The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, March 27, 1995, at 2:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney; Sue B. Whittle, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development Services; Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services; Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development Services; Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Services Division; James Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services Division; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
WORKSHOP - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
Commr. Gerber announced that the time had arrived for the continuation of the March 23, 1995 Workshop on the Land Development Regulations Amendments.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services Division, had distributed the agenda packet to the Board prior to the start of the meeting. At this time, Mr. Knight directed the Board's attention to Chapter XIV, Platting Procedures and Requirements for Minor Subdivision of Land, and reviewed additions and deletions to language which had been inserted by direction of the Board.
Mr. Knight explained that the language under Section 14.18.00, Generally, had been reviewed by staff, and language has been changed to state that the purpose of this section is to provide a review process for minor subdivisions of legally created lots, or a replat of land into ten (10) or fewer residential lots. He
explained that the definition of legally created lot has been defined as a lot created pursuant to the Lake County Code, as amended.
Mr. Knight stated that Family Lot Splits had been added to Section 14.10.00, Minor Lot Splits, and language had been added to Section 14.10.01, Generally, to indicate that the County may approve minor lot splits, or family lot splits of a legally created lot not contained within a platted subdivision. At this time, discussion occurred regarding the above noted language.
Commr. Swartz stated that it was the intent of the Board that lot splits were not allowed where the lot split was inconsistent with the other lots, the character of the plat, created higher density or density that was not consistent with the rest of the plat or the adjacent character of the subdivision. He directed staff to add language under Section 14.10.01, Generally, to indicate that a lot split cannot change the density or the character of the platted subdivision that was being modified.
Extensive discussion occurred regarding Option 1 and Option 2 under Section 14.10.01, Submittals, which addresses the requirement of a boundary survey showing the intended division prepared by a professional land surveyor. Mr. Knight explained that Option 1 requires that a boundary survey be done on the entire parcel, and Option 2 requires a boundary survey and includes language which states that in the event the proposed lot split contains parcels greater than 40 acres in size, a sketch of description for such parcels shall be accepted instead of a boundary survey.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board to address Option 2 and displayed a map of a parcel of property, which illustrated two parcels that were created and approved in 1986 and did not go through the lot split process. He explained that, following the County's criteria for lot splits at this time, his client would have to have all sections of both parcels surveyed, which would be in excess of $35,000.00 to legalize the smaller
$12,500.00 lot. He stated that his understanding of the proposed language was that, if the parent tract was in excess of forty (40) acres, the smaller tract being created would only have to be surveyed.
Mr. Richey displayed a second illustration, at which time Mr. Knight cited, as an example, a property owner who wishes to split a fifty (50) acre tract into a twenty (20) and thirty (30) acre tract. He explained that a boundary survey would be required on the entire boundary of the fifty (50) acre tract under Option 1 and Option 2.
At this time, Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, indicated that clarification would be made to language under Option 1 and Option 2.
Mr. Richey stated that he has had discussions with the County Attorney's office in regard to the term "parent parcel" and has asked his clients to rely on a memorandum, date July 17, 1992, from Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, setting forth the criteria for parent parcel. He stated that the above noted memorandum states that the simplest way to determine whether a parcel of land was created before June 1, 1992 was to examine the deed, which created the lot split of the parcel of land. He displayed an illustration of a five (5) acre tract of property that was conveyed on April 1, 1986. He explained that, because the deed that conveyed the five (5) acre tract would be dated prior to June 1, 1992, it was his position that the parent parcel process was not applicable, and the property owner could do a lot split. He stated that he has relied on the June 1, 1992 date, as indicated in the above noted memorandum; however, it was the position of Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, that the above noted memorandum was correct with the exception of the June 1, 1992 date. At this time, Mr. Richey displayed a copy of the memorandum, dated July 17, 1992, on the monitor for the Board's review.
Mr. Hoban stated that this issue had been brought to the Board on two previous occasions, and on both occasions, by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board had taken the position that lot splits started on May 20, 1981. He stated that he does not agree with the June 1, 1992 date because the Board has indicated that the processes in place must be followed through the 1980s and 1990s.
At this time, Mr. Knight distributed a copy of lot of record language, and a letter from the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), dated March 22, 1995, in regard to lot of record.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Department of Community Affairs has submitted proposed language defining a lot of record, as indicated in the above noted letter, dated March 22, 1995, and explained that DCA's definition of lot of record would take into account lot splits. He stated that staff was recommending that the County not adopt the proposed DCA definitions because the lot splits, and the definition of lot splits were intertwined with vesting and would require extensive discussion from the Board. Mr. Hoban stated that the question was whether the County wishes to use a March 2, 1993 date or a May 20, 1981 date.
Mr. Richey displayed an illustration of a twenty-two (22) acre parcel, which was created on May 21, 1989, and a ten (10) acre parcel. He explained that he has an application for the creation of four (4) lots on the twenty-two (22) acre parcel on a County paved road, and he was being told by staff that he has to add the ten (10) acre parcel as part of the parent parcel. He stated that individuals that have purchased land, or have considered purchasing land, have relied on the effective date of June 1, 1992 as outlined in the memorandum dated July 17, 1992.
At this time, Mr. Richey displayed a series of maps illustrating a variety of scenarios in regard to the parent parcel process, and extensive discussion occurred regarding each illustration. Mr. Richey stated that his goal today was for the
Board to follow the memorandum, dated July 17, 1992, and acknowledge the effective date of June 1, 1992.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, in regard to the example of the twenty-two (22) acre parcel and the ten (10) acre parcel alluded to above, as long as both parcels meet the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, staff would process them using the June 1, 1992 date. He questioned if there were additional requirements when the County recognizes the twenty-two (22) acre parcel and the ten (10) acre parcel.
Mr. Hoban explained that the Board was proposing a change to the Lake County Code, and the change to the code states that you have to be on a paved road to subdivide lots. He stated that, in regard to the illustration of the twenty-two (22) acre parcel and the ten (10) acre parcel, one was on a paved road, and one was not on a paved road.
Mr. Knight indicated a change to the definition of "original parcel", which would delete "legally created" and would add the following: An original parcel shall be a lot on or before June 1, 1992, pursuant to the Lake County Code, provided each lot is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Hanson expressed concern with the requirement that minor lot splits and family lot splits provide a paved road. She stated that in the Wekiva River Protection Area there were many areas where there are large tracts with a long easement providing access to the property.
Mr. Hoban stated that the memorandum, dated July 17, 1992, was written before changes to the Lot of Record Ordinance were made in February 1993 and December 1993. He stated that Mr. Richey was indicating that the Board should interpret the Lake County Code based on what was erroneous in July 1992, and not based on how the Lake County Code was changed in February and December 1993.
Commr. Swartz questioned if Ms. Lustgarten's memorandum was consistent with the plans that were in effect at the time that it
was written, to which Mr. Hoban indicated that said memorandum was in error from the date that it was written compared to the Lot of Record Ordinance on the books the day that it was written. Mr. Hoban stated that the County recognized legally created lots on July 17, 1992, and that it was very easy to create a legally created lot prior to June 1, 1992.
It was the consensus of the Board that staff look at the effective date of June 1, 1992 as long as those parcels are consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Gerber requested that Mr. Richey, Mr. Knight, Mr. Stubbs, and Mr. Hoban provide a synopsis of their interpretation of the discussions this date at the workshop on March 28, 1995.
Mr. Richey discussed the issue of financing parcels on paved roads versus non-paved roads, and stated that Mr. Hoban had indicated at a previous meeting that he had met with several bankers, and had been informed that there was a difficulty in financing parcels on non-paved roads. He stated that he has spoken with many of the local bankers, and they have indicated that there has never been an inability to finance those parcels. He stated that the bankers indicated that there were representations made that property owners that do lot splits demand that the County pave their roads, and he has reviewed the records of lot splits of five (5) acres on 1,320 foot easements, and there has never been a request for paved roads from the property owners. He requested that the Board consider this before they start requiring that the roads be paved.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agrees with Mr. Richey, and does have a concern with requiring that the roads be paved.
Commr. Swartz stated that the real issue was whether or not the County was going to approve lots and/or subdivisions that are not on, or are not accessible on County paved maintained roads. He stated that he was of the opinion that the County was doing a
disservice to people, and he does not want the County to continue to create lots and subdivisions that are not on County paved maintained roads. He stated that his concern with a variance was that a variance should only be allowed when it meets criteria for a variance and should be allowed as a last resort for the property owner to use the property in a circumstance that they did not partake in creating.
Mr. Knight directed the Board's attention to Section 14.10.01, Standards, and briefly explained that language under Item d. had been changed to indicated that parcels created for family members shall be contingent upon the issuance of a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy, or being classified as agricultural lands by the property appraiser, pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. He further noted that examples were also included in said language.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell for purposes of discussion, to eliminate the requirement for the paved roads for a two (2) lot family lot split, and to add language that states that it was the property owner's responsibility to maintain the road.
Discussion occurred regarding the road requirements, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the motion made by Commr. Hanson would put the County back to where we are today with the only difference being that we have now reduced lot splits from a minimum of six (6) lots to two (2) lots. He stated that he could not support the motion as stated.
Commr. Hanson stated that putting in the paved road would encourage more density; however, density in the rural areas would be restricted if you allow them to remain at a low density with a road that would not handle increased density.
At this time, Commr. Hanson withdrew the motion with the understanding that the Board would look at those areas where it may be appropriate. Commr. Cadwell withdrew his second to the motion.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve to eliminate the paved road requirement on a family lot split.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that lot splits would be required to meet the minimum requirements adopted in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which would add an element of control.
Commr. Swartz concurred with Commr. Cadwell but noted that with urban and urban expansion, quarter acre lots could be created that are not on paved roads. He stated that the minimum would be five (5) acre tracts for the category of suburban on down, and that there are so many five (5) acre tracts that this present a problem. Mr. Hoban stated that staff would bring back options to the Board for consideration at the workshop on March 28, 1995.
At this time, Mr. Bergmann distributed information on Concurrency Management, Timing of Residential Development, and Commercial Location Criteria for the Board's review prior to the continuation of the workshop on the Land Development Regulations on March 28, 1995.
Commr. Gerber noted that she was in receipt of a letter from Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Green Swamp ACSC Field Office, Department of Community Affairs, in regard to the rules for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board moved to continue the workshop on the Land Development Regulations Amendments until March 28, 1995, at 2:00 p.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK