The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, September 11, 1990, at 5:05 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Don Bailey; and Richard Swartz. Commr. Windram was not present due to a death in the family. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, appeared before the Board stating approval of the amendment to Zoning District A would permit the spreading of sludge effluent in the Agricultural Zoning District, as a conditional use, as well as the establishment of a septic tank cleaning business.
Mrs. Janet Brady, a resident of east Lake County, appeared before the Board, in opposition, stating she was very concerned, after reading the Pollution Control rules and talking with the Department of Environmental Regulations, about the spreading of sludge effluent in the agricultural district. She stated she owns a ten acre parcel of property which is zoned agricultural, which has an additional home on it, besides the home they live in, located five feet from the property line. She stated, according to the Pollution Control rules, the setback for the spreading of sludge is 50 feet from adjacent property lines, or, if the property is occupied or zoned residential, the setback requirement is 100 feet, therefore, this means that the sludge could be spread 105 feet from her home, which she felt was not right. She stated the Board noted that a CUP will be required, however, she feels, from personal experience, that CUPs are not enforced.
Commr. Bakich responded to Mrs. Brady's concerns, stating that he could not see this Board allowing the dumping of sludge next to residential areas, and, going by past experiences, this Board has only approved very large tracts of land which have not bordered any residential developments.
Commr. Swartz directed staff to send Mrs. Brady a copy of CUP#89/10/1-3, concerning a sludge spreading operation which was proposed for a large parcel of property located in an area south of Clermont, and suggested that she look at it, noting that the Board had inserted some very stringent restrictions and monitoring requirements in it. He noted that the permit has to come up, periodically, for review, to ensure that it is meeting said requirements.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved adoption of an ordinance amending Zoning District A, to permit the operation of a septic tank cleaning business and distribution of treated sewage or effluent in the Agricultural Zoning District.
ORDINANCES/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board to discuss the issue of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, brought to the Board's attention the matter of an amendment on Page 8, Line 10, under Fee Schedule, stating that "ACLF/Retirement Home" should be amended to read "Retirement/Residential", stating that it covers a much broader area.
Commr. Gregg suggested incorporating into the ordinance a waiver, or the ability to pay the fees out of the General Fund, such as the way Affordable Housing was handled, for certain industrial uses, where the Board determines it is for the benefit of the County. He stated the Board may never do it, however, felt it would be good to have the option, should the need ever arise.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that on Page 13, Lines 6-10, of the ordinance, it states, "Upon such waiver, the County Commission shall identify, on the record, the source of County funds that shall be used to pay for the services or facilities that would otherwise have been paid for by the unpaid road impact fees."
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and expressed a concern she had regarding the section of the ordinance dealing with the traffic impact study. She felt the objective of issuing a traffic impact statement and what said methodology was going to be had not been achieved. She felt a lot of the members of the Committee do not feel comfortable with it, due to the fact that it is a technical sort of issue, and they are lay citizens, not traffic consultants or transportation engineers. She stated she felt the ordinance does not do what the Committee had in mind, which was to get it simplified and just address what the traffic impacts are. She stated it is directed more to a concurrency management system than it is a true traffic impact statement, and feels it is too difficult and too time consuming.
Mr. Swanson responded to Ms. Bonifay's comments, stating she was correct in what she had stated concerning the concurrency management aspect.
Mr. Tom Jackson, Reynolds, Smith & Hills, appeared before the Board stating the traffic impact statement is indeed extensive, more extensive than the one the County has had in the past, at which time he noted the reasons for it. He stated, in the future, after the County's Comprehensive Plan is adopted, and concurrency requirements are implemented, the County is going to have to require something very similar to it, at least in principle, of all projects above a certain threshold. He stated concurrency and impact fees, in the future, are going to have to work together very closely, as concurrency is going to be a way of measuring impacts, and maybe a way of establishing exactions, but the two are going to be blended, in the near future, in a lot of counties and a lot of
systems. He noted his staff was directed to develop the kind of traffic impact statement before the Board this date.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that the traffic impact statement before the Board this date would only apply in two cases, being: (1) if there was not a use set forth on the chart and (2) if, in fact, the use set forth on the chart was thought to be too high. He stated concurrency would apply to everybody, noting that every zoning district and every land use would have to meet certain criteria of concurrency which the Board will set forth, which are not traffic impact fees - they are concurrency issues, which have to do with land use and zoning -not money or fees. He then discussed three elements which are used to establish a fee, noting that it needs to be equitable and fair, as it is in the County's best interest to be, however, is presently slanted toward those individuals that either are not on the chart, or those that feel they are being charged too much.
Mr. David Dunlap, Engineer with Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin, a firm out of Orlando, appeared before the Board stating that he had reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement for Lake County. He discussed how traffic engineering studies are done throughout the State, and noted that he had submitted to the Board (prior to this meeting) copies of studies which had been conducted in two other counties, being Brevard and Manatee.
Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Gregg questioned Mr. Jackson as to why the impact fee ordinance was being involved, at all, in the concurrency issue, when it is going to be addressed in the concurrency management system, to which Mr. Jackson replied that the only reason they addressed it was because they were asked to.
Commr. Gregg then questioned the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, as to what effect it would have on the County if concurrency was eliminated from the ordinance, to which she replied she felt it would not hurt the development of the impact fee if it was eliminated.
Commr. Gregg then recommended doing something along the line of the procedures manual which Manatee County has, rather than bringing in concurrency, to which Commr. Bakich concurred.
Mr. John Pringle, President of Pringle Development, appeared before the Board stating he appreciated the fact that the Board had listened to what he had to say regarding impact fees, at a prior meeting, and will pay them, as he feels they are fair. He did address, however, the 30% factor for right-of-way acquisition, and stated he would like to propose, between now and October of 1991, that the County give some kind of methodology for how the County is going to spend the money collected through impact fees.
Commr. Bakich questioned Mr. Swanson as to how the County came up with the 30% figure, which Mr. Pringle alluded to, to which Mr. Swanson stated said figure is one that is used in the six county area.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, thanked the Board, on behalf of his clients, noting he felt the Board had tried to work with them and was aware of the fact that Lake County is lower in their fees than other counties. He also stated he felt the Board was trying to be fair and equitable, regarding the matter.
Further discussion occurred regarding the 30% figure, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested inserting the alternative fee schedule which the County has, with that which Manatee County is using.
Mr. Clell Coleman, appeared before the Board and commented on getting the money into the system. He stated the County should know what it is going to need, when they are going to need it, and get it at the lowest price possible.
At this time, the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, reviewed amendments which had been discussed this date, for approval.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved amendments to the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance, as stated by the County Attorney.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the second public hearing, regarding adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance, is scheduled for October 2, 1990, at 5:05 p.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK