DECEMBER 5, 1989

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 5, 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: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, County Manager's Assistant; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Linda Springston, Deputy Clerk.

James C. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Bailey.


Commr. Gregg noted that, regarding the Regular Minutes of November 14, 1989, on Page 4, approximately lines 29 and 30, he would like the meaning of "privatization" explained. On Page 8, lines 18 and 19, he would like the record to reflect that he excused himself from the Chairmanship, with Commr. Bakich assuming that duty r when the discussion regarding the Guy Garnett Publishing Company occurred. On Page 9, line 14, he would also like the record to reflect that he returned to assume the Chairmanship when the above mentioned discussion ended. Lastly, on Page 16, line 8, the Minutes should reflect that the word "millage" should be "ad valorem".

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Regular Minutes of November 14, 1989, as amended.


On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes of November 14, 1989, as presented.


Commr. Gregg stated that the award for the Employee of the Month Plaque and Savings Bond is being presented to Mr. James Hardin, Mosquito Control Inspector, Environmental Services Department. Mr. Hardin was unable to attend the presentation, but his wife was available to accept the award in his honor.

Hardin, Mosquito Control Inspector, Environmental Services Department. Mr. Hardin was unable to attend the presentation, but his wife was available to accept the award in his honor.

Commr. Bakich commented that the Personnel Committee will be selecting an Employee of the Year later this month.


On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:

Accounts Allowed

Payment of Warrant No. 114158 through Warrant No. 114531, for the following accounts:

County Transportation Trust Landfills

Mt. Plymouth Fire District General Revenue

Section 8 Countywide Library

Land Bassville Fire District

Pasco Fire District Fine & Forfeiture

Countywide Fire District Private Industry Council

Capital Outlay Sales Tax

Road Impact Northwest Fire District

Aquatic Weed Mosquito Control

Northeast Hospital Northeast Ambulance

Special Assessments South Lake Fire District

Bonds - Contractor

Request for the approval of the following Contractor Bonds:


0173-90 Kyle L. Craig (Plumbing)

1455-90 Gary L. Tinney dba Sunstate Plumbing, Inc. (Plumbing)

1731-90 Martin G. Boyd (Building Contractor)

1770-90 Nelson W. Locke (Building)

1968-90 William L. Wohlers (Residential)

4459-90 Horace Faulkner (Aluminum Specialty)

4569-90 Jack W. Rainford & Sons, Inc. dba A-l Plumbing &

Air Conditioning

4635-90 Robert Alfred Hollins (Class C Air Conditioning)

4695-90 Fuller Electric, Inc./James P. Cole (Electrical &


4726-90 Scott A. Strong dba electric Services, Inc.

(Electrical Contractor)

4736-90 Darrell Chandler

4744-90 J R & K Electric, Inc. (Electrical)

4781-90 Lakeland Construction & Engineering, Inc.


4782-90 Norman Weinberg dba Pool & Room Builders, Inc.

(Swimming Pool)

4783-90 LaVern J. Nielson (Building)

4784-90 Van C. Broglin (Mobile Home Set Up)

4785-90 Blackshears II Aluminum, Inc. (Aluminum)

4786-90 August L. Hildebrandt dba Central Florida Building

Trades (Plumbing Contractor)

4787-90 Jeffrey Ronald Lilly dba Allied Roofing, Inc.



0907-90 Wise Builders dba Russel B. Wise

1025-89 Seaburn Seagraves dba Brownie Septic Tank

1703-89 Linda E. Yeater dba Linda Built Homes, Inc.

1731-89 Southwind Investment, Inc. dba Company B/Martin

G. Boyd

1980-89 Harrison H. Moody dba Harry Moody Outdoor

Advertising, Inc.

4199-89 Eulee D. Shaw

4307-89 Charles B. Stokes

4577-89 Rathels Roofing, Inc.

4733-89 Michael Haydn Arnett

Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges

Request for signature authorization on the Satisfaction of Judgment, Case No. 88-1417-CFA, for Karl R. Beyer, in the amount of $250.00.


Request to acknowledge receipt of a Certificate of Appreciation by the Eustis City Commission, in recognition of the commitment and dedication demonstrated by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, dated November 6, 1989.


Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution No. 89-5, of the City of Center Hill, Florida, expressing opposition to the location of the landfill in West Lake County, Florida, dated November 7, 1989.


On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Request to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in the amount of $1,500,000.00, for performance, of Harbor Hills, Unit 1.

Deeds/Roads-County & State

Request to accept the following Murphy Act State Road Reservations:

#2345 Reserve 25 ft. from centerline on Helen Hutt &

Thrill Hill Rd., #4-5880 and reserve Margaret B. Hutt

50 ft. from centerline on C-44A,

East of Eustis

#1280 Reserve 33 ft. from centerline on Mary Jane

Spring Lake Rd., #l-6104, N.W. of Houston Levi

Fruitland Park

#992 Reserve 25 ft. from the West line of Jennifer L.

Sec. 16, Twp. 22 S., Rng. 26 E., for McFadden & Lane

Turkey Farm Rd., #3-1750, Mohawk area P. Vosbury

(East of Minneola)

Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Road Projects

Request for payment #2, for Project #7-89, South Quarters Road, Haywood Worm Farm Road, and Hollandel Road, to TRAC Roadbuilders, Inc., in the amount of $87,581.68.

Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Road Projects

Request for final payment for Project SA-61, Haines Creek Special Assessment, in the amount of $13,874.00, to RIX Construction Company.

Resolutions/Roads-County & State/Signs

Request to post "No Parking" signs on Alco Road, #5-9588.

Deeds/Right-of-Ways, Roads & Easements/Roads-County & State

Request to accept the following Right-of-Way Deeds:

Vajihuddin M. Kahn & Meher Khan #5-7043 Yale Circle

Sallie Ann Dillard Wallace & #5-7043 Yale Circle

L. Kelly Wallace

0. C. May & John B. & Betty S. #5-7043 Yale Circle


W. A. Milton, Jr. #5-7043 Yale Circle

Alice Ellen Maher #l-7212 Griffin View Dr.

Karl Jaeger #l-7611 Lake Griffin Rd.

John W. Slate & Rosalie V. Price #l-7611 Lake Griffin Rd.

David J. Morgan & Norma C. Morgan #l-7611 Lake Griffin Rd.

David & Gloria G. Stuart #5-5729 Treasure Island Rd.

Deeds/Riqht-of-Ways, Roads & Easements/Roads-County & State

Request to accept the following Drainage Easements:

Vajihuddin M. Kahn & Meher Khan #5-7043 Yale Circle

Sallie Ann Dillard Wallace & #5-7043 Yale Circle

L. Kelly Wallace

Municipalities/Resolutions/Roads-County & State

Request to execute a Resolution to transfer C-561 from the southern city limits of Minneola to State Road 25/U.S. 27, to the City of Minneola.

Municipalities/Resolutions/Roads-County & State

Request to execute a Resolution to transfer C-561 from C-561A to the northern city limits of Clermont, to the City of Clermont.

Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Road Projects

Request for payment #3, for Project #5-89, Smitty Road, to RIX Construction, in the amount of $42,862.94.

Accounts Allowed/Insurance

Request for reimbursement of the American General Group Insurance Company of Florida, in the amount of $386,958.95, for paid claims from April 1, 1989 through October 31, 1989.



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for the cancellation of a Mobile Home Bond for Robert Heinemann, in the Clermont area, District #3.



Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board to discuss the request for bids on "Marsh Park", and noted that the costs will be shared between the General Funds and Water Authority Funds.

On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for approval to advertise for bids on "Marsh Park Improvement Project No. R-l", at an estimated cost of $80,000.00.



Mr. Jim Stivender, Director; of Public Works, appeared before the Board to discuss the request to award the contract for engineering services, for the redesign of Singeltary Park and Tavares Recreation Park, to Hall-Farner and Associates, Inc. He stated that, at Tavares Recreation Park, the contract involves additional engineering work of the parking lot, proper drainage of the facility, the boat ramps and docking areas, and improvement to and consideration of a new entrance on Department of Transportation right-of-ways, and the permit to perform such. The work at Singeltary Park consists of, additional parking, a pier, and a breakwater plan for the docking. He noted that, 65 pet-cent of the funds will be allocated for Tavares Recreation Park, and 35 percent for Singeltary Park.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to award the contract for; engineering services for the redesign of Singeltazy Pat-k and Tavares Reclreation Park, to Hall-Farner and Associates, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $25,630.00.


On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to award Bid #020-070-090, for the purchase of one 1990 Diesel Crew Cab and Chassis, with Flat Dump, from Boebinger International, at a total cost of $28,444.03, which was the low bid.


On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to award Bid #019-070-090, for the purchase of three 1990 Diesel Cab and Chassis, with a six yard Dump, from Boebinger International, at a total cost of $77,706.36, or $25,902.12 each, which was the low bid.



Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, introduced to the Board the new Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Gerry L. Clark, who began working with the County on December 4, 1989.



Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the County is in litigation regarding a Property Appraisal on Montclair Village, which is owned by Public Housing Assistance, Inc. She noted that this litigation has been ongoing since 1988, and is now on Appeal. The parties named in the Suit are the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Property Appraisal was successful at the Circuit Court, but the Public Housing Assistance, Inc. appealed the at decision. The final briefs were due two weeks ago, and Mr. Christopher C. Ford, former County Attorney, is continuing the handling of this case.

Ms. Lustgarten noted that Lake County is defending the Suit on behalf of the Tax Collector. She further noted that, last year the Board approved the payment of fees for the Property Appraiser and will continue to do so this year.

Ms. Lustgarten explained that Public Housing Assistance, Inc. is claiming, in the Suit, that they should be exempt from their taxes based on the Charitable Exemption in the State Statute, and the Lake County Property Appraiser does not agree with that claim for exemption.

Commr. Swartz informed Ms. Lustgarten that when the Board approved the payment of fees last year, it was for an amount not to exceed $5,000.00, and any amount above that would necessitate that it be brought back before the Board for their consideration.



Commr. Gregg requested approval by the Board ratifying his action of signing requisitions for payments in order that the payroll of December 1, 1989, could be met on time.

On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the action by the Chairman, in which requisitions for payments were signed, in order for the payroll of December 1, 1989, to be met on time, fox the following:

1. The third installment to the Lake County Tax Collector, in an amount of $48,275.39;

2. The Sheriff's Department, in an amount of $975,082.59; and

3. The Mt. Dora Community Redevelopment Agency, in an amount of $82,644.00.


Commr. Gregg stated that Mr. Jim Miller, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, has requested to serve on the Executive Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan. That Committee requires three members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, therefore, he recommends that Mr. Miller be appointed to such.

Commr. Windram made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bakich, for the Board to approve the appointment of Mr. Jim Miller, to the Executive Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Gregg stated that this Committee requires the Chairman of each of the other County's established committees to serve on it, along with one member of the Planning staff, and three members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board and stated that, one member of the Local Planning Agency (LPA) which is the Board of County Commissioners, a member of the Planning staff which the Board may wish to delegate, and two additional members of the Planning and Zoning Commission will also need to be appointed.

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


Commr. Gregg noted, due to the fact that a new Chairman of the Board is going to be elected soon, he would like the Chairman, and the other members of the Board to uphold all decisions made by the Board, whether or not they agreed with the action taken. He would also like any direct contacts to the appropriating agencies be maintained by the Chairman, in order to alleviate past problems.

Commr. Windram agreed with Commr. Gregg, in view of the fact that, a negative statement would undermine the action which was taken by the Board.

Commr . Swartz requested Commr. Gregg to be more specific in his statement. To which Commr. Gregg stated that he was referring to dealings with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding the Wekiva Amendment. He further suggested that, when the Board takes a position, and authorizes staff to draft an amendment along the lines of that position, calls should not be made by another Commissioner to further their own Opinion, which may not be the same as the action taken by the Board.

Discussion occurred between Commr. Gregg and Commr. Swartz regarding the allegations which Commr. Gregg was referring to. Commr. Bakich noted that, the members of the Board should work through the County Manager and the Chairman, whenever possible. He further noted that, staff needs to know to proceed with the majority of the Board, unless otherwise told.

Commr. Gregg stated that, when the vote is cast, the Commission acts as a body, whether the vote is agreed with OK not. When the Chairmanship changes, he would like to see more cooperation allowed within the Board.

Commr. Swartz stated that, the Board began dealing with the Wekiva issue earlier in the year, and throughout the process the initial contact he had with anyone from DCA was at an Association of Counties Meeting, at Marco Island and at a speech given by Mr. Pellam, DCA. He feels that he had refrained from giving his opinion at those times on that subject.


Commr. Swartz discussed the Animal Control Program which the County uses at the present time. He noted that, due to the recent concerns raised about the operations and policies at the County's Animal Control Facility, he would like the Board to consider giving the Animal Control Ordinance a higher priority, to enable staff to complete the necessary revisions. He further noted that, he would like the Board to organize an Animal Control Board, for citizens input, and which would allow citizens to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on the Animal Control policies and procedures.

Commr. Windram noted that, several years ago, concerned citizens who were interested in the Animal Shelter, came to the Board of County Commissioners, with a request for the purchase of the Euthanization Chamber, which the Board was told at that time that it was the most humane way to destroy the unwanted animals.

Commr. Swartz stated that, earlier this year, the Board had discussed doing away with the Euthanization method and using a lethal injection system, but that system was not adopted because of some confusion in the budgeting process. He further stated that, he would like to request staff to get the ordinance back to the Board then try to get an Animal Control Board in place.

Commr. Bakich noted that, at the last discussion regarding this matter, there were people interested in adopting the process which Seminole County follows, and questioned what had been learned regarding such process.

Commr. Swartz stated that, initially, there was some uncertainty as to whether this Board wanted to have an Animal Control Board, and they had considered doing so on a limited basis, reducing the number of the Board members. He felt that, the number of members was unimportant, but it is important that there be citizen involvement.

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, stated that there is a packet of information available, which reveals the position of the Board when it was discussed previously, and, at that time, the request was made that an ordinance be drafted, which was given a lower priority then, and could be given a higher priority at this time.

Commr. Swartz suggested presenting names at the second or third Board meeting, this month, to appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of local veterinarians, humane society persons, and interested persons in the area of animal control. If the County could prepare a program dealing with lethal injection, ensuring that it has the best program they can possibly put together, some of the Humane Societies may help to fund the program.

Ms. Noel Valentine, a concerned citizen, appeared before the Board and stated her feelings to the animal control issue. She stated that, she had been doing research and found that the Animal Control Department has had the money to convert to the injections. In 1984, the President of the Human Information Services, came before the Board of County Commissioners and offered a years supply of pentobarbital sodium, which her organization would pay for, including the training of the Animal Control personnel, at her organizations expense, but the offer was not accepted by the Board.

Ms. Valentine stated that the Decompression Chamber has been outlawed in Florida, and repair parts for those chambers are not sold anymore, because of such ruling. She further stated that, other counties have switched to the lethal injection method.

Ms. Valentine reviewed her findings of surplus funds which have been returned to the General Fund in past years.

Ms. Valentine stated that, the Animal Control Department has taken the Decompression Chamber and converted it into a Gas Chamber, which was never meant to be used for carbon monoxide. She added that, it is not that difficult to give an animal a lethal injection.

Commr. Gregg informed Ms. Valentine that, the appointment of a Committee will probably be acted upon within the next two weeks. He added that, when the Commission previously expressed an interest in going to the lethal injection method, there were problems during the budgeting process, which affected every County department.

It was the consensus of the Board to select names and decide how many persons to have on the Committee within the next two weeks.


Commr. Gregg recognized Mr. Jim Farr, with the Department of Community Affairs, who was in the audience, and noted that he is working with the County on the Wekiva Amendment.

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the Department of Community Affairs is scheduled to visit Lake County, at this time, to prepare the Amendments, and noted that Mr. Farr would be in Lake County throughout the day.


Commr. Gregg entertained motions for the nomination of a new Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Commr. Bailey nominated Commr. Bakich as the Chairman for the year 1990, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously.

Commr. Windram nominated Commr. Bailey as the Vice-Chairman for the year 1990, which was seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously.


Commr. Bakich stated that he would like a list of the various organizations and committees which the members of the Board serve on, and for each of the Commissioners to list their; goals and objectives for the upcoming year for discussion and prioritizing.


At 9:55 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would take a brief recess until the 10:00 a.m. Public Hearing.


Mr. Jim Stivender Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and stated that all of the required permits have been obtained for Special Assessment 63, Crescent View Development, which was originated in February, 1989.

Mr. Dennis Horton, Attorney from Clermont, Florida, appeared before the Board representing two property owners which are named on the assessment, those being, Mr. Ross Golden and Mr. Tom Lydell. His clients own property in Crescent Cove Development, which is also served by Crescent View Development, and since their backyards adjoin Crescent View Development, they are being assessed. They do not use Crescent Lane and do not feel they should be assessed. Their property is in another subdivision, except lot 25, which is owned by Mr. Golden and, they utilize Oleander Road, which is a private road.

Mr. Horton distributed to the Board maps to enable them to put the lots in question into the proper prospective. He noted that, the law states, that in order to assess the property owner, there must be some benefit shown to the property owner, which in this case, there is no benefit to his clients because they currently have a road to their property.

Mr. Horton pointed out that, lot 25 is part of the Crescent View Development, but has been made part of another lot, in the Crescent Cove Development, that lot is pie shaped, and has almost 200 feet on the road.

Mr. Horton noted that, the lot owned by the Lydell's, is assessed at $2,598.00; and of the two lots owned by the Golden's, lot 25 is assessed at $3,862.00, and the other lot is assessed at $984.00, which is in the Crescent Cove Development.

Commr . Bailey stated that he supports the Special Assessment project for the Crescent View Development, but does not feel that these lots should be assessed, because of the fact that, the property owners involved do not use the road in question. He further stated that, the Board could exempt these lots and pick up the costs through the County Transportation Trust (CTT) funds.

Mr. Laver, the owner of lot 29, stated that there are different names on a dead end street in the assessment project, and that according to the map it is named "Big Tree Lane". He noted that he is assessed at $2,352.00, and that he has, in his possession, a signed letter by the previous owners of his property, that states that they would pave the road at their expense. The Board informed Mr. Laver that, that is a civil matter to be taken up between him and the previous owners.

Commr. Swartz stated that, lots 35 and 36 are platted in the Crescent Cove Development, however, lot 25 is platted in the Crescent View Development, which is the development of the Special Assessment. He does not feel that lots 35 and 36 should be a part of the Special Assessment, because they front Oleander and are not in the assessment subdivision. He further stated that, lot 25 is still a part of the assessed subdivision, even though it has been joined with another; parcel.

Discussion occured between the Board and Mr. Horton regarding the map, and the size of the lot, its ability to be built upon, and the owner's intentions.

Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, pointed out that, the standard policy of the County subjects corner lots to more than one assessment, and in this case, the shortest side of the lot was assessed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board, refering to the numbers on the Assessment Roll for SA-63, approved to award Project SA-63, Crescent View Development Special Assessment, to Superior Asphalt, in the amount of $133,707.90; and to record the Resolution and the Assessment Roll, as presented, with the exception that item number; 35, owned by the Lydell's, in the amount of $2,598.16, and item number 36, owned by the Golden's, in the amount of $984.04, be removed from the Assessment Roll, and that the additional amount be applied as part of the County's share in the assessment project.


Commr. Gregg noted that, since the first meeting of January, 1990, is the first working day in the new year, that the Board reschedule it for the following Tuesday, January 9, 1990, with the next two meetings to follow on the following Tuesdays. To which the other members of the Board agreed.


Commr. Bailey informed the Board that, Mr. Bob Timmons, a member of the Mining Committee, recently had Quadruple Bypass surgery, and sends his regrets that he could not be present for the meeting today, but he is improving.

Mr. Don Findell, Director; of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and summarized the schedule for the review of the revised draft of the Mining Ordinance. He noted that the primary issues of concern were the status of existing mines, the definition of "mine", the extent of hydrogeological recording necessary for review purposes, discretionary power placed within the County staff, and the lack of confidentiality of information submitted for review purposes.

Mr. Findell reviewed the major revisions with the Board and received comments from the Board as they viewed necessary.

Mr. Findell noted that the first major revision was on Page 2, under the "Vested Rights" section. He further noted that, the previous ordinance made reference to a time specific date, September 1, 1988, as being a parameter in which vested rights would be received. The Board, at that time, felt that reference was vague, therefore, the direction was given to state the effective date of the ordinance as the date in which vesting would begin. This section allows all lawful mining activities, that have been actively mined on the effective date of the ordinance, to continue to do so, without obtaining a new mining site plan approval OK operation approval. He further noted that, the key is the word "actively mined" because the Board also, at the previous workshop, had some discussion regarding the use of the term "disturbed area" to determine the extent of the area which would be fully vested. The Committee developed a definition for "actively mined" rather than "disturbed area". Even though those mines are fully vested, in terms of not having to receive a mining site plan approval of operating permit, those areas that are beyond the area that is being actively mined, would have to operate under the standards proposed in the Ordinance.

Commr. Gregg clarified whether those existing mines would need to go back for site plan approval. To which Mr. Findell noted that they would not have to do so.

Commr. Bakich noted, if 100 acres were divided into four phases of 25 acres each, with 20 percent of the first phase completed, five percent of the first phase and everything beyond that would be applicable to the ordinance. He wondered whether; they could allow the operator to complete that first phase, then, when the new phase is begun, start it as applicable under the ordinance.

Commr. Swartz questioned how to handle an operation that was only five percent into a new phase, and 95 percent remaining. To which Commr. Bakich stated that when someone has come in under existing rules and regulations it is difficult to enforce those new rules and regulations.

Commr. Windram stated that, he understood Mr. Findell as stating that nothing has been vested if, the top of the dirt had not been dug at least three feet. Mr. Findell noted that the amount would be more than that, and they would be fully vested because of the requirement that they obtained an operating permit and mine site plan approval. He added that, they are not fully vested in those areas that they have not actively mined as of the effective date of the ordinance.

Commr. Gregg stated that, if the owner of the property has a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for; a 50 acre mine and they have actively mined 20 of those acres, they are vested for the whole 50 acres, as far as getting an operating permit. The remainder, that has not been actively mined, would fall under; the new criteria, even if their CUP already outlined the requirements for reclamation, etc.

Mr. Findell noted that, on Page 3, item 2, "Term of Vested Rights", there had been language in the previous ordinance referring to the September; 1st date, and it has been changed to reflect the effective date of the ordinance.

Mr. Findell stated that, also on Page 3, item 3, "Registration Provisions", this section was changed to read that "all mines that are existing on the effective date of this ordinance shall register with the County within 90 days of the effective date". He further stated that, the intent was the same as in the previous ordinance, but the time sheduled for registering was changed, since most of the regulated community should be aware that the ordinance may be adopted and the 90 day provision was a reasonable timeframe within to provide the information for the review of the registration of vested rights.

Mr. Findell noted that, on Page 4, item E.2., under "Exemptions", the Board had concerns regarding the language which was in the previous ordinance regarding an arbitrary figure for the removal of dirt, which may or not warrant an exemption. The language was changed in the new ordinance so that all excavation with the exception of lake creation, that is conducted in conjunction with bonafide commercial, industrial or subdivision construction, which has received County approval, is exempt from the provision of the ordinance, if excavation can be completed and construction initiated within six months of the date the excavation is initiated. He noted that, they had removed the arbitrary number of cubic yards of dirt and set up a time frame for removal.

Mr. Findell stated that, on Page 5, item G.l., there is a new definition, that being "Actively Mined". This definition was added because the Board had some concerns about the utilization of disturbed areas as the determining factor, as to what is or is not vested. The wording is a combination of the definition which is used in the Hillsborough County Ordinance, as it relates to raw materials other than peat; and the three feet for peat and muck, is language that he added to that definition. The Hillsborough County Ordinance utilizes this definition to make a determination to make a differentiation between a land alteration activity and a mine activity.

Mr. Findell noted that, on Page 6, item G.9., there is a new definition, "Designated Species", because the previous draft mining ordinance had referred to animal and vegetative species that were to be addressed for protection or impact purposes. The orginal language referred to endangered and threatened species, but did not list those species. The language was changed to designated species and identified the species pursuant to the accepted State of Florida list for endangered or threatened species and species of special concern.

Mr. Findell discussed Page 8, item G.33., stating that language had been added to the definition for "Wetlands", concerning the statement that classification and identification of wetlands shall be in acccordance with applicable County ordinances regulating land alteration in wetlands". He noted that the previous document referenced the Zoning Ordinance which is also undergoing revisions to the "Wetlands" portion, and rather; than reference that ordinance specifically, the language was modified to reflect any applicable County ordinance that would regulate alteration of land and wetlands.

Mr. Findell noted that, also on Page 8, item 22-2.A., "Mining Site Plan Approval and Operating Permit Requirements", the opening sentence was changed, to add "... or expanding an existing mine into new acreage beyond vested areas", at the request of Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney. He further added that, by adding that language it potentially conflicts with the vested provisions in the beginning of the ordinance, and should be addressed.

Mr. Findell stated that, on Page 9, item 5, concerning the notification of ownership of all property contiguous to, and within 150 feet of, the property on which mining activities are to be conducted, the Board, at the previous workshop, wanted the language to be consistent with CUPS as they are now written. The original ordinance called for 300 feet of, rather than 150 feet.

Mr. Findell discussed, also on Page 9, item 10, concerning wetlands alteration and mitigation plans, that they have added language to clarify and specify what type of information should be submitted. It states that plans should include the location and type of wetlands to be altered, location and type of wetland mitigation areas, mitigation ratios and methods to be utilized for mitigation.

Mr. Findell noted that, on Page 11, item 14, regarding the hydrogeologic report, there was concern and comment at the previous meeting regarding items 14 and 15 of the previous ordinance referring to such reporting, pertaining to the number of borings required, where and to what depth. The Board directed staff to work with a representative of the mining community, and a geologist representing such, in order to arrive at some language that was amenable to both staff and the mining community's geologist, which was done. Mr. Walter Wood, a registered professional geologist from the County staff, and a member of Les Bromwell's firm representing the mining community prepared the language referring to the minimum criteria required to be submitted in order to make an informed, educated determination regarding the hydrogeologic impact of those activities.

Mr. Findell stated that on Page 13, item 15, language has been added or clarified to address environmental reporting requirements for land alteration activities. It states that an environmental report should be submitted that identifies the location and, extent of the designated wildlife and vegetation species, as defined under the ordinance. He added that the report shall address, at a minimum, the impact of the proposed activity on such species and the methods to be utilized to mitigate adverse impacts.

Mr. Findell discussed Page 13, item 17, and noted that a sentence had been added which deals with the reclamation plan, and states that, "The reclamation plan shall identify size, type location, and planting schedule for all vegetation to be planted or seeded, in accordance with the reclamation plan".

Mr. Findell noted that, also on Page 13, item 18, concerning site specific information requirements, language was removed following a discussion on hydrogeologic reporting requirements, which made it more general throughout the section for the submission of information, rather than requesting specific hydrogeologic reporting requirements This was done in recognition of the fact that there are a number of different types and sizes of mines, and information required for one mine may not necessarily be required for another. Each mining activity would be reviewed as an individual activity, in order to determine what type of information was necessary to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the impact of that activity, which is also the current process that is being used in the CUP process.

Mr. Findell discussed Page 17, item 1, "Submission of Application and Fees", and noted that the language was modified regarding a Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist and Architects, where required by County or State regulation, for engineering construction plans, landscaping plans, etc., that are submitted as part of this requirement shall be signed and sealed by the applicable professional, be it an engineer, geologist or architect.

Mr. Findell stated that, on Page 18, item 3, "Reapplication", this item sets up a process by which the applicant may reapply for an operating permit after denial, as long as the reasons for; denial are addressed. He further stated that, there is no specific time limit set for such submission.

Mr. Findell noted that, on Page 19, item B.l.a., "Point Source Discharges', the second sentence was modified to add some additional language as to what type of facilities would be permitted in this section. The orginal language referred to recirculating plant water systems, and at the request of the peat mining industry additional language, concerning retention ponds, and surface water storage ponds, was added.

Mr. Findell discussed Page 20, item 2, "Wetlands", in which the language was modified to refer to the alteration of wetlands, in the context of any rule, regulation, or ordinance that is adopted by the County rather than specifically referring to the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Findell stated that, on Page 23, item C.l.d., concerning "Setbacks", new language had been added, as suggested by Mr. Steve Richey and a representative of the mining community, in the portion that states, II... where two or more mines are contiguous, setback requirements may be waived, provided that a reciprocal excavation agreement between the affected property owners is executed, and the waiver of the setback requirements are not contrary to the public health, safety and welfare". He stated that it should read, " . . . whether two or more mines are contiguous, setback requirements between mine sites may be waived...".

Mr. Findell discussed Page 24, item 7, "Public Safety" and stated that language had been added to the last sentence of this paragraph to address a peat and muck mine problem regarding dewatering ditches. This section establishes a maximum slope ratio of two to one for excavation, but in the case of peat and muck mines dewatering ditches, which are to be constructed within the fenced area of the mine site, they would be exempt from this provision.

Mr. Findell stated that, on Page 27, item 5, "Maintenance", which is a new section and establishes a regular upkeep of all reclaimed areas and shall be performed by the operator, or his designated agent, in order to assure that the reclamation standards are achieved and the reclamation plan is accomplished.

Mr. Findell noted that, on Page 30, item 22-5, dealing with "Inspections", the previous ordinance referenced that inspections be carried out on a quarterly basis by the County, but the Board requested to revise that language to conduct those inspections on a routine or periodic basis, which is how this section has been revised.

Mr. Findell stated that, the final major change is on Page 33, item 22-lO.C., "Financial Responsibility", and concerns were expressed at the previous workshop regarding who should amend the reclamation bond requirements under this ordinance. The original document referred to the Development Review Committee (DRC) making that determination as to whether bond requirements should be modified, up or down. It was rewritten to have the DRC make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis as to whether that bond should be raised, lowered OK maintained, then the Board would have the final decision as to the status of the bond.

Commr. Bakich stated that there is a conflict on Page 8, item 22-2, "Mining Site Plan and Operating Permit Application, Review and Approval Process", concerning the statement "Prior to beginning a new mine, or expanding an existing mine into new acreage beyond vested areas, the applicant shall...". To which Commr. Gregg noted that MK. Findell is aware of that conflict, and that a portion of that statement needs to be changed. MK. Findell responded that the change can be made in accordance to whatever decision is made regarding vesting on Page 2.

Commr . Gregg questioned the intent of vesting as being that any area not actively mined, as defined, falling under the new regulations in the ordinance, however, they do not have to reapply for a new operating permit for that area. To which Mr. Findell responded that statement is correct, and that is where the difference must be established between the submission requirements and the standards in the ordinance, which leaves an obligation to meet the submission requirements as far as the site plan approvals and operating permit approvals are concerned. It does not elminate the responsibility of conducting the operation in conformance to the standards that would be adopted in the ordinance.

Commr. Swartz commented that, for some mining activities the vested rights in the present draft, may be appropriate, and there may be exceptions to that, where those vested rights or the definition of actively mined may not be appropriate. He suggested, possibly, modifying the meaning of actively mined, in relation to the different types of mining activities. He referred to a letter from C & C Peat Mining Company, Inc., dated November 16, 1989, addressed to the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, concerning their definition of "actively mined". He felt that the ordinance may need to incorporate some of C & C's definition into it, if it is necessary to differentiate between types of mines.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, commented on a worksession which was held in March, 1989, where the members of the Mining Committee and staff and others, made comments on the Mining Ordinance, and that he, representing Eustis Sand Mine, Logan Site Work, and Florida Crushed Stone, understood that the Board directed that a small operator type ordinance be drafted, which would drastically change his comments at this time. He noted that the smaller five acre clay pit is being held to the same standards of reclamation as the 1,000 acre mine with deep water dredging, and that there is no distinction between such activities in the ordinance. He informed his staff that they will need to take the ordinance and base their projects on a site specific basis, since the ordinance will be requiring between five and 1,000 acre parcels. If a client comes into his office wanting to know the mining requirements for Lake County, he cannot inform them of such. He noted that, he was informed that, the Mining Committee was presented with using specifics, based on sizes, but that idea was rejected, although he has spoken with some of the members and they felt that it was not rejected.

Mr. Richey discussed vesting, as it pertains to Logan Site Work, in which they have a 20 acre clay pit, that the Board of County Commissioners previously approved a CUP, allowing them to remove the top soil. The top soil is only five feet deep, therefore, as of the effective date of the ordinance, they will not have dug the required eight feet. They have a CUP, a reclamation plan, and the required documents under the CUP, and will have lost any possible vesting, because they are currently at five feet, and will not be vested beyond that. They will be able to meet the new standards, but they, cannot, physically, meet such standards, without declaring bankruptcy and starting over, because on a 20 acre mine, it has lost its economic viability. The vesting portion of the ordinance indicates that the mine must be disturbed up to eight feet. He further noted that, if one visits any operating sand mine in Lake County, and looks at the location of the dredge, there is a sheer drop off, there is no lip of disturbed land eight feet deep at the top. The vesting in the ordinance stops every dredge the day it is put into effect.

Mr. Richey presented wording for the ordinance regarding vesting, which indicates that, if there is a current CUP, other zoning, land use approvals OK other permits, those are vested, and the mine can continue under the current conditions, reclamation programs, and plans, since they have already been approved.

Mr. Richey noted that, he has reviewed all of the CUPS in Lake County, and there are, basically, 40 active operations. Eighty percent of those have strongly written CUPS, 20 percent go back to the 1940's and have very little standards, except on those that have St. Johns permits, which require reclamation on a one to 10 factor.

Mr. Richey stated that, if the Board accepts his wording on the vesting, the mines would vest what is in place, as permitted, under the Lake County, St. Johns, or Department of Environmental Regulations permitting, and the problems would be taken care of without stopping the industry. Then, he further stated, if anyone wants to expand or make a new mine, they must meet the conditions of the new ordinance, which the industry has suggested works, and what the vesting rights, that were proposed in March, accomplish.

Commr. Gregg questioned Mr. Richey regarding what permits Eustis Sand Mine, one of the oldest in the County, hold. To which Mr. Richey responded that they hold a St. Johns permit and a Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) Discharge permit, and have three or four years in reserve.

Mr. Richey briefly outlined the history of the Eustis Sand Mine, and stated that, if the new mining ordinance goes into effect, the reclamation requirements will not be able to be carried out, as the current permits state, because it will be economically unfeasible for them to do so. Part of the reclamation requirements, state that they must continue to operate, because the tailings from the operation is what accomplishes the reclamation.

Mr. Richey stated that, the wording in the vesting portion of the ordinance, which they changed, refers to "lawfully mining", and it states that to vest what is presently permitted and there, if it is expanded or modified, the new ordinance must be complied with. He further added, if one is already in operation, and have put their reclamation plan into effect, and rely on it, then it may be continued. The vesting proposed by staff, stops all mining, while the new standards are attempting to be met, and it may not be able to be done.

Mr. Richey noted that, his client, Logan Site Work, purchased their property with the intention of lasting into the next century, when Logan turns his business over to his son: and that is an example of how slow the clay is utilized.

Mr. Richey stated that his other clients, of large mines, have recently gone through five acre expansions, and all of those mines have substantially complied with the ordinance.

Mr. Bill Cauthen, representing the Florida Nursery and Growers Association, appeared before the Board to discuss the State and Federal regulations, within the last five to eight years, concerning peat mines. He noted that, there are five to seven active peat mines in the State of Florida, and approximately 200 acres per year of peat are mined. Because of the State and Federal regulations, there is no longer 20 to 30 acres of peat mines, there are 100 and 150 acres, and it is getting larger because of economics. The reason is because of the permits required with DER, St. Johns, the Air Force, Army and others. He feels that there is a substantial overlap of requirements already without the additional conditions. He noted that staff may say that the do not feel that the State and Federal governments are doing what they should, but he feels that enacting this ordinance is only adding to the bureaucracy. He also feels that the small operators do not need two and three agencies requiring certain things of them.

Mr. Cauthen stated that, concerning the last mine which was approved for Reliable Peat Company, the engineering, survey, and environmental consultant fees reached approximately $45,000.00, and they are not even completed. In addition to that, they still have their permitting fees to contend with.

Mr. Cauthen noted that, he has been informed by staff, that they will need an additional inspector to carry out this ordinance, and he feels that this will be a major budgetary item which needs the consideration of regulation.

Mr. Cauthen stressed some issues which he felt should be further considered, those being, (1) it will be a major budgetary item for staff, and if another permit is charged, the small operator will no longer be able to operate: (2) there is a significant overlap with other agencies, and, if Lake County wants to be the lead agency, the taxpayers and the miners will have to pay for it; and (3) there is no distinction between large and small operators. He noted that, staff may feel that if a certain item is not necessary, they may not require it. He added that, he knows of certain provisions in the Ford-Henderson Wetland Act for DER and other such agencies, and at one time he knew what their intent was, but five years later, the intentions are no longer viewed the same way, which concerns a mandatory requirement, therefore, he is concerned what the interpretations of the ordinance will be five years from now.

Mr. Cauthen commented on the definition of actively mined, and stated that, currently, there are three peat mines, and if the wording in the ordinance were changed to 12 inches rather than three feet, it would be acceptable to those types mines.

Commr. Swartz stated that, regarding vesting, the ordinance should be able to find some language which would take into account the variety and differences between certain mining activities, whether large or small, or the differences in the mining activity. He added that, he is not comfortable with a specific amount in which to be vested.

Commr. Bakich commented that, there could be a possible solution if the mining is done in phases.

Commr . Swartz stated that, there are certain situations where the activities are not done in phases.

Mr. Richey mentioned that, the Logan mine is not done in phases, because it is a 20 acre facility.

Commr . Bakich noted that the Board had requested two separate ordinances prepared, to deal with those types of situations.

Mr. Richey suggesting setting up a system of vesting based on size and permitting, and if a permit were submitted that substantially meets the criteria set forth in the ordinance, then under the evaluation of the vesting provision, staff could determine whether the mine does or does not meet the criteria. He further noted that, for vesting purposes, that kind of evaluation on a case by case basis based on the currency of the CUP, should be acceptable. For instance, a CUP which was issued within the last month should be acceptable, but the CUPS which were approved three years ago would need to be reviewed.

Commr . Swartz wondered if there was a way to recognize the differences between large and small mines, based on what is considered actively mined, as to what is a vested right, implying that whatever is now there is vested. To which Mr. Findell stated that, it would be difficult to determine that comment, and it would need to be handled on a mine by mine basis, to determine the situation of that individual mine, whether it be fully or partially vested.

Commr. Bakich noted that, at a prior workshop, this matter was discussed at length, and that is why the Board decided to have two different ordinances dealing with this problem.

Mr. Findell noted that, a considerable amount of time would be spent researching the viability of the two different ordinances, and it is not viable, because each mine is an individual situation with individual impacts.

Commr. Gregg noted that, as he had previously discussed with Mr. Findell, using staff discretion to differentiate between the mines is acceptable, as long as the Board knows, now, what staff's intent is. It is difficult for a buyer to purchase a piece of property and try to speculate on its returns, because one would not know such until their intentions are discussed with staff and the requirements are known.

Commr. Windram added that, a change in personnel could also change its interpretation.

Mr. Findell noted that, the Board of County Commissioners is the ultimate authority for the implementation of the ordinance, and if staff is incorrect in their interpretation, the Board should realize that in the review process, and make staff aware of their incorrect interpretation.

Commr. Windram stated that, the Board wants to establish an ordinance in that everyone knows what the intentions are. To which Mr. Findell responded that staff had attempted to make those known when the original ordinance was prepared. Mr. Findell added that, the criteria initially established was maze specific than in the present ordinance, and the ambiguous terminology is the result of the discussions and compromises by the Mining Committee to remove the specific requirements.

Commr. Swartz noted that, the specific requirements in the initial ordinance were much stricter. He further noted that, he would like to see a strong Mining Ordinance that accomplishes more than in the past. He questioned Mr. Findell whether he realizes any concerns regarding what implies actively mined, in a situation where the mine is active, but only five feet in depth, since the ordinance requires eight. He also noted that, in that case, it appears not to be actively mined, and, hence, would not be vested. To which Mr. Findell responded, that is a problem, and needs to addressed through the proposed language, and modification of the language that has been suggested, by Mr. Cauthen, referring to the letter submitted from C & C Peat Company, Inc., dated November 16, 1989, concerning the depth to the ore. He noted that this aspect was discussed at a Mining Committee meeting and they felt that the definition was a reasonable way to address the problem.

Mr. Cauthen noted that, in mining peat, it is done in a method in which nothing is disturbed. He noticed that after a proposal was arrived at by the Mining Committee, he was surprised at the end result, because he did not feel that it was what was intended.

Mr. Cauthen further noted that, the difference in acreage in sand mining and peat mining is tremendous, because one has a shallow depth and one has a deep depth, and the mining techniques are not alike.

Commr. Swartz stated, in regards to the definition as submitted in the above referenced letter, concerning "Actively Mined", that changing the portion stating "... overburden has been completed and the removal of raw ore has begun", to ".... completed or the removal or of...". He felt that this change would let the peat miner know if he has any overburden and whether he is accomplishing the requirement, then, staff would not have a problem in identifying what is an existing mining activity. The Board is trying to avoid

saying that, the miner does not have what has not been started, but has only what is actually being done at the present, because the overburden has been removed or is actually into the removal of the ore, and would then be considered vested.

Mr. Richey stated that, concerning the dredge at the top of the hill, it is not disturbed, it is being actively mined from the bottom, and there is a CUP that sets the standards on the mines to move beyond that activity. He further stated that, if the miner is operating, they are already regulated, and already have slopes, reclamation, boundaries, etc., therefore, why place more requirements on that miner.

Commr. Swartz noted that, the Board wants to bring the existing mines into compliance with an ordinance, which is difficult because some mines are operating under different regulations with some very strict CUPS. They also want to see that those mines that are currently active are brought into some compliance based on a vesting criteria that indicates that certain levels of responsibility must be complied with.

Mr. Findell stated that, the mines would need to meet a consistent set of standards in those areas which have not been actively mined.

Commr. Gregg noted that, the problem he has with vesting is that there is only one agency which he knows of that retroactively passes laws that change the whole financial aspect, which he is the Internal Revenue Service. This Board needs to be aware that this regulation is going to increase the cost of fill dirt considerably, and in so doing directly impacts the cost of housing in Lake County, which is already to the point where a large percentage cannot afford it. He feels that, when an operator has received a CUP two OK three years ago, and has been given the requirements at that time, that to suddenly change those rules is unfair. He has not seen a CUP, within this past year, which is much different than this Ordinance, concerning the reclamation requirements, etc.

Mr. Findell stated that, regarding the CUPS prior to the utilization of the language of the ordinance, those CUPS were very liberal, stating that the excavation and reclamation would be done at a two to one slope, and an operation and reclamation plan must be provided. He further stated that, those plans bear no resemblance to the standards of the Ordinance.

Commr. Gregg questioned, in the cases where those types of CUPS are present, if there is a considerable amount of them to be dealt with in the next five to ten years. To which Mr. Richey responded that, of the 39 CUPS, 22 of them are fairly new, and they, basically, meet all of the criteria, also having reclamation plans and bonds posted. Almost 80 percent of the current CUPS have reclamation plans and bonds posted, and the last 12 which have recently been done fully meet the requirements of this ordinance.

Mr. Richey added that, of the mines which have been abandoned years ago, those are mines which were previously owned by Lake County, those are the problem mines. All of the mines which are operated today, either have a St. Johns permit requiring restoration or reclamation, a DER permit, or a County permit, and the individuals purchased their property relying on those submitted reclamation plans or bonds.

Commr. Swartz noted that, the Board is not required to go to the absolute and fullest extent before them today, neither are they held to the suggestion made by Mr. Richey of making all of the mines vested. The alternative to that suggestion would be to attempt to develop regulations that recognize the differences, size and operations, and require only those additional requirements that the Board may feel are necessary.

Mr. Richey emphasized that, in his and Mr. Findell's proposed vesting wording, if there is a public health or safety risk, the Board has the authority to act on it.

Commr. Swartz stated that, rather than have an open clause, he feels that it is better to state the exact requirements which will be acceptable.

Commr. Windram commented that, the Board needs to consider if the requirements are changed, substantially, the property owner may feel, economically, that it is better for them to abandon the mine entirely.

Commr . Swartz stated that, Mr. Richey implied that all of the CUPS have reclamation plans, but, if, in fact, they do not, that is the reason the Board needs to instill some type of reclamation proposal on them.

Mr. Fred Crabill, Florida Crushed Stone, appeared before the Board and stated that, he is unsure whether there is a workable solution to the five acre versus a 200 acre site. He is concerned with the fact that, if one is 50 to 70 percent into the mining activity, and have figured the economics, there is not a considerable amount built into the activity to retroactively fit the plans to the new standards.

Commr. Swartz noted that, regarding the areas which are actively being mined, the owner is vested, and will not, necessarily, have to adhere to all of the proposed revisions. The requirements will be applied only to the areas which are not vested.

Mr. Crabill stated that, even in those cases, the miner is burdened because of the economics, since the miner has already figured the economic aspects before the mining activity has begun.

Commr . Gregg noted that, the difference, for example, in an operation where a dredge is used, is that the pit is what is actively mined, because the dredge eats into the side of the bite, and they clear above it and start mining; it is not like an operation where two OK three feet of overburden is cleared to expose the product.

Commr. Swartz stated that, he understands the problems, but at some point, the requirements of the ordinance should be applied.

Mr. Crabill stated that, if one is 70 percent into a permitted mine, with 30 percent of the project remaining, and the requirements are changed, economically, that may be as far as they can proceed. He further stated that there are some concerns in regards to Safety at some of the old mines, which will need to be addressed.

Commr. Gregg interupted the workshop and stated that, there is another issue scheduled at this time, and suggested rescheduling this workshop for 2:00 p.m., the following Tuesday.

It was the consensus of the Board to reschedule the Mining Ordinance workshop for December 12, 1989, at 2:00 p.m.


Dr. Tom Sanders, Superintendent, Lake County Schools, appeared before the Board and stated that, he and his staff had met with the County Manager, Mr. Alan A. Thelen, to discuss negotiations for the County property at Highway 19/27/Turnpike, for a public safety facility to be constructed on that site. He further stated that, the Lake County School Board has authorized him to continue with these negotiations, but he needs some type of confirmation from the Board of County Commissioners that a settlement has occurred. He suggested that a lease be prepared with an option to buy, pending the outcome of the legislation this year, if the funds are received. In regards to the alternatives of the process in which it may be bought, they could arrange a tuition waiver, transfer of property, or purchase the property, directly, at an agreed upon price.

Mr. Sanders stated that, he has learned that the School Board will be more involved in the regional safety complex than he previously was aware. If the regional safety complex is constructed, it will necessitate 100 acres.

Commr. Bakich noted that, in meeting with Lake County's representatives, the State is urging Lake County to pursue a regional facility. He, therefore, recommends providing the 100 acres to build this facility in Lake County.

Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, added that, in any lease or deed the understanding is that the property would be developed with a common approach to infrastructure, such as a street and sewer system which would serve the entire area.

Commr. Swartz noted that, any agreement with the School Board to be presented to the legislature, will be clarified that it would be subject to the proper rezoning and conditions therein, which would consist of a Public Facilities District (PFD) zoning for that land. He understood, at the last Board meeting in which this discussion occurred, that the majority of the Board did not want to consider the tuition funding as the method of payment, and would he prefer to an outright purchase or an exchange of properties.

Commr. Gregg stated that, he would also like to agree upon an exchange of properties or purchase, and he realizes that appraisals must be had on either properties and the trades must be accomplished at the current fair market value.

Commr. Gregg noted that, the Board needs to ensure that this project is compatible with the other uses that may be planned for the property, because the Industrial Development Authority has made the Board aware that they would like to plan that area for industrial uses.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether a letter of intent to lease 100 acres under some provisions, would be acceptable to the legislature, without naming the exact site. To which Dr. Sanders responded that a letter of intent would be acceptable.

On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved to work with the Lake County School Board to arrange for the trade or purchase of 100 acres at the County owned property at Highway 19/27/Turnpike, for a Regional Public Safety Complex, and for staff to work out the detai1s to return to the Board of County Commissioners.


Commr . Bailey noted that he will be requesting the County Manager to work with him on a problem in Mascotte concerning the Bronson Chicken Farm. He stated that, they have been having problems with excessive flies and odor.


At 12:OO p.m. the Chairman announced that the Board will recess for lunch and reconvene at 5:05 p.m. fOr the scheduled Public Hearings.


Commr. Gregg noted that the final public hearing on the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance permitting mobile homes to be used for the care of an infirm terminally ill OK disabled family member, will be heard on December 19, 1989, at 5:05 p.m.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Acting Director of Development Coordination, appeared before the Board, and stated that this ordinance was initiated by the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the use of a secondary mobile home on properties located within the Agricultural (A), Rural Residential (RR), Agricultural Residential (AR), and Ranchette (RA) zoning districts, in order to provide for the care of an infirmed or disabled relative.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, clarified that a relative is considered such through blood, adoption or marriage.

Mr. Stubbs noted that, this revision is in lieu of a type of group home, because there are concerns within the County that secondary residents be housed on the property so that family members do not have to travel distances and bear the additional expense of having to put their family member in another area.

Commr. Bakich stated that, he was concerned that the Board would be in a position to verify, each year that the person is qualified for this privilege, because some individuals may abuse such.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, the proposed ordinance is a maintenance item and would be encumbersome without the adequate staff to enforce it.

Commr. Windram was concerned with the RR zoning, because some of the best neighborhoods in the County are in that type zoning, and if a mobile home is placed in these neighborhoods, many of the residents would not look favorably upon it.

Mr. Greg Homan, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, appeared before the Board and addressed Commr. Bakich's concerns as to the enforcement of such. He noted that the only reason why there would be a problem with enforcement would be because the residents are required to return each year and prove that the need exists. He felt that it is unfair that these types of homes are approved for a caretaker's residence, and the people with health problems are not approved. He noted that RR is compatible with AG and is a bonafide agricultural zoning, which is consistent with the Lake County Zoning Ordinance.

Commr. Bakich noted that, there is a difference because of an agricultural use with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a caretaker's residence, as opposed to taking care of an infirmed or disabled person. He felt that the difference between the two was because, with the care of an infirmed person, there would be a mobile home full of people. To which Mr. Homan responded that, there is really no difference because, either way, the mobile home is full of people.

Commr. Swartz stated that, there is really no difference, but if the Board were to go back to those uses which are more likely to have the caretaker's residence for some type of an agricultural use, that would be appropriate. The real problem exists within the RR zoning districts, which would contribute to a mixed housing type of situation. He further stated that, he has no problem if the ordinance is limited to A and RA zoning districts, but in the RR and AR zoning classifications it creates a problem. He does not believe there are any caretaker residences in those types of classifications, they are only, primarily, in agricultural, some commercial and industrial types of zonings. He also stated that, the Board could consider allowing, in regards to the allowance of guest and servants quarters in RA, the possibility of having those in another zoning classification where it may be attached, but a mobile home is not consistent to those requirements.

Mr. Homan questioned Section 8, where it states "...the Director may extend the conditional use permit for a period of time not to exceed one year", whether that limits them to only a one year extension. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that it would be extended for one additional year, but would not be limited to that one year only.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing a client who wishes to come within the purview of this ordinance, appeared before the Board and stated that she agrees with the comments made today and she envisioned the ordinance as applying to rural settings, and, primarily, the persons who would be benefiting from it are in mobile homes already and their mobile home would be moved onto the site. She felt that if the ordinance eliminated the AR and the RR zoning classifications, it would accomplish what needed to be done. She did not forsee the enforcement problems, which have been discussed, but it should be monitored, and if the situation becomes problematic, bring that particular case to the Board for review. She suggested that, possibly, a fee should be charged, covering the processing and staff time necessary. She added that, some people have a problem because they do not want to institutionalize their


Mr. Carl Ludeke, a member of the Lake County Board of Zoning Appeals, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the Board is planning on limiting the ordinance to only five acre tracts, that are zoned agricultural, because some agricultural zoning is on one acre tracts, and allowing a second mobile home on those tracts may create problems.

Commr. Windram noted that, it could create a problem, because he does not feel that there are not many bonafide agricultural uses which can exist on one acre. What the Board is dealing with is an agricultural zone which is being utilized as a subdivision zone.

Commr. Bakich stated that, the Board should apply the ordinance to only A or RA zoning, with a minimum of five acres.

Ms. Lustgarten noted that, the language in the ordinance could be amended to only permit the use on an agricultural lot that has a minimum of five acres.

Commr. Gregg stated that, the consensus of the Board is to have a five acre minimum allowed in an agricultural zoning. On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to readvertise the proposed ordinance for December 19, 1989, as amended, for Agricultural (A) and Ranchette (RA) zoning, with a minimum of five acres, not applying to nonconforming size lots of less than five acres.

Commr. Swartz stated that guest's or servant's quarters are often used for family members, and that over the years it has been zoned out of the zoning classifications, possibly, it should be considered at some point in the revision of the zoning ordinances.

Commr. Windram noted that, the reason some of those were excluded out of the system is because what had originally been Structured as Servant's quarters, were being rented out during the winter months.



Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board to discuss the ordinance declaring a moratorium on certain development applications with the Wekiva River Protection Area, as a result of the November 21, 1989, discussion at that Board meeting. He stated that, the ordinance has been drafted and the purpose of the moratorium is to restrict development applications while the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is being prepared. He stated that, applications for development permits and orders Will not be accepted and processed for rezonings plats, site plan approvals, conditional use permits, variances, large lot waivers, and land use plan amendments. Other processes will continue, such as, if a property owner would like to construct some type of unit on their property with a building permit. This proposed ordinance will be in effect for a 90 day time period.

Commr. Swartz questioned if there was an existing platted, able to be built upon lot, could a person come in for a building permit. To which Mr. Swanson responded that they would be able to do so.

Ms. Judy Wick, a member of the Friends of the Wekiva River, appeared before the Board to state that her group supports the proposed ordinance for a moratorium within the Wekiva River Protection Area, and they commend the Board on their efforts to protect the river.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing property owners in the Wekiva basin, appeared before the Board and stated that her clients have been in the development process for varying lengths of time, some two to three years, and that they invested in this area because they thought there was a future in Lake County, in which they could devote their energy and invest their dollars. A number of these clients, including Wekiva Falls, Wekiva Park Estates, and other planned unit developments (PUDs), as well as individual subdivisions, have been in this process for a considerable amount of time, and they have attempted to comply with what they thought the rules were, but, unfortunately, the rules keep changing. For a period Of one year, the developments have been modified, pulled from agendas, reformulated, and considerable amounts of money and time has been spent in order to put them in a position which would be acceptable to the Board, in order for them to represent good planning and management. Her clients propose to develop their property in accordance with the plans and zoning for which they have applied.

Ms. Bonifay noted that she is not clear on a PUD that has been rezoned as such, with all of the conditions, site plan and intended information supplied, if in fact, it could not be platted and permits pulled as proposed. She feels that these are viewed as discrete and separate steps of a development review process, and one is unable to go forward based on where one currently is. She does not feel that that is what the development review process is about, and in fact, if there is a PUD which is approved, then, that PUD should be vested in the stance that one may then file a preliminary plat, do construction drawings, record the final plat, and pull building permits, under the rules and regulations which were in effect at the time the development review process had been entered.

Ms. Bonifay noted that, a plat is one function in the development review, but it has several steps, and when a preliminary plat is submitted, as one must do as a first step to getting a final plat, is one vested to proceed from this point, to file construction drawings and record the final plat.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, the ordinance, as drafted, does not permit acceptance of applications for any of the development permits listed, rezonings, plats, site plan approvals, conditional use permits, variances, large lot waivers, and land use plan amendments, until such time as the Land Use Plan Amendment is adopted, and the associated Land Development Regulations, which have been in process for one year, are concluded and adopted. In relation to a particular piece of property that has been through the zoning process, or is in the process of going through that process, those development permit applications would, for that period of time, not be accepted, pursuant to the moratorium. Anything that is in process at this time, as defined in the proposed ordinance would be permitted to continue. It is anticipated that the Land Use Plan Amendment and the Land the proposed ordinance would be permitted to continue. It is anticipated that the Land Use Plan Amendment and the Land Development Regulations will have a vesting rights provision in the ordinance in order for the Board to address those projects that have gone through the process, in order to determine the nature of the vesting. As it concerns subsequent development permits they will cease until the Land Use Plan Amendment is adopted. She added that, when new applications are filed, vested rights determinations will made on that particular development, based on the language in the Land Use Plan Amendment, and will be permitted to proceed, consistent with those vested rights, as well as, any provisions of the proposed Land Development Regulations that may apply that do not interfere with the vested density, rezoning, or PUD site plan that has already been approved by the Board.

Commr. Gregg noted that of the three PUD zoning cases that are to come before the Board in the next two weeks, the Board would hear those cases as scheduled, but at that point, whether they are approved or not, it would stop there, for the moratorium period.

Ms. Lustgarten added that, when the moratorium ends, the Land Use Plan Amendment process has been completed, and the amendment to the Land Development Regulations has been adopted, then, at that point, applications will begin to be accepted and reviewed on a case by case basis. She further noted that the moratorium is effective for a period of 90 days.

Commr. Windram questioned what would happen if one of the affected parties filed suit. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that the County would defend the suit, since all of the necessary steps to institute the moratorium have been complied with. If a party challenges the Land Use Plan Amendment, the County would be in litigation and the effect of the Amendment would depend on what the party was seeking in that Court action. If they requested Injunctive Relief and the Court granted temporary Injunctive Relief, the County would not be able to proceed under the new Land Use Plan Amendment. If they requested an Administrative Hearing the Amendment process can continue until the Administrative Hearing process is concluded.

Commr. Swartz noted that, if the Wekiva Amendment is adopted and approved by the State the moratorium ceases. If there is a challenge to the Land Use Plan Amendment it is handled independently.

Ms. Bonifay stated that there is a problem with the uncertainty of the language in the Land Use Plan Amendment, and based on the directives from the Department of Community Affairs most of what is being proposed complies with the current Lake County Regulations, but the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, itself, indicates that the Development Regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, the Development Regulations must be enacted, which adds an additional delay. Those individuals that have been working on their land use for a lengthy period of time do not comply to the new regulations, and she was concerned that there is no way that these current zoning requests could be carried through.

Commr. Gregg stated that, the County previously questioned what would and would not be vested, and were told that the platted RR zoning would be vested and usable, and if it were only zoned RR and not platted, the density right would be granted based on the RR zoning, but it would not be vested. Each case, depending on what process it was in, would be heard administratively, and it would be determined, at that time, whether it should be vested.

Ms. Lustgarten noted that, the proposed Amendment will have vested rights determination language in it, as intended by staff, to be handled on a case by case basis. The Land Development Regulations are being processed, concurrently, with the Land Use Plan Amendment which will be brought before the Board for enactment at the same time. There will be two hearings on the Land Development Regulations, with at least one Public Hearing. Both the Land Use Plan Amendment and the Land Development Regulations will be adopted concurrently, there will be no delay between the two.

Ms. Bonifay questioned whether, when looking at applications for the final development permits, if one has filed a preliminary plat, would one be able to move forward to the recording of the final plat. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that, it would not permit the filing of the application for the final plat, because the ordinance is referring to all development permits, other than building permits. To which Mr. Richey injected that one could build with preliminary plat approval.

Commr. Gregg noted that, there are some cases where one makes the improvements, such as road, sewer and water, then the final plat is brought in or a bond put up, therefore, recording the final plat before the improvements are complete.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, if a distinction needs to be made between a preliminary plat, construction drawings, and a final plat, the Regulations need to specify that. When an individual refers to that section of the Subdivision Regulations that deals with platting, it talks about a multi-step process, which people rely on.

Ms. Lustgarten suggested addressing the preliminary plat situation, where construction plans have been approved and construction has started, to distinguish it from the preliminary plat, in which improvements have not started and have only been bonded.

Ms. Bonifay urged the Board not to make a distinction based on the above statement, but, if one is in for a plat approval, it should include preliminary, construction drawings, and final.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that there is no problem amending the language for preliminary plat applications.

Mr. Steve Richey stated his concerns to the site plan approvals, and wondered whether, once the site review plan process was completed, are they then unable to file the site plan. Also, he wondered whether the site plan wording prevents him from obtaining a building permit on a plan that has already been approved for the site plan. He further stated that, he represents the East Lake Chamber of Commerce and there is a concern that they cannot commercially zone property with Planned Commercial (CP) zoning, obtain permits and start construction. There are people in the process of rezoning new property who are trying to complete what they have started, but cannot, because of the wording in the moratorium regarding site plans. He urged the Board to consider that, if there is zoning in place, to allow those people who are not expanding their zoning uses, be allowed to utilize the existing zoning.

Ms. Jennifer McMurtray, with the Department of Natural Resources, appeared before the Board and stated that her agency supports the moratorium, and commends the Commission for initiating this action, in order to handle development in the basin in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, of The Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and stated, regarding existing PUDs that already have one phase of plat approval and one phase of construction approval, he wondered what would happen to those when they come in for the remaining phases after the moratorium. In the past, they were vested and grandfathered for those remaining phases. His client would like some assurance that he still carries a valid PUD after the moratorium is lifted. He noted that, in the past, the PUD that had a plat of one phase was vested, and that was a requirement of the PUD to make it active.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that, if a preliminary plat had not been filed and is not in the process, a preliminary plat with subsequent phases may not be filed, however, if the property owner is unable to comply with the conditions of the PUD order because of the governmental action, it would not interfere with the landowner's ability to proceed once the moratorium was lifted, and a vested rights determination would be made based on the density by the Board.

Mr. Beliveau stated that they have had applicants to their office and have been applying them to the current rules, based on the previous County Attorney's interpretation that all applications that were submitted during the timeframe were to be reviewed and recommendations made under the current rules.

Commr. Swartz commented that the previous County Attorney's comments were based on the drafts of the documents which were available at that time. He added that the County Attorney was giving opinions on those drafts, but it may not have been absolute legal opinion, other than indicating what those drafts, at that time, were referring to.

Mr. Steve Egor Ingram, a landowner of property outside of the Wekiva Basin, appeared before the Board and stated that he would like to see a Comprehensive Plan done as soon possible and that the moratorium is a good idea.

Ms. Joan Irwin, a resident in the Wekiva River Basin, appeared before the Board and stated that the river must be protected and that she agrees with the Wekiva River Protection Act and the moratorium.

Commr. Windram questioned Ms. Irwin as to the treatment of the individuals who have not yet built in the area, as compared to those that have already built. To which Ms. Irwin responded that, there is one lot near her home in which the property owners are able to build, because it is currently zoned for one home per acre, but the developers with the agricultural land will not be able to build.

Commr. Gregg noted that, all of the members of the Board want to protect the environment and that private property owners are entitled to some rights.

Ms. Becky Cauthen, a resident of Mt. Plymouth for 25 years, appeared before the Board and stated that she was concerned about the transfer of zoning to the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area. She further stated that, zoning is not a right, it is a privilege, according to the Supreme Court, and that statement should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Ray Watson, a resident of Lake County, appeared before the Board and stated that, he is in favor of the moratorium, and the river belongs to the citizens of Lake County and the State of Florida and the decisions should be made in their best interest.

Commr. Gregg questioned the Board whether they had any desire to make changes to the moratorium. To which Commr. Windram responded that he was under the impression that plat stages could not be divided.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that, clarifying preliminary plat approvals is relevant to the development process and can be done, as opposed to separating preliminary and final approval of plats in the language.

Commr. Gregg noted that, in regards to CP zoning, it had been discussed at a previous meeting, and it was the consensus that there was a need for it within the urban node. He further noted that, if one appears for CP zoning, under the change in the ordinance requiring them to reappear with the site plan approval, he does not object to allowing them to continue, because they are in the urban node. Therefore, it was the consensus of the Board that they agreed with the above statement.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board accepted the changes to the preliminary plat and the site plan approvals within the urban node, and approved to advertise, for the Public Hearing for December 19, 1989, at 5:05 p.m., the moratorium ordinance in the Wekiva area.


Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and stated that he has received a letter from Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Greater Construction/John F. Lowndes, requesting that no action be taken on the Land Use Plan Amendment X88-1-3.

On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for the withdrawal of the Land Use Plan Amendment #88-l-3, by Greater Construction/John F. Lowndes, which was a request to permit three units per acre, instead of the required one unit per acre of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Windram added that he had received a letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Cook and that they had requested their letter to be part of the record.


Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, informed the Board that the date of the "Kick-Off" for the Criminal Justice Center will be December 19, 1989, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:3O p.m.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, Commr. Windram made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bakich, and carried unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m.




ls/wp-4/12/27/89 1010:25