FEBRUARY 3, 1989

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Friday, February 3, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meetinq Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: C. W. "Chick" Gregg, Chairman; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; Thomas J. Windram; and Michael J. Bakich. Others present were: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Christopher C. Ford, County Attorney; Bill Stearn, County Attorney's Office: Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Administrator; Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning; Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services; and Toni M. Austin, Deputy Clerk.


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 that no input from them be presented at this meeting, being that it was 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, with the proposed amendments made by the Board members on January 23, 1989.

Commr. Gregg asked for comments on Pages l-5.

Commr. Windram had a question on Page 2, regarding the Introduction, where it states "Prohibition of development that is not low-density residential in nature, unless that development has less impact on natural resources than low-density residential development".

Mr. Chris Ford, County Attorney, stated that the wording is almost verbatim to the language in the Protection Act.

Commr. Swartz requested clarification of "net" and "gross" in relation to density in the Land Use Element, as indicated on Page 4. In clarifying "gross", it was noted that "urban" has been defined in the Comprehensive Plan as one unit per "gross" acre, with "rural" being anything less.

There were no comments in relation to Pages 6 and 7.

Commr. Gregg discussed Policy 2: A., Page 8, major arterial roads which serve as inter-urban connectors, with Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, clarifying the insertion of the wording "However, such improvements of construction shall follow the path of existing rights-of-way to the greatest practical extent".

Commr. Bakich stated that, should the beltway become reality, the County should consider keeping it along the existing corridors, as much as possible, because of less damage to the area.

There were no comments in relation to Page 9.

Commr. Gregg questioned the language used in Policy 4: E. Page 10 relating to "Development proposed under the Planned Unit Development district must provide central water and sewer facilities". He questioned whether or not wording should be included where there would be low density falling under a PUD, and some moans of not requiring sewer and water facilities, unless proven to be unfeasible economically or environmentally.

Discussion occurred regarding the intention of the Board in Policy 4: G. 369.305(1)(b)4, in relation to minimum setback requirements, which shall apply to all development activity proposed within the Wekiva River Protection Area. At this time, Mr. Findell and Mr. Szunyog presented to the Board alternate language for Land Use Element Policies 4: G and 4: H.

Commr. Bailey requested that the Board make the setback 550 feet for the tributaries and the Wekiva, to make it consistent with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) policy. It was noted that the Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) had informed the Board that the 550 foot setback was a more commonly accepted figure.

Commr. Bakich stated that he would also like to see the Board encourage a greater buffering, whenever possible.

Commr. Gregg recommended that the Board adopt the language that states the setbacks will be in accordance with the policy of the St. Johns River Water Management District, in Policy 4: G.

Discussion occurred regarding the definition of the "ordinary high water mark", with Mr. Findell stating that the definition is in relation to rivers and tributaries. Mr. Findell stated that the staff recommends that the "ordinary high water mark" be consistent with the definition established by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Department of Natural Resources.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 12, Policy 4: II, pertaining to the one thousand (1000) foot setback, with the Board indicating a consensus to delete the one thousand (1000) foot setback, and placing language relating to the development adjacent to waterbodies.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 13, Policy 5: A, regarding the change of "waterfront areas" to "waterbodies", and for a definite definition to be established. Discussion also occurred regarding Policy 5: C, and the need for the development of criteria for the environmental surveys. Mr. Findell stated that the easiest process, in relation to the methodology to assess, would be to key it in with the subdivision regulations. Commr. Windram and Commr. Swartz suggested tying this in with the St. Johns River Water Management District rules.

Mr. Ford, County Attorney, suggested that the Board set their own criteria, due to the fact that, should St. Johns River Water Management District make changes within the next three months, the County would have to adopt the same changes. Therefore, the County would have a more defensible document by adopting its own criteria.

It was the consensus of the Board to set the criteria the same as the County subdivision regulations, in relation to the methodology to assess.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 14, with Commr. Bakich referring to Policy 6: I. and stating that he felt the Board should strictly go with CP zoning with C-l or C-2 uses, rather than CP zoning classification with only C-l classification uses. It was the consensus of the Board to eliminate C-l uses and insert CP uses.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 15, Policy 6, J., with Mr. Ford suggesting the following language: "Commercial facilities may be permitted, operated or leased by local . ...". with Ms. Jennifer D. McMurtray, Reserves Biologist with the Department of Natural Resources, present to make comments on this issue. The Board was in agreement to the addition of the word "permitted".

The Board continued by discussing Page 16, with Commr. Bakich referring to Policy 8: D., and suggesting that the Board strike "Division of Environmental Services" here and throughout the Amendment, in order to read approved by Lake County", with the Board and staff in agreement.

Commr. Gregg referred to Page 17, Policy 8: G., requesting that "Policy 12" be included with Policy 11, under the Land Use Element, with the Board and staff in agreement.

Discussion occurred regarding functional and nonfunctional wetlands, and Page 19, Policy 11: 2., with Mr. Fran Stallings, Planning Department, addressing the Board on the definition of the agricultural plan. The Board's concern addressed the issue of whether or not the proposed use of the land would be suitable or economically feasible, and, if it was determined not to be, then it would not be allowed.

Mr. Findell informed the Board that staff has met with the agricultural entities, in order to develop language that would be acceptable by these entities and the County. He stated that it was written to allow agricultural uses to take place, and at the same time, to protect the native vegetation and habitat in the area.

Mr. Ford suggested changing the approval to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, or the Soil Conservation Services, which are services extensively used by farmers.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 18, Policy 11: B., with changes being made to the following: "...conditions are met as approved by the Board of County Commissioners", with Mr. Ford clarifying that Lake County is being defined as the Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Richard Roof, Director of Pollution Control, appeared before the Board to discuss the preservation of wetlands, and stated that the wetlands are not protected at all in relation to agricultural development. Mr. Roof presented to the Board aerials of the northshore of Lake Apopka, stating that 21,000 acres have been given up in this area to agricultural development. He also discussed the thousands of wetlands in the Lake Griffin-Haines Creek area that has now been converted into farms. Mr. Roof suggested that the County take a closer look at management practices.

Commr. Gregg referred to Policy 12: B., and stated that he felt this language addressed the notice of intent for the harvesting activity to be approved by the Lake County Division of Environmental Services.

Mr. Findell spoke on Section 70.37 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to wetlands, which states that wetlands shall not be drained by any practice that would destroy the natural vegetation or impair the natural function of water storage performed by the wetlands.

Commr. Gregg suggested that the issue of agricultural development in the wetlands be addressed in the Wetland Ordinance, rather than in this Amendment.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would still like to address agricultural development in the wetlands, in the Amendment, and to instruct the staff to go back and look at the Wetlands Ordinance, along with other development ordinances, and bring back to the Board information to be considered.

Commr. Gregg referred to Policy 11: 3., "Approval has been received by any regulatory agencies having jurisdiction", and suggested that the language be clarified in our wetlands ordinance, to state that agriculture is not exempt.

It was noted that it was the consensus of the Board not to want agricultural interest to go in and destroy the wetlands.

On Pages 20-21, direction was given to delete "Division of Environmental Services".

Commr. Windram questioned "no discharge" on Page 22, Policy 10, with Mr. Findell presenting a clarification of the question.

There were no comments regarding Page 23 and 24.

Commr. Gregg requested the insertion of "Policy 12" in Page 25, Policy 9:369.305(1)(a)5, along with Policy 11, and the deletion of "Division of Environmental Services".

Commr. Bakich questioned Page 25, Objective 5: "Resource Survival Committee Report: Phase I and Resource Advisory Committee Report: Phase II, with Mr. Szunyog clarifying the question.

Commr. Swartz directed the Board and staff's attention to the top of Page 25, Policy 7: "migration" and requested that "travel" be inserted.

Commr. Windram questioned Page 26, Policy 3: "preservation zone", and Commr. Swartz questioned Page 27, "borrow pits", and direction was given to delete "Division of Planning and Development".

There were no comments made regarding Pages 28-30.

Commr. Bakich referred back to Page 9, D. 369.305 (l)(b)3, 7, "or if a development or site plan approval has been issued as of April 1, 1989". He stated that it was his intent to grandfather any people or developments that are currently in the review process, and questioned whether or not the language submitted has addressed this issue.

Mr. Findell discussed the April 1, 1989, date, and stated that he would like something that backs this date to a time certain, in order to take care of the site plans, which have already been submitted.

Commr. Gregg suggested inserting "...as of April 1, 1989, or site plans in progress, or which have been submitted on or before submitted (date)", with the staff to determine the date.

At this time Commr. Gregg recapped the changes made within the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Wekiva River Protection Area.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.