A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MARCH 28, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, 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: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Hanson requested to place on the agenda, under Commissioners' Business, the issue of the Agricultural Museum Study Committee.

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, requested to place on the agenda, under County Manager's Business, the issue of implementation of the 40 hour work week.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to place the above stated items on the Agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 764 - JOSEPH COURSEY - LANE PARK AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, informed the Board that the applicant in this case had requested a 60 day postponement.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved a 60 day postponement of Petition No. 764, a request for approval to vacate streets and lots, Tavadora Subdivision, Section 6, Township 20, Range 26, Lane Park area - Commissioner District 3, as requested by the applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 779 - GUY LILLARD - CLERMONT AREA AND

PETITION NO. 780 - AMBER HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, informed the Board that the applicants in this case had requested a 60 day postponement.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a 60 day postponement of Petition No. 779, by Guy Lillard, to vacate Sunshine Drive, Sunshine Hills, Section 32, Township 22, Range 26, Clermont area and Road Vacation Petition No. 780, by Amber Hill Homeowners Association, Inc., to vacate Opal lane and Garnet Drive, Amber Hill Subdivision, Section 31, Township 22, Range 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, as requested by the applicants.

PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 781 - HARBOR HILLS DEVELOPMENT

R. SCOTT HUTCHESON - LADY LAKE AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval to vacate easements, Harbor Hills, Section 18, Township 18, Range 25, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5. He reviewed a plat (on display) stating that several lots on the old plat had not been vacated, prior to the replat; therefore, there are old easement lines that run through the middle of those lots. He stated that, in order to obtain clear title on said lots, the applicant asked that all easements be vacated. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 781, by Harbor Hills Development - R. Scott Hutcheson, to vacate easements, Harbor Hills, Section 18, Township 18, Range 25, Lady Lake area - Commissioner District 5.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

PUBLIC HEARING

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ON THE ECONOMIC ELEMENT

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barry Brown, Planner II, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board to present the proposed Economic Element Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, for adoption. He stated that a workshop meeting was held on March 7, 1995, at which time recommendations by the Board and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) were addressed. He stated that, pursuant to said workshop, staff made the following changes:

Policy 11-2.2: Agricultural Land Values - add diversified agricultural pursuits on land formerly in agricultural production.



Policy 11-3.6: Business Publications - strike first sentence of this paragraph and add shall provide chambers of commerce and other business organizations with information for publication, including



Policy 11-5.4: Impact Fee Deferral Incentives - strike the last three sentences of this paragraph and leave the Policy to read: Lake County shall develop an impact fee deferral program for commercial (excluding retail) and industrial construction.



Policy 11-5.6: Encourage Construction of "Spec" Buildings - add The location of "spec" buildings shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the policy of maximizing the use of existing infrastructure.



Policy 11-6.6: Enact Efficient Preapplication Procedures - add Division of Environmental Management representative.



Policy 11-10.2: Pursue Alternative Financing - add The Capital Improvements Element and any other affected Element will be amended as needed to reflect any actions taken pursuant to this policy.



Policy 11-11.1: Feasibility of Area Wide Development of Regional Impact - strike entire paragraph.



Commr. Hanson commended staff and Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator for Lake County, for their work, noting that Lake County is one of the first counties in the State of Florida to add an Economic Element to their Comprehensive Plan.

It was noted that the above changes brings the County into compliance.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board, on behalf of the Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, stating that they wanted to add their support to the proposal before the Board this date and commended the modifications and changes that were made, which he noted accurately reflects the workshop that was held regarding same. He thanked the Board for their unanimous support of the business community, by adopting an Economic Plan.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing a number of developers and businesses in Lake County, appeared before the Board stating that they would like to thank the Board for moving forward with the Economic Element and hoped the Board would give the fact that they have adopted the element wide exposure and publicity among the business community, both here and in surrounding counties, because they feel it will do a lot to counter concerns that her clients and others have expressed about the business climate in Lake County. She stated that she felt this was a very positive and proactive step for the County.

Commr. Hanson thanked the business community for their commitment to making this happen, in a very short time frame, and requested Mr. Jackson to put a press release out on it as soon as possible.

Mr. Jackson appeared before the Board stating that Lake County is the second rural county to adopt an Economic Element and noted that staff did an excellent job in writing the element, which he elaborated on.

Mr. George Winters, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he felt this was an excellent first start for the County and that, by defining the economic environment, the County can entice industry to the County that it will be proud of. He commended staff and the Board for a job well done.

There being no further individuals to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Economic Element Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, as presented.

REZONING

At this time, the following members of staff were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services

Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development

Mr. Don Griffey, Engineer, Public Services



PUBLIC HEARING



PETITION NO. 23-94-2 - AMENDMENT OF A + CUP592-2 TO DELETE LAND AND REZONE FROM A TO CP - HARVEY D. ERP

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, informed the Board that he had received a request from the applicant's representative, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, that this case be postponed for 90 days.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board postponed action regarding a request for an amendment of A (Agricultural) + CUP592-2, to delete land and rezone from A (Agricultural) to CP (Planned Commercial), for a Monopole Billboard Site, for 90 days, as requested by the applicant's representative, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney.

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 13-95-4 - R-6 TO R-1 - JOHN C. AND FAYE O. PORTER

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), on approximately 17.84 +/- acres in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node, to allow the applicant to house horses on said property. He stated that staff reviewed the request against the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and found it to be consistent, therefore, were recommending approval. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and approved it, by a 9-0 vote, to R-1 (Rural Residential), with conditions as outlined in the proposed Resolution.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), with conditions as outlined in the proposed Resolution.

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. CUP 90A/6/6-4 - AMENDMENT TO CUP 90/6/6-4 IN A TERRY J. CULLEN AND CHANABLA GIZMO COMPANY, INC.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment to an existing CUP in A (Agricultural), to operate a private species propagation and husbandry and veterinary aspects of husbandry, for conservation purposes, and a breeding facility for threatened and endangered animals on 156 +/- acres, in the Bay Lake area. He stated that it is in A-1-20 Overlay District 2, in the Wekiva River Protection Area. He stated that, when the original CUP was approved, it was for the care of threatened and endangered species, however, they now want to include cold blooded animals, primarily reptiles and amphibians. He stated that the request is to add additional land (approximately 46 acres) to the site in question (approximately 110 acres).

Mr. Stubbs stated that, when the applicant was granted the first CUP, approval of the CUP was subject to 30 acres of the property being fenced by a four foot fence and, within that, an eight foot chain link fence, surrounding the animal compound. He stated that all necessary permits were required to be submitted and that Dr. Cullen has operated in accordance with the terms of that CUP (90/6/6-4). He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and approved it, by a 9-0 vote, and that his office had received one letter in opposition and one letter of support.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning and Development, submitted a proposed site plan (County Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and submitted four (4) pictures (Applicant's Exhibit A) of the property in question, for the record. He stated that the applicant was merely deleting the research aspect of the request and adding additional land, with the same terms, conditions, and uses as originally approved.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Dr. Terry Cullen, Applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He was questioned by Mr. Richey and the Board about the request and reviewed a plat of the property in question. He stated that his facility would be closed to the public and would only by utilized by his professional peers and necessary fish and game groups that would want to bring individuals in, for educational purposes.

A brief discussion occurred regarding a caretaker for the property in question, at which time it was noted that there is a caretaker, however, said individual lives on an adjacent piece of property.

Mr. Stubbs stated that Dr. Cullen did not have the ability, in the CUP, to have a caretaker's residence on the property in question, but felt he should, in case the present caretaker moves from the site. He requested that a provision be inserted in the CUP that a caretaker's residence is permitted.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Good to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for an amendment to CUP 90/6/6-4 in A (Agricultural), to operate a private species propagation and husbandry and veterinary aspects of husbandry, for conservation purposes, and a breeding facility for threatened and endangered animals, with the addition of a provision for a caretaker's residence.

Under discussion, Mr. Richey requested some minor changes in the proposed Resolution, as follows:

On Page 1, Line 12, delete research and and insert breeding farm for after the word "private".



On Page 2, Line 2, delete for and insert from, at the beginning of the sentence.



On Page 2, Line 14, delete of.

On Page 3, Line 9, delete for and insert from.



It was noted that said changes would be included in the motion for approval.

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



PETITION NO. CUP 94/5/2-2 - SIX MONTH REVIEW OF APPROVED CUP

NAPOLEON ULLOA

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that the applicant had not yet started operating the facility in question, however, he would like approval for another six month review of the site, after it gets started. He stated that Code Compliance reviewed the site, but registered no complaints.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a six month review of an approved CUP, to ensure compliance with the conditions of the CUP, for the extraction of juices from fruits and vegetables for processing into syrup.

PETITION NO. 120A-90-3/4 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORD. NO. 40-90

DEER ISLAND CLUB/CYPRESS ISLAND

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment to Section IV (C) of PUD Ordinance No. 40-90, with regard to Lot 6, Block B, Deer Island Club. He stated that the applicant was requesting that the requirement that building setbacks be measured from the conservation line be reduced, He stated that the overall size of the PUD is 398 acres, in the Tavares area. He stated that there is a single family home and the beginning of a pool on the site.

Mr. Stubbs referred to Page 2 of the Staff Report, noting that it contained an Analysis of the situation, under Special Information, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that there had been numerous meetings with the developer and staff, dealing with a number of issues, with regard to a PUD amendment and a replating of this property, however, noted that was not being heard this date. All that was being dealt with this date was Lot 6 of the Deer Island Club development.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, after staff's determination that the 20 foot setback needed to be maintained, staff informed the builder, Mr. Cliff Myer, that the setback for the pool should have been maintained at 20 feet and that the verbal notification in the zoning clearance that was issued was in error and requested him to stop construction of the pool. He stated that staff tried to notify Mr. Myer before he started digging the pool, but, were unable to do so. He stated that staff, through the review, contributed to the errors and setback for the pool and home, therefore, were recommending approval of the amendment, that the setback requirement for Lot 6, Block B, Deer Island Club PUD be reduced to 1.7 feet from the environmental line, for the pool and screen enclosure.

Commr. Gerber noted, for the record, that she had a conversation with the applicant, Mr. Cliff Myer, and his attorney, Ms. Leslie Campione, outside her office, approximately six weeks ago, with regard to this case, however, at the time, was not aware that the issue would eventually come before the Board. She stated that she did not feel that conversation would have any influence on her vote this date.

Mr. Stubbs noted, for the record, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a 6-2 vote, to amend the setback for Lot 6, Block B, Deer Island Club.

Commr. Swartz noted, for the record, that long before any hearings were scheduled he had, on occasion, talked to residents who were concerned about a number of issues related to this project, however, once it became apparent that the matter would be on a Board agenda, he did not have any further discussions and would not have any difficulty looking at the facts and deciding the case, based on that fact.

At this time, a video of the property in question was shown to the Board.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, appeared before the Board to discuss a requirement of the construction plans for Deer Island, which calls for a berm of approximately one foot by twelve feet behind every home in the development, to protect the lake from stormwater runoff from the lots. He noted that said berms are to be constructed as the homes are constructed, rather than all at once.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the firm of Winter Park Design and Build and the President of that corporation, Mr. Cliff Myer (present in the audience), appeared before the Board stating that she was present this date to discuss only Lot 6, Block B, of the Deer Island Club development. She stated that other factors relating to Deer Island Club were not being addressed this date, whatsoever.

A brief discussion occurred regarding whether or not the PUD had been properly advertised and whether or not the Board could discuss the entire PUD, or just the portion in question, at this time.

Ms. Campione stated that she had made a formal request that only Section IV (C) of the application be considered this date, which she elaborated on. She stated that she had originally submitted two applications as one, because, at the time, it made a lot of sense to do that and they were in a hurry to get the request before the Board. She stated that they had hoped they could take the request to the Board of Adjustments and get a quick resolution, because Mr. Myer was trying to finish his home in time for the Parade of Homes. She stated that the other portion of the PUD amendment request has been postponed and this one has proceeded, because this is the one that they absolutely need to get resolved.

It was noted that the applicant had withdrawn the golf course portion of the application and, if they want to have it reheard, they will have to repay the fees.

Ms. Campione briefly discussed the background history of what has transpired up to this point in time and why certain things did or did not occur. She referred to certain portions of the PUD Ordinance, which she discussed, as well as to Paragraph 2, on the first page of the TRC Minutes (contained in the Board's backup material), which states that the PUD specifies a 20 foot setback from the environmental line. However, Development Regulation has no problem with a five-foot setback from this line. She stated that this line means the environmental line, so that amendment was in the works. She stated that it was the contractor's understanding that the setback issue had been worked out and that it was to be five feet from the conservation easement. She stated that it was also discussed that accessory structures would be treated differently, in that the setback would not apply to accessory structures (pools, enclosures, out buildings, etc.) and that they could not encroach into the conservation easement.

Ms. Campione questioned to what extent the County was bound to approve the PUD amendment before them. She stated that a permit was issued, in error; however, due to the fact that it was not known at the time that it was issued in error, construction was begun on the pool and $9,450 had been invested, before the work was stopped. She noted, for the record, that the permit is dated 12/14/94 and that construction commenced soon after that. She stated that an inspection was called for on 12/30/94.

Ms. Campione read into the Minutes the contents of a Memorandum (contained in the Board's backup material) from Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, Development Regulation Services, to Mr. Jack Bragg, Building Services Division, dated December 30, 1994, notifying Mr. Bragg to put a hold on further inspections of the property in question, until the wetlands setback issue could be resolved. She stated that, upon receiving said notice, Mr. Myer contacted a surveyor and had the property surveyed. She stated that, at that time, Mr. Myer thought the issue was encroachment of the conservation easement; however, the survey revealed no impact on the conservation easement, it showed the pool was 1.7 feet from said easement.

Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Myer tried to work out a situation where he could complete the pool, at which time he discussed a Hold Harmless Agreement, which the Board approved in January, or early February, 1994. She stated that Mr. Myer contacted the pool contractor and was informed that there was no way the pool could be completed in time for the Parade of Homes, therefore, rather than taking the risk of incurring more damage, decided to stop further construction and did the best he could to enter the Parade of Homes. She requested the Board to approve the amendment before them, stating that it would only apply to Lot 6, Block B of the PUD and would alleviate a very unfortunate situation that has cost the builder a lot of time, money, and heartache.

Ms. Campione requested that Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, to appear before the Board, for questioning, regarding this case.

Mr. Barker appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and questioned about a memorandum (contained in the Board's backup material) from Ms. Paula Blazer, Environmental Programs Supervisor, to Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, through Mr. Barker, recommending approval of the requested amendment to Lot 6 of the Deer Island Club PUD. She noted that it states in the memorandum that the Environmental Management Division would have no objection to

approval of the amendment, if the following conditions were met:

. The berm is constructed in a manner to provide for the retention of run-off from the property to Lake Dora. The applicant has agreed to submit a site specific plan providing construction details for review and approval by the Environmental Management Division.



. The certificate of occupancy for the residence will be withheld until a final inspection and approval of the berm is made by the Environmental Management Division.



Ms. Campione further questioned Mr. Barker about this request.

Mr. Carl Lindstrand, a member of the Concerned Citizens Responsible for the Development of Deer Island, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that his committee has worked on the Deer Island project ever since the development started and that there has been one problem after another, which he felt would probably continue for a very long time. He stated that the committee he represents strongly objects to the proposed amendment and requested the Board to either object, or postpone, approval of the request. He stated that they feel approving this amendment will serve as an open invitation for additional amendments in the future and would establish a precedent and basis for other similar unsatisfactory, or undesirable, circumstances, which will surface as the development goes on. He stated that he felt the Board should work something out with the builder, as far as the house is concerned, however, does not feel that it would be a prudent decision for the Board to let the pool be finished.

Mr. Lindstrand discussed the issue of jurisdiction lines on setbacks from the conservation lines, noting that they are established by the State and the Corps of Engineers and questioned whether the County had the authority to change the setbacks or establish other setbacks, at which time Mr. Barker was questioned regarding same and established that the County can set its own jurisdictional lines.

Ms. Campione rebutted Mr. Lindstrand's statements, stating that there was never a request for a setback change to the conservation buffer, because they had requested that that be deleted from the initial request. She stated that the only thing that remains in the PUD amendment request for Deer Island are side and front setbacks.

Ms. Campione requested that a letter to Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, from Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., dated June 7, 1994, and a response by Mr. Stubbs to Mr. Beliveau, dated July 12, 1994 (contained in the Board's backup material), be noted, for the record. She stated that it states in said letter that the rear setbacks are to be 20 feet, or the environmental line, whichever is greater, and that is what was discussed, understood, and what the administrative non-substantial change was going to effect. She noted that the letter further states that, per Mr. Stubb's discussion with Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, staff had no objection to said language being amended. She stated that the reason for bringing this matter up was to point out the fact that there were numerous discussions and written correspondence, in which staff stated that they did not have a problem, including the County Attorney's Office, with using either the environmental line, or 20 feet from the property line, as the rear setback. She requested that the whole packet of information supplied to the Board, regarding this matter, be noted for the record.

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, stated, for the record, that the comments Ms. Campione was referring to pertained to Code issues, which require minor modification.

Ms. Campione stated that the minor modification they were referring to was a process whereby it would be handled through the Technical Review Committee and would not have to go through a full hearing process. She stated that that is what the language "minor modification" was referring to. She further noted that said language is found in the LDRs, in which they talk about minor modifications to PUDs, and that is what was being referred to.

Ms. Campione stated that she was trying to show the reasonableness of the builder - that he had good reason to believe that this had been worked out and it was not until December 30, 1994 that a memorandum came out stating that it would have to be a PUD amendment. She stated that, before then, everyone was operating on the premise that this would be handled as a minor PUD and that it was simply a matter of Mr. Wahl, County Manager, stating that fact. She stated that the builder relied in good faith, thinking that it had been handled and was under the impression that what he was doing was allowable. She stated that she did not feel her client should bear the burden of the damages and costs associated with this case.

Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, stated that, although the entire PUD was properly advertised and the Board would be allowed to discuss more than what they had been discussing, it was his understanding that individuals who had asked to participate, or who objected to this request, who might otherwise be here, were told at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that the Board would only be dealing with the pool this date. He, therefore, recommended that, if the Board wanted to discuss anything other than the pool, this hearing be adjourned and those people be notified.

Mr. Reed further stated that statements were made that the County Attorney's Office had taken various positions in this matter and he wanted to note, for the record, that neither he, nor Mr. Hoban or Mr. Duncan, had taken any position, orally or written, that in any way would compromise the Board's freedom to grant or deny, in whole or in part, the application before the Board this date. He stated that, in the memorandum from Mr. Jeff Richardson to Mr. Jack Bragg, that Ms. Campione read into the Minutes, it is very clear that, although Mr. Richardson was anticipating a minor PUD amendment that would reduce the setback to five feet, the necessary steps were never taken by the County to do so.

Ms. Campione, upon being questioned regarding said fact, stated that that was correct. However, she stated that she did not agree with Mr. Reed's assessment that said memorandum was not clear that Mr. Richardson was under the impression that the PUD amendment had taken place, noting that it could be interpreted either way. She stated that, when Mr. Myer received a copy of said memorandum, he was under the impression that the issue was whether or not he was encroaching on the conservation easement, therefore, obtained a survey - he did not know that the issue was that he was within 20 feet of the conservation easement.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a five minute recess.

PETITION NO. 120A-90-3/4 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORD. NO. 40-90

DEER ISLAND CLUB/CYPRESS ISLAND (CONT'D.)

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt, at this juncture, given the history of what had occurred, it would be unreasonable to tear the house down and require whatever new structure would go in to be 20 feet from the conservation easement; however, he did not feel that it would be unreasonable to not allow the pool to go in. He stated that he felt errors had occurred on both sides and that the developer down through the builder had some obligation and responsibility in the matter and knew, or should have known, about conditions placed on the Deer Island Club development, in order for them to build, which would include the setbacks.

Commr. Cadwell concurred with Commr. Swartz, in that he felt there were errors on both sides and that the process had gotten too far along to do anything about the house, other than to make it right; however, he felt the Board should not allow it to go any further and do more wrong than what has already been done.

Commr. Hanson stated that the applicant relied on a decision that the County made, so she feels that, at some point, it becomes a legal question. She questioned what effect it would have on the environment, if the pool was completed and there were berms on either side of the pool that were not in the conservation area, even though the applicant will not have met the setbacks.

Mr. Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, stated that, if the County were to receive an acceptable drainage plan, the lot in question would not have that much impact on the water quality.

Discussion occurred regarding a memorandum that Mr. Hoban was directed to write, by the County Manager, with regard to this case and the fact that the understanding was that the pool in question and any other accessory structure could be constructed five feet from the conservation easement, when construction of the pool started and stopped, and various other issues.

Commr. Hanson stated that there have been so many other issues surrounding this case and that the County has allowed things like this in the past, where mistakes were made by the County. She stated that she felt the public should have a right to rely on what they are told by the County. She stated that she felt the most politically expedient thing to do would be to take out the pool, but feels that there are long-term implications there. She stated that just because the County grants the variance one time in this case does not set the precedent for others. She stated that this case involves a variance only, it is not changing the entire policy. She stated that it becomes incumbent on staff to ensure that this does not happen again and that the County needs to do whatever it has to do to make the language clear, so that there is no doubt about what it states.

At this time, Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, introduced into the record a letter (County Exhibit A) dated January 9, 1995, from Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, to Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., stating that staff had originally informed Mr. Beliveau that a five foot rear yard setback would be permissible, under Ordinance No. 40-90, however, in further review of the Ordinance, found that it also requires a 20 foot rear yard building setback from the property line, or environmental line, whichever is greater. The letter further states that the building setback is for all structures, including the pool and screened enclosure.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to amend, for Lot 6, Block B, Deer Island Club only, the setback to the conservation line that would be equal to the distance from the conservation line to the existing residential structure, but not to include the partially constructed pool and/or deck.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would oppose the motion, due to the applicant's reliance on County staff and various memoranda and the fact that the pool had already been partially constructed. She stated that, had this not occurred, she would have voted to deny the request. She further stated that removing the pool would not take away the negative effects that have already occurred to the water.

Commr. Gerber stated that she feels the Board tries to strive for consistency in neighborhoods and, if one home has a pool and the others have the same generally sized home and are not able to have a pool and the setbacks are going to be greater, she sees that as inconsistent within the neighborhood, therefore, was going to support the motion.

Commr. Good stated that he was not sure the County had incurred any liability. He stated that mistakes were made on both sides and that they may weigh each other out, when and if the matter goes to court. He stated that, if there are damages, that is for a judge to decide, not the Board. He stated that he was trying to be consistent with Ordinance No. 40-90, which is the Ordinance that this variance is being requested for. He stated that he felt the Board had already made several attempts to make the situation a little better for the property owner, by establishing in the motion the variance for the house. He stated that he felt the pool was clearly inconsistent with the Ordinance and believed the property owner was notified, therefore, would support the motion, based on those grounds.

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

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

Commr. Swartz stated that, for as long as development has occurred in the Deer Island Development, a number of concerns and issues have come up. He requested that a thorough staff review be conducted of the PUD Ordinance that was passed, with regard to the issues that are mentioned in that Ordinance, i.e., the golf course, the transportation improvements, and any other issues which have come into question, as a result of the continued development of this PUD. He requested that they be reviewed for consistency with the adopted PUD Ordinance, as it appears today, and come back to the Board with any recommendations, changes, or issues that need to be dealt with. He stated that he was having a great deal of difficulty understanding how transportation improvements that are required under the PUD and have not been completed would allow a development that has requirements within the PUD to go forward and requested that the matter be thoroughly reviewed. He stated that, apart and aside from any requests from the developer for changes in this PUD Ordinance, he wanted the matter to be put back on the agenda, so that these issues can be discussed and/or he wants staff to take the appropriate action, with regard to enforcement of the existing PUD Ordinance, as related to the items that he mentioned. Commr. Swartz requested the County Manager and the County Attorney to review the process and procedures by which staff considers, adopts, or implements any deviation from PUDs and bring same back to the Board for review. He stated that he felt there was a level of reasonableness, where staff should have the ability to make what are truly minor deviations; however, they do not have the authority and should not have the authority to make changes to a PUD document that went through a public hearing process, as it relates to specific conditions, and he wanted that to be reviewed, so that everyone can get back on the same page. He stated that people should have confidence, after going through the public hearing process, that a development will occur as it was supposed to and he feels that the project in question indicates that that confidence would not be well placed.

Commr. Hanson questioned why the County does not require a survey before issuing a building permit.

Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, stated that that is something that was discussed several years ago and it was just the burden of having someone go out and acquire a survey.

Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that he had spoken with the Building Official about that matter and would be bringing a joint proposal for doing surveys on certain lots before the Board at a later date.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board requested the County Attorney and the County Manager to review the Deer Island Club development and the County's process and procedures, with regard to deviations from approved developments, PUDs, or straight zoning, as he had previously commented.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

OTHER BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

Commr. Cadwell briefly discussed this issue, stating that, even though the Job Incentive Trust Fund Policy is not yet set up, the Industrial Development Authority looked at the project in question, and, in looking at the parameters that the Board had talked about in setting up that policy, the project is one that would fall into it, therefore, scheduled it to be brought before the Board and requested that it be acted upon.

Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator for Lake County, appeared before the Board, on behalf of the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), stating that a request for funding, in the amount of $14,000, from the Job Incentive Trust Fund, for an expansion project for Chemical Emergency Response Services was a time sensitive issue and one that needed to be moved on quickly. He stated that the IDA feels this is a good project and a good test for the County's Job Incentive Trust Fund and requested the Board's consideration of the project.

Ms. Leslie Little, Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board stating that the request before the Board this date was a relocation prospect that the City of Leesburg and the County have been working with since late October, 1994. She stated that the company in question is interested in coming to Lake County and utilizing the former Post Office facility in the City of Leesburg. She stated that the company fits the profile of most of the target industries that not only the State of Florida is now actively trying to recruit and is setting their incentive programs toward, but also fits most of the guidelines established by other Industrial Development incentive programs in neighboring counties.

Ms. Little stated that the IDA is proud to bring this particular company through, as a test case, because of the fact that it is a corporate office and brings with it three different businesses, one of which is in the target group identified in the County's Economic Development study that was done for the County two years ago. She stated that the company is an emergency information clearing house for the chemical manufacturing of hazardous materials industry. She stated that the company is like a poison control center, noting that they are a 24 hour information agency that has and maintains the largest computer data base on chemicals, chemical compounds, and hazardous materials in the United States, which she elaborated on.

Ms. Little stated that this company also deals with educational information, noting that it has trained over 10,000 people nationally in the last few years. She stated that they are an extended credit, or recertification agency for federal laws dealing with handling and transporting of these kinds of materials. She stated that they also have a third company, which is in its infancy, however, has done very well over the last year, which develops labels, manifest symbols, and all the forms that any company in the United States would need to comply with Federal laws relating to the storage, handling, and transportation of chemicals. Ms. Little referred to a handout (Summary) which was distributed to the Board, for their perusal, giving some additional information about the company and various clients that they represent throughout the United States. She stated that the company is planning to immediately hire 11 to 13 individuals, with wages at 120% of the current average Lake County wage rate, and will be transferring seven individuals to this County, however, she does not know how many future jobs will be available. She stated that the company has maintained, for the last few years, Science scholarships in its local junior high and high schools and intends to do the same in Lake County. She stated that the company has been a good corporate citizen, where they are presently located, one that participates in Chambers of Commerce and fund raisers and supports athletics, etc. Ms. Little then answered questions from the Board regarding this request.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County needed to move forward with this matter as quickly as possible, because sometimes decisions to relocate are made overnight and the County could lose the company just as quickly as gain it. She stated that she was glad to have the support of the IDA and felt that this brings some of the types of jobs that the Board wants for the County, noting that they are not service jobs, they are the higher level jobs. She stated that she felt these jobs were some of the types of jobs that citizens of the County want their children to come back home to.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was pleased to see the old Post Office building put to some use, because it is right in the center of the City of Leesburg, and that she feels the company in question would be ideal for that building.

Commr. Good stated that this company would give the City of Leesburg an opportunity to clean up a building and put it back into service, which he supports, and would also be the first expenditure from the Job Incentive Trust Fund. He stated that he felt it was a great opportunity to test some of the calculations, in terms of the multipliers, and that, if the County does participate, to make sure that Mr. Jackson continues to monitor it and bring those jobs on the ground, rather than on paper, back to the Board, so that they can see those numbers and see that the $14,000 really does what the County intended it to do. He stated that he would support the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt it would help the Board, as they go forward with this type of program, to be able to look at the current taxable value of that parcel, as it sits, and then how it improves, noting that it will add to the tax base. He requested Mr. Jackson to encourage this company to include some local firms, when going out for quotes or bids on computers, because the County has been a big purchaser of computers and has a local firm that has been able to give the best pricing. He stated that this request appears to be exactly what the County is trying to do and was glad that the County has the opportunity to do it.

Mr. Ray Gilley, Chairman, Industrial Development Authority, appeared before the Board stating that timing is everything and the IDA appreciated the Board agreeing to act promptly in this matter. He stated that the IDA feels this company will be a good addition to Lake County and they see the Job Incentive Trust Fund as an investment fund. He stated that he hopes the word gets out to any companies in Lake County that are contemplating expansions that they are also eligible for funding from said fund and that the IDA has advised Mr. Jackson, if he is aware of any such companies, to bring them to the IDA's attention, so that they can act on them promptly. He thanked the Board for their consideration in this matter.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of the City of Leesburg's Chamber of Commerce Business Development Committee. He stated that the City of Leesburg provided substantial funding, with regard to infrastructure, which allowed the City to accommodate this business, and that the Board was now being asked to contribute, in relative terms, a modest amount, but, in overall terms, a major part of the deal. He thanked the IDA for getting the matter on the agenda and the Chairman for taking the time to expedite the matter through the process.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for funding, in the amount of $14,000, from the Job Incentive Trust Fund, for an expansion project for Chemical Emergency Response Services; however, due to the fact that said fund has not yet been set up, that said funds be taken from the Contingency Fund, to be returned to same, once the Job Incentive Trust Fund is set up.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

PUBLIC HEARING

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ON THE ECONOMIC ELEMENT

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the public hearing regarding an Amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan had been advertised for this date, but not placed on the agenda, therefore, would need to be continued to April 6, 1995.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, noted that the public hearing would be readvertised; therefore, a motion was not needed to continue the matter until the April 6, 1995 Board Meeting.

COMMISSIONERS

At 12:30 p.m., Commr. Swartz left the meeting and was not present for the following discussion or vote.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS

SOLID WASTE

Mr. David Crowe, Interim Director, Solid Waste, appeared before the Board stating that, pursuant to direction from the Board, with regard to renewal of the operating permit for the Astatula IIA Ash Monofill, staff looked at other options for amending Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan's contract to include renewal of the operating permit at Astatula IIA and came up with the following five (5) options, which he noted were forwarded to the County Manager:

1. Accept Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan's Amendment No. 3



2. Amend SCS Engineer's contract to have them undertake the Operations Permit Renewal task.



3. Solicit proposals from interested engineering firms to undertake the Operations Permit Renewal task.



4. Have a County engineer undertake the Operations Permit Renewal task.



5. Do nothing and allow the Ash Monofill Operations Permit to expire.



Mr. Crowe stated that staff feels the amendment of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan's contract would be the most expeditious and cost effective way to proceed. He stated that staff does not feel the County should proceed with Options 4 and 5, especially Option 5, due to the fact that the County has invested a certain amount of capital money to construct the landfill, with the idea that it has a multiple year capacity, and would hate to shortchange that and have to fill part of it with fill dirt and then have to go to closure. He stated that the County has not set aside sufficient funds to close, therefore, would have to seek additional bonding. He stated that the current budget structure is set up to where monies are set aside each year, so that at the time of closure the County will be able to fully fund it, without having to acquire outside financing. He stated that, if the County goes with Option 4, having a County engineer undertake the preparation of the permit renewal, although the County has engineers who are extremely skilled in civil engineering, having them put their signature and seal on a landfill operating permit would bring liability for any errors or omissions back on the County, whereas, if the County has an outside consultant, the blame can fall on them.

Regarding Option 3, soliciting bids from outside firms, Mr. Crowe stated that it was staff's understanding that it would require meeting CCNA (Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act) requirements, which would involve obtaining interested firms and submitting qualifications, and a review committee would have to be set up to review the qualifications, select the most qualified bidder and then negotiate a price. He stated that, even with fast tracking, it would take approximately two to three months to complete the selection process and begin actual work on the permit.

Mr. Crowe stated that, in staff's opinion, Options 1 and 2 are the only options the County should take, preferably Option 1, because of the expedience of it.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the time frame the County is working under gets closer every day and he feels that there would be a large learning curve, if the County brought somebody new in, and the cost of that curve would be more than what the County might think. He stated that Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan has stood behind the product that they delivered to the County and have been there through the process and he felt to change it, at this point in time, would not be beneficial to anybody, especially the County. He stated that, in looking at the options, he feels that Option 1 is the only one that makes sense, fiscally, as well as physically.

Commr. Good stated that, by the Board having postponed this request for 30 days, it gave him a chance to meet with various individuals and review some of the original recommendations from Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to staff and review some of the ways that the landfill was operated. He stated that he felt some of the things the County did helped create the leachate problem, which concerned him, and is something that he feels needs to be continually reevaluated, in light of engineering recommendations. He discussed the berms, noting that, in the Operations Manual, it clearly identifies that there was to be an opportunity to separate stormwater from actual leachate, so that the volume of leachate was not increased, which he noted allayed some of the fears that he had that the engineering firm was part of the problem. He stated that, upon reading the manual, he does not feel they were. He stated that he is concerned about the costs of managing solid waste in Lake County and feels that the County needs to continually review it. He stated that, in assessing the scope of services and fees, the County is talking about approximately 820 to 1,100 hours of engineering time in the ash monofill closure and that he feels the expense to the County, with regard to garbage, needs to be justified on a regular basis.

Commr. Good stated that he is a much stronger believer of spending money on social programs than on garbage; however, in this case, he feels that the 30 day delay gave the Board time to assess what the money was going for. He stated that he felt the Board needed to look seriously at not just building a pyramid to the incinerator, but to look very seriously at finding another way to cope with the ash. He stated that, if it takes detoxification, the County needs to look at that as a possibility, to make it reusable, and, if it is not toxic, the County needs to find ways to use the ash in some way that is productive and more fiscally attractive than building an ash monofill. He stated that, with said justification, he would support the motion.

The Chairman questioned whether the County Manager had a recommendation regarding this request.

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, stated that she agreed with the conclusion of the Solid Waste Department that the County should go forward with the Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan contract.

Commr. Gerber stated that she felt Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan is where the County needs to stay.

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that Commr. Swartz had requested him to check on whether the deadline imposed by the Department of Environmental Protection could be extended and how much flexibility the County had. He stated that he checked into the matter and, in his judgment, the County had none.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement between Lake County and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to provide for engineering services related to applying for and receiving a renewal of the operating permit for the Astatula IIA Ash Monofill, and approval to encumber and expend funds, in an amount not to exceed $73,700, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.

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

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m.



REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

CODE COMPLIANCE

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval to release a Code Enforcement lien from Mr. Bill Burleigh's 12.6 acre parcel of land (Violator - Mr. Paul R. Grigsby, Case No. 126-91).

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

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request stating that the issue involved the issuance of a building permit for a pool and deck, which did not meet setback requirements and was constructed without a building permit. He stated that, when the issue went before the Board of Zoning Appeals, they felt a building permit was not needed and recommended that the fees be refunded. He stated, however, that the matter did need a building permit and setback variance and the only reason the homeowner is clear today is because he obtained a building permit. He stated that the request was on the agenda this date for the purpose of cleaning up the file.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval to deny a refund requested by Gary and Gloria Dean for Board of Zoning Appeals variance application fees from June 27, 1991.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES/RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, explained this request, stating that Children's Day has been designated as April 4, 1995 and that activities have been planned to celebrate the occasion at Becky's Bears, in Eustis.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of a Proclamation designating April 4, 1995 as Children's Day, as requested by the Citizens' Commission for Children.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board that the County was scheduled to implement the new pay plan recommended by David M. Griffith & Associates, Inc. (DMG) and to implement the change from a 37 1/2 hour work week to a 40 hour work week, however, in working with the matter over the weekend, the Human Resources and Finance staff determined that the figures for implementation, particularly on the 40 hour work week, were in excess of what the Board had been advised of and approved, to the point that implementation would exceed the $600,000 that had been budgeted. She stated that, in order for staff to know exactly what figures the County is dealing with and what the alternatives may be, she recommended holding off on the implementation of the 40 hour work week, scheduled to take effect next week, but to go ahead with all other aspects of the pay plan recommendations and, in the meantime, staff will review the pay plan and whatever the options are on the 40 hour work week with DMG and determine how the County can phase it in at a later date, if that is indicated.

Commr. Gerber noted that the Board has a meeting scheduled with the Constitutional Officers on March 30, 1995, to bring them up-to-date on the matter.

Commr. Hanson stated that her intent was not to have more hours than there currently are and the only way to do that is by attrition.

Ms. Whittle stated that the total cost for implementation of the 40 hour work week is in the neighborhood of $525,000, which amounts to a little more than $260,000 for the six months left in this year. She stated that, if the Board holds on that, there is still plenty of money budgeted to implement the rest of the pay plan and longevity recommendations, while staying at the 37 1/2 hour week. She noted that it involves 236 employees, who were slated to move to 40 hours, as of the first week in April, 1995. Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board should move forward with the rest of the plan, noting that he felt the 40 hour work week was the way to go, but did not feel that the rest of the plan should be bogged down with that issue.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board needed a more comprehensive review of what the County was doing, with regard to the 40 hours, as it pertains to exempt and non-exempt employees, and to the impact that it will have on the Constitutional Officers. He stated that the prudent thing would be to go forward with the original basis of the pay plan, which is what the Board committed to and continues to be committed to.

Commr. Hanson questioned why a more thorough study was not done at the time of the recommendation.

Ms. Lois Martin, Director, Human Resources, appeared before the Board stating that, due to staff trying to get the proposal before the Board for approval prior to March, in order to start the implementation program, estimates were done based on a 40 hour work week, which were not in the original package.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the thing to do would be to ratify the pay plan that the Board implemented, but hold off on the work week hours and let staff look at that issue and work with the Constitutional Officers.

A motion was made Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Good to instruct staff and the County's Finance Department to not implement the change from a 37 1/2 hour work week to a 40 hour work week, but to fully implement the balance of the pay and classification plan.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned how long it would take to have the plan worked out.

It was noted that it would take approximately 30 to 45 days.

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

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

GRANTS

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board that the County had run into problems with the Historical Courthouse Grant ($500,000) Application and she felt the Commissioners should lobby for full funding for the grant.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Ms. Ava Kronz, Board of County Commissioners' Office Manager, was requested to have staff write letters, for the Commissioners' signatures, indicating their concern about the matter and have same mailed to Tallahassee this date.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES/MEETINGS

Commr. Good brought to the attention of the Board a situation involving the Citizens' Commission for Children, with regard to District 2. He stated that two appointees to the Commission had been unable to attend the meetings, due to various reasons, therefore, requested the Board to enforce the Citizens' Commission for Children By-Laws, regarding attendance at meetings, and remove said members from the Commission. He stated that he would take the responsibility of communicating with one of the members, Ms. Ruby Wilburn, about the matter, at which time he directed a letter to be written to Ms. Wilburn thanking her for her interest in the Commission, but, informing her that, due to the fact that she has not been able to be active on the Commission, would be removed from same. He noted that the Commission's By-Laws state that, if a member misses three or more meetings without just cause, the member may be removed from the Commission by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the district Ms. Wilburn represents needs active representation on the Commission.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for approval of enforcement of the Citizens' Commission for Children By-Laws, regarding attendance at meetings, and that Ms. Ruby Wilburn, representing District 2, be removed from the Commission, due to lack of attendance at Commission meetings. It was noted that a replacement would be announced at a later date.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

A brief discussion occurred regarding this request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board appointed Mr. Robert L. Lyles, Jr. and Ms. Elsie Griffin to the Lake County Agricultural Museum Study Committee.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

MISCELLANEOUS

Commr. Swartz thanked the Board members who attended the ceremony held at Lake Sumter Community College on Sunday, March 26, 1995, in memory of the Vietnam War veterans, for doing so.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board reappointed Mr. Edd Holder, Mr. David Mann, and Mr. Glenn Tyre to the Industrial Development Authority and appointed Mr. Jack Nelson to same.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

PUBLIC HEALTH/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution supporting Public Health Week, April 3-7, 1995.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.



_______________________________

RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/3-28-95/4-26-95/boardmin



A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WORKSHOP

MARCH 28, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, at 2:30 p.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, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

This meeting is a continuation of the LDR Workshop meeting that was held on March 27, 1995.

LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WORKSHOP

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board should clear up any misunderstanding there might be by staff and the development community, regarding action that the Board took at the Land Development Regulations (LDR) workshop meeting held the previous day, March 27, 1995. He stated that he had misunderstood the action taken, with regard to a memorandum from Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten (former County Attorney), dated July 17, 1992, in which she gives a definition for "original parcel". He stated that, during the entire discussion, he thought the part of the memorandum that she was wrong about was the date. However, it was not the date that Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, was suggesting that Ms. Lustgarten was wrong about (the date was correct), it was the fact that she was stating that one could look at the date of the deed to determine if an "original parcel" was created. He stated that it was not his intent, nor did he feel that it was the Board's intent, to say that lot splits that occurred between May 20, 1981 and June 1, 1992 were not legally created lots, unless they were created by the following three ways, which Mr. Hoban states in his memorandum dated March 28, 1995, being (1) by plat, (2) adhere to the lot split process, and (3) meet the definition of a lot of record. He stated that they would not fall into any of those three categories, they would simply be a parcel that was divided and deeded and the County would have had nothing to do with it. He stated that, if the County adheres to something that says they have the same status as the three categories listed in Mr. Hoban's memorandum, then the County will be giving to them something that they have not had in the past.

Commr. Swartz stated that his intent was to allow the County to find a way to let two parcels split, but it was not to provide a way to let two parcels split and then split again.

Commr. Cadwell stated that that was his intent.

Commr. Hanson stated that it was also her intent, noting that times change as the County has more growth and what might not have been appropriate ten years ago might be appropriate today.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that that was not the issue that he had brought before the Board at the meeting of March 27, 1995. He stated that the Board was mixing apples and freight trains, at which time he clarified what he had brought before them. He referred to a summary that Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, had distributed to the Board indicating his understanding of what the Board had approved at said meeting and that it was also his understanding of what had transpired, with regard to "original parcel", as it pertains to the lot split process.

Mr. Richey stated that the County did not have the term "original parcel" in the Code, or in the Comprehensive Plan, until June 1, 1992, therefore, suggested to the Board, on March 27, 1995, that the County make effective the "original parcel" wording, when it was created, which was June 1, 1992, which he understood Ms. Lustgarten's memorandum to do. He stated that her memorandum stated to look at the deed and, if the deed was dated before June 1, 1992, one applied the "original parcel" concept; however, if it was after that date, one did not. He stated that it is not the date, but what the date means.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board were to do that, they would be saying to all those people who came in, went through the process, paid their money and played by the rules, that it was for nothing, because the County is now going to change the rules and they did not have to do that.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County does that every day, which she elaborated on.

Mr. Richey was questioned as to whether he had seen Mr. Hoban's memorandum, dated March 28, 1995, regarding the issue in question.

Mr. Richey stated that he had, however, did not agree with it. He stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Hoban's memorandum compares apples and oranges and does not deal with the "original parcel" issue.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the issue of "original parcel", the correct definition of same, and when it actually went into effect.

Mr. Richey and members of the Board debated, at length, about the matter and whether or not to retain the definition proposed by Ms. Lustgarten in her memorandum dated July 17, 1992 and confirmed in her memorandum dated May 20, 1993.

Mr. Hoban noted in his memorandum, dated March 28, 1995, that the Board had given direction, at the workshop meeting held on March 27, 1995, for the next 45 days, to use the June 1, 1992 date and adhere to both the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs, however, noted that this would be contradictory, since utilizing the June 1, 1992 date conflicts with the LDR requirement that both property owners place county deed restrictions over their properties to jointly maintain the easement.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the most common sense, conservative approach to the matter would be to maintain the approach that staff has been using, during the next 45 days, and not create a new category of legally created lots that is conflicting with what has been in place all along.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the only fair way to deal with the issue would be to bring the date forward. She agreed that there are some problems with it; however, she did not feel that it was right to continue to be unfair to all the people.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board were to create a new definition for "original parcel", as Mr. Richey would like for them to do, for the next 45 days, it would grant rights to people that the County has turned other people away on. He stated that there is no way to justify creating special rights for this one category, when all the others have had to fall under the definition of a "legally created lot" by plat, by adhering to the lot split process, or by meeting the definition of a lot of record. He further stated that, to do what Mr. Richey is asking, the Board would have to add a No. 4 to Mr. Hoban's memorandum, which would state that there are four ways to legally create a lot in Lake County.

Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Knight's summary stated what he felt the Board's intention was on March 27, 1995 and that he did not feel the concerns Commr. Swartz noted were that serious.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating, for clarification, that Ms. Lustgarten's memorandum was written on July 17, 1992; however, she wrote another memorandum on May 20, 1993 (which he read into the record) and he felt that, if she had had a different intent, after a year of consideration, there would have been some sort of clarification.

Discussion continued regarding the matter.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that she felt there had been more than adequate discussion about this matter and that the Board needed to move on. She stated that the Board was spending hours and hours on something that she felt affected only a very few people and she felt that those people that are affected should come to the public hearings and plead their cases.

Commr. Hanson disagreed with Ms. Bonifay, stating that she felt a lot of people were going to be affected by the amendments before the Board this date and that she did not have a problem with Mr. Richey's recommendation.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to retain the definition proposed by Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten (former County Attorney), in her memorandum dated July 17, 1992, and confirmed in her memorandum dated May 20, 1993, regarding "original parcel", in that an "original parcel" is a parcel of land which was created before June 1, 1992, the effective date of the Land Development Regulations, and that the phrase "original parcel" addresses the total number of lots that can be created, via the lot split process, and considers the ownership of property as of June 1, 1992, and to direct Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, to draw up language stating that fact.

Under discussion, staff was questioned as to how they felt about the Board changing the policy regarding "original parcel" and staff having to deal with it for the next 45 days.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, stated that it would increase staff's case load for lot splits, for a period of time; however, he saw it as a revenue boost, from a budgetary standpoint.

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

Commrs. Swartz, Gerber, and Good voted "No".

Timeliness Criteria

Regarding the issue of Timeliness Criteria, Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Services Division, referred to a memorandum, dated March 27, 1995, regarding Table 3.00.03 - Land Use - Zoning District Matrix, which had been provided to the Board, stating that she had added language regarding MUQDs that was not necessary, noting that, if the County were deleting MUQDs, they did not need to add language about timeliness.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that on Page 1 of Table 3.00.03, Land Use - Zoning District Matrix, under Suburban, she felt the language "Subject to Timeliness 1 du/gross ac" was very misleading. She stated that it means, if it meets timeliness, one would get up to one dwelling unit per gross acre. She stated that, if one is subject to it, however, cannot meet it, there are Base Densities, so she did not feel that said language was correct. She also objected to the language "PUD with Timeliness 3 du/gross ac", in that she did not feel the number noted was the correct number.

Commr. Swartz questioned what language should be substituted for "Subject to Timeliness".

It was noted that "Meeting Timeliness" would be better language.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt, if the County was going to continue to use timeliness, it should move Suburban to Rural and do away with Suburban.

Ms. Bonifay suggested doing a Comprehensive Plan amendment, along with the County's next change, and down zone Suburban to Rural, or do an administrative rezoning of the County, as she feels the County should have done, after March 3, 1995, and then explain to people what they have got, which is one dwelling unit per five acres, not one dwelling unit per one acre, or one dwelling unit per three acres. She stated that the County could also explain why it has not amended the Comprehensive Plan, in conformance with Chapter 163, to reinterpret the policy dealing with PUDs.

Mr. Richey stated that there were a couple of DRIs that had been approved and had gone through the process and he was not sure how timeliness fits in with a DRI that has gone through the process, therefore, requested staff to look at those DRIs that have gone through the process and are vested on the map, in the sense of timeliness.

Discussion continued regarding the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board approved to have staff include, in the LDR amendment process, the language regarding timeliness criteria, as modified this date, per the memorandum dated March 27, 1995, from Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Services Division.

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the vote.

Concurrency Management

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, distributed the Chapter V - Concurrency Management section of the LDRs, for the Board's perusal.

No action was taken at this time, regarding same.

Commercial Locational Criteria

Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Services Division, referred to a draft, dated March 27, 1995, regarding Commercial Locational Criteria - Future Land Use Element, which she reviewed with the Board. She stated that, when the LDR Committee met over the past year, there was discussion on trying to fix Commercial Locational Criteria in the LDRs and it was noted at that time that there were some inconsistencies in the Future Land Use Element. She stated that the Committee came before the Board stating that their charge was to look at the LDRs and questioned whether the Board would like for them to expand their review. She stated that the Board chose to keep the review of the Commercial Locational Criteria, as it relates to the Future Land Use Element, to themselves, so the Committee did not review it.

Ms. Strum noted only one change, being to Policy 1-3A.1: Development of Neighborhood Activity Centers, on Page 4, under Minimum Gross Leasable Area. She stated that the figure 10,000 square feet should be changed to 5,000 square feet.

Ms. Strum referred to Policy 1-1.6: Function of Community Activity Centers, stating that not every commercial center had a function, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, she looked to the LDRs and did not feel the intent was to change.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, and member of the LDR Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board stating that the conclusion of the Committee was that the County could not fix the LDRs without fixing the Future Land Use Element, because it contained inconsistencies, which were pointed out to staff. She stated that the Committee felt this issue was one of the most important issues that the County needed to look at.

Ms. Bonifay further stated that the change made this date, to Policy 1-3A.1: Development of Neighborhood Activity Centers will enact what is in the County's Comprehensive Plan, but, if the County wants to have an Economic Development Element that means anything, they need to modify the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that all the County has done is codify what it has and what it has got does not work.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, distributed a draft, dated March 27, 1995, regarding Minor Subdivisions of Land, at which time he noted that the Board had not yet discussed Paragraph D. Standards, on Page 10, regarding minor lot splits and family lot splits, and that staff needed direction regarding same.

Commr. Cadwell stated that Commr. Swartz had noted a concern he had about an individual ending up with two quarter acre lots and questioned whether staff could come up with wording to alleviate that problem, possibly allowing one to get two lots out of a split, but have a minimum size requirement.

Mr. Knight informed the Board of some options that he had developed, which he felt would alleviate Commr. Swartz's concerns. A brief discussion occurred regarding said options, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County would be creating a problem for those people who do not live on a paved road and are unable to have the road paved, yet may want to split their property, due to a hardship.

It was noted that the County needs to create an incentive to encourage people to go through the minor subdivision process and put the infrastructure in.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to eliminate the paved road requirement for a minor lot split, for 20 acres.

Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected, for informational purposes, that staff would insert the necessary language, with regard to easements.

Mr. Knight then reviewed the following sections of the draft regarding Minor Subdivisions of Land, dated March 27, 1995, with the Board:

Page 11, Paragraph 5 - Criteria for an exemption for a variance from the three year retention period for parcels created for family members. He noted that Items a. and b., under Paragraph 5, are the two criteria that will go to the Board of Adjustment.

Page 13, Paragraph A. Generally - The language of a legally created lot, not contained within a platted subdivision was added.

Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that the language not contained within a platted subdivision should be struck from said sentence, noting the reason for same.

Page 14, Option 2 - Legal descriptions and acreage, or square footage of the original and proposed lots and a sketch of description showing the intended division, prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Florida, is the Option that the Board chose to use.

Page 14, Paragraph D. Standards - Delete the following language that had been added under Item 1.: However, there shall not be more than one (1) agricultural lot split approved per original parcel.

Page 15 - Option 1, which required a minimum width of 80 feet, however, was modified to 66 feet, which is the standard footage for a rural type road, is the Option that the Board chose to use.

Staff was directed to create language that would take care of several concerns that were raised about private easements, with regard to Option 1.

Page 16, Section 14.10.03 - Lot Split Application - Change four months to six months, for minor lot splits, and eight months to twelve months for a family lot split.

Page 16, Section 14.10.04 - Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to (effective date of this ordinance) - Option 2 - Old Applications Have Grace Period to Finish Process, is the Option that the Board chose to use, giving a six month grace period.

Mr. Knight requested clarification regarding the definition of "original parcel". He stated that, due to the fact the Board chose not to use Ms. Lustgarten's definition, as stated in her memorandum dated July 17, 1992, he assumed the Board wanted to go with Mr. Hoban's definition of same.

It was noted that the definition currently being used is the definition that will continue to be used.

Concurrency Management (Cont'd.)

Mr. Richey, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and requested that they look at how long concurrency for various kinds of things will last, which he elaborated on.

Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development Services, questioned whether staff should expect to bring back the three or four districts needed to parallel the Comprehensive Plan redraft on commercial activities.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with the language before the Board this date.

Ms. Strum informed the Board that the Comprehensive Plan identifies five different types of activity centers, which range from neighborhood convenience centers to regional activity centers. She stated that the LDRs currently have C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts, which are employment centers, however, under the Comprehensive Plan, they are industrial, rather than commercial, in CP.

Commr. Swartz stated that he has been asking, for at least two years, for an employment center concept that is on the Land Use Map, noting that there is very specific criteria for an employment center. He stated that, when the County put on the Land Use Map that all industrial zoned land was vested, that was different, because they were not employment centers, it was industrial zoned land that was vested. He stated that it was clearly the intent of the Board to vest that zoning, which has been done, but they are not employment centers. He stated that, if the Board makes them employment centers, it will restrict what can be done with them.

Mr. Bergmann informed the Board that staff had a rough draft of the concept available for their perusal, however, could have a better draft available for them at the meeting scheduled for April 6, 1995.

It was noted that the matter needed to be addressed as soon as possible.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.



____________________________

RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/3-28-95/5-10-95/boardmin