The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, January 19, 1993, at 5:05 p.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, Administrative Assistant to the County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Finance Director; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
LAWS & LEGISLATION/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Commr. Swartz, Chairman, called the meeting to order and informed those present that this was the first of two public hearings concerning amendment of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that the second public hearing is scheduled for January 26, 1993, at 5:05 p.m. He then requested the County Attorney to address the issue of Lots of Record, contained in the Land Development Regulations, noting that there has been some misunderstanding regarding same.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, referred to Section 1.02.00 - Vesting for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, on Pages I-1 and I-5, of the LDRs, as it pertains to Agricultural Waivers, Large Lot Waivers (now called Large Lot Splits), and Lots of Approval (now called Minor Lot Splits). She stated that, if one has received a Large Lot Waiver, an Agricultural Waiver, or a Lot of Approval, they continue to be vested at this point in time. She stated that staff would be addressing the language regarding Lots of Record, which she noted are different from the other types of subdivision of property, such as Agricultural Waivers, Large Lot Splits, and Minor Lot Splits. She stated that, until the new LDRs went into effect June 1, 1992,
Agricultural Waivers, Large Lots Splits and Minor Lot Splits were created by administrative action of the County, whereby one would come before the County and the County would go through an administrative process where lots were created. She stated that that is different from a Lot of Record, which she noted is created by documents recorded in the public record, such as a recorded plat, a contract, deed, or a conveyance with a meets and bounds description.
It was noted that the only changes which would be reviewed at this time would be those changes which had occurred since the last workshop regarding the LDRs.
Pages I-1 and I-5:
Reference made concerning Agricultural Waiver, Large Lot Waiver, and Lot Approval, contained on these two pages, by County Attorney earlier in meeting.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, reviewed the following pages, noting changes as follows:
Subsection 1.02.12 - Lot of Record was deleted, due to the fact that it is covered in Chapter III.
The word structure was added to the definition of Accessory, as noted.
The definition of Entrance Sign was changed. It will only identify the development and not be used for advertising.
A definition for Farm Building was added.
A definition for Livestock Building was added.
The language and utility rooms when not heated or air conditioned was added to the definition of Living Area, in order to conform said definition to the Southern Building Code, to make it consistent.
Language was added to the definition of Ongoing Development, as noted.
Language was added and deleted in the definition of Principal Structure, as noted.
Language was added to the definition of Restaurants, as noted.
Under the Land Use Category for Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node - Wekiva and the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node - Not Wekiva, the Zoning District of RP should be added.
Language was added to Paragraph B., pertaining to Old and New Zoning Districts, as noted.
Language was added and deleted to Paragraph B. 2. - Non-Intensive Agriculture, as noted.
The language apiaries; honey extracting was added to Paragraph B. 1. - General Agriculture.
It was noted that two options, being Option 1 (developed by County staff) and Option 2 (suggested changes by the Agricultural Advisory Committee), were available and would be discussed at a later time.
Noted scrivener's error.
Under Use Classifications, Roadside Farm Stands was added as permitted (P) uses in the C1, C2, and C3 zoning districts and as a conditional (C) use in the CP zoning district, and Veterinary Clinics was added as conditional (C) uses in the C1 and C3 zoning districts.
Under Use Classifications, Trucking Facilities was added as permitted (P) uses in the LM, HM and MP zoning districts.
Paragraph D. - Sanitary Facilities was deleted, as it conflicts with other portions of the Code.
Pages III-41 and III-43:
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, discussed Option One - 5 Livestock Building & 2 Farm Building Setbacks and Option Two - 1 Livestock Building & 1 Farm Building Setbacks, contained on these pages, noting the reason for having the two options.
Subsection 3.02.06 - Lot Size Requirements was moved to this page from another part of the chapter, for clarification purposes.
Noted a typo error on this page.
Clarification of the title for Subsection 3.06.04 was noted and language was added to Paragraph E. pertaining to bona fide agricultural operations.
Language was added and deleted in Subsection 3.09.00 - Lighting, as noted.
The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, noted that for the zoning districts of A-1-40, A-1-20, A, RA, and AR the frontage requirement should be changed from 100 feet to 150 feet; however, the frontage requirements listed for the remainder of the zoning districts should remain the same. She also noted that language would be proposed in the Lot of Record section to require the 50 foot frontage requirement.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time it was noted that it would be discussed more in detail later
in the meeting, due to a difference of opinion as to what had been approved by the Board at an earlier meeting.
Language was added and deleted in Paragraph C. 1., as noted.
Pages VI-67 and VI-69:
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, noted that two options are involved concerning Section 6.12.00 - Central Water System/Central Sewage System, on these two pages, due to the fact that the Board had directed staff to copy the language out of the Comprehensive Plan, regarding this issue, which states that the Board of County Commissioners may grant a variance; however, the Pollution Control Board passed a resolution requesting that they be the body which grants or denies the variances. Therefore, Option 1 has the Board of County Commissioners granting the variance and Option 2 has the Pollution Control Board granting the variance.
Paragraph 17 was deleted by direction of the Board and the language shall be developed was deleted from Paragraph 3. as a cleanup of the stated language.
Pages VII-7 and VII-8:
No. 9 - Kennels and No. 10 - Camps were deleted from these pages as permitted uses in the A-1-40 Overlay District 1 and A-1-20 Overlay District, as directed by the Board. Changes noted on the bottom of Page VII-8 are alphabetical corrections.
Pages VII-9 and VII-10:
Changes noted are alphabetical corrections.
The language of any size was added to Paragraph D., as directed by the Board.
Change noted to Paragraph 1. c. was directed by the Board.
Paragraph E. was added, as directed by the Board.
Language was added and deleted in Paragraphs 1. a. and b. and Paragraph 1. d. was added, as directed by the Board.
The word compact was added to Subsection 9.03.07 - Bicycle Parking Requirements.
The language This Subsection shall apply for all applications for Development Orders. was added to this page for clarification purposes.
The language or the Ongoing Development setback, whichever is greater was added to Subsection 10.01.03 - Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs, and Similar Structures.
Language was added to Paragraph B. - Standards, Item 1., as noted.
Paragraphs 5. and 6. were added, as noted.
Pages X-8 and X-9:
Language was added and deleted from these pages, as noted, as directed by the Board.
Pages XI-3 and XI-4:
Language was added and deleted from these pages concerning Paragraph 3. - Entrance Signs, as noted.
Paragraph N. - Lot of Record was added to this page, as noted.
Page XIV-54 and XIV-55:
Language was added and deleted to Paragraph 3. - Survey markers, Item a., as noted.
Mr. Claude Smoak, former County Commissioner and Chairman of the Agricultural Committee, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Committee and the agricultural community. He referred to some
communication which the Board had received from Mr. Chris Bove, Environmental Programs Branch Supervisor and a member of the Agricultural Committee, concerning the proposed adoption of the LDRs, with regard to some existing language that the Agricultural Committee views as a problem. He stated that said committee had met with Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Services; Mr. Chris Bove, Environmental Programs Branch Supervisor; Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation Services; and Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, regarding said language. He pointed out the fact that Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, had addressed a number of issues and requested the Board to adopt the changes which he proposed. Regarding the issue of on-site fruit stands, he noted that there are a number of individuals in south Lake County that are genuine agricultural people who produce agricultural products on their property or deal with products that are produced locally. He requested the Board to adopt language which states that on-site fruit stands are permissible in Lake County for any products that are produced locally. Regarding the issue of truck parking, he stated that the way the language in the LDRs was originally written, there was nowhere that an agricultural use could park their trucks, tractors and trailers. However, the option contained in the amended LDRs, before the Board this date, gives those individuals involved in bona fide agricultural operations a place to park their equipment, therefore, requested that the Board adopt said language. Another issue he addressed, which he noted is very important to the agricultural community, is the issue of Lot Approvals (Minor Lot Splits), Large Lot Waivers (Large Lot Splits), and Agricultural Waivers. He elaborated on these issues, noting that it is extremely important, from a landowner's standpoint, to understand what the LDRs say regarding same. He stated that there was confusion in understanding what they say, therefore, Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, met with the Agricultural Committee, regarding the matter, and a memo was generated from the Committee to the Board regarding same. He requested the Board to review the language concerning the issues noted above.
Mr. Smoak stated that, in meeting with Mr. Hoban, language was formulated to state "Any lot legally created by the agricultural waiver process, prior to February 1, 1993, shall be vested for density development rights." Mr. Hoban noted that, if the language is written to read that way, one would be able to pull a building permit for single family housing or for an agricultural operation. He stated that if a lot is created, it remains created forever, under the LDRs.
Mr. Smoak requested the Board to simplify the language pertaining to Subsection 1.02.01 - Agricultural Waiver, Subsection 1.02.10 - Large Lot Waiver (Large Lot Splits), and Subsection 1.02.11 - Lot Approval (Minor Lot Splits), to state that these types of lot splits are vested, provided they have been legally created prior to adoption of the LDRs ordinance, whether it is administratively or through the Board accepting them. He requested that the Board strike Paragraphs A and B, under Subsection 1.02.10 - Large Lot Waiver (Large Lot Splits), as well as Paragraphs A and B, under Subsection 1.02.11 - Lot Approval (Minor Lot Splits).
Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, stated that staff supported the changes requested by Mr. Smoak, noting that from an administrative standpoint, the County would have to use the old Lake County Code for some building permits and the new LDRs for other permits, which will be difficult to go through the extra process. He stated that, at this stage, the language could read, "Any lot legally created by the Large Lot Waiver process, prior to February 1, 1993, shall be vested for density development rights." He stated that if a lot has already been created and someone comes in for a building permit, the only regulations that are going to apply are going to be setback requirements.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained the reason behind the original language, in relation to the Large Lot Waiver, Agricultural Waiver and Lot Approval. She stated that what
is being recommended is that those lots be vested for density and that the new LDRs apply to that particular piece of property. She noted that there are separate vesting provisions, in relation to plats, noting that there are time frames within those vested plats and they have to be under construction or have had building permits pulled within certain time frames. She stated that the suggestions made by the Agricultural Committee only pertains to administrative splits.
Further discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Smoak stated that the Agricultural Committee is requesting that the Board not set a time limit for people to pull building permits and that they inform individuals that they will be able to use their land, at some point in time in the future, for the residential use which the property was purchased for, which was legally created within Lake County.
Mr. Smoak then noted that he was also present to discuss the issue of Lot of Record, the aggregation process, and county maintained roads.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt what Mr. Smoak suggested is the only way to handle the issue, as she did not feel that the County could vest, based on building permits. She stated that she felt the whole reason for the LDRs is to simplify the process and felt that what the County is doing is making the process tremendously complicated and difficult for the Board and staff to understand and much more difficult for the public to understand. She concurred completely with what Mr. Smoak suggested.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Bailey to delete Paragraphs A and B, under Subsection 1.02.10 - Large Lot Waiver and Subsection 1.02.11 - Lot Approval, and to change the effective date from June 1, 1992 to March 1, 1993, under Subsection 1.02.01 - Agricultural Waiver, as well as state that it pertains to any lot legally created before said date.
Under discussion, Mr. Smoak requested clarification regarding the fact that the three types of lots noted above will not fall
under the same provisions that the Lot of Record falls under, by definition, to which the County Attorney responded that that was correct.
It was noted that the requirements of a Lot of Record, in a platted subdivision, would not apply to the three types of lot splits that were being discussed.
Ms. Marian McKinney, a local resident, appeared before the Board and requested clarification concerning lot splits and the issue of vesting.
Discussion occurred regarding these issues, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested inserting the language Administrative Subdivisions, in parenthesis, after the titles Agricultural Waiver, Large Lot Waiver, and Lot Approval, for clarification purposes.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 6:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
LAWS & LEGISLATION/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (CONT'D.)
Ms. Marian McKinney, a local resident, reappeared before the Board to discuss the issue of a possible requirement that one will have to live on a paved road in order to pull a building permit, to which Commr. Swartz responded that that was correct. He stated that the issue is actually the putting back in place of a Lot of Record Ordinance, with some changes. He stated that one of the requirements of the Lot of Record Ordinance will be that old subdivided lots that do not meet the current County Code will have to be on a county maintained road. He stated that two issues are being discussed this date, the first one being administrative subdivision of lots and the other being the Lot of Record Ordinance, which he elaborated on.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the issue of a Lot of Record and certain requirements pertaining to it.
Ms. McKinney then brought up the issue of a requirement that in the R-8 (Mixed Residential) zoning district one must put a double wide mobile home, with a shingle roof, on a lot. She discussed hardships which this might cause on certain individuals.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation Services, stated that the R8 (Mixed Residential) zoning district was amended June 1, 1992, with the last draft of the LDRs, and lots which were created after that date, in the R8 district, would require double wide mobile homes with shingle roofs and permanent skirting, in order to maintain some continuity in future subdivisions in that area. He stated that staff was concerned about property values in those areas, with respect to a mobile home being placed next to a constructed home, thus, the reason for the requirement. He stated that this applies in the R8 district only. He stated that if one is requesting a rezoning to the R8 district, from another zoning district, the above stated requirement concerning mobile homes would apply - it would not apply, however, to conversions. He stated that the new regulations do not apply to lots created before June 1, 1992, only those lots created after said date.
Commr. Hanson interjected that she feels staff is going to be overrun with requests for variances, if the new paving requirement is approved. She stated that there are a tremendous number of dirt roads in Lake County that people have paid taxes on and intend to build, many of which do not live in the State and are not aware that this process is going on, therefore, will not be part of the process and for whom there is no homeowners' association. She felt the Board should be addressing the issue of special assessments in making them more affordable to the public, thus, making it easier for them to get their roads paved or county maintained. She stated that she felt this requirement should be struck completely, as she feels it is not feasible at this time.
The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, read into the Minutes what the old Zoning Ordinance states concerning a publicly maintained road, as it pertains to a Lot of Record, however, noted that said language is no longer in the Code and the current LDRs only have a minimum square footage requirement.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., a former employee of the Lake County Building Department, appeared before the Board stating, regarding the Lot of Record procedure, the Building Department had a form that one could fill out, at the Zoning counter, which she noted was an administrative procedure which granted variances. She stated that it weeded out extreme cases where roads should be approved or where something should have been done to the road, prior to issuing a building permit, yet, it allowed people that had bought lots in areas where, eventually, there was going to be a special assessment project coming through, to develop their lot. She stated that said process worked efficiently and she could not understand why the County would want to go to a system that requires paved roads of people that cannot afford to put them in, when there was a system that was working, was free, and still allowed development to continue reasonably, and, in extreme cases, people had to get variances, put in paved roads, or go through a special assessment project. She stated that she felt the way the new Code is presently written is very extreme and should be changed.
Mr. Jay VanderMeer, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that residents of the County were accustomed to the old method and how it worked, so they knew the process. He stated that the new process has everyone confused and felt that the Board should go back to the old method, because it worked. He felt the Board should also look at the issue of easements and make the two issues as simplified as possible.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that part of the dilemma that the County is faced with is the fact that government carries a responsibility to protect the citizens' health, safety and
welfare. He stated that where staff has run into problems with building permits issued, with no standards for any roads, they run into a situation such as one they faced recently in that the County received a heavy amount of criticism for not putting up road signs in a subdivision, which he noted is a standard requirement. He stated that if staff issues building permits, without any kind of improvements, then they are confronted as the service provider for health, safety and welfare in the County, with difficulty in trying to deliver those services that the Board is statutorily required to provide. He stated that a concern with the County's assessment is the way that the assessment program is structured, however, noted that there may be something that the County can do to stretch that out to reduce the hit to the existing property owners, so that it could be shared with somebody else.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing a number of different interests in Lake County, appeared before the Board to discuss the changes which have been made concerning a Lot of Record. She stated that if the particular provision being discussed is put into effect, a lot of what the County's residents presently have is going to be lost. She stated that it is a sweeping and dramatic change in the way that business has been done in Lake County. She discussed, at length, the changes which have been made and problems that she feels it is going to cause. She stated that, rather than simplifying the process, feels that it has been made much more difficult and that the County is going to be faced with some significant problems.
Ms. Carolyn Daily, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that she will be renting a piece of property that she hopes to place a mobile home on, that presently houses site built homes, and questioned whether her landlord would have to pave the road that the property fronts, to which Commr. Swartz responded that, due to the fact that the lot had already been created, her landlord would not have to pave said road.
Mr. Smoak reappeared before the Board to discuss the issue of unimproved access of residents, noting that it has been an issue before the Board for 15 years, and one that has been addressed a number of times. He stated that what the County presently has will penalize more people than it will help and feels that there are a lot of people who will be placed in a position to where their land can no longer be used for building purposes, because they cannot meet the requirements or they will have to go through a variance procedure, which is $300 to $400, and takes 90 days to complete. He feels that there is a need for the County to come up with some methodology that, particularly in areas that are undeveloped, even though platted, will address access.
Commr. Swartz stated that perhaps the County could adapt the old Lot of Record Ordinance and the variance procedure that existed, including the administrative variance procedure that existed, with the addition of the fact that, if they get granted the administrative variance or the other variance, they will be required to dedicate the right-of-way as a part of that variance, and that they will agree to a special assessment, should it become available in the future. He stated that, if the Board is satisfied with that, they could take the Lot of Record Ordinance and try to adapt it, providing for those required dedications and acknowledgment, if variances are granted.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, read into the Minutes what the old Code required concerning the issue of one obtaining an administrative variance.
Commr. Swartz questioned the fact that if staff took the old Lot of Record Ordinance and tried to revise it to reflect those changes that exist, in terms of overall lot requirements that are in the Code, whether there were any other problems with the ordinance, other than the aggregation language, to which Mr. Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations Services, responded, stating that if the
old administrative policies which are used with it are thrown out, he felt it would work the way it is written.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and requested clarification as to whether the Board was doing away with the clay road requirement, to which he was informed that the Board was adopting the old ordinance with no requirement for stabilization - just rights-of-way. He requested the Board to look at the requirement of a clay road, as far as large lot waivers is concerned.
Ms. Kerry Culbreth, a resident of Lisbon, appeared before the Board and questioned what she would have to do concerning a piece of property that she is going to purchase, to place a mobile home on, that is attached to a dirt road. She was told to meet with staff and work out the details.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director, Lake County Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board stating that she would support taking the old Lot of Record Ordinance and revising it, to make it workable and efficient. She requested that some draft language be made available to the public, until the ordinance is adopted, and that the language contained in Paragraph B. - Sewage Disposal Systems, on Page III-34, be clarified to indicate that it is referring to sewage disposal systems.
Ms. Jan Sunderman, a resident of the Green Swamp area, appeared before the Board stating that she was concerned about how the term "aggregate" was going to affect the ten acres that she and her husband own, to which Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, responded, stating that since she and her husband own ten acres, they do not fall under the Lot of Record Ordinance, therefore, will not be affected by it.
Ms. Sunderman then questioned how the current road improvement requirement would affect her property, to which she was informed that said requirement would not affect them, as their existing lot size is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning district.
Mr. Craig Hegstrom, a resident of Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board stating that he was also concerned about the term "aggregate" and how it was going to affect him, as well as those individuals from out of state who have inherited property from deceased relatives and plan to build a home, but are not going to be able to, due to changes which have been made in the regulations that they are not aware of.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had a problem with an individual having to obtain a variance to a public or privately maintained road, to which Commr. Bailey concurred.
Commr. Swartz requested staff to modify the language pertaining to a Lot of Record Ordinance, as discussed this date, as soon as possible and bring it back to the Board for approval, as well as make it available to the general public.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., reappeared before the Board to discuss the issue of the administrative lot process, stating that she felt there was language in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement that the County is presenting working on that may affect what they just voted on. She questioned the fact that if the County created administrative lot splits prior to March 1, 1993 and those lots fall in an area on the map that may be adopted, where the densities are decreased, whether those lots would be required to be aggregated to meet the new designation for "density", to which Mr. Mark Knight, Principal Planner, Planning & Development Services, responded, reading into the Minutes, for the record, the language that the County and the Department of Community Affairs agreed on, at this point in time, concerning existing lot exception for density.
Discussion occurred regarding this issue, at which time Ms. Roof stated that she felt if the County was going to allow the administrative lot split lots to be left intact, without requiring them to be aggregated, that the other meets and bounds lots should be given the same consideration.
Further discussion occurred, in which there was a difference of opinion as to how the lots of record issue should be handled and whether or not the lots of record language should be changed, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested that Ms. Roof meet with staff and see if they can come up with some type of proposal concerning said issue.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and again requested them to look at the issue of clay road requirements, in regard to large lot waivers. He also questioned why the owners of large lots are required to prepay their impact fees, to which Mr. Knight, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services, responded, stating that for one to obtain a final development order one must comply with the Concurrency Management section of the LDRs - that one cannot sign an affidavit. He stated that the Concurrency Management section does not make a distinction between a minor lot split, large lot waiver, etc. from a regular subdivision - it just states final development order.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of paying the impact fees in one-third increments, at which time Mr. Knight stated that this was noted as being a problem, due to the fact that one could pay one-third and sell off half of the lots, pay another one-third and sell off two more lots, and then pay the last one-third with staff not knowing where the money goes or what lots it is tied to.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, requested the Board to further look at this issue.
Mr. Richey then referred to Paragraph 17, on Page VII-6, which deals with the allowance of camps operated by not-for-profit corporations and charitable organizations in the Wekiva River Protection Area, noting that said paragraph was being deleted. He stated that he understood the Board to say that a camp, be it public or private, would be allowed in the Wekiva River Protection Area, at which time he was informed that they are allowed, as a CUP (Conditional Use Permit), as stated on Page VII-8.
The County Attorney stated that said paragraph had originally been placed in the wrong section, noting that it should have been placed in the CUP section, in order to allow the Board to have control over uses that go into the Wekiva River Protection Area as well as have the ability to impose any conditions it chooses to impose.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, referred to Page IX-33, Paragraph B. 1. d., which deals with the issue of buffering, requesting clarification as to who would be required to do the buffering - the first person on the property or the one coming in.
It was noted that the one coming in would be the one required to do the buffering.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director, Lake County Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board and referred to Page XI-3, Paragraph 3., which pertains to entrance signs for subdivisions. She stated that she would support and agree with the parameters for the entrance signs to subdivisions, however, was concerned about the square footages and maximum heights that are set out in the LDRs, noting that she felt it might create non-conforming signs for existing very nicely built subdivisions. She requested the Board to allow her to come back with some figures regarding same, before final approval of the LDRs.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and referred to Page I-5, Subsection 1.02.10 - Large Lot Waiver, stating that it is now called Large Lot Split and was previously called Administrative Split. She requested the Board to use just one definition and carry it throughout the LDRs. She requested the same thing for Lot Approvals, which are now called Minor Lot Splits.
Ms. Bonifay also stated that she has the same concern that other people have expressed in requiring people to clay the entire easement, for large lot splits, up to county standards before they are recorded. She stated that a lot of people feel they may have vested rights, however, they do not, if they created large lot
splits off of easements, due to the fact that if they did not have money to improve and clay the entire length of the easement to county standards, they have not received TRC approval and those lots have not been recorded, therefore, they are not vested, yet the County has required them to pay their fees and also to have dedicated a non-exclusive easement to the County, so they do not have vesting.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, then referred to the definition of Lot of Record, on Page II-36, stating that what the County used to have, as a third criteria, was a lot created before December 12, 1971. She stated that the County is now dealing with other kinds of lots that were not platted as part of a platted subdivision, but were recorded by deed, meets and bounds, or contract for deed. She questioned the status of lots and plats which were recorded prior to 1971, noting that the problem in dealing with plats is that the County says they are okay, if a building permit was issued for a principal structure. She stated that she has clients who have plats in rural areas of the County where structures were constructed in conformance with the plat, however, the County's Building Department records do not indicate that a building permit was ever issued; therefore, the County has annihilated their plat, although structures were built and roads were put in. She stated that, due to this fact, she cannot determine what the status of those lots are.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the present language of Lot of Record, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned the County Attorney as to whether the language pertained to a structure where at least one building permit was issued or that a structure was built legally, to which Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, replied that it states, "for which at least one building permit for a principal structure has been issued, prior to July 16, 1991." Commr. Swartz suggested inserting the language "which was legally built" to the definition of Lot of Record and questioned whether this would resolve the problem alluded to by Ms. Bonifay, to which staff replied that it would.
Commr. Swartz requested staff to look at said language and determine whether or not it creates more problems than the way that the language is presently stated.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, referred to the definition of Ongoing Development, on Page II-46, stating that she feels use of the term "Ongoing Development" may have a fixation with vested rights, noting that it is a term that is used so often in vested rights, in terms of whether or not one would meet common law vesting criteria and other criteria. She questioned the use of said term, at which time staff noted that they would try to come up with another word to use in its place.
Ms. Bonifay then referred to Paragraph 2. - Non-Intensive Agriculture, on Page III-12, stating that she does not feel there needs to be a distinction between general agriculture and non-intensive agriculture, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same.
Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, stated that there are two criteria involved, one being a non-commercial use of the families living on the land. He stated that if it is a commercial use, the County wants to cover it under intensive agriculture. He stated that it pertains to those individuals that keep a single milk cow, for their family's use, that the County is trying to cover under this particular category.
Ms. Bonifay referred to Options 1 and 2, on Page III-13, regarding Paragraph 9. - Roadside Farm Stands, noting that she would support Option 1.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue, at which time Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management, discussed the issue of a commercial operation versus a roadside stand, noting that the County has to draw the line somewhere.
The County Attorney stated that the two options are limiting it to produce or other products that are grown on that particular
land. She stated that the whole intent that is tied to the agricultural use of the property is a natural extension of what is grown on that property.
It was noted that Option 1 is the option that has been used for years.
Further discussion occurred, at which time it was noted that the consensus of the Board was to go with Option 1.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, referred to the chart on Page III-23, noting that Roadside Farm Stands are listed under Obnoxious Uses as being permitted (P) under the C1, C2, and C3 zoning districts, however, is a conditional (C) use under CP, when almost every new commercial development that comes in is told to apply for a CP zoning district.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was noted that the conditional (C) use under the CP zoning district would be changed to a permitted (P) use.
It was also noted that a Plant Nursery would be listed as a permitted (P) use under the C3 zoning district on said chart.
Ms. Bonifay referred to Page III-41, stating she understood that the County took the Ongoing Development setbacks listed in the table on this page (Table 3.02.05) from existing standards and noted that they have caused problems in the past, which she discussed. She stated that said setbacks have not been working very well, especially since the County allows a lot of different kinds of uses in agriculture. She requested a setback of 25 feet for single family dwellings for the A, RA, and AR zoning districts.
It was noted that the setback requirement for a single family dwelling would be changed from 5 feet to 25 feet, as requested, for Option II, on Page III-43.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that the same setback would apply for the accessory building, as well, at which time she clarified the fact that there would be a 25 foot setback requirement for a farm building, a single family dwelling, and an accessory building in the A, RA, and AR zoning districts.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, noted that the setback requirement for an accessory building was 20 feet for the R2 zoning district, however, was only 5 feet for the rest of the zoning districts, and questioned the reason for this. She requested that the setback for the R2 zoning district be changed from 20 feet to 5 feet, in order to make it consistent with the rest of the zoning districts.
It was noted that under the R1 zoning district, the setback requirement would be changed from 5 feet to 10 feet for a single family dwelling, as well as for an accessory building; however, the remainder of the setback requirements would remain as listed, making them consistent with the old Code.
Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board a problem with the language stated in Paragraph 1., on Page III-28, concerning the setback requirements for a livestock building.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time the Chairman requested staff to come back to the Board with some different language.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, referred to the chart on Page III-68, pertaining to Frontage Requirements, stating that the requirements shown on said chart are not what the Board thought they should be.
At this time, the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, stated that the Minutes of the prior workshop, as well as her notes, state that the Board approved a request that there be a 100 foot minimum lot width required for the RR and below zoning districts; that there be a 150 foot minimum lot width required for the A, RA, and AR zoning districts, as well as for the A-1-40 and the A-1-20 zoning districts; and that there be a 50 foot minimum lot width required for lots of record.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was noted that it was the consensus of the Board to keep the frontage requirement for the A-1-40, A-1-20, A, RA, and AR zoning districts at 150 feet and that the remaining zoning districts maintain the frontage requirements listed in the chart.
Mr. Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulation Services, requested that vesting language be inserted in Subsection 1.02.11 - Lot Approval, on Page I-5, in that if lots are created in the R-8 zoning district prior to enactment of the LDRs, that one has the right to pull a single wide mobile home permit, for a certain time period - for clarification purposes.
It was noted, for the record, that in the R-1-5 zoning district one can still pull building permits for single wide mobile homes, as opposed to having to have a double wide mobile home, which is required by the new R-8 zoning district and that language would be inserted in the Lot Approval subsection regarding same.
Commr. Hanson questioned the fact that in the definition of Manufactured Home, on Page II-37, it states that a dwelling unit fabricated on or after June 15, 1976 shall be called a "Manufactured Home" and that "Mobile Home" and "Manufactured Home" shall be utilized interchangeably in the Regulations. She questioned what happens to those homes that were manufactured before 1976, to which Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, responded, stating that the Federal Government has defined a "Mobile Home" to be anything that was manufactured before 1976 and a "Manufactured Home" after 1976, noting that the manufacturer has to meet new standards after that date. This is the reason the language "shall be utilized interchangeably" is used in the definition of same.
Commr. Hanson referred to the chart contained on Page III-25, stating that Vehicular Sales should also be a permitted (P) use under the C3 zoning district.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he felt Vehicular Sales should be a conditional (C) use under the C2 and C3 zoning districts, rather than a permitted (P) use.
It was the consensus of the Board to list Vehicular Sales as a conditional (C) use under the C2 and C3 zoning districts, rather than a permitted (P) use.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of easements, as it pertains to clay roads.
It was noted that on new subdivisions coming through for large lot splits, one has to have the right-of-way and a publicly dedicated clay road, however, on all the large lot splits for this, one only needs to obtain a building permit.
Commr. Swartz stated that, as far as he is concerned, the requirement for the clay road can be deleted.
It was noted that the issue at hand is ensuring that the second, third, and fourth generation owners of said property be noticed, prior to purchase, that the County is not going to be in a position to maintain the road.
Further discussion occurred, at which time the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, stated that the County can require a restrictive covenant that the owner maintain the road, which would put everyone on notice. She stated that if the owner cannot fit any of the conditions of the administrative variance, then they would have to go before the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, brought up for discussion the issue of Subsection 6.12.00 - Central Water System/Central Sewage System, on Page VI-67, at which time it was noted by Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management, that this subsection involves two (2) options, one being that the Board of County Commissioners consider variances to central water and sewer system connections and the other being that said requests go before the Pollution Control Board for action.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz requested that the language contained in Paragraph A., on Page VI-67, under Option 1, be changed to provide that whether the Board of County Commissioners or the Pollution Control Board administers it, that the owner of a private treatment system or the owner of an
existing piece of property with a well and/or septic tank that is not an endangerment to the environment, public health, safety and welfare, and is approved for an exemption, be granted the variance.
After further discussion, it was noted that the Board wanted requests for variances to come before them for approval.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board (for informational purposes) that he had distributed to them a memorandum regarding the provision of medical services to inmates, noting that he had written the previous contractor a letter indicating that the Board would, in no way, consider reinstating his agreement.
The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, noted that there is no longer an agreement, due to the fact that it was breached.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK