The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, May 20, 1991, at 10:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Donald B. Bailey, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; Catherine Hanson; and Michael J. Bakich. 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.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/REPORTS
Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating that, upon receiving the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), on May 15, 1991, staff came back and analyzed the report, at which time they prepared a document (which he distributed) for the Board's perusal. He stated there are several elements within the Comprehensive Plan, such as water, sanitary sewer, aquifer recharge, solid waste, and capital improvements, which the County had consultants do a lot of work on for them. He stated staff needed direction from the Board as to whether or not they should get back with the consultants to correct some of the objections that have been made, or whether the Board wanted staff to correct the objections themselves.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether or not there was an understanding with the consultants that staff would come back to them for further help, based on comments from the Department of Community Affairs, to which Mr. Swanson replied that this would be so in some cases, however, not in all cases. Mr. Swanson stated that he would hope to get the additional service out of the consultants without incurring any further costs.
Commr. Bakich stated that if there was not too great a time delay, he would have no problem with staff getting back with the consultants.
Mr. Swanson brought to the attention of the Board the fact that, pursuant to Florida Statutes, the County has 65 days from the time of receipt of the ORC Report to respond back to DCA. He stated the County has also received several ORC reports back from the State for cities which staff had prepared comprehensive plans for. He noted that the County takes first priority, and that staff will be devoting their time to meeting the objections, recommendations and comments on the County report, prior to getting to the cities' reports. Commr. Swartz questioned whether this was the agreement that the County had with the cities, when the County agreed to prepare their plans. Mr. Swanson stated that he did not know if the County had any such agreement with the cities, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he felt this was something that needed to be discussed. If, in fact, the County can determine the time frame it is going to take, and sees that the cities are going to have to be put on the back burner, then staff needs to tell them so. He stated this determination needs to be made, early on, and not just say that the County takes first preference.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that staff should let the cities know what the circumstances are, if they are going to be running behind, and are not going to be able to keep them on schedule, in order to enable them to make other arrangements.
Commr. Bailey requested staff to obtain Minutes from the meeting with the Cabinet regarding the Wekiva Protection Amendment, so that he could compare those comments with the comments from the Department of Natural Resources (DNA) and DCA. It was noted that staff would do so.
Commr. Hanson stated that she thought the Wekiva issue was finished, yet, it is being brought back up because of one
subdivision that was approved in the Wekiva Basin, which she noted she found to be a little disturbing.
Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that approximately ten months ago staff met with DCA, at which time they questioned DCA as to what they wanted, regarding the Wekiva Basin. He stated that they left the meeting with the assurance that they could fully incorporate Ordinance No. 1989-3 into the new Comprehensive Plan, which he stated is what they did. He did state, however, that they did not obtain the approval in writing. He stated that DCA is now saying that under Chapter 369, Section 305, Subsection 7, they have statutory authority to dredge up anything regarding the Wekiva, for further review. He stated that when they left said meeting it was thought that all staff would have to do would be to incorporate the previous plan amendment, due to the fact that DCA had indicated that it was in conformance with the Act, and would be proper.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had a real problem with the Wekiva issue being brought back up, considering the time limits that the Board has to deal with, in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for the rest of the County.
Commr. Gregg stated that, as far as the Wekiva matter was concerned, he, personally, did not want to spend any further time on it, as it had already been resolved, and felt that DCA should deal honestly, and in good faith, or the County should take them to court. He stated the same goes for vesting rights and density. He stated he felt it was time this County took a firm stand, noting that he regrets the stand the Board took on the Wekiva issue.
Commr. Swartz noted that he was supportive of the points that DCA made in their report, as he felt they were valid and consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, and stated he felt the County was in for an awful long haul if it does take DCA to court. He stated he felt it was what the whole Growth Management Act was about - to plan for growth, manage growth, and protect the environment of Lake County and quality of life for its citizens.
He stated that it was going to be up to this Board to decide whether or not it wants to make a sham of the Growth Management Act, or, take the comments that DCA made and try and turn what is a dismal plan, that does not even come up to minimum standards, into a plan that will, in fact, accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish. He stated that two of the items in the report that staff listed as technical, he felt go beyond being technical, as he felt they do have policy implications, noting that he felt the County needs to be careful when staff labels them. Two examples he gave were the vesting issue and concurrency management.
Commr. Gregg stated that what DCA is doing is killing growth and taking private property rights away. Commr. Swartz disagreed.
Commr. Bailey stated he had a concern as to whether this County is dealing with people from DCA that really understand Lake County. He stated he felt this Board should be the ones to make decisions regarding land use, as those individuals with DCA are operating from a book, and do not really know Lake County.
Commr. Hanson stated she felt the Board needs to decide immediately whether or not the Wekiva issue is going to be discussed again. She stated that, as far as controlling growth in the Wekiva Basin is concerned, the plan that is presently in place will control it, as it has stopped it entirely. She questioned whether the County wanted to stop all growth, or whether they wanted to protect the environment - what is the objective. She suggested that the Board leave the Wekiva Basin issue alone and go on with the rest of Lake County, as it is a dead issue, as far as she is concerned.
Further discussion occurred regarding the matter of the Wekiva issue, at which time it was the consensus of the Board not to address the issue again, due to the fact that the Cabinet had already approved it. The Board felt that staff should be instructed to deal with the technical issues of the ORC report, and as far as the vesting and density questions which DCA raised are concerned, felt the Board should stand firm.
Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, questioned the County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, as to whether the vesting language for the Comprehensive Plan complies, to which she responded that the statute is pretty clear as to what vesting is, at which time she indicated what the statute says about it.
Further discussion occurred regarding the vesting issue, and as to whether it is a technical or a substantive matter, at which time the County Attorney stated that it is more substantive, in the perspective that the County is talking about a definition of what is and is not vested, therefore, are talking about how property will be affected. She stated that staff needs to sit down and discuss the matter further, discuss it with DCA, and then go through the process. She stated that proof of going forward in some economic expenditure would have to be part of that vesting language, if the County is going to continue to vest industrial and commercial property. It was noted that a time limit of two years was given for commercial and industrial properties, as far as vesting is concerned.
The next issue brought up for discussion was concurrency management, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the first item under said heading deals with reservation capacity for all previously approved development orders. He stated this Board needs to understand that the development goes beyond what it originally did, noting that it requires that all the paper subdivisions in the County, under whatever termination vesting is finalized, will have to have capacity reserved for them, in the concurrency management system.
Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that it would depend on the site plan, as the County said that site plans put in place prior to 1976 would be vested in two years, so, a subdivision might be vested for density, but, only certain portions of concurrency, such as stormwater and roads. He stated there are six areas of concurrency, however, they might be vested for two aspects of it. He stated that everybody is going to be vested for solid waste, for
concurrency, as far as the County is concerned, due to the waste-to-energy facility. He stated he considers the concurrency management system technical, in that policies really relate to bringing it into conformance with 9J5.
Regarding the Future Land Use Map, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA is asking the County to redo it, to have the land allocation conform with population projections. He also stated that, from an infrastructure standpoint, DCA is saying that, later on, in the Water and Wastewater Element, if the County is going to show urban densities, they also have to show feasibility of sewer and water.
Mr. Kirch stated that a lot of the objections from DCA will have a policy that defers something to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), due to the fact that there was an administrative hearing, and DCA lost. He stated DCA wants the Comprehensive Plan to stand on its on, as a regulatory tool, in lieu of the LDRs; therefore, they are asking for policies to be more specific as they relate to the LDRs.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed with the concept, as she felt all along that the LDRs should have been in place at the time that the County did the Comprehensive Plan, but, that was not what the State told the County to do, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that there are a few places in the ORC Report that DCA states, in the absence of LDRs, or revised LDRs, that this has to be the guide document. He stated that, in this particular case, regarding wetlands, DCA is saying that the policy defers defining allowed uses within wetlands to the LDRs, so what they are asking for is specific actions on what permitted uses are going to be within wetlands.
Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, stated that the County has to keep in mind the fact that it is just entering into a contract for the preparation of the LDRs, and staff will be working on the performance standards within the LDRs. He stated he did not want to duplicate, therefore, would like to be in a position to negotiate with the State to not do the same thing
twice. He stated if staff is prepared to put them in the Comprehensive Plan, at the same time that they are preparing the LDRs, then that is one thing; but, if that particular section of the LDRs is not going to be prepared for two or three months later, then he felt the County should negotiate with the State and have this type of policy deferred, until it can be demonstrated in the LDRs itself. He noted that the LDRs will be ready by February of 1992.
Regarding floodplains, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants it clarified as to exactly what is going to be allowed in the floodplains, and wants guidelines regarding the aquifer recharge areas, as well as more detail on how the County will deal with spills of hazardous waste. He stated that DCA will not allow large industrial sites or storage areas around aquifer recharge areas.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the protection of sinkholes linked to groundwater, at which time it was noted that DCA will require that the policy define setback distances, and specify how the County will ensure that groundwater will not be contaminated.
Mr. Kirch stated that, regarding wildlife habitat/vegetative communities, DCA notes a couple of objections to certain types of public habitat, as well as an objection to using 1985 data (he noted staff had already agreed with DCA that they would use the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's data). He stated that Rule 9J-5 does not require that the County obtain new data, so the County has to use the best available data they can find.
Regarding open space ratios for residential and non-residential developments, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants the County to define what the open space ratios are, noting that staff is going to have to come up with some changes to the policy.
Concerning the Green Swamp issue, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA is saying that, under Section 380, they have the ability to revisit the whole Green Swamp issue, noting that they want the low densities (1 to 20) in it, and that mining be prohibited in said
area, as well, which he noted is a major policy departure from the past. He stated that they want staff to do a detailed mini-plan for the Green Swamp and identify areas that are, and are not, suitable for development, and then come up with a separate plan for study.
Further discussion occurred regarding the Green Swamp issue, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that, if the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs are found consistent with Section 380, and the principles for guiding development (which he noted is under another section of the Code), DCA will repeal the boundaries of the Green Swamp, due to the fact that the provisions within the Comprehensive Plan further the principles for guiding development, and they will have to approve the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the LDRs, as they apply to the Green Swamp. He stated they will repeal the designation, and there will be a year of monitoring, to make sure that the provisions in the LDRs are being enforced, so they would still maintain their view of authority over development.
Regarding the fact that Policy 1-17.6 indicates that industrial and sewage wastes may be discharged into wetlands, Commr. Bakich stated he did not remember the Board agreeing to that, to which Mr. Kirch replied that this is what the existing Comprehensive Plan ordinances call for in the Green Swamp.
Commr. Bailey questioned what density was decided for the Green Swamp area, to which Mr. Kirch responded that the County was going to have to revise the Future Land Use Map, noting that staff's intention was to leave it at one dwelling per five acres, except for those areas next to the cities, which were left as transition areas.
Discussion occurred regarding where agriculture and mining would be allowed, in relation to environmentally sensitive lands, and the fact that DCA wants staff to revise the Comprehensive Plan to clearly indicate where agriculture and mining will be allowed in the County, and to include policies which specify the criteria, standards, or best management practices that will be implemented to
protect environmentally sensitive lands, when said activities are undertaken.
Mr. Kirch then referred to Policy 1-12.1, pertaining to community facilities, stating that DCA wants some policy direction as to what a community facility is, and how the County would make it compatible with the surrounding land use.
Regarding urban sprawl, Mr. Kirch stated that, according to DCA, the Comprehensive Plan does not discourage the proliferation of sprawl. They state that the Future Land Use Map greatly over-allocates the amount of land needed for urban development. He stated DCA states that one dwelling unit per five acres, in the rural area, does not adequately protect agricultural lands and contributes to sprawl, and that this density, particularly without adequate planning controls, is not acceptable for crops, pasture lands, or lands used for silviculture purposes.
Commr. Bakich stated that, if one takes out the Wekiva, the Ocala National Forest, and the wetlands, it does not leave a whole lot, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that, as far as the Future Land Use Map is concerned, DCA wants the map to be in more detail. He stated they want it to show the wetlands and all the lakes - that way they can look at the soil areas and the areas that would be most suitable for development, and give those higher densities, and give the lands that are unsuitable for development lower densities, keeping in mind their proximity to existing urban areas.
Discussion occurred regarding the two areas shown on the map as commercial corridors, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that DCA does not want either area as a commercial corridor, as the future land use designation encourages linear (strip or ribbon) sprawl. Mr. Kirch stated that one of the areas is Hwy. 27/192, at which time Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, interjected that he had just received a copy of the Reedy Creek ORC Report and feels that the County has to consider the Hwy. 27/192 corridor very seriously for some type of commercial development,
especially since the announcement made by Disney World of the hugh development planned for that area known as "Celebration".
Mr. Kirch stated that another objection DCA had was with Rural Villages, noting that they did not object to the concept of Rural Villages, they just wanted to shrink back the boundaries. He noted there are presently 11 Rural Villages depicted on the Future Land Use Map. He stated the County presently has three maps - one indicating general development land use, one indicating areas of conservation, and the third indicating the Wekiva Protection Area; however, DCA wants one map, combining the three.
Regarding potable water wellfields, he stated that what DCA wants is the provisions of the wellfield protection ordinance that the County is required to have under Section 163, noting that they want more detail in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that DCA also has some problems with the point system, noting that they are saying the Urban Area Residential Density Chart does not protect environmentally sensitive lands. He stated, however, that if the urban area is shrunk to where DCA wants it, then the point system will not be needed.
Mr. Kirch stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan, including data and analysis, objectives and policies, and the Future Land Use Map, does not address the proposed Southlake Florida Quality Development, and that DCA wants the County to address the development and its associated impacts.
Concerning the matter of bear underpasses, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA feels Policy 2-2.8 does not indicate when the underpasses will be constructed, particularly those along County roads, and wants staff to provide a time frame for constructing the bear underpasses, and to eliminate or define the vague language, as well as to delete Policy 2-2.7, pertaining to bear underpasses for the proposed Northwest Beltway.
Mr. Kirch stated that Policy 2-1.1 adopts level of service standard "D" for U.S. 441, between Tavares and Leesburg, and DCA feels that said designation is not supported by a justification as
to why it is not feasible to be compatible with the FDOT standard. He stated that DCA wants staff to revise the policy to be consistent with the FDOT standard, or to provide a justification as to why it is not feasible to be compatible with the FDOT standard.
Concerning the Housing Element, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA had a problem with some of the data which was used, regarding substandard housing, due to the fact that it was 20 years old. He noted, however, that it was the best available data staff had to use. He stated that DCA's recommendation was to revise the estimate of the dwelling units in substandard condition to include the generalized location. He stated that DCA feels there is more data available for affordable housing in Lake County and that it is not clear to them where mobile homes will be allowed. He stated they want staff to revise the analysis to indicate where mobile homes are currently allowed, in order to demonstrate that the County will provide adequate sites for mobile homes.
Under Objective 6A-3, concerning the provision of sanitary sewer service to "all areas of Lake County", Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants to know what specific areas in the County are going to be served by water and wastewater, rather than saying that the whole County will be served.
Regarding the matter of septic systems and package treatment plants, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants to know the location of septic tanks, the concentration of them, and their ability to be serviced by septic facilities.
Mr. David Moon, Planner, interjected that, responding to some of the objections, in accordance to the DCA recommendations, does not mean that DCA may not come back and object to it again.
Further discussion occurred regarding septic systems and package treatment plants, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that DCA states that Policy 6A-2.8, which indicates that by 1995 the County will identify areas where private enterprise may provide service, so as not to duplicate services, is unclear, and recommends that staff revise and clarify the policy. He stated that DCA wants to
know what areas are going to be served by central facilities and where the County is going to allow package plants. He stated they want to know where the County's septic tanks are appropriate and not appropriate.
Mr. Kirch stated that several times DCA commented that when there is a policy that requires a study, they also want language saying that the Comprehensive Plan will be amended, based on the outcome of said study.
Concerning Policy 6C-4.6, regarding the phasing out of drainage and injection wells, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants to know the exact time frame when the County plans to phase those out.
Mr. Kirch stated that DCA states that the level of service standards established in Policy 6C-2.10 are inadequate because they do not include a water quality component; clearly apply to all development and redevelopment; all drainage/stormwater management facilities; include additional treatment requirements for Outstanding Florida Waters; and include a standard for recovery of drainage facility capacity following the occurrence of the design storm. He stated the only level of service they objected to in the entire Comprehensive Plan was for stormwater.
Regarding the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element, Mr. Kirch stated that it relates to studies that were done by the St. Johns River Water Management District, therefore, staff's response is going to be that the prime aquifer recharge areas have not been identified. He stated DCA also wants staff to justify why they state it will be 1996 before they establish standards for water reuse, prime recharge areas, water table manipulation and well drawdown, and stipulate when they are going to amend the Plan, based on that information.
Under the Conservation Element, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants conservation areas more strictly mapped, and then use those to reprepare the Future Land Use Element. He stated that under Policy 7-2.7, concerning demand for groundwater resources, DCA states that it includes the vague language "discourage", noting
that it merely discourages land uses which pose a severe threat to the availability and quality of groundwater. DCA wants the policy to be revised to eliminate, or define, the vague language, and to prohibit land uses which pose a severe threat to groundwater.
Under Policy 7-13.1, DCA states that it refers to the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area, instead of the Area of Critical State Concern. Also, although the policy prohibits limestone mining in the Green Swamp, it does not prohibit all mining. Policy 7-13.3 prohibits mining in prime aquifer recharge areas; however, these areas have not yet been identified by the water management districts. DCA recommends that staff revise Policy 7-13.1 to refer to the Area of Critical State Concern, and to prohibit all mining in the Green Swamp; and to revise Policy 7-13.2 to prohibit mining in the very high and high recharge areas identified in the Data Inventory and Analysis. They want staff to specifically state where mining will be allowed in Lake County.
Concerning the matter of wildlife corridors, DCA is saying that there are not specific wildlife corridors, and recommends that the Plan designate wildlife corridors (by reference to a map depicting the corridors) and include specific measures for their protection, such as setbacks and buffers which must be incorporated into future developments.
Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants staff to prescribe xeriscape landscaping countywide, rather than just in the Wekiva, where there is salt-water intrusion. The phrase "may include" should be changed to "will include", noting that they want all development to have some xeriscape landscaping.
Concerning the matter of floodplains, Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants to restrict development not only in the 25 year flood plain, but also within the 100 year flood plain. He stated the same thing pertains to wetlands, noting that they want wetland policies to be more specific, to ensure no net loss of functional value and extent of wetlands.
A brief discussion occurred regarding Policy 7-5.3, pertaining to agriculture within wetlands; Policy 7-5.4, which defers establishing the width of the upland buffer zones to the Land Development Regulations, noting that DCA wants to buffer all wetlands, not just regionally significant wetlands; and Policy 7-5.7, concerning the effect of water withdrawals, which DCA notes prevents only "irreversible" damage to fish and wildlife populations, which is not a good standard for protection.
Regarding the matter of shoreline development, DCA states that Policy 7-3.12 includes vague language "promote", as well as indicates that the County will limit the density of shoreline development, but does not specify the maximum density, therefore, recommends that the policy be revised to eliminate or define the vague language, and to specify the maximum density for shoreline development.
Discussion occurred regarding the fact that Policy 7-7.7 indicates the Future Land Use Map will designate preservation lands, yet none are shown on it.
A brief discussion occurred regarding septic tanks for industrial uses, at which time it was noted that DCA states that the County's language and policy is not consistent with the State.
Regarding the Recreation and Open Space Element, Mr. Kirch stated that he felt staff was going to have to go back and rewrite most of it, based on a level of service standard that is compatible with the Capital Improvements Element.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the element, at which time it was noted that some additional park lands have been found, however, have not been added, as staff goes along, due to the fact that it changes the level of service too much.
Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, questioned what the Board wanted to do about the policy pertaining to open space, as it relates to golf courses. It was the consensus of the Board to leave golf courses as open space.
A brief discussion occurred regarding Policy 8-1.2, pertaining to the level of service standards for recreation facilities, in terms of dollars per acre, according to park type. DCA states that while the information in said policy is acceptable as a policy, it should not be established as level of service standards. They feel that level of service standards for recreation facilities, based on relevant data and analysis, should be expressed in terms of capacity per unit of demand, such as a requirement for 4 tennis courts per 1,000 population. Mr. Kirch stated that DCA is saying that dollars per acre of improvement is not, technically, a facility improvement. He further stated that what the County needs to do is figure out how many acres the County presently has, and then figure out what population the County will have in 2005, and set a level of service so that the County will not have to buy any park land between now and the year 2005.
Regarding the Capital Improvements Element, Mr. Moon, Planner, informed the Board that of the 28 objections that DCA had, 10 are linked to other objections in the Public Facilities Element, Future Land Use Element, and Concurrency Management, so, once the County addresses those issues, then that will eliminate any objections in the Capital Improvements Element. He stated that the only major objection pertained to where DCA states that the plan does not indicate how the County will regard the $48 million shortfall identified in the Capital Improvements Element. He stated that DCA recommends that the County establish a policy stating that it will hold a referendum, in the near future, and if the referendum to increase taxes is not approved, that the County will amend the Comprehensive Plan, to lower levels of service. He stated that, according to 9J5, the County only has to demonstrate that those facilities identified in the Comprehensive Plan can be funded, noting that staff has included facilities and improvements outside the 9J5 requirements, such as Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, etc. He recommended that the County establish some type of policy saying that if the referendum does not pass, then the County will
amend the Comprehensive Plan, or will separate Category "B" and "C" facilities into a separate table, and have the remaining Category "A" improvements as the County's five year schedule of improvements, and the other table as the County's guideline table for the next five years. It was the consensus of the Board to do as Mr. Moon suggested.
Mr. Kirch stated that there were four areas that DCA is concerned with - the Green Swamp, Wekiva, future land use and potable water.
Mr. Kirch informed the Board that there were a couple of elements where the agencies made comments that did not make it into the ORC Report, and requested authorization for staff to fix those technical issues that do not affect the basis of the Plan, as far as cleaning up the document, which the Board approved.
Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, informed the Board that, in dealing with the Future Land Use Map, staff is going to reduce some of the acreage that has been identified, noting that some of it can be reduced by subtracting wetlands. He stated that DCA gives some suggestions for doing so.
He stated another area he has a concern with is the areawide DRI at Hwys. 27/19 and the turnpike, which he noted encompasses approximately a 21 square mile area. He stated it now looks as though the County may have been a little overambitious concerning it. He stated the County has an existing 800 acre industrial park/Tourist Development Council site, and if the County develops it, as planned, the County may be getting into a DRI, and predevelopment agreements with DCA that is going to delay the development of that particular site. He stated that, if the County removes the areawide DRI classification, the County can develop its own County property, without regard to the DRI.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Bakich stated he felt the County was standing still trying to get something going in that area, therefore, felt the County should focus on that area and move forward.
Commr. Gregg stated that he would like to see the industrial park developed in whatever means it takes to get it developed, and developed this year, not over the next two or three years. If that means abandoning the areawide DRI, then that is what the County should do, to which Commr. Bailey concurred.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
DONALD B. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK