The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 21, 1992, 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: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; Don Bailey; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Mike Anderson, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Watkins gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Hanson.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of December 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting), as presented, and the Minutes of December 16, 1991 (Special Meeting), as amended.

Commr. Bailey requested that his name be listed in the Minutes in the future as Don Bailey, rather than Donald B. Bailey.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, clarified that on Page 5, Lines 5-7, it was determined that the matter in question would be resolved in 60 days, rather than 60 to 90 days, as stated in the Minutes.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

Accounts Allowed

Request for payment of Warrant No. 145443 through Warrant No. 146134, for the following accounts:

Greater Hills MSTU School Impact Fee Trust Fund

Landfills County Transportation Trust Fund

General Revenue Northeast Ambulance

County Fire Control Private Industry Council

Emergency 911 Fund Law Library

Capital Outlay Countywide Library

Mosquito Control Commissary Trust Fund

Northwest Fire District Countywide Fire District

Revenue Sharing Resort & Development Fund Tax

Animal Shelter Trust Fund Aquatic Weed

Section 8 Road Impact

Miscellaneous/Gas Fund

Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges

Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for Christina Hitchcock, Juvenile, and Frank Hitchcock and Dina Hitchcock, Parents, in the amount of $50.00 - Case No. 89-270-CJ.

Accounts Allowed/Reports

Request to acknowledge receipt of Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending December 31, 1991, in the amount of $136,376.57. Same period last year $108,632.66.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

A brief discussion occurred regarding a request for approval of specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized, payments to be made and other services that do not require bids or quotes, at which time it was requested that this request be pulled from the Consent Agenda and handled separately.

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

Budget Transfers/State Attorney

Request for following budget transfer, for in-car DUI videotaping equipment for the Lake County Sheriff's Department (12 units):

Fund: General

Department: Judicial

Division: State Attorney

From: Operating Expenses

To: Capital Outlay

Transfer No.: 92-0051

Amount: $13,000

Private Industry Council

Request for signature authorization on the submission of Lake County's proposal to operate the 1992 JTPA, Title IIB, Summer Youth Program.

Personnel/State Agencies

Request for signature authorization on a Letter of Intent to the Florida Bureau of Public Safety Management stating that the County's Equal Employment Opportunity plan is in the process of being updated, and will be submitted to the State upon final adoption by the Board.

Accounts Allowed/Grants/Resolutions/State Agencies

Request for approval of resolution on three applications for Community Services Block Grant funds, and authorized proper signatures; and request for approval of subgrantee funding to the Lake County Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., in the amount of $4,685.00, from the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs.

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Request to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, for maintenance, for Summit Landings, in the amount of $11,808.50.

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Request to release a Certificate of Deposit, for maintenance, for Lake Dalhousie Estates, in the amount of $41,815.10.

Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements

Request to accept the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds:

Large Lot Waiver

Phill Orr - District 4

Marion Hopper - District 4

John Beatty - District 4

Gunn Seawell - District 4

Robert Martin - District 5

East Side Groves, Inc. (3) - District 2

Deeds/Municipalities/Outdoor Recreation

Request for acceptance of Astor Boat Ramp Deed.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Outdoor Recreation

State Agencies

Request for approval of Joint Participation Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation, for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Program, and authorized proper signatures on same.

Deeds/Roads-County & State/Subdivisions

Request to reserve the following Murphy Act State Road Reservation:

Deed No. 2724 - Richard Dane II and Susan Ann Edwards - Reserve 25 ft. from centerline of Lido Avenue, Mt. Plymouth Subdivision.

Municipalities/Road Closings

Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 673, by Richard and Patricia Wygrzyn, to vacate water supply easement, Tavares area, District 3.

Municipalities/Road Closings

Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 674, by James H. Herlong, Jr., to vacate road, Land of Lane and Jackson, Tavares area, District 3.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-BUDGET/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

Commr. Bakich questioned requests by the State Attorney's Office to purchase memorex cameras, TV monitors, wireless microphones, and treestands to be used in conjunction with DUI cases.

Mr. Bob McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk, explained the request, stating that last year the Board addressed this issue when the judiciary decided to impose an additional $50.00 for the purpose of purchasing equipment for the prosecution of DUI cases. He stated that said equipment will come out of the DUI fund, noting that there is approximately $20,000.00 in that fund at the present time.

Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Executive Director of Administrative Services-Budget, and Mr. Doug Conway, Acting Purchasing Director, appeared before the Board and answered questions from the Board regarding said request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and

carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for approval of

specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized,

payments to be made, and other services that do not require bids or

quotes, as follows:

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-BUDGET

BUDGET TRANSFERS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES/PERSONNEL

A request from Personnel Division to authorize, post, and fill two new Management and Budget Analysts positions in the Budget Office, with a Pay Grade of 606, and a starting salary of $23,614.50; and a request for a budget transfer from the General Fund Contingency of $37,000.00 was deleted from the County Manager's Departmental Business.

ORDINANCES/WATER AUTHORITY

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to advertise the Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 5, Boats and Waterways, Section 5-2, Lake County Code.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/JAILS

COUNTY BUILDINGS & GROUNDS

Mr. Mike Anderson, Interim County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Capital Improvements to authorize a change order to Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum's design contract, in the amount of $6,810.50, to cover additional architectural services for the interior landscaping redesign of floor plans to the new Courts Building.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/JAILS

COUNTY BUILDINGS & GROUNDS

Mr. Mike Anderson, Interim County Manager, explained this request.

A motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Bailey to approve a request from Capital Improvements to authorize a change order to Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum's design contract, in the amount of $64,321.39, to cover additional architectural services for the redesign of space in the new Courts Building, as a result of the deletion of three (3) elevators, and to encumber the funds.

Under discussion, Commr. Gregg stated that he felt any other changes that are requested by any of the parties involved with the Criminal Justice Facility should go to the Jail Task Force, for review, before being submitted to the Board.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Don Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and gave a brief update on activities relating to the Astor-Astor Park Wastewater Facility Plans.

No action was needed or taken at this time.

E911/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/RESOLUTIONS

HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a resolution and a 60 month lease/purchase agreement with GTE Leasing Corporation, for the purchase of a digital network for the E-9-1-1 system.

COUNTY MANAGER'S SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved an agreement between Lake County and George F. Green, developer of Lake Ella Manor, for the issuance of building permits while platting is in progress.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the First Amendment to the agreement between Lake County and Heniger & Ray, Inc., for consultant services, for preparation of the Land Development Regulations, and authorized proper signatures on same.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that a suit was filed against the County by Design Homes of Lake County, in relation to the processing of a plat involving a

development known as Emerald Green. She stated that they are seeking to have the County accept their plat application and process it, through a mandamus action. She stated that her office will respond accordingly, in due time, and that she will seek to have most of the many county employees that were named as parties to the suit dismissed.

No action was needed or taken at this time.

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

ORDINANCES/RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS

ROADS-COUNTY & STATE

Mr. Jim Stivender, Executive Director of Public Works, explained this request and requested direction from the Board regarding same. He stated that surrounding counties have experienced the same kind of problems that this county is beginning to experience and have stated they wished they had never initiated the program.

Commr. Bailey interjected that it has caused quite a problem for the Public Works Department.

Commr. Bakich stated that he does not see the ordinance doing what the Board had intended for it to do, quoting a statement which Commr. Gregg had made that the County is spending five dollars to get 50 cents in return, therefore, felt that it should be repealed.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board would have to authorize the drafting of an amendment to the ordinance, which she noted would have to be properly advertised in two public hearings.

Commr. Gregg interjected that he had not supported the 30% row allocation ordinance from the beginning, and feels that this may be the County's final solution to resolving differences which the County has with Lady Lake regarding same.

Commr. Swartz stated that, until such time as he is able to review something to indicate that there is not a way in which this can be applied, he will not vote to repeal the additional rights-of-way acquisition charge, noting the reason why he felt it has

created such a problem for the County. He stated that he would, between now and the time that this issue comes before the Board for public hearing, review what some other counties are doing and how they are handling it. He feels that the Board is caving in to a very small minority of people.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board authorized the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, to draft an amendment to the Road Impact Fee Ordinance, eliminating the 30% increase for rights-of-way acquisition (which became effective October 1, 1991) and to issue refunds of payments made for that purpose, as well as authorized the advertisement of two public hearings pertaining to same.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

OUTDOOR RECREATION

Commr. Bailey informed the Board that he had requested Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, to contact other areas of the State that had brought baseball spring training camps into their counties, and inquire as to the best way to create a Task Force for the purpose of investigating same, at which time said findings will be brought to the attention of the Tourist Development Council, for recommendation to the Board.

Mr. Warren interjected that the matter is scheduled to be brought to the attention of the Tourist Development Council on January 29, 1992.

No action was needed or taken at this time.

ELECTIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/LANDFILLS/MUNICIPALITIES

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

Commr. Hanson brought up for discussion the issue of solid waste, at which time she informed the Board that she had met with the League of Cities on two different occasions concerning the matter, however, feels that she, alone, cannot give them answers they need. She suggested that the entire Board meet with the League and discuss the solid waste issue, noting that she felt a meeting of this type would be very constructive, due to the fact

that there will be a number of individuals present who are very knowledgeable about the solid waste problems. She suggested that said meeting be held on Tuesday, January 28, 1992, from 9:00 to 12:00 noon, after which the Board members will attend a retreat at Lakeside Inn, in Mt. Dora, to set their priorities for FY 1991-92.

Mr. Don Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and gave input regarding the matter.

Commr. Gregg stated that he had spoken with the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten; with the Supervisor of Elections, Ms. Emogene Stegall; and with the Property Appraiser, Ed Havill, about putting this issue on the March 10, 1992 presidential primary ballot, noting that it can be done if the Board takes action this date. He stated that Mr. Havill is still in agreement that, if it is on the referendum and approved by the voters, he will handle the billing of it, which will eliminate the situation that the County got into last year, regarding this matter.

Further discussion was postponed until after a public hearing which had been scheduled for this time.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RESOLUTIONS/ROAD CLOSINGS

PETITION NO. 655 JIMMY SLOAN GROVELAND AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Executive Director of Public Works, explained this request, noting that it had been postponed several times prior to this meeting.

Mr. Leonard Baird, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the road being requested to be closed is an old Groveland Farms 12 foot easement that runs up the side of Tracts 50 and 63. He stated that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with Mr. Dennis Horton (concerning an easement that runs through Mr. Horton's property) and that the remaining parties of interest are Mr. and Mrs. George Claytor, who own a large parcel adjacent to the property in question. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Claytor and that Mr. Claytor was in agreement to closing the road, as long as he is provided an

alternate access of 20 feet, which he noted his client is prepared to give Mr. Claytor. He stated that the access given to Mr. Claytor is approximately 100 feet east of the present easement.

Mrs. Claytor informed the Board (from the audience) that she and her husband will be satisfied with the easement, as long as they can get ingress, egress, utilities and a building permit, at which time the Board stated that they could not guarantee the building permit.

Mr. Baird stated that his client is proposing 20 feet for the easement in question; however, the easement that has been prepared by his office is only for 15 feet, with ingress, egress and public utilities. He stated that he will change the easement to 20 feet and fax it to Mr. Terry Hadley (Mr. and Mrs. Claytor's attorney) this date, noting that if Mr. Hadley approves it, Mr. Baird will then execute a new one and have it recorded the next day (January 22, 1992).

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the resolution pertaining to the road vacation can be made effective (subject to acceptance of the newly executed easement by Mr. and Mrs. Claytor) the date that the new easement is recorded.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 655, for Jimmy Sloan, by Leonard H. Baird, Jr., to vacate unnamed road and tract, Groveland Farms Subdivision, Clermont area, District 2, with stipulations, as noted.

PETITION NO. 662 KAREN CRAWFORD UMATILLA AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Executive Director of Public Works, explained this request, stating that the Board had requested that this petition be brought back with an explanation by Public Works as to how they would handle the road situation in the area in question, at which time he informed the Board as to how staff would handle the situation.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Bakich stated that he would like to leave Fourth Street open.

The applicant was present in the audience to answer any questions there might be from the Board.

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 662, for Karen Crawford, to vacate road, East Umatilla Plat, Umatilla area, District 5, with the stipulation that Fourth Street be left open to the public.

PETITION NO. 672 ROSS E. VAN DELLEN CASSIA AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Executive Director of Public Works, explained this request.

No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 672, for Ross E. Van Dellen, to vacate easement, Cassia area, District 4.

ELECTIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/LANDFILLS/MUNICIPALITIES

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS (CONT'D.)

Commr. Gregg brought up, for further discussion, the issue of solid waste and the proposed referendum regarding same, to be voted on during the March 1992 presidential primary election, at which time he requested the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, to read the three questions that will be placed on said ballot, which she did, noting that it would be a straw ballot that would be voted on by all residents of the County.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the ballot questions, at which time Commr. Bailey stated that, if the County is going to have a solid waste program for Lake County, he feels everybody should pay, but pay the same.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the County cannot impose special assessments within the cities, noting that the solid waste legislation which was passed by the Legislature gives the County total jurisdiction over the solid waste system in the

County; however, it does not give the County jurisdiction to impose fees within the cities.

Commr. Swartz interjected that the interlocal agreements that have been signed with the cities state that the County will implement mandatory collection, or special assessments, and that is what the cities want the County to do. It was noted that only three of the cities have signed interlocal agreements, to date.

Commr. Gregg stated that, if the referendum passes, the Property Appraiser will handle the billing aspect of it, which means that the County will not be adding another level of bureaucracy. He stated that he feels solid waste disposal is a countywide issue, due to the fact that the County has a landfill and an incinerator that it has to pay for. He stated that, if the referendum is passed, every household in the County will be charged for solid waste disposal, which he noted is a starting point with the equity issue.

Upon being questioned whether the County has the ability, by ordinance, to require cities to have mandatory collection, the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, stated that the County cannot set what the fee will be, but it can adopt a county ordinance requiring mandatory collection. She stated that the cities have the ability to adopt a contrary ordinance, pursuant to the Constitution, if they choose to do so, and if they do, the County ordinance will not apply.

At this time, the County Attorney reviewed the three ballot questions, once again, and the Board noted changes they would like to be made to same.

Further discussion was postponed until after a presentation scheduled for this time, pertaining to the District III Health & Rehabilitative Services reorganization.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:40 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would take a five minute recess.

HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES/PUBLIC HEALTH/STATE AGENCIES

Ms. Susanne Casey, Health & Rehabilitative Services' (HRS) District III Administrator, appeared before the Board and discussed the reorganization of HRS, particularly District III, and how it is going to affect Lake County. She stated that the reorganization is a compilation of the State's twenty interim planning groups' reports addressing the need for a decentralized structure and mechanism for community involvement required by Senate Bill 2306. She stated that said Bill was enacted as a result of an overwhelming response to find a better, more responsive and efficient way to do business. One of the major issues directly effecting Lake County is that District 3-3, comprised of Marion, Lake, Hernando, Citrus and Sumter counties wishes to become a district unto themselves. These counties would separate from Alachua, Bradford, Gilchrist, Levy, Putnam, Union, Columbia, Dixie, Hamilton, Lafayette and Suwanee counties. The planning group reasons that the 5 southern counties relate more to Ocala than they do to Gainesville. The consensus is that absolutely no service dollars should be spent for the reconfiguration of the districts; therefore, if funding is not readily available, the reconfiguration should be phased in over time.

Ms. Casey stated that "The Blueprint for Change" (as the reorganization is known) will be presented during a special session of the Legislature, and, should the bill be enacted, nominating committees will need to be established for appointment to the Health and Human Services Boards (HHSB), of which it is recommended that there be at least one within each of the recommended districts, and that there be no less than nine (9) and no more than twenty-five (25) members on said board. She stated that each county shall have a nominating committee, comprised of the following: a member from the Board of County Commissioners, the School Board, the judiciary/law enforcement, three members selected by the Governor, three additional members selected by the original

six members, and a member representative of the diversity of the County.

Ms. Casey stated that the hope of the HRS reorganization is that they will eventually make HRS such a part of the local community that the community at large will become an active part in helping HRS find solutions to problems, as opposed to just always complaining about them. She stated they are trying to make HRS locally owned and operated. She then discussed the budget, stating that part of the reorganization is to give budget cuts ability to the districts and to the boards, regardless of whether they are a collaborative partner or a managing partner. She then answered questions presented by the Board regarding the reorganization.

No action was needed or taken at this time.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES/PUBLIC HEALTH

Dr. John Pellosie, Director of the Lake County Public Health Unit, appeared before the Board to discuss the Rabies Control Program, noting that, due to the budget crisis the State is presently facing, it has eliminated funding for the Rabies Control Program to the Lake County Public Health Unit for FY 91-92, and, last year, the Board denied a request for funding to continue the program; therefore, at the present time, there is no authorized rabies program in Lake County. He stated concerns he had regarding the lack of such a program in the County, noting the increase in rabies cases over the past several years, and the fact that rabies is always a fatal disease.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz indicated the importance of having such a program and suggested that staff explore the possibility of adding an additional cost to the fee charged for rabies tags, to contribute toward future funding of the Rabies Control Program, and bring said information back to the Board at a later date.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for authorization to allow the Lake County Public Health Unit to reappropriate

$5,719.00 of county funds from Area 361, Individual Sewage Disposal, into the Rabies Control Program; a request to authorize additional county funding of $12,000.00, in order to provide a Rabies Control Program in Lake County for FY 91-92; and authorized staff to research the possibility of adding an additional cost to the fee charged for rabies tags, to contribute toward future funding of the Rabies Control Program, and bring said information back to the Board at a later date.

ELECTIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/LANDFILLS/MUNICIPALITIES CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS (CONT'D.)

Discussion continued regarding the solid waste issue and the three (3) questions to be placed on the March 10, 1992 presidential primary ballot. The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, noted that she had made changes in the wording of the questions, as requested by the Board, at which time she read same.

Further changes were requested to be made in the wording of the questions.

Mr. Jim Myers, City Clerk, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the Board would go with mandatory collection if the first question, pertaining to countywide collection, is voted down, however, the voters vote in favor of the second question, pertaining to special assessments.

Commr. Gregg responded to Mr. Myers' question, stating that, if the people of Lake County vote that every resident of the County will pay for disposal costs (whether they are collecting it or not) every household in Lake County, theoretically, will pay for its pro-rata share of operating the overall system. He stated that if they do not vote in favor of collection, or the funding of collection, they will still be footing their share of operating the solid waste management system, noting that this is the key issue that will solve the equity problem between the cities and the County.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that the County Attorney would prepare the resolutions pertaining to the ballot questions, as amended, and would bring same back to this meeting, for approval, when the Board reconvenes for the afternoon session.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-BUDGET/BUDGETS

Commr. Hanson questioned where the County presently is concerning the five year projection and was informed by the Interim County Manager, Mike Anderson, that Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Executive Director of Administrative Services-Budget, is compiling the information pertaining to same, to be made available to the commissioners for the Special Board Meeting that is scheduled to be held at the Lakeside Inn, in Mt. Dora, on January 28, 1992, at which time priorities will be set for the 1992 year.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE

RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Executive Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board and updated them regarding the Horne Properties issue.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the Executive Director of Public Works for approval of an agreement between Lake County and Horne Properties, regarding dedication of right-of-way for the Leesburg east-west connector, and authorized proper signatures on same.

COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Mike Anderson, Interim County Manager, informed the Board (for informational purposes) that Lake County Days will be held at the Capitol, in Tallahassee, on Wednesday, February 19, 1992, and encouraged the commissioners to attend. He noted that the County has paid the City of Eustis $350.00, in preparation of same.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m.

ELECTIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/LANDFILLS/MUNICIPALITIES

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

(CONT'D.)

The County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, informed the Board that she had prepared the resolutions pertaining to the three questions to be placed on the March 10, 1992 presidential primary ballot, pertaining to the solid waste issue in Lake County, and that they were now ready for Board approval. She then reviewed the resolutions and discussed same with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved Resolution No. 1992-12, relating to the placement of a proposition on the March 10, 1992 presidential primary election ballot concerning mandatory collection of solid waste in Lake County, including cities.

Commrs. Hanson and Swartz voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved Resolution No. 1992-13, relating to the placement of a proposition on the March 10, 1992 presidential primary election ballot, concerning assessment of the costs of solid waste management on each residence in Lake County, including those within cities.

Commrs. Swartz and Hanson voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved Resolution No. 1992-14, relating to placement of a proposition on the March 10, 1992 presidential primary election ballot, concerning the imposition of special assessments by Lake County, for the collection of solid waste in unincorporated Lake County.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

REZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, explained each of the following zoning cases before they were heard.

PETITION NO. 130-91-2 RR TO RE EMMA-HART GROVES

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to RE (Rural Estates), for development of single-family residences.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

PETITION CUP NO. 681A-4 AMEND CUP NO. 681-4

JOSEPH & MIRIAM CHAVIS

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend CUP No. 681-4, to add one (1) acre for the addition of a sales office, and storage of finished material to the existing sawmill business.

PETITION NO. 128-91-4 C-1 TO CP & 5 FT. SETBACKS

GEORGE R. STEDRONSKY

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial) and a request for 5 ft. setbacks from the side property lines, for a model home center and future professional offices.

PETITION NO. 129-91-1 AMEND PFD BARNETT BANK OF PASCO COUNTY

Commr. Gregg declared a Conflict of Interest in this case, due to the fact that he is on the Board of Directors for Barnett Bank, and declined from the discussion and vote.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and discussed what is proposed for the property in question, noting that the petitioner is leaving a natural wooded buffer of approximately 100 ft. wide to the north of

the project in question. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the project.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing Leesburg Regional Medical Center, appeared before the Board stating that her client has no opposition to the project, as long as the provisions that her client requested are met.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request that language be inserted in the Conditions that a minimum 50 ft. natural buffer be left on the west and south sides of Building B, which houses Maintenance.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend PFD (Public Facilities District), for construction of a Health Care Mall for Waterman Medical Center, as further amended.

PETITION NO. 149-91-4 A TO PFD ASTOR FOREST CHAPEL, INC.

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PFD (Public Facilities District), for construction of a church and accessory uses.

PETITION CUP NO. 91/12/1-4 CUP IN A GINA BALL

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the petitioner needs to comply with the Wekiva general provisions regarding home occupations.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for a home occupation for floral arrangements.

PETITION NO. 137-91-4 RR TO R-1-15 MARY MARTHA WAITE

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to R-1-15 (Residential Estates), for construction of a single-family residence.

PETITION NO. 160A-80-3 AMEND CP ORD. NO. 2-81 RICHARD HARPER

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the petitioner (Mr. Gary Johnson) appeared before the Board to discuss this request. She submitted (for the record) a copy of a letter she had written to Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, stating that she had revised Page 4 of the Staff Report (which she enclosed), incorporating additional language in paragraph (A), relative to specific uses for the site. She stated that the additional language was not to add new uses, but to add language in the ordinance which reflects the uses on the site plan, and to enumerate the specific uses so that future questions regarding

on-site activity can be minimized. She stated that her client would like to be able to make repairs to all equipment that is available for rental, and that he intends to have Ryder Trucks available at the site, for lease, which he would like to display in front of his business, along with equipment that he has available for rental purposes. She stated that she had inserted the location of some future buildings, noting that if her client's business goes well, he may want to have the ability to expand in the future. She indicated another area which will be used for future storage and warehouses.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the buffering requirement for the site in question, at which time Ms. Bonifay answered questions from the Board regarding same.

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, read into the Minutes what the Code requires regarding buffering or screening of properties, noting that when abutting a single-family residential

district, it shall have a buffer or landscape buffer consisting of shrubs, hedges, trees, vines, grass, ground cover or other landscape treatment of at least 10 ft. in depth, 6 ft. in height within one year, and shall be located along common lot lines.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Bailey to indicate under the Buffering/Screening amendments, on Page 4, that the requirement regarding a 10 ft. wide vegetative buffer (that must be 6 ft. high within one year) be the required buffering on all the property lines that abut residentially zoned property.

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

A motion was then made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Bailey that language be added to the amendments that any repairs done on the site be done within the existing or proposed buildings.

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

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend CP Ordinance No. 2-81, to delete all former uses and buildings on the property, with the exception of the existing caretakers residence; and to add two (2) buildings, parking and equipment storage, with propane gas area for future storage and warehouse and/or storage, as amended.

PETITION NO. 136-91-2 R-1-7 TO AR EDWARD & MARY MIZELLE & MICHAEL & TRACI HURST

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1-7 (Urban Residential) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for construction of single-family residences.

PETITION NO. 211A-89-3 AMEND CP ORD. NO. 90-89

STEVEN WEEKS C/O QUALITY PETROLEUM

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend CP Ord. No. 90-89, to keep the existing uses of a convenience store with gas island pumps, and add the sale of produce, seafood and plants.

PETITION CUP NO. 90A/1/3-5 AMEND CUP NO. 90/1/3-5

MARCIA L. BERNARD

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, clarified the fact that this request is to reduce the size of the CUP from 15 acres to 5 acres, and to move the aviary to the 5 acres which apply to the CUP.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request to amend CUP No. 90/1/3-5, to divide the property into three five-acre parcels, in order to allow the petitioner to sell two five-acre parcels and relocate the existing aviary to the vacant five-acre parcel, after the sale.

PETITION NO. 135-91-1 A TO RR RAYBURN & LADONNE JONES

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RR (Rural Residential), for construction of a single-family residence.

PETITION NO. 212A-89-2 SECOND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF PUD

ORD. NO. 93-89 AHMED ELDIFRAWI

No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for a second one year extension of PUD Ord. No. 93-89, for extension of the PUD development.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.

______________________________

MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_____________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

SEC/1-21-92/2-14-92/BOARDMIN

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, January 21, 1992, 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; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Mike Anderson, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman, Commr. Bakich, opened the meeting.

COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, thanked the members of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee for their help in revising the regulations and making recommendations to the Board regarding same. He then introduced consultants that assisted the committee in the preparation of the regulations, from the firms of Henigar & Ray, Inc., and Henderson, Young & Company, thanking them for their assistance, as well as Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, for his assistance.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she had distributed some minor amendments that she would like the Board to consider and that there would be some oral proposed amendments, to be considered, as well.

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, informed the Board that he had provided them with some backup information regarding some changes from the County's old Code to the present Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that the Board needed to pay specific attention to amendments to the Large Lot Waiver, Lot Approval, and Agricultural Labor Sections, in Chapter 14, stating that staff is proposing in the new LDRs that the County limit those

lots to two lots, per split, per property, one time per year, noting that this is a major change from what the County has been doing in the past.

Ms. Gail Easley, Planning Director with Henigar & Ray, Inc., informed the Board that what they had before them was a draft of the LDRs, to be adopted by the Board, noting that certain language had been stricken through (indicating that it had been eliminated from an earlier draft) and other language highlighted (indicating that it had been added).

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that once the LDRs are adopted, a clean document will be produced, with all strike throughs deleted and new language inserted, to be sent to Tallahassee.

At this time the LDRs were reviewed, chapter by chapter, and the following noted:

That language contained in Chapter I, Section 1.02.04, Commercial - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-2, will be struck and corrected language inserted, which tracks language in the Comprehensive Plan, regarding same.

That in Section 1.01.00, Authority and Applicability, on Page I-1, language stating "the powers in Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes" should be stricken and language stating "the powers in Chapter 125 of the Florida Statutes" should be inserted.

That the document being reviewed, presently known as the "Code", should be changed to the "Lake County Land Development Regulations" and referred to as the "Regulations", which is what the Florida Statutes requires.

That in Section 1.01.01, General Application, on Page I-1, language will be inserted stating that "no subdivision of land or development activity shall be undertaken without prior authorization".

That in Section 1.02.05, Development of Regional Impact - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-2, in the last sentence,

language "to the extent provided in that Development Order" was struck through, however, should be retained.

That in Section 1.02.06, Florida Quality Development - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-3, language "to the extent provided in that Development Order" was struck through, however, should be retained.

That Section 1.02.08, Industrial Uses - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-3, would be addressed and clarified as to whether or not industrial zoning was vested. It was the consensus of the Board to strike the requirement for a site plan.

That Section 1.02.09, Large Lot Waiver, on Page I-3, is not authorized in the Comprehensive Plan to vest large lot waivers and should be deleted from the LDRs.

That Section 1.02.10, Lot Approval, on Page I-3, is not authorized in the Comprehensive Plan to vest lot approvals and should be deleted from the LDRs.

That language in Section 1.02.11, Mobile Homes - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-4, will be addressed as to whether or not mobile homes should be vested.

That in Section 1.02.15, Planned Unit Developments - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-5, exemptions for lots in approved PUDs are not authorized in the Comprehensive Plan.

That in Section 1.02.20, Preliminary Plat - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-7, it provides for a complete application for preliminary plat approval and the language for one or more phases was inserted and is not what the Comprehensive Plan states. What is included within the plat is what would be subject to the vesting. The same thing applies to Section 1.02.21, Site Plan - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on the same page.

That Section 1.09.00, Severability, and Section 1.10.00,

Effective Date; Enactment, on Page I-12, will be struck, as they will be contained in the ordinance that will be adopted.

That Section 1.07.00, Repeal of Prior Provisions, on Page

I-11, will be struck and inserted as a section in the body of the ordinance.

That there were no revisions to Chapter II, Definitions, other than typographical errors and changes to numbers.

That in the chart contained in Chapter III, Zoning District Regulations, on Page III-19, Commercial Kennels was changed from A to CUP and deleted from RP, as a permitted use, and Non-Commercial Kennels will be CUPs as well.

That in Section 3.01.04, Key to Conditions in Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses, on Page III-24, changes have been made in the setback requirement from 200' to 50' from the nearest right-of-way line of any public road, road, highway or adjacent boundary for the keeping of livestock for general agriculture, non-intensive agriculture, and horse-breeding farms.

That Section 3.02.07, Bulk Regulations for the RMRP District,

(A) (3), on Page III-33, deletes the minimum 10 acre requirement for that zoning district, which is the current requirement, and the Board needs to make a decision regarding it.

That Chapter IV, Special Districts, now contains sections pertaining to Rural Villages and PUD districts.

That in Section 4.03.01, Purpose and Intent, on Page IV-9, the words "Encourage developers to" has been struck from the beginning of Paragraph A. and the words "Give the developer" has been struck from the beginning of Paragraph G. and the word "Provide" is to be inserted.

That all the sections following Section 4.05.00, Approval Procedure for PUDs and MUQDs, on Pages IV-20 through IV-32, need to be deleted, as they have been inserted in Chapter XIV.

That the vesting language in Chapter V, Concurrency, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will be addressed.

Mr. Don Gainer, Henderson, Young & Company, briefly reviewed and discussed the Flow Chart, as it pertains to Concurrency, noting

that no additional changes had been made from the prior discussion regarding it.

That Section 6.01.07, Single Family Lots, on Page VI-6, is to be deleted, as well as Section 6.04.05, Exemptions, Paragraph A., on Page VI-28, as they have been addressed in other chapters.

That Section 6.06.01, General Provisions, Paragraph A, on Page VI-46, should be deleted.

That in Paragraph 1., under F. Financial Responsibility, on Page VI-63, the words "Certificates of Deposit" should be struck through. In Paragraph 2., "Technical Review Committee" should be struck through and the words "County Manager or designee" should be inserted. In Paragraph 3., the words "Technical Review Committee" should be struck through and the words "County Manager or designee" inserted, and the word "Upon", beginning the next sentence, should be struck and the word "After" inserted.

Mr. Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, informed the Board that the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee requested staff to come up with some type of language, under Mining, that when a developer has finished his project and has excess overburden, rather than calling it a mine, to call it something else and allow him to dispose of the overburden (sand). He stated that Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, and his staff will be working on said language and will have it available at a later date.

That language in Paragraph 13, on Page VII-4, be made more clear as to whether or not property that is already zoned industrial or commercial will still be vested if the State buys up to it.

That there were no changes to Chapter VIII, Green Swamp.

That some modifications had been made to standards throughout Chapter IX, Development Design and Improvement Standards, however, they were not available at this time. It was noted that Pruning would be included in the Appendix, rather than have a section pertaining to it in the Regulations.

That, pertaining to Chapter X, Accessory and Temporary Structures and Uses, staff is trying to encourage affordable housing in Lake County and one of the means of doing so is to encourage accessory apartments in residential zoning districts.

That an ordinance pertaining to boat docks has been adopted and will be included in the Regulations.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of square footage versus percentage being used, as it pertains to accessory apartments and garage apartments, which is covered in Chapter X, as well as a limitation regarding bonds for mobile homes while conventional homes are being constructed in the RR, RA, A, and AR districts.

That there were no changes to Chapter XI, Signs.

That Chapter XII, Hardship Relief, is also a reorganization of items that previously appeared in Chapter XIV. This chapter also contains the Appeals and Code Enforcement areas of the Code, so titles and references to those topics need to be conformed in the earlier section of the chapter. Also, that the existing "Board of Zoning Appeals" is being restructured to the "Board of Adjustments", which will hear variances from zoning issues, as well as subdivision variances and variances to standards, in an effort to streamline the whole process, enabling it to move a little more smoothly through the system, so that when these issues come up they can be handled as expeditiously as possible and not create a stumbling block by having to go through a variance process. This chapter also contains language pertaining to the Pollution Control Board and their responsibilities with regard to variances, Code Enforcement activity, etc. That some modifications should be made in areas where it refers to "County Manager or designee", for consistency.

That in Section 12.03.01, Jurisdiction, on Page XII-3, Paragraph C. is to be struck, due to the fact that it is addressed in another section.

That Section 12.03.03, Variances, Paragaraph A., on Page XII-5, should be struck, due to the fact that it is addressed in another section.

That in Section 12.03.09, Violation of Board of Adjustment Order, on Page XII-8, the word "Board" should be struck and the word "Manager" inserted.

That in any areas of the Regulations, where it states that fees shall be waived by either the Board of Adjustments or the Pollution Control Board, such as in Section 12.03.03, Variances, Paragraph F., on Page XII-7, it shall be noted that the issue of fees is in the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners and shall be provided for in the resolution adopting fees. The language "the Board of Adjustment shall direct the required variance fee to be waived" should be struck from the last sentence of Paragraph F.

That in Section 12.04.01, Jurisdiction, on Page XII-9, the word "Board" should be struck and the word "officer" inserted.

That in Section 12.04.03, Variances, on Page XII-10, Paragraph A. should be deleted, as it is addressed in another section, and that in the same section, in Paragraph G., on Page XII-13, the language "the Pollution Control Board shall direct the required variance fee to be waived" should be struck.

That the present language in Paragraphs A. through F. in Section 12.05.03, Appeals of Determinations of Vested Rights for Consistency, on Page XII-18, does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and should be deleted, at this time. New language will be inserted at a later date.

That in Section 12.07.21, Authority to Issue Citations, on Page XII-23, due to the fact that the Code Enforcement section is being totally revised to conform to the Florida Statutes, as it currently reads, the County created the ability for the Board of County Commissioners to utilize citation powers, should they choose to do so (it can only be done through adoption of a resolution by

the Board of County Commissioners). It was noted that this is strictly an alternative - that it is not mandatory.

That regarding Items A. through K., in Section 12.05.01, Variances Granted by the Board of County Commissioners, on Page XII-17, if a developer requests a variance and it is advertised along with the development proposal, the Board will have the ability to grant variances to a site plan, whether it be a PUD, CUP, etc. If the Board chooses not to grant a variance, they can refer it to the Board of Adjustments, the Pollution Control Board, etc.

That in Chapter XIII, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies, on Page XIII-4, the present language contained in Paragraph L. should be deleted and language added to refer a case to the Code Enforcement Manager. However, in the event the Pollution Control Officer determines that it is in the best interest of public health, safety, or welfare, for more prompt attention to be taken by the Code Enforcement Board, he may refer the case directly to the Code Enforcement Manager, provided the Pollution Control Director notifies the Pollution Control Board of his actions as soon as practicable.

That in Section 13.03.03, Pollution Control Officer, under Paragraph 14, on Page XIII-7, a Paragraph (c) should be added, stating that an emergency order may be appealed to the Pollution Control Board, pursuant to subsection 12.04.04 of the Regulations.

That language contained in Section 13.07.00, Code Enforcement Board, on Page XIII-12, shall be struck in its entirety and new language inserted, which tracks the Florida Statutes.

That in Section 13.01.01, Powers and Duties of the Board of County Commissioners, on Page XIII-1, the language that has been struck through should be retained and the language that was added deleted.

That in Section 13.05.01, Functions, Powers and Duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, on Page XIII-9, Item 7. should

state that six (6) members constitute a quorum, rather than five (5).

That in Chapter XIV, Administration and Enforcement, the Enforcement section has now been moved into Chapter XII, so Chapter XIV now pertains just to Administration. It was noted that there are very likely some discrepancies between the Table of Contents and the text, in going through the numerous revisions; however, corrections will be made in the final version.

That there is a little confusion in the Subdivision Section regarding the contents of preliminary plats and improvement plans, however, this will be corrected.

That there are some minor typographical revisions where terminology has been altered and not reflected completely, and will need to be conformed, in order to eliminate confusion regarding same.

That revised language should be inserted with regard to applicants being responsible for providing names and addresses of property owners to whom mailed notices are to be sent, with said language to be provided by staff.

That Section 14.02.00, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, needs to be tracked as to the way that staff is going to be doing them, as there are amendments being made every six months and they need to be reflected in the Regulations.

That the Flow Charts pertaining to the DRI process need to be amended to allow for rezoning first and then they should go through the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, as it is a policy change from the way that staff has been adhering to it.

That in Section 14.00.03, Notice Procedure, Paragraph A., on Page XIV-1, and Item 3., pertaining to Land Development Regulations, on Page XIV-2, should reflect what the Florida Statutes state regarding them.

That in Section 14.01.01, Generally, on Page XIV-4, language "activity or subdivision of land" is to be inserted after the word "development".

That on Pages XIV-16 and XIV-17, where reference is made to the "Planning Department", it should be changed to "County Manager or designee".

That Zoning and Subdivision variances are to be moved from Chapter XIV to Chapter XII.

That Section 14.12.01, Minor Lot Splits, on Page XIV-85, is a section that is a major change from what staff has been doing administratively in creating Large Lot Waivers, Lot Approvals, and Agricultural Waivers at the Zoning Department counter. Staff has recommended reducing the lots down to three, pursuant to the Florida Statutes' definition of a subdivision of land.

A brief discussion occurred regarding this section, at which time it was noted that there has been a lot of opposition to this change. It was also noted that, for three to six lots, a minor plat process will be required and for six lots or greater, it will be the standard platting process. The minor plat process will cut out the hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

That Chapter XV, which is the Impact Fee Ordinance, has been moved to the Land Development Regulations, so that all land development regulations are in one place, which is the intent of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes.

That in Section 14.00.03, Notice Procedure, on Page XIV-2, in the first sentence of Item D., one hundred fifty (150') feet should be struck and three hundred (300') feet inserted.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of adjacent property owners to properties being rezoned being properly notified, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County should mail notices, rather than posting a sign, noting that this is a required portion of the notification process.

Ms. Easley stated that some jurisdictions have inserted in their LDRs language which states "Failure of the owner to receive the notice does not invalidate the notice provisions or the action being taken.", noting that the issue is not whether or not the County sends the notices out.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that, legally, once the notification is mailed at the post office, it is considered appropriately mailed by the governmental entity, and that the only language that needs to be inserted is "The County Manager or designee shall mail notices to the property owners."

Mr. J. Vander Meer, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that his main concern pertains to the large lot split, at which time he discussed the matter, noting that he felt it should not change from the way that it has been done for years. He discussed the matter of vested rights, as well.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see something that allows a minor subdivision (when the infrastructure is there, or in the case where a family is dividing up property between family members) to get away from the non-conforming lot splits.

Ms. Pat Leonard, a resident of Eustis and former member of the Tree Ordinance Committee, appeared before the Board and referred to Chapter IX, Section 9.01.04, Page IX-8, which pertains to minimum tree requirements, at which time she discussed the fact that the wording "six (6) trees" had been struck from this section and the wording "three (3) trees" inserted. It was the consensus of the Board to reinsert the wording "six (6) trees" in those areas where it had been stricken.

Mr. Frank Ellis, Ellis Realty, Paisley, appeared before the Board and noted several things that concern him about the new proposal pertaining to the Large Lot Waiver, as he presently owns approximately 80 acres in Paisley, which he is considering splitting equally between he and his wife and his four children. He discussed problems associated with doing so. He questioned the interference of government in land ownership rights, noting that he felt it was going in the wrong direction.

Mr. Jim Bible, Greater Construction Company, appeared before the Board and discussed the issues of vesting and concurrency, which he noted is going to impact everyone in the County. He

distributed a handout pertaining to the vesting language in the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that it was originally meant to deal with zoning issues regarding developments that were not consistent with the density and the intensity of what the Comprehensive Plan says of the land use. He stated that he felt the issue has not been properly addressed and noted problems it has caused developers in the County. He feels the Board needs to look at the matter of capacity and the timing of developments. He discussed additional language that was added for fire, in Chapter IX, Paragraph (a), on Page IX-80, noting that he felt said language needs to be cleaned up. He stated that the Board needs to think about the issues of vesting and concurrency, as it is a live or die situation for many developers in the County.

Mr. Claude Smoak, a former Lake County commissioner and resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that his business is basically agriculture. He referred to Chapter VI, Section 6.01.03, Permit Requirements, on Page VI-1, reading what it states concerning wetlands and then referred to Chapter II, Page II-75, where it defines wetlands and questioned whether he is in violation of the rule in the development regulations every time he disks a pasture and cuts various vegetation that is a detriment to his business, and whether he will be required to obtain permission from the County to mow his pasture. He requested the Board to look at said language very carefully, noting that the way it presently reads is an encroachment on the God given right for one to operate one's business. He stated that he, nor anyone else in the agricultural business, can operate under the Regulations, as they are presently written. He stated that he would like to present language to the Board that will reasonably protect environmental resources, while at the same time not have government infringe on the rights of individuals to operate their businesses, and would like for the Board to review and consider implementing the language that he will present.

Mr. Smoak then referred to Section 6.01.04, Determination of Wetlands Boundary, Paragraph B., on Page VI-2, and discussed what it states regarding the adjustment of boundary delineations, noting that he feels staff has been given too much authority for discretionary control of peoples' lives. He also referred to Page VI-4, Paragraph H., Standards for Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices, and questioned what the sentence "All agricultural operations located within wetlands shall comply with U.S.D.A. approved Soils Conservation Service (SCS) Conservation Plans." means, to which Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, responded, stating that staff is saying that activities in agricultural areas of wetlands should follow best management practices of the U.S.D.A. and the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Smoak questioned whether said language means that in order for agriculture to function and operate in Lake County, according to the Regulations, as they are written, that there must be an approved SCS Conservation Plan in existence, to operate in any wetlands area, to which Mr. Barker responded that it did. Mr. Smoak then requested the Board to look at said language, carefully.

Mr. Barker stated that staff would be willing to look at some kind of requirement, to see if there is a way to come up with a reasonable program for one to maintain his agricultural property, as the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate a clear-cut direction regarding the matter.

Mr. Smoak then referred to Chapter VIII, Section 8.00.05, Development Review Criteria, Item B, Paragraph 7 (a), Fill Areas, Borrow Pits and Mines, on Page VIII-9, and questioned whether there is such an area in the County as the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area, referred to in said paragraph, to which Commr. Swartz responded that there is such an area, and that it is located in the southwest corner of Lake County and in part of Sumter County, however, feels that it is referred to in this paragraph in error and needs to be referenced back to what the Comprehensive Plan states regarding the extraction of minerals.

A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue.

Mr. Smoak then brought up the issue of the subdivision of land and questioned whether what the County Attorney stated, in that the reason new regulations were drawn up was to make them conform to existing law, means that what the County does today and has done for a number of years has been, and is, illegal, to which she responded that it is inconsistent with the Florida Statutes. She stated that it would be up to a court to determine whether or not it would be a violation of law.

Mr. Smoak stated that he feels the intent of the change is for no other purpose than to make it more difficult for small land owners to have an alternate use of their land. He questioned why the Board writes artificial requirements for large tracts of land that are not needed, not wanted, and do nothing but raise the cost of living for people who can afford it the least. He stated that the County does not need to do it, that there is no benefit served in doing it, and hoped that the Board would not change the process for Large Lot Waiver and not change the process for subdivision of lots on county maintained roads, noting that it has worked for a long time the way it presently is.

Mr. Bill Good, a resident of Yalaha, appeared before the Board stating a concern he had about the qualifications of some of the members of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee. He stated that he did not think the people that wrote the LDRs reflect the feelings of the people of Lake County or that they have their best interest in mind. He then addressed some specific concerns he has regarding the environmental resources of the County and its protection. He referred to Chapter VI, Section 6.01.05, Requirements for Wetlands Preservation, Item G., Conservation Activities, on Page VI-3, stating that it limits conservation activities to six, which he did not think was wise, and requested the Board to consider rewording it.

Mr. Good noted a conflict in the LDRs regarding fire control, stating that it is mentioned on Page VI-34, however, is not

mentioned as a conservation activity on Page VI-3, and felt that it needs to be resolved. He discussed the functional value of wetlands, noting that in the Comprehensive Plan they are described as being hydrological and biological in nature and that he hoped that definition is still in the Plan. He referred to Page VI-4, Paragraph J, Protection of Wetland Hydrology, and stated that wetland hydrology is a science and does not need to be protected and hoped that the Board would reword this paragraph to protect the hydrologic quality of wetlands. He stated that he had some serious concerns about the number of strike throughs on Page VI-12, in Section 6.01.09, Methodology for Determining Wetland Boundaries, regarding wetland mitigation and hoped that the Board would specify the addition and date of the St. Johns River Water Management District's criteria for wetland boundaries.

Mr. Good stated that he had some concerns regarding the wording on Page VI-34, in Section 6.05.03, Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction, where it states that flood plain development approval within the 100 year flood plain will be by the County Manager and that he hoped a review committee of some sort would be the one to make that decision, rather than the County Manager. He stated that he was concerned about the fact that on Page VI-69, Paragraph D., Water Quality Standards, in Section 6.10.01, Water Quality Standards, that the testing for mercury was left out of the water quality criteria which constitutes pollution and that it definitely needs to be in there. He questioned the number of trees being designated for the purpose of providing shade and saving energy and hoped that in future documents there would be a change in the wording which would reflect the types of trees that are to be planted, rather than the types of canopy they produce. He stated that he hoped DCA would take the time to look at the composition, and who wrote the LDRs, because he feels that it is not the two-sided debate that took place in the writing of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz requested staff to submit a memo to the Board addressing the concerns noted by Mr. Good.

Mr. John Hall, a local resident, appeared before the Board and commented regarding how one can legally (according to the Florida Statutes) go about submitting a complaint regarding the LDRs, if one disagrees with any decisions that are made regarding same. He touched on the membership of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee, noting that the majority of said members were from the development community and that he would like to protest that fact. He also noted that one of the members was from outside the County. He then addressed the open space issue and the fact that he feels there is some inconsistency in golf courses being listed as open space; several aspects of the aquifer recharge area (to which Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, responded); residential development standards; zoning districts; mining in recharge areas; preliminary development plans and the extension of same (to which Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning and Ms. Gail Easely, Heniger & Ray, responded); and the powers and duties of the Board of County Commissioners, particularly the power to review and grant, grant with conditions, or deny proposed Developments of Regional Impact and the inconsistencies that he sees in same (to which Commr. Gregg and Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded).

Mr. Bill Ray, a local property owner and agriculturalist, appeared before the Board and suggested that they request a copy of the court case from the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Jack C. Snyder vs. the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, and read it, noting that it defines what property rights are. He stated that it states property rights are the fundamental cornerstone of the American form of free market enterprise and that government has the ability to review those rights, but does not have the ability to take them away from the people. He stated that government has to prove that one is going to harm the health, safety, or welfare of the public, or affect another's ability to

utilize his property, and if they fail to prove that, then one has the right to use one's property as one sees fit. He discussed the issue of vesting and the fact that the Board guaranteed that a plat filed prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan was vested, however, the Board is now discussing the issue again, which has jeopardized the entire economic structure of many developments in Lake County, which he noted is morally and ethically wrong, and the Board should not be allowed to do it.

Mr. Ray then discussed the matter of not being able to fence wetlands, which means that he cannot internally cross-fence his pasture, to keep his cows in proper grazing management practices, in accordance with SCS, and feels that this is wrong; the matter of rivers and streams, stating that people need a clear-cut definition of what a stream is, noting that he does not feel the way the section of the LDRs pertaining to same are presently worded properly covers the intent of same; land uses that are prohibited in a wellfield protection area, as discussed on Page VI-23, Item B (3), questioning whether a cattle operation is considered a commercial animal facility and whether it means that one cannot have intensive pasture management in a wellfield protection zone; Section 6.04.00, Natural Upland Vegetative Communities, Habitat of Designated Species, and Wildlife Corridors, stating that the plant designated species list was established to prevent commercial harvesting, that it was not for habitat protection.

Mr. Ray then discussed the fact of one clearing land up to a transition zone, up to the edge of a wetland, or clearing a wetland itself, and the fact that if one had an approved SCS Comprehensive Plan and was bona fide agriculture, they could do it, noting that this is what the intent was and that it should be made clear in the LDRs. He discussed the matter of mineral extraction, noting that it was a criteria that was outlined specifically for the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area and that that was the only place in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern where the intent was to limit mineral extractions. He stated that mineral rights are a

right that the property owner has and if the Board is going to deny that property owner the right to utilize that resource, it is a clear "taking", and is an issue that needs to be addressed. He discussed the Large Lot Waivers and the fact that the way it is presently worded does not benefit agriculture or anybody - that all it does is add to the bureaucracy in the filing fees and the paperwork that the County staff has to handle. He stated that it is done administratively and does not require the Board's review or anything else. He stated that the County will only lose if the Board requires each property owner to come in and file for it. As far as the qualifications of the members of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee, as alluded to by several individuals, he clarified the fact that said members were very qualified and that he took offense to the criticism of same.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 8:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a five minute recess.

COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (CONT'D.)

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing a number of various interests (individuals and businesses) in Lake County, appeared before the Board stating that she served as Vice Chairman of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee, and to clear up any questions regarding what the scope and purpose of said committee was, stated that the committee did not originate or develop the Land Development Regulations. She stated that consultants were hired to do that and the committee's job was to review them, from a technical perspective, due to the background in development of the various members involved.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she is very concerned about the fact that the vesting language is totally insufficient in her mind, as well as in the minds of her clients. She stated that, perhaps, the problem is that the Comprehensive Plan is flawed and the County needs to start over. She discussed, at length, problems associated with the vesting issue and the legal rights of people in the County

concerning common law vesting. She stated that developers are paying a lot of money to go through the County's PUD process, to find out that they do not have anything, in terms of vested rights, and that, from calls she is receiving, there are going to be problems if the County does away with the process and does not do anything about the people who have acquired property in good faith. Ms. Bonifay then discussed the issue of concurrency, stating that the County does not have anything for "de minimis" impacts, noting that the County has eliminated that. She stated that the County cannot exempt everybody, but, on the other hand, the County cannot give concurrency to only those people who have some kind of development approval today, because if it does, they will have put a moratorium on this County, because there will be no new development. She stated that, if the idea is to come up with a rational process where they are able to take down capacity for a certain amount of time, in that if one does not use it, they lose it, then it allows new development to come in and feels that this is the kind of system the County wants to have. She stated that she feels things are not real healthy at this time, overall, and if the County thinks that by putting more and more on the development community, somehow the system is going to right itself, they are very wrong - the only thing that will happen is that development will go elsewhere, or there will be no development at all. She stated that vesting and concurrency will either make Lake County an economically viable place to live over the next 20 years or it will totally shut it down. She feels that this County's plan should be compared against other counties' plans, for a better solution.

Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated (for the record) his credentials, noting that he does have the proper background for being a member of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee, contrary to what had been stated earlier, and that he found said comments personally offensive. He stated that he would think twice before serving on another such committee.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and referred to Item B, in Section 1.02.15, Planned Unit Developments - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-5, stating that he will be supplying to the Board documentation where he feels the interpretation for PUDs, as stated in the LDRs, is not valid. He discussed this issue, at length. He then referred to Chapter XIV, Pages XIV-47, 48, 49 and 50, pertaining to Flow Charts, noting that there are certain Flow Charts that allude to the subdivision review process and approval process and that they need to be amended to reflect the language in the narrative. He also discussed the concurrency issue and the fact that the cities and the County are going to be exchanging information and data and did not believe that the cities have been advised of some of the procedures that are going to be forthcoming. He touched on the issue of PUDs, stating that PUDs are going to be developed in areas where there are services (water and sewer) and that there needs to be some communication on how the process is going to work, as well as the fact that there was some discussion in the committee on stormwater requirements, such as who is going to enforce them, and whose rules are going to go into effect, and that there needs to be some communication between those entities and the County, so that when they go into effect, everybody knows what the rules of the game are, including the governmental bodies, as well as the development community.

Mr. Bob Huffstetler, Planner, Genesis Design Group, appeared before the Board stating (for the record) that the members of the Land Development Regulations Technical Advisory Committee had, collectively, over 100 years of experience in all aspects of development, as well as experience in governmental processes, thus, were well qualified, contrary to what had been stated. He discussed the issue of golf courses and the fact that they are not considered open space is very wrong, as they are not the detriment to the environment that they used to be, at which time he referred to a newspaper article in one of the local newspapers that noted

the types and quality of plants and animals that live on and around golf courses.

Mr. Egor Emery, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he objects to the LDRs because he feels they will contribute to urban sprawl and consumption of the County's resources, and the general degradation of the quality of life in Lake County.

Mr. John Benton, President of the Lake County Conservation Council, appeared before the Board and concurred with the comments made by Mr. Emery in that the LDRs codify what he feels is a flawed Comprehensive Plan that the County has adopted, particularly the section pertaining to densities. He also addressed the golf course issue, in that he feels it does not meet the current definition of open space, as it is defined under the rules of the Department of Community Affairs, nor does the definition of parking lots. He referred to Section 6.01.05, Requirements for Wetlands Preservation, Paragraphs A and B, which he discussed and questioned who makes determinations regarding same, to which he was informed that the initial determination would be made by staff, based on criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Code. A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Don Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, interjected that it would depend on the specific project as to who makes the determination.

Mr. Benton then discussed Section 6.01.06, Wetland Buffers, Paragraph C, on Page VI-5, stating that he took exception to the minimum footage requirement, as he did not think it would give enough protection for the desired effect, and that in Paragraph B, on the same page, wetlands, as proposed buffers, should be increased by approximately 25%. He then discussed Section 6.02.02, Development Standards for Lake Shorelines, Paragraph B, on Page VI-22, encouraging the Board to modify the language contained in said paragraph, to conform with the Department of Natural Resources

(DNR) standards, noting that with the DNR permit, the County may be able to selectively clear a space larger than 25 feet.

Mr. Bennett Walling, a local businessman, appeared before the Board and suggested that they turn all wetlands and stormwater jurisdiction over to the State, noting that the taxpayers are already paying taxes to cover the salaries of various engineers employed by the State.

Mr. Don Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, responded to the comments made by Mr. Walling regarding the wetlands jurisdiction, noting that the County has attempted to make the County's wetlands jurisdiction more consistent with the St. Johns River Water Management District to minimize the overlap and he feels that the LDRs accomplish that.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and requested that, in the future, information concerning matters to be discussed be provided to the general public in a more timely manner than what it has been in the past. He discussed the issue of there being no vested rights for industrial development in Lake County, noting that he did not know how this could happen, and that there needs to be some flexibility in the LDRs regarding same.

Commr. Bailey stated that he felt the County should leave Large Lot Waivers alone, as it has worked for a long time the way that it presently is, and that the interpretation of vesting needs to be decided, once and for all, and needs to be put in print, where all can agree. He stated that the Board also needs to look at how they can protect agricultural interests. Commrs. Hanson and Gregg concurred with Commr. Bailey's comments.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the LDRs before the Board this date track the language of the Comprehensive Plan regarding vesting of preliminary plats and site plans. She stated the issues that came up this date concerning Large Lot Waivers, Lots of Record, and preliminary PUD lots are new issues and that staff will be looking into them. She stated that

everything else in the LDRs is exactly what is in the Comprehensive Plan, as the Board has determined in the past.

Commr. Gregg requested those people who voiced various concerns this date to submit them to staff, in writing, for review.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the scheduling of a workshop meeting for the purpose of further discussing the LDRs, at which time it was noted that said meeting would be held on Tuesday, February 4, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., and that a second public hearing would be held on the same day, at 5:05 p.m., at which time the meeting would be continued to a time certain.

At this time Commr. Hanson read into the Minutes the contents of a letter which had been submitted to the Board (for the record) from the Lake County Board of Realtors, pertaining to the issue of Large Lot Waivers.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

___________________________

MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

__________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

SEC/1-21-92/3-20-92/BOARDMIN