JUNE 28, 1991

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Friday, June 28, 1991, 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: 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.


The Chairman, Commr. Bailey, opened the meeting and then turned it over to Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager.

It was noted that this meeting would not be open to public comment.

Mr. Thelen brought to the attention of the Board the need to set another date for the Budget Workshop Meeting which had originally been set for Wednesday, July 3, 1991. He stated that a little more time is going to be needed to talk about the exemption issue, as it relates to non-ad valorem assessments, which is set for Tuesday, July 2, 1991.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was the consensus of the Board to hold the Budget Workshop Meeting on Monday, July 8, 1991, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Meeting Room, and the meeting pertaining to non-ad valorem assessments on Thursday, July 11, 1991, at 1:30 p.m., at the Ag Center.


Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating that staff had taken prior direction from the Board and had only changed technical aspects of the plan. He stated they did not do anything with policy decisions.

Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board stating that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had no objections to what the County did with reference to the areawide DRI and the three policies related to it.

Commr. Gregg stated, for informational purposes, that the Board had had some discussion at the last Economic Development Council Board Meeting about possibly hiring Mr. Hank Fishkind to do an amendment to all the Economic Evaluation Elements, so that all four of the counties involved in the Economic Development Council will intermesh, and there will be more of an Economic Element than there presently is. He stated that this will occur in approximately six to eight months.

Mr. Kirch stated that one of the policies that was deleted was Policy 11-7.1, relating to the feasibility of an areawide DRI. He stated that the policy might be hard to amend, and that the Board might want to leave a policy in that states that by 1994 the County will complete an Economic Market Feasibility Study for an areawide DRI. He stated that by doing so, the areawide DRI will remain in the plan, but will not be for a particular location, which will leave the County open for having a feasibility study for an areawide DRI, by 1994, but not block it on the map. It was the consensus of the Board to do so.


No discussion occurred regarding this element.


Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, informed the Board that under the Data portion of this element, DCA wanted clarification on the number of airports, as one table stated there were eight, however, the map shows nine. He stated that Policy 4-1.2, Mitigation for Environmentally Sensitive Lands, states that any wetland alteration which occurs will come under the rules of any agency having jurisdiction over the wetlands, therefore, if the Leesburg Airport extends its runway, for whatever permitting they will need to go through, they will have to follow the direction of the agencies having jurisdiction over the wetlands. He then stated that DCA had problems with the Future Conditions Map for the City of Leesburg and Mid-Florida Lakes Mobile Home Park, as they were not included in the plan.


Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA had four objections related to this element. He stated that he listed some areas of multi-jurisdictional issues, in adjacent counties, which this county would coordinate with, noting that Policy 9-10.2 lists some of the areas of coordination between the seven counties which are adjacent to Lake County. He stated that DCA added a policy which states that, annually, staff would review and, if necessary, update a map of adjacent lands, as one of the required maps in the future land uses of adjacent lands; therefore, the County would be aware of any land use changes adjacent to the County line. He stated another objection is related to the level of service, and what level of service standards were established for the County.


Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, stated that staff had taken out the recreation area set aside at the county owned site, which reduced the County's 5.9 acres per 1,000 county residents to approximately 2.9 acres per 1,000, thereby, reducing the impact fees by half.

Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that one of the main issues was the selection of the level of service for the future, based on taking out the 285 acres at the turnpike property, so any reference to that was taken out of the plan. He stated that the recreation inventory had been revised, as far as the total acres. He stated that without any guaranteed funding source between now and the year 2005, he would recommend that the adopted level of service be 1.5 acres - this way there would be no need to buy any park land between now and said year, so that the population would catch up to the current acreage. He stated that this would have an effect on impact fees.

Commr. Swartz stated he was opposed to lowering the level of service, and a policy that would provide no additional acreage over the 15 year planning period, effectively keeping the County from imposing an impact fee, unless the Board goes back and amends it.

Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, interjected that he did not think it was intended to be spread out over the entire 15 year period. He felt that the County has to tie it back into the Capital Improvements Element, due to the fact that it fixes it for a 5 year period, and the County has to balance, somehow or another, the Capital Improvements Element with the revenues the County has, noting that the County still has the capabilities after that 5 year period to amend the plan and increase the level of service.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County would be locked in for 5 years, unless they amend the plan. He stated the way to fund it is through the impact fee, rather than lowering the level of service.

Upon being questioned as to how the 2.5 acres came about, Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that it came about by taking out the Tourist Development Council property (285 acres). He stated the only reason staff is recommending 1.5 acres now, is due to the fact that there is no funding source to actually maintain the 2.5 acre level.

Commr. Bakich questioned the funding source.

Commr. Bailey stated the Board needs to establish priorities and feels there are areas of more importance than Parks & Recreation.

It was the consensus of the Board that this matter should take a lower priority.

Mr. Kirch briefly discussed Policy 8-8.4: Protection from Incompatible Land Uses; Policy 8-8.2: Protect and Preserve Environmentally Sensitive Lands as Open Space; and Policy 8-1.2: Level of Service Standards for Recreation Facilities, and answered questions presented by the Board.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA criticized substandard housing in the Data portion of this element, where staff had used the 1971 survey, noting that they tried to use those percentages and project them forward. This has since been corrected, as staff went back and used percentages from the 1980 census for structures without plumbing, assuming that said structures were inadequate housing.

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, stated that the best available information staff had was 1986, as far as land use, and 1985 information, as far as the last census count. He stated the census information did not come in until staff had started preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. He recommended that the Board go with the existing data that staff presently has, due to the fact that they do not have time to revise a lot of material, and wait until the first amendment period to bring it up-to-date. He stated that staff has set up the Affordable Housing Task Force, to be in effect by 1992, which he noted should help address said issue.

Mr. Kirch stated another objection that DCA had was regarding the fact that the County did not have a policy stating it would continue its Section 8 Housing program, so a policy was added stating that the County would continue same.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that the beltway is not a part of this element, and that it would be a Board decision as to whether or not they wanted to put it on the Future Land Use Map. However, if they chose to put it on the map, then staff would have to go back and do data and analysis. He stated the County traffic model was based on the beltway not being on the map because, at the time, DCA had instructed staff not to put the beltway on the map. If they did, they would have to have supporting data and analysis to show the effects of the beltway.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Department of Transportation (DOT) and DCA needs to realize that Lake County is part of Central Florida, and part of a regional system, and that the beltway needs to be on the map. She stated the County is looking at a 15 year plan, and it needs to be part of that plan, noting that it should have been originally.

Mr. Kirch stated that staff is caught in the middle, between the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Transportation. He stated that when staff started working on this matter a year ago, DOT said leave it off, but now they are saying to leave it on. However, DNR and DCA are saying to leave it off.

Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, stated that there were several turnpike interchanges left off the map, and if the decision is made to show the turnpike interchanges, as well as the beltway, then staff is not going to be able to prepare the backup information in time to submit the plan.

Commr. Hanson stated that the plan should be the County's, and if the County is going to get caught between DOT and DNR, then the Board should make its decision and go with it.

Mr. Kirch stated that he saw nothing wrong with putting in some language indicating that staff is aware there might be a freeway and three interchanges coming to the County. He stated DCA had a problem with the fact that there are two policies - one for bear underpasses (which they say the County cannot have because there is no data and analysis supporting it) and the other being that there is no mention of a beltway, yet, there is a policy that speaks of one.

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, stated that staff could insert language stating that they do not have time to do the analysis, at this time, but will do it by the next submission date, thereby, letting DCA know that they are for it, not against it.

Commrs. Bailey and Gregg concurred that there should be some general note in the plan that the County realizes this is something that is probably going to come with time, and they recognize it in the plan, thus the reason for calling for bear underpasses.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained what the process would be, once the plan is adopted. She stated that very few of the plans have actually gone to an administrative hearing on the non-compliance findings. She stated the County would have to go through a Land Use Plan Amendment process, so any agreed upon changes that might result, would go through that amendment process. She stated that the issue of the beltway would be affected this way, and with the impact of including it, there would have to be supporting data within the element; therefore, adopting a policy is recommended, to express the Board's view and give them the ability to support the Land Use Plan Amendment during the amendment periods.

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council postponed a decision regarding the DOT impact rule, noting that it is going to be referred to a committee made up of members of the council, people with technical expertise in the transportation area, and members of the development community, to review and bring forth a recommendation which deals with fair share and adverse impact on State and Federal roads.

Commr. Gregg stated that the most simple and economical way of funding highways and roads is through a gas tax, noting that he did not know why the Legislature continues to avoid it.

Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA had some problems with using wrong tables, which has since been corrected, noting that they are a part of Appendix A and B, in the element. He stated that, regarding Hwy. 441, DOT wants it maintained and improved, but DCA will accept level of service "D". He stated the other three areas that DCA seemed to be concerned with was (1) defining special transportation areas, and where they would be located; (2) "trip capturing development" in areas with deficient levels of service, which he noted were revised; and (3) an objection related to the access management regulation being

deferred until July 1992 and September 1992, noting that staff moved the date up to February of 1992, when the Land Development Regulations go into affect.

Commr. Swartz referred to Table 2-4, stating that a normal lane pavement width is 10 feet, but the County will allow 9 feet, under special purpose projects. He stated the purpose for having some narrower lane widths was to recognize very low volume local roads in settings where, as an approach to providing affordable housing, there might be less cost involved. He stated that it ought to also indicate a reduction in the right-of-way, to accompany that, noting that he would like staff to add language indicating that, under special purpose projects, the County will allow a reduction in the road right-of-way, with approval of the County engineer. He requested Public Works to look into the matter and give the Board a number to plug in.

It was noted that Public Works would look into the matter, before the Board makes a decision on it.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA's main concern with this element is that the County neglected to have a level of service standard for stormwater quality. He stated another issue was the fact that the County did not have set timeframes for completing the Stormwater Management Master Plan, so staff met with Environmental Services and inserted some dates, noting that each year a different basin plan would be prepared, and then the overall master plan would be finished by 1997. The issue of drainage and injection wells was then briefly discussed.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA did not have any objections on the Data portion of this element, however, had a couple of objections with the Policies portion.

A brief discussion occurred regarding Policy 6B-1-2.4, concerning a mandatory solid waste collection ordinance, at which time it was noted that the date of 1991, for the County to adopt a mandatory solid waste collection ordinance that requires all residences and commercial establishments to pay a fee for said collection, would be changed to 1992, and that some flexibility needed to be left in concerning exemptions.

Mr. Kirch stated that other areas which DCA objected to relate to incompatible land uses and buffers next to solid waste management facilities; an objection that the Department of Environmental Services shall maintain a program to monitor impacts to air, land, and wildlife habitat from privately operated solid waste management facilities, noting that they wanted the County to add ground and surface water to that, as well; and an objection regarding secondary containment of hazardous material, and the fact that the Department of Environmental Services shall assess the need for secondary containment of existing storage tanks and line systems that may impact public potable wellfields and prime aquifer recharge zones, noting that the location of new facilities within wellfield protection and prime aquifer recharge zones which store, use, or generate hazardous materials, including line systems which transport hazardous materials, shall be restricted.

Commr. Swartz suggested adding language to the effect that Environmental Services will not only, by 1993, assess the need for secondary containment on existing storage facilities, but will also include an evaluation process for the location of new facilities within said areas, and a criteria and site evaluation for same. He requested staff to put together some language, to be brought up when the Board discusses the issues of land use and conservation areas.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA objected to the consistency of the maps in this sub-element, versus conservation, noting that staff told them there were two different maps, from two different sources. He stated that this was the only Data portion they objected to.

Mr. Kirch stated the objection DCA had with the Policies portion relates to the prime aquifer recharge areas issue with the St. Johns River Water Management District, in that they have not identified them yet, noting that they were supposed to have already done it. DCA is saying that once these areas are identified, and adopted by rule in the Florida Administrative Code, that the County will need to amend its Comprehensive Plan, to make sure that it is consistent with the maps that are adopted by said code. He stated DCA had another objection with Policy 6E-1.2, in that they wanted specific, impervious surface ratios in the Comprehensive Plan for certain types of development, and not for recharge areas. He stated what language staff is proposing in answer to this objection.

Commr. Gregg questioned whether the County was going to let the St. Johns River Water Management District decide what areas will be prime recharge areas, to which Mr. Kirch replied that, according to the Statutes, they have been given the authority to do so.

Mr. Don Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, interjected that they were supposed to have done it two years ago.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, indicated what type uses would be prohibited in the area, and what the County will have to do in dealing with the uses that would be allowed.

Commr. Gregg questioned whether language could be inserted that allows further study for the prime recharge areas, as the County was told 10 years ago that the Green Swamp was a recharge area, and now it is not considered as such. He stated he felt the County should have some mechanism for allowing further study, noting that if the development or mining community wanted to utilize the land, and they had some substantial information to question the data, that there be some mechanism to allow them to pay the County enough money to hire a consultant and have an independent study done, to substantiate any findings they may have that it is not a prime recharge area. He stated he hated to see the County totally entrust the State with the responsibility of determining the prime recharge areas, without some means of questioning their findings.

Mr. Kirch confirmed the fact that the Board was talking about two policies, (1) for the County to have more input in the production of the prime recharge area maps, and (2) to allow an independent firm to contest the sites specific, should a developer or miner be willing to pay the County to do so. He then reviewed Policy 6E-1.7, pertaining to impervious surface ratios; Policy 6E-1.11, pertaining to xeriscape landscaping; and Policy 6E-2.6A, pertaining to the prohibition of disposal of hazardous waste throughout all of Lake County.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA stated the County did not analyze all the seven cities for stormwater and wastewater systems, as well as some privately owned franchised areas, noting that said information is a 9J-5 requirement that the County has to supply. He stated that DCA's objection is that the land use allocation has to be reasonably related to the population projections, and the densities have to be reasonably related to the provision of public water and sewer. He then reviewed a map showing areas which the cities indicated in their Comprehensive Plans as being the areas that they are going to serve for water and wastewater, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, informed the Board that staff plans to insert a policy statement in the Comprehensive Plan that states staff cannot physically compile the information they want at this time; however, they plan to compile it during the interim period.

Mr. Kirch reviewed Item 2., of the Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs), pertaining to facility deficiencies; as well as

Item 3., concerning the fact that the provision of sanitary sewer service to "all areas of the Lake County" is inconsistent with the need to maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage sprawl; and Item 4., pertaining to the fact of package treatment plants not being in compliance with water quality standards. These items pertain to changes made in response to DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of septic tanks, at which time Mr. Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, stated he had requested staff to put together some information for the Board regarding the inspections which have been done during the last six months, and felt that it would be interesting to see the kinds of violations which have occurred, noting that a lot of them are potential public health problems.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, referred to the Concurrency Management System portion of the ORC report from DCA, stating that Items 1. (a) through (f) are technical in nature. He informed the Board that Pages XB-1 through XB-13 contained revised language to the Concurrency Management System.

Mr. Kirch stated that, concerning the Future Land Use Element, DCA objected to data and analysis which relates to the existing land use map series, and the tables pertaining to same. He stated that the County contracted with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council in 1987 to map existing land use, and this is the data which staff used; however, DCA is stating that it is five years old. DCA is saying that if the County filled in the gap between 1986 and 1991, it would be a better basis to map the future land use from, because they would be showing growth over the last four or five years. He stated it is to the County's benefit to have more up-to-date existing land use. He stated staff is presently using data from the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, as recommended by DCA, however, noted that it is 1986 data. He stated that all the map problems should now be taken care of.

Mr. Kirch then discussed Item 2., on Page 20, pertaining to Maps I-1b-h and I-2, which depict the natural constraints for development, noting that DCA is asking for a map (in the existing land use map series) of critical upland habitat, which he noted has not yet been prepared. He stated another objection relates to the population projection, noting that DCA indicated to staff that the 41% is alright; therefore, staff took the population projection and increased it by said percentage. He stated that, according to DCA, the County is only supposed to project land use for an additional 74,000 people, in the unincorporated areas of the County. He stated that half of the population growth occurs in the cities, and half in the unincorporated areas of the County.

Mr. Kirch then reviewed a map showing the FEMA 100 year flood plain; a map from the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, indicating wetlands; and another map showing densities. Discussion then occurred regarding said maps.


At 12:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m., to continue a discussion regarding Lake County's Comprehensive Plan.


Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, reviewed Item 5., on Page 21 of the ORC Report, stating that all the policies are inadequate, because they are vague and do not contain substantive standards against which proposed development orders or permits may be measured, for compliance with the plan. He stated that DCA has five areas of concern, which he noted, stating that they want some guidelines and standards, and want them to be internally consistent.

A brief discussion occurred regarding silviculture and agriculture, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that DCA is asking for

best management practices, regarding same. Commr. Bailey stated he would like to see something in writing, concerning this matter.

Further discussion occurred regarding the population projection, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that, as he understood it, DCA wanted the County to justify whatever overallocation it made; however, the County did not do so.

Mr. Kirch stated that the County is going to amend the plan in five years, and will probably do a population projection on an annual basis, because it relates to the Concurrency Management System, and the County will have to maintain a more accurate count. He stated that, as far as wetlands is concerned, there is a policy pertaining to it in both the Conservation Element and the Land Use Element, however, they are not consistent. He stated that a wetlands policy does not have to be in both elements, but, the language should be the same. He stated DCA is concerned with using wetlands as a last resort, noting that, at present, the County can develop 10% of the wetlands. He stated that the new Wetlands Ordinance will allow some use of wetlands, based on criteria of how decent the wetlands are. He then reviewed Pages 22 and 23, of the element, pertaining to single family lots of record that are already in a plat, and alteration of wetlands. He stated it sets out development restrictions within existing wetlands that, if one has a platted lot of record, said individual can obtain a building permit. He stated it also calls for agriculture and silviculture operations to use best management practices, established by either the State of Florida or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Commr. Hanson stated she was concerned about buffers, to which Commr. Bailey concurred.

Commr. Bailey stated he did not want to deprive individuals of the use of their land, by saying no agricultural uses in wetlands, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that it almost gets down to a "taking" when one has wetlands and cannot use the land for anything other than passive use. She stated that if one can use the wetlands for agriculture, they can still utilize the land, noting that she felt it was a judgment call.

Commr. Swartz requested staff to look at Best Management Practices, interpret what they say, and give the Board some direction regarding them. He stated that, if necessary, staff can put together a policy dealing with them, to be titled Non-Agricultural Uses.

Regarding the portion of Policy 1-2.5, pertaining to lake front and wetland littoral zones, where it requires limitations on the placement of structures within the 100 year floodplain, and a minimum setback of residential dwellings of 75 feet, Commrs. Bailey, Hanson, and Gregg stated they did not agree with it, as they feel it does not leave much room to build a home, on a lot of the lots in Lake County.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that the setback requirement for septic tanks, of 75 feet, would be changed to a minimum of 100 feet from the water mark, or the most upland portion of the lot, as possible, considering the depth of the lot, whichever is greater.

Mr. Kirch then brought up for discussion the matter of limiting removal of vegetation along lakefronts, and the placing of sand on a beach, noting that if an individual has a 100 foot lot, they can only put sand on 25 feet of the lot. Another issue, which was briefly discussed, pertained to the prohibition of disposal of yard waste along lakefronts.

Mr. Kirch then discussed Policy 1-2.2, on Page 25, of the element, pertaining to the issue of the 100 year floodplain, noting that use of it should be as a last resort. He stated that one can place structures in the 100 year floodplain, but, it should not be the first option, if someone comes in with a PUD, and has to create compensating storage because they are going to use the 100 year floodplain. He stated that the individual should design the project around the 100 year floodplain, and then proceed from

there. He stated that passive recreation would be permitted within the 100 year floodplain.

Commr. Hanson interjected that the maps pertaining to the 100 year floodplain are not very accurate.

After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to delete the sentence which reads "New development proposals shall be prohibited from developing within the 100 year floodplain", from Policy 1-2.2, and to amend the sentence which reads "The Lake County Floodplain Ordinance shall be amended to prohibit new development from causing any net loss of flood storage capacity..." to "shall not allow any net loss of flood storage capacity".

Mr. Kirch stated that staff would be revising the language in Item 2., on Page 26, regarding septic tanks and drain fields, due to wording contained in a sentence on Page 25, pertaining to same. He briefly reviewed Policy 1-2.11, pertaining to water quality; Policy 1-2.3, pertaining to aquifer recharge; and Policy 1-2.4, pertaining to sinkholes (a brief discussion occurred regarding this policy). He further reviewed Policy 1-2.6, pertaining to vegetative communities and wildlife habitats; and Policy 1-1.2, pertaining to open space (it was noted that the percentage of 25% should be changed to 20%). Policy 1-6.1, pertaining to coordinating future land uses with soil conditions was reviewed, as well as Policy 1-11.18, pertaining to protection of environmentally sensitive resources.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the issue of the Green Swamp, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that DCA wants one home per ten acres but, in addition, as far as policies go, they want the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with Chapter 380 and the Administrative Code's Principles for Guiding Development. He stated that, if the County can satisfy the criteria in the Administrative Code for the areas such as floodplains, wetlands, stormwater, etc., then the last two areas they would need to satisfy would be mining and densities. He stated that, according to the ORC Report, DCA wanted to prohibit mining; however, they now seem to say that mining could be confined to where it presently exists; but that there would be no new mines. He stated another alternative is that mining could be based on the special management study, in that the County will identify sites in the Green Swamp where mining would be allowed. He stated that DCA has gone from prohibiting mining, to no expansion of mines, to let's look at where mining is appropriate in the Green Swamp, so it may just be a density issue. He stated three options which the County has, in dealing with the issue.

Further discussion occurred regarding the mining issue, at which time Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA wants no urban densities in the Green Swamp for one year. He also stated that, according to the Florida Statutes, one cannot mine in an area that is environmentally sensitive.

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, stated that the Board would have three options, regarding the Land Use Map, being (1) to leave it the way it is; (2) to go with what the State has recommended, which is to leave it the way it is, but take out certain areas, leaving the 1 to 5 ratio and creating a task force to do a special study in the Green Swamp area; and (3) to accept DCA's recommendation to go to 1 to 10 across the entire area. He stated that around the area of the Bramalea Urban Node, the Florida Quality Development (FQD) was signed for South Lake, and the County needs to make sure that its Comprehensive Plan densities are in agreement with the densities in the FQD that was signed for South Lake.

The next area which was discussed was the issue of the Wekiva, at which time Mr. Kirch stated that, in the ORC Report, there were some technical problems with the Wekiva River Comprehensive Plan Ordinance. The Board stated they had no problem with changes being made involving technical matters, however, felt that no other changes should be made.

Mr. Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, stated that DCA suggests that the County put a policy in the plan that would revisit the Wekiva River Protection Area, within a designated time period.

The issue of small land owners was brought up and briefly discussed.

Mr. Swanson then discussed the matter of the beltway, stating that DCA suggested that the County look at the beltway issue, noting that one way to do it would be to form a task force with Lake, Orange, and Seminole counties to look at the viability of the beltway. He discussed the matter of eliminating the commercial designation that is around the beltway, noting that they had no serious problem with eliminating commercial activity around the interchange, but felt that the beltway that had been designated should remain on the map.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that DCA had some clarification about the policy pertaining to lakeshore and waterfront development, being Policy 1-20.10, and the fact that it includes the vague language "wherever appropriate" and "sufficient". He stated they want staff to define "wherever appropriate". The other issue pertaining to said policy deals with setbacks, noting that said language has since been amended.

Mr. Kirch reviewed Policy 1-11.7, pertaining to the adherence with adopted levels of service within designated rural villages; Policy 1-8.1, pertaining to amending future land use, to best encourage the redevelopment and renewal of blighted areas; and Policy 1-12.1, pertaining to consideration of community facilities. He then briefly reviewed Page 40, stating that the objection by DCA relates to the land use, and the allocation of land use in urban sprawl, and Page 41, which relates to the mixed use categories, noting that the County has the point system set up in the Future Land Use Element that relates to urban services, questioning whether, as the Board adopts the Future Land Use Map, they wanted to keep the up to 10 units per acre category, as it relates to the provision of water and sewer, or whether they wanted to eliminate that category, and combine the acreage into just an urban expansion land use category, which he noted would eliminate a lot of the allocation problem.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of urban expansion, at which time Commr. Bailey stated he would like to see some urban expansion type growth, noting that he does not agree with the compact urban node concept.

Mr. Kirch then reviewed Policy 7-2.16, pertaining to the protection of public potable water wellfields, noting that staff tried to, initially, divert regulations for potable water wellfields through the Land Development Regulations. He stated that DCA wants some guidelines as to what is going to be covered through said regulations.

Discussion occurred regarding the language contained in this policy, at which time it was noted that the Board had no problem with said language, as it is proposed.

Mr. Kirch reviewed Policy 1-12.2, pertaining to the interpretation of residential density. He briefly discussed the South Lake DRI, and what DCA stated regarding it, as well as indicated what his response was to DCA's remarks.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, discussed the issue of vesting, stating that there are several sections in the ORC Report that deal with vesting. She stated that true vesting, which is what the Florida Statutes contemplates, and what the County needs to incorporate, is if it is an approved development, and a final development order has been issued, it is, in fact, underway and ongoing, in good faith. She stated that it is a working, functional development. She stated that, if that is the case, said development would not be subject to the new Comprehensive Plan - they would be permitted to continue to go forward under the prior existing Comprehensive Plan and regulations. She stated that this is true vesting of a development. She stated the other categories which staff has addressed, which they call vesting, however, are really entitlements to density (as set out in the Comprehensive Plan), would permit development at that density.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board had discussed commercial and industrial property that was already existing, noting that what has been resolved, regarding the matter, is that all industrially zoned property is already designated in the Land Use Plan, so there is no reason to afford development rights, because they are already there. She stated if it is a designated land use, in the plan, they already have those rights, and are permitted to go forward. She stated that concurrency is a different issue entirely, noting that the development would have to meet concurrency standards, unless it is a vested development at the time that they are pulling their building permits. She stated it has more to do with capacity, than the ability to develop at a particular density or intensity. She stated that concurrency would have to be measured further down in the process, because a final development order for concurrency is different than a final development order for density rights or intensity rights.

Ms. Lustgarten distributed a handout containing general language pertaining to vesting. She then discussed density rights exceptions, and intensity rights exceptions, noting that the Board did not need to address it, as far as industrial, because all industrial uses are reflected. She stated that there is a requirement to put some time frames into what the County already has. She stated that the commercially designated properties in the Land Use Plan are existing land uses and will be allowed to go forward. She discussed commercial properties outside those designated commercial enclaves, noting that what the proposed Comprehensive Plan provides is that they shall have a site plan approved, and commence development within two years of the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan, which would permit the intensity rights to go forward.

She indicated what the County is going to do regarding commercial sites in the Wekiva, to prevent having to discuss intensity exceptions. She stated that, other than what is there, no other industrial is permitted. She stated the Board had set a two year time frame on a site plan for commercial, and stated that a final plat must be recorded within eighteen months of approval of the preliminary plat, so for the intensity exception, that time frame would put it within what is already permitted. She stated that, at the time that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, if there had been a complete application for a site plan, or preliminary plat, they would have had to have those approved, and commence development within those time frames, if it was outside of a commercial designation, or if it were not consistent with the land use designation on said property. She stated that by permitting density rights, it does count as part of the County's population figures, noting that DCA will count those as part of the allocation.


Mr. David Moon, Planner, distributed a handout containing changes which had been made to the Capital Improvements Element. He stated that the changes made relate to this year's budget, noting that most of them affect drainage and recreation. He then referred to some additional changes which were made to the element, pertaining to the five year schedule for capital improvements, which covered three types of facilities, being categories A, B, and C. He stated that the policy addresses the situation of revenue, in that if it is not available at the time that the facility is scheduled to be implemented, then there are two options, being (1) to amend the level of service, if that facility is needed to maintain the level of service, or (2) to hold a public referendum to increase the ad valorem property taxes. He stated if that fails, then the County will have to go back to the first alternative.

Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, interjected that if this does not work, then the County will have to go back and amend the five year schedule, and take the projects out.

Mr. Moon referred to Policy 10-12.3, pertaining to the management of debt limitation, stating that it is required by 9J-5 to put a policy in for debt management, based on the material prepared by Henderson & Young. He stated that this policy does not have a significant impact on the County, because if a major project is implemented, such as a wastewater treatment plant, the County would have to amend the plan anyway, and, at that time, if the policy could be revised, the County would assume more debt than the ratio showing that policy.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, referred to the proposed response to Policy 6A-2.1, of this element, stating that it says municipal service areas shall be based upon available capacity reported in their Comprehensive Plans, and talks about executing interlocal agreements with the municipalities. He then discussed the portion of the GOPs pertaining to the chronic non-compliance of septic tanks. He briefly discussed Policy 6A-1.1 of the GOPs, pertaining to implementation of the Septic System Service and Repair Utility Plan; Policy 6A-1.2, pertaining to the County following DER's rules, as well as the Rules of the Pollution Control Board; Policy 6A-1.4, pertaining to the adoption of an Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance; Policy 6A-2.8, pertaining to the County adopting and implementing an expanded residuals, septage, and manure management program; Policy 6A-2.8, pertaining to the fact that DER cannot tell which areas private facilities were going to be able to serve, noting that if the County is not going to provide the service, and the cities are not going to do it, then DER will define areas that are currently operating adequately, to serve said areas.


Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, stated that there were some appendices (A through D), in the back of the GOPs, that DCA wanted deleted. He stated they also had some problems with the definitions of the following: Critical Habitat; Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern; Environmentally Sensitive; Natural Resources; Non-Point Source Pollution and Point Source Pollution; Significant Natural Upland Community; and Wetlands, which they revised.

Mr. Kirch then quickly reviewed the following policies: Policy 7-2.7, concerning demand for groundwater resources; Policy 7-2.17, pertaining to the siting of public potable water wells; Policy 7-12.5, pertaining to slope and land use; Policy 7-2.20, pertaining to conformance of land use decision making with the Rules of Regional, Sub-State, and State Agencies; Policy 7-3.2, pertaining to the Designation of Outstanding Lake County Waters Program; Policy 7-3.16, pertaining to other point source pollution discharges; Policy 7-13.2, pertaining to mining in environmentally sensitive areas; Policy 7-13.3, pertaining to mining in prime aquifer recharge areas; Policy 7-6.2, pertaining to conservation of natural upland plant communities; Policy 7-17.3: Land Management to Enhance Wildlife; Policy 7-5.4, pertaining to regionally significant wetland buffer zones; Policy 7-7.9, pertaining to the protection of existing natural reservations; Policy 7-15.11, pertaining to the Storage Tank Compliance Program; and Policy 7-15.12, pertaining to regulating the use of septic tanks serving industrial and manufacturing concerns.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.