following manner: A developer will have a choice of paying 100% of transportation impact fees up front, or may pro-rate the transportation impact fees for four years, assuring that at least 25% of the transportation impact fees are paid each year. She stated that the transportation impact fees will be paid at the time of pulling a building permit, which is the procedure that is presently used, and the County will maintain an accounting of the actual amount of impact fees paid each year for a particular development. The developer would be responsible for paying the balance at the end of the year, so that the County receives at least 25% of the total amount of transportation impact fees for that development each year, then, at the end of four years, the County can be assured that 100% of the transportation impact fees have been paid. The reservation of capacity would last for four years, at which time the developer could renew the Certificate of Capacity, if a development continues in good faith and in accordance with certain premises on which the Letter of Incumbrance was based - in particular, the timing of phases and the estimated time for buildout would be considered.

Ms. Campione stated that the purpose of making the foregoing recommendations regarding the Certificate of Capacity fee was two-fold. In order to comply with State Statutes regarding concurrency and the County's own Comprehensive Plan, the County must assure that if a development is approved, there must be capacity within the system to meet the demands of that development. At such time as capacity is reached, development will stop. Other than for two locations in the County, that will not be the case for some time in this area, however, capacity will increasingly become a valuable commodity. She stated that, if an individual desires to reserve capacity, the County must be assured that the developer intends to use it in the near future. For this reason, the County must impose a reservation fee that will not be taken lightly by a developer, however, the reservation fee should not be so burdensome that it puts small and medium sized local developers out of business. She stated that the current language is better than what was originally proposed, but is still deficient, noting that the original language would hurt national and regional developers, but they have the resources to absorb these costs up front and eventually, they can pass them on to their home buyers.

Ms. Campione, Attorney, stated that there is no doubt in her mind that this entire process will hurt the development community and further damage the County's weak economy, but the State mandated that the County adopt a Concurrency Management System and noted that, recently, it was learned that the State has acquired a significant and alarming amount of power over local government. She stated that the reservation fee is tied to impact fees, which she noted is good because it allows the County to maintain the existing levels of service. She stated that allowing impact fees to be paid at the time of pulling building permits, providing the developer pays the balance at the end of the year, does three things, being (1) it provides a closer nexus between the impact fee being paid and the impact actually occurring; (2) it takes some pressure off of the developer; and (3) it still provides the County with adequate protection, as far as having the revenues necessary to maintain existing levels of service and assuring that capacity will be there as the developer continues the development. She requested the Board to accept the recommendations she noted and incorporate them into the LDRs.

Mr. Keith Ray, Wetherly Investments, appeared before the Board stating that he was concerned there may be impacts that the County has not yet had an opportunity to foresee, because of the complexity of the document. He stated that, basically, his concerns are really in three areas, being (1) the broad language that is included in the LDRs regarding concurrency vesting. He encouraged the Board to direct staff to use that same approach in a broad, flexible interpretation of these regulations, as they try to implement the vesting language, so that it recognizes the considerable time and expense that people have spent, to date, and that those expenditures of effort and money are not jeopardized; (2) he supports the kinds of ideas that Ms. Campione alluded to, in terms of the Concurrency Management System and reservation of capacity, but, suggested that the Board go even further in developing a mechanism for dealing with long-term reservation of capacity; and (3) a concern about the whole concept of upland buffers, as expressed in the LDRs. He encouraged the Board to direct staff to work on a series of future amendments that will try to clean up and deal with some of these issues, and suggested that they view their work with two goals in mind, being (1) to create flexibility in options and (2) to encourage staff to identify those things that can be eliminated and reduce the duplication of efforts.

Mr. Claude Smoak, a local property owner and former Lake County Commissioner, appeared before the Board stating that he owns and/or manages over 2,000 acres of land in the Green Swamp area, at which time he noted various items that he grows on said land. He stated that he cannot continue to operate his business if he cannot borrow risk capital, noting that, as the regulations continue to be written and the great uproar of concern about wetlands, from uninformed people, spread across the media, it becomes more difficult every day to find a lender who is willing to be at risk and accept his land as collateral for his continuing agricultural operations. He requested the Board, on behalf of himself and the agricultural community, not to be brow-beaten into adopting regulations that do not really protect anything. He stated that this issue is more than something that is written on a piece of paper - it involves real lives, real situations, and real people. He stated that, if the Board continues to listen to basically uninformed people, the agricultural community will be unable to continue to function, because they will not be able to find a lender who will believe that their land is worth anything and, consequently, there will be absolutely no borrowing power left to secure the only security that the agricultural community has to offer.

Mr. Smoak requested the Board to look at three items pertaining to the LDRs, which were contained in a handout he distributed to the Board for their review, being (1) Chapter VI, Section 6.01.02 - Lands to Which This Section Applies, at which time he requested the Board to change the word lands, in the first sentence of this paragraph, to non-agricultural lands and leave the remainder of the paragraph as it is written; (2) in Section 6.01.05 - Requirements for Wetlands Preservation, under Paragraph H., noted that the current language states that all agricultural operations located within wetlands shall comply with U.S.D.A. approved SCS Soils Conservation Service Conservation Plans and that that is impossible to do, therefore, requested them not to write something in the regulations that is going to put everybody in violation of them, when it is impossible for them to comply. He requested them to use language which has been used elsewhere in the LDRs, which states that all agricultural operations located within wetlands shall comply with Best Management Practices; and (3) in Section 6.04.05 - Exemptions, noted that there is a statement in this section which states that all agricultural operations located within the natural upland communities shall be required to be in compliance with U.S.D.A. approved ASCS Conservation Plans and requested the Board to totally strike that, because nobody has an ASCS Conservation Plan and cannot get one. He stated that the next

sentence states that Best Management Practices shall be established by the appropriate state agencies and requested the Board to strike the word state and put county so that it then conforms with the next sentence, which refers to the County Best Management Practices rather than the State. He stated that he felt the Comprehensive Plan that the State of Florida is following will damage every citizen in the State, and is going to make it impossible for the mom and pop operator to continue in business.

Ms. Ruth Yancey Ray, a local property owner, appeared before the Board stating that she concurred with Mr. Smoak's comments regarding the highest and best use of land. She urged the Board to continue their fight with the Department of Community Affairs and noted some concerns she had regarding the definitions of "development" and "buffer zones", in the LDRs, as they relate to farming. She then commented as to how she feels about one's property rights, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right of free speech, noting that an individual must protect his own rights, as well as the rights of others. She noted that she appreciated the efforts the Board is extending, on behalf of the people of Lake County.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that she was present representing several property owners and businesses in Lake County, at which time she submitted (for the record) a list of same. She referred to a letter, dated May 14, 1992, which she had submitted to the Board prior to this meeting, in which she listed recommendations with regard to vested rights, Large Lot Waiver, and Lot Splits. She recommended that, under Section 1.02.10 - Large Lot Waiver, the time frame be extended to July 1, 1994, which would allow one year from the effective date of the LDRs. Regarding Section 1.02.11 - Lot Approval, she recommended that the Board delete existing provisions and add the following: Any lot created by the large lot process prior to June 1, 1992, for which a building permit for a principle structure is issued prior to July 1, 1994, shall be vested for density development rights, and shall be subject to the Lake County Code provisions in effect on July 15, 1991, which she noted will eliminate the issue of aggregation. She then distributed a letter (for the record) from her to the Board in which she recommends a revision to the definition of "Towers", contained within the LDRs, which requires that a tower collapse on itself, noting that the possibility of a tower collapsing on itself is very antiquated and outdated. She noted that this was not a condition that was required for the last two towers that were approved for Lake County. She then commented about the fact that there has been a great outpouring of emotion concerning what some feel is the Board's "insensitivity" over the environment and the throwing out of all wetlands regulations, noting that for those who have to deal with the regulators and the regulations, it is not an easy process. She noted that, by the Board requiring certain permits, which she alluded to, they have covered a broad, broad area and challenged why certain individuals had not done their homework regarding the matter of wetlands. She stated that she found it offensive for someone to stand up and criticize the Board on the matter of wetlands, after all the time that has been spent on them.

Mr. Bill Good, a resident of Yalaha, appeared before the Board stating that he feels money which is being spent to fight the Department of Community Affairs is money wasted. He then discussed what he called a "spoil" system, that he feels is in existence in Lake County. He stated that he feels the LDRs leave the waters of the State at risk, and that they protect development rights but not property rights. He stated he was concerned that the LDRs were going to allow growth management not to occur, in many cases, and also that they reflect political interest rather than the interest of the people.

Commr. Bakich responded to comments which he felt were accusing him, as an elected official, of taking advantage of a situation, noting that he takes such remarks very personal and does not appreciate them. He stated that such remarks are very often made by individuals that have philosophical opinions different from his, yet fail to respect that fact.

Mr. Joe Spencer, a local farmer, appeared before the Board stating that he wants to keep the regulation of wetlands in the County, as he feels they are secure, due to the fact that farmers are not going to farm them, since nothing will grow in them. He then commented about the Department of Community Affairs and how they control property.

Mr. Dan Robuck, a local attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he was present on his own behalf, to discuss the issue of Large Lot Waivers, Lot Splits, and Lot Approvals. He stated that, if these are not grandfathered in, as Ms. Bonifay suggested earlier, it is going to create economic chaos in Lake County, due to the fact that there are people who have purchased lots and are just about ready to build homes on them, only to find out that they cannot do so, because the County has taken that right away. He noted that there are hundreds of such lots in Lake County, and that some have even paid their large lot approval fees, which the County started charging some years ago. He noted that there are a few large developers who have taken advantage of this process, but, the majority of these people are the average person on the street, and this is who is going to be hurt. He requested the Board to adopt Ms. Bonifay's proposal and not do to Lake County what Congress did to the country back in 1986, when they passed the Tax Reform Act.

Mr. John Kauffman, a local resident and the director of a local bank, appeared before the Board stating that he concurred with what Mr. Smoak and Mrs. Ray stated earlier, regarding the fact that a lender will not lend money to a property owner for agricultural purposes. He stated that, unless the land has a use for something other than agriculture, lenders are very prone not to lend the money. He noted that he supports what the County is trying to do with the LDRs, in getting them passed locally rather than in Tallahassee, as he feels the County knows what it is doing.

Mr. Harold Coffman, a local realtor, appeared before the Board stating that he owns five acres of land in the Green Swamp, as well as a few other pieces of property in Lake County, of which a couple of them have been subdivided into large lots and agricultural waivers. He stated that, if he sells a piece of his property to someone from out of town, who plans to come back to the County in a few years and build a home on it, and is told that he cannot do so because he has lost his vested right, that this will be very damaging to the landowners in this area - not only real estate people, but individual property owners. He stated that, in the past, property owners had vested rights for as long as they wanted them. He urged the Board to leave the vested rights on the lot splits the way they presently are, so that when an individual sells a five acre tract to someone who wants to build a home on it, they can do so.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded to Mr. Coffman's concern regarding the Large Lot Waivers, stating that a five acre parcel that was a result of a Large Lot Waiver would be vested. Upon being questioned regarding the deadline date of June, 1993, she stated that it pertains to the vesting of lots that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there are some large lots that did not meet the five acre size, and are less than what would be permitted by the Land Use Plan, so lots that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are being vested at this time. She stated that they would be vested in perpetuity, but, if one tried to pull a building permit with the fixed period of time that Ms. Bonifay recommended the County end, that individual would be subject to the prior LDRs, up to that date - after that, they would subject to the new LDRs. She stated that the situation which Mr. Coffman described, where one has a five acre lot which is the result of a Large Lot Waiver, it would be consistent with any land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and said individual would be permitted to develop it.

A brief discussion occurred regarding this matter, between several of the individuals present and staff, at which time it was noted that the deadline date for pulling a permit, under the Large Lot Waiver, would be determined by whether it would be subject to the old LDRs or the new ones.

Commr. Swartz interjected that anything that is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Map does not need vesting, because one can build on one's lot. If, however, one has lots that consist of five acres, they will be able to build on it and the dates will not make any difference. He stated that it is the lot splits that would be smaller.

Mr. Coffman questioned, on Page V-2, under Paragraph B. - Capacity Reservation Period, what the 24 months meant, to which Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded.

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, gave input regarding the capacity reservation period, noting that the reservation for capacity is usually tied into a development order, so the reservation for capacity is not necessarily going to be on a vacant lot. He stated that, when an individual wants to pull a building permit to construct a home, he/she will have to meet and reserve capacity for the Concurrency Management Program, which he noted would be good as long as the development order is in existence.

Ms. Johnnie Hale, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that she is greatly concerned about the erosion of her private property rights, as well as those of other Lake County residents. She stated that she realized the County must have good growth, but not by denying it, or making it so expensive that it is beyond reach of the normal property owner. She addressed the issues of Large Lot Waivers, Lot Approvals, and Lots of Record, noting that she is a user of the Large Lot Waiver, and questioned whether the individuals purchasing her property will be able to build on it, when she sells it to them, to which Commr. Swartz responded that it would depend on what the Board does with the three options that are before them this date. Ms. Hale then briefly discussed the matter of the County's tax base and the fact that it has a lot to do with the impact on roads. She stated that allowing positive growth increases the tax base, and the County needs a strong tax base. She stated that she would like to see all existing lots vested and requested the Board to not erode one's private property rights any further.

Mr. Keith Shamrock, a local realtor, appeared before the Board stating that he appreciated all the hard work the Board and staff has put into the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he was aware of the fact that the Board cannot control what is coming down from Tallahassee, but realized that the Board can make some adjustments, and appreciated their efforts to control some of the overwhelming restrictions that have been placed on the County. He discussed the fact of developers having to pay impact fees up front, which causes the price of homes to go up, and has a never ending chain effect. He stated that some type of arrangement needs to be made for developers to pay as they go, or to come up with a percentage that developers can live with, and keep the small developers in Lake County in business.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Lake County Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board stating that there are approximately nine agencies that presently govern wetlands, and would support avoiding duplication of those services at the local level, unless there is some type of contract for funding. She also suggested an incremental handling of the concurrency capacity reservation fees, noting that she realized the County has to protect that capacity for the user down the road, but, they also have to protect the capacity as a long-term project that is going to spread out for a couple of years. She then stated that she would like to speak as a citizen, at which time she encouraged the Board to protect the useability of the property in the Green Swamp area, and the property rights of the individuals living there, noting that, with the sweep of a pen, the Board could

take away those individuals' hope of ever building homes on that land, or for their future generations to be able to build on the land.

Mr. Steve Richey, a local attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he was representing several property owners, at which time he submitted a list of same, for the record. He requested the Board to add criteria to the Large Lot Waivers, for variances, not only for easements, but also for agricultural zoning, allowing other zoning types to be utilized, and for the number of lots. He stated that the Large Lot Waiver has served the County well, in that it has been utilized to protect the environment; as a trade-off to move development away from lakes; to limit access to county roads; and has been used to provide for rural housing, with no degrading of the environment at all. He stated that nothing in the Large Lot Waiver precludes people from having to deal with the wetlands ordinances that are in place, any SJRWMD rules, any DER rules, or any other rule. He stated that not everyone wants to live on a paved road, in high density, noting that a lot of people want to live in the country, on a clay road, and feels that they should continue to have that option, if, in fact, they can meet the overall criteria. He requested the Board to support the amendments that were made at the last meeting that was held regarding the LDRs, which was to make agriculture a special use in Lake County, noting that the agricultural community deserves that protection. He commended the Board on standing their ground with DCA, regarding the Comprehensive Plan, and also in implementing LDRs that are reasonable. He stated that, if the Board made some mistakes in the Comprehensive Plan, they should not compound things by putting them in the LDRs, at which time he requested the Board to not adopt them, but to delete them, and amend the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Howard Barry, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board and recommended that the date of adoption for the LDRs be April 1, 2020, noting that he felt they were going to ruin the environment of the County, if adopted.

Mr. Norman Cummings, a local attorney and property owner, appeared before the Board and responded to comments made by

Mr. Barry and Mr. Good earlier in the meeting. He then referred to Section 3.02.02 - Density, Paragraph C., and questioned the language contained in it, to which Mr. Barker, Director of Pollution Control, responded, stating that staff went back and researched the Comprehensive Plan and found that the original Comprehensive Plan spoke almost exclusively to severe limitations in the placement of septic tanks in severe limited soils, as well as in the regulated wetlands and floodplains, at which time Mr. Cummings suggested that the last sentence of said paragraph, which reads, "For other soils, development densities shall not exceed one unit per acre for developments utilizing septic tanks." be taken out as a scrivener's error. He then stated that he represents some major banking interests in Lake County and noted that, if banks get to the point where they will not lend money on agricultural land and have to start taking it back, it will throw the economy into a tailspin. He urged the Board to listen to the people.

Mr. John Odom, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he was concerned about the fact that people who own property in the Green Swamp have had the value of their property taken away, therefore, can no longer borrow money on it. He questioned who was going to compensate these people for their property. He stated that he was for local control over the wetlands in Lake County, rather than for Tallahassee having control over them.

Mr. Jerry McCord, a local forester, appeared before the Board and discussed the fact of property rights being taken away from the people in Lake County. He commended the Board on what they have done, noting that he feels there is too much control from Tallahassee. He requested the Board to not bog people down with additional regulations, but to continue with the regulations that are already in place.

Mr. Brian Silbernagel, a local resident, appeared before the Board and discussed changes he saw in the Large Lot Waivers, Minor Lot Splits, etc. He stated that he felt Chapter 14, of the LDRs, was excellent and a big change over what he saw a few weeks ago. He felt they were a little more flexible, in terms of easements, in going from a 40 foot to a 50 foot easement. He stated that the only other change he saw was the five lot maximum, and questioned what a person would do if they wanted to divide more than five lots. He questioned whether an individual that had 40 acres of agricultural land and wanted to divide it into 8 lots, all fronting on a paved road, would be able to do so, or whether he would have to go through platting and recording subdivision procedures, to which he was told that he would have to plat the property. Mr. Silbernagel then questioned what the individual would have to do if he sold 20 of the acres, and divided the other 20 into four lots, to which he was told that he would not have to plat and record, if he met the minor lot requirements. He determined, through questioning, that he can divide the 40 acres into 6 parcels, as of June 1, 1992, as long as he meets the requirements for an easement, or road frontage, which it was noted would be vested, therefore, an individual could pull a building permit anytime in the future, whether he sells the parcels immediately, or holds on to them and sells them in the future. He then questioned the fact that if said property has already been divided, using the Large Lot Waiver, and is conforming, and all the lots are vested, whether they are owned by the original owner, or whether they have been sold, that they will all be grandfathered in, to which he was informed that this was correct.

Mr. G. P. Sloan, a resident of Groveland, appeared before the Board and questioned, on behalf of his sister, what would happen to 15 acres of property that she has willed to her children, upon her death, to which he was informed that it would depend on a lot of factors and could not be answered at this time.

Ms. Phyllis Cross, a resident of Lake County for over 60 years, appeared before the Board and requested them to consider those people who purchased lots before December 12, 1971, with the intention of building homes on them, to let them be vested.

Ms. Joan Gathings, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that she owns 4.74 acres in the Green Swamp area and has a mobile home on said property. She questioned the fact that, if her mobile home burned down and she decided to put another mobile home on the site, or decided to build a home on the site, whether her property was vested and she would be able to do so, to which she was informed by the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, that her lot is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however, if a building permit has been issued to her, then her property is vested and she would be able to build on the property.

At this time, the Chairman closed the public comment portion of the meeting.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to a memo she had given to the Board, dated May 14, 1992, regarding amendments to the LDRs, stating that, at the last public hearing that was held regarding the LDRs, the issue of aggregation was brought up, and the Board directed staff and her office to go back and look at that issue and deal with it, consistently, regarding Large Lot Waivers and Lot Approvals. She stated the issue that had been raised was that Large Lot Waivers and Lot Approvals were not being treated the same, however, noted that Option 2 now provides that language, if the Board wishes to go forward with requiring aggregation. She stated that, if the Board did not wish to require aggregation, then Option 1 removes the aggregation requirement and vests Lot Approvals that were granted prior to June 1, 1992, and provides in Paragraph A. that, if a building permit is issued prior to December 1, 1993, that the lot will be subject to the old LDRs, and if the permit is issued after December 1, 1993, then the permit will be subject to the new LDRs. She stated that, if the Board chose to go forward without the aggregation language, staff would

amend the Large Lot Waiver language and conform it to the Lot Approvals language, to provide those two options, as far as dates and which LDRs they would apply to. She stated that the December 1, 1993 date was put in the LDRs for several reasons, which she noted. She also noted that what Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, is a repeat of the Large Lot Waiver language that is currently in place, which also requires the issuance of a building permit, prior to the date which she proposed, being July of 1994.

Commr. Gregg interjected that he did not support the fact of lots being aggregated, noting his reason for same, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Commrs. Bailey and Hanson noted that they were opposed to the five year time frame involved with Large Lot Waivers and Lot Approvals, as they feel that people need to be protected.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, noted that approximately 700 permits, total, were issued each year, over the last three years, for Large Lot Waivers and Lot Approvals. Upon being questioned as to whether he felt it would cause any problems with capacity if the time period for pulling building permits was deleted, he noted that he did not think it would.

Ms. Gail Easley, Heniger & Ray, commented regarding the Concurrency Management issue and the fact of 700 permits being issued per year, noting that this would amount to over 7,000 trips spread over some presumably large geographic area, and if a number of them were in one specific area, it could possibly cause a concurrency problem. She referred to the revised Concurrency section of the LDRs, noting that it has a de minimis provision which many communities use to deal with this kind of situation.

Commr. Gregg stated that he would be in favor of taking the time factor out of the LDRs, regarding Large Lot Waivers and Lot Approvals, to which Commr. Hanson concurred, stating that she felt it could not be left in, due to the fact that, when someone has purchased property, and has had the right to build a home on that property, and then the County tells them that they cannot do so, that it would be a "taking".

Commr. Swartz interjected that there is an alternative to the situation, being Option 2, which states that an individual who has a lot can build on it, when improvements are in place, and if they have more than one lot, then they aggregate it to the extent that they have to, to be conforming. He stated that Option 2 would not tie up as much in concurrency requirements - in fact, it would secure the rights of individuals to build on their lots.

Further discussion occurred, at which time a motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Bailey to approve Option 1, with no time period indicated for pulling building permits.

Under discussion, Ms. Easley, Heniger & Ray, requested, and received, clarification of what the Board was approving, which was that, in Section 1.02.10 - Large Lot Waivers, of the LDRs, the Board was deleting the language "for which a building permit for a principle structure is issued prior to December 1, 1993" and that Paragraphs A. and B., under Section 1.02.11 - Lot Approvals, is being inserted in the Large Lot Waiver section; however, the Board is changing the date to July 1, 1994.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved for Ms. Easley, Heniger & Ray, to correct any scrivener's errors that are not substantive.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter II, Page II-32, of the LDRs, and requested that the words "utility rooms" be struck from the first paragraph, at the top of the page, which defines Living Area. She then referred to the Zoning Districts chart on Page III-19, of Chapter III, and noted that Greyhound Dog Farms was being added to the chart as a conditional use under the Agricultural district.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, noted that he had also made a change to said category, in that he had inserted requirements for CUPs.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that Towers were also being added as a permitted use under several zoning districts. She then referred to Page III-9, of Chapter III, noting that under Section 3.01.02 - Classification of Uses, Paragraph B. - Agricultural Uses, Item 4. - Greyhound Dog Farms, had been added as a permitted use. She then referred to Page III-28, noting that under Paragraph A. - Requirements for New Development, Item No. 19. - Towers had been added, and that said language is language that Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, had recommended and submitted to the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved that the language for Towers, which was submitted by Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, be inserted in the LDRs, as noted above. It was also noted that all towers shall have FAA, or FDOT, approval - whichever is applicable.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request by Mr. Norman Cummings, Attorney, earlier in the meeting, that the last sentence of Paragraph C. - Septic Tanks, under Section 3.02.02, of the LDRs, on Page III-29, be struck, as a scrivener's error.

Mr. Claude Smoak, a local property owner and former county commissioner, requested the Board to remove all of Paragraph C., alluded to above, rather than just the last sentence, due to the fact that the State Department of Health has control in that area, and the present language is substantially more restrictive than the State requirement. He noted that all of the Green Swamp area will be prohibited from having a septic tank.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, interjected that the Board might want to insert language that states "septic tank utilization shall be in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 10D-6", due to the fact that it is going to be subject to change. He also noted that the State uses the Soil Conservation Service maps in determining soil characteristics and types.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved for the language "Septic tanks shall be consistent with Chapter 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code." to be inserted as Paragraph C. - Septic Tanks, on Page III-29, under Section 3.02.02 - Density, of the LDRs.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter IV, Page IV-11, Section 4.03.04 - Residential Development Standards, Paragraph A. - Density, and stated that the words "not including natural water bodies" should be struck, and that under Item No. 5, of the same section, the word "gross" should be changed to "per" in two instances. She stated that on Page IV-12, Items 1., 2., and 3., under Paragraph C. - Commercial Development within the Wekiva River Protection Area should also be struck.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the changes in Chapter IV, as stated above.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter VII, Pages VII-4 and VII-5, stating that language which was taken from the Comprehensive Plan was inadvertently left out and was being reinserted, noting that it had previously been approved. She stated that the language "planned unit development (PUD) classification as contained in Chapter IV of the Lake County Code" should be struck, and the language "CFD (Community Facilities District) provided for in these Regulations in Chapter III" be inserted in Paragraph 12, on Page VII-5. She noted that the insertions indicated on Page VII-6, under Paragraph C. - Prohibited Uses, were taken from the Wekiva River Protection Area section of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Hanson requested that the word "new" be inserted before the words "Industrial development", under Paragraph C. - Prohibited Uses, Item No. 2, and that the language "other than what is already vested" be added to the end of the last sentence of Item No. 3., under the same paragraph.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Page VII-7, stating that the "A-1-20" overlay district is reflected on Page VII-8, however, stated that the prior LDRs had different permitted uses, with a CUP, in the two overlay districts. She stated that the "A-1-20" did not permit poultry ranches, hog ranches, educational institutions, mushroom farms, or fish farms, but, the underlying theory was that the "A-1-20" has the ability to permit much more intense use than the "A-1-40" district. She stated that what is before the Board is an amendment that permits all the same CUPs in both the "A-1-20" and the "A-1-40" districts, which gives the Board discretion to control those uses, when the CUPs come before them for approval. She stated that one option, if the Board is concerned about those kinds of uses, would be to put an acreage limit on them.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, then referred to Page VII-11, noting that, under Paragraph H. - Native Vegetation, the language "and the 100 year flood plain within the Wekiva River Protection Area" was added. She noted on Page VII-13, under Paragraph J. - Central Sewer Systems, that several paragraphs of language had been inadvertently left out and was now being inserted.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved changes to Chapter VII, of the LDRs, as noted above.

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

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter IX, Page IX-70, Section 9.07.01 - Water Supply, and stated that the Water Supply System language (consisting of one paragraph) and the Water Delivery System language (consisting of two paragraphs) was deleted, at the direction of the Board, and will now be Appendix B to the resolution which the Board will be approving later this date, adopting the Standards. She stated that on Page IX-72, changes have been made to incorporate changes that were discussed at the last meeting which was held regarding the LDRs, which she noted were also recommended by Mr. Jim Bible, of Greater Construction, and approved by Lake County Fire Protection.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved changes to Chapter IX, as noted above.

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

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter X,

Page X-8, Section 10.04.00 - Boat Docks and Ramps, stating that the language "front and side" had been inserted, regarding setback requirements. She stated that this was the only change to Chapter X.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved the change to Chapter X, as stated above.

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

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter XII, Pages XII-1 through XII-4, stating that the changes on said pages were corrections to capitalization of several words. She then noted additional changes, as follows:

On Page XII-5, under Paragraph B. - Variances to be Considered as Part of Development Review, the language "A development activity that might otherwise be approved by the County Manager, or designee, shall be approved by the Board of Adjustment, or Board of County Commissioners, if a variance is sought." had been struck through, due to the fact that it did not apply.

On Page XII-6, under the chart Board of Adjustment Public Hearing, the language "If the subdivision or zoning variance request is denied, the appeal is to the Circuit Court of Lake County." had been struck through, due to the fact that it is covered in another section of the Code.

On Page XII-7, under Paragraph D. - Limitations on Granting Variances, Item 1. - Initial Determination, the language "the physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition, or other physical or environmental" had been struck.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that under Paragraph D., alluded to above, under Item 2. - Required Findings, on Page XII-7, the changes indicated (which were too lengthy to note) changes the prior existing language and provides, as the prior language did in the existing Code, that in order to grant a variance, one has to meet all of Items d. and e. and either Item a., b., or c.

On Page XII-8, under Item 4. - Imposition of Conditions, Paragraph (b), the word "the" has been struck and the word "any" inserted.

On Page XII-12, under Paragraph C. - Limitations on Granting Variances, Item 1. - Initial Determination, the language "the physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition, or other physical or environmental" was struck. It was noted that the last sentence of this paragraph, pertaining to numerous sites that have similar variances, had been inadvertently struck, however, should be retained, and that under Item 2. - Required Findings, regarding the standards that will be used for variances, one will have to meet Items a., b., or c. and Items d., e., and f.

On Page XII-13, under Paragraph C. - Limitations on Granting Variances, under Item 2. - Required Findings, Paragraph (c) was struck, due to the fact that it was not relevant to the granting of the variance.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that changes on the remaining pages of this chapter were scrivener's errors.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved changes to Chapter XII, as noted above.

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

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter XIII, and noted the following changes:

On Page XIII-9, corrections were made to the dates of the terms of office for the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, tracking them to their appointment dates, based on the districts, based on the dates that the new LDRs go into effect.

On Page XIII-10, under Section 13.04.04 - Designation of Local Planning Agency, the language "and their officers shall be the same as the officers of the Planning and Zoning Commission." was inserted.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved the changes to Chapter XIII, as noted above.

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

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Chapter XIV, Page XIV-2, stating that under Paragraph D. - Mail, the language "for rezoning applications, except that any application that includes mining shall require notice within 300' of the perimeter" needs to be incorporated into this section, due to the fact that it does not exist anywhere else. She then noted additional changes, as follows:

On Page XIV-7, under Section 14.02.02 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process - Flow Chart, new language is being added that says the Board of County Commissioners, by resolution, shall adopt the Land Use Plan Amendment process, rather than setting out specific times in the LDRs. It was noted that said resolution will come before the Board annually.

On Page XIV-8, the language "Planning and Zoning Commission" was struck and "Local Planning Agency" inserted and "Director of Current Planning" was struck and "County Manager or designee" inserted.

On Page XIV-11, in several places, the language "Planning and Zoning Commission" was struck and "Local Planning Agency" inserted and "Planning Department" was struck and "County Manager or designee" was inserted.

On Page XIV-12, under Section 14.02.08 - Action by Board of County Commissioners, Paragraph C. was struck; under Section 14.02.09 - Time Limitation, Paragraph B. was inadvertently struck and should be retained; and under Section 14.02.10 - Exceptions, the language "five (5) acres" was struck and "ten (10) acres" inserted; "five (5) units" per acre was struck and "ten (10) units" inserted; and "thirty (30) acres" annually was struck and "sixty (60) acres" inserted.

On Page XIV-13, under Section 14.03.02 - Rezoning Review Process - Flow Chart, the language "Current Planning" was deleted and "County Manager or designee" inserted; the language "last Wednesday of the" was deleted out of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the chart titled Submit Rezoning Application; and "pursuant to 166.041(3)(c), F.S." was deleted from the second sentence of same.

On Page XIV-14, under the chart titled Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, the language "Director of Current Planning" was struck and "County Manager or designee" inserted, and under the chart titled BCC Public Hearing Notice, the language "pursuant to 166.041(3)(c)" was struck from the first sentence, and the sentence "The BCC meets the fourth Tuesday of the month to consider rezoning petitions." was struck and "The BCC shall determine the dates that it shall hold public hearings." inserted.

On Page XIV-19, under the chart titled 5 TRC Meeting Optional the language "only without a formal vote" was struck and the word "only" inserted; under the chart titled 6 Submit Preliminary Development Plan, the words "Development Coordinator" was struck and the words "County Manager or designee" inserted; under the chart titled 7 Distribution of Preliminary Development Plan, the word "Development" was inserted; and under the chart titled 8 Notification of TRC Meeting, the words "Development Coordinator" were struck and the words "County Manager or designee" inserted.

On Page XIV-20, language contained within the chart titled 9 TRC Meeting, pertaining to said meetings was struck, and the words "or MUQD" was inserted in the second paragraph of said chart. Under the chart titled 10 Notice of Public Hearing by Planning and Zoning Commission to Consider Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning, the words "Current Planning Director" was struck from the first sentence and the words "County Manager or designee" inserted;

the words "last Wednesday of the" was struck from the second sentence, and the words "or MUQD" was inserted in the last sentence of said chart.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that on Page XIV-21, under the chart titled 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, the last sentence of this chart, which reads "The BCC meets the fourth Tuesday of the month to consider rezoning petitions." should be deleted, due to the fact that said meeting is discretionary and can be changed anytime that the Board wishes to change it, and does not need to be set up in the Code. She then noted additional changes, as follows:

On Page XIV-22, the chart titled Time Constraint on Approved PUD Preliminary Development Plans/Extensions was struck.

On Page XIV-23, under Section 14.04.03 - Preliminary Development Plan Review, the language "Applications for preliminary plans shall not be submitted later than 6 months following preliminary development plan approval." was struck.

On Page XIV-24, the language regarding time limits on PUDs was struck, and under Section 14.04.06 - Submittal Requirements, Paragraph A. - Format Requirements, MUQDs were added.

On Page XIV-38, under the chart titled Review of DRI Projects by Regional Planning Council (RPC), the language "The RPC shall provide the applicant with the necessary DRI application and regulatory procedures." was struck, due to the fact that the Board does not control what the Regional Planning Council can do.

On Page XIV-61, under Section 14.07.06 - Action by Planning and Zoning Commission, the following sentences were struck from the first paragraph: "The Planning and Zoning Commission meets the next to the last Wednesday of the month for subdivision review."; "Application must be at the Office of the County Manager or designee by the 20th of the month to be placed on the Planning and Zoning agenda for the following month."; and "If the preliminary plat is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission the applicant may pursue one of the following options with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) which meets the first three (3) Tuesdays of each month."

On Page XIV-62, under Section 14.07.07 - Action by Board of County Commissioners, Paragraph B. - Concurrent Review of Preliminary and Final Plat, the language "a surety performance bond" was struck and "the guarantees and sureties specified in Section 14.12(c)" inserted, and the language "Development Coordinator" was struck and "County Manager or designee" inserted.

On Page XIV-74, Minor Lot Splits language, which the Board had approved at a previous meeting, was addressed, and on Page XIV-75, Large Lot Splits language, which the Board had approved at a previous meeting, was addressed.

On Page XIV-89, under Section 14.14.02 - Building and Sign Permits, the language "No Building Permit shall be issued for development without an affidavit sworn by the applicant stating that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the site." was added.

Ms. Gail Easley, Heniger and Ray, interjected that, according to her notes, the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, had directed the addition of some language pertaining to conditions of a variance, which she noted, at which time the County Attorney directed that the language "deed restriction requirements" be inserted in Item 7., Paragraph D. - Standards, on Page XIV-76.

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, stated that if the Board approved the Large Lot Waiver section of the LDRs, as presented this date, one will get a variance to the length and width of a public dedication, but one does not get a variance from the number of lots, or a variance from the district that it is located in. He stated that he felt the County should allow someone to get a variance from those provisions, due to the fact that there are agricultural lands in Lake County that are presently zoned

R-1-7 and R-1-15, and he feels this is something that should come before a variance board. He stated that, as far as the number of lots is concerned, feels that this is a policy issue that needs to be dealt with.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Stubbs answered questions from the Board regarding same.

It was the consensus of the Board to add language to Section 14.10.02 - Large Lot Splits, of the LDRs, allowing a variance for the zoning district that a particular development is located in, a variance for the number of lots involved, and a variance for the size of lots.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved changes to Chapter XIV, as noted.

At this time, Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she needed to add "Expressway Interchanges" as a CUP to the CFD district in the Wekiva.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, referred to Chapter III, Page III-18, and noted that a CUP was added to the R-1 district for Non-Intensive Agricultural use, on the chart titled Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses, as well as a "1" added to same for Chicken Farms, Egg Processing Facilities, Hog Farms, and Horse-Breeding Farms. It was noted that these have to meet the setback requirements, plus they are considered CUPs. He then noted additional changes to Chapter III, as follows:

On Page III-19, a CUP was added to the R-1 district for Plant Nurseries, on the chart titled Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses.

Starting with Page III-45, a General Provision section was created which added sections pertaining to day-to-day activities that were found in the old Code.

On Page III-44, the following language was added pertaining to densities: The maximum densities allowable in the urban and urban expansion land use categories, in areas surrounding municipalities, are restricted to 80% (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the density of the land located within the adjacent municipality. Adjacency shall extend to a maximum of two (2) miles from the municipal jurisdictional limit.

A brief discussion occurred regarding Chapter IV, of the LDRs, at which time it was the consensus of the Board to incorporate into Chapter IV - Special Districts, changes which Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., submitted to the Board in his letter dated May 14, 1992, pertaining to Mixed Use Quality Developments (MUQD), regarding the matter of calculating percentages based on "base site area" rather than "gross acreage".

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved changes to Chapters III and IV, as noted above, as well as the addition of "Expressway Interchanges" as a CUP to the CFD district in the Wekiva.

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, referred to a handout which was given to the Board prior to this meeting, indicating changes which were made to Chapter V.

On Page V-2, it was noted that language had been changed pertaining to the Capacity Information Letter.

On Page V-3, under Paragraph C. - Capacity Reservation for Development Orders, Final Category, deadlines established for development orders were changed from 12 to 36 months, to 48 months.

On Page V-16, 110% was changed to 100% concerning the prepayment of transportation impact fees.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of reserving capacity, at which time Ms. Bonifay and Ms. Campione, Attorneys, commented on the matter and Ms. Easley, Heniger & Ray, suggested that the Board be cautious concerning this matter.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that on Page V-3, under Paragraph C. - Capacity Reservation for Development Orders, under the Preliminary category, the language "Minor Replat" should be struck, due to the fact that the County does not have them.

On Page V-5, under Section 5.02.02 - Development Causing No Impact on Public Facilities, the following permits were added: Electrical permit; Right-of-way utilization permit; Floodplain permit; Plumbing permit; Roofing or sheet metal permit; Tree removal permit; Underground utilities permit; and Mechanical permits (HVAC).

On Page V-6, under Section 5.02.05 - Expansion or Redevelopment of Existing Development, a paragraph titled "Demolition or Termination of Existing Use" was added.

On Page V-17, under Paragraph V. - Paying for a Certificate of Capacity, changes were made in paying for a Certificate of Capacity for one, two, and three years, and the 110% prepayment of the transportation impact fees was changed to 100%. It was also noted that Item 3. - Escrow Account, as a form of security, should be struck from this page, per request of the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, due to the fact that it is very difficult to access said monies, if needed.

On Page V-21, under Paragraph C. - Large Lot Waiver, the date of June 1, 1992 only pertains to concurrency.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved changes made to Chapter V, as noted.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, noted the following changes to the LDRs:

In Chapter II, on Page II-15, under the definition of Development or Development Activity, language has been changed to reflect Chapter III-8.

In Chapter VI, on Pages VI-1 through VI-9, changes were made to Section 6.01.00 - Wetlands Protection, Subsections 6.01.01 through 6.01.06. (Due to the voluminous size of the changes, they have not been listed individually in these Minutes.)

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of the clearing of native vegetation within the buffer being limited to 25 feet in width, measured along the boundary between the wetland and upland.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved to delete Items 1. and 2., pertaining

to the 25 ft. buffer limitation, from the LDRs, on Page VI-4, under Section 6.01.05, Paragraph D. - Buffer Activities and Conditions.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved to strike the language "All agricultural operations located within wetlands shall comply with U.S.D.A. approved SCS Soils Conservation Service Conservation Plans" from Section 6.01.06 - Standards for Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices, on Page VI-4.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

On Page VI-5, under Section 6.01.07 - Methodology for Determining Wetland Boundaries, the language "Wetland boundaries shall be determined pursuant" was added to the first sentence of this section.

On Page VI-6 and VI-7, under Section 6.03.03 - Restrictions on Development, Item 1. - Unconfined Aquifers, and Item 2. - Confined Aquifers, were added.

Discussion occurred regarding Section 9.01.04 - Minimum Tree Requirements, on Page IX-8, of Chapter IX, at which time it was noted that the tree requirements for a primary residence would be a minimum of six (6), for lots greater than six thousand (6,000) square feet, up to, and including, one (1) acre, with a maximum required number not to exceed fifteen (15) trees for total acreage over one (1) acre.

Mr. Claude Smoak, a local property owner and former county commissioner, requested the Board to strike language from Chapter VI, Section 6.01.06 - Standards for Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices, on Page VI-4, which refers to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations, and just state that "Agricultural and silvicultural operations shall utilize Best Management Practices."

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to strike language from Section 6.01.06 - Standards for Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices, as noted above.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, noted additional changes to Chapter VI, as follows:

On Page VI-2, under Section 6.01.04 - Wetland Conditions, Paragraph A. - Conservation Easement, Item 1., the language "Non-phased developments" was added at the beginning of the paragraph, and the language comprising Item 2. was added, as well.

On Page VI-31, under Section 6.06.01 - General Provisions, Paragraph F - Exemptions, Item 2., the language "Excess overburden generated as a result of the bona fide construction may be removed offsite provided the County Manager or designee is provided written notice. Notice shall contain the amount to be removed, method of removal, transportation route(s), and final location and use of overburden" was added.

On Page VI-67, under Section 6.11.00 - Operations and Waste Treatment, Paragraph E. - Waste Treatment and Effluent Disposal Requirements, Item 3.(a)(6), which refers to cover crops should be deleted as well as Item 3.(a)(3), which refers to the seven day holding pond.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved changes to Chapter VI, as noted.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, referred to a memo dated May 14, 1992, from Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director, and noted the following changes:

In Chapter IX, on Page IX-49, under Section 9.05.00 - Access Management, the language "This section has been replaced with latest draft of Access Management Ordinance" was deleted.

In Chapter XIV, on Page XIV-83, under Section 14.12.00 - Guarantees and Sureties, Paragraph E., Item 1.(a), the language "minimum of three (3) years" was deleted and "minimum of two (2) years" inserted and under Item 1.(c), the language "fifteen (15) percent" was deleted and "ten (10) percent" inserted.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Land Development Regulations recommendations submitted by the County's Engineering Director, Mr. Don Griffey, noted above.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, referred to the memo submitted by Mr. Jim Bible, The Greater Construction Corporation, dated May 18, 1992, in which a number of changes were requested to be made to the LDRs, and noted that the majority of Mr. Bible's recommendations would be dealt with at a later time, however, recommended that the Board approve and incorporate the following changes into the LDRs:

In Chapter XIV, on Page XIV-38, under Section 14.06.02 - DRI/FQD Process - Flow Chart, in the fourth sentence of said chart, that the word "final" be deleted and the word "preliminary" inserted, and on Page XIV-42, under Section 14.06.03 - Action by East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Paragraph A., the word "final" was deleted from the fourth sentence and the word "preliminary" inserted.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved to incorporate the changes to Chapter XIV, of the LDRs, noted above, as recommended by Mr. Jim Bible, The Greater Construction Corporation, and staff.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to the ordinance adopting the LDRs and noted that all the existing code provisions that were incorporated into the LDRs are repealed, therefore, were deleted from Page 4; that Section 2, on Page 5, adopts the LDRs, consisting of Chapters I through XIV; and that Section 3. renumbers Chapter 17, consisting of Article II, Road Impact Fees, and Article VII, School Impact Fees, to Chapter 15 of Exhibit "A" and incorporates them into the LDRs.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved Ordinance No. 1992-6, adopting the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as amended this date, as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 8, LAKE COUNTY CODE, CODE ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 10, LAKE COUNTY CODE, DRAINAGE AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 13.5, LAKE COUNTY CODE, MINING AND EXCAVATION; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE I, LAKE COUNTY CODE, GENERAL; PROVIDING FOR THE RENUMBERING OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE II, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ROAD IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE III, LAKE COUNTY CODE, AIRPORT ZONING; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE IV, LAKE COUNTY CODE, PLATTING; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE V, LAKE COUNTY CODE, TREE PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPING; PROVIDING FOR THE RENUMBERING OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE VII, SCHOOL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE VIII, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ACCESS MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 6, APPENDIX A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 17, APPENDIX A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 18, APPENDIX A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ROADS AND BRIDGES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF APPENDIX B, LAKE COUNTY CODE, LAKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF APPENDIX C, LAKE COUNTY CODE, LAKE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF APPENDIX D, LAKE COUNTY CODE, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD RULES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE II, DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 19, LAKE COUNTY CODE, SIGNS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE IV, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ON-SITE SEWAGE COMPLIANCE PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF CHAPTER I, GENERAL PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TITLE, AUTHORITY, APPLICABILITY, PURPOSE AND INTENT, FINDINGS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER II, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER III, ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR ZONING DISTRICTS, ZONING DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS, BULK REGULATIONS, URBAN AREA RESIDENTIAL DENSITY POINT SYSTEM, AND MOBILE HOMES; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER IV, SPECIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR AIRPORT ZONING, RURAL VILLAGE DISTRICT, "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, MIXED USE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR PUDS AND MUQDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF CHAPTER V, CONCURRENCY; PROVIDING FOR GENERAL RULES, EXEMPTIONS, CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCEDURE, ADOPTED LEVELS OF SERVICE, AND MONITORING; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF CHAPTER VI, RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARD; PROVIDING FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS, WETLANDS PROTECTION, SHORELINE PROTECTION, WELLFIELD PROTECTION, NATURAL UPLAND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES, HABITAT OF DESIGNATED SPECIES, AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION, MINING, PROTECTION OF EXISTING NATURAL RESERVATIONS, AIR QUALITY, GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, AND OPERATIONS AND WASTE TREATMENT; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER VII, WEKIVA RIVER REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, DEVELOPMENT POINT RATING SYSTEM, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND VESTED RIGHTS; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER VIII, GREEN SWAMP; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT, SPECIAL DEFINITIONS, GREEN SWAMP BOUNDARY, DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA, AGRICULTURE EXEMPTION, VESTED RIGHTS IN PROPERTY, AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER IX, DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR TREE PROTECTION, LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, OFF-STREET PARKING, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, ACCESS MANAGEMENT, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER X, ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES; PROVIDING FOR ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, AND TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER XI, SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE, GENERAL PROVISIONS, TEMPORARY SIGNS, AND MAINTENANCE; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER XII, HARDSHIP RELIEF, APPEALS AND ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE, NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD, EXISTING NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PROHIBITED VARIANCES, AND

CODE ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER XIII, DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; PROVIDING FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF CHAPTER XIV, ADMINISTRATION; PROVIDING FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS, AUTHORIZATION BY A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REZONING, APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND MIXED USE QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS, CONDITIONAL USES, DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT AND FLORIDA QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, ZONING VARIANCE REVIEW, SUBDIVISIONS, SUBDIVISION VARIANCES, SITE PLANS, MASTER PARK PLANS, MINOR LOT SPLITS AND LARGE LOT SPLITS, MINOR PLATS, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS, GUARANTEES AND SURETIES, FEES AND CONSTRUCTION, FEES, DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, AND ENFORCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution No. 1992-99, adopting the "Lake County Transportation Planning, Design, and Construction Standards" set forth in Appendix "A", and the "Lake County Fire Protection Standards", set forth in Appendix "B", and incorporated into the LDRs.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution No. 1992-100 adopting a schedule of fees for services provided by the Pollution Control Division of the Department of Environmental Services, as set forth in Exhibit "A"; the Department of Planning and Development, as set forth in Exhibit "B"; and the Animal Control Division, Fire Protection Division, and the Expo/Fairgrounds Division of the Department of Health and General Services, as set forth in Exhibit "C".

At this time Commr. Swartz commented that he felt the Board was instructing staff to only abide by the regulations that are in the LDRs, and to ignore those provisions of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan that are in existence. He stated that he was not sure what staff's individual liability is, due to the fact that it is in direct contravention to the State Statute, and felt that the Board should take action to provide some protection for them. He stated that the State Statute is very clear, at which time he read same into the Minutes.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, interjected that he would like to bring a recommendation to the Board, at the Board Meeting scheduled for May 26, 1992, on how this matter should be handled.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that, if development orders are issued, they would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and would be subject to challenge.

At this time, Commr. Hanson presented Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, with a "Battered Boot" award for his involvement in the development of the Land Development Regulations.

Commr. Bakich, Chairman, thanked staff, and all those involved in the development of the Land Development Regulations, for their hard work in developing same.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, thanked Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, for the endless hours he spent on the Land Development Regulations, as well as the rest of staff, noting that it was a mammoth undertaking.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

________________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_______________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

SEC/5-19-92/7-10-92/BOARDMIN