The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 1, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice-Chairman; Rhonda Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Finance Director; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Pastor William "Bill" Fraker, from the First United Methodist Church of Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PRESENTATION OF AWARDS, PLAQUES & RESOLUTIONS

ANIMAL CONTROL/COMMUNITY SERVICES/CORRECTIONS/E-911

PUBLIC SERVICES

Commr. Swartz, Chairman, made the following presentations:

Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service to the County, as follows:

William Fowler, Landfill Attendant II, Public Services, Solid & Hazardous Waste Management

Nadine O'Connor, General Services Coordinator, Community Services, Human Services

Helen Roberts, Executive Secretary, Public Services, Mosquito & Aquatic Plant Management

Bruce Thorburn, E-911 Coordinator, Fire & Emergency Services, E-911

Richard VanSant, Corrections Officer, Corrections, Security

(It was noted that a plaque would be presented to Larry Jackson, Correction Officer, Corrections, Security, who was not present for the presentation.)

Plaque to Employee with Twenty Years of Service to the County, as follows:

Harry Howard, Equipment Operator III, Public Services, Roads

Employee of the Month Plaque and Savings Bond to the following employee, for the month of December, 1992:

David B. Bailey, Animal Control Officer, Animal Control Division, Fire & Emergency Services

MINUTES

The Chairman requested that, from this point on, if the Commissioners wished to have spelling or grammatical changes made to any future Minutes, that they submit same to the Deputy Clerk, in writing, rather than bringing them up for discussion during the Board Meetings, in the interest of time.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of November 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting), as presented, with clarification being made concerning the spelling of some proper names.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of November 12, 1992 (Special Meeting), as presented.

CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED

Request for payment of County bills and bills of indigents.

(It was brought to the attention of staff that, due to a computer conversion, no bills were paid this period.)

BONDS - CONTRACTOR

Request for approval of Contractor Bonds - New, Cancellations, and Reinstatement, as follows:

New

1759-93 Allen W. Akers d/b/a A & B Electrical Company

4563-93 William L. Heffner d/b/a Controlled Comfort Service

4690-93 David LaBagh d/b/a Candler Wood Works, Inc.

4746-93 Tom K. Dougherty

4927-94 Roddy Michael Russell (Aluminum)

4952-93 James C. Sullivan (Sign Contractor)

5106-93 R. L. Heil Plumbing

5134-93 Theodore D. Hutchison (Residential)

5169-93 Electro Design, Inc.

5171-93 Nutting Electric Company, Inc.

5172-93 Robert G. Geissler d/b/a G & S Concrete

5173-93 Robert C. Robey (Masonry)

5174-93 Larry Orest Myshyniuk and/or Prestige Signs

Cancellations

165-92 Harvey L. Spears Construction, Inc.

4729-92 Thomas E. Butler

4741-92 Florence A. Lange

4746-92 Tom K. Dougherty

4947-92 Jancar Development, Inc.

4972-93 Paul V. Lawton

4993-92 Jim's Plumbing & Irrigation

5027-92 Kenneth L. Watson

Reinstatement

97-93 J. E. Patterson (Electrical, Air Conditioning & Plumbing)

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Community Services/Contracts, Leases & Agreements

Federal Agencies

Request from Community Services for Section 8 Housing to execute an additional and new Annual Contributions Contract, for Voucher Project Number FL29-V106-004, between Lake County and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and authorized proper signatures on same.

County Employees/Human Resources

Request from Human Resources for approval of certificates to employees with one and three years of service to the County and authorized proper signatures on same.

Committees/Human Resources

Request from Human Resources for adoption of the Lake County Affirmative Action Plan and authorized proper signatures on same.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Human Resources/Insurance

Request from Human Resources for renewal of the contract for claims handling, with Gallagher Bassett Services, under the County Comprehensive Insurance Plan, and authorized proper signatures on same.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Grants/Planning

Request from Planning for approval of the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Agreement and authorized proper signatures on same.

Accounts Allowed/Public Services/Road Projects

Roads-County & State

Request from Public Services for authorization to enter into negotiations with Greater Construction Corporation, for the utilization of road impact fees, to share the cost of improvements to Hancock Road, with the cost share not to exceed $125,000.

Public Services/Roads-County & State

Request from Public Services to accept a Maintenance Map on Peru Road (5-7961) and Lake Street (5-7864).

Public Services/Roads-County & State

Request from Public Services to accept a Maintenance Map on CR 565A.

Municipalities/Public Services/Roads-County & State/Signs

Request from Public Services to post a 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign on CR 561, from SR 50 south to Minnehaha Avenue, in the City of Clermont.

Deeds/Rights-of-way, Roads & Easements/Roads-County & State

Request from Public Services to accept the following Statutory Warranty Deed:

For Minor Lot Split

Blue Sink Groves, Inc., a Florida Corporation, right-of-way for Turkey Lake Road (2/3-2924).

Bonds/Commissioners/State Agencies

Request from the County Manager for approval of the bond for Commr. Welton Cadwell and authorization to forward same to the Department of State.

County Employees/Courthouse

Request from the County Manager for authorization to allow County employees to take a supplemental holiday of either Christmas Eve or New Years Eve.

CITIZEN QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Mr. Waldo Porter, a local resident, appeared before the Board and named some streets in Astor that he and other residents of the area would like for the County to grade.

Mr. Fred Brady, a local resident and businessman, appeared before the Board and requested that the Acre Animal Research Facility in Lake County be closed.

Mrs. Fred Brady appeared before the Board and requested that a potential violation of a CUP involving a chicken farm near her home be readdressed.

Legal concerns relating to the requests made by Mr. and Mrs. Brady, as they relate to the new quasi-judicial ruling, were noted, for the record.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COUNTY EMPLOYEES/PLANNING

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for approval of Issue 3, "Planning and Development", in relation to the "Modification of the County Organizational Structure", proposed in the memorandum dated November 17, 1992.

COMMITTEES/FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Manager to establish an Appeals Board and set a date to hear petitions on the non-ad valorem assessments for fire.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that her office would sit as counsel for the Appeals Board.

BIDS/PUBLIC SERVICES/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of specifications and to put out for bid the purchase of two self-contained above ground storage tanks, for Maintenance Area III, to comply with all requirements mandated by the Department of Environmental Regulation.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS/MUNICIPALITIES

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of an interlocal agreement between Lake County and the City of Eustis, for monofill leachate disposal, and authorized proper signatures on same, subject to final approval by the County Attorney's Office.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS/MUNICIPALITIES

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for authorization to amend the Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Solid Waste Services Contract, with respect to the Astatula Landfill Expansion and Leachate Disposal, and authorized proper signatures on same, subject to approval by the County Manager, with the understanding that he can bring the matter back before the Board, if there is a need to do so.

BUDGETS/BUDGET TRANSFERS/PLANNING

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that, so far, it has cost the County between $1.5 and $2 million for staff to prepare the Comprehensive Plan and feels that the amount of money the County is spending on negotiations needs to be kept in perspective of that amount.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the Office of Budget for approval of the following budget transfer, which involves funding for legal work done by the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, through November 30, 1992, concerning the County's Comprehensive Plan:

Fund: General

Department: Office of Planning

From: Contingency Reserve $38,500

To: Operating $38,500

Transfer #: 93-0039

COMMITTEES/PLANNING

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for authorization to submit $23,500 to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, as the County's offer of the annual assessment of membership dues for FY 1993, by the Council, in the amount of $25,130, with the remaining balance of $1,630 to be negotiated at a later date.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PURCHASING

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Purchasing for approval of specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized, payments to be made, and other services that do not require bids or quotes, as follows:

(D) Encumber Funds Previously Authorized

DIVISION/DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AMOUNT

(E) Approve Other Payments and Encumber Funds

DIVISION/DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AMOUNT

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Commr. Swartz for ratification of financial items that needed to be paid prior to this Board Meeting.

COUNTY EMPLOYEES/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Commr. Swartz for approval of a resolution to Ms. Alice Ayers, Lake County 4-H Agent, in appreciation of her many years of service and dedication to the County.

MISCELLANEOUS/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Commr. Swartz for approval of a proclamation honoring the 70th birthday of the Leesburg Kiwanis.

EDUCATION/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Commr. Hanson for approval of a proclamation declaring the month of October as Alpha Delta Kappa month in Lake County.

PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEES/PUBLIC HEALTH/RESOLUTIONS

Mr. David Cleary, representing the Lake County Citizens Committee for Alcohol Health Warnings, appeared before the Board stating that his group was concerned about the steadily worsening problem of alcohol among the young people in Florida, which he elaborated on. He stated that his group is comprised entirely of professionals and volunteers in public health and public safety and noted concerns they had in the way that Tallahassee has handled requests from them, over the years, concerning approval of Bills calling for statewide posting of alcohol health warning signs, in that they have killed said requests, with no explanation. He requested the Board to approve a resolution indicating the County's support of a Bill calling for statewide posting of the alcohol health warning signs.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the Lake County Citizens Committee for Alcohol Health Warnings for a

resolution to be sent to Governor Lawton Chiles indicating the County's support of a Bill calling for statewide posting of Alcohol Health Warning signs.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)

FEDERAL AGENCIES/PLANNING/RESOLUTIONS/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE

Mr. Mark Knight, Principal Planner, Planning Division, appeared before the Board to discuss the final Federal Functional Classification Master List, dated November 23, 1992, that had been prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation for transmittal to the Federal Highway Administration for their approval. He stated that the primary concern staff has with the list is the designation of S.R. 500 (U.S. 441), from S.R. 44 to C.R. 44-Leg A, as a rural principal arterial, noting that the Department of Transportation has agreed to transmit the request for designating the entire segment of Hwy. 441 from Leesburg to the Orange County line as an urban roadway segment to the Federal Highway Administration. He distributed a printout of the Master List for Rural Roads and the Master List for Urban Roads, which the Board reviewed and discussed.

Mr. Renzo Nastasi, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), appeared before the Board and answered questions pertaining to this request, at which time he displayed a map showing urban area designations, which he discussed with the Board.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that they would be considering two (2) things this date, one being the Federal Functional Classification Master List and the other being the Urban Area Designation Map, which she elaborated on, noting that the map would be transmitted to the Federal Highway Administration and would then come back to the Board for final approval, at which time they would have the ability to either agree or disagree with it. She stated that the Board is not approving the map, based on the census this date, but rather saying that they will forward it to the Federal Highway Administration, with the ability to have input, once it comes back from them.

Commr. Cadwell stated that his main concern is that the Board not do anything this date that is going to limit the County's ability to be designated MPO, to which Mr. Nastasi responded that there is nothing within the process that would, in the long run, limit, prevent, or impede the County's ability to become an MPO, if the County meets particular requirements.

Commr. Swartz noted that one of the requirements is a 50,000 population, which he noted neither Leesburg nor Tavares meets that requirement, unless they are joined together. He questioned whether the County could submit something that would maximize the County's ability to, at some date, get necessary designation and additional funding, noting that the County needs money in order to plan for transportation services for what is a very constrictive corridor. He stated that there is no other way to do it, unless FDOT wants to bridge Lake Griffin or Lake Harris, which he noted would be far more expensive than what the Board is presently trying to do.

Mr. Nastasi, Florida Department of Transportation, informed the Board that the purpose of his being present this date was to obtain approval of a resolution concerning the classification of roadways - deciding whether a road is a principal arterial, minor arterial, etc. He stated that, even though FDOT has designated an urban area map and boundaries are involved, it is unrelated to questions of Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designations, or urbanized area designations, as his department is not involved in that process.

In answer to a question as to whether the urban area map will impede the County in the future, Mr. Nastasi stated that he did not feel it would, due to the fact that the County now has contiguous boundaries. He stated that if they are approved by the Federal Highway Administration, as they are shown on the map, that will bring the County further along than it was before, when the County had separate entities, unconnected.

Mr. Wahl, County Manager, stated that FDOT has been very explicit that the County keep the infinitesimal separation between Leesburg and Tavares, therefore, questioned whether, by this Board exercising its approval process, eliminates that infinitesimal gap and puts them together, as to what would happen at that point, to which Mr. Nastasi responded that there is no gap involved, that what FDOT is saying is that the two boundaries merge, but they are keeping the population numbers separate. Mr. Nastasi then stated that it is not just the two segments, but each municipality, noting that even though they are shown on the map, they are separate entities, within one big boundary. He stated that those designations were assigned by the Census Bureau, noting some of the communities were identified by the Census Bureau as new small urban areas and that is how the whole process started. He stated that FDOT had to (1) adjust the boundaries to incorporate the development that has occurred within the last couple of years, (2) identify and classify all the roads within those boundaries, and (3) determine the urban and rural characteristics of that road, noting that this is where they are today.

Commr. Swartz questioned the fact that if the Board wanted to consider the area between Leesburg and Tavares as one urban area and wanted to submit a map and boundary designation that includes said area as one, whether there would be anything that would keep the Board from trying to get the best designation for what they believe is a critical transportation corridor and forwarding it to the Federal Highway Administration, to which Mr. Nastasi responded that he felt what he was proposing this date was the best designation possible, at this point in time, noting that until a designation is assigned by the Census Bureau, nothing else can be done - it is handled at that level.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board stating that the City of Leesburg has been looking at this issue and it is their understanding that the designation presented this date, closing the gap between Leesburg

and Tavares, did not effect in any way, shape, or form future requests by the County for any designation for MPO. Concerning the issue of closing the gap between Tavares, Eustis, and Leesburg, they were told that it is not a function of the Board, at this point in time, nor the Department of Transportation, because that is a census situation which would require the Board to apply to the Census Bureau for a determination of the 5 to 50,000 population type situation, which would then allow for it to be considered one area and that nothing the Board does this date would effect the County's ability to designate and do that. He then discussed how the urban area designation map got changed.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved, as requested by Planning, a Resolution, which includes Exhibit "A", which is the Final Federal Highway Functional Classification Master List of all arterial and collector roads in Lake County, dated December 1, 1992, as well as the map designating urban area boundaries, as presented this date by the Florida Department of Transportation, for submittal to the Federal Highway Administration.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:40 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

COUNTY ATTORNEY/LAWS & LEGISLATION

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the Florida Association of Counties had submitted a new questionnaire concerning the Article V costs issue, which they requested a response to, as soon as possible, in order for them to have a consensus to consider at their next meeting. She brought the Board up-to-date as to what had transpired, thus far, regarding the matter.

A brief discussion occurred regarding said questionnaire, at which time Commr. Hanson suggested having staff clarify the pro-

rata share and indicate that the pro-rata, based on the per capita population, may be the way to go.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to respond to the Florida Association of Counties' questionnaire as follows: "Yes" to Questions 1 and 2, in that (1) the Association should bring a lawsuit against the State for Article V costs and (2) that should the Association bring an Article V lawsuit, Lake County would pay its pro-rata share of the estimated cost of prosecuting such a lawsuit (estimated to be $200,000).

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board responded to the Questionnaire alluded to above by indicating "No" for Questions 3 and 4, in that (3) should the Association not bring an Article V lawsuit, but, should an individual county bring such a lawsuit, that Lake County would not join in that lawsuit with that county and (4) that if an individual county does bring an Article V lawsuit, that Lake County would not contribute funds to that county to help pay for that lawsuit.

PLANNING/STATE AGENCIES

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board an issue related to the ongoing negotiations with the Department of Community Affairs, concerning the County's Comprehensive Plan. She referred to a memo, dated November 30, 1992, which she submitted to the Board, noting that it summarized the conditions and situation as they existed at the time that the memo was prepared. She stated that the County has received a subsequent letter from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), dated November 30, 1992, which has additional proposed language that DCA wished to discuss with the County. She summarized the contents of her memo and the issues before the Board this date, noting that, with the County's Comprehensive Plan not being approved by DCA, the Board now has two options available to them, being (1) agree to changes negotiated with the Department of

Community Affairs in an amended or new Stipulated Settlement Agreement and adopt an implementing amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which she noted would resolve the administrative hearing dispute between Lake County and DCA, with the other parties remaining to be dealt with and (2) if the County cannot agree to changes in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the County could choose to not enter into such an agreement with DCA and respond to their comments on the August 25, 1992, Lake County Comprehensive Plan amendment. She stated that the Board could adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address DCA's comments; however, this presumes that the County would proceed to an administrative hearing with DCA and the other parties involved. Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, according to the letter, dated November 24, 1992, from DCA, that was forwarded to Mr. Jake Varn, with Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler (representing the County in negotiations with DCA concerning the County's Comprehensive Plan), DCA is taking the position that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adopted on November 3, 1992, represented the Comprehensive Plan for Lake County, regardless of the fact that it was processed pursuant to the statutory procedural guidelines that apply only to a settlement agreement; therefore, the status of the November 3, 1992 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is somewhat in limbo, and its actual effectiveness is in question. She stated that it is incumbent upon the County to review any applications that come through, at this time, based on the July 9, 1992 Comprehensive Plan; the August 25, 1992 transmitted amendment; and the November 3, 1992 amendment, as well, which she noted puts the County in a very strange position, as far as the County's review process is concerned.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the Board is in a precarious situation, in that most of the information alluded to by the County Attorney was received the day before this meeting and, due to the fact that the Board is supposed to have the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report back from DCA on

December 8, 1992, suggested that the Board hold off on taking any action until they have a chance to review the ORC Report and digest its contents.

It was noted that the date for the Administrative Hearing would have to be set and the Administrative Hearing Officer notified of same before December 30, 1992.

Commr. Bailey stated that he agreed with the County Manager, in that the Board should wait until they receive the ORC Report from DCA before making any decisions this date, but, felt that while they are waiting for the report, they should examine the sanitary sewer issue and obtain some direction from staff, due to the time frame and potential costs involved.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of water and sewer, alluded to by Commr. Bailey, at which time Commr. Swartz requested staff to go back and look at the adopted Master Wastewater Plan, as well as the amendment to the original proposal which dealt with the area in south Lake County, to be sure of what the Board adopted as the County's master plan, and try to put together some analysis of the ramifications of what is being asked of the County, because it is a portion of that master plan that DCA is relying on.

Mr. Wahl, County Manager, interjected that he felt the adopted wastewater plan did foresee water and sewer in the area that DCA is specifically addressing and felt that what is at issue is the timing of the development, the manner in which the development occurs, and the infrastructure facilities that are required to serve it.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board needed to decide, this date, whether they wanted to continue a contractual relationship with Mr. Jake Varn, with the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, or whether they wanted to use the County Attorney and her staff to complete the negotiations with DCA and bring closure to the issue of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that one of the backup items contained in the agenda for this

meeting was a request for approval of the October billing and an estimate of the November billing, which will bring the total fees that have been authorized for payment to the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, to date, to $209,000.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, even though he had nothing against the County Attorney and her staff and their ability to do the job, he was nervous about changing hands at this late date, at which time Commr. Gerber stated that she had no reservations about doing so, as she was very confident that the County Attorney, her staff, and county staff were more than capable of doing the job.

A motion was made by Commr. Gerber to terminate the services of Mr. Jake Varn, with the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, and authorize the County Attorney and her staff to complete the negotiations with DCA and bring a closure to the issue of the County's Comprehensive Plan.

The motion died for lack of a second.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted, for informational purposes, that there is a difficulty in the fact that the County has contracted with a law firm and an individual that has been involved in the negotiations with DCA from the beginning and has developed a rapport with them. She stated that it appeared the County was quite close to resolution, until the most recent response from DCA. She stated that, if the County is able to come to closure on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in the short period of time that it is anticipated she will be able to, her recommendation would be that the County continue with Mr. Varn. She stated that, if the decision of the Board is to terminate the services of Mr. Varn, for this particular purpose, and have she and her staff handle the issue, she will need to, from time to time, be required to consult with Mr. Varn, noting that there are funds in her budget for contractual legal services that would be able to address any expenses incurred regarding same.

Commr. Swartz stated concerns he had about the possibility of continuing the services of Mr. Varn and the total costs that these

services would incur, as well as the fact that he feels the Board needs to get more involved in the discussions with DCA. He also noted a concern he had regarding the fact that he felt Mr. Varn made some decisions that went beyond what he was authorized to do, regarding DCA and the Comprehensive Plan, which he elaborated on.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to indicate to Mr. Jake Varn, with the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, representing the County in negotiations with the Department of Community Affairs concerning the County's Comprehensive Plan, that he is not to enter into any further negotiations, direct any correspondence, or enter into any discussions with the Department of Community Affairs, on behalf of the Board, until such time as the Board is able to look at either the ORC Report or other information pertaining to the issue.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, once the Board receives the ORC Report, they will have 60 days to respond to it, in some fashion. She stated that the Board has three options, being (1) adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, in response to the ORC Report, noting that they are not precluded, at that time, to make additional changes to the Comprehensive Plan; (2) choose not to adopt an amendment; or (3) adopt it as submitted, regardless of what might have come out in the ORC Report. She stated that the Board has the ability, in responding to the report, to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that might address some of the issues in the November 3, 1992 amendment that might not necessarily have been adopted in the August 25, 1992 amendment.

Commr. Swartz referred to a letter the Board received, dated November 16, 1992, stating that it contains four items that deal with procedural issues and noted that the Board also has a letter which deals with the effectiveness of the November 3, 1992 amendments. He stated that the Board needs to find out structurally and procedurally what alternatives the Board has

regarding same. He stated that there are also substantive issues that the Board needs to obtain clarification on, which he noted.

Further discussion occurred, at which time the Chairman requested the County Attorney to prepare a report, if she is able to discuss the issue with DCA to the extent of making a report worthwhile, and present it at the Board Meeting scheduled for December 8, 1992.

No further action was taken at this time.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:00 noon, the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:30 p.m. for a Land Development Regulations Workshop.

LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WORKSHOP

LAWS & LEGISLATION/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Gregg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, informed the Board that the proposed revisions before the Board this date were approved by the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a few minor changes.

At this time, the Board reviewed the revised proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations presented this date, page by page, as follows:

Page I-1:

Concerning the matter of the general application of the LDRs, Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the Pollution Control Rules apply to both the County and the cities; however, application of the LDRs apply only to the County. He stated that the Pollution Control Board is governed by a special act and it is the authority of that special act that allows the County to apply the Pollution Control Rules (water quality standards) to the cities.

Page I-7:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page II-8:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page II-10:

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management Division, informed the Board that Central Sewage System and Central Water System definitions had been added for systems that furnish potable water and sewage services to five or more structures.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that these definitions were inserted because they were not originally incorporated into the LDRs and the intent of the LDRs is to have everything related to land in one place.

Page II-12:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page II-14:

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted a typo error in the definition of Conventionally built home.

Page II-20:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page II-22:

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted a typo error in the definition of Entrance sign.

Page II-24:

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, noted the reason for specifying a narrow corridor as being 50 feet in width in the definition of Flag lot, stating that the County has had a problem in the past with the definition of Flag lot.

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, interjected that staff came up with the 50 foot corridor, due to the fact that one could actually build a home on a 50 foot wide area, however, noted that anything smaller than that was getting much too narrow than what staff was comfortable in dealing with.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether this was going to cause the County to end up with flag lots that are 50 feet wide, to which Mr. Stubbs replied that it probably would.

Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., stated (from the audience) that, in the old Zoning Regulations, there was a section that stated, if there were not any established buildings, the minimum building setback would have to be 62 feet from the centerline or 50 feet from the right-of-way, determined by the road size, which she noted would have prevented people from doing a one foot strip 150 feet long and then pulling out; however, that section of the Code was never enforced.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not believe the amendment stating that a narrow corridor is 50 feet in width was going to do what the County would like for it to. He stated that he felt the places where the County needs to have some minimum road frontage are those places where development can come in and avoid the review process; therefore, felt if the County reinstated the road frontage requirements that were originally in the LDRs, for lots that do not come through the normal subdivision process, that would eliminate the flag lot issue.

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, interjected that, if one goes through the platting process, they do not need the minimum road frontage; however, if one does not go through the platting process, then they do.

It was noted what zoning districts would require the 50 foot minimum lot width requirement.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding this definition and the possibility of going back to the minimum width on roads, at which time Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, informed the Board that he felt if they approved to go back to the minimum width on roads, it was going to slow down the permitting process and would increase the amount of variances before the Board of Adjustment, which concerned him, as he felt it was unnecessary.

Mr. Bob Huffstetler, Genesis Design Group, Inc., informed the Board that when there was a minimum lot width for the A (Agricultural), AR (Agricultural Residential), RE (Rural Estate) and RR (Rural Residential) zoning districts, it promoted very rectilinear subdivisions, because every time there was a curve, only one lot can be put on that curve.

Discussion continued regarding the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request that there be a 100 foot minimum lot width requirement for the RR and below zoning districts; that the minimum lot width requirement be 150 feet for the RA (Ranchette), AR (Agricultural Residential) and A (Agricultural) zoning districts; and that there be a minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet for a Lots of record .

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that this language will come out of the definition of Flag lot, due to the fact that new language is being inserted.

Page II-36:

Clarification was made regarding the wording of the last sentence of the definition of Lots of record.

Page II-37:

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that staff had received correspondence from the Florida Association of Mobile Home Manufacturers and that the wording contained in the definition of Manufactured home tracks the language contained in the State's definition of same.

Page II-38:

Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management Division, informed the Board that staff would be coming back with another definition for Mean High Water Mark that would be more appropriate than the language contained in the present definition.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, requested the Board to, as they review the definitions contained in the LDRs, consider putting some

flexibility back into the variance process to allow for the first 18 months to two years.

A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue, at which time Commr. Swartz requested staff to find a way to deal with the concern that Mr. Richey alluded to.

Page II-40:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page II-41:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page II-44:

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the definition of Obnoxious use was too vague, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same.

It was noted that the word community should be changed to area, in the definition of Obnoxious use.

Pages II-49; 50; and 57:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page II-58:

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that the language contained in the definition of Sign replaces the prior language, due to the fact that the prior language was not really a definition.

Pages II-60; 61; 62; 63; 65; and 66:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page III-8:

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, noted that Rural Villages and Employment Centers should be added to the chart on this page under Land Use Category.

Page III-9:

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, informed the Board that the purpose of the chart on this page is to rename zoning districts, noting that old districts had never been deleted and new ones

created. He stated that, depending on the Comprehensive Plan, the densities may have to be reduced.

Page III-10:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page III-21:

A brief discussion occurred regarding the Obnoxious uses category and whether or not it should be conditional under the C-1 zoning district, however, no changes were made.

Page III-23:

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that Warehouses had been inserted under the Industrial Uses category, under Use Classifications, and that Trucking facilities should be added under the same category, as well.

Page III-21 (Cont'd.):

Commr. Hanson referred back to the chart contained on this page and requested that Veterinary Clinics be listed as a conditional use under the C-1 and C-3 zoning districts, as well as the other zoning districts listed.

Page III-32:

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, explained the reason behind there being several options for the Lots of Record, stating that there are a ton of plats, as well as meets-and-bounds lots, in the County that were recorded in the 1920s and 1930s which contain very, very small lots, where the infrastructure was never put in. He stated that a lot of these lots are zoned agricultural and people buy them with the intention of building a home on them or placing a mobile home on them; however, they do not meet the size requirements of the zoning district. He stated that a lot of counties have created a Lots of Record Ordinance for the purpose of handling these type situations. He stated that the language contained in Option 1 is the way that the Land Development Regulation Review Committee wrote it last Fall, however, stated he has a problem with a portion of the language (which he noted) due to a case involving a lawsuit in South Carolina concerning the

issue of a "taking". He suggested Options 2 or 3, which he elaborated on, noting that the decision regarding which option would be preferred would depend on how the aggregation language is changed, namely the date.

Discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the prior Code had a 1982 date, which she noted was the date that that particular ordinance amendment was enacted, therefore, recommended that, if the Board was going to refer to a date, to refer to the 1982 date.

Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., informed the Board that they needed to keep in mind the fact that there is a list of existing old subdivisions that were recognized by a prior Board to have a mixed residential use, under the agricultural zoning district, even though the lots were substandard. She stated that they might have to go through the lots of record process, to determine if the lot size will support a residence, but they do not have to go through a mobile home check, variance, etc. She stated that said subdivisions are agriculturally designated, which allows a mobile home or house on five acres or more; however, the subdivisions she alluded to have lots that are less than five acres, but the Board recognized that they have mixed use and allowed them.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, questioned why the Board was discriminating against mobile homes, in that only conventionally built homes can be constructed on lots of record, to which Commr. Swartz responded that the rational for it is that one is only allowed to have a mobile home in certain districts, which he noted.

Further discussion occurred regarding the issue.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to go with Option 3 (out of five options given) as the definition for Lots of record, with the addition of the wording publicly maintained roads; the date of aggregation being 1982; and that the County will use the one-half

(1/2) mile radius stipulation for the A (Agricultural) and RA (Ranchette) zoning districts.

Page IV-32:

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, questioned why, under the Variances definition, if someone wanted a variance from what staff determines to be the percentage in a subdivision containing mobile homes and conventionally built homes, they would not be able to go before the Board of Adjustment and obtain a variance, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County needs to provide notice, in the Public Records, that would show up on a title search, that there is a Lots of Record Ordinance, in order to prevent individuals from buying a piece of property that they may not be able to build on, due to the lot being a lot of record, or unbuildable lot. It would notify individuals that they should check with the County's Building Department before purchasing said lot.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association of Lake County, stated that she felt what Commr. Swartz suggested would be opening a real potential of liability for the County.

Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Swartz requested staff to research the matter and see what can be done about the variance issue.

Page III-33:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page III-34:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page III-35:

It was noted that the last sentence of Paragraph D. 1., under the heading Visibility Triangle, should be deleted and that the reference made to fifty (50) feet, in the second sentence of Paragraph D. 3., should be changed to seventy-five (75) feet.

Page III-36:

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, requested that, under the heading of Fences, the following language be inserted: If the health, safety, and welfare, as determined by the County Manager or designee, is threatened, staff can request that an additional five to ten feet be added to the distances, for fences not located within the Visibility Triangle.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, requested that language contained in Paragraph E. 2., under the heading of Fences, be revised to read: Fences shall be prohibited from encroaching into a right-of-way, public easement, or drainage easement., rather than its present language, which refers to an easement for utilities, which he noted would mean water, electric, natural gas, etc. It was noted that staff would revise said language.

Page III-37:

Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management Division, stated that a recent problem arose regarding common boat docks, which he elaborated on, and requested that language be added as a note to the chart on this page that would allow staff to encourage and allow the use of common docks for more than one lot's use.

Commr. Swartz pointed out a typo error in the chart on this page, which staff noted would be corrected.

Mr. Stubbs noted that Accessory building should be added to the chart on this page, from the A zoning district through to the R6 district, and requested that the following language be inserted, as well: One should have an accessory building setback of 10 feet. Page III-38:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page III-39:

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that the RV classification listed in the chart on this page should read

1 DU/AC rather than 10 DU/AC.

Discussion occurred regarding the RV classification, at which time Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, and Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, commented about same. It was noted that the Board needs to address the issue of permanent densities in an RV park.

Page III-40:

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, informed the Board of a problem that staff has had to deal with pertaining to the language contained in Paragraph 3. ISR: Impervious Surface Ratio, as well as the language contained in Paragraph 4. Net Acre, and requested that certain language be deleted, which he noted.

Page III-38 (Cont'd.):

Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., referred back to this page, to the heading of Note 3, and requested that the language be revised to allow for a larger buffer than what is listed. It was noted that said language would be revised.

Page III-41:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page III-42:

No comments made regarding noted amendment, other than a reference which was made earlier, by the County Attorney, regarding the chart contained on this page.

Page III-54:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Pages III-55 and III-56:

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the existing language, starting on Page III-54, which addresses where vehicles can be parked, only addresses agriculturally zoned property consisting of five acre lots.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, and Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association of Lake County, commented about the language prohibiting the parking of vehicles in agricultural zoning districts, at which time Commr. Swartz

requested staff to create language which makes the intent of the definition more clear.

Page III-57:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page III-58:

Commr. Swartz requested that the setback requirement under Paragraph 3.07.02 - Setback be changed from one thousand (1,000) feet to one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet, and that under Paragraph 3.08.00 - Cemeteries, that language be inserted that would protect existing non-conforming cemeteries.

Page III-59:

Discussion occurred regarding the language contained in Paragraph 3.09.00 - Lighting, at which time it was noted that language would be added to protect adjacent property owners from lighting that is considered a nuisance.

Page IV-9:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page VI-5:

Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management Services, explained why amendments were made to Paragraph 6.02.02 - Development Standards for Lake Shorelines, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same. He stated that staff also deleted the word lakes from the first sentence of Paragraph 6.02.01 - Purpose and inserted the word shorelines, noting the reason for the change.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, informed the Board that there is not a definition for Mean Annual High and she did not know what it meant, at which time it was noted that Mean Annual High would have to be defined.

Page VI-9:

Commr. Swartz questioned the language contained in Paragraph B. - Management Plan Approval, at which time a brief discussion occurred, however, no changes were made.

Page VI-11:

Commr. Swartz questioned the language contained in Paragraph 6.04.05 - Exemptions, Item A, to which Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, replied that the intent is that it apply to a county public road. It was noted that said wording would be revised.

Pages VI-12; VI-25; VI-42; VI-46; VI-47; VI-48; VI-54;

VI-55; VI-57; VI-58; VI-60; VI-63; and VI-66:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Pages VI-67 and VI-68:

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the County has a mandatory connection ordinance that has been in place for 19 years, however, staff failed to put it in the LDRs. He stated that staff is presently attempting to do so, as directly copying the way that the Board, chaired by Commr. Carson, did it in the past, without any "Band-Aids".

Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management Services, stated that, in the Central Water System definition, there is a requirement that if one has an individual well and a central water supply system becomes available to them, they will be required to connect to it.

Commr. Swartz directed that language be inserted in both the Central Water System and the Central Sewage System definitions that states it pertains to all new structures that are put in place from the time of adoption of the Land Development Regulations, as well as a requirement that one must connect if there is endangerment to the environment or to public health, safety, or welfare, at which time Mr. Barker stated that, based on the discussions this date, there are several additional requirements that should be added to this section at a later date.

Page VII-6:

Commr. Hanson stated that kennels are not a permitted use in the Wekiva and felt that they should be, with a CUP, due to the low density in that area.

A brief discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time it was noted that language regarding same would be added, as a conditional use.

Page IX-1:

Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management Services, stated that staff has run into a snag concerning tree protection, noting that the way the LDRs read one would have to know the date of approval to be able to determine what tree standards would apply and requested the Board to approve language that would make the tree protection standards before the Board this date apply from this date forward, so that the Building Department does not have to do a lot of research in issuing building permits.

It was noted that language would be added, as requested.

Pages IX-4 and IX-5:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page IX-8:

Commr. Bailey questioned the language contained in Paragraph 9.01.04 1. c., concerning minimum tree requirements and the fact that three (3) trees are required for each additional acre, in excess of one acre, with a maximum required number not to exceed fifteen trees, and suggested a possible change in the language.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue, however, no changes were approved at this time.

Page IX-4 (Cont'd.):

Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management Services, referred back to this page and clarified language contained in Paragraphs C. and D., noting that one paragraph pertains to acreage of five acres or more and one paragraph to acreage of five acres or less.

Pages IX-9; IX-11; IX-12; IX-22; and IX-29:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page IX-33:

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, requested that the language contained in Paragraph B. 1. a., which states that landscaped

buffer areas of at least 10 feet in depth be provided where commercial, industrial, institutional and community facility areas abut property zoned residential or open space areas be revised to state that, if commercial is in place and residential moves into the area, residential should have to buffer between existing commercial, rather than vise-versa.

It was noted that the language would be revised to reflect Mr. Richey's recommendation.

Page IX-35:

No comments made regarding noted amendment.

Page IX-47:

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation Services and One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, informed the Board that they had requested staff to come back with language encouraging more grass parking spaces for churches; therefore, language was inserted stating that minimum parking spaces would be determined by the Technical Review Committee, based on a parking study.

Commr. Swartz suggested having a basic requirement that can be alternated with the present requirement so that a church will not have to go to a parking study if they choose to meet whatever the County's minimum requirement is.

Pages IX-51; IX-52; IX-58; IX-59; X-2; XII-3; XII-4; XII-5; XII-7; XII-8; XII-9; XII-11; XII-12; and XII-13:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

Page XII-16:

Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, stated, for informational purposes, that the noted amendments listed on this page are the variance criteria for the Pollution Control Board that was originally in Chapter VI, but moved to Chapter XII, where he noted it belongs.

Pages XII-17; XIII-11; XIV-2; XIV-13; XIV-20; XIV-30;

XIV-31; XIV-39; XIV-40; XIV-41; XIV-46; XIV-49; XIV-54;

XIV-55; XIV-56; XIV-65; XIV-71; XIV-101; XIV-102; XIV-105; XIV-106; XIV-107; XIV-108; and XIV-111:

No comments made regarding noted amendments.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

________________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/12-1-92/12-18-92/boardmin