The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 2, 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; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit & Budget Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes of March 29, 1995, Board Retreat, as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
List of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
4519-95 Ed Kern (Aluminum)
4869-95 Ronald Hagadorn (Pool Maintenance)
5375-95 Hagen Homes, Inc. (Residential Builder)
5376-95 Debra L. Raimonda d/b/a The Sign Source
5377-96 Reliable Air & Heat, Inc. (Heating & Air Cond.)
5378-95 Richie L. Evans DBA Hardee Roofing (Roofing Contractor)
4249-96 Robert W. Merritt
Request to acknowledge receipt from the City of Clermont, Miscellaneous Ordinance No. 275-M, providing for the annexation of a certain parcel of land contiguous to the present City boundaries, passed and ordained by the City Council of the City of Clermont on March 28, 1995.
Request to acknowledge receipt: Before the Florida Public Service Commission, a Notice of Cancellation and Rescheduling of Hearing, Docket No. 950107-TP, Proposed Rules 25-4.0761, F.A.C., Local Exchange Company Pay Telephone Rate Caps, and 25-24.516, F.A.C., Non-Local Exchange Company Pay Telephone Rate Caps; and Proposed Amendment to Rule 25-24.515, F.A.C., Pay Telephone Service: Canceled hearing on Monday, April 24, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. and Rescheduled hearing for Wednesday, May 24, 1995 at 9:30 a.m., 101 East Gaines Street, Room 106, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0860.
Request to acknowledge receipt: Before the Florida Public Service Commission, Notice of Hearing to Florida Power Corporation and Auburndale Power Partners, Lake Cogen, Ltd., Panda Energy Corporation, Pasco Cogen, Ltd., Metropolitan Dade County Board of Commissioners, Montenay-Dade, Ltd., Pasco County, Florida, Orange Cogen, Ltd., Pinellas County, Florida, Orlando Cogen Limited, Polk Power Partners, Ltd., Ridge Generating Station, L.P., Tiger Bay, L.P. and Wheelabrator Environmental Services, Inc., Docket No. 941101-EQ, Monday, May 8, 1995 at 9:30 a.m., 101 East Gaines Street, Room 106 - Fletcher Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0863.
Request to approve List of items to be deleted from Fixed Assets for the month of April, in the amount of $13,500.66. (List attached)
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following:
(a) District Financial Corporation's Annual Financial Reports for Units of Local Government, and District's Audited Financial Statements for Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994 for the Country Club of Mount Dora Community Development District.
(b) District's Annual Financial Reports for Units of Local Government, and District's Audited Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994, and Minutes of the February 24, 1995 Meeting of the Board of Supervisors for the Village Center Community Development District.
(c) District Financial Corporation's Annual Financial Reports for Units of Local Government for Deer Island Community Development District for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994.
Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, appeared before the Board to discuss the creation of two new precincts. She stated that one would be Pennbrooke Fairways on the west side of Leesburg, which would be Precinct 75, and one would be Lakeview Terrace Condominiums in Altoona, which would be Precinct 76.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the creation of Precinct 76 at Lakeview Terrace Condominiums, Altoona.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the creation of Precinct 75 at Pennbrooke Fairways, Leesburg.
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION
The following individuals, who were on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Task Force, appeared before the Board for the presentation of the Proclamation for the Citizens' Commission for Children, which was read by Commr. Gerber, and declared April 23-May 1 to be "Teen Pregnancy Week in Lake County": Hillary Knepper, Coordinator of the Citizens' Commission for Children; Allison Thall, Human Services Manager and Chairperson for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Task Force; Marcie Klosterman; Myrna Coulson; Valerie Wells; Linda Phillips; Doris Taylor; Claire Souilere; Linda Branham; and Kitty McKeen.
Mr. Joe Grawet, Personnel Manager, presented information on the following employees, as Commr. Gerber presented the plaques:
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service
James A. Story, Equip Operator I, Public Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area II (Minneola)
Coy D. Tyson, Equip Operator III, Public Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area II (Minneola)
Jonathan Iannone, Fire Lieutenant/EMT, Fire and Emergency Services/Fire/Rescue Division (not present)
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Ten Years of Service
Dennis L. Warren, Assist Area Maint Supervisor, Public Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area III (Umatilla)
Karen B. Bowerman, Deputy Chief, Fire and Emergency Services/Fire/Rescue Division
Presentation of Plaque to Employee with Twenty-five Years of Service
Will R. Lamond, Sign Fabricator I, Public Services/Engineering Division/Traffic Safety Services
Presentation of Plaque and Bond to Employee of the Quarter, Second Quarter (January, February, March)
Melissa C. Newman, Clerical Assistant III, Public Services/Special Services/Mosquito & Aquatic Plant Management/Aquatic Plant Management
Presentation of Plaque to a Retiring County Employee
Norman "Ted" Herschelman, Area Maintenance Supervisor, Public Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area III (Umatilla) - 36 Years of Service
Discussion occurred regarding proposed revisions to today's agenda.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, requested that the proposal from the Land Use Forem Network be added to the agenda, under County Manager's Business, for discussion later in the day. ADDENDUM NO. 1
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES/ZONING
Commr. Gerber announced that the Board would move forward to unfinished business, and discuss the request for approval to withhold all permits, clearances and other authorization for construction on Deer Island pending compliance with PUD Ordinance No. 40-90, and the request for approval to proceed against any surety which may have guaranteed performance thereunder.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that an offer had been received from Mid-State
Paving, as of yesterday, which might be a solution to the problem at Deer Island.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that Mr. Alvin Mulford, Vice President, Mid-State Paving Co. Inc., would be making a presentation, and that this possible solution had been discussed with the County Attorney's Office and appeared to be the best solution.
Mr. Mulford addressed the Board and explained the circumstances evolving around the problems that existed at Deer Island. He stated that the auction that took place in March was supposed to generate enough funds for the off-site work, in order to transfer lots to Mid-State Paving, in exchange for their debt. Mr. Mulford stated that there was a $450,000 expense for off-site work, and an estimated $302,000 was generated from the auction that could go towards the off-site work. Mr. Mulford stated that Mid-State Paving had made this proposal to the various people involved with the project. The proposal involved Mid-State Paving excepting the $302,000 for the off-site improvements, and in exchange, the difference between $302,000 and $450,000 would either be paid to Mid-State Paving from proceeds from All-State Insurance Company, or be transferred to Mid-State Paving in lots, in lieu of the money. The remaining debt that Mid-State Paving would have on the project would also be conveyed in lots to them. The proposal was being sent over night to the parties, and if they approved it within ten days, Mid-State Paving would be under construction on the off-site work and selling lots. Under these circumstances, Mid-State Paving would own 61 lots.
Mr. Hoban informed the Board that, before Mr. Mulford had contacted the County Attorney's Office yesterday, he was prepared to propose a building moratorium to the Board, but because the proposal seemed to be very good, he requested permission to continue to work with Mid-State Paving, and all of the parties involved, and if things fell apart again, he would come back to the
Board for authorization to go through the proper steps to impose a building moratorium, but he was not proposing this today. It was noted that there was a total of 231 lots in the project, and approximately 29 lots had been transferred through auction and other sales. Mr. Mulford stated that he hoped that everything would be executed by next week.
Commr. Swartz stated that there were two issues, the balance of on-site improvements, and the off-site improvements. He stated that he would support the proposal, if it got the improvements done, but on the other hand, he felt that the Board needed to have a date certain, at which time, if this did not happen, and it had been given a reasonable amount of time, the Board would be prepared to take action. He stated that the Board also needed to address the issue of the compliance of the PUD itself with the PUD Ordinance. Commr. Swartz questioned the Attorneys, based on their understanding of what was being proposed, if the close of business a week from this Friday, May 19, 1995, would be a reasonable date for this to be put together.
Mr. Hoban stated that the County Attorney's Office could come back to the Board with an agenda item on May 16, 1995, regarding the status of the situation, and the Board could take further action at that time.
Mr. Mulford explained that Mid-State Paving had filed a lien in December, 1994, on the project, and this lien was the only lien that would have any validity on the lots. All of the other liens had been filed against the golf course property only.
Discussion occurred regarding the surety bond and the CDD bond, with Mr. Hoban explaining that the only way to get clarification of these bonds would be through declaratory action in court. He stated that staff was requesting permission to file a declaratory action, if things did not work out with the proposal.
Commr. Good questioned whether any action had been taken to stop people from driving on the streets to get to the golf course.
He stated that this was a public safety issue that needed to be addressed, and he felt that stop signs were needed, in order to assist in resolving the problem.
Discussion occurred regarding the on-site improvements and whether the signage was included in Mid-State Paving's contract.
Mr. Mulford stated that he was not aware of any on-site construction being in his contract, and that a lot of times the developer preferred to handle specialized stop signs themselves.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, explained that the Board could direct his department to place stop signs in the appropriate locations, in the interim. It was noted that, from a liability standpoint, the legal staff felt comfortable with this suggestion.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to direct staff to make the situation at Deer Island safer by taking the appropriate steps to alleviate the concerns of traffic.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned how the County would be reimbursed for taking the action to place stop signs in the development. He stated that the problem was the people driving to the golf course. He explained that many people were concerned that the County would end up being responsible for paying for such things in this development, even though the developer and the representative for the CDD bonds repeatedly indicated that this would never happen.
Commr. Good clarified that the motion was to resolve the problems regarding the traffic, whether the County got the developer to do it, or the County ended up doing it, because this was a public safety issue.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to see the motion withdrawn, and the second to the motion, in order for the District Commissioner, when he makes his motion in regards to construction,
to address this issue in the time frame that was presented in the proposal.
Commr. Good withdrew his motion, and Commr. Hanson withdrew the second to the motion.
Commr. Swartz made a motion to authorize staff to work with particularly Mr. Mulford and his proposal to try and get the necessary funding through the CDD reserve bonds to finalize the off-site and the on-site improvements that remain at Deer Island, and to have the necessary documents signed by May 16, 1995 for Board consideration, and failure to have an agreement in place, it would authorize the County Attorney's Office to take the necessary legal action to go for injunctive relief to ensure that those requirements are met.
Mr. Hoban suggested that the Board might want to direct the County Attorney's Office to file declaratory action, to determine the rights of the bond, and to begin the process of imposing a building moratorium on the entire Deer Island. The building moratorium would encourage the parties to come together to work out an agreement, as being proposed by Mr. Mulford. He did not feel that a ruling for an injunction would accomplish this.
Commr. Swartz explained that, instead of having the County shut down permits, he would like a judge to provide the relief and to stop the permits.
Mr. Hoban explained that, in order to do a building moratorium in the State of Florida, the County needed to file the same regulations and procedures for enacting a Land Development Regulation (LDR), which would include two public hearings after 5 p.m., and essentially staff was suggesting starting this process. He understood that the motion implied that the Board would want declaratory action in court about the validity of this before the County actually imposed a building moratorium.
Commr. Swartz explained that the motion did not include taking action for a building moratorium, but it did include going into court to get a declaratory judgment on the Board's ability to impose one.
Mr. Hoban explained the motion, as follows: by the next Board meeting, the County Attorney's Office was to continue to monitor the agreement that was being worked out between Mr. Mulford and the other parties; if all of the agreement was worked out satisfactorily, no action would be taken by this Board on May 16th. If the County Attorney's Office came back and reported to the Board that everything had fallen apart again, at that point, the County Attorney's Office would start the process to go into court for declaratory action on our rights under the bonds, and for essentially a declaratory action on the County's right to impose a building moratorium on the entire Deer Island project.
Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion made by Commr. Swartz.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would not support the motion. She stated that the first part she could support, but the second part, the Board could make a decision on May 16, 1995, because the decision did not need to be made today. Commr. Hanson commended the parties that had come together to resolve the problems.
Mr. Carl Lindstrand appeared before the Board and stated that he was here representing a lot of people who could not be here today, because they worked. He stated that he was happy to see the action being taken today. Mr. Lindstrand explained that most of the problem areas, particularly in regards to the road and golf course, were resolved in the PUD, after meeting with the developers. The citizens in the area wanted the development to proceed, as described in the PUD. He explained that the road improvements were well defined in the PUD, and he wanted the Board to know the importance of the pathway along side of the road. He stated that, if Mr. Mulford was going to resolve the problems that existed, the community would certainly support him. He addressed Ordinance 40-90 and the PUD that was established by the Ordinance and stated that Mr. Mulford needed to be made aware of the details in the language of the PUD, and the owners responsibility under the CDD.
Commr. Gerber called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".
Commr. Swartz discussed the PUD, in relation to the golf course, and stated that the developer and the golf course and their agents were not adhering to the PUD as it was approved. He suggested that this case be referred to Code Enforcement for it to be pursued as an alleged violation of the PUD Ordinance dealing with the operation of the golf course.
Mr. Hoban explained that the Board needed to adopt the LDRs tonight, in order to give the Code Enforcement Board jurisdiction to handle this question. Until these amendments were adopted, the Board still lacked jurisdiction for the Code Enforcement Board to deal with this issue. He explained that the Code Enforcement Board was a board of limited jurisdiction and could only enforce certain provisions of the LDRs. The Code Enforcement Board does not enforce Developer's Agreements, CUPs, or PUDs. If the Board adopted what would be in front of them tonight at the public hearing scheduled for amendments to the LDRs, the Code Enforcement Board would have the jurisdiction, and as of May 14, 1995, the Board would have the jurisdiction to enforce a complaint about the golf course for violation of the PUD.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board get authorization for the staff and/or the County Attorney's Office to either proceed for injunctive relief, as a failure to comply with the provisions of the PUD Ordinance, or through forwarding this issue to the Code Enforcement Board, if they had the authority to do so.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the developer could come in and request an amendment to the PUD in regards to the golf course, as another option.
Discussion occurred regarding other private golf courses within developments, with staff noting that there had never been another golf course approved in the County that began as a private golf course.
Commr. Cadwell noted that he would prefer to see the issue go to the Code Enforcement Board, and if the developer wanted to request an amendment to the PUD, he had the option to do so.
Commr. Swartz made a motion for the Board to authorize staff to proceed through the Code Enforcement Board, if that body had the authority subject to LDR revisions, to ensure that all of the provisions of the PUD Ordinance, particularly with regard to the golf course, were adhered to, and secondly, if either was not a course of action that was provided for in the LDRs, then they were authorized to begin to proceed for injunctive relief to ensure that the provisions of the PUD Ordinance, again specifically with regard to the golf course, were adhered to, and to the extent that the law allowed, and what was appropriate, to proceed against the developer and/or the operator of the golf course, whichever, or both, if they were appropriate.
Mr. Mulford stated that, if the golf course stopped, the whole project would be dead, and no off-site improvements would be made.
Commr. Good questioned whether the motion should also be stated so that the Board does not predispose the Code Enforcement Board, if that was the action taken. If there was no wrong being done, then the Board would be informed and that there not be any action taken.
Commr. Swartz explained that his motion did not presuppose, but would refer, for action, to the Code Enforcement Board, if appropriate.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would prefer to see it left with the Code Enforcement Board, and then the Board could taken action. In the mean time, the developer could come forward with an amendment to the PUD, and she would suggest that this move forward rather rapidly.
Commr Good seconded the motion made by Commr. Swartz, after clarification was made that the Board would refer the issue to the Code Enforcement Board.
Commr. Swartz clarified that, if for some reason there was not authority of the Code Enforcement Board to hear this issue, then the County Attorney's Office would proceed for injunctive relief.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would rather the issue come back before the Board before it automatically went onto court.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".
Mr. Lindstrand stated that the people have seen no effort of the developer to acquire the 250 outside members for the golf course that he was allowed in the PUD. He simply opened the course to the public and leased it for this type of operation.
Commr. Good questioned whether the Board had taken expeditious action to rectify the public safety question to place stop signs on the roads.
Mr. Hoban clarified that a determination would be made in two weeks, as to who would be rectifying the public safety problem by placing stop signs on the roads.
Discussion occurred regarding the suggestion for staff to temporarily place the stop signs, with Mr. Stivender explaining that staff was of the understanding that there was a liability problem for the County, and therefore, the signs could temporarily be placed on the roads to make it safer.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to direct staff to temporarily place stop signs in Deer Island, with the understanding that they would be removed, once a legal determination was made.
Mr. Hoban informed the Board that it was the County's normal code enforcement practice that, if it was going to site them for violating a provision in the code, or rezoning, and they applied for a PUD amendment, the County would automatically put the code enforcement action on hold, until this Board had reviewed it, and not go through with the code enforcement action.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Gerber suggested that Tab 5 regarding the Records Management Program be pulled for discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 4-35, with the exception of Tab 5, for the following requests, and with it being noted that Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote:
Approval of payment of monthly Medicaid hospital bill in the amount of $23,276.82, and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill in the amount of $33,763.25 for the month of February.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Private Industry Council
Approval to terminate Lease Agreement Between Lake County and David Scott Reed Relating to Private Industry Council located at 205 North Texas Avenue, Suites 4 and 5, Tavares, Florida, pursuant to subsection 4.3 of said lease, to become effective on June 30, 1995, and authorization for Chairman to sign the required "written notice".
Approval to eliminate the policy regarding a one year residency requirement for individuals seeking assistance through the General Assistance program within the Division of Human Services.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Approval to allocate the balance of $6,000 from the Family Health Council contract to the Women's Health Center, a division of Community Health Centers, Inc., subject to the finalized contract being drawn up by the County Attorney.
Approval of Certificates for employees with one year of service, as listed in backup material.
Approval to send a letter to the Honorable Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, asking for an opinion on the imposition of the fifty cent fee on the cellular companies operating in Lake County.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Building Department
Approval of the Agreement Between Lake County and PCD, Inc./Jam-Lake County, Inc. Relating to the Issuance of Building Permits while Platting is in Progress - Commission District 2, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Approval of $50 fee for a minor variance for EPB consideration, which would also be used for other minor LDR variance requests.
Approval of release of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $9,687.50 for maintenance of improvements in Spring Lake Pines, Phase II.
Approval of release of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $16,755 for maintenance of improvements in Vista Verde Subdivision.
Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $3,000 for the performance of common driveways in Lake Glona Shores.
Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $2,000 for performance to complete sodding in Lake Ridge Club, Phase I.
Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $42,645 for the performance of improvements in South 40 Business Center.
Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $190,000 for the performance of improvements in Southridge Industrial Centre.
Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $11,595.56 for the performance of improvements in Treasure Island Subdivision.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to Countywide Resurfacing Project No. 1-95 for additional work throughout the County in the amount of $39,169.25 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner District 4.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to Sidewalk Project No. 16-94 for additional work on Dora Avenue in the amount of $1,125 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner District 3.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Approval and authorization for Chairman to sign the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement Between Lake County and the Town of Lady Lake.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Approval for Chairman to execute an Interlocal Recreation Agreement with the City of Groveland, a recipient of the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program, in the amount of $20,000 that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 21, 1995.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Approval for Chairman to execute an Interlocal Recreation Agreement with the Town of Montverde, a recipient of the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program, in the amount of $20,000 that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 21, 1995.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Acceptance of the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
Carol A. Ciener
Morningside Drive #3/4-4568
Vista Vision, inc., a Florida Corporation
C-#455 at SR #19
Mariann T. Burgess
C-#44A & #4-5880
Wayne H. Gey and Brenda G. Gey
B & W Groves, Inc.
William N. Watson and Pamela S. Watson
Harry L. Sullivan and Clarice Sullivan AND
L. Dean Mauck and Frances V. Mauck
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Acceptance of a Statutory Warranty Deed for 7 feet of Right-of-Way and a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed for 10 feet from:
Wilkinson Auction and Estate Liquidators, Inc.
State Road #46
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Acceptance of a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from:
Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership
Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State
Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Approval of a Resolution to post "No Dumping" signs on Lake Unity Nursery Road (1-6313) in the Lake Griffin area to prevent unauthorized dumping on County road right-of-way.
Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State/Municipalities
Approval of a Resolution to post "No Parking" signs on Old 441, on the north shoulder of the road, in the Mount Dora area for a distance of not less than 200 feet west of intersection with Morningside Drive (3/4-4568).
Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the posting of "Speed Limit" signs on the following roads: Em-En-El Grove Rd. (5-8037) and Thomas Boat Landing Rd. (5-7940). (see speed study contained in backup material)
Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State/Municipalities
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the posting of "Speed Limit" signs on the following roads in the Groveland area: Brasher Ln. (2-2116A), Lake Emma Ct. (2-2116), Lake Emma Dr. (2-2117), Mulberry St. (2-2017), Mary's Villa Rd. (2-2115); Seymour Ln. (2-1614A), Catherine Cir. (2-1614), Jim Payne Rd. (2-1618), Timber Village Rd. (2-1523), Curtis Ave. (2-1422), Sampey Rd. (2-1520), Gano Rd. (2-1423), Division St. (2-1421), Oak St. (2-1421A), American Legion Rd. (2-1711), Bible Camp Rd. (2-1615), Underpass Rd. (2-1712), Lake Emma Rd. (2-2119), and Simon Brown Rd. (2-2013). (see speed study contained in backup material)
Roads-County & State/Municipalities
Approval of the following recommendations on release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Deed No.: 986
Applicant: Ruth J. Bowman
Location: Eustis Plat of Lakeview Heights, Lot 24, Block C. P.B. 4, Pg. 46
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from centerline of Kentucky Blvd. #4-5468A per letter from City of Eustis
Roads-County & State/Municipalities
Approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Deed No.: 986
Applicant: Doris J. Cain
Location: Eustis Plat of Lakeview Heights, Lots 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, Block C, P.B. 4, Pg. 46
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from centerline on Kentucky Blvd. #4-5468A per letter from City of Eustis
Bids/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM Repairs, sole source and proprietor source; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
C) Award Bids and Proposals, and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts
PUBLIC SERVICES $8,500.00
Atlantic Auto Supplies, Inc./Authorization to award Quote #Q-2-5-25, One New and Installed Mohawk Medium Duty Lift and issue a purchase order within budgeted funds. This award recommendation is to the second high quoter. It is recommended that the Board reject the low quote of Jones Lifts, Inc. at $7,725.00 for the following reasons:
1.) Specification number four required a synchronization, hydraulic fluid displacement using chains, cables or overhead obstruction. Jones quoted a cable equalization which could be a potential safety problem and requires a greater amount of maintenance than the hydraulic system specified.
2.) Specification number nineteen required a mechanical safety release. Jones quoted an air operated single point release which could be a potential safety problem and requires more maintenance than a mechanical release specified.
3.) Specification number twenty-six required a carriage bearing that is double sealed, self lubricating. Jones quoted a self lubricating slider block which will wear out faster than the carriage bearings specified.
4.) Specification number twenty-eight required a five year warranty. Jones quoted only one year on labor and travel.
It is also requested by Fleet Maintenance that the County standardize on Mohawk Lifts because of the safety and low maintenance features, plus the extended warranty. The County already has two Mohawk Lifts, plus this lift is the recommended award is approved and an additional lift will be budgeted for fiscal year 95/96. (See Attachment 1)
F) Approve and Execute Contracts, Agreements, Amendments, Chairman's Signature and Encumber Funds.
SOLID WASTE $ 0
Hunter-Nelson, Inc./Authorization for the Chairman go sign amendment number 1 to Hunter-Nelson's contract for Lake County Intermediate Storage and Transfer Facility - Design Build, Project No. P-5-5-01, pending the County Attorney's final approval. This amendment defines the Sale Tax Recovery procedure and the Construction Manager's responsibilities. The Board approved the original contract utilizing Sales Tax recovery on February 7, 1995.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Approval to accept the City of Leesburg Inequity Settlement through September 30, 1993 in the amount of $105,372.08, and approval for the Chairman to execute all necessary documents to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Leesburg for Fiscal Years 1993/94 and 1994/95 as per letter dated March 3, 1995, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
COUNTY POLICY/RECORDS MANAGEMENT
Ms. Mary LaFollette, Records Management Specialist, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of the Records Management manual and the policy for the Records Management Program. She informed the Board that she had been working with the Clerk's Office, and it had been shown to Mr. Don Gullickson, Supervisor of Property Records.
Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance, Audit & Budget, addressed the Board and stated that the Clerk's Office had a question regarding the definition of "public records" versus "official records". She stated that the policy before the Board showed the same definition for both. She further stated that the Clerk's Office makes a distinction between "official records" to be items that are recorded through the Recording Department, as a part of the official records of the County and through the court system. She stated that "public records" were other types of records that were produced in connection with County business. This policy does not make a distinction between the two types of records.
Ms. LaFollette explained that she deals only with the public records. When the Records Management Program was started, it was with the understanding that the Clerk would still be responsible for his documents that come before the Board, and anything that had Board action. The manual deals specifically with the documents and records that the departments strictly consider public records, and not official records.
Ms. Lehman referred to Page 6, which defined "public records", and Page 69, which defined "official record", and requested that clarification be made to the definition of "official record" on Page 69.
Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Coordinator, addressed the Board to discuss the issue and suggested that "official record" be re-defined for clarification.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Records Management manual and the policy for the Records Management Program.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board that a request had been received to discuss Tab 34, Item C regarding the recommendation to reject the low quote of Jones Lifts, Inc.
Mr. Bill Julian, Southeast Regional Manager, Rotary Lift, appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Paul Jones, President of Jones Lifts, Inc., which was the distributor that bid, was present in the audience.
Ms. Roseann Johnson, Buyer, Purchasing Department, addressed the Board and explained that she sent a quote out for a medium duty lift, #Q-2-5-25, and received two responses, Atlantic Auto Supplies at $8,500.00, and Jones Lifts, Inc. at $7,725.00. She explained that there were deviations to the specifications received from Jones Lifts, Inc., and she sent this particular quote to the department to evaluate.
Mr. Mike Brooks, Road Operations Director, addressed the Board to explain the recommendation to award the quote to the second lowest bidder, Atlantic Auto Supplies, for a Mohawk Lift. Mr. Brooks stated that he wanted to standardize on Mohawk Lifts.
Mr. Julian, representing Rotary Lift, stated that the specifications that the Purchasing Department informed him that he did not meet were really an exclusive spec in this particular brand. He stated that, if the County wanted to stay with uniformity, he was informed that there was a procedure where they
could have approached the Board and not gone out to bid. In this case, it did go to bid, and there was a 10% difference, because of some of the specifications. He stated that both lifts have been approved by a third party testing source, so as far as any of these deviations from some of the specification, whether exclusive or not, both had been approved. He addressed the issue of the warranty and stressed that the company met the specifications.
Ms. Johnson explained that the quote was sent to eight vendors and only two responded. She further explained that there was no standardized policy for this particular lift, so with the purchasing policy, the department had to go out for a quote.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the County was going to write specs that pretty well limit it to one item, then there was no use having other people put in a quote or bid, when they cannot meet the specs, because the specs were designed to be a Mohawk.
Discussion occurred regarding other types of lifts, other than Mohawk, that have the same specifications.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned with people spending their time putting in quotes when they have no chance of meeting the specifications. He then discussed getting into a sole source situation.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, noted that it was the intention of the department to get a Mohawk Lift.
Commr. Swartz suggested to the Purchasing Department, and the department heads, that if the County was really planning on a sole source contract, that this be done, and to not put Mr. Julian and his company through an exercise and futility.
Mr. Julian explained that he has dealt with many different municipalities and government bids, and they would do exactly what had been done today, because they were satisfied with a product, but he wanted to appear to see what chances the company had for future sourcing. He stated that normally some investigating was done ahead of time, even though someone might be satisfied with a
project, because there were new products coming out all of the time, which might be better suited for the County and would be a better investment, and he felt that, in this case, it would definitely be a better investment of the taxpayers money, at a 10% difference, with a company that did meet the specs.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff had sufficiently concluded that the Mohawk medium duty lift, which staff was asking that the Board approve at a higher price, was the best one, because of having similar equipment for maintenance and repairs and familiarity, or did staff feel there should be some review of other equipment, and it outweighed that certainty.
Mr. Stivender responded that staff was comfortable with the purchase of the Mohawk medium duty lift, even though it was the high bid, and he noted the low maintenance costs.
Commr. Gerber stated that she disagreed with the whole situation, because the Board was doing nothing to motivate the staff to do exclusive requests, if they were being allowed to do this every time this type of situation came up. If the policy was the low, most responsive bidders, then the Board was not motivating staff to write the specs exactly the way they want them.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, if staff really wanted a particular piece of equipment and had good reason and justification, then they needed to bring it to the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding the writing of specifications in regards to generic specifications versus exclusive specifications.
Commr. Gerber stated that the item had already been approved through the consent agenda.
Mr. Julian stated that the company did submit by the County's standards and codes and recommendations, and was the lowest bidder, and that the company did meet specifications.
No further action was taken on this item.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
The Chairman called for any public questions, comments and concerns from the citizens present at the meeting. There being none, the Board continued with the agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, referred to Page 4, Line 5 of the Resolution recommended by the Citizens' Commission for Children amending Section 1, Membership of Resolution No. 1994-97 and noted that the Resolution should read "This Resolution shall take effect on May 17, 1995."
Ms. Hillary Knepper, Citizens' Commission Coordinator, was present to answer questions of the Board regarding the voting and non-voting members.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution, as recommended by the Citizens' Commission, amending Section 1, Membership of Resolution No. 1994-97, as corrected.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, addressed the Board to discuss the request to approve Change Order No. 2 to the Belleview Underground contract to provide water to a point of connection for Carroll Fulmer Trucking, at a lump sum of $8,740.00. Mr. Anderson stated that this was similar to a previous request that was brought forward for American Hotel. He stated that the County had an obligation to bring the water to the property line.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved Change Order No. 2 to the Belleview Underground contract, in the amount of $8,740.00, as presented above.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve to levy an assessment lien against property owned by Robert Foster, Jr., 2621 16th Avenue N., St. Petersburg, FL 33713-5609, described as Picciola Island Sub, Lot 7, Blk A, Sec 13, Twp 19S, Rge 24E, in the amount of $238.00, as recommended by staff.
It was noted that Mr. Foster was not present, nor a representative for Mr. Foster.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/TAXES
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, was present to discuss the request for approval and execution of the Interlocal Agreements with 11 Lake County Municipalities regarding the distribution of the first and second cents of the Local Option Gas Tax.
Ms. Kathy McDonald, Special Projects Coordinator, addressed the Board and explained that the Interlocal Agreement did not affect the County's funds at all, and it did not affect the percentages that the cities were currently getting from the first two cents. It did affect the distribution method to the cities, 75% transportation expenditures and 25% on population, and they wanted it updated every year. As part of the request, staff was requesting that the League of Cities, or someone, furnish the proper distribution method on a yearly basis. Ms. McDonald explained that Astatula, Mascotte, and Minneola had not submitted an agreement, but the County did have the majority of the population with the interlocals that were submitted.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the execution of Interlocal
Agreements with 11 Lake County Municipalities regarding the distribution of the first and second cents of the Local Option Gas Tax.
COMMITTEES/ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management, was present to discuss the request for approval to reinstate the Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Lands Committee. He stated that the Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC) was recommending that this Committee and the acquisition of sensitive lands program be revisited and that the Committee be re-activated.
Commr. Cadwell explained that there were enough government entities buying land, and he did not feel that the Committee needed to be re-activated. If things happen different in the Legislature and the Board felt a void out there, the Board could reconsider taking action.
Mr. Barker explained that the Committee was designed to look at all of the programs and methods and determine if there was a need for further involvement by the County. He stated that the Committee did not want to replicate or duplicate anybody elses acquisition programs, but it would become involved with other programs rather than start up its own programs. He noted that, before all of these issues could be finalized, the Committee was deactivated, but that there were procedures that the Board might want to be involved in that have not been addressed by the Committee. Mr. Barker informed the Board that staff did not have any procedures that would allow it to be involved in these other programs.
Commr. Gerber questioned the possibility of a sub-committee being formed under NRAC to address the issues.
Commr. Swartz stated that the issue before the Legislature right now dealt with the only Lake County based land acquisition program, which was the Water Authority, and until this issue was resolved, the Board might want to decide whether it wanted to look
further at the issue before the Board. He explained that the Committee had requested to be de-commissioned, because it could not see where it was going in the short-term. He felt that it might be better to form a sub-committee of NRAC and supplement it, if it wanted to be supplemented, until the Legislature acted and a referendum was scheduled for November, 1996, before Lake County would actually know the direction it was going on this issue. He stated that the request was coming from NRAC and questioned whether it would be comfortable forming a sub-committee, with the Board authorizing the sub-committee to include some additional people, if it felt it wanted to add other individuals. He suggested that this be sent back to NRAC, and if they were satisfied with the suggestion, the Board could amend the Resolution that would allow them to create some sub-committees where they felt would be necessary and to supplement those committees with people who were not on NRAC.
Commr. Gerber noted that NRAC would be making a presentation this afternoon, and the Board would have a chance to ask them how they felt about sub-committees.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone action on the request to reinstate the Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Lands Committee, until after the NRAC presentation at 2 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/ASSESSMENTS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, presented the request for approval of the execution of the Agreement of Invalidation Regarding the Christian Care Center.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present to answer questions of the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to execute the Agreement of Invalidation Regarding the Christian Care Center.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/SUBDIVISIONS
LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
DCA Appeal of Sugarloaf DRI
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval to execute the Agreement for Binding Arbitration relating to the Sugarloaf Development of Regional Impact (DRI). He noted the letter in the backup material received from Ms. Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), to Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, suggesting a procedure which the County was free to join or not join the binding arbitration of the vested rights issue. Mr. Reed informed the Board that there was no contract between the developers and DCA, but that an Addendix or an Addendum to the Agreement was being prepared.
Mr. John Howell, Maquire, Voorhis and Wells, P.A., appeared before the Board and stated that the last item required for the completion of the Agreement regarding the arbitration was a re-draft of what would become the Development Order for the project, if the arbitration comes out in favor of the developer. This was in the process of being developed and was expected very soon. He informed the Board that the arbitration had been scheduled for June 29, 1995, with particular documents by the parties due on June 1, 1995. The hearing was scheduled to be heard in Tampa.
Mr. Reed explained that, as of July 24, 1994, the Development Order was approved by a 3-2 vote and implicit in the motion and explicit in the discussion, it was the view that the project had vested rights under the common law theory thereof, namely equitable estoppel.
Commr. Swartz explained that the issue was not explicit as a part of the public hearing, but, in terms of his position, was relevent to the approval of the Development Order. There had not been specifically a hearing on vested rights for this development. He explained that whatever discussions, with regard to vested rights on this development, that had come out of the vested rights Ordinance, which had been challenged by DCA, the previous County Attorney had entered into some agreement with DCA, which indicated that the County would repeal it and come back with a new vested rights Ordinance that provided for the necessary procedures and a public hearing process, and none of this had occurred. Commr. Swartz stated that this should occur before the Board decides to enter into binding arbitration.
Mr. Howell informed the Board that the determination for vested rights was based on a common law theory of equitable estoppel. The arbitration would take place based on this theory.
Commr. Swartz disagreed and stated that there were some statements at some of the public hearings that it was common law vesting, but in fact, the vested rights letter was issued on the basis of the vested rights Ordinance, which was also stated at the public hearing process. Therefore, any letters of vested rights that were based on the flawed vested rights Ordinance most likely would not be valid. Whether any project had vesting needed to be determined through a process that provided for the procedures, the hearing, and the review that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that has not been done on this particular development, or on any other developments. The only vested rights public hearing that was held was an appeal of a denied vested rights determination.
Mr. Howell explained that the transcript of the hearing, which the vesting rights were approved, showed that the County Attorney was very rigorously questioned by Commr. Swartz whether it was common law vesting or statutory vesting. The County Attorney made it very clear that it was common law vesting, and a clarifying letter was received from the County Attorney's Office.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County Attorney's Office did not have a vested rights Ordinance that was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan to be able to make that determination, and the issue before the Board that day was approval or denial of the Development Order. One of the reasons he opposed the Development Order had to do with the issue of vested rights, but there had not been specifically a vested rights hearing, a vested rights determination based on something that would be considered consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion occurred regarding the hearings where the Board discussed the issue of vested rights for development.
Commr. Swartz clarified that there was no motion, much less approval by the Board, that declared that the development was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or more specifically had vested rights. He noted that the Board did not have before them today a completed Agreement, and even if it was complete, it had not been signed by the other parties. He further noted that, even if a completed Agreement was before the Board, it would be entering into a binding arbitration on an issue for which there had never been a determination made that was based on the Comprehensive Plan. The only determination of vesting that occurred was a letter from the County Attorney's Office what was based on a flawed Land Development Regulation (LDR) vesting Ordinance that was challenged, that DCA found not in compliance, and that the previous County Attorney agreed with DCA that the Ordinance was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the County would agree to repeal the Ordinance and enact an Ordinance that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and provide for an administrative and hearing procedure, to consider vested rights cases, and none of this has occurred.
Mr. Reed stated that no one had asked that the County formerly take a position on the issue. He stated that, if he were asked, he would have to say that it was his understanding that the County had acted in regard to this project on the belief that it did have vested rights.
Commr. Cadwell noted that his vote had been predicated on the grounds that this project was vested, and the vote had been based on whether there was common law vesting on the property.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board had moved forward on the recommendation of the Board's legal staff, and the Board had every right to rely on the County staff's recommendation.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County Attorney does not have the authority to grant vested rights, nor does the County Manager at this point in time, because the Ordinance that gave them that authority, the Board had agreed to repeal with DCA and replace it.
Mr. Hoban informed the Board that two week ago he faxed a new proposed Ordinance to DCA and Ms. Bonifay, who represents the intervenors, asking for comments. He had asked them, within a two to three week period, to make comments that the three attorneys could agree to and bring to the Board. He was anticipating receiving comments within the next week or so, and regardless of the comments, to bring them to the Board in the next three to four weeks, which would be the end of May. Once the Board has a workshop on it and comfortable with the issues, he would anticipate adopting a vesting Ordinance the same time the Board adopts impact fees, sometime in late June, early July or August. He stated that, in the mean time, staff continues to make vested rights determinations based on common law statutory vesting.
Mr. Reed explained that the arbitration hearing would be focused solely on the facts and circumstances of Sugarloaf, and in its context as a development of regional impact, and it would have a very significant factual and legal aspect that would apply to any of the current vested rights determination that the Board has yet to make or not make. He stated that he would support the position that his predecessors advanced to the Board and the Board acted on.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 6, Section 7. Scope of Authority, and the definition in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
Commr. Hanson suggested that the Board approve the results of the binding arbitration, once both parties sign the Agreement.
Mr. Howell explained that common law vesting did not come from either Chapter 163, or Chapter 380, but comes from case law.
He further explained that the intent that was discussed was to isolate the effect of the determination as to this case, and to this case only, and not establish any precedential value on the determination of the arbitrator. The only intent of the arbitration was to establish in the Agreement the manner in which DCA would apply their authority through Chapter 380 to the review of this case.
Commr. Swartz emphasized that there had been no review by this Board, even at those public hearings, as to whether or not this project was vested under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and questioned the position that the Board would send its mediation group forward. He stated that there had never been a public hearing that dealt with the statutory vesting, Chapter 380, and if the Board was going to enter into an Agreement for binding arbitration, staff needed to go forward, and this Board would have to make a determination to send them forward.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 3, Paragraph 2, Purpose of Agreement, with Commr. Swartz stating that the letter that came from DCA, that questioned the vested rights, was based on Chapter 380 and statutory vesting.
Commr. Gerber requested that whoever attends the arbitration hearing in behalf of the County, let it be known to the arbitration team that the Board had not made a decision based on Chapter 380.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 3, Paragraph 3. Binding Arbitration, which stated "The parties agree to submit their
respective claims regarding vested rights to binding arbitration,...", and the vested rights that the Board was talking about was Chapter 380, and this had never been done, and staff clearly needed to have direction on this.
Mr. Howell stated that there were only two aspects of the Florida Statutes that speak to Chapter 380 vesting. One was in Chapter 163, which says that a DRI Development Order is vested, and in Chapter 380, which deals with projects that were approved prior to 1973. He stated that the Board voted to approve the Development Order for Sugarloaf, after a thorough discussion in two separate hearings, and that the project was vested. The determination that it was vested followed by the approval of the Development Order by a majority vote was the determination of consistency as to the Board's concern, consistency with whatever appropriate provisions of the Comprehensive Plan were or were not appropriate for this development.
Commr. Swartz stated that, at a minimum, the Board needed to make a determination to request its legal counsel to submit the respective claims regarding vested rights under Chapter 380 dealing with DRIs, and that the Board needed to get a vested rights Ordinance that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the letter from Ms. Shelley encouraged all parties to expedite the process. He stated that the first issue was whether the project was vested in Lake County, and that would be answered in the process. He encouraged the Board to agree to the arbitration.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was not going to vote for an Agreement that was not complete and signed by the appropriate parties, and if the Board was going to enter into the Agreement, it was clear that, based on Page 3, Paragraph 3, that as a party to the Agreement, the Board needed to have a position relative to Chapter 380 statutory vesting of the DRI, because that has never
been an issue that has been discussed specifically by this Board, or a determination made by the Board.
Mr. Reed stated that, if it was the consensus of the Board, he could prepare two position papers, one pro and the other con, and put it on the agenda.
Commr. Good stated that staff needed to contact Ms. Shelley and get clarification in the letter as to whether the project was vested under Chapter 380, as indicated in the Agreement. Secondly, the Board needed to take action and get direction from the County staff as to how this project relates to Chapter 380.
Mr. Reed discussed the time frame in which the Board wanted to accomplish the direction being given, but urged the Board not to establish a definite time, so that the necessary time could be allowed for staff to get all pertinent information for the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to review the proposed Agreement in light of Secretary Shelley's letter and determine, if in fact, the sole purpose of this vested rights determination and arbitration was the basis of Chapter 380 and statutory vesting of DRIs, and secondly, that staff be instructed to research and bring back to the Board position and/or positions relative to a position that the County should take should they decide to enter into binding arbitration with regard to the claim of vested rights under Chapter 380 dealing with DRIs.
Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA - No. 94-1-1-2
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the request for acceptance or rejection of the proposed settlement of DOAH proceeding to begin by DCA concerning Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA No. 94-1-1-2.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Royal Highlands, appeared before the Board and stated that Royal Highlands was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) which was in the proposed Comprehensive Plan area. Mr. Richey presented the Board with a
brief history of the land use plan and map amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He noted that staff and other parties met with DCA and presented the breakdown of the land that had a problem meeting timeliness. He stated that it became obvious that there were thousands of acres that had been acquired by the State of Florida through various land purchases, and those lands were taken out of rural, or suburban, and some even out of urban and urban expansion. It was his understanding that, after providing all of the information to DCA, the Comprehensive Plan objection was going to be withdrawn, but they had already filed for a hearing. He stated that DCA requested County staff to take all of the information that had been provided to them and reflect it on the County's Land Use Map. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, had prepared a map months ago identifying properties owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Water Authority as public resource lands.
The memorandum received from Mr. Reed on April 3, 1995 noted that the amendment would change from rural to suburban some 1,323 acres of uplands, 511 acres of wetlands and 168 acres of water located in Section 12, 13, 24, and 25 of Township 21, Range 24. Most of this land was just south of the Turnpike at the U.S. 27 overpass where a new Turnpike interchange was under construction, which was indicated in Figure 2 of the backup material.
Mr. Richey noted that DCA was only requesting that the County accurately reflect the State purchases on the Land Use Map, which would allow them to amend the map near the DRI and allow his client to use his land. The Board could then address the removal of suburban land use, which it had taken action on earlier, once staff had the information to present to the Board, which may include discussion of the Bradshaw property.
Mr. Richey presented an overview of Figure 2, the Current and Proposed Future Land Use.
Mr. Howell addressed the Board and presented a letter from Ms. Bonifay, which recounted the facts and background of the Bradshaw Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA). Mr. Howell explained that a significant amount of time had passed since there was an agreement in principle between DCA and the County and the landowners, as to what needed to be done to resolve the concerns of DCA, and the suburban land use change that was coming to the Board would not have been an issue, if this had been done in a timely manner.
Mr. Richey explained that DCA challenged the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and stated that it was inconsistent with the Plan, which was because there were over allocations. He noted that DCA indicated it would settle the situation, if Lake County amended its Land Use Map to show those State purchases, which were reflected to them in the documents that were provided. Mr. Richey stated that the changes were made to the overall Land Use Map in October, 1994 based on correspondence from the County Attorney and DCA to Mr. Knight. Mr. Richey stated that DCA had suggested that the amendment to the Land Use Map could be added onto any Comprehensive Plan Amendments at any time, or the County could enter into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement as outlined by DCA, which would settle the outstanding Administrative Hearing.
Discussion occurred regarding the preparation of the map, with it being determined that it had not been presented to the Board for review, nor transmitted, or adopted.
Commr. Swartz stated that the existing DRI was vested under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, but the Board had already instructed staff and would be the subject of an upcoming public hearing, to eliminate suburban land use designations from the map, and staff was instructed to begin looking at areas that, either because they have infrastructure, or because of development patterns that existed, through a conscientious planning effort, to come back to the Board at the next amendment process, to then look toward
indicating in areas that are deemed appropriate, to identify urban and urban expansion areas. He stated that this was exactly the process that should be taken by the Board in this case, and for the Board not to put back on the map or create new suburban, when in fact suburban was being taken off of the map. Even though the DRI was vested, it was a nonconforming land use, because it was an island of an urban density within a rural land use classification. Secondly, Commr. Swartz stated that he did not support entering into a Settlement Agreement that would reinstitute suburban onto a map of which the Board wants to get rid of suburban and create a further island that would be inconsistent with what the Board was doing. He stated that the applicants would still have the opportunity, either through the County's amendments that would be coming in the next phase, if, in the County's planning process, it would be determined that this would be an area where some of the suburban existed, or conceivably rural where additional density would be placed.
Commr. Hanson explained that she would have a difficult time not going along with the proposed Settlement Agreement, because DCA had found, under certain circumstances, that the Agreement would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that it would not be constructive for the Board to not go along with it. She wanted it known, too, that all of the Board members did not agree to pull out the timeliness issue, and that the Board could have worked with the suburban land use category to find a way to make timeliness work, and also come back to DCA. Commr. Hanson stated that the Board should move forward with the Settlement Agreement and deal with the rest of County, as the issue comes forward.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the project had come a long way, and the Settlement Agreement would satisfy DCA and the County, so the Board should adopt the Agreement.
Mr. Richey suggested that he be allowed to proceed to acquire the additional land, to amend the PUD/DRI to add the additional 156 acres in the suburban range, adding it to a Development Order that already has low density, which allows under three dwelling units per acre. He explained that there were all kinds of lot sizes in the project, as approved in the DRI, but that the overall gross density for this piece of property would be lower than the suburban density. He stated that he should be given the opportunity to meet timeliness and all other necessary criteria, before the Board did away with suburban in an area that has suburban density, and to add it to his land use. He explained that he was not asking the Board to change timeliness, but to give him the opportunity to meet timeliness on the land next to the densities that he already has approved.
Commr. Hanson noted that the decision of the Board today needed to be based on the suburban land use category as it existed today.
At 12:21 p.m., Commr. Gerber turned the Chairmanship over to Commr. Good, Vice Chairman.
Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA - No. 94-1-1-2 (Continued)
Mr. Richey discussed the Settlement Agreement with DCA and explained that the question was whether he was maintaining the relative densities. He stressed that there had been thousands of acres that had been purchased by the State that had been taken off the map for the purposes of density, and since then, there had been 800+ acres of density, which were urban and urban expansion, taken off of the map.
At 12:24 p.m., Commr. Good returned the Chairmanship to Commr. Gerber. It was noted that, at this time, the court reporter stopped the discussion, in order to make necessary adjustments to her equipment.
Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA - No. 94-1-1-2 (Continued)
Mr. Richey stated that he was requesting that the Board look at this particular area in light of what has already been approved in the area and allow him to meet the timeliness criteria. He stated that the Board was not taking the suburban off of the map, but approving a settlement of suburban that was already on the map, by a 3-2 vote of the Board, which had been objected to by DCA based on the allocations. He requested that the Board amend its Land Use Map to deal with DCA's concerns about over allocation, or at least have staff prepare a Settlement Agreement for the Board to consider at some future date.
Mr. Howell referred to a letter dated January 26, 1995, to Mr. Mark Knight from DCA's Growth Management Administrator, Mr. Mike McDaniel, and requested that the following highlighted wording be read into the record:
"A corresponding Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment, showing the properties from which densities have transferred, and their new land use designations and intensities must be submitted".
Discussion occurred regarding the status of the map that had been prepared by Mr. Knight, with several of the Commissioners explaining that they wanted to see the map, before a decision was made by the Board.
Commr. good stated that he would not enter into an agreement until he saw the map that was prepared, which showed the lands that were removed.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to postpone the decision on the acceptance or rejection of the proposed settlement of DOAH proceeding begun by DCA concerning Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA NO. 94-1-1-2, based on getting the information needed for the Board to review, which would include the proposed Future Land Use Map that shows the land that has been removed.
Under discussion, it was noted that the map that was prepared by Mr. Knight was current from the time he prepared it, but that the State, on a weekly basis, may be acquiring new lands.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch until 2 p.m.
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROAD VACATIONS
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board that an item needed to be added to the agenda, which was a request to advertise Road Petition No. 786.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and explained that the request was being made by the developer of Eagle Ridge Subdivision for permission to advertise the road vacation, in order to meet certain deadlines.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved to place on the agenda the request for permission to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 786.
The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 786 for PCD, Inc./Jam-Lake Inc.
The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, referred to the letter dated April 21, 1995, to Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, from Mr. Karl Kehde, Director, Land Use Forum Network, Inc. (LUFNET), which explained his proposal to the County that included airfare in the amount of $350 and a rental car at $180. The letter
indicated that usually the land owners were asked to consider making a donation, if the process results in a land use plan that works for them, and that this would be totally on a volunteer basis. If the Board wanted to proceed in this direction, she would go back and talk with him and get a letter of agreement, and look at some of the other projects that he has done in various places. A resume was attached to his letter. Ms. Whittle informed the Board of the other individuals that had been contacted on this issue. She stated that Ms. Marilyn Crotty, University of Central Florida, and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council would like to be invited to observe the process, if this was the direction of the Board.
Commr. Swartz informed the Board that there were many planners from the cities that were interested in attending the meetings.
Discussion occurred regarding the intentions of LUFNET, which was the understanding of the Board that it would facilitate development of a plan that would include landowners, developers, the County, adjacent landowners, and over that period of time that he was here, a plan would be developed and brought to the Board for a decision.
Ms. Whittle explained that the purpose, no matter who the County used for the process, was to build a consensus among all of the property owners and the County on what would be wanted on the 3,000 acres at Highways 19/27, which was the County's industrial park, and basically, if there was no agreement, there would be no plan.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem of going through the process, but she was concerned that the Board was going down a path that would dictate what people could do with their property.
It was noted that it was the feeling of the Board that Ms. Whittle should move forward and continue to pursue LUFNET and come back to the Board with a some type of letter of agreement.
Ms. Whittle stated that she would talk with people in the area that have worked with Mr. Kehde and determine how well the process was received and how well it worked and come back to the Board with an agreement with him.
It was noted that a motion was not needed on the issue.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT #2
Commr. Good discussed the request for approval to replace the District 2 representative on the Lake County Board of Adjustments. He stated that he had written Mr. Matthew Rice and told him that they had a difference in philosophy, and he wanted someone who was more in line with his philosophical outlook on the way communities should grow, and thanked him for his years of service to the County. He requested that the Board approve to remove Mr. Rice from the Board of Adjustments, and he would then present someone as a replacement for the Board's consideration.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to remove Mr. Matthew Rice from the Board of Adjustments.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve the appointment of Ms. Sheila Schneider to the Board of Adjustments, to replace Mr. Matthew Rice.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the Board had enough background information on Ms. Schneider to review.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-0 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".
COMMISSIONER GERBER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Proclamation naming May as Foster Parents Month in Lake County.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 - REPORTS
COMMISSIONER GERBER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
Commr. Gerber presented a request for consideration of a Resolution which would re-establish a Wetlands Committee to review wetlands regulations and permitting and make recommendations to the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution re-establishing the Wetlands Committee, as stated above.
TIMES CERTAIN - ADDENDUM NO. 1
WORKSHOP - UPDATE FROM NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commr. Gerber introduced the members of the Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC), as follows: Don Miller, Jim Conner, Terrell Davis, Rick Miller, Fred Cross, Dr. Joe Branham, Tom Wetherington, Liz Barker, Dave Barth, and James Gregg, Chairman. She also introduced the following staff members: Paula Blazer, Environmental Programs Supervisor; Gary Race, Environmental Specialist II; and Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Division.
Mr. Gregg addressed the Board and presented a short statement in behalf of NRAC expressing how hard NRAC had worked for two and one-half years to develop programs, and to make recommendations to the Board that were suitable to the unique situation of Lake County.
Commr. Gerber noted that two members of NRAC were not present today, Mr. Allen Harwicke and Mr. John Whitaker.
Mr. Jim Barker addressed the Board to explain that the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) depicted the key aspects of the Environmental Resource Management Plan (ERMP) program development and functions as a guide to monitor progress. These aspects were as follows:
1. Evaluation and Prioritization
3. Program Development Assessment
4. Draft Environmental Management Plan
5. Final Environmental Management Plan
6. Comp Plan Amendments and Implementation
Ms. Paula Blazer informed the Board that the summary of NRAC was on the first two pages of the Memorandum dated April 27, 1995. She explained that the booklet contained the backup material to the first two pages. Ms. Blazer stated that staff was confident that it would reach the analysis completion, as the Comprehensive Plan required, by December, 1995. Ms. Blazer reviewed the following List of Attachments contained in the package presented to the Board:
1. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7-1.1 and 7-1.2
2. Natural Resources Advisory Committee Resolution
3. List of Committee Members
4. Comprehensive Plan Time Restraints
5. Timetable Listing by Plan Category
6. Program Review Status Table
7. Hazardous Waste Program Information
8. Habitat and Natural Areas Network Management Program Information
Ms. Blazer discussed Tab 6, the Program Review Status Table, and explained that all of the programs would be reviewed and the Status Table would reflect whether the program was being duplicated by another agency, local, State, or Federal; if it was adequate as the program existed today; and whether it needed to be expanded based on the Comprehensive Plan policies.
Dr. Joe Branham addressed the Board and stated that many of the policies rely on other agencies, particularly the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Water Authority. He stated that, since some of the County's responsibilities were being deferred to other agencies, he was concerned about what was going to happen when the State withdrew the aid that the County was getting from those agencies.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Comprehensive Plan mandates certain reviews and outcomes, and the County was responsible for seeing that these were accomplished. If the State did withdraw some of the assistance the County was getting from certain agencies, the County would have to look at those areas to insure that those goals and objectives were still being met.
Mr. Terrell Davis addressed the Board and stated that the Conservation Element was one of the most comprehensive elements in the State of Florida, because it had more policies in it. He stated that 63% of the policies were already being met.
Discussion occurred regarding the action that was needed by the Board on the presentation made by NRAC.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff start bringing some issues to the Board for action. It was noted that it may take Comprehensive Plan amendments to change some policies, and others may need to appear in the budget cycle, for their implementation.
Commr. Hanson discussed the Adopt-A-Lake Program, which Mr. Barker assisted her in preparing, which would require the funding of a coordinator who would work with the different entities that deal with lakes in Lake County. She noted that the first page of the backup consisted of the title, proposal and justification, which was prepared by Mr. Barker and based on the Comprehensive Plan, and the second page was a proposal that the Extension Service had put together last year. Commr. Hanson stated that it would take action of the Board to approve funding for the position in the upcoming budget. It was noted that the position would be an Environmental Specialist II, or equivalent, in the approximate amount of $41,000.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the desire to have a coordinator would be the type of thing that would need to go through the prioritization and cost reviewing approach that was being done by NRAC. He then discussed the ranking of the Surface Water Quality Restoration and Conservation Plans indicated on the Status Table, Attachment 6.
Discussion occurred regarding the Lake Watch Program, and the sampling tasks that were being handled by the volunteers, and the
Adopt-A-Lake Program, which would allow each community to adopt its own lakes and develop its own monitoring system.
Commr. Gerber suggested that a presentation be made to the Board on the Adopt-A-Lake Program.
Mr. Davis stated that NRAC had hoped to develop a method in which to accomplish what was contained in the Conservation Element. It was his understanding, after further discussion with the Board, that the Board wanted NRAC to bring forth policies at a reasonable rate.
Mr. Gary Race explained that, if a program was ranked adequate, it did not mean that there was no room for improvement, but that, in terms of the analysis, it appeared that State agencies, or other agencies, or the County was currently doing the minimal to say that the policy was being implemented through the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and through the agencies.
Mr. Barker explained that the ranking of the programs was done without dollar values. He stated that, if staff found in the future that it could do a multitude of the programs together at a fairly low cost, they could be brought back to NRAC for an evaluation.
Discussion occurred regarding NRAC taking the top ten ranked programs and presenting them to the Board with a recommendation.
Commr. Gerber addressed Attachment 6 and stated that the Board had heard a recommendation made earlier in the meeting for the re-activation of the Land Acquisition Committee, and the Board felt that the Land Acquisition Committee could possibly become a sub-committee of NRAC, with the recommendation coming through NRAC.
She explained that action on the recommendation was deferred, until it could be presented at this time to the members of NRAC.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had discussed the possibility of amending the Resolution, so that NRAC could have a sub-committee made up of some of the NRAC members and supplemented with other individuals who might want to serve.
Discussion occurred regarding the suggestion being made for a sub-committee to NRAC. Mr. Gregg stated that NRAC would meet and discuss the issue of a sub-committee and come back with its feelings on the issue and a recommendation.
It was noted that action would be postponed on the development of a sub-committee to NRAC, until the item was discussed by NRAC and placed on the Board's agenda for discussion.
Commr. Swartz stated that the next step would be for NRAC to take the five or ten programs and put them into as much of a programmatic and cost recommendation and bring those to the Board.
Commr. Hanson stated that, when NRAC reviewed the idea of a coordinator, it should consider the coordinator enhancing those programs that may be considered adequate, but need enhancement.
Commr. Gerber suggested getting an Adopt-A-Lake Program to make a presentation to NRAC.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, stated that, in the program analysis, where duplicated effort has been found, she hoped a recommendation would be made as to what programs may be eliminated, or combined with others, and she noted that the County was to pay for the new things that it wanted to do. She stated that Comprehensive Plan required the County to eliminate duplication.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
TIMES CERTAIN/AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the Board that the presentation on U.S. 27 Corridor by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had been changed to a presentation on S.R. 40.
Mr. William Sloup, FDOT, addressed the Board and stated that FDOT was beginning an environmental impact statement for S.R. 40.
The study would look at widening S.R. 40 to four lanes, from Silver Springs eastward to U.S. 17 in Barberville. He informed the Board that, in 1987, FDOT began a 60 mile study, and when it went through the public hearing process, there were many concerns raised about the impacts to wildlife in the Ocala National Forest. Mr. Sloup stated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), who was working with FDOT, gave its approval for the plan from Barberville east, but informed FDOT that it needed to re-address the issues that were brought up in the Ocala National Forest. He explained the process that FDOT had taken to re-address those issues and discussed the alternatives to four-laning S.R. 40, which included the no-build option (to do nothing), and the possibility of four-laning C.R. 42. The State Legislature mandated the Florida Intrastate Highway System, a network of highways across the State of Florida, composed of the existing interstate system, the turnpike system, and some select State roads that could be upgraded and incorporated into the Intrastate System, to move traffic inter-regionally. He noted that S.R. 40 has been determined to be a link in the system. Mr. Slout stated that the plan was now complete, as it was being presented, after many revisions through the years, but it did not mean it was unalterable. The plan was envisioned to be in place by 2020. Mr. Slout explained that the plan was developed after consulting with different agencies, the citizens and environmental groups, with the result being a consensus by all involved.
Discussion occurred regarding FDOT's long range plan being in line with the different County Comprehensive Plans.
Commr. Good stated that the deciding of S.R. 40 may not serve the local community as much as an alternative, and in the proposed Resolution from the Board, it was asking FDOT to consider alternatives, in particular the southern route and perhaps the Palatka 20 route. He stated that a route other than S.R. 40 would
probably serve the County's interest from an economic perspective and would address the environment concerns in the forest.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed that, if the route came further south, it would affect Lake County more economically. She suggested that most of the people in Ocala would head to the beach in Daytona regardless of whether there was another road. Commr. Hanson noted that she understood studies had been done for the four laning of roads and how they would be more protective for the animals than two laning.
Commr. Swartz stated that, as it was being suggested, if the densities of traffic were going to increase, the Board may want to look at a mass transit alternative rather than four laning the road. He stated that there was a portion of S.R. 40 in Lake County that, to four lane it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that was reviewed and approved by FDOT. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan did allow four laning in a portion in Astor.
Mr. Sloup stated that FDOT was considering S.R. 40 as a "goods and people" mover. He explained the method that was used by FDOT to evaluate each alternative route, which included traffic studies, and stated that FDOT determined it would get more than 25 years worth of operation on S.R. 40 at a good level of service.
Commr. Swartz clarified that FDOT was inclined towards S.R. 40 mainly because, at least through the forest section of corridor, you would not see the type of commercialization that would deteriorate the road. He stated that he appreciated, from FDOT's perspective, the cities and counties having done an absolutely abominable job of trying to protect traffic corridors from allowing strip commercial in the past. In the future, the County needed to do a better job, because there was no doubt the County was not getting its money worth, because roads were being built and very shortly thereafter there was over capacity again, because cities and counties have allowed development up and down the roads. He stated that Lake County needed to look at other corridors, as well
as S.R. 40, and the counties and cities along those corridors, with FDOT's encouragement, would need to do a better job of not destroying the traffic patterns and have better development patterns.
Mr. Sloup presented the Board with the S.R. 40 News pamphlet distributed by FDOT.
LYNX TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Services, introduced to the Board Mr. Paul Skucellas, Executive Director of Lynx, Orlando.
Mr. Skucellas stated that staff had met with him and discussed Lake County transportation and requested that he make a presentation to the Board. Mr. Skucellas explained that the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (CFRTA) was the legal name for LYNX. He stated that LYNX was responsible for Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties and consisted of a Board of Directors with nine members. Mr. Skucellas noted that the agency was structured much like the Orlando Airport Authority, with a lot of the funding coming from the local level, with some State and Federal dollars. Mr. Skucellas stated that the mission of the agency has been to re-energize the agency, which has existed since 1972. Today there were approximately 200 buses, with the three counties having a population of approximately 1.3 million. An estimation has been made that there would be over 2 million over the next 15 years. He discussed the other two services offered by LYNX, which included the para-transit operation, and the mobility services program. Mr. Skucellas stated that, based on the population, the agency should have approximately a 500-600 fleet size. He stated that the top priority was to expand the local bus service, and he explained the different measures that would be taken to accomplish this priority. Mr. Skucellas stated that the agency was working closely with FDOT on the Interstate 4 Multimodel Master Plan. He stated that, so far, the light rail technology
seemed to be the most attractive and most workable for the three counties. Mr. Skucellas made a presentation of the kinds of services that LYNX was considering for the future. He discussed a proposed sixth route, which would stretch from Sanford to downtown Orlando and southwest to Disney Celebration, which would be a 51 mile corridor. The conception would be to link up what he was terming as activity centers with high capacity transit. Mr. Skucellas stated that LYNX was completing its MIS, which was a major investment study, which had been prescribed by the Federal government on the entire corridor planning effort, and then it would be moving to the environmental impact stage, and the preliminary engineering. An estimated cost of $20-25 million per mile has been established on a light rail system. Mr. Skucellas stated that LYNX has recently completed a Transit Design Manual which talks about local developments, and how they can be situated and designed in a way that they were more pedestrian friendly, and in the long term, more transit friendly, as opposed to what was being seen today in the development pattern. He stated that his mission was to get the awareness level up in the community, and to get support to greatly expand the system, and to get the first operating segment of rail in place close to the year 2000, and to set a long term plan that would allow some of the other improvements to go forward.
Commr. Good stated that, as a representative of the south district of Lake County, he would appreciate any input from LYNX in helping to bring the South Lake Trail across from the West Orange Trail and across South Lake County.
Commr. Swartz encouraged staff to get more information on the van plan approach that LYNX was taking, because this might be something that would help the County through the Highway 441 corridor.
Mr. Skucellas presented the Board with a package of information about LYNX and its services. He suggested that the
County give some consideration to doing a transportation plan for the County, and to consider making it a surface transportation plan, highway and transit, and begin to get more detailed information about the activity centers and travel demands.
Mr. Stivender informed the Board that $50,000 had been budgeted in next years budget for a study.
Mr. Skucellas discussed the merger of two separate entities, the Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority and the Orange, Seminole and Osceola Transportation Authority, and the history of the three routes that now service Osceola County, and how they are paid for within their jurisdiction. He stated that the three routes were costing the cities approximately $800,000.
Ms. Mary Ann Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Public Services, addressed the Board to discuss the Transit Development Plan, which would be all mass transit, and stated that it would go along with the Transit Element in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board extended its appreciation to Mr. Skucellas for the presentation, and Mr. Skucellas expressed that LYNX would be glad to give the County any assistance, or share any documentation from its transportation development plan and strategic plan.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 4:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 6 p.m. for the public hearing on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs)
Commr. Gerber called the public hearing to order and explained the public hearing policy that would be used for the meeting, and the Notice of Appearance cards that needed to be completed by anyone wishing to speak before the Board. Commr. Gerber noted that staff would be making its presentation first before public comment would be taken.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and explained that all of the information before the Board was the same as the Board had before it two weeks ago, except for two changes, a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.05, Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to (effective date of this Ordinance), which was received from Commr. Swartz, and a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.02, Family Lot Split, which was received from Commr. Cadwell. Mr. Hoban explained each amendment to the Board.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether, in the proposed amendment to the Family Lot Split, in the 1/2 mile radius, it would include both incorporated and unincorporated areas, and Mr. Hoban explained that it would include both. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board may wish to include this language, and staff made a note to address the issue at the appropriate time.
In addressing the amendment to Lot Split Applications, Mr. Hoban noted that the amendment would require that all lot split applications that were currently pending, and would not be finalized prior to May 12, 1995, shall adhere to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Division, informed the Board that there were approximately 172 applications in the office, with 92 coming in since January 1, 1995.
Mr. Hoban noted that the effective date of the Ordinance was currently proposed to be May 14, 1995. Mr. Hoban presented the Board with a brief history of the development of the Land Development Regulation (LDR) Committee, and its duties, and noted that the LDR Committee totally re-wrote the Concurrency Ordinance, as well as made a proposal regarding timeliness. Mr. Hoban stated that both of these proposals made by the LDR Committee were accepted by the Board almost in their entirety, and that minor changes had also been taken to the LDR Committee, which were almost unchanged by the Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
The following individuals and representatives addressed the Board to discuss specific issues relating to their property, or to property owned by individuals being represented; to question how the changes and new regulations being proposed would affect the future plans for development of property; to voice their opposition or support of the proposed changes; to offer alternatives to the proposed changes; and it was noted that staff would be presenting comments of clarification throughout the entire public hearing:
Fred M. Harpster, Daytona Beach
Harry LaPine, Lake Mary
Johnnie Hale, Realtor
Francisco de Sousa, Lakeland
F. Browne Gregg, Leesburg
H. Glenn Chaney, Brandon
O. L. Strickland, Lithia
Fred C. Hunter, Orlando
Dan K. Pottinger, Orlando
L. A. Dunton, Deland
Stewart Fenner, Mount Dora
Daniel R. Tabin, Paisley
John Pringle, Okahumpka
Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, Tavares
Robert M. Griffin, Fruitland Park
Robert Eulett, Howey-in-the-Hills
Gerald Eulett, Howey-in-the-Hills
Nadine Foley, President for the Lake County Conservation Council
Rue S. Hestand, Eustis
D. R. Ansley, Paisley
Mark Carson, Sorrento
Ahmad Y. Said, Oviedo
Hope H. Lamb, Winter Garden
Perla B. Rodriguez-Tolbert, Eustis
Bonnie Roof, Eustis
Steve Richey, Attorney, Leesburg, representing Mr. William Kicklighter, United Southern Bank, Florida Crushed Stone, Florida Rock Industries) (presented handout - 4.9 Subordination of Assessment Lien to Mortgages)
Charles O. Kuharske, Groveland
Frank J. Kutch, Leesburg
Irwin Barwick, Groveland
Richard E. Toole, Groveland
Pearle Herndon, Mount Dora
Paul E. Adkins, Groveland
George T. Kunz, Yalaha
Stephanie E. Davis, Fruitland Park
Rosemary F. Bennett, Eustis
Donna Richey, Leesburg (presented handout - copy of May 18, 1993 Board Minutes)
Gene Buckner, Leesburg
Debi West, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Green Swamp Field Office (presented handout - May 1, 1995 memo)
J. B. Sloan, Groveland
J. M. Vander Meer, Clermont
Paul M. Thompson, Mt. Plymouth
Norman Cummins, Attorney, Leesburg
Donald Bronson, Clermont (presented handout - May 2, 1995 letter)
Donald Miller, Mount Dora
Charlie H. Laney, Jr., Howey-in-the-Hills
Bud Ward, Astatula
Jean Kaminski, Home Builders Association of Lake County, Tavares
Linda Berson, Tavares
Buzz Berson, Tavares
Thomas Richey, Leesburg
Sheila Schneider, Clermont
Robert W. C. Stowe, Clermont
Yevell G. Watkins, Howey-in-the-Hills
Ed Watkins, Okahumpka
John H. Kauffman, Grand Island
Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Tavares (presented handout - two letters, Viola Sharp and Robert and Jean Macchi)
Richard Langley, Clermont
Brian Silbernagel, Lake County Association of Realtors, Eustis
Brent Silbernagel, Tavares
Bill Benham, Astatula
Lee Johnson, Tavares
Greg Homan, Clermont
John Whitaker, Grand Island
Ron Phillips, Mount Plymouth
Michael H. Hatfield, Umatilla
Dorothy Shipes, Paisley
Let it be noted that all material submitted to the Board was collected and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
At 11:35 p.m., the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Hanson noted that one option by the Board today was to leave the issues as they currently existed. She stated that, if what the Board had already established complied with the Comprehensive Plan, there would be no reason for the Board to move forward, if the County was only going to get more restrictive. She stated that the paved road requirements and the number of lots (6) should remain the same. She stated that there were good suggestions made for the survey requirement, which would allow for a boundary sketch, which should be included; variances should be allowed for everything and be addressed by the Board of Adjustments; and all other requirements to comply with the Comprehensive Plan were being adhered to, and she saw no reason to change anything. Commr. Hanson stated that the proposed changes tonight would force urban sprawl and would allow for services to be
provided in the rural areas, which according to the Comprehensive Plan, the County did not want to do. She addressed the issue of five acre tracts and stated that the proposal tonight would further restrict the property rights of those people who have financially supported the County for many, many years. She stated that these were her recommendations.
Commr. Good stated that there were specific issues that ought to be addressed based on the comments received from the public. He wanted to see the Board take action on the entire document tonight by going through one item at a time.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to leave the regulations as currently established, for lot splits, the minor lots splits, the family lot splits, and the agricultural lot splits, allowing for the survey changes and allowing for variances.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the whole process was started to simplify the lot split process, but apparently by looking at the people who would be affected by the process, it was not simplifying anything. He understood the perception being perceived about people using the lot split process to circumvent the subdivision regulations, but he did not feel this was being done by the majority of the people. He explained that the process was pretty comprehensive right now for lot splits and suggested that the majority of the Board leave the process as established and move forward and review the other LDRs that needed to be addressed and given to DCA.
Mr. Stubbs explained that, from staff's standpoint, he could not see any abuse of the regulations. Mr. Stubbs presented the Board with a Memorandum, which provided a breakdown of the lot split applications from October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994.
Staff members present explained that they were unable to determine that there was any abuse of the regulations, in terms of lot splits.
Commr. Swartz explained the original intention for family lot splits, which was to allow family members, who legitimately wanted to split property off for family members, either ascending, or descending, to be able to do so. There was no need to limit the creation to two lots, because they should be allowed, within the context of other criteria that existed, to be able to split for family lot splits.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would amend her motion to include the language regarding family lots splits, as stated by Commr. Swartz. Commr. Cadwell agreed to amend his second to the motion.
Commr. Swartz addressed lot splits and stated that he did feel there was a valid argument to suggest that the lot process right now was a tool that avoids a subdivision process, and it should not be allowed to do this. He further stated that this was not intended to force people into urban areas, because there was the ability to split lots today on County maintained roads all over the County, and his intent was to stop the non-standard subdivision of property that does not provide, at a minimum, the road. Commr. Swartz stated that he would support a change to the family density exception on the issue of lots splits, but he would respectfully vote against the motion, which essentially eliminates all of the work the Board has been doing during the last months, including the Ad Hoc Committee, and for which there was, for the most part, a unanimous support for it throughout the workshop process. He urged the Board to vote against the motion and move forward.
Commr. Hanson stated that, over the years, subdivisions were put into place with no requirements for paved roads, which were now required. She stated that the Board was looking at the division of property that has a deminimous impact, or no impact, on the services and environment in the area.
Commr. Gerber stated that the County would not be having such problems, if it did not have growth, but because of growth, the County needed to move forward, in order to address the problems. She stated that she was not going to support the motion.
Commr. Good stated that he was not going to support the motion.
Commr. Cadwell explained that most of the road problems had been in the Shockley Heights area, which was not created by lot splits. The complaints that staff has received on roads comes from old platted subdivisions, not from lot splits.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director, Public Services, addressed the Board and discussed the complaints received on roads, the number of special assessments that have been done, and the initial special assessment program, which was to reduce the number of miles of rights-of-way in the old plats from Astor, to Mount Plymouth, to south Lake County. He stated that this had reduced the clay roads by 1/3, but the County was revenue short to continue to reduce, not only the special assessments, but the clay to paved roads.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended. The motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good, and Gerber voted "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
14.10.00 MINOR LOT SPLITS, FAMILY LOT SPLITS, AND
AGRICULTURAL LOT SPLITS
It was noted that the County Attorney's Office had prepared a draft of the Minor Subdivision changes, which was dated April 13, 1995. At this time, the Board discussed each proposed change and took action on each.
Section 14.10.02 Family Lot Splits
Mr. Hoban requested that the proposed language in D. 1. under Standards be eliminated and replaced with the following:
"Only as many lots may be created as the number of descendants or ascendants plus one for the subdividing family member."
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to substitute the language presented by Mr. Hoban in D. 1. Standards for the ascending and descending number plus one, as stated above.
It was noted that several individuals were present in the audience, including Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, and Ms. Bonnie Roof, to discuss the changes.
D. Standards, 8. BCC Option and 8. Staff Option.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve the following:
STAFF OPTION (Page 5)
8. Parcels created for family members must be retained by the family members for three (3) years, pursuant to County approved deed restrictions recorded in the public records. This requirement shall not apply to institutional lenders who obtain ownership as a result of foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell amended the motion to include "institutional lenders or first lien holder". After further discussion, Commr. Cadwell withdrew his amendment, with the motion standing as originally presented.
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, which was carried unanimously.
Section 14.10.05, Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to
(effective date of this Ordinance)
Memorandum dated May 2, 1995 to Commr. Swartz
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to approve the language pertaining to Section 14.10.05, Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to (effective date of this Ordinance), as stated in the Memorandum dated May 2, 1995, to Commr. Swartz from Mr. Hoban.
Under discussion, Mr. Hoban explained that this would allow someone to apply for a Board of Adjustment (BOA) variance in July for an August hearing under the old rules. It was noted that this would allow applications that come in before the effective date of the Ordinance, May 14, 1995, to have another six months to come to the BOA for variances. It was also noted that this would include the following language: No extension shall be granted to Subsection 14.10.05.
Commr. Good called for the question, and the motion was carried unanimously.
Section 14.10.02, Family Lot Split
Memorandum dated May 2, 1995 to Commr. Cadwell
Commr. Swartz suggested adding, for clarification, language that would suggest that the radius figure would include either incorporated or unincorporated areas.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the language pertaining to Section 14.10.02, Family Lot Split, as stated in the Memorandum dated May 2, 1995, to Commr. Cadwell from Mr. Hoban, with the addition that the radius figure would include either incorporated or unincorporated areas.
3.11.04 Termination of Non-Conforming Uses and Development
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the language pertaining to Section 3.11.04, Termination of Non-Conforming Uses, as presented.
14.10.01 Minor Lot Splits
Commr. Hanson made a motion to approve the COMMITTEE OPTION six (6) lots to be created per original parcel. (page 2)
After discussion of the procedures that the Board would take to review documentation, Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion.
Table of Zoning District - III-23 - 4/13/95
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Table that incorporates the conditional use for "tower", as presented.
1.02.17 Mobile Homes - Chapter 7 (Wekiva)
1.02.18 Mobile Homes - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva)
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board approved the language for Sections 1.02.17 and 1.02.18, as presented.
The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote. Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
14.10.01 Minor Lot Splits
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the COMMITTEE OPTION, six (6) lots to be created per original parcel. (page 2)
Under discussion, Commr. Good suggested the number four, in order to compromise on the issue.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would support two and vote against the motion for six, after hearing from the public.
Commr. Hanson suggested that there were still ways that the six lot splits could be allowed, because there were already regulations that were not quite as comprehensive as those now being required for a full subdivision. She felt that this could be addressed in policy.
Commr. Gerber stated that she never had indicated that she would agree to anything in a lot split process that was over two, and she would never agree to anything over two that she would not require a platting process, in order to go forward.
Commr. Swartz urged the Board that the whole purpose of the exercise on lot splits was to get to a rationale, and he felt that two or beyond two, you would go through the minor subdivision process.
Commr. Good called for the question.
The motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good and Gerber voted "no".
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve four lots to be created per original parcel.
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she was more interested in the review process, and she felt certain that the Board could put into place a mini-plat procedure for 3 to 10 lots, in order to have the assurances that were needed for roads, etc., and the service delivery would be less burdensome on the County taxpayer.
Commr. Good called for the question.
The motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good and Gerber voted "no".
Discussion occurred regarding BCC OPTION TWO, with Mr. Hoban recommending that the word "entirely" be deleted from lines 14 and 20.
Commr. Good made a motion to delete the word "entirely" from line 14, BCC OPTION ONE, and from line 20, BCC OPTION TWO.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that BCC OPTION TWO provided for more flexibility.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would vote against BCC OPTION TWO, because of the 20 acres.
Commr. Good withdrew him motion, due to the lack of a second.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to strike the word "entirely" from line 20, BCC OPTION TWO.
Discussion occurred regarding BCC OPTION TWO, with Mr. Hoban explaining that, if you split the 20 acres, you must front on either a publicly maintained clay road, or a dirt easement.
Commr. Swartz stated that all lots under 20 acres have to be on a publicly maintained paved road and meet the minimum zoning criteria for frontage; if it was a minimum of 20 acres, you would not have to meet the paved requirement, and it would allow you to split on either a County maintained clay road, or an easement that met the other criteria.
Commr. Hanson stated that she still felt that 20 acres was too large to down an easement.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to approve BCC OPTION TWO, with the word "entirely" already being stricken, and with the language as underlined on page 2.
Under discussion, Mr. Hoban clarified the difference between Option One and Option Two.
Commr. Good called for the question.
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to change the wording, wherever discussed, from "family lot splits" to "family density exception".
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the COMMITTEE OPTION, (page 3), as follows: 5. Variances may be granted from Subsection 14.10.01 by the Board of Adjustment.
Under discussion, staff presented clarification of the language proposed in COMMITTEE OPTION, and the language on page 5 pertaining to easements utilized in Subsection 14.10.02(D)(5).
Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion, and Commr. Cadwell withdrew his second to the motion.
Ms. Bonnie Roof addressed the Board to discuss a document called a "Private Non-Exclusive Easement" that was currently being
used and allowed those who have obtained a BOA variance waiving the public dedication, to use this document for recording, and it keeps the easement private, but it also allows ambulances, garbage trucks, school buses, and Sheriff's vehicles to have the right to go down the roads.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff create language that would reflect the information supplied by Ms. Roof, and provides the flexibility that, when it fact, it does need to be a publicly dedicated easement, that it occurs, and this was a part of the review of the future road corridor needs.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to eliminate the length (1,320) requirement for the easement and allow it to be a privately dedicated non-exclusive easement, except in Section e. and the review of what would be future road corridors where there would be the requirement for it to be a publicly dedicated road based on the width. (page 5)
14.10.03 AGRICULTURAL LOT SPLITS
It was the consensus of the Board to approve the following language: The County may approve an agricultural lot split of a legally created lot, that conforms to the requirements of this subsection.
Extensive discussion occurred regarding the language on Page 6, 10. pertaining to parcels created for family members.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the proposed language be adopted, and in the next round of LDRs, the Board could develop a way to address the issue pertaining to parcels created for family members.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 8, with it being noted that the BCC OPTION and COMMITTEE OPTION had been eliminated.
After extensive discussion regarding COMMITTEE OPTION, on Page 3, 5., Variances may be granted from Subsection 14.10.01 by the Board of Adjustment, Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve to allow for variances and limiting the variance to the lot size.
Under discussion, staff explained how staff currently handled short sections and long sections, as indicated on old surveys of properties.
Commr. Hanson called for the question.
The motion was carried by a unanimous vote.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to provide for a variance no greater than 10% of the required acreage.
It was noted that it was the consensus of the Board to approve the following: The purpose of the section is to provide a review process for minor subdivision of legally created lots, or a replat of land into ten (10) or fewer residential lots.
14.18.07 Recommendation to Proceed
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved nine (9) months in the appropriate sections under Section 14.18.07.
14.18.12 TOLLING OF TIME
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved 14.18.12 Tolling of Time, as presented, and 14.18.13 Appeals, as presented.
Discussion occurred regarding a review process for minor subdivisions of legally created lots, or a replat of land into ten (10) or fewer residential lots, as the Board had agreed to above. Commr. Hanson suggested that the ten be changed to 20 lots.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved 20 lots in 14.18.01, Generally.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to adopt the lot split language, as had been amended from the April 13, 1995 draft, in addition to all of the other changes the Board previously added by amendment.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board ask staff to review the road standards particularly in light of what would be minor subdivisions and determine whether any modifications in terms of width or other standards should be perhaps considered.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "no".
Commr. Hanson stated that she strongly felt that the Board should not be limiting it to the six lot split on the minor lot split, and not requiring the 20 acres, if there were going to be two lots.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize the Public Services Department to review the road right-of-way and standards, as they pertain to minor subdivisions, and to come back with possible recommendations for Board consideration.
Commr. Swartz stated that the language in Concurrency needed to be modified, with regard to lot splits, changing it to two (2) where appropriate, and indicating where it was three (3) and above.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, that staff make, within the Concurrency of the LDRs, those modifications subsequent to the Board's changes on the lot splits.
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber expressed a problem with the three (3) lot concurrency review, and stated that she did not feel it should be any more than in the past. It was noted that it was currently three.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Page V - 19 - Concurrency Management
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved Page V - 19 for Concurrency Management, providing that a one year window, as presented.
14.18.00 Platting Procedures and Requirements for Minor
Subdivisions of Land
Mr. Richey addressed the Board to discuss Section. 14.18.00 and to question the standards for paving. He stated that the language did not specify paved roads.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved for the County Attorney's Office to insert the appropriate paving language where needed in Section 14.18.00.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the concurrency language, as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following minor changes under concurrency under the mining site plan: update the Bureau of Land and Water Management, which is now obsolete, and change CUP to MSP.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved 13.06.02 Powers and Duties, to include the powers for the Code Enforcement Board, and to modify it by adding 9.08 to exclude Code Enforcement and 9.08 which it is stormwater and goes to the Environmental Protection Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following: criteria for the placement of septic tanks in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern; criteria for the timing of residential development in the Suburban and Transitional land use categories; and other minor amendments to the Land Development Regulations proposed for clarification purposes.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board approved the definitions to be added to Chapter II regarding bed and breakfasts, as proposed.
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Cadwell voting "no".
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the resolution (1995-102) determining a capacity reservation for concurrency.
Mr. Richey appeared before the Board and stated, for the record, that, because of the options taken into consideration by the Board, and he was following Ms. Campione, the Board did not put into public record and have a public notice efficient to have the second reading tonight on all of the options discussed, so for the purpose of the record, he would object to the Board having voted on the ordinance, as well as the various options, as it has not been consistent with the Florida law, for the purposes of preserving his right to appeal the Board's decision.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2:05 a.m., May 3, 1995.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK