The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, January 23, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: C. W. "Chick" Gregg, Chairman; Thomas J. Windram; Richard Swartz; Michael J. Bakich; and Don Bailey. Others present were: Christopher C. Ford, County Attorney; James C. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Administrator; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
The Chairman, Commr. Gregg, opened the meeting by stating that those present, from the public sector, were welcome to listen to today's discussion, however, was requesting no input from them at this meeting, being that it "as strictly a workshop meeting between the Board and its staff. He then indicated that he would like to review the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Wekiva River Protection Area, paragraph by paragraph, and would request any input from the Board members, or staff, regarding same, at this time.
Mr. Chris Ford, County Attorney, introduced a new member of his staff, Attorney Bill Stearn, and proceeded to briefly discuss a memo (which had been distributed to the Board prior to this meeting) from Mr. Stearn, regarding the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Wekiva River protection area. He stated that the major thing that said memo points out is that the Amendment, as it is written, has a couple of sections that, under the Supreme Court rulings, his office feels is a taking of some pieces of property, and warned the Board to be very careful, regarding this matter, in order to avoid litigation.
Starting with Land Use Element, on Page 7 of the Amendment, the Board proceeded to discuss the Amendment, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:
Land Use Element:
Goal: Commr. Windram questioned this particular section of the
Amendment, where it refers to "The preservation, protection and enhancement of the entire natural ecosystem", etc., stating that it was not very clear to him.
Commr. Gregg clarified that the Act speaks more in terms of protection than preservation.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this section, at which time Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, gave input regarding same, stating that his department would modify the Amendment, concerning the section titled Goal:, directly to what the Act says.
Policy 1: A. B. C. and Policy 2:
Commr. Swartz stated that it is important, as the Board reviews the Amendment, to make sure that the Board, in fact, intends to do what it says, stating that said section says some very strong things that this Board ought to make sure that they want to leave as worded.
Commr. Gregg injected that he does not feel that this Board has any problems with what it says, as long as the Board understands what the difference between urban and rural densities are.
Commr. Bakich referred to Policy 2, stating that, in the Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento areas, he feels the Board should allow natural expansions. From what he understands, they are somewhat limiting the growth in that area.
At this time, Commr. Swartz gave his interpretation of what Policy 2 says, regarding said issue, to which Mr. Findell and the Board agreed.
Mr. Watkins stated that the way he interpreted the Amendment, regarding this issue, was to allow those nodes that presently exist to continue.
Commr. Gregg stated that he feels all the Board needs to do is insert some language that allows for amending of the Plan, as called for in the now existing Comprehensive Land Use Element, which has some language that states how urban areas shall be enlarged.
At this time, Mr. Findell gave input regarding what the wording of Policy 1 and Policy 2 states, concerning this issue. Commr. Swartz stated that he has been asking various staff members to either define or show him where said urban nodes are, and the response that he receives is that said nodes were never adopted, in the old Comprehensive Plan - that they sort of exist on a map, and the concept is there, but an actual definition, in some form, of what the existing nine urban nodes are, does not exist He feels that this is one of the things that needs to be detailed.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the defining of urban nodes, by using a particular road, lake, County line, etc., and problems that this sort of defining of a piece of property can cause.
The County Attorney, Chris Ford, stated that the reason the description of urban nodes is somewhat vague (purposely vague to leave flexibility) is due to the fact that if the majority of the Board felt there was urban development in a particular area, and determined that, in fact there was, leeway was given. He also stated that the matter had never been addressed in court, and did not know what the outcome would be if it were.
Mr. Ford stated that, legally, as long as a good faith effort has been made to define urban boundaries, as best as one can, one can make it through the courts, as the courts cannot tell exactly where the lines are.
Mr. Findell stated that the Plan should be amended twice a year, however, was not done so in the past. He also stated that the Amendment, which is being prepared, is the result of a mandate from the State, which is out of sync with the total Comprehensive Planning process for the County, and noted that staff has a problem with this.
Commr. Swartz stated that, at this point in time, the County may have a road map, so to speak, however, it is not clear. The reason it is not clear is that the County has not tried to use it, to understand it, nor to amend it, as necessary. He stated that on Pages l-10, of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, it very clearly spells out "amending urban boundaries" and gives the definition that Commr. Windram had questioned earlier regarding urban areas, being: "As areas grow, and certain densities within halt sections occur, it becomes . . . W and this is how amendments are derived. This is what the County does not have, and this is why the County is going to continue to have difficulties determining urban and rural. The Act, which is being addressed at present, is starting to be more specific, however, it is being tied to one where the word "flexible" can be used. He stated that the urban areas need to be defined, and defined based on what is currently in the old Plan. He feels that staff needs to start working toward this - working with the Cities, and the County (for the unincorporated areas) to do it. He thinks this is very important if the County is going to pay attention to Policies 1 and 2.
Mr. Findell stated that the Amendment, as it is being proposed today, is in general consistency and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, as it exist. The urban containment policy is a part of that existing Plan. The urban containment policy, as developed for this Comprehensive Plan, may no longer be valid when the total Comprehensive Plan is done for the County. If the County looks at this proposed Amendment, it needs to look at it, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, as it exists now, and amend the Comprehensive Plan, and the Amendment, during the next two year period, when the County actually develops a new Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Gregg stated that he feels that everyone is in agreement that this does coincide with the existing Comprehensive Plan allowing for expansion of urban nodes, and feels that Commr. Swartz's comments about the boundaries for said urban nodes should be detailed, and feels that it can be done during the same period of time. To really handle the Plan, the County definitely needs to have the boundaries established, and not just roughly on a map.
Mr. Findell questioned the Board (for clarification purposes) as to whether they want to define the urban nodes as part of the proposed Amendment being discussed today, or whether they want to define the urban nodes as part of the total Comprehensive Plan process.
Commr. Gregg stated that it should be as part of the total Comprehensive Plan process - not change the language, but just define the boundaries in the Comprehensive Plan that aren't established at this time.
Policy 2: A.
Commr. Gregg commented on Paragraph A., of Policy 2, (in reference to the expansion of existing connectors), stating that he feels language should be inserted to the affect "they should occur within existing right-of-ways, or parallel to existing corridors", to which Commr. Bakich agreed, stating that he felt said language was important.
Mr. Findell requested discussion regarding the matter, indicating that this was one of the things that staff had given additional thought to, stating that he has no problem with language that refers to the major arterial or collector roads, however, there is a potential problem regarding the beltway. If the County were to refine said language, to speak to the major arterial and collector roads, then it does not present a problem. However, if the County keeps the language as it is now written, as it refers to the beltway, then, this would cause an entire rethinkiny of the alignment of the beltway.
Commr. Gregg stated that he felt some language could be inserted, exempting the beltway, due to the fact that it is already in process, and in actuality, the biggest portion of it runs along the old railroad right-of-way, which could be considered an existing connector. He feels this needs to be clarified - to make sure that the County grandfathers this in.
At this time, Mr. Fran Stallings, Planning Department, stated (from the audience) that the Board may be asked, in the near future, to take a position on exactly where the expressway will go, in the sense that there is sort of a consensus that it will probably go along S.R. 46, due to a number of advantages that would result from it. However, the Department of Transportation does not want it along S.R. 46, and is talking about the possibility of coming before the Board and asking the Board to take a stand, one way or another, in hopes that the Board would recommend that it go South of S.R. 46.
Policy 2: B. No comments.
Policy 2: C. No comments.
Policy 4: No comments.
Policy 4: A. No comments.
Policy 4: B. No comments.
Policy 4: C. No comments.
Policy 4: D. Commr. Swartz commented on this section, stating that the Board talks about not allowing greater densities, however, there are some exceptions - one being land currently developed, platted, with lots of record, or where site plan approval has been issued. He feels that the Board ought to discuss the concept of land that is currently zoned, as to whether or not it should be an area where density variance would be allowed. He feels that land that is currently zoned agricultural, in areas where the County wants to provide the greatest protection, should remain agricultural, in other words, should be grandfathered in, as it has existed as such for a long period of time, and feels that the Board needs to consider this.
Commr. Gregg stated that he agrees with Commr. Swartz, in that he also feels that said lands should be grandfathered in, to which several Board members agreed. He then stated that he feels language needs to be inserted that, if the Board allows the grandfathering-in of existing zoning, that it be interpreted as such. That if people owning five acres are allowed to develop one unit on those five acres, even if half of it is wetlands, then the County would be grandfathering-in their existing rights.
Mr. Findell injected, at this time, that this could be so as long as the individual meets criteria for the placement of a well or septic tank.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether the Board would want a time frame on this aspect, as he is concerned about the possible influx of individuals that might come in between now and the time that the County would obtain approval from D.O.C.
Mr. Findell stated that staff's position regarding this issue would be that there should be a time certain for those existing zoned properties to be platted.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of a time frame for grandfathering in the properties in question, at which time Commr. Swartz requested staff to look at the ramifications involved, and come back to the Board with a recommendation.
Commr. Gregg stated that he feels a time limit of two years should be put on grandfathering.
At this time, Chris Ford, County Attorney, commented on line 6, of Policy 4: D, which states "which is currently developed, platted, for which a (stating that which should be deleted), and after the word lot-of-record, that the word which be inserted. He stated that he feels this is what staff was intending to protect.
Commr. Gregg questioned the County Attorney regarding the fact that if the County allows grandfathering in, without a deadline, can the County administratively rezone a year or two, or more, from now, to which the County Attorney replied that the County could.
The County Attorney stated that the Board might want to insert, on line 1, of Policy 4: D, after the statement "Land within the Wekiva River Protection Area", wording to the affect of "except for PUDs", in order to protect the PUDs in that area.
Commr. Gregg stated that he would prefer to insert language along the lines of "This is the allowable use - any variation from this will require a PUD."
Policy 4: D. 1. 2. and 3. A brief discussion occurred regarding the "zone concept", for the Wekiva River Protection Area, at which time it was noted that several of the Commissioners opposed it, due to the fact that the boundaries are not defined scientifically, therefore, felt that the County would have a real problem, in case of litigation, defending said zones.
Commr. Swartz suggested possibly holding the zoning, as it currently exists, until the amendments can take place.
Commr. Bakich stated that he feels the County should leave the existing zoning that is in the area (one unit per five acres), and if, at a later date, a developer wishes to come in, the Board can address that issue as it comes up.
The issue of clustering was brought up for discussion, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he had researched clustering, and felt that it was a good idea. The problem is, to what extent does the Board feel the need to provide an incentive for people to go to PUDs. He stated that, in the past, clustering was used from a standpoint of economics, however, clustering is now used, due to the fact that it is more environmentally sound. He also stated that, in reverse, he is being told that it cannot be done this way unless one is given higher densities. He does not want to see clustering as a method by which the County loads up the land that can be built on, at the expense of the land that the County is saying cannot be built on.
Commr. Bakich stated that he would much rather have a clustering PUD type setting, as opposed to having five acre tracts, over the same acreage of land. Environmentally, this is more detrimental than a clustering type effect.
Discussion continued regarding the matter of clustering, versus the present zoning of one (1) unit per five (5) acres, for the Wekiva River Protection Area.
Commr. Gregg questioned the Board regarding Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, of Policy 4: D. He questioned the Board as to whether they were all in agreement to change the definition of "net density", to include everything indicated in the proposed Amendment, with exception of utility easements, as stated in the last six lines, on Page 12, of the Amendment.
Commr. Windram questioned whether this would create problems between utility easements and blanket easements, to which it was noted that if it was taken out, it would.
Commr. Gregg stated that, also, under forested uplands, the intent was that the forested uplands would fall within the St. Johns River buffer area, which is 550 feet from the high water mark.
Upon being questioned as to how staff would word the issue of the buffer area, Mr. Findell stated that it would be worded "within the setbacks of the St. Johns River Water Management District".
Commr. Gregg brought up for consideration the matter of doing away with the three areas - Areas 1, 2 and 3, on the Wekiva River Protection Area Residential Density Map. He stated that the County has a problem in defining density levels, without having three areas. He suggested that the County derive something that states if the individual does not want to fall under their present zoning, any variations from their present zoning would require (1) a PUD; (2) that the County increase setbacks along the Wekiva River (strictly the Wekiva) beyond that of the St. Johns River, to 1,000 feet, or 500-1,000 feet from any wetlands (whichever is greater) - that any other open bodies of water, within the protection area, such as Blackwater Creek, Lake Norris, etc., be required to have a 500 foot setback, and set it in terms of average annual water level, so that there will be no problem in defining what said level is. He stated that this could be started as a minimum requirement.
Commr. Bakich questioned (for clarification) whether the County was stating, in the example of a PUD, that one would have to give the County a minimum of a 1,000 foot buffer, however, the County could ask for more if it was felt that it was needed.
Commr. Gregg stated that this would set some criteria, so that it isn't totally upon the direction of Planning and Zoning and the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Findell, upon being questioned by Commr. Gregg as to whether he would recommend this being set aside as a conservation easement, stated that staff would recommend it as such.
A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding rural density and buffer zones, at which time Commr. Bakich stated that he feels the County needs to follow the Comprehensive Plan, as, to do otherwise, the County would be opening themselves up to problems in the future.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter of certain lands being grandfathered in, at which time Mr. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator, suggested that only those lands that are presently in the process be grandfathered in.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County needs to identify the areas that need the most protection and, in those areas, not allow density as high as one unit per acre.
Commr. Windram injected that everyone is interested in protecting the Wekiva River, however, felt that zoning should not be intended to be used as a weapon. It can be used, however, as a tool in possibly acquiring, throuyh some sort of trade-off, land that will he preserved and kept in its natural state, and still not jeopardize the Wekiva River.
Commr. Swartz stated that, at this point, he feels the Board would he making a mistake to totally give up the "zone" concept. He stated that he is in favor of redefining said zones, allowing variances for said zones, and allowing due information that is coming, everyday, out of St. Johns and the Central Florida Regional Planning Council, to help the County identify where said zones should he and to allow variances if the line doesn't run exactly where it should.
Commr. Gregg stated that this Plan is an interim plan, between now and the Comprehensive Plan, and feels that the County can further define said zones in the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that he feels this is a step that the County needs to take now. At this time, Mr. Watkins recapped (for clarification) the following changes to be made in the Amendment:
Commr. Gregg stated that he would like to keep the language that is in the Act now, concerning the data that the developer must provide.
Mr. Watkins then questioned the time certain provision, with respect to grandfathering, stating that staff needs to recommend a time.
Commr. Bakich recommended April 1, 1989, as the deadline date for grandfathering in present zonings in the Wekiva River area.
Mr. Watkins questioned as to when the final hearing would be for any requests that are presently in the process, to which he was informed that the cut-off date, for the February P & Z Meeting, would be January 20, 1989.
Policy 4: E. The County Attorney, Chris Ford, stated that he and his staff were concerned that the wording of this paragraph comes awfully close to the "taking" of said lands.
Discussion occurred regarding a buffer zone, at which time Commr. Gregg stated that there is merit for some reasonable buffer (possibly 1,000 feet), in relation to publicly owned lands. He stated that there ought to be a minimum buffer, rather than just the terminology "adequate buffer".
Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, stated that he did not feel that the Board needed to specify setbacks - that the Board should determine what is adequate (with input from State agencies). It is a density question as opposed to a buffer question.
Commr. Bakich stated that he would feel more comfortable if the County was providing a buffer along said area.
Discussion continued regarding the matter of a buffer, at which time the amount of footage required, for same, was debated.
It was decided that the minimum amount of footage for the buffer would be 1,000 feet.
Policy 4: F. Commr. Swartz questioned what the intent was, where it states "Parcels of land adjacent to the surface waters.... shall not be subdivided..."
Mr. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator, stated that one could subdivide in such a manner that the setback requirements could not be met, therefore, one could have lots that would either have to have variances, to get a building permit, or a building permit would not be issued.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Policy 5: A. Commr . Swartz stated that he feels where it states "Industrial uses shall not be permitted in waterfront areas...", that it should read "industrial" and "commercial", and should be clarified, to make sure that it includes all those tributaries that are included as part of the Act.
Commr. Windram questioned as to whether or not these regulations would apply if the State purchased some of said area and developed a recreational area.
Commr. Swartz stated that if the State buys it, the County may not have any control over it.
The matter was briefly discussed, at which time Commr. Windram stated that he had a problem with the two sets of rules, inasmuch as restricting the property owners from any commercial type uses, yet the State can use it for such.
Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Gregg stated that he would like to see the Board not allow any commercial or industrial uses, with exception of recreational type uses.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board ought to look at this issue, but would like the Board to be clear as to what it is allowing in the area. He suggested that staff look at the concept of recreational use, active and passive, and see how it would fit in, as a subsection to the Amendment.
Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, stated that if the Board was going to prohibit commercial uses, period, then he felt that the Board did not need to come back and discuss recreational uses, as a function of commercial uses, or commercial uses as a function of recreational uses.
Commr. Swartz stated that he agreed, however, felt that somewhere the Board ought to address the concept of recreational uses in the area and what the Board really wants to see. He stated that the Board may want to tell the Department of Natural Resources that they do not want them to do certain type activities in the area.
Policy 5: B. Commrs. Swartz and Windram feel that this portion of the Amendment is vague and that it, possibly, needs to be defined more clearly.
Policy 5: C. Commr. Windram questioned as to whether this portion of the Amendment, where it addresses waterfront development, was addressing the grandfathered-in pieces of property.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this portion of the Amendment, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that if waterfront properties are currently zoned agricultural, the only thing that one can do is build one unit per five acres. If one wanted to put a waterfront development on said property and did not want to go through the PUD process, then that is where this portion of the Amendment would kick in. However, if the property were grandfathered-in, one would still have to assess the impact on the waterfront, even though one would not be going through the PUD process.
Policy 5: D. No comments.
Policy 5: E. and F. Discussion occurred regarding this portion of the Amendment, at which time Commr. Gregg stated that (regarding Paragraphs E and F) where the setbacks fall under the rule of St. Johns, they have to be a minimum of 550 feet, and if they do not fall under said rule, then a mimimum of 100 feet, or whatever footage the Board sets this date, would be required.
Further discussion occurred, at which time, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt some language should be inserted for those individuals who do not have adequate footage on their lots to meet the setback requirements.
It was noted that the wording, regarding this portion of the Amendment, would be changed to read "...shall maintain a setback of at least two hundred (200) feet, or fifty (50) feet from wetlands (whichever is greater), from the ordinary high water mark of water bodies", if one goes with the existing zoning.
Policy 6: Commr. Windram questioned the portion of this paragraph where it states "... harmoniously related to surrounding land use, traffic flow and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan..."
Mr. Findell clarified the question for those present.
Policy 6: H. Commr. Gregg questioned whether a further description was needed, in this paragraph, in order that one would know what it was actually talking about.
Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, stated that the statement could be expounded on, and clarified it for those present.
Commr. Gregg questioned whether, somewhere between Paragraph H and I, some language could be inserted (being that the intent is for C-l zoning, neighborhood commercial zoning) that usage shall be limited to CP with C-l uses - that this would better define the usage.
Discussion occurred regarding what type of development the Board would want in the area of the expressway interchanges, at which time Mr. Findell stated that the Board would need to determine whether or not they want commercial in the area of the interchanges.
Discussion occurred as to whether Paragraph H would need to be in the Amendment at all. It was noted that Paragraph H would take care of itself, whether Paragraph I was in the Amendment or not.
However, Commr. Swartz stated that perhaps the Board would want to insert (assuming that Paragraph I stays in the Amendment) language to the affect that the Board will only allow CP zoning, with C-l uses.
Commr. Gregg stated that he would like to see the Board spell out that the intent is not to allow a large strip shopping center to go in a PUD, or along the highway.
Mr. Findell questioned whether one acre to 500 units would be acceptable to the Board, to which they replied that it would.
After further discussion, Mr. Findell stated that there was some concern on the part of D.C.A, at the present time, as to whether commercial development should be allowed, at all, within the protection area, not only in this County, but also in Seminole County.
At this time, Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the Board address the areas of Cassia and Pine Lakes (which is almost an urban node) and plan and provide for a reasonable provision of commercial in said area, however, in the areas where that is not the case, he feels that the Board is making a mistake to plan for commercial, due to the fact that it will attract the trips that the Board seems to want to avoid making.
Commr. Gregg stated that he agreed with Commr. Swartz, that the Board needs to allow for expansion in the Cassia/Pine Lakes area.
Mr. Watkins requested clarification of what the Board wants, concerning the portion of the Amendment that was just discussed.
Commr. Gregg stated that he would like it keyed to the number of units in a PUD, such as one acre for 500 units.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether the Board would want to go with the aggregate, to which Commr. Gregg stated that they would.
Mr. Findell referred to the last sentence of Paragraph I, where it states "Limited commercial development may also be considered in the vicinity of the proposed interchange of the proposed northwest beltway", stating that by putting said language in the Amendment, the County is not saying that they are going to allow, or accomodate, commercial development. He stated that what they are saying is that it may be allowed. He stated that, perhaps, some qualifying language could be inserted, to the affect, "that limited commercial development may also be considered in the vicinity of the proposed interchange, or the proposed northwest beltway, after completion of the beltway". This way the County will know, after the development of a Small Area Study (to determine appropriate uses in the area)exactly where the beltway is going to be and where the interchange is going to be.
Policy 8: No comments.
Policy 8: A. Commr. Swartz questioned the last five (5) lines of Paragraph A, where it states "Recreation and water storage are beneficial uses of flood prone areas". He stated that this is one area that he would like staff to help the Board with. He also referred to the last sentence where it states "...urban and residential uses can be compatible in some 100 year flood prone areas", stating that he feels this is not compatible with most of what the Board seems to be doing.
Mr. Watkins stated, that, if the County does this, they need to do it countywide, due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan (which is, in fact, being amended) affects not only this area of the County but the entire County.
Mr. Findell stated that staff would recommend not to allow recreation in flood prone areas. He a1so stated that he predicts, in the near future, that the Water Management District will ask the Board to prohibit development in the flood plain.
Discussion occurred regarding this issue.
Commr. Swartz requested that the last sentence of Paragraph A, as alluded to earlier, be deleted, and requested staff to address the issue, from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, and come back with recommendations on how to deal with it in the County's development regulations.
Policy 8: B. No comments.
Policy 8: C. No comments.
Policy 8: D. Commr. Bakich stated that the County has a functional wetland, as opposed to a non-functional wetland, and feels that the Board needs to consider this. If one has a watering hole, for cattle, he feels that the Board should not take it away from the individual, as a wetland.
Commr. Gregg stated that he agreed with Commr. Bakich and feels that the Board should allow some mitigation, such as the watering hole alluded to by Commr. Bakich, which one sees a lot of on the Wekiva Falls site.
Mr. Findell reminded the Board that one of the things that he did, in his orientation presentation to the Commission a couple of months ago, was to mention the fact that the County needed to update the Wetlands Ordinance and to prepare a Comprehensive Wetlands Management Ordinance. This is one of the things that staff will either begin this budget year or next budget year.
Policy 8: E. No comments.
Policy 8: F. Commr. Bakich questioned whether the Board wanted to delete Paragraph F from the Amendment, to which it was felt that it should stay in.
Policy 8: G. commr. Gregg informed those present that the Board was not seeking public (verbal) input from them at this meeting, due to the fact that said meeting was a workshop meeting, however, would accept any written input that they would wish to submit to the Board Office.
Mr. Fran Stallings, Planning Department, stated (from the audience), that native vegetation (mentioned in the Amendment) was very troublesome, due to the fact that in a very strict sense, this means vegetation that has not been altered by man. He stated that the Board needs to either define the extent to which the vegetation has been altered, or just throw it aside and go with a list of vegetation, or a list of vegetative communities.
Discussion occurred regarding agricultural activities in the Wekiva River Protection Area, at which time Commr. Gregg stated that he did not think that it was the intention of any of the Board members to prohibit legitimate agricultural activities in the area. The problem which all the members have is that they do not want to see an agricultural exemption that would allow that intent to be circumvented, so that a developer can go in, under the guise of agricultural uses, and clear cut a parcel. He stated that some language has been suggested, concerning this issue, in accordance with best management practices.
At this time, Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, gave input regarding "best management practices".
Commr. Gregg stated that he would like to see some language inserted that does say "agricultural and silvicultural interests" are exempt, if they follow best management practices, and, possibly, some language that says that the "intent" is to circumvent the other parts to the Amendment.
Mr. Watkins suggested possibly adding an additional "policy" that pertains to agriculture, and in said policy, define ligitimate agricultural use of the land.
Policy 10: No comments.
Policy 10: A. No comments.
Policy 10: B. No comments.
Policy 10: C. No comments.
Policy 10: D. No comments.
Policy 10: E. No comments.
Goal: Commr. Gregg stated that he feels agriculture again comes into affect, and the comments made earlier would pertain to this section as well.
Mr. Watkins questioned as to whether there was an existing agricultural element to the County's Comprehensive Plan, to which Mr. Stallings stated that it is treated, generally, under the Land Use Element - that it is not treated separately.
Objective 2: Commr. Gregg stated that his only comments, regarding this paragraph, would be to allow the same exemptions that would be allowed for agricultural and subcultural, as well as something regarding mitigation of wetlands.
Policy 1: No comments.
Policy 2: Commr. Bakich stated that the Board might want to, again, consider a mitigation process regarding this policy.
Policy 3: No comments.
Policy 4: No comments.
Policy 5: No comments.
Policy 10: No comments.
Policy 11: No comments.
Policy 12: No comments.
Objective 3: No comments.
Policy 1: Commr. Bakich stated that the Board might want to consider mitigation for this policy, also.
Mr. Watkins questioned whether, when the Board gets to the existing Comprehensive Plan, with exception of agriculture (because of the time frame), the Board is going to, basically, leave the language as is, or whether the Board will want the language to change the overall Plan, due to the fact that the mitigation does not just involve the Wekiva area, if the language is changed, it affects the entire County. He stated that he feels the Board should take their time in amending the overall Plan, to be sure that it does exactly what the Board wants.
Commr. Bakich questioned the County Attorney, Chris Ford, as to whether the Board could do the amendment and not do the Comprehensive Plan, to which the County Attorney replied that the Board could do it, however, would have to do an awful lot of extra advertising.
Mr. Watkins stated that the Board is amending the Comprehensive Plan for this area, however, if the Board does this policy and does not make it specifically for the Wekiva River Protection Area, the Board is going to start amending the entire Plan, as to how it applies to the entire County. The County is then going to have a whole set of advertising problems, etc., that the Board may not wish to get involved with.
Commr. Gregg stated that he would rather the Board stick just to the Wekiva River Protection Area and not get involved with the entire County, at this time.
Policy 2: No comments.
Policy 3: No comments.
Policy 4: No comments.
Policy 5: No comments.
Policy 6: No comments.
Policy 7 and 8: Commr. Gregg stated that mitigation would well, as far as agricultural and pertain to these policies, as subcultural is concerned.
The County Attorney, Chris Ford, stated that his staff had some concern regarding Policy 7, regarding the cutting of timber - as to whether this applies to commercial timber or cypress timber.
Mr. Stallings, Planning Department, stated that it, basically, applies to cypress timber, because cypress would be the only commercial available timber in the area.
It was noted that the word "cypress" would be inserted in the language of Policy 7, before the word "timber", in the last sentence.
Mr. Findell stated that he felt the Board was talking about the allowance of mitigation, as well, in Policy 7, and questioned whether the Board would want to include mitigation in this policy, to which Commr. Gregg replied that they would.
Objective 4: No comments.
Policy l: No comments.
Policy 2: No comments.
Policy 3: No comments.
Policy 4: No comments.
Policy 5: No comments.
Policy 6: No comments.
Policy 7: Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, stated that there was a suggestion made, that the Board delete the words "Audubon Society and Florida Defender of the Environment", and replace them with the words "Administrative Code", in the language of Policy 7, to which the Board agreed.
Commr. Swartz briefly discussed Policy 7 and requested that the words "specie's migrating through the area" be inserted in the language of Policy 7, following the words "The protection of such habitat shall ensure sufficient habitat exists for...".
Policy 8: No comments.
Policy 9: Commr. Gregg stated that, once again, some language to exempt agricultural is appropriate.
Commr. Bakich questioned as to whether the Board was satisfied with the definition of "native vegetation", to which Mr. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator, stated that he feels the Board needs to define it.
Mr. Stallings, Planning Department, stated that the Board needs to use wording other than "native vegetation".
A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue, at which time Mr. Szunyog, Director of Planning, and Mr. Stallings gave input as to how to get around the problem of using "native vegetation" in the language.
Mr. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator, stated that the Board needs to define whether or not the portion of Policy 9, where it states "... approved by Lake County", is referring to the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, stated that, in this particular instance, "Lake County" was referring to Lake County's Development Review Committee.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time several members of the Board stated that they felt the Board, rather than the Development Review Committee, ought to approve the vegetation survey and protection plan.
Mr. Watkins then suggested that staff study this matter and come back with a recommendation at a later date.
Policy 10: No comments.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
Objective 5: No comments.
Policy 1: Commr. Windram questioned who would establish the -...private, non-profit organization to act as a holding company for lands..." referred to in the language of Policy 1.
Mr. Watkins stated that it would be a private organization, however, the Board would encourage it and do what they could to help it. The key is the Board's willingness to support these types of things. The definition of "support" is actually done by the Board and can be anything from contributing funds to whatever they choose to do.
Policy 2: No comments.
Policy 3: No comments.
Policy 4: No comments.
Policy 8: No comments.
Policy 9: No comments.
Objective 6 and Policies 1 and 3: Commr. Swartz stated that, in his opinion, this portion of the Amendment does not really address mining. He stated that he does not know if there is anything in the Amendment that talks about the potential of mining in the Wekiva River Protection Area, and feels that this is something that the Board needs to address. He stated that he realizes staff is still working on the Mining Ordinance, and that mining is not exactly an agricultural issue that the Board has talked about, however, feels that it is an important factor and questioned if there were any suggestions on how to deal with the issue.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Windram questioned what would be done with the two to three mines that presently exist. It was noted that said mines would be grandfathered-in.
The issue of "borrow pits" was touched on at this time.
Commr. Gregg stated that being there is not a Mining Ordinance, at present, he does not know how mining would be defined.
Mr. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator, stated that, at present, the way that the Board would control mining would be through the CUP process, and feels that if the Board does not intend for mining to be an activity in the Wekiva River Protection Area, then language to that affect helps to define what the Board's intent is.
Additional discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Gregg requested staff to provide some language as to the definition of a "borrow pit" and come back to the Board at a later date.
Potable Water Element:
Goal: No comments.
Objective 1: No comments.
Policy 2: No comments.
Policy 3: Commr. Gregg stated that, under the Federal water element of Policy 3, that the Board ought to have some language about the economic feasibility of it. If it is a small development, then it would not be feasible to require a central water system. In most of the larger ones, it is, and is required under the PUD anyway.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether the Board would want to encourage a regional treatment plant, under Policy 3. He feels that this is something that the Board needs to explore, to which several members of the Board agreed.
Mr. Watkins questioned, for clarification, that the Board was saying "encourage", for regional, and "require", for a PUD, and where economically feasible, to which it was noted that they were.
Commr. Gregg stated that there are going to be some developers that are going to want to develop under an existing zoning, where it possibly could be economically feasible, however, the Board wants to see a water system or a sewer system, and this is what the language needs to say.
Sanitary Sewer Element:
Goal: No comments.
Objective 1: No comments.
Policy 4: No comments.
Policy 5: No comments.
At this time, Mr. Watkins requested permission to recap, without a great deal of detail, what was discussed and acted upon, at today's meeting.
Before recapping, Commr. Bakich urged the County Attorney, Chris Ford, and his staff, to clarify what was presented to the Board by his office, and come up with a greater definition, where applicable, for what the Board presently has.
Mr. Ford stated that he and his staff would be glad to do this, however, felt that a lot of said definitions should be given by the County's planners. He stated that his staff could check the legality of the definitions, but deliberately did not try to give definitions, in case the Board wanted staff to do it.
Commr. Gregg stated that he feels the Board would like to see Mr. Ford's input, with staff, before the draft discussed today comes back to the Board, so that his comments would not have to be incorporated at that time, but could be incorporated in the draft.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Amendment needed to go back to Planning and Zoning before coming back to the Board for approval.
Mr. Ford stated that he feels the Amendment does need to go back to Planning and Zoning, as the special act that created the Comprehensive Plan states "If the Board of County Commissioners desires an amendment or addition to the Comprehensive Plan, it may, on its own motion, direct the Planning and Zoning Commission to prepare such an amendment, and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall do so within a reasonable time, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners". He stated that what the Board will do is send the Planning and Zoning Commission said Plan, for their comments to come back to the Board, and the Board will then have their public hearings.
At this time, Mr. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator, stated that the Board has done so. The Board sent the Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission and asked the Commission to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the document and made recommendations to the Board to keep the existing Plan. The Board is now reviewing that recommendation and has come to the conclusion that they do not wish to keep the existing Plan, and would like to have language that they are prepared to adopt. He stated that he feels that the first two stages have been done.
Mr. Ford stated that it would be safer, legally, if the Amendment went back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then came back to the Board. This is one reason why Commr. Gregg is requesting a special meeting.
Upon being questioned as to whether the Board will have a chance to again review the Amendment, before submitting it to Planning and Zoning, Commr. Gregg stated that it would be up to the Board. He stated that a time has been set aside for February 3rd, for another workshop, and if it is felt by the members of the Board that the document needs to be officially reviewed by staff, then the time is set up to do so. Being that the Board has made extensive enough changes, and has asked for staff's comments, he believes that the workshop is necessary on February 3, 1989. (Said meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m., in the Board Meeting Room.) At this time, Mr. Watkins recapped changes to be made to the Amendment, as defined by the Board this date.
When recapping what was done on Page 22, Policy 8, concerning wetlands, Commr. Swartz requested that staff obtain a copy of the St. Johns River Water Management District's rules, as they presently have them, that detail how they deal with this issue.
When recapping what was done on Pages 24 and 25, Commr. Swartz requested copies of the reports, by the Resource Advisory Committee, concerning the preservation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas identified by said committee, being: the Resource Survival Committee Report: Phase I and the Resource Advisory Committee Report: Phase II.
Mr. Watkins thanked the staff present today for a job well done. He stated that due to the time frame, the presentation was a very difficult one to perform, and he especially thanked Mr. Szunyog for his presentation at the Ag Center, on January 17, 1989.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
C. W. "CHICK" GREGG, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK