The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 19, 1993, 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 C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Reverend Willy Franklin, Southside Umatilla Church of God, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Minutes of September 7, 1993 (Regular Meeting) were approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING
PETITION NO. 135B-84-2 - LEISURE COMMUNITIES, LTD. - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE NO. 115-88
Commr. Gerber declared a Conflict of Interest in this case, due to the fact that her husband's business (White Aluminum) has several ongoing projects within the community in question.
The following staff members were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator and Director of Development Regulations
Mr. John Brock, Senior Director
Planning and Development Services
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner
Planning and Development Services
Mr. Jim Barker, Director
Environmental Management Services
Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that this case had been postponed, approximately three weeks ago, because the Master Plan had not been before the Technical Review Committee. He noted that it has since been before said committee and that they recommended approval. He stated that there was one concern that needed to be addressed, being that there is a north/south bypass that will possibly be traversing through the Pennbrooke DRI in the future.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board stating that the County was going out for competitive negotiations with vendors, with an RFP, to do a study from CR 44 to Lady Lake, and that the consultant would come back to the County with various corridors along that route. He stated that the Pennbrooke DRI is definitely in the path of the bypass, however, the reason the area was not discussed in the past, when it was originally proposed, was because it was to be taken care of at a later date.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the Pennbrooke project is presently in the preliminary development stages of the DRI. He stated that he feels the County is going to see a much faster turn around of plats coming through the process and that he feels the various phases of the project will be built out much faster than in the past.
Mr. Stivender stated that the County is not in a posture to justify a full fledged reservation, due to not having done the RFP, the route study, etc. He stated that, at the present time, the County does not even have preliminary routes, it only has a somewhat theoretical route. He noted that there will be public hearings, where the matter will be brought before the Board and before three different cities in the County, before action is taken.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the County has not had a Master Plan for the Pennbrooke development for approximately five years. He informed the Board of changes the developer has planned for the project (as noted in a memorandum to the Board, dated October 15, 1993). He stated that the developer still has the ability to put manufactured dwellings in those areas where they have not built out yet, however, as far as future phases are concerned, they will be doing site built construction.
Mr. Stubbs stated that staff had proposed an ordinance that would take care of approximately five previous ordinance revisions that had been made over the past six to eight years, regarding the development. He stated that the applicant had provided an ordinance, which came before the Board at a previous public hearing, however, since that time, in meeting with the applicant, they revised said ordinance and a copy of same was provided to staff, prior to this meeting. He distributed a copy of said ordinance to the Board, for their review.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant was making a couple of changes to the ordinance that he had proposed, for staff, at which time Commr. Swartz requested him to review said changes and questioned whether they were staff's recommendation.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the first change was to delete information that was contained in the original document, for fire service, and put in an amended paragraph which alludes to the fact that they have provided the equipment and would like credit for it in the future and that fire services shall be provided in accordance with the Lake County LDRs. He stated that he did not have an objection to said language, he just did not want to delete language that had been in the initial ordinance. He stated that the applicant had constructed a fire station and had provided equipment for it, for this development, which was required early on in the DRI.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff from Fire and Emergency Services had reviewed said change and was informed by Mr. Stubbs that they had not.
Mr. Stubbs stated that he had not proposed to put said language in, noting that he had wanted to leave the language as it was stated in the original ordinance. He stated that said language was provided by the applicant as an amendment to the language that staff had originally proposed. He noted that he was not recommending the changes that had been proposed, however, was not recommending against them either.
Further discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Stubbs stated that he was concerned about a statement contained within the ordinance which states that the developer has fulfilled its obligation and no additional impact fees for fire and emergency services can be exacted. He stated that he had not proposed to put said language in, due to the fact that, if the ordinance were approved, with said language, and the County passed an impact fee in the future, the County would not have the ability to charge the developer said impact fee.
Mr. Stubbs stated that a vested rights determination has been issued for the Pennbrooke DRI, at which time he noted that the second change being requested by the applicant concerns the vested rights issue, as follows:
On Page 8, under Vested Rights, it states that approval of the terms and conditions of this ordinance shall in no way or manner divest this project of its vested rights. He stated that staff does not feel that this ordinance would divest into the applicant's
vested rights and had noted this fact early on. He stated that the changes the applicants are making are minor in nature and he feels that said statement is a way for the applicants to cover themselves.
Mr. Stubbs stated that there were no other changes that were proposed by the applicant to staff.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing Florida Leisure Communities, the owner/developer of Pennbrooke, appeared before the Board stating that the PUD in question is an existing DRI. She stated that, in going back, they found that there were a number of various modifications to the PUD that had taken place over the last several years, however, none of those combined all those changes into one ordinance. She stated that the County would amend one portion of it at one time and another portion at another time, so that parts of it became internally inconsistent. She stated that it was very difficult for the applicant to move forward on further development of the project when there were points of ambiguity among all the following ordinances, noting that previous Boards never eliminated all the prior ones, when they took action, they just added another ordinance to the pile of existing ordinances. She stated that what the applicant was trying to do was clean up the PUD ordinance, which she noted would be an amendment to the development orders, since this case is a development of regional impact. She stated that the applicant in no way planned to change the density or intensity of the project. She stated that the change would only be in the type of product that the applicant was going to be putting on the site, moving out of manufactured homes (which is the way that the development started) into single family conventional type housing.
Ms. Bonifay distributed a site plan of the project, noting that it shows the overall development and what are existing platted lots (darker areas). She stated that staff had indicated that they did not want to go forward with the PUD amendment until they had seen the Master Plan. She stated that the applicant has now done the Master Plan, which was approved by the Technical Review Committee, and the applicant is now requesting a PUD approval.
Ms. Bonifay discussed the issue of the road, noting that there is no north/south connector shown on the Master Plan. She stated that the applicant has brought in each of the individual portions of the PUD, as a separate phase for platting, and at no time was there ever any mention made, or any comments made, on either a site plan review or a plat review of the north/south connector through the middle of the project. She stated that she found it hard to imagine that, with the vacant acreage that exists in Lake County, that the only route that the County has for a north/south connector, yet to be designed, is through the middle of an established DRI of over 2,000 to 3,000 units, with 27 holes of golf.
Commr. Swartz disagreed with Ms. Bonifay's statement, noting that he did not feel the statement she made was the staff's position.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her client does not want a major north/south roadway through the middle of their project and feels that the County should seek another alignment. She further discussed the roadway alignment, noting concerns she had regarding same, as it pertains to her client's project. She stated that her client is asking the County to seek another route for said roadway.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the amendment in the language of the ordinance, with respect to fire services, on Page 7, Paragraph A, noting that said language is not new language, that said language was presented at the Technical Review Committee meeting and a representative from Fire and Emergency Services reviewed it. She stated that her client had met the condition of the original Development Order of 1985, concerning fire services, and if the County is going to update the Development Order, they need to recognize what is in place and not put in a 1985 condition that has already been met. She stated that her client is saying that they have already done what the Development Order said was necessary, in the area of fire protection, for the development to meet all the impacts that it placed on the community.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, pursuant to Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes, the County cannot treat DRIs differently and get greater exactions from them than they can from other developments. She stated that the reason her clients put the statement concerning fire services in the ordinance was to say that they addressed and met the impacts to the community and, if the County does an ordinance at some future time, it will not retroactively apply to this development, because they met what Lake County said were the impacts that were necessary for the development, when they built the fire station and fully equipped it.
Ms. Bonifay referred to Paragraph B, on Page 7 of the amended ordinance, stating that the language "Fire services shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations." meaning that, if the applicant has subsequent phases, whatever is in the Lake County Code is what the applicant will abide by.
Ms. Bonifay briefly discussed the Vested Rights issue on Page 8 of the amended ordinance, noting that the applicant has received a vested rights determination and is vested for consistency and concurrency and all they are doing is recognizing that fact. She referred to language contained in the paragraph on Vested Rights, which states that the duration of the ordinance shall be until the year 2000, noting that, if the County does not want to say what they have already issued, then they need to put in the ordinance what the duration of the Development Order is.
Further discussion occurred, at which time Ms. Bonifay answered questions from the Board regarding the amended ordinance.
Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that staff had no objections to the vested rights language, however, were concerned about future exactions concerning the issue of fire services, noting that the County has the ability to go back and exact additional impact fees, if they so choose, however, the County would be tying its hands, if the language alluded to earlier, amending that portion of the ordinance, was approved.
Mr. Stubbs stated that staff also had a problem with the issue of the pumper truck, noting that they do not know if a pumper truck was purchased, at which time Commr. Swartz interjected that they had given money in lieu of purchasing a pumper truck.
Mr. Craig Haun, Director, Fire & Emergency Services, appeared before the Board and responded to a question by Commr. Hanson as to whether the fire station in question was an active one. He stated that it was not.
There being no further individuals who wished to appear before the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the vested rights language contained in the amended ordinance, on Page 8, is the same as the vested rights language that was provided to the applicant, he did not have a problem with restating it. He stated that, with regard to changing the language concerning fire services, he did not support inserting a clause that would exempt this development, or any other development, from the possibility of future impact fees, noting that those fees were calculated based on levels of service that exist and feels that the County must maintain those levels of service. He stated that, other than the issues he alluded to, it appears that the amended ordinance is an update, providing some improvements to the development.
Discussion occurred regarding the north/south connector, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the State Department of Transportation has been to the Supreme Court and it has been ruled that the County cannot reserve future rights-of-way, but, Lake County is going to do a study to determine where the alignment in question is. He stated that he would assume the State would look at where the alignment might best go, in relationship to either existing or proposed developments, as one of those considerations, but, to say where it is going to go, the County does not know.
Commr. Cadwell discussed the issue of impact fees, stating that he felt there may be cases where it would be appropriate to give credit for impact fees, at some point, but, feels that it should be done with the Impact Fee Ordinance, under some type of formula, and not on a case specific, like the one in question, as he feels that to do so would be setting a bad precedent, therefore, would not be in favor of doing so.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Pennbrooke development should be given credit for the fire station. She stated that, if the County made a mistake in 1985 and required a fire station to be built at the site in question, however, has since found that it is one that the County does not presently need, she feels that the developer should not have to bear that cost. She feels that they should be given credit for it somewhere else.
It was noted that even though the fire station is not being utilized as a full fire station, at the present time, it does not mean that, as growth occurs in the area of the development, it might not be reopened for service.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved for the following amended vested rights language to be inserted on Page 8 of PUD Ordinance No. 115-88:
Approval of the terms and conditions in this Ordinance shall in no way or manner divest this project of its vested rights, whether those vested rights be statutory in nature or accrue to the development by principles of common law. The Developer shall have the unfettered right to continue the development of the project subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. The duration of this Ordinance shall be until the year 2000, unless the Developer amends the time frame for completion and said request is approved by those agencies having jurisdiction.
Commr. Gerber had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved for the following language to be inserted on Page 7 of PUD Ordinance No. 115-88, as Paragraph B, under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Fire protection water flow shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations.
Commr. Gerber had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved for the following language to be inserted on Page 7 of PUD Ordinance No. 115-88, as Paragraph A, under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES:
The Developer has constructed a fire station on the site at the corner of Whitney and Lewis Road. If Lake County closes this fire station and it ceases to operate, the Developer shall not be required to build, equip or provide a fire station and/or any equipment on the project site nor contribute to a facility located off-site. The Developer has also purchased a pumper truck and furnished the fire station.
and for the following language to be struck from said paragraph:
Regardless of the actions of Lake County regarding the closure of the fire station or the enactment of any future impact fee ordinance for fire/EMS services or any exactions for fire/EMS services, the Developer has fulfilled its obligation and no additional impact fees for fire and/or EMS can be exacted.
Commr. Gerber had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved amended PUD Ordinance No. 115-88, with respect to Zoning Case No. 135B-84-2, Leisure Communities, Ltd.
Commr. Gerber had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.
CLERK'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Bonds - Contractor
Request for approval of Contractor Bonds - New, Cancellations, Reinstatement and Amendment, as follows:
New
97-94 J. E. Patterson (Plumbing, Electrical & Air Conditioning
135-95 Robert A. Peppers, Jr., Peppers Plumbing & Bedding, Inc.
181-95 Aubrey C. Munn (Air Conditioning & Heating)
343-95 Abraham Conner (Masonry)
426-94 Joseph Queen (Roofing)
801-94 James L. Stinson d/b/a Stinson Electric, Inc.
1242-94 Rakes Electric, Inc.
1273-94 Pat's Electric, Inc.
1274-94 Air Comfort Design Specialists, Inc. (Air Conditioning & Heating)
1370-94 Raymond R. Libby d/b/a Libby Twins Heating & Air Conditioning
1422-94 Elmer R. Bolling (Roofing Contractor)
1442-94 Terry V. Schichtel d/b/a Peoples Gas System, Inc.
1592-95 Dunstan & Son Plumbing Company, Inc.
2004-94 Robert A. Clouse (Plumbing)
2008-94 Rubert L. Evans d/b/a Simplex, Inc. (Building)
4022-94 Steve Davis d/b/a Steve Davis Plumbing
4055-94 Richard L. Hill d/b/a Hill's Quality Plumbing, Inc.
4157-94 Raymond I. Anderson d/b/a Air Handling, Inc. (Air Conditioning)
4202-94 John Hoffman d/b/a Trent Electric
4208-94 Bradford Spittle d/b/a Spittle's Heating & Air Conditioning
4210-95 Carl Munn (Air Conditioning & Heating)
4211-94 Raymond P. Wingo (Residential)
4212-94 B & C Enterprises (Plumbing)
4243-94 Steven's Electric, Inc.
4261-94 Bruce Wayne Burnett (Electrical)
4346-94 Herb Smith d/b/a Herb Smith Construction (Residential)
4383-94 Wilmon Ray Stevenson (Building Contractor)
4399-94 Marijane Derrick d/b/a Derrick Electric of Belleview
4488-94 Florida Air & Heat, Inc.
4525-94 William Warshaw (Electrical)
4536-94 Peltz, Inc. d/b/a Mike Peltz Professional Plumbing
4564-94 Michael Hritzik d/b/a Lake County Air Conditioning & Heating
4631-94 J. Wayne Stafford d/b/a Libby Twins Heating & Air Conditioning
4661-94 Banyan Construction & Development, Inc. (Building)
4699-95 Joseph C. Urban (Electrical)
4736-94 Darrell Chandler (Electrical)
4764-94 Jack Alvin Hobbs Aluminum Structures by Jack Hobbs, Inc. (Residential)
4780-94 L. Fincher Electric
4823-94 Robert J. Roper (General)
4849-94 Larry D. New d/b/a Economy Electric
4852-94 C. B. Larramore (Class A General Contracting)
4874-94 Airworks Air Conditioning, Inc.
4927-94 Roddy Michael Russell (Aluminum)
4960-94 Grady Harrison Masonry Company
5008-94 Syncplumbing, Inc. (Plumbing)
5020-94 Peter Ringi (Electrical)
5185-94 Paul Fedynich d/b/a Always on Call: Professor Watts Electric Service, Inc.
5216-94 Grover Maynard d/b/a Reeves Electric, Inc.
5220-94 Rollin Rizer/Electrical Maintenance Service
5242-94 B & C Enterprises (Electrical)
5250-94 Jim Wilson (Steel Erection)
5252-94 R. Brooks Electric, Inc.
5253-93 Ron Troutman (Electrical)
5254-94 Scott Courtney (Plumbing)
5255-94 Peterson Electric, Inc.
5256-93 Roofing By Stuart Douglas Harvey
Cancellations
135-93 Robert A. Peppers, Jr. d/b/a Peppers Plumbing
343-93 Abraham Conner d/b/a Conner Masonry
1500-93 Carl Woodrow Stewart, Jr., d/b/a Cali, Inc., d/b/a United Pool & Spa
4211-93 Raymond P. Wingo (Residential)
4307-93 Stokes Electric
4691-92 Jerry R. Blackford (Contractor)
5037-93 Myron Deetz/Smith Air Conditioning
5057-93 Innes H. Irwin d/b/a Irwin Contracting, Inc.
5069-92 AAA Electric
5145-92 Raymond W. Morgan d/b/a Lebass Electrical Service, Inc.
Reinstatement
4122-93 Ronald L. Hart, Jr.
Amendment
5158-93 Randall G. Forth d/b/a Better Living Builders
Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Subdivisions
Request for approval of the following Satisfaction of Assessment Liens:
Highland Lakes
Harry H. and Diane K. Runkis $1,016.90
Harry H. and Diane K. Runkis 1,012.19
Mount Plymouth
Henry Metz 943.34
Florence H. Hunter 1,766.44
Crescent Drive
Charles H. Clay and Willadean C. Clay 346.31
and Alan G. Clay and Charles H. Clay, Jr.
Hilltop Unit II
First National Bank of Mt. Dora, Trustee 761.00
Suburban Shores
Thomas A. and Judy E. French 1,038.84
Accounts Allowed
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Clerical Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Budgets/Resolutions/State Agencies
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority's Final Budget, Millage Resolution, and Budget Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees for the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority on September 22, 1993.
Budgets/State Agencies
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority's (Lake County Water Authority's) tentative budget for Fiscal Year
1993-94.
Meetings
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of the North Lake County Hospital District's Annual Meeting, to be held on January 12, 1994.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice from the Florida Public Service Commission regarding a Notice of Hearing to Florida Power Corporation, Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Public Utilities Company, Gulf Power Company, Tampa Electric Company, and all other interested persons, concerning a generic investigation into the appropriate method for allocation and recovery of costs associated with conservation programs.
Municipalities/Ordinances
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Leesburg annexation Ordinance No. 93-18, adopted at the September 27, 1993 City Commission meeting.
Municipalities/Ordinances
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Eustis annexation Ordinance No. 93-18, adopted at the September 23, 1993 City Commission meeting.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Request to acknowledge receipt of copies of interlocal agreements (2) from Randall N. Thornton, Attorney At Law, representing the Village Community Development District No. 1 and The Town of Lady Lake, Florida - one between Village Center Community Development District and The Town of Lady Lake, Florida, and the other between Village Community Development District No. 1 and Village Center Community Development District.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice from Florida Public Service Commission, in regard to application for Amendment of Certificate No. 106-W, in Lake County, by Southern States Utilities, Inc., to include additional territory, Order No.
PSC-93-1306-FOF-WU.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that, regarding the attachment to the Purchasing Agenda contained in the Board's backup material, the committee (consisting of the Chief Judge, the Public Defender, the County Attorney, and the Purchasing Director) is recommending all of the applicants identified in the attachment, as Public Defender Conflict of Interest Attorneys.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, interjected that, according to the present proposal, each of the attorneys listed in the attachment will abide by their bid and rotate their services between the Public Defender's Office and the Chief Judge's Office.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Community Services/Library Services/State Agencies
Request from Community Services for approval to appoint the Library Services Coordinator as the Records Management Liaison Officer to the State Bureau of Archives and Records Management.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request from Community Services for approval to pay monthly Medicaid hospital bill, in the amount of $28,442.43, and the Medicaid nursing home bill, in the amount of $31,994.72, for the month of August.
Appointments-Resignations/Planning and Development
State Agencies
Request from Planning and Development for approval to reappoint Frank Rakosky and Robbie Hollenbeck to the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies
Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of Partnership Agreement between Lake County and Farmers Home Administration of Lake County for Funding Assistance Relative to the Lake County Affordable Housing Assistance Program.
Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions/Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in the amount of $31,385.46, for performance of a public well, and to accept a Replacement Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in the amount of $31,385.46, for the performance of the well, for the Garden City Subdivision.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions/Roads-County & State
Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval to release a Performance Bond, in the amount of $589,653.03; to accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $46,455.38, for improvements within the development; to accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $25,256.49, for improvements to Hancock Road; and to accept the following roads, in Greater Pines, Phase I, into the County maintenance system: Greater Pines Boulevard, Loblolly Lane, Pond Pine Lane, and Pine Forest Court.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions/Roads-County & State
Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval to release a Performance Bond, in the amount of $115,500.00, for improvements in the Magnolia Island Subdivision; to release a Performance Bond, in the amount of $46,200.00, for improvements at SR 50 and Hartle Road; to release a Performance Bond, in the amount of $141,900.00, for improvements to extend Hartle Road; to accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $14,190.00, for the Hartle Road extension; to accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $11,550.00, for the improvements in Magnolia Island Subdivision; and to accept the following roads into the County maintenance system: Island Boulevard, Magnolia Island Boulevard, Magnolia Cove Court, Magnolia Blossom Court, and the extension of Hartle Road.
Deeds/Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval to accept Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds from Daniel F. Costa, Josh David Jordan, Thomas J. Moldthan, and Thomas R. Smith, Jr., in relation to Large Lot Split No. 93-40.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Road Projects/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval of Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency, Mt. Dora, relating to curb and gutter demolition and construction on Highland Street, in Mt. Dora, and approval to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $17,802.00.
Deeds/Resolutions/State Agencies/Roads-County & State
Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to adopt a resolution and execute a County Deed to the State of Florida Department of Transportation, for a portion of right-of-way on State Road 46, at the Wekiva River.
Miscellaneous/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval of Bills of Sale for three loaders and one grader, which have been sold back to Ringhaver Equipment.
Accounts Allowed/Education/Budgets/Roads-County & State
Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to reimburse the Lake County School Board, in the amount of $24,172.00, for Lake County's portion of the cost of road improvements to Frankies Road and C-561, out of the 1992-93 fiscal year budget.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to post speed limit signs on the following roads: Church Street, Mills Street, Jamestown Street, Line Street, Orange Street, Ball Park Road, Henry Street, Pearl Street, Merrell Avenue, Pine Street, Tenth Avenue, Marshall Street, Sally Rolle Street and Thomas Street.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to post a stop sign for north bound traffic on Lake Street, where it intersects with Peru Road, and to remove the stop sign for west bound traffic on Peru Road.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to post three (3) new stop signs, in the Astatula area, south of C-48, to prevent conflicts and control traffic flow through the subject intersections.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to post "No Parking on Right-of-Way" signs, for a distance of 1,500 feet, on both sides of Old 441, west from the junction of SR 19, C-44C, an Old 441, in the Mt. Dora area.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to post "No Dumping by Order of Lake County Board of County Commissioners" sign in the Silver Lake area.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to post "No Parking Any Time" signs on both sides of Eudora Road, between Northland Road and Southland Road, south of U.S. 441.
Signs/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to remove stop sign from Pinehurst Street, where Pinehurst intersects with Berwick Street, and install it on Berwick Street (a non-county maintained road).
Deeds/Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to accept Statutory Warranty Deeds for Donovan Lane (5-6649), as follows:
Robert Morgan Bennett, as to 1/2 interest
Mary Harriet Adams, as to 1/2 interest
Phyllis L. Chudeusz, as to Life Estate
James D. Bass and Amanda P. Bass
Deeds/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to accept the following Quitclaim Deed:
L. R. Busk - Crossen Street, Ironwood Avenue, Maple Street, Fern Drive, Juneae Street, and Bay Street - For proposed special assessment paving project.
Deeds/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to accept the following Statutory Warranty Deed:
Ansel Charles and Andrea C. Bridgeman
Pine Island Drive
Deeds/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to accept the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
Abbie Holmes
East Dewey Robbins Road
Manuel M. Pereira
East Dewey Robbins Road
New Hope Presbyterian Church in
America, Inc.
Eustis Airport Road
Roads-County & State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to accept a Maintenance Map on Lake Griffin Road (5-7611).
Road Closings/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to rehear Road Vacation Petition No. 730 on November 23, 1993.
Road Closings/Municipalities/Public Services
Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request from Public Services for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 737, by Jo Leen and Gary Cooper, to vacate easements, in the unrecorded plat of Higley, Section 1, Township 18, Range 25, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.
Road Closings/Municipalities/Public Services
Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request from Public Services for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 738, by James Alan Stoneking, to vacate West Fifth Street, in the East Umatilla Subdivision, Section 8, Township 18, Range 27, Umatilla area - Commissioner District 5.
Road Closings/Municipalities/Public Services
Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request from Public Services for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 740, by Joseph Pipala, to vacate street, in Bassville Park, Section 24, Township 19, Range 25, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.
Road Closings/Municipalities/Public Services
Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request from Public Services for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 741, by David Bornstein, to vacate roads and tracts, Clermont Farms, Section 12, Township 23, Range 25, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2.
Accounts Allowed/Purchasing
Request from Purchasing for approval to advertise for bids, proposals, and professional services; award and issue purchase orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, state contract, G.S.A., cooperative bids, OEM repairs, sole source and proprietor source; and to approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to Seek Bids, Proposals and Professional Services and Approve Technical Specifications.
DIVISION AMOUNT
1) Public Services $ 8,000.00
Authorization to seek bids for seven (7) each Midland XTR trunk mount radios and antennas.
C) Award Bids and Proposals and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts.
DIVISION AMOUNT
1) Public Services (Maintenance Area) $ 15,000.00
II
(Maintenance Area) $ 30,000.00
I & III
American Asphalt for Maintenance Area II and Asphalt Productions for Maintenance Area I and III/Award Bid #B-4-3-69 and issue Blanket Purchase Orders within budgeted funds for Asphaltic Concrete for the vendors as stated above. It is also requested that we reject the low and second low bid (see attachment) for Maintenance Area I and III, due to the distance to the plant. This material cannot be transported a long distance because, if the hot mix becomes cold, we would not be able to utilize it.
2) Public Defender $100,000.00
Authorization to award Proposal #P-5-4-02 and issue contracts for Legal Services Public Defender Conflict of Interest Cases Fifth Judicial Circuit to those attorneys that qualify, per the Proposal Specifications, and are selected by the Conflict Committee of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, pursuant to Chapter 925, Florida Statutes, Section 925.037. A completed list of the selected attorneys will be submitted prior to the Board meeting. The selected attorneys will be awarded a contract for services, as specified in their proposal, at a per case cost, ranging from $150.00 to $700.00. Each attorney will be appointed cases, on a rotation basis, as their name appears on the list for conflict attorneys. It is also requested that the Board authorize the contracts pending the County Attorney's final approval.
D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual Bids, State Contracts, G.S.A., or Cooperative Bids.
DIVISION AMOUNT
1) Solid Waste Management $103,293.07
Ringhaver Equipment Company, Inc./Authorization to issue a Purchase Order for the pay off balance, for one 950F Loader, Property #15,143, Lease Purchase Account #001141-1455. Terms of the pay off are per the total cost 60 month Lease/Purchase Bid #060-760-092 and the agreement signed on October 20, 1992, by the Board of County Commissioners.
E) Authorization to waive Bid Requirements and Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities that are Not Bid or Quoted, or if they are OEM Repairs.
DIVISION AMOUNT
1) Risk Management $3,312,286.00
Security National Bank and Combined Insurance Services, Inc./Authorization for the Risk Manager to approve electronic transfer of payments up to $300,000.00, per transaction, for Lake County's Health Insurance claim payment, premium payment and administrative charges. All transactions will be within Board Approved line item budget.
2) Planning and Development Services $ 26,013.00
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council/Authorization to issue a Purchase Order within budgeted funds for the 1994 total annual assessment.
F) Approve and Execute Contracts, Agreements, Amendments, Chairman's Signature and Encumber Funds.
DIVISION AMOUNT
1) Planning and Development Services $100,000.00
Economic Development Commission of Mid-Florida/Authorization to issue a blanket Purchase Order and have the Board authorize the amendment to the contract, pending the County Attorney's final approval. This amendment is to the existing contract, #P-263 for the promotion of Lake County as a potential location for corporate expansion.
As referenced under Item C, #2 Public Defender, the completed list of selected attorneys for Legal Services for Public Defender Conflict of Interest Cases, Proposal P-5-9-02 are as follows:
NON CAP MISD TRAF JUVN CAP RICO
James Hope $700 $700 $700 $700 - -
Ezra Witzman 700 700 700 700 - -
Michelle Morley (1) 700 700 700 700 - (2)12,500
R. Thomas Carle 700 700 700 700 - -
Mary Ann Plecas 700 700 700 700 - -
Barry Apfelbaum 350 150 - - - -
Lawrence Montekio - 594 594 494 - -
& Wayne Starr
David Grace 700 - - - - -
Ms. Morley stated the following exceptions:
1) Non Capital Felony cases not including organized fraud.
2) RICO cases including organized fraud. A $12,500.00 cap per case, subject to billing at $60.00 an hour, if resolved without trial.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Tom Weatherington, a local resident, appeared before the Board and questioned the cost of advertising the results of the Value Adjustment Board in one of the local newspapers. He questioned who is served by said publication and what taxpayer has benefitted from it. He stated that he felt it was bad policy to waste such money and that he felt it could have been used to give tax relief to those people who had to appear before said Board.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
No action was needed or taken.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY SERVICES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENT
STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of the Agreement between Lake County and the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., for Needs Assessment, in order to develop a Plan of Action for the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/HUMAN RESOURCES/PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Human Resources for approval of the reclassification of the Planner III position, Pay Range 609-00, to Transportation Engineer, Pay Range 611-00, in Technical Support, Engineering Division, Department of Public Services.
GRANTS/RESOLUTIONS/OUTDOOR RECREATION/PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Chuck Pula, Director of Parks and Facilities, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval to execute a resolution (No. 1993-179) authorizing Lake County to submit and sign a Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) Grant application for funding, to improve the Palatlakaha River Park, and to authorize the Chairman to sign a letter stating that the application is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan's Recreation and Open Space Element.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)
RESOLUTIONS/MUNICIPALITIES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval of a resolution (No. 1993-180) supporting the potable water expansion for the Astor/Astor Park Water Association.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY MANAGER
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.
Commr. Cadwell commended Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, for the fine job that he has done, thus far, in the capacity of Interim County Attorney.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Bailey to approve a request from the County Manager for approval of an Agreement Between Lake County and Gaylord and Gaylord, P.A., for Interim County Attorney Services, and authorization for the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz noted some concerns he had about the issue before the Board this date (amended contract for the Interim County Attorney, omitting the following language "This compensation does not include the defense of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan at the hearing scheduled for November 3, 1993". He questioned how the County was proposing to deal with the Administrative Hearing, concerning the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, with at least two intervenors who have indicated a willingness to sit down with the County and, if that fails, to continue to an Administrative Hearing.
Mr. Gaylord responded to Commr. Swartz's concerns, stating that a hearing had been held to determine whether or not the Hearing Officer would hold a formal hearing for November 3-5, 1993. He stated that he was not advised of said fact until late Friday afternoon, October 15, 1993, and felt that, if he was going to be required to defend the County's Comprehensive Plan, he needed to find out what had been done, up to this point in time. He stated that he found nothing had been done and that for him to go through a three day trial (November 3-5, 1993), at this time, would be absolutely impossible.
Mr. Gaylord stated that he felt it would be unfair for him to have to commit his resources and time, in excess of the reasonable expectation of doing it in a methodical way. He stated it was his understanding that the Administrative Hearing would be held the week of December 13, 1993, if the issues at hand are not resolved, and he felt, within that period of time, he could proceed to prepare a case to adequately defend the County.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that, while he understood what Mr. Gaylord's requirements may be to leave his practice, for the time that he anticipates to perform the services of the Interim County Attorney, while the amount of his fee ($10,000 per month) may be reasonable, for what his conditions and requirements are, he does not feel that said fee is reasonable and something that he could support, for what may be a minimum of four (4) months and very likely six (6) months, before the County can bring a new County Attorney on board. He stated that he went into the negotiations hoping that the County could find some way, through delineation of duties or the covering of meetings, to come up with an agreement that would be at a level of compensation that he would feel comfortable with supporting.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the decision by the Board to terminate the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, was not a good decision, in light of what the Board now knows concerning the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he preferred to work with the County's two in-house attorneys, in defending the Comprehensive Plan, and to contract, as necessary, for those services which, due to time constraints, they would be unable to meet.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the fee of $10,000 per month was fair for Mr. Gaylord's services as Interim County Attorney.
Commr. Hanson stated that it amounted to approximately the same amount of money that the County was paying the County Attorney, which she noted, with benefits, was approximately $119,000.00 per year. She stated that she felt Mr. Gaylord will be able to, with the time that he will put in (30 hours per week), bring a different perspective to the Board and will probably be able to streamline many of the things that the County has been doing, which she noted was a concern that she had with Ms. Lustgarten - the bottlenecks and the bureaucracy. She stated that, regardless of who the County hires, if the County can get some of that strategy set up now, the County will be ahead of the game when they hire a new County Attorney.
Commr. Swartz stated that his position was not a reflection on Mr. Gaylord, or his law firm, it was simply one where the Board bears the responsibility to spend the taxpayer's money wisely. He stated that the majority of the Board feels that it is wise to do it one way and he feels otherwise.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
** Discussion occurred regarding the issue of selection criteria for a new County Attorney.
Ms. Lois Martin, Director, Human Resources, distributed to the Board a memorandum that she had prepared, providing them with information concerning the recruitment process that will be used in the hiring of a new County Attorney.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to place the issue of selection criteria for a new County Attorney on the agenda for the Board Meeting of October 26, 1993, to be discussed after the Zoning cases are heard.
Commr. Gerber voted "No".
Mr. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that the memorandum which Ms. Martin distributed states that one must have been an attorney for ten (10) years and that they must have practiced law in the State of Florida for five (5) years. He stated that, rather than having the requirement that one must have practiced law in the State of Florida for five years, that the Board may want to consider requiring that said person be a member of the Florida Bar. He stated that, if they anticipate doing a nationwide search, the requirement that said individual must have practiced law in the State of Florida for five years would prohibit doing such a search.
It was noted that the Board would discuss the matter at the meeting scheduled for October 26, 1993.
REPORTS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Ms. Ann K. Dupee to the Lake County Sports Committee, to fill the vacant position of the Media Representative.
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and distributed a memorandum which he had written to Mr. Wahl, County Manager, dated October 18, 1993, concerning the Florida Department of Transportation's Five Year Transportation Plan. He stated that the Florida Transportation Commission had met to listen to comments on the CUTR Study, which he noted is the reclassification of roads that will be brought into the County maintenance system from the State. He stated that the Commission had listened to comments, however, had not made a formal motion regarding the matter. He stated that the feeling from the Florida Association of Counties is that they will send it back, for further review, because of inconsistencies in the way that it impacts certain road segments to cities and counties.
Mr. Stivender stated that he had put said memorandum together to show the Board what dollar figures are involved and to express concern that things may be changing in a way that may not be suitable for Lake County. He stated that the County may be placed with a burden, if, in fact, some form of the CUTR Study is developed. He stated that there is an additional $25 million of work that has to be done to the projects noted in the memorandum, after the five year program, according to the CUTR Study.
Mr. Stivender stated that he hoped Lake County and the other counties in the State of Florida would have a chance to discuss the matter with the Legislative Delegation and express their concerns about how it would impact the local citizens.
Discussion occurred, however, no action was taken at this time.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for ratification of financial items which needed to be paid prior to this Board Meeting.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:00, for the Legislative Delegation Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
LAKE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING
The Board relinquished their seats to the Lake County Legislative Delegation, for a public hearing. Those present were: Everett A. Kelly, Chairman of the Legislative Delegation, House of Representatives, District 42; Karen Johnson, Vice Chairman of the Legislative Delegation, Senator, District 11; Stan Bainter, House of Representatives, District 25; Robert Sindler, House of Representatives, District 38; Richard McMahan, House of Representatives, District 26; Daniel Webster, House of Representatives, District 41; and Jeff Stabins, House of Representatives, District 44.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Senator Johnson.
Representative Kelly opened the meeting, at which time each delegate introduced themselves and stated what portion of Lake County they represent, as well as other counties that they represent.
Commr. Swartz introduced the members of the Board to the members of the Legislative Delegation and stated what districts they represent.
Various public officials, who were present in the audience, were asked to introduce themselves.
Commr. Swartz reviewed a booklet which had been prepared for the Legislative Delegation outlining items that the Board would like for the delegation to look into and help in any way that they can.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the legislative delegation and discussed the CUTR Study on Functional Classification and Jurisdictional Responsibility of Public Roads, indicating concerns that the County has about the impact that the transfer of the roads and bridges indicated in the study would have on the County. It was noted that the County feels said study should be sent back to the Florida Legislature for a major overhaul.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Senator Johnson stated that said study will not be implemented without significant funding and noted that it is a very preliminary study. She stated that it is going to be the legislative delegation's responsibility to make sure that the counties that they represent do not get hit with another mandate to do something that they are not being paid for.
Commr. Cadwell discussed the issue of Cremation of Bodies to be Disposed of at Public Expense, stating that in 1991, the Florida Legislature authorized counties to arrange cremation of bodies, however, it needs to be taken a step further. He stated that there is some liability involved in the cremation of bodies and that local funeral homes are reluctant to take that responsibility, for unclaimed bodies. He stated that the County is looking for some relief on a state level. He stated that the possibility of judges issuing orders for cremation had been discussed with the County's judges, however, they are reluctant to take that responsibility, as well.
Representative Kelly stated that the legislative delegation would look at clarifying that particular part of the law.
Commr. Swartz discussed the issue of Funding for SWIM Program, stating that there have been extensive efforts on the part of the St. Johns River Water Management District, through SWIM funding that the Legislature provided, to clean up Lake Apopka, as well as other lakes in the County. He stated that now is not the time to pull back from SWIM, noting that the County has started important, extensive, necessary water improvement programs that need to continue to be funded, otherwise, the money that has already been invested by the Legislature will have less value and may even be wasted. He stated that there are improvements in the Chain of Lakes, so the process is working. He stated that it is important that the County clean up the lakes, because it is an important part of the County's economy.
Representative Kelly stated that there is a nexus between the ADF Program and the clean up of all surface waters in the State of Florida. He stated that he is totally committed to the SWIM Program and that he will be looking at the ADF, which is expected to grow significantly, to have more money dedicated to the SWIM Program.
Commr. Gerber addressed the issues of Product Packaging Standards; State Grant Funding for Recycling Program; and Markets for the Sale of Recyclables, at which time she asked the legislative delegation to watch over the County's funding sources, because she feels that these are specific areas where the County can get the supplemental grants for the continuation of recycling grant money. She stated that the County needs the backup funding that the Legislature provides, because the County has just begun its countywide recycling program.
Concerning the issue of Markets for the Sale of Recyclables, Commr. Gerber stated that, if the State can create incentives, grant monies, or some sort of way to lure a waste based industry to the County, they would be killing two birds with one stone. She stated that, if the County could have some help from the Legislature, it could be earmarked for things such as this.
Concerning the issue of Product Packaging Standards, she stated that she felt said issue was going to be addressed during this legislative session.
Commr. Hanson addressed the issue of the Local Option Tourist Development Tax, stating that the Board is very concerned that this remain at the local level. She then requested Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, to comment about the matter.
Mr. Warren stated that the County is concerned that, by reopening Bill 125, the County's tourist development tax will be diluted into other areas. He stated that the County would like to retain it as it is. He stated that the County would also like to see expenditures for the tourist development tax to be done at the local level, so that all the money is returned back to the County.
Representative Kelly thanked the Board for the use of their facility and stated that they appreciated the Board's comments and input and encouraged the Board to stay in contact with them.
There being no further issues to be addressed with the legislative delegation, the meeting was recessed at 12:15 p.m., until 2:00 p.m., for a Land Development Regulations Workshop.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WORKSHOP
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the two documents that would be discussed this date were draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), dated August 18, 1993 and October 14, 1993. He referred to Page I-27, of the draft dated October 14, 1993, stating that the Board had voted on the vested rights determination. He stated that the memorandum states, if the County issues a determination, it will stand by that determination.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Board had voted, at its last LDR meeting, to change construction plans to match all the other development orders, which he noted is two years to commence construction and four years to either complete construction or bond the project.
Concerning the issue of Subsection 1.02.20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD), on Page I-28, of the October 14, 1993 draft amendments, Mr. Hoban stated that a question had come up, at the last LDR meeting, as to which PUDs are vested. He stated that Mr. Stubbs had indicated that there are approximately 78 PUDs in the County and the question is which ones are vested. He stated that he had met with Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., and they came up with the following:
If one had received a preliminary plat on a PUD, it is vested. If the PUD was approved on or after June 1, 1990, whether it received a preliminary plat or not, it is still vested. He stated that, if the PUD had an extension granted and the extension was not expired as of the June 1, 1992 date, which he noted is the date that the Board took away the requirement to get preliminary plats on PUDs, it is still vested.
Concerning the issue of Subsection 1.02.10 - Industrial Zoning - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), Mr. Hoban stated that the language pertaining to same states that the County meant to put a "dot" on every industrial zoning in the County, however, noted that staff had missed a few. He stated that said language is stating that it is a scrivener's error and that staff is looking at it as such. He stated that there should be a "dot" on every industrial zoning in the County.
Commr. Swartz interjected that said language is strictly clarifying language, because the Board indicated on the Future Land Use Map that all existing industrial zoning would be vested and said language states that, even if staff somehow did not get it on the map, it was the intent to do so. He stated that said language is not in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial zoning, it is only for industrial zoning.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that there were three (3) options, with respect to rules that would govern which PUD's are vested. He stated that, in the past, the County has been using language that states, if one has all their Federal, State, and Regional permits, and they have not expired, then said individual would fall under the old rules. However, if said individual did not get them before they expired, then they would fall under the new rules. He requested the Board to authorize staff to reference the St. Johns River Water Management District permit, for all development orders, in those areas of the LDRs where it references Regional, State or Federal permits sufficient to allow construction.
Concerning the issue of Options A, B or C, for Subsection 1.02.20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD), Mr. Hoban stated that the Board had voted for Option A, which is, whatever rule was in effect at the time that the PUD was approved, one gets those rules forever. He stated Option B is the St. Johns compromise in that, if one has a St. Johns River Water Management District permit in hand, they would fall under the old rules and, if they had a new St. Johns River Water Management District permit, they would fall under the new rules. He stated Option C states that, no matter when one's PUD was approved, whether one had a St. Johns permit or not, one would fall under the rules that were in effect as of March 1, 1993, that reflect the 1991 Compromise Plan, and that they would fall under those rules forever. He stated that all the options are legally defendable and that it would be a policy decision of the Board as to which one to go with.
Mr. Hoban stated that, in all of the other counties that he had contacted, their basic rule of thumb is that, if construction plans were approved and the Comprehensive Plan comes into being, the construction plans are still good, but, if the approval comes in after the Comprehensive Plan comes into being, then one would have to meet the new rules. He stated that no other county is making one go back and redesign their plans. He informed the Board of time frames that various other counties in the State give one.
Commr. Swartz questioned when construction plans started being consistent with the July 1991 Comprehensive Plan, to which Mr. Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, responded that it was after June 1, 1992, when the County implemented the first set of LDRs.
Discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz clarified the fact that, if someone had submitted an application for construction plans sometime before July 16, 1991, but the review was not completed, said individual would fall under the old rules. He questioned, at what point, if someone was in the process, would one have to come under the new rules.
Mr. Stubbs stated that, if someone had not yet been approved, but had submitted an application prior to July 1992, their plans were processed under the old rules. He noted that said date was used, because the LDRs were adopted in July of 1992.
Discussion occurred regarding preliminary plats and the possibility of one losing their plat, during the process, at which time it was noted that the only way one could lose their preliminary plat would be through the vesting language. Mr. Hoban noted that, if one is consistent with the land use category, there is no problem, their plat will be good forever, however, if one is inconsistent, one could lose their preliminary plat.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the various options available, at which time each commissioner noted concerns they had with same.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to go with Option A (Old Rules), concerning which rules would apply to Subsection 1.02.20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
Discussion then occurred regarding the issue of what one would have to do to maintain their vesting, when their vesting would expire, and the two options pertaining to same - Option One - Application Approval, or Option Two - Final Plat.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to go with Option One - Application Approval, concerning the issue of when vesting expires, as it pertains to Subsection 1.02.20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
Discussion occurred regarding the issue of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) and what happens if the Board does not approve the Development Order for a DRI, or, what happens if the applicant wishes to down zone, and the two options pertaining to same - Option Y or Option Z.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to go with Option Y, concerning the issue of Developments of Regional Impact, as it pertains to Subsection 1.02.20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD).
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Bailey to delete the language shall be subject to the March 2, 1993 Comprehensive Plan from Paragraph D. 1. - Developments of Regional Impact, on Page I-31, and insert the language shall be subject to the rules and regulations that are in place at the time that the PUD is approved.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed.
Commrs. Swartz, Cadwell and Gerber voted "No".
Discussion occurred regarding Subsection 1.02.30 - Expiration of Federal, State or Regional Agency Permits, Paragraphs A and B, on Pages I-31 and I-32, and what they state regarding same.
It was noted that Paragraph A. states that once construction plans are approved, no matter what rules they fall under, they remain approved, and Paragraph B states that, if the St. Johns River Water Management District permit expires prior to the construction plans being approved, then one would fall under the then current regulations.
No changes were made in the language contained in Paragraphs A and B, noted above.
Mr. Hoban referred to the paragraph pertaining to Intensity, on Pages II-31 and II-32, noting that it is a definition that was requested by Mr. Steve Richey, a local attorney, during a previous public hearing.
Mr. Hoban referred to Paragraph 4., concerning a Lot of Record, on Page III-36, noting that said language was changed to reflect the fact that, if one has a final Lot of Record determination, the County will stand by it. He stated that one would not have to meet all the new rules and regulations - that the County would stand by its final Lot of Record determinations.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County needed to look into the issue of the Unity of Title, noting that she was not sure that the language regarding same was constitutional.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time a concern she had regarding the matter was alleviated.
Mr. Hoban referred back to the issue of a Lot of Record, noting that the September 14, 1993 date referred to, in this subsection, was tentatively based on the adoption date of the LDRs and that it will probably need to be changed to November 23, 1993.
Discussion occurred regarding the date of adoption of the LDRs, at which time Mr. Hoban stated that the Board would need to hold two (2) public hearings regarding same, approximately two weeks apart. It was noted that said meetings would be scheduled for November 2, 1993 and November 16, 1993 (final meeting).
Mr. Hoban noted some insertions that were made to Page III-38, for clarification purposes, concerning a Lot of Record, and an insertion that was made to Page III-70, under Subsection 3.11.04 - Termination of Nonconforming Uses and Development.
Commr. Hanson questioned language that was contained in Paragraph 2. a., on Page III-38, pertaining to a Lot of Record in the Wekiva area, noting that she felt it was a contradiction in terms.
A brief discussion occurred regarding said language, at which time Mr. Hoban stated that every lot, according to the County's definition in the Code, is considered a Lot of Record, but, he noted that every Lot of Record is not a buildable lot and felt that this is where the confusion lies.
Commr. Hanson requested staff to come up with some language that would clarify the matter, however, Mr. Hoban stated that the only way to clarify it would be to come up with a term other than a Lot of Record, but a term that would convey what is today being called a Lot of Record, and one where the end result would be a Lot of Record.
It was noted that staff would bring some options for a new term to the next Board Meeting for discussion.
Mr. Hoban referred back to the issue of Subsection 6.13.04 - Termination of Nonconforming Uses and Development, noting that the language or accessory was added to Paragraph A. 2., on Page VI-66, regarding same, because it is an environmental type of variance that would go before the Environmental Protection Board and that it is included in Paragraph A. 2., on Page III-70, because it is a building variance that would go before the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Hoban referred to Paragraph i., on Page VI-60, stating that the County has required said requirement, for the last 30 years, by the County's special act, however, it has never been put into the regulations until now. He stated said language states, if one changes their type of operation, under a renewal of any permit issued, that they have to get written approval from the County to do so.
Mr. Hoban referred to Section 14.17.00 - FINAL PUD MASTER PLAN, on Page XIV-108, and stated that he and the Planning Department would be making some further changes to this section.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Board of Adjustment had voted, at their last meeting, for him to present a question to the Board concerning whether there should be a 20 or 40 acre minimum on agricultural lot splits. He stated that the Board of Adjustment made it clear that they are neither advocating nor opposing a change, they are simply asking the question. It was noted that it is currently 40 acres and that an agricultural lot split does not have to meet the same standards as a large lot split.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, however, no action was taken at this time.
Concerning the issue of vested rights, Commr. Bailey questioned why the County charges $250.00 for a vested rights certificate.
Mr. Stubbs stated that said charge is due to the amount of staff time that is required to process a vested rights certificate.
Discussion occurred, at which time staff was directed to review the process involved and determine if said cost is necessary, and, if so, whether it could be lowered. It was noted that said cost is not stated in the LDRs, it is stated in a resolution that the Board adopted, therefore, the resolution would need to come back before the Board for approval of any changes.
Commr. Bailey referred to Paragraph B., on Page I-21, and requested that the wording aesthetically pleasing be struck from said paragraph.
A brief discussion occurred.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to strike the wording aesthetically pleasing from Line 2, of Paragraph B., on Page I-21.
Commrs. Swartz and Cadwell voted "No".
In order to be consistent, Commr. Bailey requested that Paragraph F. be struck from Page I-21, as well.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried, the Board approved to strike Paragraph F. from Page I-21.
Commrs. Swartz and Cadwell voted "No".
Mr. Stubbs, One-Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, informed the Board of a problem the County had recently been faced with concerning an individual who had purchased a 2 1/2 acre parcel in a rural conservation district and then had sold it to another individual, who split it, by deed, and then tried to obtain a building permit, only to find that they could not obtain one. He stated that the County is being faced with this type of situation more and more and requested direction from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Hoban stated that a policy decision could be made by the Board regarding same. He stated that the problem arises from individuals buying and selling real estate without going through subdivision regulations and now they are hit with the Comprehensive Plan that says they are in a rural district and they own two acres of land, therefore, they have to buy a deed and subdivide the land legally.
Mr. Hoban stated that the LDRs presently state that a Lot of Record is a lot that was created by a deed, or Contract for Deed, prior to May 20, 1981 and describes a parcel of land by metes and bounds. He stated that the Board could solve the problem by moving the date to March 2, 1993, which would catch all the people who have been buying and selling property without going through subdivision regulations, from the 1981 date to the 1993 date. He stated that the only down side to that would be that everyone who went through the process legally did it for nothing - they followed the rules and did everything that they were supposed to do, yet people who did not follow the rules got the same thing that they got. He stated that to change the date would involve conflicting equities, but, it is a policy decision of the Board and they can legally change the date.
Mr. Stubbs interjected that a compromise to that situation would be to allow the individual to go before the Board of Adjustment, for a variance, if they feel they have something that is legally defensible, or they can provide themselves a good case.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not see how the County could catch all such cases in the future noting that, if the Board approved to change the date, many of the people who have split their property will not know that they could not do it, unless they deal with a realtor. She stated that once people go through a variance process, they will continue to do it, but, she feels that, if this happens, the individuals involved will not just sue the prior property owners, they will include the County in the lawsuit, for keeping them from acquiring a building permit. She stated that she felt the problem is going to be a major one, that it will continue to happen, and that the County will be involved in many lawsuits. She stated that she also worries about the variance process, noting that, if the County does not allow for a variance process, it is setting itself up for lawsuits.
It was noted that the County could take the legal position that the individual did not follow the County's subdivision regulations which were in place and had been published, advertised and noticed.
Discussion continued regarding the problem and how it should possibly be solved, however, no action was taken at this time regarding same.
Commr. Gerber referred to Page III-26 stating that she felt, under the heading of Industrial Uses, that the Board had changed the Permitted use, under the MP district, for Incinerator, to a Conditional use.
A brief discussion occurred.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to change, on Page III-26, under the heading of Industrial Uses, the Permitted use, under the MP district, for Incinerator, to a Conditional use.
Mr. Hoban referred to Paragraph A. 1. c., under Subsection 3.02.01 - Lot of Record, on Page III-35, noting that, at a prior meeting, Commr. Hanson had raised the question of whether the County should be excluding natural water bodies from the calculations of lot sizes, or Lots of Record, and that the Board had never given direction to staff regarding the matter.
Mr. Hoban recapped what had transpired at the prior meeting, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she still felt the same way that she did at that meeting, which is, as long as an individual has 12,500 square feet of upland property, or whatever is required for the individual to obtain a septic tank, and the rest of it is in water, he should be allowed to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Hoban referred to Paragraph C, on Page III-38, noting that it goes up to five acres and those five acres exclude natural open water bodies.
Commr. Hanson stated that was the problem that she had with it - that if someone has five acres, they should be able to have a Lot of Record, if they have 12,500 square feet of buildable land.
Mr. Hoban stated that a way to solve the problem would be for the County to say that, if an individual has 100 lots which make up ten acres of land, but it is not on a publicly maintained road, the individual can only get two (2) building permits, however, if the Board states that there cannot be a natural water body included in that ten acres, then the individual will be down to nine acres of land, therefore, can only obtain one (1) building permit.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Stubbs stated that, by the County excluding natural open water bodies in the 12,500 square foot calculations, they would be doing away with the lot lines that are already drawn, which he noted is what he goes by. He stated that it should not be that way - that as long as one has 12,500 square feet of upland property, that is all one should need.
Mr. Hoban stated that he felt the intent of the Board is that one has to have at least 12,500 square feet of upland, excluding natural open water bodies. However, when it concerns aggregation, whether the individual has four lots or three lots, the County is counting natural open water bodies as acreage.
It was noted that staff would bring new language, pertaining to a Lot of Record, to the Board Meeting scheduled for October 26, 1993, clarifying the issue of natural open water bodies.
Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested leaving the language as it presently is and letting the individual go before the Board of Adjustment for a variance, for very unusual cases.
Mr. Hoban stated that outside the Wekiva one is aggregating up to the Future Land Use Map, which is five acres, and there is no variance to that criteria. He stated that a variance would not take care of the problem.
Mr. Hoban was requested to come back with some language regarding same at a later date.
Mr. Hoban stated that, at a previous meeting, Commr. Hanson had questioned whether the Board had approved aggregation of lots in the Wekiva area, which are not on a publicly maintained road, and that he had responded that they had. He stated that it ties into the five acre requirement, because if one is not on a publicly maintained road, one will have to aggregate up to five acres, no matter what the Future Land Use Map states, or no matter what the zoning is in the Wekiva area. He stated that one could live in the Wekiva area and have all R-1-7 zoning, but, if one does not live on a publicly maintained road, they will have to aggregate their lots up to five acres.
Commr. Hanson stated that this is where the discussion came in about vesting in the Wekiva Basin, noting that, if one had R-1-7, they were vested and did not have to aggregate up to the five acres.
Mr. Hoban stated that it was a policy decision of this Board to say that one could go beyond the Comprehensive Plan to five acres, in the Wekiva area, and that it was Commr. Hanson's question, at that time, as to whether the Board had made that policy decision or not.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel that that was the intent of her concern, noting that the intent was that the Board would not do anything to make it more restrictive in the Wekiva Basin. She stated that what the Board is doing makes it much more restrictive. She stated that, in the Wekiva Basin, all zoning was vested, so what this does is negate that.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the Board addressed that issue, it was based on the road requirement, and that he had questioned what the Board could to do to insure that the roads will be put in.
Commr. Hanson stated that that matter was resolved earlier in the year, when the Board agreed that they would require the special assessment and the dedication of road right-of-way. She stated that this is a zoning issue and undermines the intent of the Wekiva Basin amendment.
Commr. Swartz stated the intent was that the County was going to have a road requirement. He stated that, if there is a road in place, one can only aggregate to the zoning district, but, if there is not a road in place, one has to aggregate up to five acres.
Commr. Hanson stated that one has to aggregate to the zoning district, which she noted is R-1-7, in this case. She reiterated the fact that the Board had agreed a couple of years ago that they would not do anything to make the Wekiva Basin Amendment more restrictive, because it is so restrictive already.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to go on record as favoring road requirements, countywide.
Commr. Bailey interjected that the Board had stated that they were not going to make the Wekiva Basin more restrictive than it already is, yet they are.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board had not been required, up to this point in time, to have aggregation in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that it came in after the fact, as part of a behind-the-scenes settlement agreement, that the Board had no choice but to vote on. She stated that the Board has a chance to help the little guy in the County, which she does not feel that they are doing, particularly in this case.
No action was taken at this time.
Commr. Bailey referred to Page XIII-5 and questioned whether there was something that the County could require before giving the County's Environmental Protection officer the right to make inspections of property, facilities, equipment, etc., to make sure that one is complying with the Lake County Code and the Laws of Florida.
Mr. Hoban stated that he would check into the matter and get back with the Board at a later date.
OTHER BUSINESS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, informed the Board that, in order to meet advertising deadline dates, she needed direction from the Board, this date, concerning the advertisement for the County Attorney position. She noted that it may be May of 1994 before another County Attorney is on board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reconsider the issue of the advertisement for the County Attorney position.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to go with Option 1, out of two options provided, as the advertisement that will be used to advertise the County Attorney position.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/10-19-93/12-9-93/boardmin